Which will not stop the republicunt shitheads running this state.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/22...tail=email

Quote:Arizona drug-tested 87,000 welfare recipients and found they are flushing taxpayer dollars

Quote:Three. Three failed tests in 5 years of testing. The program needlessly embarrasses people who need public assistance and the cost-ratio benefit just isn't there for taxpayers. It's time to end these programs, not expand them. It's the moral and fiscally-conservative thing to do.

Something like that never stops a red blooded god fearing conservative if there's even a remote chance of making the poor kicking the even poorer. It's a nice distraction for the masses in order to no look too closely at the millionaire ass licking going on. Our conservatives had the same idea, but the social democrats prevented that idiocy - for fiscal reasons, which is the ultimate irony.

Christopher Hitchens died from smoking and alcohol use. And the business who sell those things sell them to the poor as well. It is classim, aimed at dividing society by the rich to to maintain slave wages. If a business is willing to sell a product to anyone then it should not demonize those who buy it

Quote:Three. Three failed tests in 5 years of testing. 

When I was in training in Aberdeen Proving Ground (US Army Base Maryland), more people failed piss tests on a weekly basis than in those 5 years.

(July 23, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Christopher Hitchens died from smoking and alcohol use.

The exact cause of many cancers typically goes undiagnosed. His heavy smoking and alcohol consumption certainly didn't help and undoubtedly raised his risk, but I keep in mind that his father died of esophageal cancer. Also, 30% of esophageal cancers are reported to be related to gastroesophageal reflux disease. There are other known causes. Declaring that smoking and drinking killed Hitchens is a bit presumptuous.

3 failed tests in 5 years? What can we deduce from this?

- It's a reasonable supposition that the it's less likely to be due to welfare seekers not using drugs than it is drug users not seeking welfare.
- So yay, if you smoke reefer you deserve to starve.

Why the actual fuck do we tie receiving welfare benefits to whether or not someone is a drug user in the first place?

It's stupid, counterproductive, and only serves to further alienatethe poor. Good job, I guess.

(July 23, 2015 at 4:32 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It's stupid, counterproductive, and only serves to further alienatethe poor.  Good job, I guess.

No, the point is to sick the poor on the poorer. To present a scapegoat as an outlet. It's the usual procedure, be it immigrants, the homeless or other lobbyless groups of people, who make for a cheap shot.

(July 23, 2015 at 4:32 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Why the actual fuck do we tie receiving welfare benefits to whether or not someone is a drug user in the first place?

It's stupid, counterproductive, and only serves to further alienatethe poor.  Good job, I guess.

The compassionate conservative assumption that the only reason people rely on any form of welfare is that they are lazy, stupid and addicted drives this mentality. It's what allowed Romney to declare that 47% of the population would vote for Obama simply because they were clamoring for entitlements. The problem being of course that although 47% of taxpayers don't pay personal income tax does not mean they don't pay any tax; payroll, state, local, gas, sales, etc. It also ignores that the taxes that are paid are a significantly larger portion of their income than those with income that have an effective tax rate.

The same assumptions is what was behind the Kansas attempt to cap EBT transactions at $25/day without considering the hardship and inefficiency in such a program (think of the increased bank fees that would be generated with such a system).

(July 23, 2015 at 4:47 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 23, 2015 at 4:32 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Why the actual fuck do we tie receiving welfare benefits to whether or not someone is a drug user in the first place?

It's stupid, counterproductive, and only serves to further alienatethe poor.  Good job, I guess.

The compassionate conservative assumption that the only reason people rely on any form of welfare is that they are lazy, stupid and addicted drives this mentality. It's what allowed Romney to declare that 47% of the population would vote for Obama simply because they were clamoring for entitlements. The problem being of course that although 47% of taxpayers don't pay personal income tax does not mean they don't pay any tax; payroll, state, local, gas, sales, etc. It also ignores that the taxes that are paid are a significantly larger portion of their income than those with income that have an effective tax rate.

The same assumptions is what was behind the Kansas attempt to cap EBT transactions at $25/day without considering the hardship and inefficiency in such a program (think of the increased bank fees that would be generated with such a system).

And we know how reluctant conservatives are to help the banks squeeze a little more out of people.

"Compassionate conservative" means "fuck you I got mine"