er welfare recipient Congresswoman wants to drug test the rich

[TheBlueVue 177]

There is simply no way to make this ish up.

http://thinkprogress...g-test-wealthy/

"Rep.Gwen Moore (D-WI) has had enough of the growing movement to drug test poor people who need government assistance. So on Tuesday, she’s introducing a bill that she says will make things fairer.

Her “Top 1% Accountability Act” would require anyone claiming itemized tax deductions of over $150,000 in a given year to submit a clean drug test. If a filer doesn’t submit a clean test within three months of filing, he won’t be able to take advantage of tax deductions like the mortgage interest deduction or health insurance tax breaks. Instead he would have to make use of the standard deduction.

Her office has calculated that the people impacted will be those who make at least $500,000 a year. “By drug testing those with itemized deductions over $150,000, this bill will level the playing field for drug testing people who are the recipients of social programs,” a memo on her bill notes.

Moore has a personal stake in the fight. “I am a former welfare recipient,” she explained. “I’ve used food stamps, I’ve received Aid for Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, Head Start for my kids, Title XX daycare [subsidies]. I’m truly grateful for the social safety net.”

Apparently, Moore doesn't understand the basis of wanting to drug test welfare recipients. Its not about pushing a false narrative that welfare recipients are all drug addicts but, undeniably, inner cities have an extremely high incidence of welfare families and not so coincidentally also have a high concentration of the drug culture. Making sure welfare dollars aren't going funding the drug culture seems absolutely reasonable to me. Rather than conceding the obvious, she ends up looking like the typical jealous, envious democrat.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Apparently, Moore doesn't understand the basis of wanting to drug test welfare recipients. Its not about pushing a false narrative that welfare recipients are all drug addicts but, undeniably, inner cities have an extremely high incidence of welfare families and not so coincidentally also have a high concentration of the drug culture. Making sure welfare dollars aren't going funding the drug culture seems absolutely reasonable to me. Rather than conceding the obvious, she ends up looking like the typical jealous, envious democrat.

Apparently you haven't noticed that every state that has instituted this policy of drug testing welfare recipients has ended up spending more money on the tests themselves than they recovered in welfare money going to drug users. So in the end, they are costing taxpayers more money than if they allowed a few drug users to keep getting benefits. While I get the line of thinking (making sure welfare dollars aren't going to pay for drugs), the hypothesis didn't stand up to reality. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority people who are desperately poor don't have enough money to support a drug habit. So they don't.

The congresswoman was simply trying to make a point that to assume that the poor who receive some form of government benefit are the only one's abusing drugs is unfair. Her ultimate goal isn't to impose drug tests on the rich, it's to get people to see the folly of doing so to the poor.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Apparently, Moore doesn't understand the basis of wanting to drug test welfare recipients. Its not about pushing a false narrative that welfare recipients are all drug addicts but, undeniably, inner cities have an extremely high incidence of welfare families and not so coincidentally also have a high concentration of the drug culture. Making sure welfare dollars aren't going funding the drug culture seems absolutely reasonable to me. Rather than conceding the obvious, she ends up looking like the typical jealous, envious democrat.

Apparently you haven't noticed that every state that has instituted this policy of drug testing welfare recipients has ended up spending more money on the tests themselves than they recovered in welfare money going to drug users. So in the end, they are costing taxpayers more money than if they allowed a few drug users to keep getting benefits. While I get the line of thinking (making sure welfare dollars aren't going to pay for drugs), the hypothesis didn't stand up to reality. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority people who are desperately poor don't have enough money to support a drug habit. So they don't.

The congresswoman was simply trying to make a point that to assume that the poor who receive some form of government benefit are the only one's abusing drugs is unfair. Her ultimate goal isn't to impose drug tests on the rich, it's to get people to see the folly of doing so to the poor.

You're right I haven't seen those results and while I have no reason to doubt what you say, would you mind posting a link to your source so I can get as up to date on those results as you seem to be? I didn't realize any drug testing was actually already happening but I can definitely see a difference in the motivation to seek both. On that basis, don't really agree she made any point at all other than demonstrating the fact that she doesnn't like the idea of drug testing welfare recipients. I would also add, the issue is not about abusing drugs, its about preventing govt largesse from getting into the hands of those involved in the drug culture.

Drug abuse is a topic for a different thread but those with the resources to afford their habits aren't the topic of this one.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Apparently, Moore doesn't understand the basis of wanting to drug test welfare recipients. Its not about pushing a false narrative that welfare recipients are all drug addicts but, undeniably, inner cities have an extremely high incidence of welfare families and not so coincidentally also have a high concentration of the drug culture. Making sure welfare dollars aren't going funding the drug culture seems absolutely reasonable to me. Rather than conceding the obvious, she ends up looking like the typical jealous, envious democrat.

Apparently you haven't noticed that every state that has instituted this policy of drug testing welfare recipients has ended up spending more money on the tests themselves than they recovered in welfare money going to drug users. So in the end, they are costing taxpayers more money than if they allowed a few drug users to keep getting benefits. While I get the line of thinking (making sure welfare dollars aren't going to pay for drugs), the hypothesis didn't stand up to reality. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority people who are desperately poor don't have enough money to support a drug habit. So they don't.

The congresswoman was simply trying to make a point that to assume that the poor who receive some form of government benefit are the only one's abusing drugs is unfair. Her ultimate goal isn't to impose drug tests on the rich, it's to get people to see the folly of doing so to the poor.

You're right I haven't seen those results and while I have no reason to doubt what you say, would you mind posting a link to your source so I can get as up to date on those results as you seem to be? I didn't realize any drug testing was actually already happening but I can definitely see a difference in the motivation to seek both. On that basis, don't really agree she made any point at all other than demonstrating the fact that she doesnn't like the idea of drug testing welfare recipients.

But that was her entire point: drug testing welfare recipients is not only ineffective, but discriminatory.

Here are some links from various sources:

http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/

http://theantimedia.org/after-7-states-began-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-1-thing-became-stunningly-clear/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2015/02/17/the-sham-of-drug-testing-walker-scott-and-political-pandering/#5c0389593470

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0

https://mic.com/articles/122607/arizona-drug-tested-welfare-recipients-here-are-the-shocking-results

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/18/States-tested-their-welfare-recipients-and-the-results-w/21314760/

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/02/19/3747139/states-drug-testing-welfare-recipients/

[TheBlueVue 177]

Apparently, Moore doesn't understand the basis of wanting to drug test welfare recipients. Its not about pushing a false narrative that welfare recipients are all drug addicts but, undeniably, inner cities have an extremely high incidence of welfare families and not so coincidentally also have a high concentration of the drug culture. Making sure welfare dollars aren't going funding the drug culture seems absolutely reasonable to me. Rather than conceding the obvious, she ends up looking like the typical jealous, envious democrat.

Apparently you haven't noticed that every state that has instituted this policy of drug testing welfare recipients has ended up spending more money on the tests themselves than they recovered in welfare money going to drug users. So in the end, they are costing taxpayers more money than if they allowed a few drug users to keep getting benefits. While I get the line of thinking (making sure welfare dollars aren't going to pay for drugs), the hypothesis didn't stand up to reality. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority people who are desperately poor don't have enough money to support a drug habit. So they don't.

The congresswoman was simply trying to make a point that to assume that the poor who receive some form of government benefit are the only one's abusing drugs is unfair. Her ultimate goal isn't to impose drug tests on the rich, it's to get people to see the folly of doing so to the poor.

You're right I haven't seen those results and while I have no reason to doubt what you say, would you mind posting a link to your source so I can get as up to date on those results as you seem to be? I didn't realize any drug testing was actually already happening but I can definitely see a difference in the motivation to seek both. On that basis, don't really agree she made any point at all other than demonstrating the fact that she doesnn't like the idea of drug testing welfare recipients.

But that was her entire point: drug testing welfare recipients is not only ineffective, but discriminatory.

Here are some links from various sources:

http://time.com/3117...s-drug-testing/

http://theantimedia....unningly-clear/

http://www.forbes.co...g/#5c0389593470

http://www.nytimes.c...tests.html?_r=0

https://mic.com/arti...hocking-results

http://www.aol.com/a...lts-w/21314760/

http://thinkprogress...are-recipients/

But in Tennessee, where drug testing was enacted for welfare recipients last month, only one person in the 800 who applied for help tested positive. In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved, and was ruled unconstitutional last year.

so, have the tests been ruled unconstitutional or not? If they have it only seems to make my point...they're not even conducting the tests anymore yet Congress woman Moore wants to reinstate them for rich people. If they are unconstitutional and she wants them for rich folks, as far as I'm concerned, we can add spiteful to jealous and envious to describe her motivations.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

so, have the tests been ruled unconstitutional or not? If they have it only seems to make my point...they're not even conducting the tests anymore yet Congress woman Moore wants to reinstate them for rich people. If they are unconstitutional and she wants them for rich folks, as far as I'm concerned, we can add spiteful to jealous and envious to describe her motivations.

I think her only point is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The evidence doesn't back up only testing the poor, so if people are going to persist in finding ways to test the poor, then the rich should be under suspicion too. She's still bringing it up because groups such as The Heritage Foundation are still arguing in favor of the testing and states (such as Wisconsin) are still defending their programs, trying to rework them to pass constitutional muster, or are suing the federal gov't for the right to implement them.

[TheBlueVue 177]

so, have the tests been ruled unconstitutional or not? If they have it only seems to make my point...they're not even conducting the tests anymore yet Congress woman Moore wants to reinstate them for rich people. If they are unconstitutional and she wants them for rich folks, as far as I'm concerned, we can add spiteful to jealous and envious to describe her motivations.

I think her only point is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The evidence doesn't back up only testing the poor, so if people are going to persist in finding ways to test the poor, then the rich should be under suspicion too. She's still bringing it up because groups such as The Heritage Foundation are still arguing in favor of the testing and states (such as Wisconsin) are still defending their programs, trying to rework them to pass constitutional muster, or are suing the federal gov't for the right to implement them.

Its not about drug abuse bud or any suspicion of drug abuse. I understand that's what you want to make it about. Its about making an effort to prevent govt welfare benefits getting to those profiting from the drug culture. If the rich are using drugs, they're spending they own money..not funds provided by the welfare state. I don't really care who they check or when but continuing to insist its about checking the poor is not a lucid argument when entitlement reform is one of the biggest issues relating to the solvency of the country. If it doesn't work on the poor, maybe you can explain why or how it would be more effective on the rich.? We're currently facing over $100 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities and I have no problem making efforts to limit going forward. When they aren't effective we can move onb to something else.

[homersapien 11,812]

Give up Titan.

You cannot break through his anti-reason shield.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Its not about drug abuse bud or any suspicion of drug abuse. I understand that's what you want to make it about. Its about making an effort to prevent govt welfare benefits getting to those profiting from the drug culture.

It's not what I want to make it about, "bud." It's what the supporters of the laws and the leaders of the states that have implemented it say it's about. No state that has implemented drug testing has framed it in the way you're attempting to frame it. Florida Governor Rick Scott said it was because drug abuse was higher among welfare recipients. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (along with 10 other governors who co-signed with him) says it's about getting welfare recipients off drugs and into treatment so they can get a job. The pushers of the testing bill in Arizona said that it was so that taxpayers wouldn't be subsidizing illegal drug use. I could go on and on. Every place it was done, it was pitched on the basis that welfare recipients are likely to be using or abusing drugs while getting taxpayer-paid benefits and that screening for this would save the states money. Period.

But even if your made up reason was true, it's a distinction without a difference. Shade it any way you want, it's still an abysmal failure. What good is it for taxpayers to spend more money on testing than you save in benefits cut for a positive test, even if your reasoning is to prevent people from "profiting from the drug culture?" Your argument makes zero sense.

If the rich are using drugs, they're spending they own money..not funds provided by the welfare state.

If they are getting tax incentives and breaks on things like mortgage interest, not really. Taxpayers are giving that person a benefit. Now we do it because we want to encourage more home ownership vs renting, but you can't just call that "using their own money."

I don't really care who they check or when but continuing to insist its about checking the poor is not a lucid argument when entitlement reform is one of the biggest issues relating to the solvency of the country. If it doesn't work on the poor, maybe you can explain why or how it would be more effective on the rich.? We're currently facing over $100 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities and I have no problem making efforts to limit going forward. When they aren't effective we can move onb to something else.

Let me type this real slow: No one really cares about testing the rich. It isn't being put forth because something thinks it's effective. It's being put forth to highlight the hypocrisy of testing only the poor.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Its not about drug abuse bud or any suspicion of drug abuse. I understand that's what you want to make it about. Its about making an effort to prevent govt welfare benefits getting to those profiting from the drug culture.

It's not what I want to make it about, "bud." It's what the supporters of the laws and the leaders of the states that have implemented it say it's about. No state that has implemented drug testing has framed it in the way you're attempting to frame it. Florida Governor Rick Scott said it was because drug abuse was higher among welfare recipients. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (along with 10 other governors who co-signed with him) says it's about getting welfare recipients off drugs and into treatment so they can get a job. The pushers of the testing bill in Arizona said that it was so that taxpayers wouldn't be subsidizing illegal drug use. I could go on and on. Every place it was done, it was pitched on the basis that welfare recipients are likely to be using or abusing drugs while getting taxpayer-paid benefits and that screening for this would save the states money. Period.

But even if your made up reason was true, it's a distinction without a difference. Shade it any way you want, it's still an abysmal failure. What good is it for taxpayers to spend more money on testing than you save in benefits cut for a positive test, even if your reasoning is to prevent people from "profiting from the drug culture?" Your argument makes zero sense.

If the rich are using drugs, they're spending they own money..not funds provided by the welfare state.

If they are getting tax incentives and breaks on things like mortgage interest, not really. Taxpayers are giving that person a benefit. Now we do it because we want to encourage more home ownership vs renting, but you can't just call that "using their own money."

I don't really care who they check or when but continuing to insist its about checking the poor is not a lucid argument when entitlement reform is one of the biggest issues relating to the solvency of the country. If it doesn't work on the poor, maybe you can explain why or how it would be more effective on the rich.? We're currently facing over $100 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities and I have no problem making efforts to limit going forward. When they aren't effective we can move onb to something else.

Let me type this real slow: No one really cares about testing the rich. It isn't being put forth because something thinks it's effective. It's being put forth to highlight the hypocrisy of testing only the poor.

What's hypocritical about it? Evidently, you're still typing too fast. If recipients of welfare benefits are spending their benefits on drug abuse, IMO that would be something good to know and to stop. If the rich are abusing drugs with their own money, why do you or why should anyone else care what they're doing? You keep insisting the issue is about drug abuse and it really isn't.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

What's hypocritical about it? Evidently, you're still typing too fast. If recipients of welfare benefits are spending their benefits on drug abuse, IMO that would be something good to know and to stop. If the rich are abusing drugs with their own money, why do you or why should anyone else care what they're doing? You keep insisting the issue is about drug abuse and it really isn't.

If taxpayers are giving the rich thousands of dollars a year in extra disposable income to facilitate their drug habit, that would be good to know and stop.

And yes, the issue is about drug abuse. The pushers of these laws said so in their own words. You're making up another reason all on your own. And even if your reason was correct (it isn't), it's still a waste of money and effort.

[AuburnNTexas 7,246]

Look at the statistics Titan has shown in the article. I am one of the people who thought drug testing people getting welfare benefits was a good idea. However after reading the different studies I have to admit I was wrong, I thought that the numbers would be higher and this would help in the fight against drugs. I also thought it could be used to help the poor using drugs to get treatment.

As such I realize that what on the surface seemed like a good idea has proven not to be so I no longer support drug testing of the poor.

The Government needs to be flexible to find a way to help the poor to improve their chances to get real jobs and have the ability to support their families. I have no problem with the original idea of drug testing, now that it hasn't worked we need to stop it and try something else. My issue is with the whole issue of our current government assistance. It is well intentioned and it does provide a safety net for the poor many who would not survive without it but at the same time it doesn't change anything in the community.

We have way to many poor that never change their situation despite the governments help. We need programs that change the dynamics, we can't just keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Despite our current programs more people require Government assistance now then in the past. So while it allows people to survive it doesn't help them to become self-sufficient. I don't have any great ideas but I do believe we need to approach poverty similarly to a business issue. Get the best minds together come up with a few different plans then on a small scale test the different plans and fine tune them then decide if any appear to help more than the current system then test on a larger scale.

We might actually need different plans for different parts of the country what works in the inner city might not work in Mississippi Delta or in Appalachia.

[eibua12 81]

I will jump in this clown rodeo:

I am not going read every link because my darling I frankly don't give a d...

Maybe those that are abusing have quit accepting benefits therefore they have been taking out of the pool and wouldn't be part of the sample, I can tell you those who are on welfare in Atlanta, the majority abuse drugs. I bet if you were to go to their houses unannounced on a Sunday Morning, boom you would get better results.

How is testing people who are on welfare discriminatory? It is supposed to be program to help not live on. All walks of life can be on welfare those that have been rich those that lost jobs those that just need a hand. Defining a small portion of the tax paying populous is discriminatory as it identifies a very specific group of people, the law should be for anyone who itemizes deductions.

In the end I don't care, why did I comment, pfft the pot needed to be stirred

[homersapien 11,812]

Look at the statistics Titan has shown in the article. I am one of the people who thought drug testing people getting welfare benefits was a good idea. However after reading the different studies I have to admit I was wrong, I thought that the numbers would be higher and this would help in the fight against drugs. I also thought it could be used to help the poor using drugs to get treatment.

As such I realize that what on the surface seemed like a good idea has proven not to be so I no longer support drug testing of the poor.

The Government needs to be flexible to find a way to help the poor to improve their chances to get real jobs and have the ability to support their families. I have no problem with the original idea of drug testing, now that it hasn't worked we need to stop it and try something else. My issue is with the whole issue of our current government assistance. It is well intentioned and it does provide a safety net for the poor many who would not survive without it but at the same time it doesn't change anything in the community.

We have way to many poor that never change their situation despite the governments help. We need programs that change the dynamics, we can't just keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Despite our current programs more people require Government assistance now then in the past. So while it allows people to survive it doesn't help them to become self-sufficient. I don't have any great ideas but I do believe we need to approach poverty similarly to a business issue. Get the best minds together come up with a few different plans then on a small scale test the different plans and fine tune them then decide if any appear to help more than the current system then test on a larger scale.

We might actually need different plans for different parts of the country what works in the inner city might not work in Mississippi Delta or in Appalachia.

Props for a thoughtful response.

[homersapien 11,812]

I will jump in this clown rodeo:

I am not going read every link because my darling I frankly don't give a d...

Maybe those that are abusing have quit accepting benefits therefore they have been taking out of the pool and wouldn't be part of the sample, I can tell you those who are on welfare in Atlanta, the majority abuse drugs. I bet if you were to go to their houses unannounced on a Sunday Morning, boom you would get better results.

How is testing people who are on welfare discriminatory? It is supposed to be program to help not live on. All walks of life can be on welfare those that have been rich those that lost jobs those that just need a hand. Defining a small portion of the tax paying populous is discriminatory as it identifies a very specific group of people, the law should be for anyone who itemizes deductions.

In the end I don't care, why did I comment, pfft the pot needed to be stirred

Well sure, you can tell us that.... :-\

And what are the statistics about people "living on welfare?

You know squat.