Should We Drug Test Welfare Recipients?

[Athena]

Seattle Representative calls for testing

Michigan actually passed a law implementing testing, but it was struck down

A lawmaker in Baltimore wants to see it happen

The ACLU's take (and lots of info, albeit outdated, about these programs across the nation)

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?

[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?

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.