Now Playing Tracks

Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?

Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country - which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum, in his column “Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American” for The American Thinker.

I literally do not know what to say this, other than the subtlety used in the past by folks like Vadum is dead. They do not want those in poverty to vote for fear their rich cronies will no longer be able to buy political clout. The richest 1% have 1% of the vote. 99% of the vote belongs to those outside of the top income brackets.

Never fear, Mr. Vadum. Citizens United v. FEC has your back. I’ll tell you what’s un-American: Decrying the empowerment of the impoverished via the last vestiges of the democratic process we have left in this country. To insist that a person is defined by what one owns versus who one is - that’s profoundly un-American.

You sir, are attempting to establish a new aristocracy in this country, a pseudo-royalty if you will. I believe the Founding Fathers might have a bigger problem with that than with the poor voting.

(via cognitivedissonance)

cognitivedissonance: Uh-oh. Looks like Florida’s mandatory drug testing for taxpayers is costing the taxpayers more than they’re actually saving. Governor Rick Scott had praised the program when he signed it June 1st of this year, proclaiming, “It’s the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don’t want to waste tax dollars.” However, the numbers are not adding up. From WFTV: Just six weeks after Florida began drug testing welfare applicants, WFTV uncovered numbers which show that the program is already costing Central Florida taxpayers more than it saves. 9 Investigates’ reporter George Spencer found very few applicants are testing positive for drugs. The Department of Central Florida’s (DCF) region tested 40 applicants and only two tested positive for drugs, officials said. One of the tests is being appealed. Governor Rick Scott said the program would save money. Critics said it already looks like a boondoggle. “We have a diminishing amount of returns for our tax dollars. Do we want out governor throwing our precious tax dollars into a program that has already been proven not to work?” Derek Brett of the ACLU said. DCF said it has been referring applicants to clinics where drug screenings cost between $30 and $35. The applicant pays for the test and the state reimburses [the applicant] if they test negative. Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140. Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive. I’m not at all shocked by this, and the ACLU is planning to file suit. Oh, and they’re also saying to Rick Scott: “We told you so.” Literally.  The sad part? These measures scare people off from applying for benefits. If people test positive for drugs, it means two things: Either they ingested that substance at least once, and maybe only once, within the testing window - or it’s a false positive. Here’s a short list of things that can cause a false positive: Poppy seeds: (Opioids) Cold medications: (amphetamines) Wellbutrin: (amphetamines) Tricyclic antidepressants: (amphetamines) Zoloft: (benzodiazepine) Daypro: (benzodiazepine) Quinolone antibiotic drugs: (Opioids) Sustiva (prescribed for HIV): (cannabinoids) Ibuprofen: (cannabinoids, barbiturates, phencyclidine [PCP]) Foods made with hemp and hemp oil: (cannabinoids) Effexor: (phencyclidine) Vicks Inhalers: (methamphetamines) Zantac: (amphetamines) Ultram: (phencyclidine) Over-the-counter cough medicine containing dextromethorphan: (Opioids)  Huh. So drug tests aren’t infallible and they’re not saving Florida any money? As the ACLU points out, Florida should have learned this 10 years ago, when they tried this program and had to dump it for cost reasons. I’ll indulge the governor for a moment, though. Let’s say there’s parents who have used some kind of drugs in the period before the test. Why deprive children of quite possibly the only support they’ll receive because their parent(s) may or may not have used drugs voluntarily or involuntarily in the testing period? I’m not comfortable with that thought, and any other person with an iota of compassion should not be thrilled with that proposition either. Things that happen when you stereotype people in poverty…
Zoom

cognitivedissonance:

Uh-oh. Looks like Florida’s mandatory drug testing for taxpayers is costing the taxpayers more than they’re actually saving.

Governor Rick Scott had praised the program when he signed it June 1st of this year, proclaiming, “It’s the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don’t want to waste tax dollars.”

However, the numbers are not adding up. From WFTV:

Just six weeks after Florida began drug testing welfare applicants, WFTV uncovered numbers which show that the program is already costing Central Florida taxpayers more than it saves. 9 Investigates’ reporter George Spencer found very few applicants are testing positive for drugs. The Department of Central Florida’s (DCF) region tested 40 applicants and only two tested positive for drugs, officials said. One of the tests is being appealed.

Governor Rick Scott said the program would save money. Critics said it already looks like a boondoggle. “We have a diminishing amount of returns for our tax dollars. Do we want out governor throwing our precious tax dollars into a program that has already been proven not to work?” Derek Brett of the ACLU said.

DCF said it has been referring applicants to clinics where drug screenings cost between $30 and $35. The applicant pays for the test and the state reimburses [the applicant] if they test negative. Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140. Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.

I’m not at all shocked by this, and the ACLU is planning to file suit. Oh, and they’re also saying to Rick Scott: “We told you so.” Literally. 

The sad part? These measures scare people off from applying for benefits. If people test positive for drugs, it means two things: Either they ingested that substance at least once, and maybe only once, within the testing window - or it’s a false positive. Here’s a short list of things that can cause a false positive:

  • Poppy seeds: (Opioids)
  • Cold medications: (amphetamines)
  • Wellbutrin: (amphetamines)
  • Tricyclic antidepressants: (amphetamines)
  • Zoloft: (benzodiazepine)
  • Daypro: (benzodiazepine)
  • Quinolone antibiotic drugs: (Opioids)
  • Sustiva (prescribed for HIV): (cannabinoids)
  • Ibuprofen: (cannabinoids, barbiturates, phencyclidine [PCP])
  • Foods made with hemp and hemp oil: (cannabinoids)
  • Effexor: (phencyclidine)
  • Vicks Inhalers: (methamphetamines)
  • Zantac: (amphetamines)
  • Ultram: (phencyclidine)
  • Over-the-counter cough medicine containing dextromethorphan: (Opioids) 

Huh. So drug tests aren’t infallible and they’re not saving Florida any money? As the ACLU points out, Florida should have learned this 10 years ago, when they tried this program and had to dump it for cost reasons.

I’ll indulge the governor for a moment, though. Let’s say there’s parents who have used some kind of drugs in the period before the test. Why deprive children of quite possibly the only support they’ll receive because their parent(s) may or may not have used drugs voluntarily or involuntarily in the testing period? I’m not comfortable with that thought, and any other person with an iota of compassion should not be thrilled with that proposition either.

Things that happen when you stereotype people in poverty…

Dear GOP,

Many people who are on food stamps are single mother who work full time jobs and cannot afford items like toilet paper after the bills are paid. Why do you want to make it harder for these women to feed their children? Why are you still pretending that people on public assistance are living this life of luxury?

It makes me sick to see rich white men pretending to have some kind of idea what it is like to live that way whom have the audacity to state that they are buying HDTV’s with their welfare checks.

So here are some facts:

TANF Average Per Month:

Food Stamp Allowance per Family Size (monthly):

Other things the right likes to ignore:

Families in poverty pay more for child care.

Cost of living varies by state.

Section 8 housing lists have been closed in many states for years; leaving families to rent housing that is dilapidated or too small for their needs. Average rent is around 300-400 a month.

Electric and gas bills for these properties also need to be paid. Since many of this housing fails to update or repair doors and windows; bills are proportionately more for these properties than they would be in other areas. Assistance for these bills are limited and almost always only offered to individuals in extreme circumstances.

Lastly, for 2011 the yearly average income for families in poverty is $22,350 for a family of FOUR.

Yep, that sure is a live of laze about luxury all right. -roll-

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union