....Urine or Your Out

[Bubbles Galore]

Like a lot of folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem.What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I
have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their rear end doing drugs, while I work. Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'

 

[mfbanks223]

i agree 100%

 

[Uncle Sam]

Bubbles,

You just make too much sense!!! That will never ever pass a politician's mind.

Uncle Sam

 

[rph9168]

Maybe the politicians should have to pass a urine test.

 

[Indiana Wash]

Wow, well said. Do you realize how much the government could save by requiring drug tests? The strip tests are a few cents each.

 

[jfmoran]

I agree

I agree 100%, except do you know how much more it would cost for the government to manage the drug testing program in addition to the welfare program.

On a side note, is it me or are many government workers, oh, how do I put this politically correct, ahh, freaks. Went to the drivers license place in my state and it was like a freak show.

 

[Bubbles Galore]

I can't take credit for the post, I got it as a forward. I just kind of laughed it off, but once I reread it, there is a lot of truth there. Oh well....we can all dream huh?

 

[gsgriffin]

I think it a grat idea s well. And it may not be too far out of the realm of possibility. Here is a link where Hawaii is introducing state legislation to require drug tests for their assistance programs:

http://www.khon2.com/news/local/39470052.html

Greg

 

[Kirb]

Great Idea!!!!!

But then the Drug dealers would go out of business. Sales of Loud stereos and custom rims would go down. Not to mention they love clean cars.

 

[pitzerwm]

Will never happen as the liberals would consider that as cruel and unusual punishment, It might also make them feel bad.

 

[Patrick H. Crowe]

I am in favor of testing. As a teacher one has to be. Years ago the notion of "comprtency" (literacy) testing for teachers came up. What? Could some licensed teachers possibly be unable to pass such tests? Dah? I said fine- - so long as all elected officials must pass the same test. Why not?

Bear this in mind about education. Texas decided teacher applicants needed to be tested. What test to use? Why not use the test given to all high school seniors before they graduate? Fail it and you get a certificate of attendance instead of a diploma. Texas did that. Many applicant failed; while I've forgotten the exact percentage it was staggeringly high for so called college graduates.

Note further that the history of testing shows great abuse. It was a standard practice used discriminately to deny Blacks the right to vote. Moreover many users of illegal substances know how to beat the system, don't they? It's no great trick.

So I'm not at all opposed to such test. Let's have more testing. The cab drivers in London not only must speak the language but must pass comprehensive tests (so I'm told) to demonstrate their knowlefge of the city is vast. Want that in America?

Should hungry people be test before getting food stamps?

While I favor testing, as flawed and expensive as it is, I'd prefer to see what we can do to attract brighter and better educated people to education and then look to root causes of drug use and try to help.

How many of today's teachers in elementary school, nearly all teaching math, could possibly pass the fianl exam in College Algebra & Trig, nevermins Calculus? Why is the USA 24 in the world in math? So be it, rest easy!

Patrick H. Crowe

 

[Patrick H. Crowe]

I taught high school math for decades. Now jump to "parents" night.

I often heard (it's about testing) M.M Smith: "Our son Charles has a failing grade". Crowe, having glanced at his grade book and filled out a prepared form: "Here are his four exam scores and his homework grades. Please notice he only turned on 10 of the 14 homework assignments and please note 70 is the minimum passing exam score . M/M Smith: "He's always done very well in math before". Crowe: "I know nothing about that. Beyond that invite you to take your comments to the principal."

Here's the conversation of the Smith's and the principal - -only paraphrased!. Principal: "Welcome Charle's parents, what can I do for you?" Smith's : "We're here about teacher Crowe, our son is in his class and failing."

Principal: Are you aware of the fact Crowe graduated from Notre Dame's college of science? Are you aware of the fact his graduate degree is from bieng a National Scieence Scholarship winner and is from Washington University? Are you aware of the the fact he could make much more money in indusrty, unlike our English, history and many other teachers here? Are you aware of the fact that our student evaluations of teacher Crowe consistently place him at or near the top?

The Smiths now, somewhat sheepishly, come out with their complaints: " Our son is very bright but Crowe is giving him failing grades, that makes no sense". Principal: "Did Crowe show you his test geades?? Smith: "He did but there MUST be something wrong with them because Charles is extermely bright".

Principal: "Are you alleging Crowe is discriminating against Charles by giving his different tests that the others in his class?"

You can guess the rest. The only point is that I strongly favor testing but I want all folks to be completely aware of the potental problems. In math it is ideal, elsewhere it's subect to so much confusion it becomes futile.

Patrick H. Crowe

 

[Eric H]

I am in favor of testing. As a teacher one has to be. Years ago the notion of "comprtency" (literacy) testing for teachers came up. What? Could some licensed teachers possibly be unable to pass such tests? Dah? I said fine- - so long as all elected officials must pass the same test. Why not?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35196

This is an article about a local school superintendent that took 4 times to pass the literacy exam. He caught a lot of flack for laying off 24 teachers, most of which were not english teachers, for not passing the same exam. This article is not very detailed but most of the other links to the story do not work.

 

[rph9168]

I was Superintendent of a small school district in Arizona in the 70's. Due to the desirability of the climate we received a real excess of applications for teaching positions. You would have been shocked to see the how poorly the applications were completed with mis-spellings and incorrect grammar.

Although in many cases that made my job a little easier since I automatically disqualified applications with grammatical or spelling errors. As much as I hate to say it but a large part of the poor quality of our educational system is a result of the lack of ability of many of the staff members. Even if they were good at first for many their performance declined after three years since they obtained tenure and essentially had a job for life if they didn't commit a felony.

I could go on and on about this topic but suffice it to say, most of our stellar students are so more because of their own ability rather than the instruction they received.

 

[Jeff_L]

Back to the topic of passing drug tests to receive welfare. I too like this idea. Someone posted about the extra costs associated with the testing along with the welfare program. Wouldn't the reduced amount of welfare payouts more than pay for the drug testing program? Hard to measure, it would just be an assumption.

As a taxpayer, I would rather see my money go towards such a program. Why? For one, it would keep our money out of the hands of the persons just using it to buy more drugs. Secondly, it would employ a lot of people to run the drug testing, which creates jobs, which puts more money back into the market.

My 2 cents.