JohnnyD

[Chesapeake Bill]

Scott,

Good concept...hard to implement. Even in Florida they are suggesting that "family members" can get the stipend for the children if the recipient tests positive. So now you have baby gandmas getting the check instead of the mommas and the money goes to the same place...

Nothing galls me more than to see abuse of the system. I agree wholeheartedly with you. I just know from experience that it is difficult to make work. One way to change that is to open government run daycare and transportation. Use the employees about to be laid off and have them pick up at specific sites. The kids can be watched by government folks who provide lunches. The total cost can be deducted from teh welfare. Just a thought...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Scott,

Good concept...hard to implement. Even in Florida they are suggesting that "family members" can get the stipend for the children if the recipient tests positive. So now you have baby gandmas getting the check instead of the mommas and the money goes to the same place...

...

Always an angle. Do it like they used to do unemployment. It required a person
to go once a month to the unemployment office with a list of where they applied
for a job with the employers telephone #.

Have the welfare recepient have a pic ID and go to the welfare office once a month to pick up their check after being tested.

Liberals would call this a hardship, but if someone is using drugs on our ticket that's tough.

[FishermanTim]

Unfortunately this will not change until a politician with balls says "NO MORE" and actually does it!

Remember that welfare families and immigrants (legal and ILLEGAL) are the current voter base that the current politicos rely on for re-election.
When the powers that be show as much concern for the actual tax-paying, hard working legal citizens of this state/country, then and ONLY then will real change be a possibility.

Keep in mind that there are going to be unions and civil liberty groups that will come a'running to the aid of the welfare "victims".
Then you'll also have the baby-factory families that will now claim that they can't afford to support their ever-growing family if they have to actually work for money!

I say YES for the drug test, and let the circus show begin!

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

Unfortunately this will not change until a politician with balls says "NO MORE" and actually does it!

!

nothing to do with balls. the aclu and every lib organization with a big wads of cash from lib sympathizers will sue and the states will burn your hard earned tax dollars to fight it in court.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

Remember that welfare families and immigrants (legal and ILLEGAL) are the current voter base that the current politicos rely on for re-election.

got #'s on that or are you projecting based on your opinion?

2008, Obama won by 9.5 million votes. There are 6 or 7 million welfare recipients. 1/3 are in California so that leaves about 4 million in the rest of the country. Many come from Appalachia and predominately white areas in the south and like many voters in WV wouldn't vote or Obama.
In any case, suppose 1/2 welfare recipients actually voted (only slightly below national average), then you are talking 3.5 million, half of whom are in CA. 1.8 million everywhere else in the country. Out of 133 million people that voted, 1.8 million spread between 49 states is not really worth "relying" on for election. I am guessing this is just one more example of reality being very different than the conservative propaganda