UO

PrimRoseMama · November 2013

etoille said:

Also again to the OP of that thread - my apologies to you that we're all really 'talking about you' as though you're just kind of the backdrop here.

Its hard to watch people discuss you like this and my apologies to you that that is what's going on.

Yeah, I feel bad about that too. I'm sorry OP. :-S

giraffeluvspi · November 2013

etoille said:

PrimRoseMama said:

ChrissieMeas said:

PrimRoseMama said:

Aiylin said:

Another post reminded me of my UO:

I think that besides having to qualify (income wise) for state aid/food stamps people should have to pass a drug test to be eligible.

I'm not sure its reasonable to assume that everyone who asks for PA is on drugs though.

I don't think anyone who supports this belief thinks everyone who asks for PA is on drugs, it is just one step towards weeding out the abusers.

I am not sure I agree with penalizing someone's family because they struggle with drug abuse though. That is where I'm coming from. Should they not use drugs? Sure. Should their kids go hungry because of their poor life choices? No.

Essentially that is what drug testing to get PA does in the end. It makes the innocent suffer even more than they are already (potentially).

Yeah but i mean you make the assumption that the assistance ultimately gets to the intended recipient.

Are you saying that someone who chooses to spend money on drugs instead of food before receiving the benefits for their kid is going to magically make the good decision to not trade their food stamps/card/food/whatever for more drugs instead of giving that food to their kid?

People who continue to make bad decisions don't just magically start making the 10th decision a good one - especially if it doesn't come at a personal cost.

@etoille this thread is giving me serious lady boners for you today, you keep taking the words right out of my mouth!

@primrosemama I would hope someone failing a drug test would send red flags to the right people to get social services involved with the children. This actually reminds me of another UO...

I think if we took all the funding and effort used to fight animal abuse and put it towards children in this country things would improve very quickly. I love animals, and it breaks my heart to see any form of abuse/neglect towards animals, but who is more helpless?

PrimRoseMama · November 2013

@etoille : Even the most religious rehab addict is still an addict. Maybe a three strike rule before you (not you personally, but collective you) yank assistance? Relapse is not uncommon. In fact, its more common than not.

PrimRoseMama · November 2013

etoille said:

PrimRoseMama said:

Aiylin said:

PrimRoseMama said:

Aiylin said:

Another post reminded me of my UO:

I think that besides having to qualify (income wise) for state aid/food stamps people should have to pass a drug test to be eligible.

I'm not sure its reasonable to assume that everyone who asks for PA is on drugs though.

No, I don't think it is either, however I think it would eliminate the incredible amount of abuse that is produced by these addictions. The amount of people offering their assistance for cash is really sickening. People advertise (no really like on social media websites) they will sell you $200 of benefits for $100 or $150. It is safe to assume 9 times out of 10 this is due to an addiction they are trying to fund.

Don't get me wrong - drugs and their subsequent addiction are a horrible cycle/disease that needs professional help to be overcome. However, I don't think state aid has any part of that. IMO it fuels the addiction cycle further.

Well, I would say that hopefully there are some state assistance programs that specialize in addiction and getting folks the help they need. Maybe an agreement (if a PA recipient tests positive for drugs for instance) to participate in a state-run rehab program would be a good compromise?

In theory sure. But you have an enforcement problem. Are you going to wait until they are clean to give the aid? Because that's the only scenario in which that works.

Because remember you are battling two types of addiction here - there's physiological and psychological. And the latter is often associated with poverty conditions that are not only unlikely to change but are likely to dramatically increase the chances of saying "sure I'll show up to this place to get my stamps and stop by rehab on the way to my dealer's house since I keep getting the stamps as long as I go."

Also its going to cost the state money to monitor attendance etc etc. You aren't really helping the cause.

I see the logic and don't disagree. I'm just sad that there are people struggling and kids that aren't getting what they need.

martyn17 · November 2013

I don't agree with testing Public Assistance users for drug use because there are so many people who work for the government or who benefit for some sort of social service or public assistance who wouldn't get tested (like those on Medicare) and I think its discriminatory and stigmatizing to decide that those who use a certain type of PA are more likely to abuse than others when studies show that isn't true.

Also, from a fiscal point of view, testing applicants for drug use is a waste of money.

According to the Tampa Bay Times:

"Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows.

The findings — that only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed."

From the Huff Post:

"From August 2012 through July 2013, the state (Utah) prescreened 4,730 applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program with a written test. The state followed up with an actual drug test for the 466 of those whose written answers suggested a likelihood of drug use.

The 466 tests turned out 12 positive results, as the Associated Press first reported."

Bmore721 · November 2013

I think that parents (i.e., my parents) who pay big bucks for their child's private primary and secondary school tuition, but do not save for their children's college education, have their priorities mixed up and are seriously handicapping their children. Leaving college at the age of 22 with $100K+ in student loan debt is crippling.

Also, the purpose of college is to prepare for a career. If the kid has fun and "finds himself" along the way, super! But the goal should be to graduate and become a responsible, self-sufficient adult.

giraffeluvspi · November 2013

etoille said:

ncchnat said:

I can't believe this has to be said, but can we please stop using the word "nazi" to describe people who are adamant about something?

I get it; there is another definition to the word besides the political party. However, every time I see the word used, I cringe, because the reality is that there was a political party in the 1930/40's in Germany who were called the Nazis that killed over 6 million people in the name of racial purity.

Just the same as I get fed up of seeing anyone (Bush and Obama being the two prime examples) called/compared to Hitler, I really hate seeing someone called a "grammar nazi", "milestone nazi", etc.

6 million people were murdered. There are people still alive who survived that hell. There are people like my college roommate who has practically no family because her four grandparents were the ONLY ones from their families to survive. (Three got out before it started, one survived a camp.) There are people like my grandfather's brothers who liberated those camps and deal/dealt with mental issues because of what they saw.

Please, please, please stop using it. I know someone will come back with "it's just a word." It's not though. It represents a horrible, disgusting ideology.

ETA: I forgot to say that there are still Neo-Nazis around who also see nothing wrong with what Hitler did. They would get rid of/enslave anyone who wasn't white if they had their way. We don't call someone a grammar KKK person because what the KKK believes is so abhorrent. Why is it okay to use "nazi"?

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=godwins+law

That lady boner I mentioned? Yeah, this last link made me blow my load...

PrimRoseMama · November 2013

etoille said:

ncchnat said:

I can't believe this has to be said, but can we please stop using the word "nazi" to describe people who are adamant about something?

I get it; there is another definition to the word besides the political party. However, every time I see the word used, I cringe, because the reality is that there was a political party in the 1930/40's in Germany who were called the Nazis that killed over 6 million people in the name of racial purity.

Just the same as I get fed up of seeing anyone (Bush and Obama being the two prime examples) called/compared to Hitler, I really hate seeing someone called a "grammar nazi", "milestone nazi", etc.

6 million people were murdered. There are people still alive who survived that hell. There are people like my college roommate who has practically no family because her four grandparents were the ONLY ones from their families to survive. (Three got out before it started, one survived a camp.) There are people like my grandfather's brothers who liberated those camps and deal/dealt with mental issues because of what they saw.

Please, please, please stop using it. I know someone will come back with "it's just a word." It's not though. It represents a horrible, disgusting ideology.

ETA: I forgot to say that there are still Neo-Nazis around who also see nothing wrong with what Hitler did. They would get rid of/enslave anyone who wasn't white if they had their way. We don't call someone a grammar KKK person because what the KKK believes is so abhorrent. Why is it okay to use "nazi"?

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=godwins+law

Busting out Godwin's Law? I need more coffee for that Debate heavy hitting!

Aiylin · November 2013

ChrissieMeas said:

I think if we took all the funding and effort used to fight animal abuse and put it towards children in this country things would improve very quickly. I love animals, and it breaks my heart to see any form of abuse/neglect towards animals, but who is more helpless?

ITA, love the furry friends, but seeing the way some children live in my city, in my community, makes my heartbreak.

I have had serious discussions with DH about wanting to become a foster parent. He has mixed feelings about it. He feels we would get too attached and end up doing the Brangelina and adopting a brood. I can't say that it wouldn't happen, but I don't think I would be disappointed if it did. I want to huge the world right now.

sparkymcgeee · November 2013

etoille said:

Meimsx said:

etoille said:

Aiylin said:

Another post reminded me of my UO:

I think that besides having to qualify (income wise) for state aid/food stamps people should have to pass a drug test to be eligible.

I didn't have an issue with this until the Florida State Legislators (who receive a salary from the state) didn't want to submit to drug tests.

All one way or all the other. You can't pick and choose.

Also I think that this whole "OMG A REPUBLICAN US REP BOUGHT COCAINE" thing is like amazingly overblown. Who fucking cares? He should resign, end of story. Like anyone else who fails a random drug test would get fired. Follow the laws. But this whole circus of press conferences etc? Jesus who cares. You can't advocate for abolishing drug laws in this country (liberals) and then jump on the guy for buying a drug you say should be legal.

Same thing. Don't pick and choose.

Oh my gosh yes. Because you know all republicans are super clean living Christians. Oh wait. GWB.

I'm totally confused by your post Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

/understanding fail on my part

I'm agreeing with you. Shocker I know because we are pretty opposite on the political sphere. But come on both sides are totally the same when it comes to substance abuse. Just because they lean a certain way doesn't mean they don't abuse drugs or alcohol.

DenverBride2005 · November 2013

My UO is that I can't take the time to read all these UOs! I can't keep up! I've missed three pages worth in only being away for an hour or two!

UTQT09 · November 2013

I agree with the drug tests before PA. I also think that if a person fails that drug test and has kids, further action should be taken. I'd hate to see a kid suffer because their parent has an addiction (although I feel they probably already are) but at the same time changes have to be made because there are waaaay to many people who abuse the system.

My UO: I hate how everything is so PC now a days. I think people are way to sensitive about way to many things.

Edit: spelling

Aiylin · November 2013

martyn17 said:

I don't agree with testing Public Assistance users for drug use because there are so many people who work for the government or who benefit for some sort of social service or public assistance who wouldn't get tested (like those on Medicare) and I think its discriminatory and stigmatizing to decide that those who use a certain type of PA are more likely to abuse than others when studies show that isn't true.

Also, from a fiscal point of view, testing applicants for drug use is a waste of money.

According to the Tampa Bay Times:
"Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows.
The findings — that only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed."

From the Huff Post:
"From August 2012 through July 2013, the state (Utah) prescreened 4,730 applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program with a written test. The state followed up with an actual drug test for the 466 of those whose written answers suggested a likelihood of drug use.
The 466 tests turned out 12 positive results, as the Associated Press first reported.
Quote box fail- Im stuck in it.
Wait, so they pre-screened for likely drug abuse and only tested 466 out of 4k people who applied? I think they needed to test 4k of the applicants. You would be surprised at how smart and functional addicts can be. I don't think the testing requirement should be if you fail a written test.
Drug dealers and users can be very, very smart people. I have met drug dealers that have the mind of entrepreneur. Given their life's circumstances, their resources, their education, their limitations they have decided to run an empire that doesn't discriminate them in a socioeconomic circle. I don't feel pity, because others have been raised in those same circumstances and not made the choice they made and have still had relatively successful lives.
I stand by my opinion- State aid has no place in an addict's hands.

coco2787 · November 2013

I have an idea. Instead of wasting millions of dollars every year on a so-called "drug war" we could put that money towards drug abuse treatment and rehabilitation programs. Most effective programs are very expensive and not covered by the government or many insurance companies. It's a war we will never win, we could at least try to save some lives along the way. Putting addicts in prisons and stripping them of rights (if they're felons) and treating them like criminals instead of sick people is not solving a damn thing. I lost my mother, aunt, uncle and many other relatives to addiction and there are just not enough resources to help these people, not by a long shot. Wasting more tax payer dollars on drug testing people is just a ridiculous idea IMO.

sdtchica13 · November 2013

fklang said:

Mamasighs said:

Some (not all by any means) babies have to CIO. All these threads about the evils of it are over the top.

Preach Mama preach!! I could've written this too. I think most of us have enough common sense to know when CIO is or isn't appropriate. If you join TB for knowledge about your LO, hopefully you care enough not to neglect/damage your kid.

Yup, add me to team CIO. It's fine to start between 4 and 6 months, and honestly, your kid is not going to be emotionally scarred if they had to yell for an extended period of time for one or two nights.

Carrie3102 · November 2013

@etoille thanks...I'm not one to live life unhappy and I take my marriage vows seriously. So I'm glad he's been willing to work together to fix our marriage.

I'll be back with a up when I can think of one.

[Deleted User] · November 2013

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User] · November 2013

The user and all related content has been deleted.

martyn17 · November 2013

Aiylin said:

Quote box fail- Im stuck in it.
Wait, so they pre-screened for likely drug abuse and only tested 466 out of 4k people who applied? I think they needed to test 4k of the applicants. You would be surprised at how smart and functional addicts can be. I don't think the testing requirement should be if you fail a written test.
Drug dealers and users can be very, very smart people. I have met drug dealers that have the mind of entrepreneur. Given their life's circumstances, their resources, their education, their limitations they have decided to run an empire that doesn't discriminate them in a socioeconomic circle. I don't feel pity, because others have been raised in those same circumstances and not made the choice they made and have still had relatively successful lives.
I stand by my opinion- State aid has no place in an addict's hands.

It is my understanding that it was rolled out differently in different places (I believe Florida had more extensive testing than Utah), but it wasn't shown to be cost effective in either setting. I find it problematic for reasons other than the fiscal reasons, but the studies do suggest that drug testing isn't cost-effective.

[Deleted User] · November 2013

The user and all related content has been deleted.

sdtchica13 · November 2013

Chunkymonkeylvr said:

fklang said:

Mamasighs said:

Some (not all by any means) babies have to CIO. All these threads about the evils of it are over the top.

Preach Mama preach!! I could've written this too. I think most of us have enough common sense to know when CIO is or isn't appropriate. If you join TB for knowledge about your LO, hopefully you care enough not to neglect/damage your kid.

Yup, add me to team CIO. It's fine to start between 4 and 6 months, and honestly, your kid is not going to be emotionally scarred if they had to yell for an extended period of time for one or two nights.
Apparently I was a victim of CIO at 2 months...... I wonder if I can blame that on the shitty decisions I have made in my life.

ZOMG! It's amazing you can function at all! :P

[Deleted User] · November 2013

The user and all related content has been deleted.

TheLittleRedM · November 2013

On the drug testing note: I fully agree with saying they need drug tests before receiving benefits. My ex SIL and my brother (before he got clean) frequently sold their benefits to support their drug addictions and it left my niece and nephew without food for days at a time. They were so wrapped up in themselves that they couldn't even be bothered to teach my niece how to eat solids and they gave everything to her in a bottle which tended to go bad and my nephew (they're 18 months apart) would try feeding her the bottle when she cried because he didn't understand that the stuff was bad.

My UO: I side-eye CYFD workers. I know that CYFD does a lot of good in a lot of instances but I honestly will never ever fully trust that they are doing their work for the good of the kids in need. My niece and nephew were sexually abused by their bio mom and her boyfriends on top of being emotionally abused and other physical abuse. They would come to us when her week was up with burns on their bodies because their mom use to burn them with cigarettes and cigars as a form of punishment. We found them left inside a car, both wide awake, with the windows rolled up on a 90+ degree day. Their mom decided she needed a nap and a break from them and went into the house and left them in the driveway. CYFD still did nothing. They kept saying they would but they never ever charged her with abuse or anything else. They wouldn't even testify saying that she should lose her parental rights.

ETA: There was documented evidence from doctors about the abuse that was happening to these kids both sexually and otherwise.

miss2697 · November 2013

I don't really think there is a difference in throwing yourself a shower and having a "meet the baby" party.

I find it very hypocritical and slightly annoying that some mothers to be are all gung ho on going natural because "that's how they did it 100 years ago". Yea, they also didn't have plastic surgery or make up, or hair dye 100 years ago. I think people that say this just hop on the sanctimommy bandwagon.

ETA I think I am getting my period.

ljs4117 · November 2013

I have a hard time taking an organization with the name "Quiverfull" seriously.

I also agree with @meimsx (?) that people jump to "leave him, duh!" way too quickly.. even close friends and family. It irks me. We already have enough broken ass homes and children, yunno? That said, I missed the post about the guy threatening to take away children.. I'll have to find that.

Also, I think public school is a joke. If a kid fails a class, try to figure out the issue, but still fail him/her! Kids.. no... most people need to be more accountable for their actions. I think high school should be more at the level of the gen ed classes in college....... ugh. this is turning into a rant and I'm getting impatient typing one-handed. Hopefully it made a tiny bit of sense.

[Deleted User] · November 2013

The user and all related content has been deleted.

TheLittleRedM · November 2013

@mermomo5 They are doing much better. They still have PTSD issues and because they never knew when they would eat next with their mom, my niece still takes food without permission and hides it in her room in various places. They also have awful awful asthma because of their living conditions back then and it's one of the reactions when their PTSD is triggered but things are mostly good now. Their bio mom showed up one day out of the blue threatening to steal her kids back so now my parents have to keep a tight leash on what the kids are allowed to do outside because this lady is flucking crazy and will actually take them. She's not allowed to see them whatsoever until they're old enough to make that decision themselves and if they're under 18 at that time, it has to be supervised.

ETA: This lady thinks they actually will want to get to know her. Uh, no crazy person! My dad told her that if and when they want to 'get to know her' it's going to be because they want to know why she did what she did. Not a fun convo.

karen0477 · November 2013

6 pages already, tough being on the west coast and getting here late!!! Might have to start making my kids walk to school on Thursday mornings.

My UO today.....I don't see why purées are bad all of a sudden. Blw seems to be something I don't ever remember from my older 2. I'm doing purées again this time, we have already started. My kids had no trouble with moving to table foods as soon as they were ready. I like that Allie is getting some different tastes. Personally I just don't see what the big deal is.

[Deleted User] · November 2013

The user and all related content has been deleted.

giraffeluvspi · November 2013

maryannespier said:

And dudes. You can fail a drug test if you smoked pot months ago. Occasionally dabbling with drugs does not make you an addict who has children who should be taken away in the same way having a few drinks doesn't make you an alcoholic. Drug testing is bogus. I hope all of you so up in arms about your tax dollars going to "addicts" are also this worried about closing corporate tax loopholes, because that's costing you a shitload more than someone on welfare occasionally buying an eighth.

I don't think pot is the issue here. I know plenty of people who smoke it and still function just fine.

ceechie · November 2013

My uo: drug testing to receive benefits is a horrific violation of civil liberties. It's judgmental and prejudice to families in need. I would be horrified if I needed food stamps and was then thought to need a drug test. I got a fed aid for college- drug test? Elected officials?
To me it says: you need aid, you might do drugs.
What!!?
And yes, people abuse the system. Let's put the money into drug education and support and even law enforcement vs pee cups and blood work. Let's end the cycle.

Stina2012 · November 2013

ncchnat said:

Chunkymonkeylvr said:

I think it is funny (not te haha kind). How up in arms people get about certain situations i.e. Hitler and the Nazi's. Not to diminish the horrific conditions and actions that these nasty people forced upon others, but the only reason we know of this is because they didn't win the war. We don't discuss the concentration camps that happened before or after, or the millions being killed on other countries in recent history and going on today.

We don't discuss the Japanese camps that we had here in the US if today.

I think going up in arms for the use of a word used in everyday language makes me giggle.

Actually, I do get upset over the many more millions Stalin and Mao killed. I think the way the US treated the Native Americans, the Japanese, blacks, etc, is appalling, but I do get up in arms and I wish it wasn't used every day. Like I said, I know too many people who were horrifically affected by what happened.

How would you feel if you were talking to an older person and said something about a "grammar nazi" only to find out that person had survived one of the camps? Would you still get a giggle out of it then?

I believe we did know about the concentration camps before we entered the war. And by believe I mean I think that's a historical fact.

UTQT09 · November 2013

ceechie said:
My uo: drug testing to receive benefits is a horrific violation of civil liberties. It's judgmental and prejudice to families in need. I would be horrified if I needed food stamps and was then thought to need a drug test. I got a fed aid for college- drug test? Elected officials?
To me it says: you need aid, you might do drugs.
What!!?
And yes, people abuse the system. Let's put the money into drug education and support and even law enforcement vs pee cups and blood work. Let's end the cycle.

I get drug tested randomly at my job and that's how I put food on the table. I don't see a difference here and I think people who get offended because they have to take one have something to hide or are far to sensitive.

martyn17 · November 2013

maryannespier said:
And dudes. You can fail a drug test if you smoked pot months ago. Occasionally dabbling with drugs does not make you an addict who has children who should be taken away in the same way having a few drinks doesn't make you an alcoholic. Drug testing is bogus.
I hope all of you so up in arms about your tax dollars going to "addicts" are also this worried about closing corporate tax loopholes, because that's costing you a shitload more than someone on welfare occasionally buying an eighth.

I agree. Using drugs isn't the worst thing you can do. It's just an easy label to put on people. And not everyone who uses is an addict.

Besides, it's a lot easier for people to get clean when they have access to services and don't feel stigmatized.

[Deleted User] · November 2013

The user and all related content has been deleted.

UTQT09 · November 2013

Also, I don't think everyone who uses MJ every once in awhile is an addict but if you can't put food on the table without help, the money you do have coming in should not be going towards drugs. I don't care if it's a once in awhile thing, feed your family.

ceechie · November 2013

UTQT09 said:

ceechie said:
My uo: drug testing to receive benefits is a horrific violation of civil liberties. It's judgmental and prejudice to families in need. I would be horrified if I needed food stamps and was then thought to need a drug test. I got a fed aid for college- drug test? Elected officials?
To me it says: you need aid, you might do drugs.
What!!?
And yes, people abuse the system. Let's put the money into drug education and support and even law enforcement vs pee cups and blood work. Let's end the cycle.
I get drug tested randomly at my job and that's how I put food on the table. I don't see a difference here and I think people who get offended because they have to take one have something to hide or are far to sensitive.

But not every job tests.
Everyone said in the other post about if you need assistance, "don't be ashamed."
Doesn't generalizing that this group who also needs assistance also needs drug testing, at a level is a form of shaming?
Drug testing wasn't required for me as a hairstylist. Or to become a mother. And those are important jobs that put food on the table and provide for my family.
Better stop hiding my crack habit....

UTQT09 · November 2013

ceechie said:

UTQT09 said:

ceechie said:
My uo: drug testing to receive benefits is a horrific violation of civil liberties. It's judgmental and prejudice to families in need. I would be horrified if I needed food stamps and was then thought to need a drug test. I got a fed aid for college- drug test? Elected officials?
To me it says: you need aid, you might do drugs.
What!!?
And yes, people abuse the system. Let's put the money into drug education and support and even law enforcement vs pee cups and blood work. Let's end the cycle.
I get drug tested randomly at my job and that's how I put food on the table. I don't see a difference here and I think people who get offended because they have to take one have something to hide or are far to sensitive.
But not every job tests.
Everyone said in the other post about if you need assistance, "don't be ashamed."
Doesn't generalizing that this group who also needs assistance also needs drug testing, at a level is a form of shaming?
Drug testing wasn't required for me as a hairstylist. Or to become a mother. And those are important jobs that put food on the table and provide for my family.
Better stop hiding my crack habit....

This whole shaming thing is getting ridiculous IMO. I'm not shaming anyone. No, everyone doesn't get tested but if you want certain jobs it is required. IMO if you want help it should be required. The difference with you as a hairdresser is that you are relying on yourself to get food on the table, with PA you are relying on the government. All of the government employees that I know have to get drug tested to keep their job.

ceechie · November 2013

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4305348
Voted for drug testing for food stamps. Let's test our reps then. Anyone can do drugs.... And our tax money paid that guy, too.

UTQT09 · November 2013

ceechie said:
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4305348
Voted for drug testing for food stamps. Let's test our reps then. Anyone can do drugs.... And our tax money paid that guy, too.

I'm all for it, test them too.

Want a personalized experience?

UO

Re: UO

LFAF Summer 2016 Awards:

LFAF Summer 2016 Awards:

LFAF Summer 2016 Awards:

LFAF Summer 2016 Awards:

Choose Another Board

Search Boards