Skip to content

Pitcher who took $7 million for nothing decries “welfare leeches”

Jul 31, 2013, 9:14 AM EDT

UPDATE: Braden has contacted me on Twitter, taking issue. He says that he does not believe all welfare recipients are “leeches.” Rather, only those who use drugs and receive public assistance are “leeches.”  He has not explained to me how that squares with his desire to “test the welfare leeches” for drugs. Because, if they’re only leeches once they use, why are we testing them? We already know they use!

Braden is a pitcher, not a writer, so it’s possible that he merely mistyped and demanded that something else be done with “leeches” besides testing them. And that the testing not be for “leeches” but for the good people who have fallen on hard time. So that we can determine if, in fact, they are leeches.

9:14 AM: One can believe that the welfare state as currently constructed is not the best way to help those in need and/or is not the best use of resources. That’s just a matter of philosophy and politics and values and stuff and reasonable people can disagree without being rude and insensitive.

Unemployed pitcher Dallas Braden, however, is not interested in philosophical debates:

Pretty big talk for a guy who took nearly $7 million from the Athletics for a grand total of three starts between 2011 and 2012.

Oh, wait: you mean there were extenuating circumstances there? His inability to pitch those years was because of injury and not because he was some lazy leech sucking off the teet of some rich benefactor without doing anything in return? That he actually would have preferred to work for his money but simply was unable to due to the hand he was dealt? But that’s impossible! I am told by people like Braden himself that everyone who is paid without having to work is an awful bum.

In other news: there are some people from the 209 who live on government assistance. I wonder what they think of their crusading superhero and lord protector.

277 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. jayscarpa - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:18 AM

    Dick head.

    • fanofevilempire - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:31 AM

      he must think he is still on the mound, in his universe.
      what a douche bag!

  2. chill1184 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:20 AM

    Funny considering that the drug testing plan is nothing but a false band aid to the welfare problem.

    • Old Gator - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:22 AM

      Depends on whether A-roid qualifies for welfare next week.

  3. Old Gator - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:21 AM

    Braden was an loudmouthed ass before. He is an ass now. He may well remain an ass for the rest of his life. Let’s see how quickly he ploughs through his money and winds up in an alley like Eric Show, who was of like ideological bent.

    • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:28 AM

      Nice of you to wish for the best for someone who said something stupid.

      Maybe that’s what we should do, deport everyone who says something stupid to Alaska or something.

      • mornelithe - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:37 AM

        That would be incredibly stupid, considering the definition of deport doesn’t support your usage of it. You cannot deport someone from the US, to another part of the US.

      • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:45 AM

        You mean Seward’s Folly? They made that a state?

        Fine fine, send them to Cuba.

      • seattlej - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:02 AM

        Also, your reading comprehension has failed you. He didn’t wish anything in particular on Mr. Braden. If anything, it was more of a prediction of a future state of being.

      • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:10 AM

        “Let’s see how quickly he ploughs through his money and winds up in an alley like Eric Show, who was of like ideological bent.”

        People have inferred intent and wish from much much less. If he stops there, I’m fine with the comment.

    • padraighansen - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

      Good point. Most of these guys will end up broke before they’re 40. I worked with a guy a few years ago that played in the NFL for a few seasons, and had a $1.2 million home – all paid for. But he never thought about the total cost of ownership – namely property taxes and insurance – and within 5 years, he had eaten through all of this savings just paying taxes on the house. Most of these guys confuse the size of their check with both their skills & the consistency of their future earning potential. His view will change once he’s applying for assistance.

      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:18 PM

        That is terribly sad.

  4. drewsylvania - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:22 AM

    A-Rod ran across Braden’s mound, remember? HERO!

    • gerryb323 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM

      If only A-Rod had been banned for life for THAT, we wouldn’t be having this national crisis now.

      Also, kudos to Braden for proper use of they’re/their…

      • chumthumper - Aug 1, 2013 at 9:25 AM

        THERE and THEIR. THEY’RE not the same. (Dontcha just love the English language?)

  5. cur68 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:22 AM

    I just LOVE it when the empowered and rich pass their judgement with a nice broad brush. Thanks Dallas. Make sure and include your friend Alex Rodriguez in your Anti-Drug User/Anti-Leech Crusade. I hear he’ll soon be collecting a massive paycheque for doing bugger-all after a history of drug use.

    • thehoagster07 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:37 AM

      I was with you until I realized you spoke Canadian.

      • cur68 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:44 AM

        Say what, eh? Here I thought I was totally covert. Dang. Oh well. Sorry about that.

      • nbjays - Jul 31, 2013 at 7:13 PM

        South of the border they call it a “paycheck”, Cur.



  6. bmfc1 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:29 AM

    I heart Craig.

  7. voteforno6 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM

    I would almost be amenable to his argument if he also said that employees of all those big banks that we bailed out should be drug tested. I’m guessing that’s not who he’s referring to, though.

    • 18thstreet - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM

      Shouldn’t people who receive farm subsidies be tested for drugs, too? And Social Security recipients? Doctors receiving Medicare reimbursements? Children covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? Anyone receiving a pension from the U.S. government, such as defeated Congressmen and retired soldiers? Disabled veterans receiving free health care at Veterans Affairs hospitals?

      Really, Braden’s problem is that he’s not thinking broadly enough. Everyone, except him, is a leach.

    • djpostl - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:14 AM

      Yes 18th street. ANYONE who gets one cent from the government should. Every employee of a defense contractor, CEO of a bank getting a bail out and so on.

      • 18thstreet - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:37 PM

        Kindergarteners receiving free and reduced price breakfasts! EVERYONE!

        Because illegal drugs are the worst thing in the world for some reason. Sitting around smoking pot is a huge waste of time and money, unlike sitting around drinking beer and playing XBox.

      • purpleronin - Jul 31, 2013 at 6:20 PM

        Illegal drug use apparently also worse than sitting around in Congress doing nothing, watching ‘Rome’ burn and hoping to be elected king of the ashes…

  8. crispybasil - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM

    Funny, you never hear anyone talk about drug testing the executives, employees, and investors/shareholders of companies that receive government assistance in the form of loans, tax breaks, or credits.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:49 AM

      Anyone drug test politicians?

      • crispybasil - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:57 AM

        Can’t believe I left them out! Good point.

      • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:28 AM

        Clearly not the last two presidents.

  9. Kevin S. - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:33 AM

    Ask Braden how Florida’s drug-testing program for welfare recipients is going.

    • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:07 AM

      They’ve bought a lot of pee.

      • 18thstreet - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:11 AM

        It’s worked out really, really well for the companies that sell drug-testing equipment to the state of Florida.

      • djpostl - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:15 AM

        Which, coincidentally enough are companies owned by the douche nozzle GOP Governor who made it mandatory.

      • purpleronin - Jul 31, 2013 at 6:23 PM

        ROFLMAO !…good one

    • indaburg - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:09 AM

      Floridiam here. Complete and utter failure. A waste of my hard earned tax dollars. Money that could have been used on our failing schools or deplorable infrastructure was wasted. It turns out that lo and behold, very few welfare recipients test positive for drugs. You see, poor people can’t afford to buy drugs, ya dummy, Braden. They’re expensive and the poor have more pressing concerns, like eating and paying the rent. Want to know where I saw the most drugs in my life? The rich kids at Dartmouth. Boy, did they have drugs.

      • skids003 - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:48 PM

        I didn’t know Florida had a state income tax.

      • indaburg - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:52 PM

        No state income tax. Income tax isn’t the only source of taxes. Housing tax is very high here. Prior to moving into my apt this month, the taxes on my house–very, very high.

        I also pay sales tax on my purchases. A lot of sales tax. Government always figures out a way to get their share.

      • skids003 - Jul 31, 2013 at 3:20 PM

        My daughter just moved there, guess she’ll be learning all this.

  10. frank35sox - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:34 AM

    Yeah because that’s the exact situation he is talking about. F-Ing idiot.

  11. largebill - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:34 AM

    Braden is a fool who poorly makes the point. However, there is a significant difference between an athlete drawing a check despite subpar performance (or even no performance due to injury) and government handouts. The team VOLUNTARILY enters into a contract with the player knowing it is a guaranteed contract even if performance declines significantly. On the other hand, tax payers have no choice about being on the hook for handouts given by politicians pretending to be generous. Actually, since we are trillions in debt it is tax payers yet to be born who are on the hook for the “generosity” of today’s politicians.

    Regardless of all that, most athletes and celebrities would be better served not attempting to make political statements, especially on Twitter where 140 character limit makes one even more likely to poorly state things.

    • skids003 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM

      largebill, I agree. The current system is overloaded with fraud, and does need fixing. Regular joes don’t like it when someone considered rich makes statements like he did though. The sad thing about the current system is that many people who really need help can’t get it, and others live better than people who work hard and pay taxes. It really needs fixing.

      • American of African Descent - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:00 AM

        I’ve known people who have been receiving food stamps; I’ve also known people who have received unemployment. I know only two people who “lived better than people who work hard and pay taxes.” Most everyone else lived a much lower quality of life when they were receiving food stamps than when they were working.

        If you think food stamps, unemployment, and welfare are economic windfalls, try living off the equivalent for a month. Figure out what you’d receive for food stamps, for unemployment, and for any other welfare program you can think of, then try to live off of it. Good luck!

        (What about the two people who were living better? They were living off savings that they accumulated while they were working, they were actively looking for work, and they found work in semi-short order. But I submit that these two were the exception as they were not getting rich off the government assistance, but primarily living off of their own stores.)

      • Craig Calcaterra - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:00 AM

        Our government, via the democratic process, decided to enact the welfare system. We very much chose to do this. If we, as a society, decide to change our minds about that we can choose to do different things.

      • largebill - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:08 AM

        Actually, we can’t choose to do different things until it all blows up. There is a paucity of the type of courage that would be necessary to reform what some have grown accustomed to.

      • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM

        I pay my 40% in taxes. 40%, for busting it all week long.

        The system does need a major overhaul, I wish like hell they would take the Health Care Albatross and make it an Education Bill. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to live in squalor, but so many stats point towards education and lack of a family structure possibly playing a large part. Also, folks who profit off of keeping this system in place also need to be looked at very closely, and de-funded and derided just as much as “righ white guy”.

        Braden just comes off as an elitist pig. Point made Craig, and righteously so.

      • skids003 - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:20 PM

        AmericanAfrican Descent, I hear where you are coming from. I worked in a grocery store at one time and to see people loading up steaks, junk food etc and taking to an expensive care kind of makes things look like they are better off than those of us eating hotdogs and hamburger. I have personally seen and heard people buying steaks because foodstamps wouldn’t pay for dog food. I’m not saying not to help those that need it, but they shouldn’t live high off the hog. And again, it takes away from people who need help and cannot get it.

      • thumper001 - Jul 31, 2013 at 4:32 PM

        I should know better than this by now, but here goes: Hot, emotion-driven opinions/arguments, politics, and outright propaganda destroy economies, if allowed near the working gears and machinery of those economies…

        OK, some questions for advocates of flat (non-thought out) change;

        (1) does the money government pays out to welfare recipients equal a net loss in the US economy? How does the velocity of money differ when driven by welfare dollars as opposed to payroll dollars? Is there a difference? And why? (now, put aside emotions, strawmen, and propaganda when answering this).

        (2) how does a national economy actually work? What are the four sectors of the economy that must function fully, and EQUALLY, to best serve the ENTIRE public, and not just exclusive demographics, under some false theory that skewing monetary policy is somehow good for everyone. Therefore; what is the economic impact of ONE dollar entering a fairly balanced economic system (US 1935-1998)? (does $1 spent only generate $1 of economic activity? Or, do you believe it is less? Supplemental: if one sector shirks its responsibilities, why does another sector have to compensate for the reduced activity, and how? Why is it important to remove or offset the imbalance? What happens if no offset occurs?

        (3) If welfare assistance is a micro-economic management tool which actually has economic utility across all demographics, and not a humanitarian tool (with no return) which many falsely believe, what is the analog in the macro-economic components of the economic system, and why is it now failing for similar reasons in the US economy, and at a much more damaging raw level?

        (4) what drives a commodity market the most; price or volume. Supplemental: if the volume in a market is severely reduced based on an emotional appeal, what happens to the prices of almost everything now being traded at a much lower volume? Supplemental 2: what is the actual (if any) economic utility of emotions, and actions based on emotions, especially ones that serve to inhibit or impede economic activity? Can you actually feed a family of four successfully on a diet of propaganda? Or is it really just less filling. MUCH less filling…

        (5) What is an economic value chain and why do longer value chains lead to exponential instead of linear economic growth, whereas short value chains barely lead to linear growth (and historically trend to below a 1:1 return, given misdirection of resources into dead-end purchases that destroy capital)? Why should national monetary policy focus on longer chains instead of shorter ones, if we really want a healthy economy for everyone? Now, please explain why US policy since 1998 has radically shifted to greatly favor shorter, not longer, value chains. Name the regulation body which was repealed which led to this dramatic shift in the US economic long-term outlook. (why is the money spent on factory workers a better dollar for dollar investment than the millions spent on ballplayers, entertainers, and the like, Please differentiate a “vanity dollar” from a “working dollar”, from an economic system perspective).

        (6) Why would returning the US economy to the gold standard result in a massive implosion in both the US and global economies? Explain why this would result, as opposed to the populist belief that some unexplained phenomenon would occur which would create a zero inflation environment. Explain why zero inflation is a BAD thing in the sustainable generation of wealth over the long-term. Explain what the gold standard would actually do to the “value” in the US economy; immediately, and in the future.

        (7) If you could somehow cause the untimely deaths of every US welfare recipient, and not be blamed for it, would the US economy improve, meaning grow larger, or fail even faster, meaning continue shrinking at an even faster rate? It’s one of those “be very careful what you ask for” deals…

        LAST question: which has more beneficial economic impact on the US economy? Paying some immature, loudmouth baseball player $7MM (which he will likely spend on an over-valued, out of comp, vanity crib (which will never return face value in an active market, destroying capital in the process) and cheesy one-off jewelry (which will also lose value on resale, again, destroying capital), OR, putting it in the hands of a thousand people making less than $10k a year, who will spend almost all of it in the local economy for food, gasoline, medical care, rent, and yes, maybe even alcohol and tobacco (OH, the horror)? And who benefits from all those downstream welfare purchases?

        (If we cannot answer these questions, or even understand how they relate to the role of welfare, we really have no business offering to “fix” welfare in America).

        And frankly, in spite of the populist meme of massive fraud, that is actually not true (it’s a strawman argument, based on isolated incidents). But even if true that some “Welfare Queens” spend the money on a big-az cadillac, they are still plowing the money straight back into the local economy…so this meme really has NO basis on negative economic impact (to damage the economy, Welfare Queens would have to offshore the money, as for every dollar removed from the system, there is a downstream loss of X*v*(1-RR) (where v is the velocity of money, and RR is the reserve ratio) in economic activity. NOW, who really does that? OH, that’s right, the some of the same people telling us welfare recipients are evil and the ones to blame for everything. LOL).

        Opinions are like what again?

        And frankly, sportswriters should never be put in a position to manage a national economy, all due respect. And that’s based solely on their reactions and criticisms of George Steinbrenner over the years; who in hindsight has been the true economic genius behind US sports franchising, and the best America has ever known. In fact, sports franchising should be designated BS (before Steinbrenner), and AS (after Steinbrenner), to acknowledge the importance of his role in its evolution. The Old Man would approve this message;

        “With wealth, cash is an easily obtainable commodity. Without it, cash is a rapidly perishable item that will lock one forever in a rat race. Cash is for sportswriters, fantasy league game players, and fools. Wealth, now that’s the real deal, and everything I do is aimed at multiplying wealth, not simply gaining more cash. Everything I’ve done has resulted in the floating of millions of boats. Everything the contraband dealers have done, has sunk millions of boats while reveling in being cash smart, all while their fleet goes down around them. Hell, I even managed to float their boats, too, and faster than they could sink them, with little thanks or acknowledgement from the sports reporting community, who were a constant stone in my shoe”.

        We are all free to hate on the Borg for what they may have represented game-wise, but to deny the amount of “working” wealth Steinbrenner generated with his dollar for dollar investments in his brand takes an utter economic fool. Jobs, it turns out, are not a gifted commodity, they’re a direct byproduct of the creation of “working”, in-system wealth (capital). Something no politician can fix, no matter how loudly they pontificate, or how widely they spread bellicose beliefs based on utter BS.

        And there has never been a lack of commodity, when fools rush in…

        (note: “full employment” is a contradictory objective in a capital-based system, as it would divert large amounts of resources in a manner that would destroy the value of capital (by over-deploying capital without respect to demand). In fact, the only economies which have pursued “full employment” are all communist-based. And all destroyed their capital bases (through capital dilution, i.e., building 10 hotels when the market could only bear 3). In capital-based, systemic methods must be used to supplement the economy through “other” non-capital destructive measures. QED: those demanding to force full-employment on the “lazy bastards” (who are actually systemically created, and fixed, in capital systems) are actually commies who will destroy the economic engine through rage alone, if allowed to decide our fate. LOL)

    • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:17 AM

      Let me rephrase that for you:

      As a people we choose to care for those of us in need because we believe in the ethical civic value of providing for our own and pool our resources together via taxes to fund that. Because patriotism is more than being able to kill more of the other guy — it’s also caring for your compatriots, and we recognize that we are only as stable as the weakest among us. We chose to no longer force people to steal and literally riot in the streets to be able to care for their children and their grandparents and themselves. We do not want to be a pack of wolves but a community that the world envies for our generosity and freedom and safety — for people to say: “If I were an American, I would not want.”

      • barrywhererufrom - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM

        historiophilac..We care a lot for our fellow American’s who have fallen on hard times. Their is no way we should not. The aspect of abuse in all of these systems that all american’s should decry. When my parent’s divorced my mom was left with three small children. The same thing happened with another family that we were close with. My mom went to back to work after being a stay at home mom for ten years. The woman in the other family went on welfare stayed on it for the rest of her life. That would not be a problem if she didn’t have her live in boyfriend who owned a construction company live with her for the rest of his life. Abuse happens and its wrong to do nothing about it. Nobody is saying to take the benefits from those who deserve them. My brother in law has MS you bet you deserves his long term disability. Btw he was denied his first claim at it. That being said we must stop abuse and I believe that is what Braden stated.

      • buggieowens - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:24 AM

        Barry, you would be taken more seriously as a poster once you realize that apostrophes do not make words plural and that “their” and “there” mean two different things. I say this for your benefit and not to merely be snarky.

        Enough posters here have pointed out the facts when it comes to drug testing welfare recipients. An extraordinarily small number of people are found to have used drugs and the companies selling the drug tests profit enormously. Let’s focus on real problems.

    • purpleronin - Jul 31, 2013 at 6:31 PM

      ‘On the other hand, tax payers have no choice about being on the hook for handouts given by politicians pretending to be generous’

      I wonder what Florida – or anywhere else – would look like if there was no welfare or gov assistance for the poor and destitute?

      Would you rather spend your hard earned money parking a tank on your front lawn and turning your home into a fortress?

      I think that would cost you a lot more than a few tax dollars to feed the hungry…

  12. churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:34 AM

    Here’s an idea, maybe because it’s a false narrative from a specific news station (that welfare recipients are drug abusers)? The State of FL tried this, before it was declared unconstitutional. Their results:

    For a cautionary tale, just look to Florida. In 2011, the state passed a law requiring all welfare recipients to be tested before they received help. Applicants had to come up with the $30 to $35 for the test; only those who passed would be reimbursed.

    It turned out that of the 4,086 who took the tests, only 108 — just 2.6 percent — failed, most for marijuana. That’s far below the 6 percent state average of Floridians who use drugs. (An analysis by the state showed that the drug testing requirement didn’t tamp down applications.)

    Not only was Florida left with mud on its face; it also had a small hole in its pocket. At about $35 per test, the state had to reimburse $118,140. After deducting the “savings” from the 108 who did not receive benefits, Florida lost $45,780.

    The State of AZ actually did it first in 2009. Their results:

    Arizona was the first state to impose a testing program. In 2009, it began testing new welfare recipients when there was a “reasonable cause” to suspect illicit drug use. So how many of the 87,000 people subjected to the program have tested positive since then?

    Just one.

  13. patsandsox - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:35 AM

    They should drug test all members of congress, I mean something has to explain the mess they make of the budget every year

    • skids003 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM

      What budget? Haven’t had one in 5 years.

  14. asimonetti88 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:35 AM

    Personally I don’t see the problem with it. I took a drug test when I got my job, I don’t see why you shouldn’t take one to receive welfare. Obviously it won’t solve the problems of welfare and poverty in America simply by doing that, but I also don’t understand the vehement opposition to it.

    • Bryz - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:49 AM

      For one, Florida’s drug program for those that wanted to receive welfare backfired, as a large majority of welfare recipients were NOT on drugs. They’re losing (were losing? Is this program still in effect?) even more money than before.

      • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:40 AM

        Do you really think the people that showed up for the test were the folks abusing the system in the first place. Would they be that supid?

      • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:54 AM

        No one wants to make fun of me for my “supid” typo? C’mon kids, it’s a Wednesday, you should be on top of things by now!

      • dadawg77 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:56 AM

        If the total recipients drop, your argument would be stronger. However, the number increased. Since there are many variables on why someone would seek assistance, testing could have scared users away while chronic unemployment lead others to seek assistance. Just there is not empirical evidence of this.

      • djpostl - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:22 AM

        “Do you really think the people that showed up for the test were the folks abusing the system in the first place. Would they be that supid?”

        Um. Mandatory participation or benefits suspended. But nice try.

      • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:53 AM

        So, we’re there mandatory drops for not showing up then? I’m curious.

    • chill1184 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:49 AM

      Your job = private employer

      I took one prior to being employed by my current job as well but at the same time I wasnt force to via the barrel of gun. We both chose to let our respective employers know if we did anything that violated their drug policy.

      I’m against welfare drug testing because it’s a false solution.

      First thing to acknowledge that the welfare system itself is built on theft. The state points a gun at your or your employer and tells them to pay X into the welfare system and if you dont the state throws you into a cage.

      Systems built on force are corrupt at the root and by default cannot be reformed. The only solution to such systems to dismantle them and allow charities to take over. With all the Rex Ryan like bluster from conservatives who want liberty, drug testing is just them attempting to fool people that they’re actually doing something about it when reality it’s keeping the beast alive without really saying it.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:52 AM

      Because food is kind of important. And if you haven’t figure out from the whole Ryan Braun piss test scenario, nothing is really conclusive regarding the chemical compounds found in urine.

      Mostly, though, see how the Florida drug test for welfare system is going. That state spends more money on the program than it saves. All done to vilify people who need help.

      Tell you what. Next time you need a hand up, how about I give you a big, fat middle finger instead?

      • asimonetti88 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:22 AM

        “All done to vilify people who need help.”

        This is the attitude I don’t understand. I just don’t see how it is vilifying anyone. When my private employer asked me to take a drug test, I did not see it as vilifying me. I knew I would pass as I stopped using drugs a long time ago, but I did not see it as demeaning or vilifying or accusatory. I just saw it as my company ensuring that their investment was not going to waste. I see it as the same thing for welfare recipients.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:48 AM

        I’ve been on welfare. It wasn’t a choice for me. I had already invested in welfare both via my payroll taxes, personal income taxes, and since I ran my own business, franchise and business property taxes. Your suggestion that I should have to prove my worth for any emergency assistance already paid for by me in order to do stuff like eat and buy gas for my car is short-sighted.

        I didn’t get food stamps until I had less than $20 to my name. Telling me to piss in a cup in order to eat because I may be a bad person and, therefore, unqualified for a meal is indeed Vilification.

      • skids003 - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:40 PM

        Koufax, I’m sorry that happened to you. You seem to be the kind of person who does this as a last resort, and seems to have trouble getting help when needed. That is a point I was trying make in an earlier post. It seems that people who truly need help can’t get it, and others defraud the system. I’ve seen it first hand and frankly, it needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, I don’t think it ever will, too much politics in it.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 31, 2013 at 4:35 PM

        I appreciate the sentiment, Skids. What’s important to remember is that, given the opportunity to make life better for themselves, most folks will take it and go. Education and encouragement, both being sissified in my lifetime, are the keys to self-importance, which is the key to self-improvement. The best way to beat back the Welfare Queens is to encourage (and show) them that there is more to life than depositing a check.

        I can see the frustration with having to pay something and getting nothing in return, or, worse, watching it being wasted. But there just isn’t a spigot to turn off, you know?

      • asimonetti88 - Jul 31, 2013 at 3:42 PM

        “Telling me to piss in a cup in order to eat because I may be a bad person and, therefore, unqualified for a meal is indeed Vilification.”

        It just seems like a matter of perspective to me. I could say that likewise for obtaining a job in the private sector. People obtain jobs for the same reasons people obtain welfare- “to do stuff like eat and buy gas for [their] car”.

        To me, as someone who in the past used drugs and alcohol in excess, it comes down to a choice between using and pursuing a successful life. This is the reason we administer drug tests in the private sector- to see if someone is willing to commit to the company and the job over using/abusing drugs. I don’t see why it should be any different on welfare. There are other conditions to welfare- you need to search for or train for work, etc. You are required to prove these things as well.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 31, 2013 at 4:12 PM

        Welfare is a safety net. Welfare is not a bonus. Welfare is not free. I have paid my taxes and, when put in a bad position (losing my business which was my livelihood for about a decade) I expected to be able to uncork my investment.

        I did not pay my investment into welfare for only myself. I do not expect people like you to make me accountable to them. It is, quite frankly, ridiculous to expect other people to respond the same way as you might.

        I do not expect you to change your opinion about people on welfare. I expect people like you to realize that many people end up in precarious situations that require assistance. That doesn’t make them bad people.

        Also, and this is a big point, the US Government is not a company. I’m just not sure how else to point that out. There is no correlation between what a company does and what a country does.

        But let’s have people starve in the streets. We already have placed the mentally ill out there, now we can punish more because, unlike you, they smoke some weed while unemployed. The shock and horror of it all.

      • asimonetti88 - Jul 31, 2013 at 4:22 PM

        I think you’re grossly mischaracterizing my position, but whatever. I do not in any way think drug use is epidemic among welfare recipients, just like I do not think it is epidemic among the workforce.

        I just feel that there should be certain requirements for receiving welfare, just as I believe there should be certain requirements for earning a job. I personally believe that being free of illegal drug use should be a requirement for receiving welfare, just as it should be for earning a job.

        I do not know the full requirements and such of this clause, but I know that searching for or receiving training for work is required to receive certain types of government assistance. There is documentation that is required to prove that yes, you are doing this. I don’t see the difference between this and drug testing. Is it vilifying welfare recipients to require them to prove they are seeking for work?

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 31, 2013 at 4:40 PM

        It’s possible I missed your point, but pissing in a cup isn’t 100% accurate of what’s going on with the person.

        And this point’s been made numerous times: There is such a thing as corporate welfare, and none of these plans to drug test welfare recipients happens to include testing the folks who own the corporations that get these amazing deals from the US Government. I’m looking at GoldmanSachs and WellsFargo and BP and all those yahoos who have made our lives worse. These companies are who should be under a microscope, not families struggling to survive.

      • asimonetti88 - Jul 31, 2013 at 4:43 PM

        I personally do not believe in corporate welfare. I think it should be eliminated. However, that is a separate discussion.

      • courageousdeer - Jul 31, 2013 at 7:48 PM

        Skids, you just proved Koufax’s point for him. (As a lifelong Giants fan, it pains me a little to praise anyone connected with the name Koufax.) “People who truly need help can’t get it, and others defraud the system. I’ve seen it first hand and frankly, it needs to be fixed.” I’ve heard/read this argument many times, from people who are outraged at the unfairness of seeing someone living it up on the public dime while they are working hard, following the rules, and doing less well than they think the welfare frauds are doing. Problem is, there is no hard data to back up that emotional response. For every unabashed cheat you see buying expensive steaks with their welfare takings, how many hundreds do you NOT see, the ones who are so ashamed to be on public assistance that they do everything they can to hide it even from their own families? Even worse are the politicians who use this “problem” to whip the masses into a righteous frenzy because nobody will publicly defend “cheating” welfare recipients. Who gets punished? The ones who need it most, who can’t get by this month without it.

        With any publicly funded program, there will be waste and there will be those who try to game the system for their own benefit. It’s part of the cost of setting up these programs. You will never eliminate 100% of the waste. And if you try, you punish the very people who need help the most. I’d much rather have my tax money used as a safety net for those who need it most than for corporate bailouts, subsidies to politically favored industries, or weapons designed to kill people and will inevitably be used as intended.

      • skids003 - Aug 1, 2013 at 2:22 PM

        I didn’t know I was arguing with Koufax?

    • American of African Descent - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:03 AM

      I agree with you, that we don’t want to subsidize drug users. But in reality, the drug tests are more expensive to administer than the money saved by kicking drug-using welfare recipients off the dole. In other words, given that the super majority of people test negative, it’s cheaper to let a few drug users collect welfare than to drug test everyone.

    • largebill - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:11 AM

      Problem with drug testing for welfare is it would be just another a waste of money. The testing system is not free. Also, knowing how government works and grows we would quickly have a massive bureaucracy to administer the drug testing system. No, just end ALL government handouts. Charity should be from individuals and be voluntary.

      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:31 AM

        Except that doesn’t work. Before LBJ introduced broader welfare programs the number of elderly and disabled people living in poverty was appalling. They still don’t live large on these programs now, but it’s something. History has shown us that private charity is insufficient to address the inequities our economic system creates.

      • buggieowens - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:30 AM

        To add to Historio’s comments,
        that voluntary charity thing was tried out when the Great Depression started (before FDR came into office). How did that work out?

    • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:27 PM

      I’m really kinda horrified by all the people who seem really cool with just tossing the 4th Amendment. The Constitution says they need a reason for searches. Sheesh. Why doesn’t anyone get in a huff about intrusive government on this one? On principle, it’s a problem (& that’s not even the practical issues).

  15. dirtyharry1971 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:43 AM

    I do agree with the guy that people on welfare should be drug tested but it could have been said much better and it shouldn’t be coming from a overpayed crybaby professional ballplayer

    • cur68 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:46 AM

      There. We agree on something. It had to happen sooner or later.

      • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:51 AM

        I’m loading up on medication, the world is ending.

        All that’s next is for Barry and Gator to agree on something and the axis of the Earth shall be broken.

      • cur68 - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:09 AM

        In point of fact, blue, I only agree with about half of what he said. The last part about crybaby rich athletes. The bit about drug testing? Well, if you read the comments on this post that provide actual numbers and references for the value of drug testing welfare recipients you’ll see that its damn near useless to do so. Most welfare recipients, the vast majority, are not on drugs at all. How about that?

      • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:15 AM

        Shutting my medication cabinet now. Thanks for clarifying!

      • IdahoMariner - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:58 AM

        cur – glad you clarified. I was totally confused for a second there. now it makes sense.

  16. anotheryx - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:44 AM

    He has a comeback for you:
    Since he is rich, you cannot destroy him, because Lincoln said so… Or something like that.

    • blabidibla - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:53 AM

      • anotheryx - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:58 AM

        I know that obviously :p
        That’s just what 209 said.
        Note: It is so nice that I don’t have to look up to top of the page to find out what area code he is from, as he is kind enough to put it in his twitter handle.

  17. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

    The main problem with welfare drug testing isn’t philosophical; it is economics. The state would pay more in administering the tests than it would save by excluding those who tested positive.

    Also, drugs are cheap. I am not terribly offended if someone receiving welfare, and presumably going through a tough time in life, smokes pot on the weekend to try to have a little fun. “Welfare recipient” does not equal priest or convict in my mind, so I don’t know why they should be held to a higher moral standard than the rest of us.

    If anyone is keen on drug testing welfare recipients, think about diverting those resources to an infrastructure project instead. What the welfare recipient needs is a job, not an extra kick to his pride. And remember, there, but for the grace of God, go us all.

    • chill1184 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:53 AM

      ““Welfare recipient” does not equal priest or convict in my mind, so I don’t know why they should be held to a higher moral standard than the rest of us. ”

      People want to attack the individual instead of attacking the corrupt system that put them their in the first place.

      • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:43 AM

        So which system would you prefer then?

    • blabidibla - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:58 AM

      Exactly. And it’s not even close. In Florida, only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed. 2.6% Most for marijuana.

      The numbers show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

      The state’s net loss? $45,780.

      That’s not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy.

      The law also didn’t impact the number of people who applied for benefits.

  18. beaglemix - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:46 AM

    dallas braden who?

  19. barrywhererufrom - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:51 AM

    Before you hate get some facts. Braden grew up poor. He bounced around with family members. He must.of.saw the abuse.of the welfare system up close. Unlike the libtards on this post he has experience living that life. What is wrong with people being held responsible for getting money from us the taxpayer? Braden is 100%.correct. Would you want them to use their welfare money for drugs?.give me.a break. Finally Braden earned.his.contract. Unlike so many americans he actually did something to earn his contract. To equate his situation is just plain stupid and i expect nothing else.from.craig

    • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:54 AM

      Jesus…. The guy who doesn’t believe a birth certificate demands we all get the facts. And the real facts, not those fake facts.

      Right, BarryBondsIsFromRiverside. Like you’re credible.

      • barrywhererufrom - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM

        for the last time koufaxthefool Obama was born in the can’t refute my point so you play the pointless game of speaking of my screen name when you have no idea what it means. You jump to conclusions like some many other leftists who think they know it all. Again speak about my post. Where did Braden grow up? Is the welfare system rife with abuse from people who are on drugs? Finally did Braden earn the money that his accruing because of a contract that he and the A’s entered into voluntarily? Of course you can’t argue you make up the 1% and buy into the BS arguments..enough be a freaking man and not go home and bite a pillow..

      • cohnjusack - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:23 AM

        Is the welfare system rife with abuse from people who are on drugs?

        Is it?–positive-results-252458

        “TALLAHASSEE – Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

        Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free — leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

        The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott’s arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs”

        So yeah…2%. In other words Barry, you are happy to spend millions of dollars in order make sure a few people don’t get thousands of dollars. This has nothing to do with money or people wouldn’t do it, it has everything to do with hurting poor people.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:25 AM

        You want a debate?


        I don’t debate fear mongering liars. You get what you deserve.

      • 18thstreet - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:33 AM

        So change your username, you tool.

    • chill1184 - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:59 AM

      “What is wrong with people being held responsible for getting money from us the taxpayer? ”


      Or those who advocate drug testing should actually instead propose a real solution the welfare issue and elimination welfare itself. Drug testing is a false solution and a band aid to a problem that requires surgery.

    • cohnjusack - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:18 AM

      What is wrong with people being held responsible for getting money from us the taxpayer?

      I love the implication you’re giving as though you only pay taxes but receive no benefit. As I is is likely that I pay more in taxes than you (high salary, no kids to deduct), I feel it’s only fair that I submit you to a drug test before I continue to provide you with police protection, roads to drive on, education for your kids and someone to pick up your garbage. I mean, I don’t want my hard earned tax dollars to go to a garbage man taking away all your needles and crack pipes. Since you make less than me, certainly you have to be held responsible to me, right? After all, I’m only using your own logic here.

    • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:43 AM

      So, you’re saying that Braden’s family is full of drug addicts on welfare and that’s how he knows? What?

      • barrywhererufrom - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:04 AM

        What i am saying is that he saw the abuse. the story of his life showed the poverty that braden lived in. If you think welfare abuse was not he was growing up you are only fooling yourself..

      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:32 AM

        How is pee testing supposed to stop that?

        FYI, I don’t think it’s as bad as you suppose — and just to horrify you: I don’t care if there is.

    • buggieowens - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:34 AM

      As a “libtard,” who lived “that life,” I can definitively state that you are ignorant.

  20. hdhuntercbc - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:53 AM

    Considering that Welfare checks are tax payer’s money and his salary is being paid by the private owners of the organization, he has every right to make that comparison. You are forgetting that he worked hard to get where he is and didn’t sit on his ass while someone handed him a check. The welfare system is a broken system and needs to be changed, just like the healthcare system. Welfare was instituted during the Roosevelt era and is over 80 years old. Times have changed and todays’ life is certainly different than in the 1930s. It’s not Dallas’s fault that he got hurt and certainly he is entitled to the money that he signed for at the time. Ease up Craig, you are comparing 2 completely separate worlds.

    • chill1184 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:02 AM

      “The welfare system is a broken system and needs to be changed, just like the healthcare system.”

      The change that the welfare system needs is elimination, you cant reform a system based on dishonesty and force.

      As for healthcare the solution to that is to get the state out of it.

      • largebill - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:14 AM


        For some reason website would only let me like your post once. You are 100% correct.

    • cohnjusack - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:12 AM

      First off moron (and yes, you have obviously shown that is what you are):

      91% of people on welfare on either elderly, disabled or have jobs.

      So please, go up to someone raising two kids and working and tell them they are “sitting on their ass”. I will enjoy watching the inevitable punch in the face you fucking asshole.

      Sorry, did that sound rude? I’m am just returning as much respect as you gave every poor person in your doucebag post.

      • 18thstreet - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:37 AM

        I’m not sure what “welfare” is in this conversation. There’s a program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children. There’s food stamps, which officially has a longer and more complex name. There’s public schools and public hospitals. There’s a law that guarantees anyone who goes to the ER will be treated. There’s Medicaid for the poor and the disabled and for nursing home care. And Medicare for the old. And Social Security for the old and certain kinds of disabled children. And farm subsidies. And accelerated depreciation schedules. And detectability of health insurance and mortgage interest and student loans.

        What’s “welfare,” exactly? Because there’s literally no program called that.

      • hdhuntercbc - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:48 PM

        Go work in the welfare system for a few years and then come back with your made up stat of 91%. Please, knowing you that came from some liberal website pushing out a stat that has never been accurately measure by one person or organization. Let me guess, they sent out questionnaires to each individual or family to accurately account for every dollar spent and justified it. I have witness first hand how many people take advantage of this system in place and the truth is, if you can some how get it for free then why not. And the “have jobs” comment is based on the fact that they went out, got hired and work for 1 month and quit b/c of some bullsh*t reason only to begin collecting again. I have work it and live it and know exactly how this system works.
        On a side note, there are honest people that use the system to help themselves get out of welfare, but from my experiences it is a small percentage.

        And it’s spelled DOUCHEBAG.

  21. chacochicken - Jul 31, 2013 at 9:57 AM

    On behalf of leeches, ticks, lice, intestinal worms, and various other parasites, we will be filling a libel suit against one Dallas Braden formerly of the Oakland Athletics. Said parasites are tired of being used as derogatory terms in a literal or metaphorical sense. Please cease and desist.
    Besides, poor people are way worse than parasites and they’re all getting huge welfare checks like some sort of terrifying bogeyman.

  22. tbutler704 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:04 AM

    Another right wing jerk. Big deal.

  23. bcwildcat24 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:06 AM

    This is why Fox News is bad for you. It has clearly warped his fragile little mind.

    • barrywhererufrom - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:13 AM

      BCWILDCAT..MSNBC is good for nothing but parroting the BS coming from the BO adminstration..IRS scandal, NSA scandal, Benghazi all Fox News stories that they broke. I know to you they are just phoney scandals because MSNLSD and Obama said so..go back to your cave!

      • cohnjusack - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:27 AM

        IRS Scandal: OOPS! Turns out they weren’t selectively targeting conservative groups. Check some news updates on that one.

        NSA Scandal: Fox News Broke this? Because I’m 100% sure it was Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian.

        Benghazi: Still not sure what the scandal is here. That they covered it up….so they could look kind of stupid for not knowing what was going on?

      • 18thstreet - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:38 AM

        His cave gets MSNBC? Weird.

      • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:22 AM

        cohn, I’m usually with you, but the IRS thing is absolutely a scandalous thing that may have afftected an election. They’ve admitted to targeting conservative groups in a large majority over liberal groups and were ordered to do so. Problem is finding out who should be holding the bag. As far as the press thing goes, they get what they deserve. They’ve been lazy in fawning over this president for too long.

        I don’t care which news entertainment product you choose, they’re all really run by Hollywood.

        And as far as this president goes, he’s either devious or an idiot with devious people around him. That much is clear.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:14 PM

        They’ve admitted to targeting conservative groups in a large majority over liberal groups and were ordered to do so.

        They targeted both lib and cons based groups, they were specifically asked to by a House Committee (rep dominated), and something like 99% of the groups kept/received their tax exempt status.

        So what’s the “scandal” again?

      • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:46 PM

        “They’ve admitted to targeting conservative groups in a large majority over liberal groups and were ordered to do so”

        Be truthful, I was, you know damn well the majority of the groups refused Tax status were of a conservative nature. People don’t get fired, Lehner doesn’t take the fifth, and problems aren’t acknowledged where there’s no smoke.

        Better yet, last time I checked, the “rogue” agents who were accused of being the spearheads of the whole thing are going in front of Congress shortly to direct them to the IRS building in DC .

        You know why I follow this one? Because they’re about to hire 16,000 more people if the health care plan goes through. With that much dysfunction in that arm of the government as is, do you want them hiring another 16,000?!? A part of the government that is so easily corruptable?

        C’mon church, I know you’re smarter than this.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:02 PM

        groups refused Tax status were of a conservative nature.

        Except they weren’t refused. Yes they were targeted, but only a couple weren’t given tax exempt status, when honestly, many of them shouldn’t have. So they were targeted, and again, it was under the direction of the House to do so.

      • skids003 - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:27 PM

        heyblue, you are wasting your breath. These folks worship at the alter of Liberalism and the current administration. They’d jump off a cliff if they were told to.

      • asimonetti88 - Jul 31, 2013 at 3:55 PM

        So what if they targeted both liberal and conservative groups. Shouldn’t they be targeting no one?

      • thumper001 - Jul 31, 2013 at 8:07 PM

        The IRS scandal? hahahaha

        The manager responsible for that hot-mess is a self-identified conservative republican and they targeted as many liberal groups as conservative. And then, look at the actual groups “hit”, as opposed to targeted.

        But, in general, when as a collective group, you send out millions of chain emails telling “friends” how to create the “Little Church in the Valley” to get fraudulent 501c rulings for families and friends to avoid paying taxes, YOU may want to expect at some point that somebody is coming for straight for YOUR head.

        And the same goes for chain EMails informing “friends” that some major “right thinking” financial guru has found a major loophole that allows “friends” to offshore millions of dollars without filing the required treasury notices; you may want to learn to DUCK and COVER, at some point, instead of getting paranoid that the black helicopters are coming for you unjustly.

        And don’t even ask about the lady in the Philippines with the bad dental work, that the aliens used to tell her where to find super secret, high-value, rarely known, and off-book US treasury notes, which have been buried in a cave since 1813, and you too, can own a share of $419 trillion if only you will file common law claims against the US government to recover its true value. You just may want to invest in some kevlar underpanties to protect what you just exposed…

        Today’s Infomercial brought to you by the UsedToBeFreeMen. Busting rocks in the red hot sun since 1998. “We fought the law, and the law won”.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 31, 2013 at 8:34 PM

        So what if they targeted both liberal and conservative groups. Shouldn’t they be targeting no one?

        [it’s possible]They targeted groups that were trying to get tax exempt status that had no business having tax exempt status. Maybe it’s simply correlation, but tax exempt status places aren’t supposed to be politically biased (like churches). If you find you are, you can lose it.

        So that’s a possible reason why the IRS targeted places with “tea party” in the name, knowing they weren’t politically neutral.

    • bcwildcat24 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:41 AM

      barrywhereufrom….here’s the difference. Faux News claims to be fair and balanced. When they are only Fair and balanced if you agree with their warped views. MSNBC has called out Obama for things that went wrong. When’s the last time Fox called out Bush? Never happened, they’ve just convinced everyone the “liberal media” made Bush out to be a bad president (even though we went from a surplus to a debt under him. Check the facts) Btw, if you were the IRS, wouldn’t you want to call out the Tea party groups too? Seeing as how they’re named after a group that willingly didn’t pay taxes. You’d think the IRS wouldn’t want to look into them?! I could have a license plate that says “PtSmoker” and I could expect to get pulled over every now and then. @cohnjusack, the Beghazi thing is just their way of expressing outrage over everything bad that happened under our current president. They conveniently forget that embassies were attacked 13 times under Bush. Oh yeah, and there was 9/11 too, which happened after Bush ignored intel that summer warning of the attack. Maybe you’re the one who should go back to your cave.

      • barrywhererufrom - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:08 AM

        Cohn head what are talking about? The last testimony that occureed from the head of the dc office stated that conservative groups only were targeted. Guess you missed that on msnlsd

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:17 PM

        Cohn head what are talking about? The last testimony that occureed from the head of the dc office stated that conservative groups only were targeted. Guess you missed that on msnlsd

  24. cohnjusack - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:07 AM

    First off Dallas, it cost of drug testing welfare recipients faaaaaar outweighs the savings of kicking those who test positive off welfare.

    Second…you want to a lazy welfare slob? My father. He had 7 kids and ran a farm by himself. He didn’t earn enough farming to provide for all 7 kids, so we grew up on Food Stamps. Where are those 7 kids now? Well, he ended up with 7 college graduates (all of whom went on that free loading financial aid stuff): 2 are teachers, one(me) is a software developer, one is an associate physics professor, a physical therapy assistant, one makes six-figures working at Cisco and one is just a stay at home mom. But you’re right…we obviously should have been drug tested because we were all a bunch of no-good free loaders who only take from society.

    In summary, fuck you Dallas Braden.

    • js20011041 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:25 AM

      While I’m glad that things turned out well for you and your family, if your dad couldn’t support 7 kids, he should have kept his dick in his pants. A bigger problem, by far, than drug use among welfare recipients is reproduction. If you can’t support a kid without assistance, don’t have one. We shouldn’t be turning kids into paychecks.

      • cohnjusack - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM

        Hi asshole,

        I know you’re a dumbass and probably didn’t think terribly far ahead when writing this, but I’ll be patient and explain some circumstances to you. Ready?

        1. I had a mom too. She was blue collar, working at a local factory that made car dashboards or some shit. She died when I was two of ovarian cancer, thus roughly halving our family income.

        2. My father thought it would be rude to sell his children to the highest bidder.

        I’m not saying this as a sob story. I’m saying this because this is how people end up on welfare. Shit happens, a safety net is there for a reason. This story is probably not unfamiliar to a staggering number of people on welfare. People have the image of a welfare recipient as a lazy person eating potato chips and watching Maury Povich all day. I guarantee you that makes up a tiny, tiny percentage of actual recipients.

      • js20011041 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:49 AM

        Howdy fuckface.

        I’m sorry to hear about your mom. Regardless of your circumstances, my point still stands. Having SEVEN kids without a substantial income is irresponsible. I agree that there should be a safety net. But abuse of the system is more pervasive than you give credit for. A large part of that abuse is by supporting people that have kids WHILE ON welfare. We’ve created a culture in which reproduction is a substitute for employment. That needs to stop.

      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:49 AM

        So you support making free birth control available to the poor? Or, do you mean that sex is only for rich people?

      • js20011041 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:58 AM


        Actually, yes I do. I support free birth control and sterilization for the poor. And please let me clarify poor. When I say poor, I don’t mean broke. There’s a difference between poor and broke. Broke people are going through a rough patch in their life. Lot’s of Americans are broke. If you have spent any time around poor people, and I mean dirt poor, then you begin to realize that they are in that state for a reason. They aren’t actually capable of doing better for themselves. These are the last people in the world that need to be breeding. So, yes. A little money now, in terms of birth control and sterilization, saves a ton of money in unused welfare later.

      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35 AM

        Seriously, sterilizing the poor? That’s barbaric.

      • js20011041 - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:49 AM

        Not forceful sterilization, although I can’t deny that the world would be a better place for it. Voluntary. I’m in favor of throwing a few thousands dollars at welfare recipients that are willing to be sterilized. It’s win-win. They don’t have any more kids that they can’t support. As a country, we support fewer people on welfare. You also have to consider the fact that we would almost assuredly see a drop in crime about 20 years after implementation of such a program, such as was seen after Roe v. Wade.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:00 PM

        Thank goodness that’s not forceful sterilzation. That way, we can blame, say, your mom for not sewing up her uterus so as to, I don’t know, save us from having to hear you wax philosophic about somebody else’s dad.

        Surprise! I’m with Cohn when I suggest you go fuck yourself silly, Dbag.

    • stlouis1baseball - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:54 AM

      So the two teachers and associate physics professor rubbed off on you huh?
      It explains a great deal to me (from a political standpoint). Lol!

      Just joking Cusack.
      Trying to bring some levity to a very tense board.

  25. mrmcl - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:08 AM

    Braden is decrying the “leeches” on the system, not those going through a rough patch in need of help (e.g. those with extenuating circumstances). I too am anti-leech; in a word, they suck.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Baez (2355)
  2. B. Crawford (2284)
  3. H. Pence (2240)
  4. A. Rodriguez (2220)
  5. B. Harper (2167)