food stamps

[wardancer]

Test every one that applies ! And if they fail , just shoot 'em. Then it's done !

[Doll]

food stamps here is totally biased.my ma was going to get some and they wanted her to surrender her house and everything when she passes on. you actually have to sign a contract stating that.

It's little known but true of almost everything in some states - not just for food stamps but for everything - medicare, etc.

We got burned by this big time. My mother and father in law were on medicare - just the last 2 years of their lives (they died within a month of one another). My mother in law was in a home for about a year and a half, my father in law was fighting cancer.

When they passed, we got a letter from the state several months later saying they were taking everything. The life insurance money, the house, the car, EVERYTHING OF VALUE that was in his estate up to the amount that was "owed", less a small amount for funeral costs.

Some of these things were already distributed among his children, and we had to pay BACK whatever we had received.

Not that there was much, but my father in law paid for life insurance so his wife would be taken care of and so kids would have something when he passed - not so he could give it to the state. He could not have even been informed of this (it must have been in the fine print and not outlined to him when he signed on) or he would not have been continuing to pay the premiums.

He was a good man, a hard worker and paid a whole lot of taxes his whole life. He made pretty good money, and planned well for his retirement but when he got cancer the money ran out pretty fast and they had no choice but to resort to medicare for himself and his wife those last two years.

So he paid taxes all those years to the state, never used a penny of social assistance his whole life. Used medicare the last two years of his life, and then they took everything he left behind.

It's not that we're all that pissed about not getting any money - it wouldn't have been much anyway and we would rather have our dad back than any money :( But it burns my a$$ that he spent those last two years paying for life insurance premiums he could barely afford just for the state to take the money. That and he obviously wasn't well informed of what he was signing away when he signed up to receive medicare or we would have known about it BEFORE he passed away - he was a financial advisor and tax consultant, there was a lot of discussion about what was to happen in the time before his death and he had a comprehensive will. He didn't know.

[cris_neva]

I think its a good idea! They can't monitor the misuse of FS but they can try to defuse the problem...the only ones upset or worried about it are those using drugs....They are only upset because they will no longer get assistance because of they will not be able to pass a drug test. That's probably how they purchase drugs or whatever...with the selling of the assistance they receive....So if you don't use then what's the prob?? Just my two cents!

[RDNKJ]

[MENTION=4752]wyo_rose[/MENTION] - agreed!

That's why I don't go to the Walmart closest to me (aka the Ghettomart). I go to one several miles away. I got sick of people trying to sell me their foodstamps in the parking lot, or even while I stood in the checkout line.

[wyo_rose]

On the subject of foodies, I have a rant:

If you are selling or buying foodies, you are taking food out of the mouth of children!!!

[RDNKJ]

After Florida passed their drug testing for benefits law only about 2% of applicants tested "dirty" - 96% tested clean - not sure what up with the other 2%. For that small of a percentage, drug testing seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem.

At least in Florida, applicants have to pay for the drug testing themselves (about $30 - $50). For some of us, that is no big deal. For people needing foodstamps/welfare, that can be a huge amount of money to have to come up with. Plus, if you test clean, the state reimburses the cost of the drug test. So that means that on top of welfare benefits, the state is paying for 96%of the drug testing. For those who test dirty, not only are they out the money for the drug test, they also are disqualified from receiving benefits for 1 year.

The drug testing companies get their money either way. Just another financial giveaway to business. It is theft of the public purse. I wonder how many legislators would have voted for the bill if it had been presented to them like this:

We're going to require drug testing for government benefits, of which the State of Florida will pay 96% of the costs. We need this to deny benefits to 2 people out of every 100 who apply.

Corporate welfare at its finest!

[Fang]

I can understand both sides of the issue to an extent, especially where children may be involved. Yet I have trouble comprehending why we are okay with drug tests for various jobs, but are not okay with it for those in need of assistance. To sum up my upcoming rant, I believe that we should not shun those who seek help in earnest, but we should also not give blindly.

There are So many who use drugs no matter what their financial or family situation is. Many business professionals across the board and those who hold a standing in the communities often use drugs just as much as those in poverty. Because of this, I have trouble seeing how drug testing is any different, no matter who it's on.

We use people with children as one of the reasons to not have drug testing. In a way that makes sense. If a parent who has a substance in their system gets denied government assistance, the children suffer. But on the other hand, we do drug tests in the workplace in order to make sure that the employee is of the right mind while also providing a safe and drug free environment for other employees. If an incident were to happen at a job and substance abuse was one of the factors (I've witnessed several cases when individuals were negligent in their occupation due to drugs, and in some cases injuries of innocent people happened because of it), many of us may wish that drug tests were required prior to hiring potential employees. That employee could have children also, and there is a chance that children might suffer a great deal when their parent loses their job for a drug-related instance at work.

Yet if an individual is in need of financial assistance, we immediately say that they shouldn't need a drug test. If they are so low on funds and are in desperate need of government assistance, I would hope that illegal substances (or legal in some States) would be the last thing on their mind and that their top priority would be the well-being of themselves and their families. If that's the case, what does it matter if they are tested or not? It would be an annoying little inconvenience for getting what people need to take care of their family.

On the other hand, if an individual is a drug addict with a good deal of substances in their system, how do we know for certain that the money will be used to benefit their family? There are many who use various substances and are good people who want the best for themselves and those around them. But for them and those who have a small amount of drugs in their system from previous usage, I feel they should be allowed assistance for themselves and their children, but also have to either go to narcotics meetings or take some other action that shows that they are making an effort to control their substance abuse while maintaining a healthy and productive lifestyle for themselves and their families.

We shouldn't ignore those who truly wish for help, but we also shouldn't give blindly.

[APACHEFIRE]

No, absolutely not. No drug testing before you can qualify for food stamps, welfare, unemployment, any government benefit. That is just another way to oppress the less fortunate. Qualification should be based on need alone - not used as a way to pass moral judgment on other people's lives. The only thing it might accomplish is denying food to pot smokers (or their housemates) while leaving meth-heads, alcoholics etc. alone.

Poor people have a right to live their lives just as much as wealthier people do. If people aren't taking care of their kids properly, that is what you pay attention to. Not that the parents may smoke weed, cigarettes, drink alcohol, etc.. You can't make the assumption that just because someone takes drugs they must be neglecting their children or "cheating the system" somehow.

There is not a single person living in the U.S. that doesn't benefit from other people's tax dollars in some way. That doesn't give the government a right to intrude into our personal lives. Plus, without probable cause to believe that the individual is behaving criminally, such requirements are constitutionally suspect.

Just another way to F with the poor, because if you're poor that means you must be morally inferior to those more fortunate, right? Bah!!!

It seems everyone is pointing out that people with children are the ones who need or don't need the testing done. BUT...remember the story about BIG BROTHER (title "1984"). We do NOT need to give away any more of our rights to the government. Period.

[windanncer]

This is a tricky one. When you see both sides of the issue, it's hard to decide. I don't think poorer people should be profiled, but when you see the abuses to the system, you know something needs to be done.

I have a family member who needs assistance and is barely making it. The hoops she has to jump through to just to receive a little assistance is crazy. And even through all the red tape, the ones who abuse the system keep right on getting the assistance.

[RDNKJ]

No, absolutely not. No drug testing before you can qualify for food stamps, welfare, unemployment, any government benefit. That is just another way to oppress the less fortunate. Qualification should be based on need alone - not used as a way to pass moral judgment on other people's lives. The only thing it might accomplish is denying food to pot smokers (or their housemates) while leaving meth-heads, alcoholics etc. alone.

Poor people have a right to live their lives just as much as wealthier people do. If people aren't taking care of their kids properly, that is what you pay attention to. Not that the parents may smoke weed, cigarettes, drink alcohol, etc.. You can't make the assumption that just because someone takes drugs they must be neglecting their children or "cheating the system" somehow.

There is not a single person living in the U.S. that doesn't benefit from other people's tax dollars in some way. That doesn't give the government a right to intrude into our personal lives. Plus, without probable cause to believe that the individual is behaving criminally, such requirements are constitutionally suspect.

Just another way to F with the poor, because if you're poor that means you must be morally inferior to those more fortunate, right? Bah!!!

[wyo_rose]

It IS tricky, because I'm sure just as many recipients are abusing their foodies to get alcohol. They should test for alcohol too then. And maybe remove the marijuana screening from the testing, since it's becoming legal in so many areas, and stays in one's system much longer than other drugs.

And let's not forget that those folks BUYING the food stamps off the recipients are breaking the law too...not to mention taking the food out of children's mouths.

The food stamp program is messed up. My unemployed single daughter was getting them for a couple years, until recently, because of a regulation change. Her babysitting income does not pay minimum wage, otherwise she would qualify. But now she's pregnant and sure could use the food stamps. She will be eligible after her child is born, but needs the nutrition NOW. Thank goodness for commods!! And the food bank!

[wyo_rose]

food stamps here is totally biased.my ma was going to get some and they wanted her to surrender her house and everything when she passes on. you actually have to sign a contract stating that. the lady who works there said that just because she wasnt black she would get very little. she also told her to go back to the rez. since when is govt assistance is limited to what ppl will they help. she was definitly a person in need of the program considering her income was little if any.

Wow! There are signs on where to report discrimination in almost every government office. This should be reported! If you need a number, I'll find one!

[LeannB]

what do you all think about some states wanting to put manditory drug tests for people who apply for assistance...i think good and bad things about it.its hard decision to make,the only thing i worry about is these people who are doing drugs and have children those kids are gonna get cut off too and have nothing to eat. and part of me says that some of these people will just sell all of there food stamps and buy drugs anyways...i dont know just looking for some thoughts

We've muddled with this question ourselves! The young woman in our tribe (the bio mom of our now adopted son) and her boyfriend spent their food stamps on drugs, etc. Or they bought a buncha steaks and tried to sell them for cash to their neighbors. Her baby's WIC formula was sold for cig money; when we were handed the child, there was only very rarely formula to feed him. We had to buy some and keep it at our house for him, making sure he went back to that place with at least a few day's worth.....but NOT an unopened can. THAT would be sold.

ON THE OTHER HAND...we have other single parents who use the program in the way that it was ment to be used, and do well with it.

It's a hard question....but I do wonder if the druggie parents are really feeding their kids, anyway? Our son was underweight for a long time, and I'm not sure he'll ever get as big as his siblings, who were taken away from the Mom much earlier than he was. But he's bright and healthy and a HUGE blessing!

[LeannB]

Wow never heard of nothing like that before delila.that's pretty dirty if that happenned

No Kiddin'!That stinks on ice!

[running_with_buffs]

Wow never heard of nothing like that before delila.that's pretty dirty if that happenned