The drug testing for welfare recipients has gotten a lot of comments.
Looks like most people are against it.
I don't want to defend any druggie or take up for anyone addicted to drugs. I know the only language a druggie understands is tough love.
The problem I have is just basic fairness. There is huge hypocrisy here on many levels.
One level being the definition of drugs. Alcohol is not included on tests. Tobacco is not, Caffeine is not. Some drugs are just more socially acceptable than others.
Another level is my current favorite outrage, which is corporate welfare. We are worrying about some druggie abusing the system for a couple hundred dollars, while passing out million dollar bonuses for criminals in penthouse suites.
There is no mention of drug testing for the people getting bailouts. Discrimination plain and simple. Easy to target a poor person who cant afford a lawyer.
The cost is another level of hypocrisy. It will cost $800,000 the first year and $1.4 million over a two year period. Officials estimate 7 percent of welfare recipients - the poor ones, not the rich ones - are druggies. That works out to about 500 people in Kansas.
Say half don't complete the rehab program and get booted off the welfare rolls. At a total cost of $800,000, that works out to $32,000 each. Not many poor people get that kind of money in welfare. Just don't see how this could ever save any money.
Druggies need help. Some of them need to be locked up.
But, lets not lose sight of the reality that our government is handing out billions of dollars to criminals who have wrecked our economy.
So you steal 100 bucks from the state you get cut off, you steal millions from the feds, and you get even more millions.
I would like for conservatives to explain to me why they get upset at poor people abusing welfare, but they are not upset at huge companies getting BILLIONS of dollars after having wrecked our economy.
And you know who is footing the bill? We are with tax money.
Where is the anger?
Where is the outrage?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
41 comments:
I guess you need to write to your representitive.
I see in the article that Kasha didn't address the corporate welfare issue. Was she asked about that by chance and just failed to answer? I wonder why alcohol was taken off the bill, it impairs the mind in the same way alot of drugs do. I'm sure her heart is in the right place, but I feel that possibly the money could be better spent on rehabs in the prisons or a prison rehab specifically created for for drug offenders.
Kasha didn't address the corporate welfare issue. Was she asked about that by chance and just failed to answer? I wonder why alcohol was taken off the bill, it impairs the mind in the same way alot of drugs do. I'm sure her heart is in the right place
It was a very interesting interview.
What made it more interesting was that she knew how I felt and that we did not agree.
Thats a bit uncomfortable so I tried real hard to be fair to her in the story.
We actually debated it a little.
She did address the corporate welfare thing. She doesnt object to them being tested but didnt put it in the bill. She said she has voted against some corporate welfare at times.
Alcohol was removed because some other reps wanted it out. She said it wouldnt be fair if someone just had one beer and then got picked for a random test.
We don't agree on whether alcohol is as much of a drug as marijuana. :) or as bad.
I should have put that in the story.
This is a republican talking point, similar bills are being introduced all over the country. I highly doubt this is a coincidence. None contain the alcohol provision because alcohol, like it or not, is legal.
Aristotle said that the law is reason free from passion. In the United States we are afforded innocence until proven guilty. KK's bill presupposes all persons on welfare are committing a criminal act and must prove themselves innocent or be denied benefits. Needing assistance is not sufficient to warrant probable cause.
I think people need to look at the bigger picture. Our elected officials should be protecting our constitutional rights, not diminishing them.
One level being the definition of drugs. Alcohol is not included on tests. Tobacco is not, Caffeine is not. Some drugs are just more socially acceptable than others.
because they are legal
The anger and outrage is there, I can assure you. It is just that as taxpayers we aren't listened to. You can say vote them out of office and get a whole new bunch of people who don't listen with their own agendas. If taxpayers had been given the opportunity, I believe that the majority would've voted against the bailout on any level. Businesses have to be allowed to fail. When the government saves one business and lets another die it turns towards socialism and it is not what our country is based upon. It also has nothing to do with the free market system. Anyone involved in giving AIG or any of the rest of the bastards a dime should have their head examined and be yanked out of power so fast their eyeballs spin. They do not have the right to make those type of decisions at taxpayer expense. Period.
she don't support no bailout
she don't support no corporate welfare. nuff said
byte sez "presuppose" all welfarians use drugs. No. If that were the case, we would test em all an not just randomly. duh.
here is the real outrage.
Snell and his buddies are still trying to dupe you. here is the truf.
Developer subsidies gnawing at KC's budget
By Yael T. Abouhalkah
Credit: The Kansas City Star
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Edition: METROPOLITAN, Section: OPINION, Page B7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new report on economic development in Kansas City should have been printed in red ink.
The analysis shows how public subsidy programs are damaging the city budget. The giveaway mentality that existed for years at City Hall is:
Draining tax revenues from public safety programs and capital improvements.
Stuffing more money into developers' pockets.
The nine-page report from the Finance Department shows the city is not taking in as much money as expected from development projects subsidized with tax dollars.
Meanwhile, the city is diverting millions from basic services to developers so they can pay for the bonds issued to build their projects. That's bad news for residents.
Supporters of public subsidies for development say they have been required to rebuild a deteriorated downtown, rejuvenate the Country Club Plaza and attract shoppers (and residents) to new Northland shopping centers.
That argument makes some sense, and the recently revived downtown is its best evidence.
However, it's become clearer as the years pass that the city has given excessive handouts to many projects, especially in the fast-growing Northland, and for the Power & Light District.
Based on what the new city report said, and some additional reporting, taxpayers have plenty to be worried about.
The city's public safety departments are projected to receive $3.3 million less in sales-tax revenue next year.
As a result, the city would have less money to repair or build fire and police stations -- and to pay for the 100 or so firefighters hired with sales-tax revenues.
Here's what is happening.
This year, developers are raking 12.5 percent off the top of every sales-tax dollar collected from retail stores within tax increment financing districts in the city.
The developers are getting a total of $4.4 million from the quarter-cent tax for the Fire Department and from the quarter-cent public safety tax.
But in the 2009-10 fiscal year, the city projects that sales-tax revenue will actually go down a bit -- and that developers could receive 22 percent of every sales-tax dollar collected in TIF districts. That's because more and more shops are opening in taxpayer-subsidized retail areas, such as the Power & Light District, while stores close in other parts of the city.
Summed up, developers would get $7.7 million from the two sales taxes -- a 75 percent increase over this year.
Meanwhile, the city's cut would be sliced by $3.3 million.
The city's capital improvements program is projected to receive $6.6 million less from the 1-cent general sales tax next year.
Overall, the developers' cut from the 1-cent tax would jump from $8.8 million this year to $15.4 million in the next fiscal year. Again, it's because more sales-tax money is being generated within TIF districts.
In reaction to the report, a citizens group has sliced millions in future spending for capital improvements such as an aquatic center in the 6th District, a proposed Northeast Community Center and downtown streetscaping.
The Power & Light District is expected to generate only $4.8 million in tax revenues this fiscal year.
That is far, far short of the $16.8 million in annual debt service needed to pay for its bonds, which are guaranteed by the city.
Fortunately, City Hall previously had set aside $8 million for those bond payments. But that still leaves a net shortfall of $4 million that will come from the pockets of taxpayers this fiscal year.
Now look at next year, when the district's bond payment soars to $18 million a year. The district would have to nearly quadruple its tax revenues to meet its bond obligations without the city's help. If the district falls short, taxpayers again would have to ride to the rescue.
When it comes to subsidized development, taxpayer bailouts are becoming an all-too-familiar refrain in Kansas City.
Editorial Board member Yael T. Abouhalkah can be reached at 816-234-4887 or at abouhalkah@kcstar.com. Read his blog posts at voices.kansascity.com.
1.) I have never heard conservatives say that corporate welfare is needed or a good thing. I believe liberals and conservatives can agree on this. It is only the politicians (on both side of the aisle) who feel the need to dish out corporate welfare to groups who helped get them elected. Not a left vs. right issue, but a politician vs. constituant battle.
2.) The difference between conservatives and liberals IS wether or not you believe welfare to the poor is a constitutional right (at least that's how I interpret the argueing lately). It may be a nice thing to do, but do we owe them assistance because it is their right to receive it?
3.) Liberals believe that it is ok to impose rules and restrictions on companies who received government bailout money. I agree with them on this one! However, now they feel it is not ok to impose rules and restrictions on the poor who receive government money? Why? Oh, yeah! It's their constitutional right to receive money without submitting drug tests because they are poor.
4.) Why do liberals not fight random drug tests for the working middle class? Do you want to know why companies get away with ua's? Because people who are high or drunk at work are a danger to themselves and their coworkers. They are a liability to the companies they work for. If parents are high or drunk at home with their children, do you not think they are a danger to themselves or their kids?
5.) Every drug user we get to go clean or get off the streets is one less I have to worry about hurting my children. One less who may con or manipulate my child into trying pot or meth. Even if it is a small stretch, it's one I'm willing to take for my children. Why do I want to support their habits and ensure they are around to influence and possibly supply our youth? Ronald Reagan once declared war on drugs, but now we are protecting them.
I know I'm really wordy today, but I would like to add one more thing.
My brother is a recovering drug addict. He was in and out of the criminal system for years because of it. Every time he went to jail or stood in front of a judge, he begged for drug treatment. It was not given. He knew the problem was bigger than himself. I believe that is the case for all abusers. I would, personally, rather spend my tax dollars rehabilitating addicts than supporting their habits. I would go so far as to say I'd pay more, if it cost more. In the long run, we get much more bang for our bucks and we have made the world a better place. Not that I like raising taxes, but I think this is a cause to which I would donate money freely. Probably even money I couldn't afford to spend.
Sorry guys! I'm on a roll.
I have another brother who also abused drugs. My parents were in denial about his usage until he flunked a ua at work for cocaine. It was only then, that communication began to flow between him and family members about his problem. The problem was no longer a dirty little secret, and he began to find a solution. Maybe a flunked ua by welfare recipients could have the same effect. Who knows?
he begged for treatment so he would not have to go to jail , thats what they all do ,
sound like you are lucky to not be addicted to drugs yourself , seems like it is really close to your family , way to stay strong
To Anonymous March 24, 2009 2:13 PM, I am sorry there are self centered people like the ones that posted ill things to you but the truth of the matter are there are many people in this town, and in this world that are totally self centered. In their world they seem to be in denial, they just choose not to see. I am glad you were strong enough to give your brothers support. Support from family is what those who choose to self medicate need, whether it be legal or illegal influences. Support is needed,unlike the ridicule they may recieve by the blog bullies. That makes the problem worse. Thanks for posting your thoughts!
.) Why do liberals not fight random drug tests for the working middle class? Do you want to know why companies get away with ua's? Because people who are high or drunk at work are a danger to themselves and their coworkers. They are a liability to the companies they work for. If parents are high or drunk at home with their children, do you not think they are a danger to themselves or their kids? March 24, 2009 1:57 PM
So are you saying that a person on illegal drugs are more of a liability than thosewho have had a triple bypass and still have to take meds to control the heart or rely on a pacemaker to keep it going or someone who is on anti-depression meds that are suppose to help them not want to hurt themselves or a co-worker.
Just think about all the mass murders in the work place over the last ten years and those people had or was said to have a mental problem geing treated by prescribed drugs
I realy wish you would respond and don't be sinical
5.) Every drug user we get to go clean or get off the streets is one less I have to worry about hurting my children. One less who may con or manipulate my child into trying pot or meth. Even if it is a small stretch, it's one I'm willing to take for my children. Why do I want to support their habits and ensure they are around to influence and possibly supply our youth? Ronald Reagan once declared war on drugs, but now we are protecting them.
March 24, 2009 1:57 PM
More peoople hurt or kill people on perscription drugs than re in any reports and kids are more likely to get in a parents perscription drug than reportedto Law Enforcement
Don't you think and they can be tested and not lose a thing.Why do you think that some of the normal things we take for colds have been moved to behind the counter or children meds that have to have Dr. script because parents like you would use them to keep the kids quite. Have you considered thatr!!!
Anonymous said...
he begged for treatment so he would not have to go to jail , thats what they all do ,
March 24, 2009 3:04 PM
Not all. Get out of your bubble and see what is really going on!! Maybe that was the case for you but not everyone
Personally, I think there is outrage but it's not being directed at those who deserve it most. The middle class is being asked to hold our country up and we get very little in return.
The corporations we work for get absurd amounts of tax relief but the middle class doesn't. The corporations who depend on our business now depend on our tax dollars. Credit card companies and mortgage lenders are raping us with unethical business practices. Insurance companies charge us insane premiums and then deny us care. People can not afford to send their kids to college. Gas bills are higher then car or house payments.
It never stops. Most of us are just average people, responsible people but we can only do so much. A lot of middle class people are struggling to get by, some are getting lost and end up on welfare.
Why do we have people in the United States living in tent cities?
People need to get mad but they need to direct their anger to those who truly deserve it and not the needy. The middle class runs this country and we need to take it back.
Amen Byte!
Until you can convince politicians on both sides that giving our money to corporations is a bad idea, we are SOL! Just look at how they have spent our money lately, and you can see they don't get it. Heck, the money they are spending now is money we haven't even given them, yet.
Good point.
They say that they have to bail out the large corporations or our economy will collapse.
The economy has not improved with the bailouts so far, so ... why should we believe the bailouts will work?
Seems the money grab by the rich under Bush is continuing under Obama.
Different party, same politics.
At least he is doing something. I don't like giving money to the banks or the car manufacturers but the alternative sucks. The republicans can complain about what is going on,and not give any other alternatives.What was their plan? And yours? Tell me how you would fix the world and make every one happy?
Tell me how you would fix the world and make every one happy?
Well you cant make everyone happy.
But a good place to start would be to restore restrictions on the financial businesses that have been removed.
Another good start would be criminal investigations into the dealings of major financial institutions, followed by charges and jail time for those that violated the law.
Capitalism is great, but we are seeing that it isnt perfect and that there is a downside. No matter the system, there needs to be someone making sure laws are obeyed.
James, I am pro capitalism. However, I will agree with you here. Capitalism should not involve illegaly or immorally (sp?) gaining off the backs of others. They should make their money fairly and without the help of taxpayers.
Violators should be held accountable.
Anonymous said...
he begged for treatment so he would not have to go to jail , thats what they all do ,
March 24, 2009 3:04 PM
Not all. Get out of your bubble and see what is really going on!! Maybe that was the case for you but not everyone
March 24, 2009 7:48 PM
you are speaking without knowledge , i have been to jail and everyone there is innocent just ask anyone of them , they will tell you so
If it is federal tax dollars given by the federal government aren't the bailout people regulated by the federal government and not state. If Kasha mandated testing for bailout people then wouldn't she have to be in Washington and not Topeka? Seems perhaps that would be beyond her current jurisdication...or is that where she is wanting to be
Maybe it's where she ought to be if she's willing to hold people accountable for how they spend our money.
March 24, 2009 3:04 PM
and
March 25, 2009 12:15 PM
You both are probably right. I'm sure my brother would rather be in treatment than jail. Also, he never completely admitted to his guilt.
That is... until he finally DID receive treatment. Now, he realises what he has done wrong and is asking those he wronged for foregiveness.
I just do not see why anyone would be opposed to treatment. Why would it hurt? Isn't that what this bill will do?
finally the voice of reason
Thank You
Anonymous said...
If it is federal tax dollars given by the federal government aren't the bailout people regulated by the federal government and not state. If Kasha mandated testing for bailout people then wouldn't she have to be in Washington and not Topeka? Seems perhaps that would be beyond her current jurisdication...or is that where she is wanting to be
March 25, 2009 4:07 PM
If she was in Washington and proposed that corperate people be tested she would be back in AC so fast her toothe past would disappear before her eyes.
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
he begged for treatment so he would not have to go to jail , thats what they all do ,
March 24, 2009 3:04 PM
Not all. Get out of your bubble and see what is really going on!! Maybe that was the case for you but not everyone
March 24, 2009 7:48 PM
you are speaking without knowledge , i have been to jail and everyone there is innocent just ask anyone of them , they will tell you so
March 25, 2009 12:15 PM
Are you talking about going to jail or treatment for drug abuse, you got me confused
Random drug tests for welfare recipients? What could possibly go wrong?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/STATES_WELFARE_WITH_STRINGS?SITE=WBBMAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Maybe we should just drug test every social class in america, then no discrimination.
KASHA you are on the right track....save our tax money!
Thanks
I just realized how the liberals in Washington are getting away with all of their radical moves while keeping the support of their voters. The majority of us are "high" on something and just know everything is going to be alright. Our man Obama is at the wheel and he's one cool cat. He's so smart with his college education, man.
puff, puff, pass
SG said...
High school students shouldn't be forced to pee in a cup. That is a mandatory unlawful search and unconstitutional.
The student is paying through future tax revenue for the service of school, and is forced by law to be there. They are 'in public' and should be treated as such.
Nobody is forcing these people to take welfare and welfare isn't a 'right', it is a choice; furthermore, if you can afford cocaine and pot you don't need welfare.
Welfare people are sucking off of the good fortune of others in society; society can choose to attach any conditions to the money.
Why should I be forced by law to give a dime to someone who does crack with any degree of regularity?
I am glad you are all so quick to give up your constitutional rights. Feel proud, Kansans.
Maybe they should start drug testing all gun owners.
@ March 26, 2009 6:03 PM
"SG said...
High school students shouldn't be forced to pee in a cup. That is a mandatory unlawful search and unconstitutional."
Actually, I didn't say any of that. Unless I talk in my sleep. Not that I disagree necessarily, it's just that I didn't write that.
And Byte. You are a crafty one, tryin' ta Rile up us ignorant, gun lovin'righties. But, we see you for what you are.. a liberal Obama apoligist who worships at the altar of Obamamania and drinks the Kool Aid. You're not even worth arguing with.
I don't see peeing in a cup in the Bill of Rights. They are asking for a hand out, not being forced to take it.
@ 10:33
You're right I am trying to rile you up because it is important. The reasoning behind drug testing welfare recipients is to protect the public, correct? Is it so illogical to think gun owners might be next? Wouldn't the public en masse benefit from drug free gun owners? Seems like a nasty precedence to set if you ask me.
Your problem is that you see what I write and think I am against you but I am not. I am asking you to look at a situation differently, in a context which I know you care about.
Keep calling me names or resorting to your Obama dismissals if you wish BUT THEY ARE COMING AFTER YOUR GUNZ! =)
Post a Comment