Should We Drug Test Welfare Recipients?

[Athena]

Seattle Representative calls for testing (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/285070_mcgavick14.html)

Michigan actually passed a law implementing testing, but it was struck down (http://www.lindesmith.org/news/04_09_03michigan.cfm)

A lawmaker in Baltimore wants to see it happen (http://www.examiner.com/a-1240190~Bill_calls_for_drug_tests_for_welfare_reci pients.html)

The ACLU's take (and lots of info, albeit outdated, about these programs across the nation) (http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/10757res20030415.html)

McGavick's plan, in a nutshell:


"This proposal says, we're going to test and then mandate treatment to help the adults kick their addiction for the sake of the children. Then, we're going to test again to make sure treatment is working."

McGavick's plan says that if recipients refuse treatment, cash benefits would be redirected from the parents to a third party. Continued refusal to accept treatment or repeated drug-test failures by the parents would result in removal of children from the home.

Personally, I don't take issue with such a plan from a constitutional standpoint. I believe that people who utilize state assistance ought to be waiving certain rights. I realize that our Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure and that this would generally qualify. However, it's a reasonable requirement.

That being said, I'm concerned about the cost effectiveness of such a program. Would we be simply taking on another expense? With McGavick's plan, we wouldn't terminate benefits, instead, reroute them to a third party. Also, we would mandate state-sponsored treatment and, if that doesn't work, we'd then take the children from the home, further burdening an already overwhelmed foster care system. Doesn't sound very cost-effective, to me. Besides, unless the testing is random and supervised, it's WAY too easy to dupe. In which case, we'd be testing hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients at a rough cost of $30/test (including admin. costs) with a minimal return. Not cool.

What's your take? Is testing welfare recipients the right thing to do, or do you find it morally or legally objectible?

[TXChris]

If we (the government using OUR money) are giving them money then they should abide by whatever terms are given. Hell, if you want to borrow money there are always terms and conditions to abide by. In this case they're getting the "money" free, so hell yeah, they should expect conditions. Unfortunately, I agree that it would cost us a lot more in the short AND long terms. The idea creates more beaurecracy which entails more costs which gives lobbying groups even more of a chance of getting laws created in their favor. Bah! Once again, I say, don't give 'em money. Giving one something, without requiring something in return (especially hard work) only enables that person to continue on the course they are on. Sure, some people take the opportunity to do for themselves...but, be real. How many does that really come out to? There are way too many who continue to live off the system.

[CPL CHUD]

I'd be for it if they forever terminated all governmental aid to these people if they ever tested positive for any type of drug. No rerouting funds, no state sponsored therapy, no chance to use taxpayer money to pay for their addiction, nothing. They get stomped out of the system. Period. With recurring drug abuse rates so high it's the only way to ensure a more even scale of distribution to the honest hard working families that have fallen on hard times without creating pads for the husslers. And the drug tests should be done at random times and as many times as the state wants to filter out the cheaters.

[TXChris]

I'd be for it if they forever terminated all governmental aid to these people if they ever tested positive for any type of drug. No rerouting funds, no state sponsored therapy, no chance to use taxpayer money to pay for their addiction, nothing. They get stomped out of the system. Period. With recurring drug abuse rates so high it's the only way to ensure a more even scale of distribution to the honest hard working families that have fallen on hard times without creating pads for the husslers. And the drug tests should be done at random times and as many times as the state wants to filter out the cheaters.

Two things worry me about that. I almost said the same thing about the drug testing, but then I had to reconsider because of just how easily the tests are to thwart. Now, I've never done drugs before but have many friends who have and they have never had a problem getting through a drug test. So, in that respect, it would be a big waste of money.

The second thing that bothers me is your statement "....to ensure a more even scale of distribution to the honest hard working families that have fallen on hard times....". I hope that you mean that in regards to the fact that we are already giving money away, hand over first, so why not make sure that the ones getting it would us it wiser. When I first read it I figured you might be saying that people who come on hard times deserve or have a right to government handouts. In that case, I would disagree with you vehemently. Our government has no right to rob from us, with the threat of prison, only to give the money to those who, for whatever reason, cannot seem to get to an arbitrary level our government has set. There are charities and private help programs, and let's not forget FAMILY, set up to take care of these people. It's just easier and less embarrassing, not to mention they can get more money, using the government.

[Raq me darkly]

I would have to agree with the thought that if you are going to be receiving from the dole, you need to abide by certain rules. TANSTAFL

While we are at it, several states have legislation that if you are in public housing and a family member who resides with you is arrested for drug use, you are evicted. I found this ironic as "technically" a governor's mansion is "public housing" (we pay for it, don't we? Far as I know, governors don't pay rent) so why wasn't Jeb Bush evicted when his daughter was convicted of a drug felony (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/29/jeb.bush.daughter.drugs/)?

[Athena]

Two things worry me about that. I almost said the same thing about the drug testing, but then I had to reconsider because of just how easily the tests are to thwart. Now, I've never done drugs before but have many friends who have and they have never had a problem getting through a drug test. So, in that respect, it would be a big waste of money.

Not if, as I stated, the tests were random and supervised. In other words, not an initial qualification for assistance, but looming overhead, possible at any point. If we mandated that they show up to the office to get their monthly benefits, we could swoop them into a bathroom at random intervals. Of course, most drug users would be smart enough to simply not use around the time period of the monthly appointment, but addicts would likely fail, and they're the biggest threat, anyway.

[Athena]

While we are at it, several states have legislation that if you are in public housing and a family member who resides with you is arrested for drug use, you are evicted. I found this ironic as "technically" a governor's mansion is "public housing" (we pay for it, don't we? Far as I know, governors don't pay rent) so why wasn't Jeb Bush evicted when his daughter was convicted of a drug felony (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/29/jeb.bush.daughter.drugs/)?

Ahhh...Selective application, the vice of more than a few government policies. :p

[TXChris]

Most casual users, I am willing to bet, become addicts so what you are suggesting still doesn't make me smile. And, even if they aren't addicts, I don't want people who are using drugs to be getting my money. Not that I have anything against drugs, in particular, but it's my money and if I'm going to give it to someone then it's going to be someone who has their shit in order and isn't wasting money they could be using to better themselves on any drugs.

[Athena]

Most casual users do not become addicts. :p We'd have a country FULL of addicts, if that were the case, as most people have used drugs recreationally at some point in their lives. Furthermore, many drugs are not physically addictive. This list includes popular drugs such as weed, acid, mushrooms and ecstasy (MDMA).

And, I agree, drug users of any sort should not qualify for assistance. This ought to include smokers and drinkers. However, we can only reasonably verify use in what I would imagine to be a relatively small percentage of cases.

[Rotten Apple]

Personally, I think all welfare recipients should be tested for mental and physical disabilities.

If they have no mental or physical disabilities that would keep them from working, then unless they are holding some sort of job or actively seeking one, they should not be allowed to collect.

After we weed those out, THEN we can start the drug testing.

[TXChris]

Most casual users do not become addicts. :p We'd have a country FULL of addicts, if that were the case, as most people have used drugs recreationally at some point in their lives. Furthermore, many drugs are not physically addictive. This list includes popular drugs such as weed, acid, mushrooms and ecstasy (MDMA).

And, I agree, drug users of any sort should not qualify for assistance. This ought to include smokers and drinkers. However, we can only reasonably verify use in what I would imagine to be a relatively small percentage of cases.

Exactly. We can only reasonably verify use in a relatively small percentage of cases. So, what you are saying is that you are more than willing to implement a huge umbrella policy that you know, in advance, will only work to curtail very little waste in the government spending? Nope. I just cannot accept that. I say we get rid of it completely. This is said especially in consideration of the amount of money it would take to run such a program and the increase in government size that would be required, not to mention the amount of waste that would come.

If people have no choice but to fend for themselves then they will. Those that choose not to, well, I have no worry about them. Of course this is a blanket generalization, but it's more true than not once people are given money, food, and housing. Giving them these things only enables them to continue doing nothing productive. I am willing to bet that the number of teenage pregnancies, and pregnancies involving those unable to care for the children, would be a lot less than they currently are if the "parents" had to actually support those children themselves. As long as they have others willing to pay their way then there is no incentive to be more cautious.

All that being said, I'll probably catch hell for this next statement, but I don't really see that our government should feel any responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves...the mentally disabled, etc. I'm not trying to sound harsh here, but let's be realistic about what's actually happening. We are being forced, once again by penalty of prison, to support them. Now, I don't have a problem contributing to charity, etc., but I expect to be able to contribute to a charity whose cause I believe in. And it may be a charity that helps those who cannot help themselves and it may not, but that should be my choice. Once government imposes its will upon me by taking my money and giving it to whomever it likes there is no more morality. They are morally wrong by taking it from me in the first place.

[TXChris]

Most casual users do not become addicts. :p

You're correct. I shouldn't have used the term "addicts." What I was getting at was that most who feel the need to try drugs continue to use them to some extent. Whether that be once a day, week, or year they do, in fact, use them. Even if they only use them for a few weeks or years and then stop, that's still no good if they're getting my money, as far as I'm concerned. ;)

[Mom of 4]

Personally, I think all welfare recipients should be tested for mental and physical disabilities.

If they have no mental or physical disabilities that would keep them from working, then unless they are holding some sort of job or actively seeking one, they should not be allowed to collect.

After we weed those out, THEN we can start the drug testing.


We attempted that here in Ontario and I applauded it. I don't really include single moms who have children that are younger than school age in this though. Our minimum wage is too low here for a single mom to pay a babysitter or daycare provider and still put a roof over her head. Once the kids are off to school however there is no good reason that anyone who is mental and physically healthy shouldn't be working to pay the bills. Welfare should be there for those that need it of course but being lazy doesn't equate to needing it.

I would absolutely support drug testing as well. The money they receive is suppose to help them maintain a basic standard of living. It should pay for housing, food, clothing and of course their children. If they are using that money to buy drugs then it's not being used for what it was intended for and they don't deserve it.

[Athena]

Exactly. We can only reasonably verify use in a relatively small percentage of cases. So, what you are saying is that you are more than willing to implement a huge umbrella policy that you know, in advance, will only work to curtail very little waste in the government spending? Nope. I just cannot accept that. I say we get rid of it completely. This is said especially in consideration of the amount of money it would take to run such a program and the increase in government size that would be required, not to mention the amount of waste that would come.

Actually, it seems you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying at all. I said right off the bat that, unless the program can be cost effective (i.e. saves more than it costs), it is pointless and doesn't get my support. I then go on to point out that the system would not likely be cost effective, due to the limited number of violators it would catch.

But, hey...I get pinned with arguments I haven't made all the time, around here. I figured you'd jump on the bandwagon, eventually. I'm irresistable to disagree with...even if we agree, apparently. ;)


If people have no choice but to fend for themselves then they will. Those that choose not to, well, I have no worry about them. Of course this is a blanket generalization, but it's more true than not once people are given money, food, and housing. Giving them these things only enables them to continue doing nothing productive. I am willing to bet that the number of teenage pregnancies, and pregnancies involving those unable to care for the children, would be a lot less than they currently are if the "parents" had to actually support those children themselves. As long as they have others willing to pay their way then there is no incentive to be more cautious.

All that being said, I'll probably catch hell for this next statement, but I don't really see that our government should feel any responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves...the mentally disabled, etc. I'm not trying to sound harsh here, but let's be realistic about what's actually happening. We are being forced, once again by penalty of prison, to support them. Now, I don't have a problem contributing to charity, etc., but I expect to be able to contribute to a charity whose cause I believe in. And it may be a charity that helps those who cannot help themselves and it may not, but that should be my choice. Once government imposes its will upon me by taking my money and giving it to whomever it likes there is no more morality. They are morally wrong by taking it from me in the first place.

The concern with government welfare programs is, typically, the children involved. That's why having a child is the main qualifier with most government assistance. Not saying I agree with it, but most Americans want a guaranteed safety net for children and don't consider private charity to be guaranteed. While people like you and me would be prone to give even larger amounts to charity if the feds weren't talking X% out of our earnings for programs that don't even benefit us (for the most part), there are a lot of people in this world who don't give to charity at all, or who scale back when its needed the most. What if charity dried up to the point that children are dying of starvation? The average American doesn't want to live with that possibility, no matter how unlikely it may be, and they view welfare as a necessary evil.

As for other, handicapped and such...Eh. I say it should be decided by vote at the state level. I'll never be so hardlined as to suggest that taxes be entirely removed and replaced by donation. But I do believe people should be able to have a say. If state agencies still want to provide despite being turned down by popular vote, there are other ways to raise money.

That being said, most populations will vote in favor of welfare programs for the handicapped if given the opportunity.

[TXChris]

Actually, it seems you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying at all. I said right off the bat that, unless the program can be cost effective (i.e. saves more than it costs), it is pointless and doesn't get my support. I then go on to point out that the system would not likely be cost effective, due to the limited number of violators it would catch.

But, hey...I get pinned with arguments I haven't made all the time, around here. I figured you'd jump on the bandwagon, eventually. I'm irresistable to disagree with...even if we agree, apparently. ;)


No worries. I knew where you stood, I just wanted to argue your point here:


Not if, as I stated, the tests were random and supervised. In other words, not an initial qualification for assistance, but looming overhead, possible at any point. If we mandated that they show up to the office to get their monthly benefits, we could swoop them into a bathroom at random intervals. Of course, most drug users would be smart enough to simply not use around the time period of the monthly appointment, but addicts would likely fail, and they're the biggest threat, anyway.

Though I understand where you come from, based on your original post, I wanted to make a statement regarding any thinking that would take heart in your quote. You know, just in case someone wanted to bring that point up. :)




The concern with government welfare programs is, typically, the children involved. That's why having a child is the main qualifier with most government assistance. Not saying I agree with it, but most Americans want a guaranteed safety net for children and don't consider private charity to be guaranteed. While people like you and me would be prone to give even larger amounts to charity if the feds weren't talking X% out of our earnings for programs that don't even benefit us (for the most part), there are a lot of people in this world who don't give to charity at all, or who scale back when its needed the most. What if charity dried up to the point that children are dying of starvation? The average American doesn't want to live with that possibility, no matter how unlikely it may be, and they view welfare as a necessary evil.

Of course. But that is the basis for everything else I have said. If required to fend for themselves less people would be as careless as they currently are. At that point, those who do happen to find themselves in a less-than-favorable situation would have charities, etc. to count on as much as can be expected. It was the way things were as late as the early 1900s before the widespread government welfare we have to endure nowadays. We have to stop enabling the populace. Period. Anything else we do only continues to allow them to do what got them in the position they are in currently.

[Miss. Hill]

I see no problem with testing recipients, as long as they stop receiving benefits if they test positive. We do not need to implement any services for the people on drugs. People will abuse the new "I'm a drug addict system" which will allow them to continue collecting benefits which supply their drug problems at our cost.

I have seen a lot of people abuse the system 2 or 3 people living in the same residence claiming they live separately (like 123 West st apt 1, 2, & 3) to collect as much money as possible. People claiming mental illness when they are fine to ride out social services to graduate to disability all cause they are worthless scumbags unwilling to work. People working under different names and social security numbers while collecting welfare (seen a few of these people get caught and get a slap on the wrist). Unmarried couples who claim they are separated daddy works, mommy claims daddy isn't around collects welfare, heap, food stamps, wic all the while daddy does live there and they are not claiming his income, which is more than enough to live off of. Bullshit!

I get disgusted watching these people who could work that abuse the system they get heap, and food stamps, and money for sitting on their fat lazy asses while other people make minimum wage and struggle. I hate these people get a job, get 2, if you have kids it's harder I know I've been there.

I'm not against people using the system as a stepping stone during a difficult time and than moving on. It's the people who are life long leeches to the system that disgust me!

[Athena]

I've been cleaning up double posts after myself all day. I was hoping it was just me having problems. :p

[CPL CHUD]

Two things worry me about that. I almost said the same thing about the drug testing, but then I had to reconsider because of just how easily the tests are to thwart. Now, I've never done drugs before but have many friends who have and they have never had a problem getting through a drug test. So, in that respect, it would be a big waste of money.


Read my entire post, that's why I added that the drug tests should be totally random and done as many times as the state deems neccessary to filter out the cheaters. And if I could I would get rid of the entire welfare system, burn it to the ground, piss on the ashes, and laugh at all the lazy jerks that have been couch surfing on government funds for years. Too bad fantasy doesn't readily adhere to reality.

[CPL CHUD]

double posting probs

[TXChris]

For ethical and humane reasons we can't deny aid to those who wouldn't survive without welfare.

Sure we could. Real charities would pick up the slack and more would be donated by Americans because they're not being robbed by such high taxes. We're a very philanthropic country. More money in our pockets means more money to charitable causes. It wouldn't be any different than it was in the early 1900s except there would be more money to help those truly in need.

[impqueen]

Tourbot's message which was deleted while I was trying valiantly to fix the forum:

In my experience those on welfare have fallen into two groups. Those who have honestly fallen on hard times and remain on welfare for a short time. And the dregs of society who lack the initiative and intelligence to contribute to society. I would never hire them. Of course I'm painting in very broad strokes and there are exceptions.

The amount we spend on welfare is insignificant compared to what we spend on all other aspects of government. If we were to eliminate welfare these sub humans would most likely have little recourse than to turn to crime as survival regardless of the how it effects others seems to be the only tallent they have. For ethical and humane reasons we can't deny aid to those who wouldn't survive without welfare. All said I don't begrudge those who really need assistance and I'm resigned to pay extortion to those who would take what they want.

However I don't like the idea of spending tax dollars for welfare recipients to buy drugs. Each year we confiscate tons of marijuana , cocaine, heroin, crack, meth, etc. Just GIVE it to them and let them destroy themselves if that's what they want to do. At least then they wouldn't be selling or trading their foodstamps for drugs and maybe their kids would be able to get more than a meal or two a month.

[Dark Star]

Drug testing. Damn, I've always thought that so invasive. With getting jobs, I always hated drug testing. Not only do I smoke marijuana for health reasons, but I take other medications for Manic Depression, PTSD, Anxiety/Panic Disorder and a few more things. I always hated the fact that I had to make that other people's business.

Now, if I fucked up on the job, I can understand a drug test.

I guess I look at it the same way.... If folks are on welfare and their asses are looking hard for jobs, and they're doing their best. They smoke a joint....nope I don't think their welfare should be taken away.

Now if these fucks are collecting money, pissing around all day getting drunk or maybe getting into some Meth or Coke.....then fuck yeah. Let em do their drugs, but not at the expense of tax payers.

I know folks hate this, but I really do believe drugs should be legal for anyone over 21 years of age.....in your own home. You drive, you fuck up in public, then your ass is in trouble.

Law abiding citizens who do drugs or smoke marijuana....should be left alone. People who fuck up......they should be fucked with.

(As Swivel would say though, I lives in a bubble.....and goddammit I like it here):D

[Raq me darkly]

I like your bubble too, hippiepoet.

A friend of mine's sister did the welfare thing for a brief time - she was a single mother trying to finish her degree and only did welfare long enough to get things back on track. In my opinion, that's what goverment assistance is meant to be used to do, help you get things in line.

[TXChris]

Drug testing. Damn, I've always thought that so invasive. With getting jobs, I always hated drug testing. Not only do I smoke marijuana for health reasons, but I take other medications for Manic Depression, PTSD, Anxiety/Panic Disorder and a few more things. I always hated the fact that I had to make that other people's business.

Now, if I fucked up on the job, I can understand a drug test.

I guess I look at it the same way.... If folks are on welfare and their asses are looking hard for jobs, and they're doing their best. They smoke a joint....nope I don't think their welfare should be taken away.

Now if these fucks are collecting money, pissing around all day getting drunk or maybe getting into some Meth or Coke.....then fuck yeah. Let em do their drugs, but not at the expense of tax payers.

I know folks hate this, but I really do believe drugs should be legal for anyone over 21 years of age.....in your own home. You drive, you fuck up in public, then your ass is in trouble.

Law abiding citizens who do drugs or smoke marijuana....should be left alone. People who fuck up......they should be fucked with.

(As Swivel would say though, I lives in a bubble.....and goddammit I like it here):D

I'm with you about the whole drug thing (of course I do believe in drug testing for the workplace as drugs, any drugs, alter the mind so they work against productivity). My only problem with your statement is that those on welfare, if they are busting their ass trying to get a job, should be able to use the money they are being given to do pot. Personally, if it's MY money then they better not be doing pot, smoking cigs, or drinking alcohol. None of those three things make them any more productive. None of those three things helps them make the most of their lives. They only serve as a means for the people who do them to blow their money. As a matter of fact, while we're at it, why don't we say they cannot have cable either? After all, if there is cable it only gives them more of a reason to sit around and not work as hard at looking for a job. If we have to give them money then the reasoning behind it should be to get them off the free money as soon as possible. The goal should be to get them self-sufficient. So, take away all recreational drugs (alcohol and cigs included) along with cable. Do everything possible to make sure they are looking for work all day every day. Make them want to get a job...any job. Then, if the job they get doesn't pay very much require them to go for trade training of some sort in addition to working. There are more than enough jobs in this country that required skilled workers, not college degrees. :)

[TXChris]

I know folks hate this, but I really do believe drugs should be legal for anyone over 21 years of age.....in your own home. You drive, you fuck up in public, then your ass is in trouble.

I'll do you one better; let's make drugs and alcohol legal at 18. If a person is old enough to legally die for their country at that age then they should be allowed drugs and alcohol, too.

[Athena]

I'm with you about the whole drug thing (of course I do believe in drug testing for the workplace as drugs, any drugs, alter the mind so they work against productivity).

I believe in a private corporations *right* to drug test at any point and for any reason. However, I've seen NOTHING to suggest that recreational drug use outside of work has a measurable impact on productivity. If productivity is what they're worried about, they wouldn't hire drinkers.

The truth is, the vast majority of companies with a drug testing policy have one for an insurance discount only.


My only problem with your statement is that those on welfare, if they are busting their ass trying to get a job, should be able to use the money they are being given to do pot. Personally, if it's MY money then they better not be doing pot, smoking cigs, or drinking alcohol. None of those three things make them any more productive. None of those three things helps them make the most of their lives. They only serve as a means for the people who do them to blow their money. As a matter of fact, while we're at it, why don't we say they cannot have cable either? After all, if there is cable it only gives them more of a reason to sit around and not work as hard at looking for a job. If we have to give them money then the reasoning behind it should be to get them off the free money as soon as possible. The goal should be to get them self-sufficient. So, take away all recreational drugs (alcohol and cigs included) along with cable. Do everything possible to make sure they are looking for work all day every day. Make them want to get a job...any job. Then, if the job they get doesn't pay very much require them to go for trade training of some sort in addition to working. There are more than enough jobs in this country that required skilled workers, not college degrees. :)

Absolutely. Hell, while we're at it, why don't we just move welfare recipients to government built and operated detention centers. We'll provide them job training, child care and internet service, but everything else will be like prison. They'll want to get the hell out of there, pronto. :p

[TXChris]

I believe in a private corporations *right* to drug test at any point and for any reason. However, I've seen NOTHING to suggest that recreational drug use outside of work has a measurable impact on productivity. If productivity is what they're worried about, they wouldn't hire drinkers.

The truth is, the vast majority of companies with a drug testing policy have one for an insurance discount only.

My point was in reference to using drugs while at work, or even right before work. In other words, any altered state of mind while on the job. Yes, that means cigarettes, too. :p




Absolutely. Hell, while we're at it, why don't we just move welfare recipients to government built and operated detention centers. We'll provide them job training, child care and internet service, but everything else will be like prison. They'll want to get the hell out of there, pronto. :p

We already have one of those. It's called Job Corps. :)

Seriously, have you ever seen one of these? There is one in McKinney, TX that I studied for a while. It is really nothing more than a holding center for thugs and druggies, for the most part. Sure, there are a few that actually go on to do something with themselves, but it is because it is within them to do it to begin with. Most of them, based on what I saw that would be close to 90%, just go back home and continue doing what they were doing before they got to the Job Corps center. Drug use and sex are rampant at the centers. A lot of the residents find themselves there because it was either that or go to juvenile. The waste of money pisses me off just thinking about it.

But, yeah, something better managed and without the 25 y.o. maximum age limit would be a good idea. Forget just giving people money to live on their own. Give 'em a place in a center. Make sure they show up for their job training and at their jobs. If we really are intent on helping them then we should be as serious about it as possible and not just throw money away. After all these people are getting FREE MONEY. Make them jump through hoops to get it. Set rules, give them boundaries, and then monitor them daily. REALLY help them for once instead of merely enable them.

[Athena]

My point was in reference to using drugs while at work, or even right before work. In other words, any altered state of mind while on the job. Yes, that means cigarettes, too. :p

Oh, gotcha. You didn't make that clear. Of course, standard drug tests can't differentiate between usage an hour ago and usage 12 hours ago, so, really, drug tests weed people out (no pun intended :p) for no reason. I've heard shop foreman joke about how this or that company should never implement random testing, because, "we'd lose 75% of our workforce!"

And, yes, my smoking does impact my productivity, technically. But obviously not to the point that they would consider firing me for it.


We already have one of those. It's called Job Corps. :)

Seriously, have you ever seen one of these? There is one in McKinney, TX that I studied for a while. It is really nothing more than a holding center for thugs and druggies, for the most part. Sure, there are a few that actually go on to do something with themselves, but it is because it is within them to do it to begin with. Most of them, based on what I saw that would be close to 90%, just go back home and continue doing what they were doing before they got to the Job Corps center. Drug use and sex are rampant at the centers. A lot of the residents find themselves there because it was either that or go to juvenile. The waste of money pisses me off just thinking about it.

But, yeah, something better managed and without the 25 y.o. maximum age limit would be a good idea. Forget just giving people money to live on their own. Give 'em a place in a center. Make sure they show up for their job training and at their jobs. If we really are intent on helping them then we should be as serious about it as possible and not just throw money away. After all these people are getting FREE MONEY. Make them jump through hoops to get it. Set rules, give them boundaries, and then monitor them daily. REALLY help them for once instead of merely enable them.

I was actually kinda kidding. In a perfect world, yeah, the welfare system would be a machine that pumps out upstanding, productive, self-sufficient members of society. Realistically, though, it'll never be more than a stepping stone for some and a crutch for others.

[TXChris]

Oh, gotcha. You didn't make that clear. Of course, standard drug tests can't differentiate between usage an hour ago and usage 12 hours ago, so, really, drug tests weed people out (no pun intended :p) for no reason. I've heard shop foreman joke about how this or that company should never implement random testing, because, "we'd lose 75% of our workforce!"

And, yes, my smoking does impact my productivity, technically. But obviously not to the point that they would consider firing me for it.

It's because they're scared of you. You make 'em tremble. ;)




I was actually kinda kidding. In a perfect world, yeah, the welfare system would be a machine that pumps out upstanding, productive, self-sufficient members of society. Realistically, though, it'll never be more than a stepping stone for some and a crutch for others.

I wasn't kidding. :)

My problem is with people who talk about government-subsidized welfare as some moral obligation that the populace needs to accept and carry the burden of. Where's the morality for those of us who don't use it? Where is the morality for those of us who do what we have to do day in and day out?

We are forced to take care of those who won't, or physically cannot, do it for themselves. Once again, this is a generalization, but the failure of welfare is clearly obvious. The sad thing is that those living at the level the government classifies as poverty are actually people who are living better than most of the populace a hundred years ago. Just because they don't live as good as the next higher income group of the populace today they're considered "needy." Shit, they're needy alright. I won't even go into the number of welfare recipient households I've been in that have owned two or more televisions and had cable. They have indoor plumbing. They have had computers and Internet access. They have had cars. They have food. A lot of them even get checks to pay their electric and heating bills. They have access to free schooling and free childcare. Our current system ONLY continues to enable them. Those who take advantage of it in the way they should are the ones who have it within themselves to do it to begin with. If one is not motivated to get out of their current situation and do better for themselves to begin with then simply giving them money isn't going to change a thing. There has to be a change in mentality first.

[Athena]

I wasn't kidding. :)

My problem is with people who talk about government-subsidized welfare as some moral obligation that the populace needs to accept and carry the burden of. Where's the morality for those of us who don't use it? Where is the morality for those of us who do what we have to do day in and day out?

We are forced to take care of those who won't, or physically cannot, do it for themselves. Once again, this is a generalization, but the failure of welfare is clearly obvious. The sad thing is that those living at the level the government classifies as poverty are actually people who are living better than most of the populace a hundred years ago. Just because they don't live as good as the next higher income group of the populace today they're considered "needy." Shit, they're needy alright. I won't even go into the number of welfare recipient households I've been in that have owned two or more televisions and had cable. They have indoor plumbing. They have had computers and Internet access. They have had cars. They have food. A lot of them even get checks to pay their electric and heating bills. They have access to free schooling and free childcare. Our current system ONLY continues to enable them. Those who take advantage of it in the way they should are the ones who have it within themselves to do it to begin with. If one is not motivated to get out of their current situation and do better for themselves to begin with then simply giving them money isn't going to change a thing. There has to be a change in mentality first.

I certainly understand your frustration and do agree to a great extent, but we have to be realistic. Welfare isn't going anywhere, and the general populace is so used to providing it that reform is not very dramatic. It will have to be small, consistent steps toward reform. Unfortunately, the leaders of the diversity movements and the ACLU stand in our way because, somehow, our interest in reforming the system translates into hatred for those using it. :rolleyes:

[I am Legend]

my company will drug test you if you have an accident. if you piss hot, you arent gonna be covered. thats why many companies (as athena stated i believe) drug test.

therefore, if i have to deal with it, so should the lazy fuckheads who wont go out and get a job.

if someone is on welfare for medical reasons (serious ones), then its Ok to smoke the ganja.

all that said, i am still a proponent of legalizing the evil weed which makes us all go out and rape and kill and rob and have group sex and say mean unpolitically-correct things like " what did Lincoln say after a long night of drinking?......................I FREED WHO?!?!?!?!?!"

[swivel]

Absolutely. Hell, while we're at it, why don't we just move welfare recipients to government built and operated detention centers. We'll provide them job training, child care and internet service, but everything else will be like prison. They'll want to get the hell out of there, pronto. :p

Uhhh... I actually LOVE this idea.

I think we should halt all financial aid to the impoverished, immediately. Let's set up some more prisons, and invite ANYONE who does not feel that they are capable of sustaining themselves a free bus-ride to one of our new Service Centers for the UnMotivated (SCUM, for short). Here, people will be put into a small room with a sink and a toilet and be given three meals a day. There will be a one-year minimum required stay if you check in. During this time, you will take classes to pass a basic college-level proficiency exam, and you will be released as soon as you pass it. But you don't HAVE to take it, you don't HAVE to go to class, you don't HAVE to work or do anything at all. You can lie in your own bed, with the same unwashed sheets, until the day you die, if this is what you want to do.

But, there is no TV. No outside time. No gyms or games. This is a place to ensure that our government does not allow ANY human to starve or go homeless.


Here is the beauty of this plan: It is FREE! It won't cost the government a damn thing. Because we won't actually build any of these SCUM's. All we have to do is tell people about them, and that they are available. Set up a 1-800 number that doesn't even ring anywhere. And pull our trillions of dollars spent combating a "poverty" that people CHOOSE to live in. Because nobody would check themselves into a place worse than jail. If forced to feed themselves, they will. They are capable of it, but given a softer alternative, they have chosen to leech off of the rest of us.

This way, we get to cut the umbilical cord while offering a teat that nobody in their un-right mind would EVER suck from.

[Jaded]

After my divorce, I was suddenly left with 4 children and no income. I had been a stay at home mom since the birth of my first child so, I had no job experience to speak of. I received assistance for 3 months....then, I was OFF! It was more than just being about pride, it was about responsibility.

In the county where I lived, Social Services had a program called CWEP. A welfare recipient HAD to work or actively seek work, and prove it, in order to receive benefits. SS paid a piece of day care. I had no problem working for what I was getting. I couldn't imagine 'living' on the system. I believe that those receiving welfare should be held accountable and responsible for re-payment. The benefits that I collected in those 3 months was paid back through my own labor.

I also believe that if an able-bodied person just flat refuses to look for work or further their education, then they should be cut off immediately. I don't care HOW many kids they have. It's supposed to be assistance, not a way of life.

Drug testing should be as mandatory as a Social Security number on the application. As soon as you fill out the paperwork, piss in a cup. I think that ALONE would keep most people from even walking into the office. If you do pass the first piss test, they should be given at a moments notice from there on out.

I also think there should be a time limit to receiving benefits. I know people who have been living on the dole for 5 years or more.

While we are on this subject, I want to rant a bit. Those of you that know me also know that I am a single mom. I have 3 teenagers to feed. I've been doing it on my own for 10 years. I work 2 and sometimes 3 jobs to feed these kids. We do without a lot of luxuries just to survive. I have a very strict budget that guarantees that I will never have to go on welfare again. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING pisses me off more than this.....I go to the grocery store with this weeks budget, usually between $50 and $75 for groceries, toiletries, etc. I'm standing in line behind a family of 6 with one in a baby carrier and one on the way. These people have 2 carts full of groceries. Steak, lean ground beef, housewares, diapers, the best of everything. The bill is around $200-$300. They whip out their EBT card and pay for it all in food stamps and cash benefits. I pay for my measly cart of food. I see these people in the parking lot.....they are getting into a brand fuckin new DENALI!!! WTF?? If you can afford car and insurance payments on a new Denali....why the FUCK can't you afford to buy your own groceries??? I'm working 40-60 hours a week to pay for THEIR fuckin groceries!!! Ok...rant done.

If you need the help to get through a tough time, then it's there for ya. If you are a senior citizen living on a very tight budget, it's there for ya. Those I can deal with.

[swivel]

While we are on this subject, I want to rant a bit. Those of you that know me also know that I am a single mom. I have 3 teenagers to feed. I've been doing it on my own for 10 years. I work 2 and sometimes 3 jobs to feed these kids. We do without a lot of luxuries just to survive. I have a very strict budget that guarantees that I will never have to go on welfare again. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING pisses me off more than this.....I go to the grocery store with this weeks budget, usually between $50 and $75 for groceries, toiletries, etc. I'm standing in line behind a family of 6 with one in a baby carrier and one on the way. These people have 2 carts full of groceries. Steak, lean ground beef, housewares, diapers, the best of everything. The bill is around $200-$300. They whip out their EBT card and pay for it all in food stamps and cash benefits. I pay for my measly cart of food. I see these people in the parking lot.....they are getting into a brand fuckin new DENALI!!! WTF?? If you can afford car and insurance payments on a new Denali....why the FUCK can't you afford to buy your own groceries??? I'm working 40-60 hours a week to pay for THEIR fuckin groceries!!! Ok...rant done.


I agree 100% and feel your pain. And I applaud you for being a good person.

Which is why our system is FUCKED. We hand out money to the evil shits, and the good people struggle on in the best way possible. We need to put an end to this entire system, NOW.

We need to be vocal about it, as a society. Put some shame back in government assistance. Publicly mock the people that we see abusing the system, and appeal to our politicians that we no longer want to see votes being bought with hand-outs.

This is something that Democrats and Republicans should UNITE on. Instead, neither side is touching the issue. We have thrown more money at the war on poverty than any other war in human history, and the percentage living in poverty has stayed the same. Let's pull our troops the fuck out. This war is costing much more than the war in Iraq. It's time to cut our losses and give the fuck up.

[Athena]

The tragic thing about this conversation is it illustrates the general lack of support for a failed system...That will continue to exist for, in all likelihood, the entirety of my existance.

The fact of the matter is, when welfare is reformed, welfare registry does drop significantly. People DO become self-sufficient. When welfare was reformed in '96, people predicted all sorts of things - higher crime rates, children wasting away in alleys...None of this happened. Instead, most states reported a near 50% in welfare applications. That's it. It's been over a decade and we've yet to experience the woes that naysayers were predicting.

It's time to take another step. Knock that time limit down from 5 years to 2, and increase the required hours of sanctioned activities to 40 hours per week instead of the current 20 (and 30 for people with dependents older than 6). Focus every penny of budgeting we can on vocational training and childcare so that recipients can't help but get a job.

As people fail to need it and we aren't seeing little Ethopias in our major cities, we will be free and justified in whittling benefits even further. Besides, there will be private charities that take up for the more extreme cases. It's not like no one will deal with this if the government doesn't. There are hundreds of private charities already in place for this sort of thing.

[funnymommy]

Ok, so first let me start out by saying that I am a welfare recipient. I am also Canadian but I am going to post anyway. I also expect some to be pissed that I have internet, but oh well.

I am a single mother, relying on student loans and welfare to get my degree. I don't care what people think of me, or what people say. I have kids to feed and therefore, no pride. I also need the internet for my education; some of my courses are by distance. Should someone monitor my use to ensure it is only school related?

That being said, I am totally against drug testing. Since poverty in and of itself can be a contributing factor to drug abuse, it seems a little ridiculous to drug test people and then deny them welfare, sending them to the streets to commit property crime or engage in prostitution (as examples) to obtain their drugs. Further, these people are the exception, not the rule. When someone in poverty relying on government aid fucks up, people tend to blow them up and make them the poster child for ALL recipients. It's bad enough people make assumptions and judge me as it is, but to make me submit to drug testing makes me guilty until proven otherwise and further encourages the stigma associated with welfare.

I don't know about the US, but in Canada an employee pays income tax, EI, etc when they get paid. Therefore, if they find themselves out of a job, they can collect employment insurance benefits while they look for work. That is acceptable because they paid into it. However, if that person did not have enough hours to qualify for EI, what then? If they have kids and bills, where do they turn? A food bank and other charities do not usually pay bills and not everyone has family to help. Welfare is the next step and even though the person paid into that with their taxes, they are stigmatized. Also, the government likes unemployment. A 4% unemployment rate is optimal in ensuring a stable economy. And welfare does not cost as much as people think. In Canada, the Conservative gov screamed that welfare had caused our debt, yet it only amounted for about 7%. But the damage had been done.

I know people may think I am a drain on society or whatever, but when I graduate, I will pay back more on taxes than I ever recieved in government money. I know people who cannot work full-time so they must receive government aid. They have children with severe disabilites and their childcare providers must be trained to handle their medical problems.

Drug testing seems a little ridiculous when you add in:

a) the cost

b) the fact that a person is being punished for falling on hard times

and

c) the fact that these drug tests are recorded and could very well come back to haunt people who manage to get on their feet. The fact that someone was drug tested may raise questions and then that individual has to admit that they were on welfare.

When people realise I am a university student, they often treat me differently. However, I am the same person with or without a degree. I take care of my children, I am kind, I am clean, and I am a human being deserving of respect. While it must be nice to sit back and make observations and form opinions based on them, it is much harder to live in that situation and have to answer to people because you are taking their hard-earned money. Many people are only a pink slip away from the system without even realizing it. I hope no one ever has to face that situation.

[TXChris]

By drug testing wefare receipients we aren't punishing them; we are making sure that the money they get is not going to drug use. If one is getting free money then that person should not be complaining about not being allowed to purchase drugs with it. See, that's the problem with welfare. People see it as entitlement. And since they feel entitled then they feel that they have the right to spend the money on anything they like. That's not right. It's money that is supposed to get welfare recipients back into the work force and fending for themselves once again. If the money is going to drug use then it's not being used as it was intended.

I also do not see poverty as a contributing factor to drug use. People from all walks of life use drugs. Making one submit to drug tests as a condition to receiving said money is not proclaiming them guilty, rather it is making sure they are abiding by the rules. I believe most responding to this thread just feel as I stated in the previous paragraph.

Also, I cannot help but take issue with this statement:


I know people who cannot work full-time so they must receive government aid. They have children with severe disabilites and their childcare providers must be trained to handle their medical problems.

That thinking is once-again linked to entitlement ideals. Why is it that if the parents cannot take care of their children with medical problems that the rest of society is forced to do it? Don't get me wrong. I feel for people in that situation, and as such have no problem helping them out...of my own volition. What I take issue with is the belief that I have to help them out. Just because one loses their job does not mean that I have to support them and just because one has a child with special needs does not mean that I have to help out niether. This causes resentment which is not good for either side of the issue.


Many people are only a pink slip away from the system without even realizing it. I hope no one ever has to face that situation.

As far as the above statement goes I believe that is firmly in the control of the individual. People that hit that point have, for the most part (remember, this is a generalization), put themselves there because they have not taken control of their lives. They have not taken the initiative to get the extra training nor have they diversified their skills. One cannot sit around, in today's world, and expect to do the same job for the rest of their lives. More times than not it's not going to happen. They will get fired. Businesses do get bought and sold daily, and with that comes layoffs. It's all a part of the game. If one is not constantly updating their skill sets or getting a better education or in some way making themselves more marketable then they are going to lose the game. Period. It's time more people took responsibility for their actions and decisions.

The bottom line is if there was no welfare...no safety net...people would take more responsibility for the decisions they make. Hell, they'd make better decisions in general. They'd have no

[GoldenChild20k]

When the laws of your country are creating profoundly disabled children by allowing a hospital to obtain a court order giving them the right to conduct painful, experimental and dangerous treatment on an extremely premature baby AGAINST the parent's wishes as in the Sidney Miller case (and many others like it that never go to court), then it is unconscionable to expect the parents alone to be responsible for all the ongoing needs for that child.

If we are living in a world where more people are being kept alive BUT disabled because of advances in medical technology, and society's insistence on those advances being utilised, then we have to accept that society needs to adapt and accomodate the new increased influx of disabled people which it has created.

The taxes I pay go towards all manners of people; the unemployed, the ill, the disabled, minority groups, corporations that win govt. contracts...the day I start picking and choosing which of those groups I am prepared to support is the day I need to stop accepting ALL the privileges I enjoy as a society member for granted, not just the ones I'm prepared to surrender for some token control over my responsibility towards that society.

[TXChris]

When the laws of your country are creating profoundly disabled children by allowing a hospital to obtain a court order giving them the right to conduct painful, experimental and dangerous treatment on an extremely premature baby AGAINST the parent's wishes as in the Sidney Miller case (and many others like it that never go to court), then it is unconscionable to expect the parents alone to be responsible for all the ongoing needs for that child.

If we are living in a world where more people are being kept alive BUT disabled because of advances in medical technology, and society's insistence on those advances being utilised, then we have to accept that society needs to adapt and accomodate the new increased influx of disabled people which it has created.

The taxes I pay go towards all manners of people; the unemployed, the ill, the disabled, minority groups, corporations that win govt. contracts...the day I start picking and choosing which of those groups I am prepared to support is the day I need to stop accepting ALL the privileges I enjoy as a society member for granted, not just the ones I'm prepared to surrender for some token control over my responsibility towards that society.

And therein lies the problem. Too much government control. One should have complete control over whom they choose to give money to, if they choose to give money at all. After all, it is money the person has earned through their hard work. Not anyone else's. It is akin to slavery when one is forced to give up earnings so that it can be distributed to someone else.

[funnymommy]

If welfare was not available, then we have to take away the kids whose parents cannot afford to care for them without government aid. They then they end up in foster care, which is far more expensive. Perhaps those who vehemently oppose welfare should try choosing the 'lesser of two evils'.

[TXChris]

If welfare was not available, then we have to take away the kids whose parents cannot afford to care for them without government aid. They then they end up in foster care, which is far more expensive. Perhaps those who vehemently oppose welfare should try choosing the 'lesser of two evils'.

Says who? Why would the government have to take away kids from their parents? This is the problem with people claiming morality and then forcing it upon everyone else which is not moral in any way. The fact is if government welfare was not available charitable organizations would be there to pick up the slack. That is exactly what was done before the government took it upon itself to create welfare programs. The difference is charities ran on people doing things because they wanted to and believed in it. Government welfare programs run on stealing from people.

Even better is that without the guarantee of government welfare programs most people would think twice before they took a specific action or made a decision. Why? Because they would not have that safety net anymore. All of the sudden the ramifications of decisions they make would have more weight.

When picking the lesser of two evils one is still choosing an evil. So, why not force people to make better decisions and take responsibility for their actions? While it may be rough for some to adjust to, and there will probably be a difficult period for "society" to go through, it is certainly not evil.

[Athena]

Ok, so first let me start out by saying that I am a welfare recipient. I am also Canadian but I am going to post anyway.

~ snip ~



It's nice to see a well-formed, opposing viewpoint. :)

It's difficult to account for the disparity in perspective caused by your nationality. Obviously, Canada treats the introduction of socialist programs into their society quite differently than the U.S. and, as a result, I cannot argue your specific circumstance like I might if you were in the U.S.

A few things, however, in terms of U.S. welfare (and potentially, welfare in general) -

As stated, when welfare was reformed in '96, it did not have a particularly adverse effect on our society. Most of what fell away appears to have been individuals who were taking advantage of an unnecessarily generous system.

Also as stated, although the private support doesn't exist currently, I believe it is safe to assume that these organizations will become more prominent as state-sponsored financial support fades. So, while you are correct that, currently, there aren't a lot of private charities that will pay bills for you, this is largely in part due to the fact that the government will, already.

Lastly, you speak about the stigma as though it's a bad thing. In your capacity, I'm sure it's a pain to have to deal with...But do you think welfare should be more welcoming and comfortable? Don't you think that would make it even more likely to be taken advantage of? Granted, you are actively working toward bettering your situation. But what of the people who aren't? A lack of stigma may encourage them to continue receiving help when they might not otherwise.

[funnymommy]

What people fail to realise when I use the term 'stigma' is that I am not referring to people pointing and laughing, or simply sneering at me. Doctors look down on me when they realise that I am getting welfare. Child protection agencies treat me like I am unfit simply because of my level of income and its source. Employers look at my resume and want to know why there was a period without employment and ask how did I survive during that time, opening a whole can of worms. Teachers in the schools treat my children differently and speak to me during PTA meetings as though it is amazing to see a welfare mom show up and actually be interested in her child's education. It is the 'us vs. them' mindset and it is ridiculous. People treat poverty like its my life goal; yeah, when I was little I so wanted to be a welfare mom. I doubt I will change anyone's mind here but the reason I post is because when I see such attitudes, I feel the need to address it.

If people want to see welfare recipients drug tested because we are getting 'their' money, then make sure those getting employment insurance (or whatever your particular area calls it) get tested, too and don't forget those on worker's comp, old age, disability, etc, etc, etc. Those are all government funds, too, and they come out of your pocket.

[funnymommy]

Says who? Why would the government have to take away kids from their parents? This is the problem with people claiming morality and then forcing it upon everyone else which is not moral in any way. The fact is if government welfare was not available charitable organizations would be there to pick up the slack. That is exactly what was done before the government took it upon itself to create welfare programs. The difference is charities ran on people doing things because they wanted to and believed in it. Government welfare programs run on stealing from people.

Even better is that without the guarantee of government welfare programs most people would think twice before they took a specific action or made a decision. Why? Because they would not have that safety net anymore. All of the sudden the ramifications of decisions they make would have more weight.

When picking the lesser of two evils one is still choosing an evil. So, why not force people to make better decisions and take responsibility for their actions? While it may be rough for some to adjust to, and there will probably be a difficult period for "society" to go through, it is certainly not evil.

So which charities can help pay the bills and put food on the table? I don't know of any. Food banks limit the amount of times you can use them. Rent is expensive. And many of these groups also get government funding, as well, so would you like to see a stop put to that? If a family ends up homeless, should they live on the streets? Some people need a hand up. I know I do.

Not everyone on welfare chooses to be there. What if someone gets sick or injured? I don't think that people who share your view think this all the way through.

And do you really believe that your taxes will drop if there was no welfare? That's a laugh and a half, considering the money the government pumps into defence. Welfare is the least of yor worries.

[funnymommy]

Oh, and I thought I'd just throw this out there.

When I decided that I wanted to get a degree, I went to the welfare office to work out the details. I didn't know how that worked, if I could go to school and get benefits, etc.

The 'career development specialist' tried with everything she had to talk me out of it. I was going through on student loans, but she wanted me to just stay on welfare, do a furniture reupholstering course (that they would pay for) and try to find a job...as a furniture reupholsterer; not something that you see in the paper everyday. I wanted training so I could get long-term, gainful employment, not a job that would last long enough to collect EI. That just changed the color of my cheque, not the fact that it was government money. The system did not want me to get ahead and it has been a struggle to stay in school but I am determined to get out of this mess.

[Mom of 4]

Funnymommy you are not an example of one who abuses the welfare system in our country. You are a single mom who recognizes her situation and is striving to improve it instead of accepting it as a way of life for you and your children. I have no problem with single moms (or dads) accessing the welfare system. What I have a problem with are those who are fully capable of working, have no kids or have kids in school full time who choose to do nothing to improve their situation.

As for the stigma? Well having worked for social services I can tell you that I do not now nor have I ever judged someone solely on the basis of welfare vs employed. Bad parents come from all kinds of backgrounds and walks of life.

If a recipient has children then I absolutely support drug testing. The assistance received is for food, shelter, clothing and necessities. Drugs fit in none of those categories and I have a huge problem with my tax dollars paying for drugs with money that was meant to care for a child. Drug use is wide spread over all income levels and is not exclusive to those on social assistance. Using drugs leads to nothing productive. Drug users rarely attempt to improve their life situation like you are doing. They rarely have the ambition to search for work and if they do, it often doesn't last because of their drug use.

Welfare should not be a way of life. It should be an aid to assist people in getting a better life.

[TXChris]

So which charities can help pay the bills and put food on the table? I don't know of any. Food banks limit the amount of times you can use them. Rent is expensive. And many of these groups also get government funding, as well, so would you like to see a stop put to that? If a family ends up homeless, should they live on the streets? Some people need a hand up. I know I do.

Not everyone on welfare chooses to be there. What if someone gets sick or injured? I don't think that people who share your view think this all the way through.

And do you really believe that your taxes will drop if there was no welfare? That's a laugh and a half, considering the money the government pumps into defence. Welfare is the least of yor worries.

Nobody said the taxes would drop. The ability to tax and spend is too strong a draw for governments to resist which is why we find ourselves in the b.s. we are currently experiencing. But, that being said, taxes should be reduced. Our government has taken on more responsibility than what it was originally created for. The more responsibility a government takes on the more say it has over the country's populace. It's a really scary proposition to consider.

As far as charities go, just because there might not be a particular charity out there right now that does what you want it to does not mean that there wouldn't be once government welfare was eradicated. Of course the thing that most fail to consider is that, and I will repeat it again in this post, these things were taken care of long before our government took it upon itself to do for people what they should be doing for themselves. Should government give money to charities? Not at all. If the government were not doing this IT WOULD STILL BE DONE by individuals and private organizations. Government has a way of making people feel dependent upon it. In that way it is better able to "control" the populace so they do as the government wants them to do.

If people get sick or injured then appropriate measures should have been taken prior to that happening. Face it, people do not worry so much about themselves because they don't have to. If there was no government safety net more people would probably make sure they had some money in savings just in case they got sick or injured. If there was no welfare and food stamps more women would probably think twice about having sex, unprotected or not. Obviously the very chance that they might be screwed by having a child at a time they could not afford to take care of it would weigh heavily on most minds. Without welfare women might think twice before they get married to some guy they end up separating from later. Once again, the costs are too high NOT to consider these things more strongly than most currently consider them.

The truth is, I don't know anything about you or your current situation. I also do not have anything against you personally. What I do have a problem with is the line of thinking that you employ. It's the feeling of entitlement that bugs me. Most who end up where you currently are end up there because of bad decisions on their part; having sex and children before they are able to properly provide for them, getting married on a whim or without taking the time to get to know their partner as they should, moving to an area where they cannot make a decent living/refusing to move from an area where they cannot make a decent living, managing their money poorly and getting caught up in having things better than they can afford. People do not think things through fully because they do not have to. They get involved in situations without enough knowledge. They make rash decisions without considering all possible outcomes. Taking away government welfare will only help to make the occurrence of these actions less likely. Nothing will ever keep people from making stupid decisions, and nothing should. Taking responsibility for our actions relating from decisions we have made, both wrong and right, is how we gain wisdom.

[Athena]

What people fail to realise when I use the term 'stigma' is that I am not referring to people pointing and laughing, or simply sneering at me. Doctors look down on me when they realise that I am getting welfare. Child protection agencies treat me like I am unfit simply because of my level of income and its source. Employers look at my resume and want to know why there was a period without employment and ask how did I survive during that time, opening a whole can of worms. Teachers in the schools treat my children differently and speak to me during PTA meetings as though it is amazing to see a welfare mom show up and actually be interested in her child's education. It is the 'us vs. them' mindset and it is ridiculous. People treat poverty like its my life goal; yeah, when I was little I so wanted to be a welfare mom. I doubt I will change anyone's mind here but the reason I post is because when I see such attitudes, I feel the need to address it.

This is going to sound harsh, and I'd like for you to not take it personally, because I am applying it to your circumstance and not you as a person, but...You're putting yourself through life, currently, on the government's dime. You simply cannot be expected to be treated the same as the numerous single mothers who manage to put themselves through school without government assistance.

You know you're doing right, ultimately, by getting yourself an education. The stigma may be ugly, but there's a price to be paid for everything.

And it's good that you're addressing anything said, here. It's not about changing my mind, just like I have no hope (nor desire, necessarily) to cause you to suddenly drop the aid you receive. However, there are hundreds of lurkers out there, reading these posts, who don't have a solid opinion on the matter. That's who I aim to sway. :)


If people want to see welfare recipients drug tested because we are getting 'their' money, then make sure those getting employment insurance (or whatever your particular area calls it) get tested, too and don't forget those on worker's comp, old age, disability, etc, etc, etc. Those are all government funds, too, and they come out of your pocket.

Who said we won't? Baby steps, darlin'. Should we endeavor to change none simply because we can't address them all at once? ;)

[Athena]

So which charities can help pay the bills and put food on the table? I don't know of any. Food banks limit the amount of times you can use them. Rent is expensive. And many of these groups also get government funding, as well, so would you like to see a stop put to that? If a family ends up homeless, should they live on the streets? Some people need a hand up. I know I do.

Perhaps you just don't care to hear it, but, as government funding fades, private donation WILL increase. The government does not need to be the primary source of aid. Bureaucracy is inefficient, by its very nature. I'm sure you heard all about the Katrina disaster down here...Private organisations were able to provide faster, more immediate relief and, in many situations, are providing more thorough, long-lasting relief as well. Currently, if there are holes in what private organisations do, it is because the government is currently occupying that hole, so private charities focus their resources elsewhere.

What I think you may be failing to consider is that no one here is arguing against aid, we are arguing against government mandated aid. This last year, I paid roughly 20% of my wages to the federal government. I still gave a couple thousand total to private charity...and I'm a broke ass ho, lemme tell ya. Still, I'm young, I have my health and no dependents, so I feel obligated to give. And, you know what? If I could choose to, I would take whatever portion of my taxes that would normally go to welfare programs and donate it to private organisations, because I feel so much better about how it's being handled. Private organisations are, generally, much more efficient, which means more of my dollar is going to the person who needs it.


And do you really believe that your taxes will drop if there was no welfare? That's a laugh and a half, considering the money the government pumps into defence. Welfare is the least of yor worries.

It's not about immediate tax relief. It's about pursuing a more responsible economic mindframe. We can't always fry the biggest fish first, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't chip away at the issue where we can.

[impqueen]

As far as charities go, just because there might not be a particular charity out there right now that does what you want it to does not mean that there wouldn't be once government welfare was eradicated. Of course the thing that most fail to consider is that, and I will repeat it again in this post, these things were taken care of long before our government took it upon itself to do for people what they should be doing for themselves. Should government give money to charities? Not at all. If the government were not doing this IT WOULD STILL BE DONE by individuals and private organizations. Government has a way of making people feel dependent upon it. In that way it is better able to "control" the populace so they do as the government wants them to do.

And you know this because...... what? I appreciate your viewpoint, but you have no way of knowing that people will automatically step up and do what's right after years - nay, decades - of government assistance. I mean, unless you're getting that fund started yourself. Do you plan to contribute to such a fund in the future, should government welfare no longer exist? If not, why not?



If people get sick or injured then appropriate measures should have been taken prior to that happening. Face it, people do not worry so much about themselves because they don't have to. If there was no government safety net more people would probably make sure they had some money in savings just in case they got sick or injured. If there was no welfare and food stamps more women would probably think twice about having sex, unprotected or not. Obviously the very chance that they might be screwed by having a child at a time they could not afford to take care of it would weigh heavily on most minds. Without welfare women might think twice before they get married to some guy they end up separating from later. Once again, the costs are too high NOT to consider these things more strongly than most currently consider them.

Um, seriously? I am pretty sure that most people do not get married and think "well, if it doesn't work out, there's always welfare." For you to imply that is insulting. I took WIC ( a food supplement program) for my daughter for four months after my first marriage blew up (as in, I had to get out before I got killed), and then I didn't need it as much anymore and was able to stop. Had I been getting support from her father, I wouldn't have needed it at all. I found it shameful and humiliating, and I was pissed as hell, but I had to feed my kid. I was married when I got pregnant with no plans to become a punching bag, but that's what happened due to a choice made by someone other than me. What you're saying is that I should have planned for that event in advance, yes? Or are you suggesting that I should have stayed in the marriage while being abused in order to save up the funds to leave? Or perhaps, after being beaten, i should have chosen a late-term abortion?

I was lucky. I had a job and skills and a supportive family. I also remarried rather quickly. Many women don't have those things, but it sounds as though you're suggesting that if they're going to die they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population.


The truth is, I don't know anything about you or your current situation. I also do not have anything against you personally. What I do have a problem with is the line of thinking that you employ. It's the feeling of entitlement that bugs me. Most who end up where you currently are end up there because of bad decisions on their part; having sex and children before they are able to properly provide for them, getting married on a whim or without taking the time to get to know their partner as they should, moving to an area where they cannot make a decent living/refusing to move from an area where they cannot make a decent living, managing their money poorly and getting caught up in having things better than they can afford. People do not think things through fully because they do not have to. They get involved in situations without enough knowledge. They make rash decisions without considering all possible outcomes. Taking away government welfare will only help to make the occurrence of these actions less likely. Nothing will ever keep people from making stupid decisions, and nothing should. Taking responsibility for our actions relating from decisions we have made, both wrong and right, is how we gain wisdom.

Some truth, but it's masked under a lot of sanctimonious pontificating. I don't think that our government should bail out everyone - but we do have a duty to help each other. I love how you suggest people just move from one area to another. If they could afford the truck and the deposits and the move, more of that would probably happen, but the fact is, many families are struggling in this economy simply to get by.

It's lovely that you appear to have a stable marriage and a home of your own because of your good decisions. It's wonderful that you don't appear to be living with relatives or in an apartment somewhere, not building equity, struggling to support your child. But that's not reality for many people now, even people with college degrees. Savings simply are not viable for many single parents, and even less so for mothers who tend to be the parents left with the children both partners created.

You want reform? Start instituting automatic paycheck withdrawal for child support and incarcerating men who won't pay it. Women don't get pregnant alone, but you don't even address the absent fathers in this equation, choosing instead to beat on the women as though they chose to be welfare recipients. That seems unnecessarily mean.

[TXChris]

And you know this because...... what? I appreciate your viewpoint, but you have no way of knowing that people will automatically step up and do what's right after years - nay, decades - of government assistance. I mean, unless you're getting that fund started yourself. Do you plan to contribute to such a fund in the future, should government welfare no longer exist? If not, why not?

Because history has shown it to be truth. Even with the exorbitant amount of taxes we currently pay we continue to be the most philanthropic country in the world. As a society we want to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. It shows in the amount of money collect and doled out by charities each and every year. I'm not sure what I would contribute to if the government were to wise up and get rid of the welfare programs. But, I do know that I would contribute to something in some way. Hell, I do all the time as it is even while paying the ridiculous tax rate I have been forced to pay. If I didn't have so much money stolen by the government I would definitely contribute more to charitable causes with less overhead and that are run more efficiently.

Government welfare should no longer exist for the reasons I have mentioned multiple times throughout this thread. Mainly government welfare is an enabling mechanism. It gives people a reason to be irresponsible. It does not require one to take responsibility for the results of one's decisions and actions.





Um, seriously? I am pretty sure that most people do not get married and think "well, if it doesn't work out, there's always welfare." For you to imply that is insulting. I took WIC ( a food supplement program) for my daughter for four months after my first marriage blew up (as in, I had to get out before I got killed), and then I didn't need it as much anymore and was able to stop. Had I been getting support from her father, I wouldn't have needed it at all. I found it shameful and humiliating, and I was pissed as hell, but I had to feed my kid. I was married when I got pregnant with no plans to become a punching bag, but that's what happened due to a choice made by someone other than me. What you're saying is that I should have planned for that event in advance, yes? Or are you suggesting that I should have stayed in the marriage while being abused in order to save up the funds to leave? Or perhaps, after being beaten, i should have chosen a late-term abortion?

I was lucky. I had a job and skills and a supportive family. I also remarried rather quickly. Many women don't have those things, but it sounds as though you're suggesting that if they're going to die they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population.

I am not implying that people think that if marriage doesn't work out there is welfare. What I am saying is that if welfare were not there then people would take an extra minute to think about what they are about to do; to consider more thoroughly the full ramifications of their actions. They would take more time to learn about their potential mate. Maybe they would be a bit more observant and not so "understanding" when the clues to their mate's true self showed before they were married.

As for your personal experience goes, of course I do not know you or your situation so I cannot speak of it. I can speak in generalities, however, as I have been. So, please, don't take my statements as a personal attack on you. There will ALWAYS be exceptions to the rule. I am firmly of the belief that any needed financial help would've been there, however, if the government welfare programs had been deleted. As I said, history has shown this to be so. Unfortunately, we are so ingrained with the belief that without the government there to "help us" the country would be a mess that most cannot imagine a world without government welfare. In that sense the government is accomplishing their objectives well. Everyone seems to believe that society would become archaic and anarchic if big government were ratcheted down quite a bit.




Some truth, but it's masked under a lot of sanctimonious pontificating. I don't think that our government should bail out everyone - but we do have a duty to help each other. I love how you suggest people just move from one area to another. If they could afford the truck and the deposits and the move, more of that would probably happen, but the fact is, many families are struggling in this economy simply to get by.

It's lovely that you appear to have a stable marriage and a home of your own because of your good decisions. It's wonderful that you don't appear to be living with relatives or in an apartment somewhere, not building equity, struggling to support your child. But that's not reality for many people now, even people with college degrees. Savings simply are not viable for many single parents, and even less so for mothers who tend to be the parents left with the children both partners created.

You want reform? Start instituting automatic paycheck withdrawal for child support and incarcerating men who won't pay it. Women don't get pregnant alone, but you don't even address the absent fathers in this equation, choosing instead to beat on the women as though they chose to be welfare recipients. That seems unnecessarily mean.

You might feel a "duty" to help your neighbor and that is your right. However, just because you believe it as so does not mean you have the right to force that upon another. Sure, one can see it as moral to help another less fortunate than themselves, but wouldn't that same person see the theft of another's money as immoral? That's exactly what the government does; they steal money from the populace in order to redistribute it in the way they see fit at the time. Then they turn around and claim morality as if the means justify the ends. THAT is a complete disregard for ethics. As I said, everyone should have the ability to choose who and what they help out, and to what extent. Big government's bloated inefficient agencies are never the answer.

Many families are struggling in this economy, as you put it, because of decisions they have made. They choose not to update their skills, to keep abreast of their industry so that they can be ready for coming changes, to not take college courses, to stay in an area that is getting worse...these are decisions that most people make. These are also results that can be avoided. Taking responsibility for one's actions seems to be viewed as the worst thing the populace can do and this is shown by the proliferation of government programs.

I can speak from both ends of the spectrum here. At this point in my life I have enjoyed an excess of money and have had to suffer the humiliation of working for less than one can live on. The one thing I have noticed is that, whether directly or indirectly, my choices have led me to the good and bad in my life. I have been single with a child. I have been in a bad marriage. These are things I have lived through so I am not just speaking out of my ass here. It all comes down to the decisions I have made.

Actually, I am beating on both men and women on welfare. :) Sure, men that father children and then leave should help raise the children even if it is just monetarily. Same thing with women who have children and then leave. But, divorce in and of itself does not cause welfare. Once again, decisions were made before that divorce that put the person in that situation. The choice not to gain employable skills or get an education; these are things that could have been done differently in most cases. People HAVE to start taking responsibility for their actions.

[funnymommy]

Impqueen, I could only click the 'thanks' button once :)

Well said. And I appreciate seeing a post from someone who is not in my shoes but can empathize; it means a great deal. When I read posts like the others, it makes me feel so terrible. People saying that I am something less than someone who puts themselves though school without help from the government. Does that then mean that when I graduate, I am better than those here that are employed but not as educated as I am? Of course not, or at least I don't think so. I am a human being and no less deserving of respect than anyone else. Being in an abusive relationship in the past myself, I had to choose the path I did. At the end of the day, however, I will be exactly where I want to be and I fully intend to give back. I know I am lucky enough to live in a country that is willing to see my children fed, clothed, and housed.

As for my ex, I don't even know where he is. Child support would indeed make a huge difference. I do not abuse the system and I am grateful to those like yourself who understand. People get pissed because of their tax dollars supporting me, yet inmates get three square meals a day and many are doing nothing to better themselves while I work my ass off to maintain my GPA so I can get my degree and kiss the system goodbye for good. I am not asking to live on government money forever, just long enough to get educated so I can get out of this situation. In Newfoundland, there is no cut-off for welfare; I could stay on it forever and not be cut-off. Sit back, relax, and do absolutely nothing. For me to work and go to school and be a mom, there simply isn't enough hours in the day. Also, by sacrificing now, that means that when my kids grow up, I can pay for their education, ensuring they do not end up where I am. If my daughter, for example, found herself to be a single mom, I can guarentee you she will never, ever collect a welfare cheque. I will see to it that she has what she needs. People need to realise that the system can be an investment in people who will work hard to get ahead. Not everyone is drug-addicted, neglectful, or ignorant.

I used to fundraise for Habitat for Humanity. You would not believe how many people would get pissed at me, saying that no one helped them get their house, so why should they help others? If these are the types of charities that people say will step up, fine, well and good, but we need citizens to step up and help, too. One way or another, people will always be in need.

Anyway, I intend to never forget where I came from or where we all could end up. Again, my thanks.

[swivel]

And you know this because...... what? I appreciate your viewpoint, but you have no way of knowing that people will automatically step up and do what's right after years - nay, decades - of government assistance. I mean, unless you're getting that fund started yourself. Do you plan to contribute to such a fund in the future, should government welfare no longer exist? If not, why not?

Of course he doesn't. He hopes enough other people will that he will be relieved of the burden. I can not recommend enough a book called "The Survival Game: How Game Theory Explains the Biology of Cooperation and Competition". Chapters 3 and 4 deal with two scenarios, The Prisoners' Dilemma, and Social Dilemmas. Both capture the failure of TXChris' stance. It is the ethical coward who wishes to defect, yet relies on the cooperation of everyone else to cover this shortfall. It is the person who, knowing the bill will be split, orders Surf and Turf.



You want reform? Start instituting automatic paycheck withdrawal for child support and incarcerating men who won't pay it. Women don't get pregnant alone, but you don't even address the absent fathers in this equation, choosing instead to beat on the women as though they chose to be welfare recipients. That seems unnecessarily mean.

I agree 100%. We already do this for tax delinquents and some people that file for personal bankruptcy protection, why not do this for the FAR NOBLER purpose of making sure that men, who have been ORDERED by a court of law to support their children, are FORCED to do so. This is one of those laws that is too logical and inexpensive for Congress to get motivated about. Or could it be that the gender imbalance in said institution plays some nefarious role...?

[CPL CHUD]

Welfare should not be a way of life. It should be an aid to assist people in getting a better life.
This is really the crux of it. If you're using drugs then you aren't really trying to better your long term situation. Funnymommy obviously doesn't fall into this category, and while I can sympathize with the stigmatization she's enduring, I can't say we need to call for an end to it. As harsh and cruel as it sounds I think it should be humilating. It should be derogatory. It should suck, because if it was an easy going cherry ride people would leech off it even more.

If welfare is to be abolished it should be done so slowly. There should be time for companies and charities to fill in the gaps so to speak. There should be slow, purposeful legislation and more incentives for private companies to join in.

[swivel]

If welfare is to be abolished it should be done so slowly. There should be time for companies and charities to fill in the gaps so to speak. There should be slow, purposeful legislation and more incentives for private companies to join in.

Exactly. I think the campaign against smoking is the new model for massive social change. A big PR campaign aimed at shaming people from within, rather than forcing them from without.

I thought Clinton's move in the 90's was a good one, and something that we should do every 4-5 years. Take away a small piece and see if private charity fills the gap. If we find an area that the general populace will not support, and it is leading to abject misery, use government assistance in those areas only, and require something from the recipient.

Why not make all government assistance a "Loan" with almost no interest that is taken back with payroll taxes a very small amount every month. It would be almost no different than a student loan, where you can make an investment in yourself at a great rate, and then slowly pay it back for the next 15-30 years at a rate much smaller than your cable bill.

If recipients were getting monthly statements detailing how much they have borrowed, and what their payments will be in order to pay it back, the impetus will be to get off of assistance as fast as possible. People who really need the boost, like Mom of 4, will make the rational decision to use that leg-up when the bottom falls out in their lives, knowing it is better than racking up credit card debt, and that they will be able to gradually pay it back. It will still cost taxpayers something, but not as much. We would be rolling in cash anyway after getting rid of Social Security and Medicare.

[Athena]

People saying that I am something less than someone who puts themselves though school without help from the government. Does that then mean that when I graduate, I am better than those here that are employed but not as educated as I am? Of course not, or at least I don't think so. I am a human being and no less deserving of respect than anyone else.

I knew I couldn't phrase that statement carefully enough...

funnymommy, I never said that you were less than anyone, and I apologise for giving you that impression.

But, you lead me to an interesting question. Do you believe that human beings are deserving of respect by default? That one should not be judged for the poor decisions they make? Presumably - and, again, there are always exceptions - people on welfare are there as a direct result of irresponsibility. I'm sorry, but just like a person whose irresponsibility winds them up with a drug habit or in jail, they have not earned the same amount of respect as the next guy. Now, maybe this isn't you. Perhaps your situation is through no fault of your own. Unfortunately, you're associated with a faction of society that is marked by poor judgment and it would be unrealistic to expect to not be treated accordingly.

[Athena]

You want reform? Start instituting automatic paycheck withdrawal for child support and incarcerating men who won't pay it. Women don't get pregnant alone, but you don't even address the absent fathers in this equation, choosing instead to beat on the women as though they chose to be welfare recipients. That seems unnecessarily mean.

When discussing welfare recipients and personal responsibility, it makes sense to focus on those drawing from it.

[impqueen]

When discussing welfare recipients and personal responsibility, it makes sense to focus on those drawing from it.

So what you're saying is that we can discuss the topic, as long as we don't discuss one of the primary causes of the topic?

Sorry. I missed that rule. My bad.

[nurseronda]

When discussing welfare recipients and personal responsibility, it makes sense to focus on those drawing from it. Do you mean the ones who are living with someone who is working and not claiming that person is living in the home while we pay taxes to support them, that have a few kids by different men and the one they are with at the present time plus selling drugs and earning money along with doing those drugs? :D

[Athena]

So what you're saying is that we can discuss the topic, as long as we don't discuss one of the primary causes of the topic?

Sorry. I missed that rule. My bad.

Really? You got that from my post? Because, that's hardly the case. It's a worthy point, but in the context of the personal responsibility of welfare recipients, it's a secondary point. External factors introduce a whole new element. You're certainly free to widen the scope at any time. The more we're discussing, the better, actually. But you weren't just widening the scope, you were chastizing someone else for not having a scope as wide as you'd like it to be to begin with. That struck me as a little unfair.

[Athena]

Do you mean the ones who are living with someone who is working and not claiming that person is living in the home while we pay taxes to support them, that have a few kids by different men and the one they are with at the present time plus selling drugs and earning money along with doing those drugs? :D

Man, Nurse...I tell ya...do I have some stories from living in the hood.

Some people really do claim other people's kids. They really do have more kids to get a fatter check. They make more than enough money selling drugs to support themselves but collect welfare anyway. They teach their adult children how to scam the system. They trade their foodstamps for drugs (the going rate in my hood was $.50 on the dollar) and go out of their way to avoid reporting roommates.

The sad thing is, it rarely takes just one person to scam the system. Other parents, employers, landlords and drug dealers all actively enable this behavior, even though they stand to gain very little. Why? Because a lot of people look at welfare as "free money". Humans are selfish creatures. If you put yourself in the position to be taken advantage of, you will be, more often than not. The government has put us all in the position to be taken advantage of, sadly.

[nurseronda]

Man, Nurse...I tell ya...do I have some stories from living in the hood.

Some people really do claim other people's kids. They really do have more kids to get a fatter check. They make more than enough money selling drugs to support themselves but collect welfare anyway. They teach their adult children how to scam the system. They trade their foodstamps for drugs (the going rate in my hood was $.50 on the dollar) and go out of their way to avoid reporting roommates.

The sad thing is, it rarely takes just one person to scam the system. Other parents, employers, landlords and drug dealers all actively enable this behavior, even though they stand to gain very little. Why? Because a lot of people look at welfare as "free money". Humans are selfish creatures. If you put yourself in the position to be taken advantage of, you will be, more often than not. The government has put us all in the position to be taken advantage of, sadly.
Sadly, I see this all the time. :confused:

[impqueen]

Really? You got that from my post? Because, that's hardly the case. It's a worthy point, but in the context of the personal responsibility of welfare recipients, it's a secondary point. External factors introduce a whole new element. You're certainly free to widen the scope at any time. The more we're discussing, the better, actually. But you weren't just widening the scope, you were chastizing someone else for not having a scope as wide as you'd like it to be to begin with. That struck me as a little unfair.

Nah, you're right.

I guess I just figured that TXChris would have broadened his own scope by thinking through the issue rather than just assuming that most people are on welfare simply because they feel like it or don't plan well for contingencies. And perhaps that was my error: the assumption that a poster would, in fact, consider likely causal factors before posting what appeared to me to be a very narrow view.

As to chastisement, I didn't see it that way. In fact, to me it appeared that the only person getting chastised was funnymommy. I simply called it like I saw it, much as you did and I did within the last few posts.

That's one of the things I like about you, Athena - your ability to state how you feel directly, rather than going around in circles to get it done. I probably misinterpreted your post because I was already a little bit defensive about the subject matter. If it was unfair of me to expect another poster to think thoroughly through an issue before passing judgment on it, then I apologize.

[CPL CHUD]

Humans are selfish creatures. If you put yourself in the position to be taken advantage of, you will be, more often than not. The government has put us all in the position to be taken advantage of, sadly.
People have a tendecy to be immoral when there is gain involved for themselves with no percieved threat of real consequence. Noble savages we are not. To remedy this we must increase the chances of them getting caught cheating and increase the consequences there after as well as insuring the threat of being caught is percieved, that is to say, understood.

[funnymommy]

I knew I couldn't phrase that statement carefully enough...

funnymommy, I never said that you were less than anyone, and I apologise for giving you that impression.

But, you lead me to an interesting question. Do you believe that human beings are deserving of respect by default? That one should not be judged for the poor decisions they make? Presumably - and, again, there are always exceptions - people on welfare are there as a direct result of irresponsibility. I'm sorry, but just like a person whose irresponsibility winds them up with a drug habit or in jail, they have not earned the same amount of respect as the next guy. Now, maybe this isn't you. Perhaps your situation is through no fault of your own. Unfortunately, you're associated with a faction of society that is marked by poor judgment and it would be unrealistic to expect to not be treated accordingly.

Thanks for clarifying. I guess I am so used to being hearing those kinds of things that I just assumed. Sorry :)

As for being deserving of respect, for me anyway, I feel people overlook all of my acheivements and my hard work. For example, I get a student loan for tuition that I have to pay back-this is no handout, although for some reason people think the government is footing the bill. I recieve about $800 a month for rent, bills, food, etc from welfare, so yes, I struggle. In the meantime, I do without so my kids can have, the mark of all good mommies, right? I ensure their needs are met and that they are respectful, that they behave appropriately, and that they work hard. I work hard as a student to get good grades. I know several people in my community and in my family who use me as the poster child for pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. They treat me very respectfully because they know that I am succeeding while others do not even try, making the system is their way of life. To think that $800 a month is what keeps people from treating me with respect is kind of sad, don't you think?

[Athena]

Nah, you're right.

I guess I just figured that TXChris would have broadened his own scope by thinking through the issue rather than just assuming that most people are on welfare simply because they feel like it or don't plan well for contingencies. And perhaps that was my error: the assumption that a poster would, in fact, consider likely causal factors before posting what appeared to me to be a very narrow view.

As to chastisement, I didn't see it that way. In fact, to me it appeared that the only person getting chastised was funnymommy. I simply called it like I saw it, much as you did and I did within the last few posts.

That's one of the things I like about you, Athena - your ability to state how you feel directly, rather than going around in circles to get it done. I probably misinterpreted your post because I was already a little bit defensive about the subject matter. If it was unfair of me to expect another poster to think thoroughly through an issue before passing judgment on it, then I apologize.

I read your exchange, and it's like the two of you are talking about two separate things. It's almost as if you read TXChris' posts as, "No one should ever require aid." That's not what he's saying, but appears to be what you go on to address. You cite your story as an example, even though it clearly falls into the "exception" catagory, as you encountered extraordinary factors AND didn't require aid for very long. If most people on welfare were like you, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Most people on welfare ARE there because, either they want to be or they didn't plan well. That's no assumption. Surely, you realise that you are not "most people". The simple fact that the limit on welfare is 5 years suggests it is catering to those who exercise chronic poor judgment. The circumstances under which legitimately requiring welfare for 5 years are rare, yet the number of people who max out their benefits is relatively high.

Either way, I just couldn't see how his focus on accountability equates to him being biased and "unnecessarily mean"...Unless you construed his posts as meaning no one should ever require aid, in which case, your response would make sense.

As for funnymommy, she's hardly being chastised. Hell, the only harsh sounding comment I made was prefaced by a, "this isn't directed toward you as a person", and I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who has addressed her situation directly.

All that being said - As always, Imp, your calculated diction makes your posts a marvel to read and makes you a pleasure to converse with. You should pop into this forum more often, since I don't seem to make it out of here, much. ;)

[Athena]

I work hard as a student to get good grades. I know several people in my community and in my family who use me as the poster child for pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. They treat me very respectfully because they know that I am succeeding while others do not even try, making the system is their way of life. To think that $800 a month is what keeps people from treating me with respect is kind of sad, don't you think?

It sounds like those who know you feel that you've earned their respect. You can't necessarily blame those who don't know you for lumping you in with the welfare stereotype, though. People are judgmental. I'm not trying to imply that this is right or wrong, but that, generally speaking, receiving welfare should be uncomfortable in order to help deter folks from making it a lifestyle. If welfare is easy to get and no one looks down on those receiving it, what's to stop them from receiving it as long as they can (rather than as long as they have to)?

[Athena]

Bump.

[WryBread]

Social assistance programs are supposed to help Americans through hard times, not facilitate a life of drinking and drugging. So yeah, test away. And I also think that if a woman comes on the welfare roles with one baby, she gets a check for one baby and no more money of she has additional children. She stays with one check. This will stop babies being born as check-machines and encourage bad parents to put their babies up for adoption. It also will slow down the anchor baby scam by illegal aliens.

[Athena]

Bump... it's come up recently.

[Echo]

Only if we also drug test all of the Giant CEO's of corporate companies that literally nearly destroyed the economy in this country and then had to be bailed out with CORPORATE WELFARE so that we didn't descend into a depression.

They weren't supposed to be eating out, flying on private jets, receiving bonuses either. But yet they were. Let's be sure to apply such draconian measures on them as well.....don't just pick on the poor people.

That would be called class warfare.

In America? Nah. Never. :wink:

[TACO]

I got a novel idea...drug test all politicians!

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Might as well drug test everyone, then.

[TACO]

As a Professional Mariner I am subject to drug test at anytime. With that said, like I stated earlier ALL POLITICIANS should be drug tested! What is good for us is good for them! Also, I believe we should drug test welfare recipients! If they can afford drugs, then they should not be on welfare. JMO

[MC30]

yeah! and drug test all the pell grant receipents! if they can afford drugs, then they can afford college! and military widows! if they can afford drugs, then they can afford not to have a husb.....
well, that one doesn't work.:dong:

[Kitty]

I believe that if you are subject to drug-testing to be employed, then why not if you are recieving sustaining monies from somewhere else? I have Pell, I've been on welfare, I'll pee, gladly if it will keep me in school or my kids fed/clothed/sheltered.

[Aslan]

I'm subject to a drug test at any time by my employers.
These are the people who pay me.

Why should people getting welfare be let off the hook?

[Aena]

I don't know where any stats are on this but I think some people may be under the impression that if you are on welfare you could afford to use the welfare to buy drugs. I went to the welfare office when I was going through my divorce and I can tell you when I left I never even filled out an application, it wasn't worth it. For a family of 5 in Indiana you receive something like 400 a month. That wouldn't even pay my house payment so I said why bother, just waited for my divorce to be finalized and my child support plus working from home more than pays my bills. They did tell me there that if I did receive any assistance they would keep my child support until all the assistance I would have received was paid off, so in my case it wouldn't have just been a free hand out, it would have been paid back. I had family in a position to help me though the rough patch so I didn't need welfare like so many others do, I had other options.

I did get a pell grant though to help me with the expenses associated with college, if they want to drug test me for that no problem I have nothing to hide.

[TACO]

I don't know where any stats are on this but I think some people may be under the impression that if you are on welfare you could afford to use the welfare to buy drugs. I went to the welfare office when I was going through my divorce and I can tell you when I left I never even filled out an application, it wasn't worth it. For a family of 5 in Indiana you receive something like 400 a month. That wouldn't even pay my house payment so I said why bother, just waited for my divorce to be finalized and my child support plus working from home more than pays my bills. They did tell me there that if I did receive any assistance they would keep my child support until all the assistance I would have received was paid off, so in my case it wouldn't have just been a free hand out, it would have been paid back. I had family in a position to help me though the rough patch so I didn't need welfare like so many others do, I had other options.

I did get a pell grant though to help me with the expenses associated with college, if they want to drug test me for that no problem I have nothing to hide.

I know you can not use welfare to buy drugs. What I am saying is if you pool your limited resources together, instead of buying drugs you can get off welfare that much quicker. Plus, if my tax dollars are supporting you I want you to be drug free just like I am. With the job I have, I am subject to drug testing at anytime. Whats fair is fair!

To echo my previous post - DRUG TEST ALL POLITICIANS FIRST

[Mare]

I don't know where any stats are on this but I think some people may be under the impression that if you are on welfare you could afford to use the welfare to buy drugs. I went to the welfare office when I was going through my divorce and I can tell you when I left I never even filled out an application, it wasn't worth it. For a family of 5 in Indiana you receive something like 400 a month. That wouldn't even pay my house payment so I said why bother, just waited for my divorce to be finalized and my child support plus working from home more than pays my bills. They did tell me there that if I did receive any assistance they would keep my child support until all the assistance I would have received was paid off, so in my case it wouldn't have just been a free hand out, it would have been paid back. I had family in a position to help me though the rough patch so I didn't need welfare like so many others do, I had other options.

I did get a pell grant though to help me with the expenses associated with college, if they want to drug test me for that no problem I have nothing to hide.


What I've seen done upstate, is people use welfare to buy steak, formula...and then they sell it for half the price right in front of Walmart for cash. Sometimes this cash is used for drugs.

[Athena]

I'm subject to a drug test at any time by my employers.
These are the people who pay me.

Why should people getting welfare be let off the hook?

Because it would waste a shit ton of money, that's why. And some of us think we're already paying enough to support the welfare system.

Employers drug test because it gets them insurance discount - obvious financial benefit that offsets the cost of testing. There is no such offset for the government. Even if they were to drug test welfare recipients, as stated in state propositions, it would only lead to MORE spending (government-sponsored treatment for abusers and foster care for children).

If we want to reduce welfare spending, going after the drug users is not the way to do it. Limit welfare. If people knew that, say, they couldn't get it for more than a year at a time and there is a relatively low cap on a lifetime max, they might think twice about putting themselves in a situation that requires it.

[sheevaa]

I personally think employment programs are better. When I was having a hard time 4 or so years ago, they recommended this program they had where I had to fill out apps for I believe 30 jobs a week. They would pay my rent and give me a 40 food voucher a week. The voucher couldn't be used to buy tobacco or alcohol. You had to use it all cause you didn't get any money back from it if there were any left over.

Swallowed my pride, but I was up and working again in less than two months. Been there ever since :-D

The vouchers are in that person's name and at least my grocery store asked for my ID every time I used one.

[MC30]

fyi you cannot get welfare if you have felony drug charges. nor can you get state or federal assistance.

[Aena]

I know you can not use welfare to buy drugs. What I am saying is if you pool your limited resources together, instead of buying drugs you can get off welfare that much quicker. Plus, if my tax dollars are supporting you I want you to be drug free just like I am. With the job I have, I am subject to drug testing at anytime. Whats fair is fair!

To echo my previous post - DRUG TEST ALL POLITICIANS FIRST


First off, I am not on welfare, so drug testing me is a moot point for this argument. Secondly, I am drug tested enough as it is to make sure that I AM taking the drugs prescribed to me.

Pool the limited resources, you have to be kidding. Like I said when I went in to file the amount they were going to give me wouldn't even pay my house payment, which means I would have had no resources to pool. Everything, plus whatever else I could come up with would have had to pay just my house payment, what about electric, gas, trash pick up, water? The internet would be an extra and would have had to go, also the satellite would have had to go.

All I am saying is that when someone is on welfare, legitimately, there are no resources left to pool to get them out of the situation. Should they save all their welfare checks to pool their resources and become homeless on top of not being able to find a job? Welfare seems designed to keep a person down, they can never get ahead because every penny they get has to go to some bill or other. I am only talking about the people who are on the up and up and really need help, not the ones who sell food stamps or sell drugs on the side.

Also, in my state they do have a cut off, meaning you can only get cash assistance for so long and then you are cut off. I remember when they passed the bill. They also have the "can't get welfare for more kids born after you are on welfare" law but I am not really sure how that one works, I remember when they passed that one too. I just didn't pay that much attention at the time.

[TACO]

Pool the limited resources, you have to be kidding. Like I said when I went in to file the amount they were going to give me wouldn't even pay my house payment, which means I would have had no resources to pool. Everything, plus whatever else I could come up with would have had to pay just my house payment, what about electric, gas, trash pick up, water? The internet would be an extra and would have had to go, also the satellite would have had to go.

All I am saying is that when someone is on welfare, legitimately, there are no resources left to pool to get them out of the situation. Should they save all their welfare checks to pool their resources and become homeless on top of not being able to find a job? Welfare seems designed to keep a person down, they can never get ahead because every penny they get has to go to some bill or other. I am only talking about the people who are on the up and up and really need help, not the ones who sell food stamps or sell drugs on the side.

What I meant in pooling your resources is this cutting back on all un-necessary things/items (i.e. internet, cable, etc.). Have I been on welfare, no. Have I been bankrupt, no but my dad went bankrupt we lost everything (cars, business, & house).That is when you see who your real friends are. We had family that helped us, thank God for that. My dad went back to being a policeman & took on a second job to make ends meet. My stepmother babysat, to make extra money. No cable, no going to a movie no vacations. Once my dad got back on his feet (he paid everything back to my step grandparents & other family members) then we went on a 2 day getaway to biloxi. To us it was a big deal.

Another time I lost my job, then a week later my wife at the time told me she was pregnant. I went from making $180 a day to $110 a day, with no insurance. I applied for assistance, only to be told I made too much money the previous year. That issed me off, here I am needing help from the system I paid into but to no avail! So, I pulled myself up & went to work, working straight time. In 365 days in a year I worked close to 300+ days, what is the significance is you ask, well I work on a boat...I missed the first 3 years of my sons life to provide for him...I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO! I didn't go out, no fishing trips, NOTHING! I know what sacrifice is. And I understand everyone situation is different.

Aena, I do agree that welfare is designed to keep people down. JMO

[malq]

I say no testing for recipients. Its a personal intrusion that is not nessecary. Furthermore, it puts them in an even deeper subordinate class and is seen as a punishment for needing welfare. Imagine the cost for all that testing. Staggering!
The focus should be on the recipients truly being candidates. Filter out those who are abusing the system and that problem should take care of itself. Once it gets to a manageable level there can be caseworkers paying closer attention to individuals needs and evaluating if there is progress.
Welfare has morphed into an entitlement instead of a safe-gaurd. Look at the original intentions. It used to work. I guess in the big picture welfare in a drop in the bucket compared to government waste.

[Pete Bondurant]

Sterilise them.....

[TACO]

I say no testing for recipients. Its a personal intrusion that is not nessecary. Furthermore, it puts them in an even deeper subordinate class and is seen as a punishment for needing welfare. Imagine the cost for all that testing. Staggering!
The focus should be on the recipients truly being candidates. Filter out those who are abusing the system and that problem should take care of itself. Once it gets to a manageable level there can be caseworkers paying closer attention to individuals needs and evaluating if there is progress.
Welfare has morphed into an entitlement instead of a safe-gaurd. Look at the original intentions. It used to work. I guess in the big picture welfare in a drop in the bucket compared to government waste.
MALQ, AS PROFESSIONAL MARINERS WE ARE SUBJECT TO DRUG TESTING ANYTIME. I do not agree with personal intrusion either, but if you are going to live off the governments dime, that uses my hard earned tax dolars to pay for welfare, well then they should be held to a higher standard! JMO
With that said, I am all for the legalization of MARIJUANA (who do you trust man or GOD).
Free the WEED!

[malq]

MALQ, AS PROFESSIONAL MARINERS WE ARE SUBJECT TO DRUG TESTING ANYTIME. I do not agree with personal intrusion either, but if you are going to live off the governments dime, that uses my hard earned tax dolars to pay for welfare, well then they should be held to a higher standard! JMO
With that said, I am all for the legalization of MARIJUANA (who do you trust man or GOD).
Free the WEED!

True Taco, We are drug tested because of our profession. But the company picks up the tab for the testing and gives the results to the private business that does the reporting to the goverment. You know as well I do that everytime you take a Union Job or upgrade your license the cost is funded personally by us.
The reasoning behind the testing is different also. We handle dangerous cargos and equipment as well in direct control of peoples lives. Especially you as Captain. Us Engineers don't have the direct responsibility you do.(that killed me to say that), But you bet the safety of the vessel and it's steering and propulsion on us. That's the reason we get tested on a consistent basis. Plus we back up the military in wartime. Thats the secondary function of the Merchant marines.

Testing someone to see if they are clean for a handout does not cut it in my book.
Hold them to a higher standard by forcing them to work for it. There is plenty of jobs that can be replaced by welfare recipients.
1)pick lettuce,blueberries and cotton- get rid of illegal immigrants at the same time(malq is fully aware of following shitstorm from this comment)
2)pick up trash on the side of the road
3)sweep city sidewalks and clean the gutters.

If they cant do that they can't work anyways.

[Aslan]

Okay, did anyone else see MARINERS as Marines?

Just wondering


Testing someone to see if they are clean for a handout does not cut it in my book.
Hold them to a higher standard by forcing them to work for it. There is plenty of jobs that can be replaced by welfare recipients.

I completely agree here, especially since most of the people are sucking off the government

[Pete Bondurant]

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.

[TACO]

True Taco, We are drug tested because of our profession. But the company picks up the tab for the testing and gives the results to the private business that does the reporting to the goverment. You know as well I do that everytime you take a Union Job or upgrade your license the cost is funded personally by us.
The reasoning behind the testing is different also. We handle dangerous cargos and equipment as well in direct control of peoples lives. Especially you as Captain. Us Engineers don't have the direct responsibility you do.(that killed me to say that), But you bet the safety of the vessel and it's steering and propulsion on us. That's the reason we get tested on a consistent basis. Plus we back up the military in wartime. Thats the secondary function of the Merchant marines.

Testing someone to see if they are clean for a handout does not cut it in my book.
Hold them to a higher standard by forcing them to work for it. There is plenty of jobs that can be replaced by welfare recipients.
1)pick lettuce,blueberries and cotton- get rid of illegal immigrants at the same time(malq is fully aware of following shitstorm from this comment)
2)pick up trash on the side of the road
3)sweep city sidewalks and clean the gutters.

If they cant do that they can't work anyways.

First I am non-Union, so I can not answer how your company or job is. Now that is out of the way. My company pays for the test, yes. But when I go to renew, I am given a certified letter from my company stating that I participate in a random drug testing. That is what I have been doing for the last 4 renewals. You might want to try that for your next renewal.

I understand Malq, but my point is this, you know as well as I do that if we partake in recreational drug use on our time off we are subject to the loss of our license and or fine. To me that is wrong. If I have to take a drug test I believe Congress & ALL federal employees should take one also, they have a sensitive job, way more that we do! JMO

Well, if they are going to live off the wages I put into welfare for them, then they should take a drug test! That is my point of view. If they are found to be on it they get kicked out the program, plain & simple! I Agree 100% they should take any & I mean any job available as the ones you pointed out.

You are right if they can't do it because of injury or illness, then I say they should get disability.

Oh BTW I loved that an engineer finally admitted the truth! LOL
Have a safe voyage MALQ where ever you sail my friend!

.

[malq]

I am with ya on all that except for it's horseshit for the government to run around with a peecup chasing down vulvas and penii for discharge waste to see what they have been doing unless absolutely necessary. I am just not getting that from Welfare recipients. There are better ways.

On another note, if it gets back to me what I said that in a weak moment about engineers vs deck, I will hunt you down and pour a barrel of oil around your ship and call Coast Guard:crazy:

Cheers to you Pal

[TACO]

On another note, if it gets back to me what I said that in a weak moment about engineers vs deck, I will hunt you down and pour a barrel of oil around your ship and call Coast Guard:crazy:

Cheers to you Pal

Ugh...in that case, it will be our secret. What did you say by the way I don't remember? :dontknow: lol

[sloppyjoes]

I don't get why anyone who isn't on drugs would be upset by government requiring drug tests to hand out welfare. Its not like they're asking to stand on street corners and test everyone. But if you cannot stop using drugs permanently, or even long enough to pass a simple pee test, then why would we, people who pay taxes, want to hand you our money? Do your drugs without it.

[Athena]

I don't get why anyone who isn't on drugs would be upset by government requiring drug tests to hand out welfare.

I'm not on drugs OR welfare, and I have a problem with it. If you bother to read the thread from the beginning, I detail my reasons. But in case you don't feel like it, I'll break it down to a few short points:

1.) It would be an incredibly expensive undertaking (it's not cheap to drug test hundreds of thousands of people). Proposed legislation suggests that they wouldn't cut you off, they'd offer you rehab. So, it could ultimately double what some states spend on welfare.

2.) It might not be particularly effective. Hard drugs leave your system quickly, so testing would only catch the small percentage of frequent users, and even then, only if the tests were random and supervised.

3.) It equates to assumed guilt. The majority of welfare recipients are decent people who are using it as it's intended. Why should the totally innocent be invaded and inconvenienced by frequent drug testing?

4.) Drug testing occasionally results in false-positives. Innocent people shouldn't get screwed because the technology is not absolute.

5.) What qualifies as a drug? Just illegal substances? In some of the more highly taxed states, smokers would spend more than many potheads on their vice. Or what about alcoholics?

That pretty much sums it up. I understand why it sounds good at a glance, but when you get to thinking about the way a program like this would actually work, it begins to fall apart.

[AHotMess]

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.

let them eat cake?

[DeathDoll]

The problem with drug testing welfare recipients is the only ones that will get busted are petty pot smokers. Meth, crack, coke, heroin all leave your system in 3-4 days. Pot takes longer.

Also the other problem is the people who really suffer are the children of these parents. Taking away food from kids of drug users seems a bit ass backwards to me. Have you though about the cost of this testing? We will be paying for that too.

They tried this kind of thing in a few counties in Florida where it failed miserably. I am all for meth heads not getting to lay on their ass and be fed by me, but honestly this will just do more harm than good.

[biteme]

The problem with drug testing welfare recipients is the only ones that will get busted are petty pot smokers. Meth, crack, coke, heroin all leave your system in 3-4 days. Pot takes longer.

Also the other problem is the people who really suffer are the children of these parents. Taking away food from kids of drug users seems a bit ass backwards to me. Have you though about the cost of this testing? We will be paying for that too.

They tried this kind of thing in a few counties in Florida where it failed miserably. I am all for meth heads not getting to lay on their ass and be fed by me, but honestly this will just do more harm than good.

The children of addicts suffer whether the government gives the parents cash hand outs or not, addicts use everything they can get their hands on for more drugs, not food or a roof for their children
Addicts use the children to steal tax payers/government money for drugs. Government should use the money to house, feed and educate the children and addicts can work for their upkeep or go fuck themselves

[DeathDoll]

I agree, prevention and education is the key to this issue. I am fully aware of what addicts are capable of considering I was raised by one. My whole point is that drug testing will just perpetuate and create more issues than it solves. Btw, you are aware the government never hands out "cash" so the hoops that addicts have to jump through to launder that money to feed their habits is at least a little cumbersome, but obviously not cumbersome enough.

[Obsolete]

Btw, you are aware the government never hands out "cash" so the hoops that addicts have to jump through to launder that money to feed their habits is at least a little cumbersome, but obviously not cumbersome enough.

How exactly is going to an ATM and withdrawing money each month cumbersome?

[biteme]

I'm not on drugs OR welfare, and I have a problem with it. If you bother to read the thread from the beginning, I detail my reasons. But in case you don't feel like it, I'll break it down to a few short points:

1.) It would be an incredibly expensive undertaking (it's not cheap to drug test hundreds of thousands of people). Proposed legislation suggests that they wouldn't cut you off, they'd offer you rehab. So, it could ultimately double what some states spend on welfare.

2.) It might not be particularly effective. Hard drugs leave your system quickly, so testing would only catch the small percentage of frequent users, and even then, only if the tests were random and supervised.

3.) It equates to assumed guilt. The majority of welfare recipients are decent people who are using it as it's intended. Why should the totally innocent be invaded and inconvenienced by frequent drug testing?

4.) Drug testing occasionally results in false-positives. Innocent people shouldn't get screwed because the technology is not absolute.

5.) What qualifies as a drug? Just illegal substances? In some of the more highly taxed states, smokers would spend more than many potheads on their vice. Or what about alcoholics?

That pretty much sums it up. I understand why it sounds good at a glance, but when you get to thinking about the way a program like this would actually work, it begins to fall apart.

1) It would eliminate so many unworthy recipients it would cut the welfare program cost in half, many wouldn't even bother applying
2) business can require it of workers and athletes, the government should require it to qualify for free $$$ handouts
3) It doesn't equate to assume guilt in the working world, it equates to having a job and getting paid or walking away and getting nothing, it's the least should be expected from free government money recipients
5) why always try to equate the illegal with legal, booze is legal, it pretty dam clear what an illegal drug is
what's legal for the working class should be the minimum for the welfare class, if my taxes are supporting you, I want you to at least have to live by the same rules I do to earn that tax money i'm paying towards your support
Guess that pretty much sums it up

[Athena]

Florida's testing of welfare recipients is... wait for it... Costing the state money!

Source (http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/floridas-welfare-drug-testing-costs-more-than-it-saves/)


A WFTV investigation found that out of the 40 recipients tested by Department of Central Florida’s (DCF) region, only two resulted in positive results. And one of those tests is being appealed.

Under the rules of the program, the state must reimburse recipients who receive negative test results. The state paid about $1,140 for the 38 negative tests, while saving less than $240 a month by denying benefits over the two positive tests.

This, folks, is the difference between theory and reality. In theory, some things sound like a no-brainer. But when they play out in reality, it's actually no-brained.

The worst part? One of the positive tests is being appealed, AND the state expects to defend its law in court, adding thousands of dollars to the cost of this program, so the costs hardly stop at $1,140.

I hope this is enough of a failure to convince them to not expand the program.

[Obsolete]

I'd like to point out (if no one has yet) that the new law doesn't disqualify the family from benefits because of a failed drug test, it just means that person has to register someone else to be in charge of collecting the money. So Jimbob fails his test and appoints his uncle as careholder over his money. What's to stop that uncle from handing the cash directly to Jimbob? How is this saving American dollars?

[Athena]

I'd like to point out (if no one has yet) that the new law doesn't disqualify the family from benefits because of a failed drug test, it just means that person has to register someone else to be in charge of collecting the money. So Jimbob fails his test and appoints his uncle as careholder over his money. What's to stop that uncle from handing the cash directly to Jimbob? How is this saving American dollars?

I had no idea Florida was being so generous. I knew that proposed plans in other states included similar provisions, but am surprised the grinches in FL didn't manage to arrange complete rejection of benefits.

[Obsolete]

I had no idea Florida was being so generous. I knew that proposed plans in other states included similar provisions, but am surprised the grinches in FL didn't manage to arrange complete rejection of benefits.

The welfare recipient is responsible for the cost of the test, but they are reimbursed by the state if they qualify for the benefit. If they don't pass, as I said above, they have to appoint someone to receive the benefits on their behalf.



Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS

[biteme]

The welfare recipient is responsible for the cost of the test, but they are reimbursed by the state if they qualify for the benefit. If they don't pass, as I said above, they have to appoint someone to receive the benefits on their behalf.



http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS
Guess its just a way to hire more bureaucrats, should've known government always looking for a way to spend more
be less effective
But, we are talking Florida, seems things are always a bit out of whack there

[Obsolete]

I posted something about this subject on my FB page and a good friend of mine suggested that every state that implements this law should also require the CEO's, CFO's and board members who work for large corporations that receive subsidy of any kind (cs or tax loopholes) to submit to the same testing and risk the loss of those subsidies if any of them should fail the test.

While I don't think the welfare testing will have many (if any) positive results, I do think my friend has an interesting point.

I'll be honest, I haven't read all 4 pages of this thread so I don't know if I'm covering ground that has already been discussed or not.

[biteme]

I posted something about this subject on my FB page and a good friend of mine suggested that every state that implements this law should also require the CEO's, CFO's and board members who work for large corporations that receive subsidy of any kind (cs or tax loopholes) to submit to the same testing and risk the loss of those subsidies if any of them should fail the test.

While I don't think the welfare testing will have many (if any) positive results, I do think my friend has an interesting point.

I'll be honest, I haven't read all 4 pages of this thread so I don't know if I'm covering ground that has already been discussed or not.
They can't do that, where is all the campaign money going to come from, and all those huge paying retirement consultant jobs
government officials get for passing beneficial programs and laws will disappear, you expect government lackeys to cut their own throat?

[walkingeagle]

Fuck the "free degree", we'll support your lazy ass bullshit! Give them a bottle of Listerene and a handful of job applications and boot them!


ETA: Yank the babies also!

[MC30]

ETA: Yank the babies also!

yeah! so they can get put into fostercare! and then...oh wait, taxes pay for that as well.

[walkingeagle]

Yes I know that is an extreme view! Everyone cries when we talk about making them do what we have to do, so screw it! Make both parents get a freaking job and pay for that bill. It doesn't have to come from taxes.

[MC30]

honestly out of all the things my taxes go to...i really don't care about welfare. the system was set up for a reason and for the love of gawd i hope it will be there for me if i ever need it. "A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members"

[oOXColdmoonXOo]

I just typed for I don't really know how long and realized I had gone on a long ranty bitch fest. To condense my feelings on it, the system needs to be re-worked but not like this. Going after drugs is always a good way to get people on your side because who's going to say no to that in theory? Burn the evil drug users is a popular chant. There are plenty of people bleeding the system that don't use drugs.

Reform the whole damn system. Definitely shorten the time you can receive it. I see people complain all the time that there are no jobs out there. There are jobs out there every damn where. What people mean is, there are no jobs that I want to do that pay the amount I want. I didn't want to work in a brake factory or a gas station in a horrible neighborhood or clean houses to feed my kids but I did it anyway. My ex was one of those people and he's lucky I never beat him to death with a stack of fast food restaurant applications.

I gotta add though that I read somewhere through the posts that someone said if you can't survive in your area to move. I've heard that before and I find it a ridiculous thing to say, moving is expensive as shit, it's going to run you into the thousands easily if you're moving any real distance for transporting your household goods and setting up utilities, paying deposits and all that wonderfulness. I'm going to be moving from VA to NY in a month or so and I am not looking forward to it >:|

[DeathDoll]

The only money welfare recipients can get is TANF. TANF is given to parents who do not receive their court appointed child support. When the deadbeat parent pays their support they pay back what was used by the recipient.

You can not get cash from an ATM from food stamps. *massive eye roll*

[Obsolete]

The only money welfare recipients can get is TANF. TANF is given to parents who do not receive their court appointed child support. When the deadbeat parent pays their support they pay back what was used by the recipient.

You can not get cash from an ATM from food stamps. *massive eye roll*

DeathDoll -Who the fuck said anything about food stamps? If you're done rolling your eyes like a child maybe you can reread what you initially said:



Btw, you are aware the government never hands out "cash" so the hoops that addicts have to jump through to launder that money to feed their habits is at least a little cumbersome, but obviously not cumbersome enough.

See, nothing about food stamps there. The government gives you a lil debit card and they deposit TANF benefits onto it on the 1st of every month. All someone has to do is walk their ass to am ATM and withdraw the money...how fucking hard is that?

Also, TANF isn't JUST for people that have dead beat spouses, low income couples get it too.

[DeathDoll]

DeathDoll -Who the fuck said anything about food stamps? If you're done rolling your eyes like a child maybe you can reread what you initially said:



See, nothing about food stamps there. The government gives you a lil debit card and they deposit TANF benefits onto it on the 1st of every month. All someone has to do is walk their ass to am ATM and withdraw the money...how fucking hard is that?

Also, TANF isn't JUST for people that have dead beat spouses, low income couples get it too.

Those folks who get TANF do have to meet requirements. One of which is have children who need assistance.


Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, often pronounced /ˈtænɨf/) is one of the United States of America's federal assistance programs. It began on July 2, 1997, and succeeded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, providing cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children through the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

[Obsolete]

Those folks who get TANF do have to meet requirements. One of which is have children who need assistance.

No shit...Do you ever read what you type? You said:


TANF is given to parents who do not receive their court appointed child support. When the deadbeat parent pays their support they pay back what was used by the recipient.

That is incorrect. The children can have BOTH parents in the household and the family will still qualify for benefits.

[DeathDoll]

No shit...Do you ever read what you type? You said:



That is incorrect. The children can have BOTH parents in the household and the family will still qualify for benefits.

Wow, your an asshole, but yes I do read what I type and that is why I posted what TANF is actually for, in order to correct myself. The whole point of my post is most ignorant people that have no concept how assistance works think you can just have an endless supply of cash.

It sounds to me you are one of those people that have never been in a tough situation and think you know EVERYTHING. I do not condone the use of government assistance to buy drugs or not better your situation. The problem is people like YOU painting everyone with a broad brush of judgment.

[Obsolete]

Wow, your an asshole, but yes I do read what I type and that is why I posted what TANF is actually for, in order to correct myself. The whole point of my post is most ignorant people that have no concept how assistance works think you can just have an endless supply of cash.

It sounds to me you are one of those people that have never been in a tough situation and think you know EVERYTHING. I do not condone the use of government assistance to buy drugs or not better your situation. The problem is people like YOU painting everyone with a broad brush of judgment.

Please show me where I indicated I have never been in a tough situation, or where I have judged anyone. I was merely pointing out that it IS easy to withdraw money and trade it for drugs if one so chooses to do so. I also pointed out that not only single parents qualify for welfare. Those were factual statements, not judgements. Not once did I suggest people who need assistance are lower than anyone else nor did I judge anyone receiving benefits. If you read my posts I do not support drug testing for recipients, as I don't feel it would be helpful or conducive.

Your posts are confused and ignorant. You've repeatedly posted information that isn't true and all I have done is point out your errors. If that makes me an asshole then I gladly accept that title. I'm not the one "rolling eyes" like a 12 yr old, you are. I'm not the one name calling because I have nothing intelligent to say, you are.

I don't think I know EVERYTHING but I obviously know a hell of a lot more than you do, which has become more and more apparent with each of your posts.

Furthermore, I don't know a single person who thinks that people on welfare get an endless supply of cash...if that were the case no one would work and everyone would sit around on welfare.

Lastly...it's "You're an asshole", not "your an asshole". Wow, I was wrong...I DO know everything.

[DeathDoll]

You seem to have jumped all over me for my eye roll. I am in no way ignorant and I even posted a link to correct myself. If you think I am the only one who saw the "asshole" in your posts then you are mistaken. I get it though, you are one of "those people" on the forum. I have forumed before so I should have spotted you before responding. My bad. You're on ignore :proud2:

If you would like to continue the dignified and oh so mature attack of my character you can PM me. Have a great day!

[Obsolete]

Everyone here already knows I'm an asshole, an opinionated asshole.

[Hellsbells]

1,588 welfare applicants decline to take drug test


MIAMI (AP) - New figures reveal less than one percent of Florida welfare applicants tested positive for drugs under a new law. But nearly 1,600 applicants did not take the drug test for unknown reasons.

According to figures released by state officials Tuesday, 32 failed the test, 4,056 passed and 1,588 did not take the test in August and September. The Department of Children and Families said it's difficult to draw concrete conclusions from the results.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/florida/article/215077/19/1588-welfare-applicants-decline-to-take-drug-test

[Dakota Valkyrie]

An Orlando federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked the state from drug testing welfare applicants in a case involving a Central Florida father, rejecting many of the state's claims of why the probes are legal.

Luis W. Lebron, a 35-year-old University of Central Florida student who served in the Navy, applied with the Florida Department of Children and Families for emergency cash assistance this summer to help raise his 4-year-old son.
[...]

DCF said Lebron is eligible for the financial assistance, which would amount to about $241 a month.

But Lebron, who says he has never used illegal drugs, contends that requiring him to be tested and to pay for that testing violates his civil rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union chose Lebron as the lead plaintiff in a class-action suit, challenging the constitutionality of the drug tests.

United States District Judge Mary S. Scriven blocked the state from requiring Lebron to submit to a "suspicionless" drug test as a condition for receiving welfare benefits until the case is finally resolved.
[...]

Scriven noted in her 37-page ruling that there is a "substantial likelihood" that the challenge of the constitutionality of the new state law will succeed.

"I'm delighted for our client and delighted to have confirmation that all of us remain protected from unreasonable, suspicionless government searches and seizures," ACLU's lead attorney, Maria Kayanan,said in a prepared statement.

In her ruling, Scriven said it is "well established" that a drug test is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, though the state contends the drug testing of welfare recipients is not a search.

Scriven said the collection of an applicant's urine "entails intrusion into a highly personal and private bodily function," and that intrusion also "extends well beyond the initial passing of urine."

The judge said positive drug tests are not kept confidential in the same manner as medical records and are shared with DCF, state abuse hotline counselors and medical reviewers.

"More troubling, positive test results are memorialized, perhaps indefinitely, in a database that the State admits can be accessed by law enforcement," Scriven wrote. "This potential interception of positive drug tests by law enforcement implicates a 'far more substantial' invasion of privacy than in ordinary civil drug testing cases."

Scriven also found that the state hasn't demonstrated a substantial, special need to justify the "wholesale, suspicionless drug testifying of all applicants" for welfare benefits.

The judge was critical of the Legislature for enacting the law at a time when a nearly identical statute in Michigan was successfully challenged.

She also was critical of the state for apparently ignoring a pilot project and study of welfare applicants' drug usage in 1999, which found applicants for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program weren't any more likely to be using drugs than the general population.

"The State invokes the government's general interest in fighting the 'war on drugs' and the associated ills of drug abuse generally to contend that TANF funds should not be used to fund the drug trade. The Court agrees," Scriven wrote. "But, if invoking an interest in preventing public funds from potentially being used to fund drug use were the only requirement to establish a special need, the State could impose drug testing as an eligibility requirement for every beneficiary of every government program. Such blanket intrusions cannot be countenanced under the Fourth Amendment."

Scott spokeswoman Jackie Schutz said the governor was considering an appeal.

"Drug testing welfare recipients is just a common-sense way to ensure that welfare dollars are used to help children and get parents back to work," she said in an email. "The Governor obviously disagrees with the decision and he will evaluate his options regarding when to appeal."
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-10-24/news/os-aclu-drug-test-ruling-20111024_1_drug-testing-suspicionless-blocks-state

[biteme]

Hell! Just put welfare under DHS, they'll take his rights away for his own protection and TSA will feel-em, radiate and probe him
for his and his neighbors safety

[Obsolete]

Hell! Just put welfare under DHS, they'll take his rights away for his own protection and TSA will feel-em, radiate and probe him
for his and his neighbors safety


Welfare IS a branch of DHS.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Welfare IS a branch of DHS.
I think he means Department of Homeland Security rather than Department of Human Services.

[Proud wife]

this is how I feel, in order to get a job you're drug tested. If hurt on the job, you're drug tested. Also, working people pay taxes which in turns pays for welfare. Now, if I have to be drug test in order to work to earn my money, than I kind of feel that people who are collecting my (and everyone else who works) tax dollars should be drug tested as well. I also feel that if you have nothing to hide, whats the big deal about taking a drug test?

[Obsolete]

I think he means Department of Homeland Security rather than Department of Human Services.

*Facepalm*

[biteme]

I think he means Department of Homeland Security rather than Department of Human Services.
True Department of Homeland Security, although I can understand the confusion since both their enforcement field agents are equally inept, uninformed, untrained and unqualified and administrators are unaccountable and teflon, legally untouchable individuals

[Sammy]

Why it's outrageous to drugs test whacked out druggies who pop out/make new welfare recipients at an alarming rate, who don't work, don't want to work and subsidize their 'income' with criminal activity.

Boy, the LEGAL taxpaying citizens of this country just have it out for poor people. Won't even help them pay for their ILLEGAL drug habits. :stupid:

[Obsolete]

Why it's outrageous to drugs test whacked out druggies who pop out/make new welfare recipients at an alarming rate, who don't work, don't want to work and subsidize their 'income' with criminal activity.

Boy, the LEGAL taxpaying citizens of this country just have it out for poor people. Won't even help them pay for their ILLEGAL drug habits. :stupid:

They would still get the money if they fail a drug test, the only change is the people who fail will have to appoint a friend or family member to receive the money for them.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record on this thread.

[Proud wife]

They would still get the money if they fail a drug test, the only change is the people who fail will have to appoint a friend or family member to receive the money for them.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record on this thread.

Obsolete Really? I'm sorry, I didn't read everything, just kind of skimmed it for the most part. I think thats BS that they still get the money even if they fail. Reason being is, who's to say that the friend/family isn't an enabler? Who's to say that the other person won't just hand over the money for them to go buy more drugs?

[Obsolete]

Obsolete Really? I'm sorry, I didn't read everything, just kind of skimmed it for the most part. I think thats BS that they still get the money even if they fail. Reason being is, who's to say that the friend/family isn't an enabler? Who's to say that the other person won't just hand over the money for them to go buy more drugs?

Exactly!

[Athena]

Why it's outrageous to drugs test whacked out druggies who pop out/make new welfare recipients at an alarming rate, who don't work, don't want to work and subsidize their 'income' with criminal activity.

Boy, the LEGAL taxpaying citizens of this country just have it out for poor people. Won't even help them pay for their ILLEGAL drug habits. :stupid:

That stereotype is so 1983. Most welfare recipients are decent, upstanding citizens that require some assistance when they fall on hard times. Especially in the current economic climate, when people who never expected to require such assistance find themselves asking for it. Punishing the whole because a small percentage take advantage of the system is ridiculous and, as mentioned, not cost effective.

I thought you said you were a TX conservative? I suppose you're more Rick Perry than Ron Paul, huh? :wink:

[biteme]

That stereotype is so 1983. Most welfare recipients are decent, upstanding citizens that require some assistance when they fall on hard times. Especially in the current economic climate, when people who never expected to require such assistance find themselves asking for it. Punishing the whole because a small percentage take advantage of the system is ridiculous and, as mentioned, not cost effective.

I thought you said you were a TX conservative? I suppose you're more Rick Perry than Ron Paul, huh? :wink:
But at the same time, you always post about legalizing drugs and you always state illegal drugs are same or safer than alcohol or tobacco , so your opinion is really from a standpoint that drugs should be legal to begin with

[Sammy]

That stereotype is so 1983. Most welfare recipients are decent, upstanding citizens that require some assistance when they fall on hard times. Especially in the current economic climate, when people who never expected to require such assistance find themselves asking for it. Punishing the whole because a small percentage take advantage of the system is ridiculous and, as mentioned, not cost effective.

I thought you said you were a TX conservative? I suppose you're more Rick Perry than Ron Paul, huh? :wink:

There ought to be a bounty on perry and those like him.

The people who are perpetual/generational recipients and abusers of the system make it harder on those who are deserving of help. And they should, absolutely, be weeded out.

Everybody at some time in their life has needed help, even if it's 'only' mommy and daddy picking up your tab.


Benjamin Franklin':
"We should make the poor uncomfortable, to kick them out of poverty"

If we continue to enable them, the fault of wasted lives, abused/murdered/unwanted/institutionalized kids rests with every one of us.

I could do with out that on my shoulders.

And I don't hate them, I love them and wish all that's good about
America for them but what we're doing obviously isn't working. If it was there would be no need for a site like this one.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

There ought to be a bounty on perry and those like him.

The people who are perpetual/generational recipients and abusers of the system make it harder on those who are deserving of help. And they should, absolutely, be weeded out.

Everybody at some time in their life has needed help, even if it's 'only' mommy and daddy picking up your tab.



If we continue to enable them, the fault of wasted lives, abused/murdered/unwanted/institutionalized kids rests with every one of us.

I could do with out that on my shoulders.

And I don't hate them, I love them and wish all that's good about a
America for them but what we're doing obviously isn't working. If it was there would be no need for a site like this one.

Since the mid-90s, there is a Federal limit of 5 years lifetime limit on welfare. The days of perpetual/generational recipients is gone. Now and adult must not only face the time limits, but the personal responsibility aspects (like work or training). No matter what the system, there will always be abusers. Some folks will always put more effort into scamming the system than they would at a real job. If someone knows about it, they should report it rather than turn a blind eye.

From your own state but pretty much like many states:

Texas was one of the first states to reform its welfare system. In 1995, the Texas legislature passed landmark legislation, House Bill 1863, in anticipation of the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). HB 1863 established time limits and work requirements for mandatory Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients. HB 1863 also laid the foundation for the current Texas welfare, workforce development, and subsidized child care systems.
[...]

Under HB 1863, adult TANF recipients are subject to time-limited benefits as short as one year (for the most highly educated and job ready) followed by a five-year "freeze-out". A strong Work First message and the Full Family Sanction of all TANF cash benefits for noncompliance with work requirements has motivated many TANF applicants and recipients to seek employment. Welfare Reform in Texas enforces the importance of working, the temporary nature of public assistance, and the belief that parents are responsible for the care and well being of their families. Caseloads in the have dropped substantially since 1996, and as a result, Texas received more than $72.6 million in federal high-performance bonuses for effective welfare programs.http://www.twc.state.tx.us/welref/wrhistory.html

I was on welfare for a couple of years in the 80s. It had no incentive to do a damn thing. It discouraged work and built dependance on the system. It was like "Here's some free money! No Strings!" I was overjoyed at the 1996 changes the Feds imposed! It's not perferct and far from foolproof, but a whole hell of a lot better and makes more sense.

[Sammy]

Since the mid-90s, there is a Federal limit of 5 years lifetime limit on welfare. The days of perpetual/generational recipients is gone. Now and adult must not only face the time limits, but the personal responsibility aspects (like work or training). No matter what the system, there will always be abusers. Some folks will always put more effort into scamming the system than they would at a real job. If someone knows about it, they should report it rather than turn a blind eye.

From your own state but pretty much like many states:
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/welref/wrhistory.html

I was on welfare for a couple of years in the 80s. It had no incentive to do a damn thing. It discouraged work and built dependance on the system. It was like "Here's some free money! No Strings!" I was overjoyed at the 1996 changes the Feds imposed! It's not perferct and far from foolproof, but a whole hell of a lot better and makes more sense.

The limits do not include the kids they continue to produce which means ADC, food stamps, WIC, housing, childcare and medical. And of course we have many churches and other orgs here who feed the poor.


Some folks will always put more effort into scamming the system than they would at a real job.

Ain't that the truth! Sooo many hoops to jump through and the time wasted...

A friend is dealing with a dead beat woman now with 4 kids (all different fathers) who deliberately stopped the plumbing (plumber pulled a bath towel out of the clean out) in order not to pay the rent.

And my friend has no immediate recourse, can only wait the system out., meanwhile the house that had just been refurbished is being trashed.

Thanks HUD.

No way in hell would I own rental property.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

The limits do not include the kids they continue to produce which means ADC, food stamps, WIC, housing, childcare and medical. And of course we have many churches and other orgs here who feed the poor.
The limits are set on a state by state basis. My state (ND) and the next state over (MN) are among the many that have a Family Cap in place as allowed by Fed Guidelines. You come into the system with X-many kids and you get an amount based on that. It doesn't matter how many more kids are produced while getting assistance. If a state continues to add $ for each kids, I guess that's an issue to take up with the state people.

It's sad that people will have kids for the small amount that one kid could bring in additional cash benefits in Texas. A family of one adult and 3 kids would get $316. Add a kid and the total goes to $351 Hardly seems worth it. Food stamps, WIC, housing, childcare and medical costs don't really play into things with added kids because it's assumed that those are "used up" by the kids (although Food stamp and WIC products can be sold for some cash). http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/help/financial/temporary_assistance.html

I don't think most welfare recipients abuse the system of live on it exclusively. The vast majority of people use it as a safety net when needed... exactly as it was intended to be used. "Welfare Queens" are far from the typical user of the system and it's especially harder after the reforms.

[Rockin Ma]

Damn it! I put my comment in the wrong thread. So then keeping with that. Should then Soc. Sec. recipients also be tested?

[malq]

Damn it! I put my comment in the wrong thread. So then keeping with that. Should then Soc. Sec. recipients also be tested?Social security and welfare assistance are completely different animals.

Social security you paid into and had withheld specifically from your income. It expected you will recover it at a given age.
Welfare is an entitlement which you may receive even if you have put nothing into it.

Which do you think will be most widely abused?

Ok, this horseshit about the cost of testing welfare recipients is nonsense. The military hands out drug tests to the armed forces like candy. It is streamlined, effective and not an infringement by any stretch on constitutional rights.

[Rockin Ma]

Social security and welfare assistance are completely different animals.

Social security you paid into and had withheld specifically from your income. It expected you will recover it at a given age.
Welfare is an entitlement which you may receive even if you have put nothing into it.

Which do you think will be most widely abused?

Ok, this horseshit about the cost of testing welfare recipients is nonsense. The military hands out drug tests to the armed forces like candy. It is streamlined, effective and not an infringement by any stretch on constitutional rights.


I'll admit, I don't really know the difference for sure... SSD maybe? I posted in the wrong thread that welfare is no longer forever but I had noticed that people that probably abused welfare are now collecting social security. Meaning they found another option once their welfare runs out. Based on the people I have seen obtain it, they weren't required to have any certain amount of working credits to get it. Once you collect SS(D) you can rack up all the bills and credit cards you are approved for and will not have to pay it back because they can not garnish that type of income. It's a certain type of person I see doing this...and that certain type of person is pretty much the same as the person happy to live life on welfare.

[Rockin Ma]

Maybe I'm having trouble getting out what I am trying to say. I am saying welfare fraud which is not so bad now that there is a time limit, but many of these live on welfare people move onto Soc. Sec. which you may as well say is welfare because collecting S.S. qualifys them automatically for all kinds of protections. I understand you say it's a different kind of animal, but the many people I have seen on it don't have the credits working that one usually has to say they paid into it.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

I'll admit, I don't really know the difference for sure... SSD maybe?
There are two types of Social Security Disability. SSI and SSDI. SSI is for disabled but low income and paid from general taxes. SSDI is for wage earners who become disabled and is based on your previous earned income and paid by social security taxes.

The cash amounts are often higher than welfare. Both types are subject to abuse but require medical certification so are a bit harder than general welfare to get. In some places, I don't think finding a willing doctor is all that hard... and there are always those "lawyers" that work to get denials overturned.

[Rockin Ma]

Thanks for that DV. Yes. My job refers many to an SS lawyer to help them out. I'm not sure if people are aware how many people have gone for the SSI and get it. Yeah it's a long process and takes awhile, but then there's a retro check and why a lawyer can take a percentage of that award, yet creditors can not collect their debts from it I don't know. You will also automatically become qualified for food, energy and medical. Doesn't seem much different from welfare to me.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Florida didn't save money by drug testing welfare recipients, data shows

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 — are additional ammunition for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state and won a temporary ban on the drug-testing program in October, said ACLU spokesman Derek Newton.
[...]

The costs and benefits of the law — and the outcome of the court case — could reverberate nationwide. This week, Georgia passed its own drug welfare law.

Since Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law last year, 25 states have considered similar legislation, Newton said.

Data about the law's cost may impact the court of public opinion, but Jenn Meale, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, said it won't play a role in the legal proceedings.

That's because ACLU's case rests on whether the law violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against "unreasonable searches" by the government.

"Any costs associated with the program are irrelevant to the analysis of whether the statute is constitutional," Meale said.

Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, 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," Newton said.

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

The findings don't ruffle supporters of the law, who say that its primary purpose is to make sure taxpayer money doesn't supplement drug use.

"It's not about money, it's about the drug issue," said Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Lecanto, who sponsored the legislation. "It's about using every tool we have in the toolbox to fight drugs."

Jackie Schutz, a spokeswoman for the governor's office, said the governor agreed: The drug welfare law is about protecting children and getting parents back to work.

"It is important to ensure that people who receive TANF dollars use the cash assistance appropriately and not spend it on illegal drugs," she said.

Smith said he believes the law helps keep people off drugs and that there's undocumented savings in the form of less prison costs and fewer broken families.
[...]
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/florida-didnt-save-money-by-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-data-shows/1225721