I give a resounding "HELL NO!" In fact, I would go a step further and implement random drug testing for existing recipients too. Why on earth should the taxpayers foot the bill for people to buy weed (or worse)? I spent a VERY long time amidst welfare recipients in Cincinnati, Ohio. I have seen soooo many people abuse the welfare system. I knew a family of 5 that would spend the $380/mo. cash on a limo and a night out partying and use the $400+ in food stamps to buy all the expensive t-bones and what-not, only to feed their kids baloney and ketchup sandwiches 2 times a day for the last week of the month. This was over and over and over every month. So many people sold their food stamps for .60 cents on the dollar and bought crack, weed, beer, whatever.
I see NOTHING at all wrong, immoral, or unconstitutional in any way. They get reimbursed if they pass the screen. They don't DESERVE to piggy-back off of the work of legitimately employed Americans if they spend the money (or any part of the welfare benefits) on drugs.
You ask for a legal opinion then give a personal response with no legal basis. I find this confusing. Do you have any precedent or foundation (in law) for your decision that it isn't Constitutional beyond "I don't like it"? Why don't you just make poor people come to a public square and publicly flagellate themselves for their failings as humans to get assistance?
Also, stupid Democrats trying to control people based using their 'social experiments' to curb behavior they don't. Oh, wait.
I agree, last thing I want to do is pay for someone else's habits. These days, more and more people are getting on government assistance that don't even need it, so, it's becoming a burden on the government. I have this neighbor, who's 23, perfecly capable of working, but is on disability for ADD. He does nothing but play second life all day, and spends money on that game, so, in short, we're paying for his habits.
I can't speak for your Gov't over there, I'm hopeless on US politics, but surely they could use some of the welfare money to put the worst offenders on some sort of rehab?
Same deal with the screening though. If they don't attend they lose the welfare money.
Also, the current administration could impose a new law, provide proof that you are at least trying to find a job or lose the welfare money. It's carrot and stick really.
Apologies if this comes across as slightly naive, but surely it's better to try and help these people rather than creating a load of homeless families?
What if it is a false positive? What if the person doesn't have a habit but smoked a joint at a party provided by someone else? You aren't paying for their habit then. What about alcohol? If they have had a beer can we cut them off? Alcohol is much more expensive than water, is a drug, and not can put one under the influence. Should we do drug tests on everyone to determine whether the fire department should come to their house? To use public transportation? I find bigotry more distasteful than someone who might smoke marijuana or have alcohol, can we cut off people that are in the KKK or other hate group? What if someone is illiterate? Can we cut them off please? Perhaps a reading test to get the funds. There are people that find LGBT to be a bad choice of lifestyles. They shouldn't have to pay for some poor transgendered dudes dresses if they find that unsavory and distasteful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: Apologies if this comes across as slightly naive, but surely it's better to try and help these people rather than creating a load of homeless families?
HELL NO. It seems like common sense, if someone is doing something illegal or buying something COMPLETLEY unnecesary with our money, then why should they live for free. As for getting them help, screm em'. Sounds sort of heartless, but hey if they've got an addiction its their problem and their families problem(if they haven't already alienated them). Plus it would probably cost more to put them through recovery when they very likely might relapse, this is all from a fiscal standpoint, as for my religious views, i believe we should always lend a hand(not be forced to) to someone truly willing to get well.
Ahtman wrote:What if it is a false positive? What if the person doesn't have a habit but smoked a joint at a party provided by someone else? You aren't paying for their habit then. What about alcohol? If they have had a beer can we cut them off? Alcohol is much more expensive than water, is a drug, and not can put one under the influence. Should we do drug tests on everyone to determine whether the fire department should come to their house? To use public transportation? I find bigotry more distasteful than someone who might smoke marijuana or have alcohol, can we cut off people that are in the KKK or other hate group? What if someone is illiterate? Can we cut them off please? Perhaps a reading test to get the funds. There are people that find LGBT to be a bad choice of lifestyles. They shouldn't have to pay for some poor transgendered dudes dresses if they find that unsavory and distasteful.
No, that's why it would be good to do follow ups, because there's a difference from a joint at a party and habitually buying drugs with your welfare money, and, I'm not sure, but I believe the government. Foodstamp program doesn't cover non-food, non-medicine. I'm not being bigoted, I just stated that there's people on government assistance that don't need it. And as far as that last statement, I'm hoping you don't mean me, because I pay for everything I own, I've never needed assistance.
I have seen soooo many people abuse the welfare system. I knew a family of 5 that would spend the $380/mo. cash on a limo and a night out partying and use the $400+ in food stamps to buy all the expensive t-bones and what-not, only to feed their kids baloney and ketchup sandwiches 2 times a day for the last week of the month. This was over and over and over every month.
Doesn't mean that all or even a majority in receipt of benefits are behaving like this or taking drugs.
Not condoning such behaviour. If this is true and if you had hard evidence they ought be reported to the relevant authority.
Their childrens' welfare should take precedence over a jolly on the town.
Am not sure about this, or whether I would feel bad about being asked to take a drug test.
It's almost assuredly constitutional. It's terrible policy (despite making people feel better), but I don't think it's unconstitutional.
the only real argument to made is that it's an illegal search. This gets tricky, because the expectations of privacy varies depending on circumstances. I expect the most in my house, the least while crossing a border or getting unto an airplane.
Welfare has always required a lowered expectation of privacy in terms of financial disclosures and the like. As long as the tests aren't used for criminal prosecutions, I think it's constitutional.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Doesn't mean that all or even a majority in receipt of benefits are behaving like this or taking drugs.
Really a segment of the population just doesn't want welfare programs period, and this is another way to go after that. The other is to demonize the few abusers to appear either tough on crime and/or against welfare in general, regardless of whether the majority don't abuse it. If some do everyone must be punished. We actually are a fairly vicious group of people sometimes, going after the poor in such ways. Politicians don't lose anything going after them as the poor aren't really a constituency to be worried about and it makes the middle class feel good to see them not getting so many 'perks'.
It's terrible policy for a lot of reasons. First, IIRC the governor of florida is connected a drug testing company, which shows the real impetus. Second, it'll cost money in testing, appeals, etc. Third, what exactly are people that don't get welfare going to do? If you say "get a job," you're naive. Fourth, policies like this ignore the massive benefits working, middle, and upper class people derive from the government without needing a drug test.
I think, as a non-drug user, that all benefits should come with a drug test. Want to drive on a highway? Visit a national park? Get a student loan? Take a tax deduction? Pee in a cup!
Polonius wrote:As long as the tests aren't used for criminal prosecutions, I think it's constitutional.
Do you think it would be unconstitutional to use these tests for criminal prosecutions? I don't think so. There's no right to welfare, and a government agency could conceivably link welfare need to drug use (if you're buying drugs you don't need welfare maybe?) to eliminate any Pickering issues.
I have seen soooo many people abuse the welfare system. I knew a family of 5 that would spend the $380/mo. cash on a limo and a night out partying and use the $400+ in food stamps to buy all the expensive t-bones and what-not, only to feed their kids baloney and ketchup sandwiches 2 times a day for the last week of the month. This was over and over and over every month.
Doesn't mean that all or even a majority in receipt of benefits are behaving like this or taking drugs.
Not condoning such behaviour. If this is true and if you had hard evidence they ought be reported to the relevant authority.
Their childrens' welfare should take precedence over a jolly on the town.
Am not sure about this, or whether I would feel bad about being asked to take a drug test.
You'd be suprised how many people abuse the system. Where I live, it's almost an everyday thing.
ahtman wrote:Really a segment of the population just doesn't want welfare programs period, and this is another way to go after that. The other is to demonize the few abusers to appear either tough on crime and/or against welfare in general, regardless of whether the majority don't abuse it. If some do everyone must be punished. We actually are a fairly vicious group of people sometimes, going after the poor in such ways Politicians don't lose anything going after them as the poor aren't really a constituency to be worried about and it makes the middle class feel good to see them not getting so many 'perks'
Not true, the problem is people are getting on these programs when they are capable of working, if you've got a lot of kids, and can't afford to feed them all, that's ok to get on assistance, but, if you're a 23 year old, single male, with no children, and capable of working, then there's no need to get on assistance. With all the people not needing assistance getting on assistance, it : a) makes it harder for the people who need it to get it, and b) becomes a problem for the taxpayers. Now, I have no problems with my money feeding ms jones and her family, since she can't afford to, but, I don't like the idea of a guy who is able bodied, no children, no responsibilities being paid that same money that could be used to assist families that can and will use it appropriately.
The problem is that the SCOTUS ruled welfare benefits, disability (which is also essentially welfare), public assistance, etc., are all property rights. So, in effect, it is a right...
When you look at these forms of assistance and analyze them within the context of property rights, then that is an entirely different animal.
I'm all for drug testing (as well as alcohol and tobacco for that matter), particularly for disability matters when it relates to the exacerbation or continuance of a particular disorder, in order to receive public assistance. But placed within the context of a property right, then the analysis changes significantly.
Polonius wrote:As long as the tests aren't used for criminal prosecutions, I think it's constitutional.
Do you think it would be unconstitutional to use these tests for criminal prosecutions? I don't think so. There's no right to welfare, and a government agency could conceivably link welfare need to drug use (if you're buying drugs you don't need welfare maybe?) to eliminate any Pickering issues.
I'm not even sure if drug use is a crime in Florida, so it might be moot. And if they do start prosecuting use, nobody is saving any money.
But I'm not sure if it would be a 4th Amendment violation to use it as evidence. I know it'll come down to how Kennedy feels about welfare that day.
But everyone has to take it, its not as if it discriminates against certain welfare recipients.
Am aware of that.
Just not certain exactly how it will work. The scheme may end up costing more to implement than save.
What percentage of claimants are actually using drugs?
If someone tests positive for drugs, what happens to the claimant next?
Has this been thought through fully? Sounds like populist posturing rather than an attempt to address a perceived problem.
Eldanar wrote:The problem is that the SCOTUS ruled welfare benefits, disability (which is also essentially welfare), public assistance, etc., are all property rights. So, in effect, it is a right...
Only to the extent that depriving someone of these benefits requires due process. But the initial grant does not require due process. I disagree with the rationale, but it's hardly as dire as you suggest.
Polonius wrote:I'm not even sure if drug use is a crime in Florida, so it might be moot. And if they do start prosecuting use, nobody is saving any money.
But I'm not sure if it would be a 4th Amendment violation to use it as evidence. I know it'll come down to how Kennedy feels about welfare that day.
Well, there is the unconditional conditions doctrine that would be relevant here. I don't think it would be as murky as you expect, the Supreme Court tends to be harsh when it comes to drug use. The last big case on drug use (Kentucky v. King) featured only Ginsburg in dissent.
Really? There are no politicians or people that have railed against welfare? Someone better tell some of the people in the Republican Party, the Libertarian PArty, and the Tea PArty that they don't exist so that they will stop.
As for who deos and doesn't get assistance, a 23 year old probably wouldn't get assistance unless they were disabled. It isn't as simple as being poor, you have to show need.
remilia_scarlet wrote:You'd be suprised how many people abuse the system. Where I live, it's almost an everyday thing.
Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. If I lived in Cabrini Green I would think the world consisted almost entirely of black people living in projects, but it isn't. No one has said that there is no abuse, but we act as if all it is is abuse. We are prepared to throw the baby out with the fraudulent bathwater.
And that is how we proved my Aunt's scumbag, cheating Husband was less successful version of Charlie Sheen!
Well, he sure wasn't winning.
My very first job in america was a housekeeping job, where I would go to people's houses, and clean them, and there would be people hiring us who lived in the section 8 apartments, and they'd hire us every week to clean for them, despite the fact they could do it for less money. The section 8 apartments are strictly for section 8 assistance.
biccat wrote:Well, there is the unconditional conditions doctrine that would be relevant here. I don't think it would be as murky as you expect, the Supreme Court tends to be harsh when it comes to drug use. The last big case on drug use (Kentucky v. King) featured only Ginsburg in dissent.
Well, I do disability law, so I promptly forgot all the criminal procedure I knew for the bar exam.
And that is how we proved my Aunt's scumbag, cheating Husband was less successful version of Charlie Sheen!
Well, he sure wasn't winning.
My very first job in america was a housekeeping job, where I would go to people's houses, and clean them, and there would be people hiring us who lived in the section 8 apartments, and they'd hire us every week to clean for them, despite the fact they could do it for less money. The section 8 apartments are strictly for section 8 assistance.
Your sitution might be different, but in general, few apartment buildings are secion 8 only. They'll all take any rent they can get. Most just turn that way quickly.
There's a ton of fraud in welfare. There's also a lot of spending on dumb stuff. Which makes people on welfare exactly like everybody else. People cheat their employers and blow paychecks on dumb stuff.
I'm puritanical enough to find people that not want to work morally inferior. Why are we shocked that those people that are already on shaky moral ground would be just as corrupt as those of us working for a living?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Polonius wrote:Well, I do disability law, so I promptly forgot all the criminal procedure I knew for the bar exam.
Had I not recently sat for another one (2 bar exams isn't enough, obviously), I would have as well
Federal Admin law is the best: practice in any state, and you need to learn a pretty small body of law.
Eldanar wrote:The problem is that the SCOTUS ruled welfare benefits, disability (which is also essentially welfare), public assistance, etc., are all property rights. So, in effect, it is a right...
Only to the extent that depriving someone of these benefits requires due process. But the initial grant does not require due process. I disagree with the rationale, but it's hardly as dire as you suggest.
Hence the entire rationale for the existence of administrative law courts. When they get denied benefits, there is an entire appeals process that they can go through , IIRC, 7 levels (with the SCOTUS at the top level), before ultimately having complete administrative finality.
I agree with you, that it is a weird distinction to make, that government asistance benefits are somehow "property." The problem is that once you have boot-strapped these things into property, then you are adding an entire new level of constitutional analysis, and a much higher threshold that has to be crossed in order to implement it.
And there are lots of policy rationale's for not all of a sudden taking away people's government assistance. Welfare payments are essentially the State's way of, to a large degree, bribing people not to go out and lie, cheat and steal as much as they might otherwise would; and the State's way of preventing having hordes of destitute people living in shanty towns and unfettered slums (much worse than what they already might be living in). Very few people living now remember the Great Depression and what it was like then. Imagine 5-10 million people all of a sudden being thrown off of the rolls. Add to this, that wellfare payments are essentially direct stimulus to the economy, because whatever those people spend it on, they do indeed spend it, and almost immediately. And finally, in lots of instances, drug use, etc., is a means of self-medication. Quite often these folks cannot afford a doctor or medication, or have easy access to them; but they can buy a cheap hit of something from the corner down the street. That may not be the best option, in our eyes; but for them, this may be the only option.
Eldanar wrote:I agree with you, that it is a weird distinction to make, that government asistance benefits are somehow "property." The problem is that once you have boot-strapped these things into property, then you are adding an entire new level of constitutional analysis, and a much higher threshold that has to be crossed in order to implement it.
Not exactly true. I think it was during welfare reform that this was challenged. You have a due process right against administrative agencies depriving you of rights, but not against a change in the law. In short, the electoral process is your "due process."
Eldanar wrote:Add to this, that wellfare payments are essentially direct stimulus to the economy, because whatever those people spend it on, they do indeed spend it, and almost immediately.
and I'm going to disagree with you here. Welfare doesn't stimulate the economy. But I'll leave it there.
Eldanar wrote:And finally, in lots of instances, drug use, etc., is a means of self-medication. Quite often these folks cannot afford a doctor or medication, or have easy access to them; but they can buy a cheap hit of something from the corner down the street. That may not be the best option, in our eyes; but for them, this may be the only option.
One of the worst things we've done through the last few decades was get rid of institutions that cared for the mentally ill (to the extent they existed in the past. Current facilities aren't able to deal with all of the cases, and involuntary commitment is a high burden). Yes, there were some abuses and problems with those systems, but it kept those who couldn't cope off the streets, provided them with a source of medical attention, and provided a safe environment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Federal Admin law is the best: practice in any state, and you need to learn a pretty small body of law.
I used to say the same thing about patent law. But law firms are picky about being admitted in-state.
remilia_scarlet wrote:I agree, last thing I want to do is pay for someone else's habits. These days, more and more people are getting on government assistance that don't even need it, so, it's becoming a burden on the government. I have this neighbor, who's 23, perfecly capable of working, but is on disability for ADD. He does nothing but play second life all day, and spends money on that game, so, in short, we're paying for his habits.
As a guy that works in disability first time, I hate when people say things like this.
Yes, there is abuse. There are bad judges, and claimant's that lie and commit fraud.
But we also know what the hell we're doing. Shockingly, the 10 minutes you spending observing a person is less than disability adjuticators spend. Very few adults are disabled due to ADD, so it's possible that he never had a redetermination as an adult, or he is actually disabled for something else and didn't tell you (people are often ashamed of mental illness).
Assuming every person that "looks ok to me" is not really disabled is incredibly naive.
feth em, im all for testing them. The UK has career wellfare recipients, that dont work for 20 years, breed like rats, and their kids dont work for 20 years either.
This sounds like a good start to getting the no good mother fethers off wellfare.
Id go one further, id make them all wear the same clothes and live in big dorms like on full metal jacket.
mattyrm wrote:feth em, im all for testing them. The UK has career wellfare recipients, that dont work for 20 years, breed like rats, and their kids dont work for 20 years either.
This sounds like a good start to getting the no good mother fethers off wellfare.
Id go one further, id make them all wear the same clothes and live in big dorms like on full metal jacket.
I don't agree with Matty on a few things but on this i do. Being on welfare isn't good. So it shouldn't feel good. It shouldn't feel like a punishment but it's gone from a safety net that no one wanted to use to a free ride through life.
Can attest to the fact that it is not pleasant having people make comments about a lack of sobriety despite having not had anything stronger than a cup of tea to drink.
Want people to earn their welfare? Well, there's parks that need tending. Litter needs picking. Plenty of jobs which don't require a great deal of skill, yet the local authority has to pay people to do. Why not arrange for welfare recipients to form the grunt force?
But, making them test drugs? Potentially damaging drugs? With unquantified side affects? That is a clear breach of human rights.
remilia_scarlet wrote:I agree, last thing I want to do is pay for someone else's habits. These days, more and more people are getting on government assistance that don't even need it, so, it's becoming a burden on the government. I have this neighbor, who's 23, perfecly capable of working, but is on disability for ADD. He does nothing but play second life all day, and spends money on that game, so, in short, we're paying for his habits.
As a guy that works in disability first time, I hate when people say things like this.
Yes, there is abuse. There are bad judges, and claimant's that lie and commit fraud.
But we also know what the hell we're doing. Shockingly, the 10 minutes you spending observing a person is less than disability adjuticators spend. Very few adults are disabled due to ADD, so it's possible that he never had a redetermination as an adult, or he is actually disabled for something else and didn't tell you (people are often ashamed of mental illness).
Assuming every person that "looks ok to me" is not really disabled is incredibly naive.
You'd be suprised how many people are on it in texas that don't need it. He's not disabled, he's just lazy, and says he doesn't want to work for "the man". Of course, texas isn't known for their good judges, everything is ran on the good 'ol boy system still, so it could be a bad judge, and he could've lied, or maybe he really is disabled.
Melissia wrote:
remilia_scarlet wrote:but is on disability for ADD.
Man, I need to get some of that action. I was disagnosed with ADD/ADHD when I was a teen...
Please tell me you're kidding. I've even heard cases of people getting disability for
Eldanar wrote:I agree with you, that it is a weird distinction to make, that government asistance benefits are somehow "property." The problem is that once you have boot-strapped these things into property, then you are adding an entire new level of constitutional analysis, and a much higher threshold that has to be crossed in order to implement it.
Not exactly true. I think it was during welfare reform that this was challenged. You have a due process right against administrative agencies depriving you of rights, but not against a change in the law. In short, the electoral process is your "due process."
I agree with you in part...although it hasn't been changed...yet.
biccat wrote:
Eldanar wrote:Add to this, that wellfare payments are essentially direct stimulus to the economy, because whatever those people spend it on, they do indeed spend it, and almost immediately.
and I'm going to disagree with you here. Welfare doesn't stimulate the economy. But I'll leave it there.
There is more than ample evidence to support the notion that when you give money to poor people they spend it. Payments to poor people result in almost immediate stimulus to the economy in some fashion, because they turn around and spend it as soon as they get it. If this is not stimulative, then I don't know what is? Not liking something that is inherently true is not the same thing as it not being true.
biccat wrote:
Eldanar wrote:And finally, in lots of instances, drug use, etc., is a means of self-medication. Quite often these folks cannot afford a doctor or medication, or have easy access to them; but they can buy a cheap hit of something from the corner down the street. That may not be the best option, in our eyes; but for them, this may be the only option.
One of the worst things we've done through the last few decades was get rid of institutions that cared for the mentally ill (to the extent they existed in the past. Current facilities aren't able to deal with all of the cases, and involuntary commitment is a high burden). Yes, there were some abuses and problems with those systems, but it kept those who couldn't cope off the streets, provided them with a source of medical attention, and provided a safe environment.
It is more than just simply mental illness. Quite often, it is merely a lack of services, lack of access to services, lack of education, etc. Calling someone like this mentally ill somewhat whitewashes the underlying problems. I have seen plenty of folks who are (moderately) intelligent and have a standard basic education who choose to do this, for one reason or another. Quite often because it is cheaper and easier to buy $100 of smack, booze or whatever, that will keep you blissfully unaware of life for a month, than it is to buy the equivalent amount of happy drugs from a pharmacy at 5 to 10 times the cost. But they are not mentally ill. And, as you stated, if they are mentally ill (which some of them probably are) it is a lot cheaper just to pay them off than it is to have procedural committment hearings and institutionalize them, particularlly when they are not a danger to anyone.
There are companies that cater to disabled people, like the ones that hire for work on military bases, in the commisary and chow halls, they only hire people with disabilities and ESL. I wanted to work there part time, for like $13.50 an hour, but, it's too far from home.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not disabled, just ESL.
remilia_scarlet wrote:
You'd be suprised how many people are on it in texas that don't need it. He's not disabled, he's just lazy, and says he doesn't want to work for "the man". Of course, texas isn't known for their good judges, everything is ran on the good 'ol boy system still, so it could be a bad judge, and he could've lied, or maybe he really is disabled.
I probably wouldn't be. I work in the system. There's a lot I'd change. But one thing people need to realize is that not everybody that looks fine is actually capable of work. It's more complicated than that.
remilia_scarlet wrote: Please tell me you're kidding. I've even heard cases of people getting disability for
Spoiler:
dropping out of school.
.
I heard that if you drink soda while eating pop rocks your stomach will explode.
Look, if it wasn't a massive breach of federal law and professional ethics, I'd share with you guys the medical histories of the people we deny here in Cleveland. Horrible lives, full of misery and wretchedness. People genuinely sick, but they can (in a legal sense) work full time.
That some judges are overly generous is a problem, but it's the exception, not the rule.
wellfare should be like unemployment, its there for you when life throws you a doozy but it should not be a way of life.
i think wellfare reform is much needed.
i think wellfare should be like unemployment that it lasts for a duration of time and then ends. it would be at the end of this period for a person to prove they continue to need funds. this is where people with medical problems would go on disability.
i think those on long durations of welfare or those wishing to extend their status to pass drug screening, hair if possible.
i also think that those who like to pop out kiddies to stay in the system should lose their right to breed through sterilization. because they willingly bring children into hellholes and it is for those children's benefit that they dont breed. they will just suffer abuse and neglect and more times than not end up in that same system as street trash.
It doesn't. Not sure where this myth originated, but I have a few ideas.
purplefood wrote:It shouldn't feel like a punishment...
Yet here we are making it that. The only ones skating through life on it are con men, and we already have laws against that.
This isn't rooting out fraud, which no one has argued against, this is targeting a demographic for penalties. Apparently taking drugs is ok if one is middle or upper class, but if your poor, well, you don't get to do that. Go be a middle management at a McDonalds and you can do all the blow you want.
If they tested for all drugs I might not find this as problematic. Throw Alcohol and caffeine into the test and you'll be moving more toward it being fair and reasonable. If a person is on assistance they don't need soda or beer. Those are for closers.
Deathklaat wrote:i also think that those who like to pop out kiddies to stay in the system should lose their right to breed through sterilization. because they willingly bring children into hellholes and it is for those children's benefit that they dont breed. they will just suffer abuse and neglect and more times than not end up in that same system as street trash.
I think that welfare reform just treating symptoms.
The problem is too many worthless people. I don't mean worthless in that they can't be friends and mothers and fine upstanding folk, but they have no value to the economy. That's why people are on welfare: there is literally no reason to pay a person to do the work they're capable of.
Here's my solution: keep welfare, but make failing to support a child without assitance a crime. Allow periods (maybe up to a year at a time) and a running total for all children (maybe five total child/years of non-support). After that, if you have one child, you get mandatory community service, family planning, and the offer of free sterilization. If you already have two children, mandatory sterilization. Give 'em all the due process in the world, make a jury convict 'em, but make it hurt to pump out kids.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
remilia_scarlet wrote:Yes, there are people who need it and never get it, and people who don't need it that do get it.
If you have a few moments some time, try making incredibly complex decisions based on limited evidence in a short time frame.
Ahtman wrote:This isn't rooting out fraud, which no one has argued against, this is targeting a demographic for penalties. Apparently taking drugs is ok if one is middle or upper class, but if your poor, well, you don't get to do that. Go be a middle management at a McDonalds and you can do all the blow you want.
Taking drugs if you're middle or upper class is still illegal. In fact, most employers test for drugs in new hires, and some might even report you to the police if you fail a drug test.
Ahtman wrote:This isn't rooting out fraud, which no one has argued against, this is targeting a demographic for penalties. Apparently taking drugs is ok if one is middle or upper class, but if your poor, well, you don't get to do that. Go be a middle management at a McDonalds and you can do all the blow you want.
Taking drugs if you're middle or upper class is still illegal. In fact, most employers test for drugs in new hires, and some might even report you to the police if you fail a drug test.
Which is why the jails are full of middle and upper class people for possession...
The argument is, why not drug test people for any government benefits?
Ahtman wrote:This isn't rooting out fraud, which no one has argued against, this is targeting a demographic for penalties. Apparently taking drugs is ok if one is middle or upper class, but if your poor, well, you don't get to do that. Go be a middle management at a McDonalds and you can do all the blow you want.
Taking drugs if you're middle or upper class is still illegal.
Thanks captain obvious, I pointed that out several times myself. It is nice to see you agree that there are already punishments for drug use and thus we don't need to create a new bureaucracy to deal with it. OTOH, considering that people still do it in large numbers seems to show that the War on Drugs is a failed program as well. We aren't creating legislation to test everyone, just the poor. The people who have money are even more likely to be drug users, but again, as long as they aren't waving it in front of a cop the odds are nothing will happen. We are picking on poor people because we can and because most people lack empathy and compassion in their actions.
Polonius wrote:Which is why the jails are full of middle and upper class people for possession...
The argument is, why not drug test people for any government benefits?
Well, first you would have to make the argument that upper and middle class people have the same rate of possession. And I'm not entirely sure that's true. Poverty and drugs tend to go hand-in-hand with one leading to the other.
biccat wrote:And I'm not entirely sure that's true. Poverty and drugs tend to go hand-in-hand with one leading to the other.
I genuinely lol'd, thanks for the laugh. Unless you are serious, in which case, hello, you must be new around here. Cheap drugs may be more prevalent in poor areas, but they rarely are buying $100 a gram cocaine or the finest sticky-icky. Only skunk for them.
Ahtman wrote:I genuinely lol'd, thanks for the laugh. Unless you are serious, in which case, hello, you must be new around here. Cheap drugs may be more prevalent in poor areas, but they rarely are buying $100 a gram cocaine or the finest sticky-icky. Only skunk for them.
At first I thought you weren't being serious when you said "people who have money are even more likely to be drug users."
Ahtman wrote:I genuinely lol'd, thanks for the laugh. Unless you are serious, in which case, hello, you must be new around here. Cheap drugs may be more prevalent in poor areas, but they rarely are buying $100 a gram cocaine or the finest sticky-icky. Only skunk for them.
At first I thought you weren't being serious when you said "people who have money are even more likely to be drug users."
It appears I was wrong.
Congratulations for raising the bar.
Who is stupid enough to not understand that having more money means you have more ability to purchase things? Drug dealers are no different than any salesman, they prefer to, you know, get money for their goods. It is like your head is tuck in the 50's. "Tattoos are for sailors and only poor people do drugs." All the while Robert Mitchum is smoking a phatty while Bogie is getting lit. Now admittedly the drugs are often different. Rush Limbaugh wasn't doing crack, but he was still a drug abuser. His dealer was Phiser, not Tommy. In the 80's doing cocaine was de rigueur for the fast paced upper class lifestyle. I thought the idea of drugs being a poor person issue was dispelled awhile ago, since we know, not guess, that people of all economic tiers abuse drugs.
alcoholic with no traces of illegal narcotics = welfare
traces of marijuana = no welfare
If individuals on parole are able to buy clean urine, what prevents drug addicted welfare recipients from doing the same?
In all honesty, I doubt a state has the infrastructure to implement meaningful drug testing. It may sound like a wonderful idea but in reality it could cost more than it saves.
It doesn't. Not sure where this myth originated, but I have a few ideas.
purplefood wrote:It shouldn't feel like a punishment...
Yet here we are making it that. The only ones skating through life on it are con men, and we already have laws against that.
This isn't rooting out fraud, which no one has argued against, this is targeting a demographic for penalties. Apparently taking drugs is ok if one is middle or upper class, but if your poor, well, you don't get to do that. Go be a middle management at a McDonalds and you can do all the blow you want.
If they tested for all drugs I might not find this as problematic. Throw Alcohol and caffeine into the test and you'll be moving more toward it being fair and reasonable. If a person is on assistance they don't need soda or beer. Those are for closers.
I wasn't talking about the American system. I was talking about the British system. And i wasn't talking about the drug testing either. Though i can see where my post needs more clarification...
Ahtman wrote:If they tested for all drugs I might not find this as problematic. Throw Alcohol and caffeine into the test and you'll be moving more toward it being fair and reasonable.
You've tossed this out there more than once. The mitigating factor to this argument is the fact that alcohol and tobacco are LEGAL. In no state that I know of are you allowed to buy alcohol with your food stamps. If you buy a bottle of wine or some beer that's not an issue. I don't think it's a good decision as there are more important things you should be buying before booze, but the fact remains that alcohol is legal. Now, if you're taking your hard-unearned monthly check and throwing keggers, then yes, there's a problem. That's not a problem with the alcohol however, but a problem with a person abusing the system.
I PERSONALLY know of one couple who had 2 kids in 1993, aged 7 and 4. They were (and still are today) career welfare recipients. They got $260 every month in cash and $300 in food stamps. They decided that they needed a raise (yes, that was the actual joking term that they used), so they had another child. in 1994 they were getting $360 in cash and $480 in food stamps each month. This guy's wife did not do drugs at all, but the husband did smoke a bit. Not much, maybe 2-3 times a month. However, the guy DID buy weed for one of his friends each month. He bough a quarter to a half oz every month for him. This is a family that deserves welfare benefits at the expense of taxpayers? These are the people that deserve a free ride or assistance, whatever you want to call it?
Weed, heroin, crack (especially crack), meth, oxy, etc. are illegal (unless you have a 'scrip for certain drugs). Buying them with taxpayer money is what this is about. Maybe there are ulterior motives at work, maybe not. Either way it goes, if Ohio puts a ballot item in front of me, you can bet your first of the month check that I'll vote to pass drug testing for applicants.
If you are legitimately needing assistance, if you are NOT a drug user, then taking a drug test shouldn't bother you at all. If you smoke pot, until it is legalized (but that's another topic) or crack, or whatever, you shouldn't get the handout anyway. I wouldn't go hand some junkie $50 to go score some heroin and coke to speedball his weekend away. Why should I do it through the welfare tax system?
Ahtman wrote:We actually are a fairly vicious group of people sometimes...
Monster Rain wrote:Still, in principle, giving people money that was taken from other people that is going to be spent on drugs doesn't strike me as a good thing.
Do we have evidence that there is a serious problem with people on assistance being drug abusers? To such an extent we need to spend what likely would be hundreds of millions of dollars to test people?
You've tossed this out there more than once. The mitigating factor to this argument is the fact that alcohol and tobacco are LEGAL. In no state that I know of are you allowed to buy alcohol with your food stamps. If you buy a bottle of wine or some beer that's not an issue. I don't think it's a good decision as there are more important things you should be buying before booze, but the fact remains that alcohol is legal. Now, if you're taking your hard-unearned monthly check and throwing keggers, then yes, there's a problem. That's not a problem with the alcohol however, but a problem with a person abusing the system.
If you note I posed an argument several times you might also want to note what it was referral. That specific line of reasoning is in rebuttal to the idea that people are spending they are spending their money on unneeded things, not just illegal things. I think you see the problem as well since you pointed out using assistance to buy a keg. I was also mocking the notion of these things are drugs while these other things are not. Marijuana being called a drug as a pejorative, but alcohol is not, even though it is also a drug and leads to an obscene amount of deaths and troubled homes. We advertise drugs all the time and want consumers to buy all sorts of drugs. Penalties for abusing white collar drugs are not as harsh as blue collar drugs. How we treat drugs and refer to them, is problematic, and while it is part of a different dialogue, it is part o the problem cropping up here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:You aren't allowed to buy alcohol with food stamps (or their equivalents) so that doesn't really follow what's been said in the thread at all.
Being allowed to do something doesn't keep it from happening.
The problem is not the welfare system
The problem is addiction to drugs (including alcohol) and the social consequences.
When you factor in children, often of a very young age, the results aren't pretty. We can chastise the parents all we want, but the bairns are more of more concern imho than the disapproval of taxpayers and politicians who want their votes.
Monster Rain wrote:Still, in principle, giving people money that was taken from other people that is going to be spent on drugs doesn't strike me as a good thing.
Do we have evidence that there is a serious problem with people on assistance being drug abusers? To such an extent we need to spend what likely would be hundreds of millions of dollars to test people?
I don't know. That's why I said "in principle".
Ahtman wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:You aren't allowed to buy alcohol with food stamps (or their equivalents) so that doesn't really follow what's been said in the thread at all.
Being allowed to do something doesn't keep it from happening.
I think that statement takes us way past the scope of this discussion, don't you?
There really are two questions here, as has been mentioned.
I doubt it's unconstitutional.
I think it's poor policy.
How do we describe "welfare", by the way? Is it governmental assistance to people that have fallen on hard financial times? If so, then we should start with those that got the most tax dollars, and work our way down to those who got the least benefits. I'd like to start with the CEO's and executives from the companies on this list.
Deathklaat wrote:I also think that those who like to pop out kiddies to stay in the system should lose their right to breed through sterilization. because they willingly bring children into hellholes and it is for those children's benefit that they dont breed. they will just suffer abuse and neglect and more times than not end up in that same system as street trash.
Monster Rain wrote:I don't know. That's why I said "in principle".
In principle, I think it sounds like a good idea as well, but the reality of it is a whole different thing. It has "unintended consequences" written all over it. I also honeslty think it is targeting the poor to score political points with certain demographics.
Monster Rain wrote:I think that statement takes us way past the scope of this discussion, don't you?
biccat wrote:
Taking drugs if you're middle or upper class is still illegal. In fact, most employers test for drugs in new hires, and some might even report you to the police if you fail a drug test.
How many states have actually criminalized drug use, as opposed to drug possession?
biccat wrote:
And I'm not entirely sure that's true. Poverty and drugs tend to go hand-in-hand with one leading to the other.
No, poverty and drug crime tend to go hand in hand, just as poverty and crime tend to go hand in hand. Drug use, legal and illegal, pervades all economic strata of society. All you need to do is spend 20 minutes on an Ivy League campus if you want to understand this.
The US did. Up until the 1970s. And a fair few European countries as well. It didn't work, obviously.
In other news, I have no idea if its constitutional, but I know that it's bad policy, and cost Florida a hell of a lot more to implement than it's saved them. 'Lazy poor people sitting around doing drugs', like welfare fraud and welfare queens are those pervasive beliefs that are strongly held by so many people... they just know there's this great unwashed mass out there costing them loads of money and these beliefs justify policy after policy... that never do any good. Any look at the numbers shows that welfare fraud is not that high, that welfare queens just don't exist, and the majority of people on welfare aren't just sitting around doing drugs all day.
Now, if you wanted to begin a drugs testing policy to get people into treatment, help them through their addictions, then it wouldn't matter that the thing cost more money than it saved. I don't know if it'd be worth it in the end, but at least it might be possible to justify the expenditure because they're helping people. But this thing, where people are just cut off... it's only justified if it saves more money than it costs. And Florida shows that isn't true.
Ahtman wrote:I also honeslty think it is targeting the poor to score political points with certain demographics.
Yup.
I think they took what is basically an idea that most people would agree with and implemented it in such a ham-fisted and foolish way that the policy is going to fall flat on its face.
What if we did away with welfare checks and government assistance checks, and started a card system, which the government would deposit money into, similar to that of the food stamps in texas. That being said, it would spend like a debit card, and provide an itemized list only authorized personnel can access, as well as decline when used to purchase alcohol, as well as being being used to pay bills and rent.
MrH wrote:Sounds good, if they can afford drugs they don't need welfare.
Thank you, that is true, however, it'd be a start to end abuse. Another option would be to provide more government support to assist people who would wish to go back to school for a career that will provide them the oppurtunity to get off assistance, and make a decent living.
While I don't like the fact that people on welfare would use my tax money for drugs, I would rather go with the cheaper option for the state, regardless of my personal beliefs.
Ahtman wrote:I also honeslty think it is targeting the poor to score political points with certain demographics.
I'm poor, and I hate poor people. I think that the vast majority of working class people agree with squeezing the fethers frankly. Look at it this way, If you actually deserve wellfare, you don't care about catching out the pricks that play the system. If I was on the dole (never ever have been) I wouldn't mind jumping through a couple of hoops.
gak, I'd go piss in a cup for them every day of the week. What's that? 10 minutes effort?
What if we did away with welfare checks and government assistance checks, and started a card system, which the government would deposit money into, similar to that of the food stamps in texas. That being said, it would spend like a debit card, and provide an itemized list only authorized personnel can access, as well as decline when used to purchase alcohol, as well as being being used to pay bills and rent.
This would be a good idea except:
The minority will find a way to abuse the system. They always do.
Data about shopping/spending habits would lead to big corporations getting a hard on for the info.
Whilst those claimants not doing anything illegal will probably end up only being able to shop in designated stores/those signing up to accept these transactions, limiting their choices further.
I could see this system being used to pay for essential household bills though.
From my personal opinion, I am totally on board with welfare reform. I think this is a step in the right direction.
Based on my very expensive piece of paper that I worked 4 years to recieve, I don't see where there is a legitimate claim to make that this is unconsitutional. The first thought that enters my mind would be that there would have to be an clear expectation of privacy that is being violated by performing a drug test. Since we perform drug tests for employment and even have metal detectors/x-ray scans at certain institutions, I don't think claimants would have a solid case to go on. You can choose not to be subjected to such things by not entering said location or making a claim for benefits. Mostly falls under implied consent.
I know a few people eluded or mentioned illegal search and seizure, but recipients have a choice in the matter of whether or not they want to collect benefits. Illegal search and seizure really revolves around a law enforcement entity performing an involuntary search of a location/person.
Just my input first think in the morning without any of my legal books/cases readily available.
Ahtman wrote:I also honeslty think it is targeting the poor to score political points with certain demographics.
I'm poor, and I hate poor people. I think that the vast majority of working class people agree with squeezing the fethers frankly. Look at it this way, If you actually deserve wellfare, you don't care about catching out the pricks that play the system. If I was on the dole (never ever have been) I wouldn't mind jumping through a couple of hoops.
gak, I'd go piss in a cup for them every day of the week. What's that? 10 minutes effort?
Beats going to work.
I have had the misfortune to be unemployed twice in my working life. Luckily I wanted to work so found myself out of the situation PDQ!
From my experiences its those running and employed to work in Jobcentres that are eqully as bad as those workshy claimants on the scrounge. Walk into any jobcentre and smell the apathy emanating from the ever present groups of idle staff.
One of my experiences with them was this:
5 interviews in 31/2 days, one across country. They moaned and sought 'advice' from another member of staff when I had filled in my jobsearch form incorrectly (back to front). They argued that I should fill in a new form, in the right order. This, after the guy in front, who couldnt explain why he hasnt attended his designated signing day or looked for work, had his claim signed of for his dole.
What The Feth! (belive me this wasnt isolated.)
You have a group of staff who have a 'job for life'+ benefits (in governemnt service) without any real targets, who just clock in and out and do the bare minimum expected. It's no wonder the social gets scammed.
Medium of Death wrote:It's quite funny when people on the dole are actually better off not working, rather than doing a job that they are suited for.
By funny, I mean likely to cause a rage aneurysm.
But isn't that a rational choice?
I don't know how good the dole is in the UK, but I figure in the US, you can (if you're lucky), get a full time job making minimum wage. That's $7.25/hr over 40 hours, or $290 a week, or about $1256 a month. Now, from that, you're deducting (in Cleveland) $85 for a bus pass, 2% to the city of cleveland or $25, 2% to Ohio or another $25, 7.6% to medicare/OASDI or another $95.5. So, just to get to work and pay taxes, you're making $1026 a month. You will still qualify for food assistance, so that's another $200 or so, but you would also qualify if you're just on the dole as well.
So, what sounds better: busting your ass for $1000 a month, or living off of welfare? Now, if there is upward mobility, it's short term, resume building, etc... the answer is different. It's also different if you're living with family and that becomes pocket money/savings.
Now... add children. You not only have the costs of raising children, but you also now need child care if you want to work. yeah, the EITC will pay you more to work the more kids you have, but the actual amount of money you're seeing gets to be less and less.
Given the lack of potential upward mobility and the low marginal value in working compared to welfare, it's actually shocking people are willing to work!
I support this and am happy to say that my state is kicking this around as well.
I worked for OKDHS (Dept. of human services) for 2 years in family support and managed a caseload of over 650 families/individuals who received a variety of state and federal services. There are a number of types of individuals who apply for and are receiving assistance. There are those that truly need it due to socio-economic circumstances, habitual and cross-generational recipients (read institutionalized non-participating members of society), drug abusers and a sordid variety of petty crooks and criminals.
One thing the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 did was to remove the "welfare check" from the equation. Now, to receive what little cash assistance is available, applicants must apply for the TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) program which requires at least one child in the home under 18 and has a great number of responsibilities and restrictions including a drug test and WEP (work experience program) of 20 hours per week. Recipients obtain very little cash in hand as bills and other needs are paid directly by the agency to the vendor.
Food Stamps, now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) no longer utilizes vouchers but instead a debit card like structure that is easily tracked with corresponding product codes computer matched to food items. If a dozing shop flunkie attempts to charge a non-food item to the SNAP card, the transaction is denied. This makes it a little more difficult to cheat the system but it's still easily accomplished.
This leads me to the nefarious group that sells their benefits in order to purchase drugs, alcohol, tobacco and other non-allowable items. All you need do is take a "friend" to the store and purchase their items for them and receive cash in lieu. Some stores are equally shady and offer .50 cents on the dollar. One store in my state was busted because they were processing something like $25,000 in benefits through the system in a month but were only large enough to have half that amount in stock. I have forgotten the exact numbers involved.
Will drug tests stop abuse of the system? No, not even close. Will it be just one more layer of protection? Yep and it's already been shown to work for the TANF program. I've had interviews with clients that were so smashed on a variety of substances that I was legally required to stop the interview and reschedule. Stories, I've got stories.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!
If they are drug attic then why should they get welfare! If we can get an idea of what attics will spend their money on then they dont deserve my hard earned money. You should see where I lie on the political spectrum...........
If people don't want tax dollars spent on drugs, why not change the war on drugs?
Legalizng pot alone would dramatically change the amount of tax dollars spent on buying drugs. Guess how many government workers there are in this country, and guess how many might do drugs.
Polonius wrote:If people don't want tax dollars spent on drugs, why not change the war on drugs?
Legalizng pot alone would dramatically change the amount of tax dollars spent on buying drugs. Guess how many government workers there are in this country, and guess how many might do drugs.
Polonius wrote:If people don't want tax dollars spent on drugs, why not change the war on drugs?
Legalizng pot alone would dramatically change the amount of tax dollars spent on buying drugs. Guess how many government workers there are in this country, and guess how many might do drugs.
Libertarian.
Not at all. I just think that if we want to save money, there are better ways to do it than hassling people living in poverty.
I have had the misfortune to be unemployed twice in my working life. Luckily I wanted to work so found myself out of the situation PDQ!
From my experiences its those running and employed to work in Jobcentres that are eqully as bad as those workshy claimants on the scrounge. Walk into any jobcentre and smell the apathy emanating from the ever present groups of idle staff.
One of my experiences with them was this:
5 interviews in 31/2 days, one across country. They moaned and sought 'advice' from another member of staff when I had filled in my jobsearch form incorrectly (back to front). They argued that I should fill in a new form, in the right order. This, after the guy in front, who couldnt explain why he hasnt attended his designated signing day or looked for work, had his claim signed of for his dole.
What The Feth! (belive me this wasnt isolated.)
You have a group of staff who have a 'job for life'+ benefits (in governemnt service) without any real targets, who just clock in and out and do the bare minimum expected. It's no wonder the social gets scammed.
Yeah when I first left the service I went to the job centre. I didnt get the dole because I had ample savings, but I went into the JC just for a crack. I was told by the RM on my resettlement that they were gak at their jobs and you basically needed to just apply for stuff yourself and stand on your own two feet, expecting little if any assistance, but I still went in to see for myself.
I concur though, the staff seemed to be utterly uninterested.
How could you solve this though? I mean, you cant give them targets, have you seen the fethers they deal with?
And no wonder they are despondent, 90% of the people in there have no intention of working. It was a grey souless place and Im glad I never had to go back in! If I lost my current job I wouldnt go back either. You dont need the help that they give you anyway.
The point is, the systems broken, and feth knows how to fix it.
Oh I know, cancel the dole and let people starve to death. Then the only people who go to the JC will be real job seekers, not people going for their tick in the box to keep the wellfare coming.
There was a story on the BBC website that said 97% of disabled people on benefits could work.
Damn straight! The lass in my local is on disablity for being "bi polar" but she is just a silly bastard. She is mid 30's and physically fit, and she is on the piss 7 days a week. Ive literallty never been in there and she isnt at the bar. We have some great arguments.
Last week she actually said to me "Under the labour party I had my disability for life, but now the Tories are being spankers, and they are making me do a medical every 5 years and do loads of paperwork, and its stressful!"
remilia_scarlet wrote:I agree, last thing I want to do is pay for someone else's habits. These days, more and more people are getting on government assistance that don't even need it, so, it's becoming a burden on the government. I have this neighbor, who's 23, perfecly capable of working, but is on disability for ADD. He does nothing but play second life all day, and spends money on that game, so, in short, we're paying for his habits.
That pisses me off that he even got SSI, probably general assistance too. I have epilepsy and it got really bad in the last year and a half, to the point that working would be impossible. I filed for disability, hopefully for a short term basis and its a nightmare to get. Pretty sad that even someone who has a legit health problem can't get the help they need but someone who is full of gak can. People who have successfully taken advantage of the system, get free housing and food. Turn around and do drugs and still get a check? I've always worked and went to school steadily until recently and I've had to take drugs test so why shouldn't they?
Spartan 117 wrote:NO!!!!!!!!!!!
If they are drug attic then why should they get welfare! If we can get an idea of what attics will spend their money on then they dont deserve my hard earned money. You should see where I lie on the political spectrum...........
OK, first off, 'addict.' An attic is where you keep your old furniture. Secondly -- 'If we can get an idea of what attics will spend their money on then they dont deserve my hard earned money' -- this is saying that they don't deserve money if the government finds out what they're spending it on. So if they manage to keep it a secret, it's gravy? I'm sure that's not what you meant. I appreciate your passion on this issue, but your opinion will be a lot more convincing if you put a little more care into the presentation of your post. And for what it's worth, I agree with you that drug testing for welfare is no bad thing.
remilia_scarlet wrote:I agree, last thing I want to do is pay for someone else's habits. These days, more and more people are getting on government assistance that don't even need it, so, it's becoming a burden on the government. I have this neighbor, who's 23, perfecly capable of working, but is on disability for ADD. He does nothing but play second life all day, and spends money on that game, so, in short, we're paying for his habits.
That pisses me off that he even got SSI, probably general assistance too. I have epilepsy and it got really bad in the last year and a half, to the point that working would be impossible. I filed for disability, hopefully for a short term basis and its a nightmare to get. Pretty sad that even someone who has a legit health problem can't get the help they need but someone who is full of gak can. People who have successfully taken advantage of the system, get free housing and food. Turn around and do drugs and still get a check? I've always worked and went to school steadily until recently and I've had to take drugs test so why shouldn't they?
SSI isn't for short term disability. Has to last at least twelve months (or be expected to last that long).
But as always, the best advice is to get a lawyer, get as much medical treatment as you can, and be able to document everything about your condition.
The way I see it, is if someone actually needs DHS or its equivalent to help buy groceries and help with housing, then yea, drug testing is mandatory, infact Id say its mandatory every 6 months. If you can afford to dump money on marijuana or more hardcore (=more expensive) drugs, then you could have afforded your food if you didnt smoke/inject that gak up.
Ive been in the DHS a few times in my life, trust me, they would save ALOT more money doing that, and dumping people that cant NOT fail the tests, then just continuing to pay them hundreds every month in money
KingCracker wrote:Ive been in the DHS a few times in my life, trust me, they would save ALOT more money doing that, and dumping people that cant NOT fail the tests, then just continuing to pay them hundreds every month in money
I'm just curious, when those individuals with drug addictions/habits get kicked off social assistance and end up incarcerated, who's paying for that? Is it cheaper or more expensive now?
KingCracker wrote:Ive been in the DHS a few times in my life, trust me, they would save ALOT more money doing that, and dumping people that cant NOT fail the tests, then just continuing to pay them hundreds every month in money
I'm just curious, when those individuals with drug addictions/habits get kicked off social assistance and end up incarcerated, who's paying for that? Is it cheaper or more expensive now?
I propose a third option to welfare or incarcerations: get a job.
Even at 9% there are jobs out there. They might not pay as much as a person's previous job or they may be overqualified for the position but the classified ads are full of jobs each week. If a person wants to work, they'll work. If they want to look for a handout instead, guess what?
I was listening to NPR this morning and one of the reasons they said the unemployment rate fell recently is because people just gave up looking for work. I was thinking "what?" who can just give up looking for work? Get off your duff and work at McDs until something better comes along. Geez.
Such people are little better than some of my former clients that complained about lack of employment opportunities and scoffed when I copied sections of the help-wanted ads, "I'm not going to work there!". I hauled out a calculator and tallied up the potential earnings of a call center or fast food restaurant or other job and showed them it was more than welfare. Still didn't help.
As to incarceration. Drug tests will not be used to incarcerate people; it's not social service agencies' responsibility to police society. The tests would just be used to deny benefits to a segment of the population that has been proven to abuse the system to support their habit/lifestyle. Drug testing is an inexpensive process that is alreay in use for TANF recipients and will result in less abuse of the system. This means more benefits to the people that actually will use the system for the purpose it was intended; a short-term assistance program that will assist families and individuals through a rough patch in their lives and on to a better future.
Crablezworth wrote:And with unemployment at 9% that sounds like a completely realistic expectation.
Ah yes, there are no jobs available anywhere.
Polonius wrote:Sorry, "Get a job" simply isn't viable advice.
Not in 100% of cases, maybe not.
I refuse to believe that every single person who is on the dole is completely incapable of getting a job for whatever reason. And if one out of every four people, since that's the number that your data came up with, got a job wouldn't that drastically improve the situation?
Polonius wrote:Sorry, "Get a job" simply isn't viable advice.
Not in 100% of cases, maybe not.
I refuse to believe that every single person who is on the dole is incapable of getting a job for whatever reason.
Incapable of actually performing a job, or incapable of actually getting a job?
Sure, some people turn down opportunities to work to stay on benefits. Those jobs are immediately filled by somebody that wants to work.
I mean, we can wring our hands about how people would rather collect benefits than work, or we can face the reality that there are milliions of people that want to work but can't find a job. It's like yelling at the guy that didn't bring beer to the party when nobody is drinking what's already there: it's disrespectful, but has no actual harm.
KingCracker wrote:Ive been in the DHS a few times in my life, trust me, they would save ALOT more money doing that, and dumping people that cant NOT fail the tests, then just continuing to pay them hundreds every month in money
I'm just curious, when those individuals with drug addictions/habits get kicked off social assistance and end up incarcerated, who's paying for that? Is it cheaper or more expensive now?
That's an obvious point, I mean, essentially in the US/UK aren't we just bribing people to be good? Were basically paying them and hoping they keep out of our way.
The career dole wallers in the UK are just horrible, foul smelling, foul mouthed...er... foul people.
If we didn't give them free money for fags and cans, they would just steal their cans and mug people for fags, so, Its true what your saying, but I merely reply with "feth em"
feth em. Lets send them all to jail, we can make that cheaper by making them live 8 in a cell instead of 1 or 2 now. In fact, we could make them live in enormous dorms, give them only two meals a day, and only water to drink, and we could halve the amount of guards so they can stab each other and such with rare gusto! What do nice people care if scum kill each other?
On that note, why do we have knife amnesty's? We should be encouraging low lives to kill each other! I propose we start a leaflet campaign "BLADES R KEWL" or "BITCHES LUV A KILLA" and issue all children who are the product of a union between two doleys with sharp knives on their 6th Birthday. Then we can mail them a violent DVD every birthday until the age of 16 and they will (all being well) cull each other with no assistance required. Saving the tax payers literally millions. Say only 10000 kill each other in the first year, 10000 less people claiming dole from the age of 16-65, has to run into a staggering figure.
I should be in charge, id save us fething billions!
Polonius wrote:I mean, we can wring our hands about how people would rather collect benefits than work, or we can face the reality that there are milliions of people that want to work but can't find a job. It's like yelling at the guy that didn't bring beer to the party when nobody is drinking what's already there: it's disrespectful, but has no actual harm.
Fair enough.
The problems run much deeper than drug testing and welfare, and I don't think Dakka is going to solve them. As I said before, in principle I agree with the sentiment behind the drug testing policy but without other massive economic reforms I don't really see the point of it.
Polonius wrote:I mean, we can wring our hands about how people would rather collect benefits than work, or we can face the reality that there are milliions of people that want to work but can't find a job. It's like yelling at the guy that didn't bring beer to the party when nobody is drinking what's already there: it's disrespectful, but has no actual harm.
Fair enough.
The problems run much deeper than drug testing and welfare, and I don't think Dakka is going to solve them. As I said before, in principle I agree with the sentiment behind the drug testing policy but without other massive economic reforms I don't really see the point of it.
That's my point. We could spend a fortune training people to do jobs, except there are skilled workers sitting on their hands already. We could give them make work assignments, but that seldom accomplishes much and generally incurs yet more expense in oversight. We could imprison them, which just seems messy. Or we could hand out enough cash to get wasted and not rob people.
There are still over four job seekers per opening.
that means if every job opening were filled, three out of four people actively looking for work would have literally no openings to fill.
Sorry, "Get a job" simply isn't viable advice.
I think this is one of the situations where YMMV depending on where you live and are working. Here in Oklahoma, the Sunday want-ads are consistently brimming with open positions in a number of fields and they are there each week so obviously they aren't being filled. I drive down the street and seet help wanted signs in the windows of many businesses. Granted most of these jobs involve manual labor and/or are entry level but....
I would not want to be living in the northern part of the US or in the NE right now but here in the midwest there is work to be found nearly everywhere.
Polonius wrote:that means if every job opening were filled, three out of four people actively looking for work would have literally no openings to fill.
I feel like there is a porn joke here just waiting to get out.
I don't like the idea of people using tax dollars to pay for drugs, but I also don't like a lot of gak the gov't spends money on. What pisses me off on a very personal level is the busloads of people from Chicago and other parts unknown who show up in Minneapolis on the first of the month to grab their checks from the State of Minnesota and then head home to spend the money.
Crablezworth wrote:If I couldn't even get a job at mcdonalds I could see myself selling drugs on a corner.
If you can't get a job at McDonalds you need to reconsider your life choices since the 3rd grade.
...and thanks for joining us as we return to our program Myths That Won't Die. Today Troy shows us a myth, that anyone can get a job at McDonald's if they just apply.
I think this comes form them hiring teens in High School. It becomes the idea that anyone can work there. Whether or not job openings exist is unimportant because it just a fast food joint, right? I have a friend who was a regional director for McD's and he would go off anytime people acted like fast food places were just there to hire people that had no where else to go. As if it was there job to give anyone a job because people sneer at them.
This is quite the interesting subject that has a sigificant impact on our lives. Usually the first thing to do in situations like this is determine what exactly welfare is and why it was created in the first place.
From the bit of research I did, welfare actually started early in civilization, ~1000 AD. From their (old civilizations) view, welfare is just the idea of helping those who were poor. A simple and humble idea, those who are well off should help others who are in a troubled time during their lives. The way funds and payment was transfered between those with money to the poor was sketchy at best as records were not kept well or at all until the Medieval era. But during this time, there was no system set up by the government to give money from their coffers to those in need but instead was given to a paticular group (like a church or individual) who distributed it to the locals. It was not until the 19th century when Europe established the Poor Law Amendment Act which introduced workhouses. These workhouses were places to provide jobs and accommodation to those who could not support themselves. At this point is when an organized system for various states around the world began to be introduced.
Now that we are talking about the United States here, interestingly but understandably the US did not have a welfare system until the Great Depression. Much of the system today was created in response to the Great Depression. At this point, all welfare money was raised and distributed by the federal government to the States. This gave no incentive for States to release people off of welfare as they lost federal funding when this happened. But in 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act which gave reasons and purpose for those on welfare to get off and contribute to society by, among other things, giving a flat rate of federal aid to the States. According to data, which can be found on Wikipedia: Welfare, from 1996 to 2006, welfare payments have decreased, which was the point of the whole legislation. Critics explain that the reasons why welfare payments decreased was because of the strong economy from 1996 to the early 2000s. But in 2009, new legislation, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 or American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or ARRA would overturn the 1996 act by returning federal funding back to being based of the number of individuals using welfare. This is based off the Keynesian macroeconomic theory that economic resessions, which private spending is lower, should be picked up by the government by increasing spending, which is a major factor in the balloning national debt this year.
With that small bit of historical information, I think I feel like I can answer this question a little bit better. The idea for welfare seems to stim from the idea that we generally care for those who are a bad spot. So with that in mind, I am inclinded to say that drug testing welfare recipients is not a good idea as it adds needless complications to those who are already in a bad spot. But as we know, there are those out there who take advantage of welfare because they do not aspire to do anything with their lives, so they will gladly accept money to continue a selfish existance. So on that fact, drug testing would help weed out those who are using the money in ways not ment to be used. So, a direct glance at just adding drug testing to the equation does not give a straight answer to if we need to include this or not. Instead of a drug test, though, I believe we need to return back to the original idea signed by Bill Clinton and focus on giving incentives to hire those in the lower socioeconomic status. While this maybe ultimately not solve the issue with abusers using the system, it would ween many off of welfare which is a win-win situation for everyone in this nation.
So to answer your question, "Is drug testing welfare applications unconstitutional?"...I am inclined to say that I am not sure. But we should be looking at other reasons as to why those who are on welfare continue to stay on welfare and abuse it instead of adding additional rules to the system.
I was laid off from Target (where I unloaded trucks and stocked shelves) a year and a half ago, when I already was a licensed attorney.
There's even a theory about economics call the "Hot Waitress Index." The idea is, especially in big cities, attractive women can find work as hostesses, models, promoters, etc. in good times. In bad times, that dries up, and they start looking for waiting work.
It trickles down, so that even your local Applebees now has the girls that used to staff the hip bistro or upscale bar.
Crablezworth wrote:If I couldn't even get a job at mcdonalds I could see myself selling drugs on a corner.
If you can't get a job at McDonalds you need to reconsider your life choices since the 3rd grade.
...and thanks for joining us as we return to our program Myths That Won't Die. Today Troy shows us a myth, that anyone can get a job at McDonald's if they just apply.
I think this comes form them hiring teens in High School. It becomes the idea that anyone can work there. Whether or not job openings exist is unimportant because it just a fast food joint, right? I have a friend who was a regional director for McD's and he would go off anytime people acted like fast food places were just there to hire people that had no where else to go. As if it was there job to give anyone a job because people sneer at them.
Someone who doesn't speak English and has no formal education can get a McDonalds job here, any swinging dick born here can do it. If you can't, best to give up on that game called life right now.
What's amazing about capitalism is the second someone receives a pay increases, most people believe they deserve it and couldn't comprehend taking a cent less.
The most money I've ever made in a day was about $2200 and I can assure you I didn't deserve it. But deserving it or not didn't matter, it was pure causality.
KingCracker wrote:Ive been in the DHS a few times in my life, trust me, they would save ALOT more money doing that, and dumping people that cant NOT fail the tests, then just continuing to pay them hundreds every month in money
I'm just curious, when those individuals with drug addictions/habits get kicked off social assistance and end up incarcerated, who's paying for that? Is it cheaper or more expensive now?
So your way to fix it, is to just ignore it and give them free munchies?? Seriously? You wouldnt want to know what my plan would be if I were in charge, itd be considered pretty terrible, but it would work
Monster Rain wrote:Once again I find myself wishing that I was a pretty girl.
I often wish you were a pretty girl as well.
Troy wrote:Someone who doesn't speak English and has no formal education can get a McDonalds job here, any swinging dick born here can do it. If you can't, best to give up on that game called life right now.
Again, you show your ignorance. MCDonalds would actually prefer that other guy because they know what his salary requirements are going to be (hint: less than a college graduate). There is a reason McD's has High School students and the people you mention. They don't just hire anyone. In fact having a college degree will exclude you most likely. In this economic climate they have more people applying than they have jobs. they may always need people, but that is due to high turnover, but they are still have more applicants than positions generally. Obliviously YMMV depending on location, but in general it isn't as simple as you are imagining it to be. Your statement is also comes off as vaguely xenophobic and/or racist.
Oh, and I know they don't always higher native speakers, but I haven't run into ones that spoke no English whatsoever. At least not on the front line, but if the people making the food choose to speak another language to each other why would I care anyway as long as the person that took my order took my order right and they made the food properly? Who cares if the guy putting the sammich together isn't the best English speaker in the world? More often than not I get my food and it is right and it isn't as if I speak every language fluently.
I just saw an ad on TV, there is a government program that is now providing people with free cell phones and service! What the F!
I had some lady run up a tab at my bar and try to pay it with one of her child support cards. I didn't even notice what it was until it was rejected. I told her she must have given me the wrong card, her response was "No that's the right card, it always works at Applebee's".
It must work there because they also serve food.
This lady is a secretary at a law office, has like three kids probably with the same amount of baby daddies (hopefully someone is watching them because she is constantly at my bar until 2am or until some guy is drunk enough to take her home) and just got free housing! She's making a decent wage and is still sucking off the government teet. Not only that but she is apparently routinely eating and drinking at Applebee's on my tax money.
I don't know what is worse, that the government is so blind that can do it, or that she has such an overinflated sense of entitlement that she believes that she deserves it.
We have cards like that, but it's illegal to use them for anything other than fresh produce. No alcohol, snacks, smokes or sweets are the main things it mentions.
The problem was a lot of the staff just tallied her items up and took the total of the voucher off (£3.50), even though her eligible items came only to about £1.40 and the rest was booze and cigarettes. This only stopped when a new staff member questioned it, calling me over and we both read it and said "Nope, can't use it for the Lamberts".
Cue hissy fit about how she was allowed to use it prior, cue me pointing out the bit telling me to call the police.
Corporate welfare reform would be nice too. It's all well and good to whine about people abusing the system but some perspective is necessary. This lady sounds like a real piece of work but I don't hear any complaints about oil companies getting billions in subsidies.
That's like screaming at an ant eating crumbs off your floor while not noticing the dudes stealing your tv.
That's what I can't stand about america, tax the rich, for the love god.
Crablezworth wrote:Corporate welfare reform would be nice too. It's all well and good to whine about people abusing the system but some perspective is necessary. This lady sounds like a real piece of work but I don't hear any complaints about oil companies getting billions in subsidies.
That's like screaming at an ant eating crumbs off your floor while not noticing the dudes stealing your tv.
That's what I can't stand about america, tax the rich, for the love god.
They aren't subsidies they are tax breaks, but otherwise you're 100% correct.
Crablezworth wrote:
That's what I can't stand about america, tax the rich, for the love god.
I'm liking the sound of The Love God.
Max Brooks (Author of WWZ as many know in that other thread) wrote that many Americans don't support taxing the rich more, due to seeing themselves as the Rich in potentia.
I have no idea on the trueness of this, but it sounded nice.
KingCracker wrote:Yea actually its alot harder for anyone with more then a highschool diploma to get a job at a McDonalds or similar.
if you want more than a McDonald's salary yes.
This isn;t that difficult, and multiple people have stated it. If you have above a HS diploma, it is actually more difficult to get a job at fast food. We haven't been saying you would get a crappy low paying job at fast food, but that you wouldn't get the job at all. At this point I can only assume your stubbornness is just you having a spot of fun with us or that you have a better chance at getting a job at McDonald's than those trying to explain this to you.
KingCracker wrote:Yea actually its alot harder for anyone with more then a highschool diploma to get a job at a McDonalds or similar.
if you want more than a McDonald's salary yes.
This isn;t that difficult, and multiple people have stated it. If you have above a HS diploma, it is actually more difficult to get a job at fast food. We haven't been saying you would get a crappy low paying job at fast food, but that you wouldn't get the job at all. At this point I can only assume your stubbornness is just you having a spot of fun with us or that you have a better chance at getting a job at McDonald's than those trying to explain this to you.
Having actually been in this position, one can indeed downscale with creativity.
Troy wrote:Having actually been in this position, one can indeed downscale with creativity.
Putting you then at 1 of 4 or more people wanting that position, if you are lucky. So now not only are you having to lie to get a job at McDonald's, you also still have no guarantee of getting a job there. Which goes back to pointing out how your insight into the situation is poorly thought out.
Crablezworth wrote:
That's what I can't stand about america, tax the rich, for the love god.
I'm liking the sound of The Love God.
Max Brooks (Author of WWZ as many know in that other thread) wrote that many Americans don't support taxing the rich more, due to seeing themselves as the Rich in potentia.
I have no idea on the trueness of this, but it sounded nice.
I think that's true, I mean mtv has a show about showing off rich people houses/cars/stuff. It may as well be consumer porn. There's plenty of churches and televangelists that preach the gospel of prosperity, which basically equates to give the church money, pray a lot and one day you'll be rich. There's another side that seems to think the american dream is alive and well and the existence of even one self made millionaire/billionare is proof that anyobe can do it and there's no such thing as luck or circumstance.
Look at the tea party, the people running the show are billionaires who hate regulation of any kind and they've managed to convince poor to middle class people that government is useless but they should make sure to vote tea party, the president is a secret muslim socialist, every wealthy person is somehow a job creater and poor people are the reason the economy is bad...
KingCracker wrote:Yea actually its alot harder for anyone with more then a highschool diploma to get a job at a McDonalds or similar.
if you want more than a McDonald's salary yes.
Here's an example from my experience.
After I graduated from college I moved back home, and tried to get a job at one of the local restaurants as I wanted something temporary. I didn't have a car, so that limited my choices, but there was a pretty good selection within the 5 or so miles I was willing to bike. I started applying to places like Applebes's and Fridays, and a couple family owned spots only to be turned down every time. I then moved on to fast food, I don't remember all of the places I tried, but it included at least Subway, KFC, and McDonalds (all very close to my parents' place): all of these places turned me down.
After this I applied for a position as a personal trainer at a nearby health club, I had no experience in PT, and was not certified, but I was reasonably fit and had been active in athletics for something like 10 years at that point. Not only did they offer me the position in the first interview, I got three more offers at the next three interviews for similar positions at different clubs; all offering to pay for my certification. Aside from the difference in industry, the major difference between McDonald's and these health clubs was that McDonald's paid $8.25 an hour, with irregular hours, while the PT position paid $30 an hour with 30 guaranteed hours per week.
The health clubs had reason to offer me the positions, because they could expect me to stay on for some time as $30/hour was a decent wage, McDonald's had no incentive to hire me because they knew I would be gone, without notice, as soon as I found another job. I mean, it wasn't like I would have given a damn about my manager's opinion of me.
Yep, have to agree with dogma here - I was recently turned down for a part-time (I'm a student) job at McDonalds. I've just started a new job that is far better-paid, and way more challenging (building lighting rigs, PA systems, video-walls etc. in concert venues), and I got that just on the strength of my CV and experience, with only a cursory interview. The guy basically told me I had the job when he called to invite me.
Funnily enough, most employers try to match potential employees with the available vacancies, based on skills and experience - McD's, being a multi-billion dollar international juggernaut is no exception. They don't just take anyone.
The other thing to note is that, for many people, while McDonald's might pay you enough to survive, it is still tantamount to white space on your resume in that a lot of employers will regard it as tacit to unemployment. Now, you can work at McDonald's and, say, intern somewhere relevant to your career. But, as should be obvious, that is easier said than done when considering conflicting schedules, especially when that high school kid applying for his first job doesn't have any such issue.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Doesn't mean that all or even a majority in receipt of benefits are behaving like this or taking drugs.
Really a segment of the population just doesn't want welfare programs period, and this is another way to go after that. The other is to demonize the few abusers to appear either tough on crime and/or against welfare in general, regardless of whether the majority don't abuse it. If some do everyone must be punished. We actually are a fairly vicious group of people sometimes, going after the poor in such ways. Politicians don't lose anything going after them as the poor aren't really a constituency to be worried about and it makes the middle class feel good to see them not getting so many 'perks'.
To me this isn't about going after the poor. It is forcing people to live honestly like the majority of the rest of the population, who have no choice but to have a portion of our earnings taken from us and then given out to people that make the conscious choice not to work on improving their quality of life. This is obviously a generalization of the group, but it is a point against those that abuse the social service.
If you (general 'you' of welfare users who fit the characterization of the thread), make the choice to apply for welfare assistance, you are doing so for assistance to get 'back on your feet', and be financially stable. If you rely on this assistance to sustain your lifestyle, this is an abuse and drain of the social service that people such as me, are having my hard work being wasted.
VermGho5t wrote:
If you (general 'you' of welfare users who fit the characterization of the thread), make the choice to apply for welfare assistance, you are doing so for assistance to get 'back on your feet', and be financially stable. If you rely on this assistance to sustain your lifestyle, this is an abuse and drain of the social service that people such as me, are having my hard work being wasted.
God forbid you "waste" your hard work. Toy soldiers are clearly a critical expense.
VermGho5t wrote:
If you (general 'you' of welfare users who fit the characterization of the thread), make the choice to apply for welfare assistance, you are doing so for assistance to get 'back on your feet', and be financially stable. If you rely on this assistance to sustain your lifestyle, this is an abuse and drain of the social service that people such as me, are having my hard work being wasted.
God forbid you "waste" your hard work. Toy soldiers are clearly a critical expense.
It is a hell of a lot better than giving it over to career welfare bums so they can spend all day smoking dope and playing video games, or paying for their daycare even though they don't have a job.
VermGho5t wrote:
If you (general 'you' of welfare users who fit the characterization of the thread), make the choice to apply for welfare assistance, you are doing so for assistance to get 'back on your feet', and be financially stable. If you rely on this assistance to sustain your lifestyle, this is an abuse and drain of the social service that people such as me, are having my hard work being wasted.
God forbid you "waste" your hard work. Toy soldiers are clearly a critical expense.
It is a hell of a lot better than giving it over to career welfare bums so they can spend all day smoking dope and playing video games, or paying for their daycare even though they don't have a job.
Do you really believe that people like that make up a majority of people on assistance? Assuming that this isn't just more of the middle class Myth of the Welfare Queen.
Well, I grew up on welfare and I grew up in a welfare community.
My parents both drank a lot and collected welfare, One of my next door neighbors got caught selling crack and got her 5 kids taken away (all of which she was collecting welfare for). My best
childhood friend's mother sat around high playing video games all day. I could sit here and think and come up with tons of these mythical welfare queens that you don't believe in that I know from
personal experience. I knew a lot of career welfare bums and a lot of people on drugs growing up and they were usually the same people.
You can call it a myth all you like, but it is more of a stereotype.
A lot of stereotypes are rooted in a good bit of truth.
I don't think Ahtman was saying that they don't exist, I think his point was that the people that you describe don't make up the majority of welfare recipients.
Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Ahtman was saying that they don't exist, I think his point was that the people that you describe don't make up the majority of welfare recipients.
They did in my little area of the world. But, maybe all the people who were using welfare to get back on their feet lived in the nicer projects.
Sorry I couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread but...
I'd consider drug testing welfare applicants if we also have drug testing for:
Drivers licenses
Business Permits
Building Permits
Social Security payments
Medicare
If my friends on welfare (there are alot of welfare recipients in my neighborhood) have to take a drug test to access public services, so should you and your grandma.
Thing is, I don't think that the folks who propose laws like the one's mentioned in the OP would like the results of my plan. There's far to many drug users in the non-poor segments of our society for them to want to make life harder for ALL drug users.
VermGho5t wrote:
If you (general 'you' of welfare users who fit the characterization of the thread), make the choice to apply for welfare assistance, you are doing so for assistance to get 'back on your feet', and be financially stable. If you rely on this assistance to sustain your lifestyle, this is an abuse and drain of the social service that people such as me, are having my hard work being wasted.
God forbid you "waste" your hard work. Toy soldiers are clearly a critical expense.
It is a hell of a lot better than giving it over to career welfare bums so they can spend all day smoking dope and playing video games, or paying for their daycare even though they don't have a job.
Do you really believe that people like that make up a majority of people on assistance? Assuming that this isn't just more of the middle class Myth of the Welfare Queen.
They do here. 97% on the last count. This country is fething swimming in work shy mother fethers!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Ahtman was saying that they don't exist, I think his point was that the people that you describe don't make up the majority of welfare recipients.
Above stat is high, im only being half serious.. But honestly, in the UK I really do think that more than 50% of people are taking the piss. When I get the time ill try and get you some figures.
Eilif wrote:Sorry I couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread but...
I'd consider drug testing welfare applicants if we also have drug testing for:
Drivers licenses
Business Permits
Building Permits
Social Security payments
Medicare
If my friends on welfare (there are alot of welfare recipients in my neighborhood) have to take a drug test to access public services, so should you and your grandma.
Thing is, I don't think that the folks who propose laws like the one's mentioned in the OP would like the results of my plan. There's far to many drug users in the non-poor segments of our society for them to want to make life harder for ALL drug users.
I have seen a lot of talk in this thread about people who aren't on welfare who use drugs. Can you honestly not see the difference between someone who earns their money spending it how they please and someone who sits around living off the work of others spending tax money however they please?
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:I have seen a lot of talk in this thread about people who aren't on welfare who use drugs. Can you honestly not see the difference between someone who earns their money spending it how they please and someone who sits around living off the work of others spending tax money however they please?
I think we all can, I just think we all also know that people tend to abuse any system, no matter their level.
I don't see populist outrage over kickbacks and graft by politicians. Or the bill padding done by professionals at every level. Or middle class folks who bend the truth on their taxes.
Yet somehow a person with no future making the perfectly rational choice of simply getting wasted to forget it all gets everybody's panties in a bunch.
Eilif wrote:Sorry I couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread but...
I'd consider drug testing welfare applicants if we also have drug testing for:
Drivers licenses...
...If my friends on welfare (there are alot of welfare recipients in my neighborhood) have to take a drug test to access public services, so should you and your grandma.
.
I have seen a lot of talk in this thread about people who aren't on welfare who use drugs. Can you honestly not see the difference between someone who earns their money spending it how they please and someone who sits around living off the work of others spending tax money however they please?
I understand the difference completely. I'm simply pointing out that saying that one type of government assistance requires a drug test and another doesn't is a false separation and not ethically consistent. You're argument basically concludes that if I toke up and my welfare neighor tokes up then for me it's a choice, but for them it's an offense against the taxpayer. I don't think that sounds right.
I'd rather not pay for the roads to be used by substance abusing, drunken fratboys (while we're tossing around sterotypes...) to commit vehicular manslaughter in their Escalades. So why not force them to take a drug test before letting them drive on the roads that my hard-earned salary gets taxed to pay for?
Unfortunately the people controling the discussion are not really interested in making substantive changes in the way we treat all drug users, law breakers, etc. They just want to trim one more service away from people without the political capital to have Washington hear them when they say "don't balance your budget on our backs!"
Eilif wrote: You're argument basically concludes that if I toke up and my welfare neighor tokes up then for me it's a choice, but for them it's an offense against the taxpayer. I don't think that sounds right.
Wow. You really don't understand the problem with that?
If my friends on welfare (there are alot of welfare recipients in my neighborhood) have to take a drug test to access public services, so should you and your grandma.
You’re completely right, except all your points are wrong. Its no a “service” its money from the government for doing, essentially nothing but breathing. Regardless of whether I think this is a good idea your comparison fails as:
Drivers licenses
***Last I saw I didn’t get money for that, instead had to PAY money for that.
Business Permits
***I’m not receiving money from the government. Indeed, it would be preferable if the government didn’t exist.
Building Permits
***See above.
Social Security payments
***That’s Grandma’s money. She already put into it.
Medicare
***See above.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:
It is a hell of a lot better than giving it over to career welfare bums so they can spend all day smoking dope and playing video games, or paying for their daycare even though they don't have a job.
Eilif wrote: You're argument basically concludes that if I toke up and my welfare neighor tokes up then for me it's a choice, but for them it's an offense against the taxpayer. I don't think that sounds right.
Wow. You really don't understand the problem with that?
I think they're both equally errant in the eyes of the law, not to mention, you don't know if the $ used for drugs was theirs or the governements (it doesn't matter in my perspective). My point is -as stated earlier- that we all use government services, in most cases more than we realize.
Taking away poor people's govt. services but not other people's services for the same "crime" is what I have a problem with.
Perhaps anothe example will clarify further.
Welfare and Social Security are both services paid into/for by people who were taxpayers before they began using said services (and may well be taxpayers while using the services). If you're going to make one dependent on not using drugs, you darn well should make the other as well.
What I would be in support of is mandatory drug treatment, job training, education, etc for those on welfare, but those programs are cut so far back that it sometimes feels like the only thing left to cut is welfare, which seems to be the goal of many of the folks who propose the kinds of laws that start topics like this.
Polonius wrote:
I think we all can, I just think we all also know that people tend to abuse any system, no matter their level.
I don't see populist outrage over kickbacks and graft by politicians. Or the bill padding done by professionals at every level. Or middle class folks who bend the truth on their taxes.
Yet somehow a person with no future making the perfectly rational choice of simply getting wasted to forget it all gets everybody's panties in a bunch.
Yeah, i think it's worth noting.
I think there's a lesson there about kicking, directional orientation, and dogs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Troy wrote:
Its no a “service” its money from the government for doing, essentially nothing but breathing.
Yeah, it is a service. It fits all the various definitions of the term.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:
I have seen a lot of talk in this thread about people who aren't on welfare who use drugs. Can you honestly not see the difference between someone who earns their money spending it how they please and someone who sits around living off the work of others spending tax money however they please?
Welfare recipients (whatever that vague term means) earn their money by remaining poor.
If my friends on welfare (there are alot of welfare recipients in my neighborhood) have to take a drug test to access public services, so should you and your grandma.
You’re completely right, except all your points are wrong. Its no a “service” its money from the government for doing, essentially nothing but breathing. Regardless of whether I think this is a good idea your comparison fails as:
Drivers licenses
***Last I saw I didn’t get money for that, instead had to PAY money for that.
Business Permits
***I’m not receiving money from the government. Indeed, it would be preferable if the government didn’t exist.
Building Permits
***See above.
Social Security payments
***That’s Grandma’s money. She already put into it.
Medicare
***See above.
-DL: Govt gives you a license that allows you to use their roads. That's definitely something you "recieve" form the govt.
-Business permits: you may have a point I'll give you this one.
-Building Permits: Govt. makes sure that the building is going to meet safety codes. A service to you and to everyone who uses the building
-SS: Grandma and Grandpa have been taking more than their fair share for a couple decades now. Thats MY money that thanks to them I will likely not be seeing any of when I get to retirement age.
-Medicare: See Above
Eilif wrote:
I think they're both equally errant in the eyes of the law, not to mention, you don't know if the $ used for drugs was theirs or the governements (it doesn't matter in my perspective).
Ok, I understand your point of view now. Everyone who smokes pot is a filthy drug user.
See the difference is I use MY HARD EARNED MONEY to buy pot for myself.
These people exploiting welfare are taking advantage of something that out government provides to help people. Every hour you work is getting them a little more dope! And yet you see that as the same as me buying marijuana with money that I earned myself?
You have an interesting view of what “service” is.
-DL: Govt gives you a license that allows you to use their roads. That's definitely something you "recieve" form the govt.
***Its not the “government’s” roads. I am not receiving anything from then government. Indeed the government is restricting free and fair use of public roads. It’s a tax.
-Business permits: you may have a point I'll give you this one.
-Building Permits: Govt. makes sure that the building is going to meet safety codes. A service to you and to everyone who uses the building
***It’s a tax. Buildings existed before government. Businesses will exist after government.
-SS: Grandma and Grandpa have been taking more than their fair share for a couple decades now. Thats MY money that thanks to them I will likely not be seeing any of when I get to retirement age.
***I highly doubt you pay taxes but that’s a side point. SS was put in place as a promise from one generation to the next. People receiving SS now paid into it, and –absent the current recession-would have received more money via investing that publibly than having it confiscated by the government. Under your view if the government can take money from me they can then force me to take a blood test. Your argument is without merit
-Medicare: See Above
***And holds as little strength as the argument above.
Eilif wrote:
-SS: Grandma and Grandpa have been taking more than their fair share for a couple decades now. Thats MY money that thanks to them I will likely not be seeing any of when I get to retirement age.
-Medicare: See Above
WOW. I actually don't even think you are a real person now, no one can be so ignorant. You must be trolling.
Eilif wrote:
-SS: Grandma and Grandpa have been taking more than their fair share for a couple decades now. Thats MY money that thanks to them I will likely not be seeing any of when I get to retirement age.
-Medicare: See Above
WOW. I actually don't even think you are a real person now, no one can be so ignorant. You must be trolling.
In his defense, grandma just refuses to keel over and divy up that estate to its rightful inheritors. Its quite vexing.
Depending on how you define government, it has been around longer than constructed habitats. Man may have used caves, but there were still decision s to be made in the tribe.
The Asch building knows all about the excesses of government intervention in building codes.
Troy wrote:Businesses will exist after government.
Depends on what you mean by business. I don't think your views are as applicable to traditional lifestyles, Mad Max, or post World War Z ones.
Polonius wrote:
I think we all can, I just think we all also know that people tend to abuse any system, no matter their level.
I don't see populist outrage over kickbacks and graft by politicians. Or the bill padding done by professionals at every level. Or middle class folks who bend the truth on their taxes.
Yet somehow a person with no future making the perfectly rational choice of simply getting wasted to forget it all gets everybody's panties in a bunch.
Yeah, i think it's worth noting.
I think there's a lesson there about kicking, directional orientation, and dogs.
I guess it's one reason to be glad i'm on the other side of socio economic spectrum from angry white people.
Polonius wrote:
I guess it's one reason to be glad i'm on the other side of socio economic spectrum from angry white people.
My dad used to get me to study by taking me on drives through rural Illinois, or if I was particularly delinquent Indiana. It was effective. Super effective.
Eilif wrote:
-SS: Grandma and Grandpa have been taking more than their fair share for a couple decades now. Thats MY money that thanks to them I will likely not be seeing any of when I get to retirement age.
-Medicare: See Above
WOW. I actually don't even think you are a real person now, no one can be so ignorant. You must be trolling.
Wait, what?
There are really people out there who buy the idea that Social Security is a "trust fund" rather than a government redistribution program? I mean, a lot of this guy's comments are out of line, but he's actually spot on with social security here.
Admittedly, you could differentiate SS from welfare on the grounds that SS recipients are not getting something COMPLETELY free, but still...
Troy wrote:
You have an interesting view of what “service” is.
-DL: Govt gives you a license that allows you to use their roads. That's definitely something you "recieve" form the govt.
***Its not the “government’s” roads. I am not receiving anything from then government. Indeed the government is restricting free and fair use of public roads. It’s a tax...
Whether or not they tax you to build the roads it's still a service that they provide, then (regardless of whether it's fair or not) they give you the right to drive a car on them. That said, something tells me we aren't going to agree on this one.
Troy wrote:
....***I highly doubt you pay taxes but that’s a side point.
Interestingly, you are correct. After about 14 years of paying taxes. (I've been working since I was 15) I just became a full time father. My wife makes enough that I am blessed to have that option, so I should have more accurately referred to "my household" as currently paying taxes.
So are you unusually preceptive or being intentionally rude?
nectarprime wrote:
Eilif wrote:
-SS: Grandma and Grandpa have been taking more than their fair share for a couple decades now. Thats MY money that thanks to them I will likely not be seeing any of when I get to retirement age.
WOW. I actually don't even think you are a real person now, no one can be so ignorant. You must be trolling.
No sir, I stand by that statment. It is primarily the fault of previous generation that we have a SS system that is underfunded and going slowly bankrupt. I fail to see where that constitutes trolling. It's a simple observation that I've been paying into SS for nearly a decade and a half, yet unless changes are made, SS will likley not exist for me when I retire.
Troy wrote:In his defense, grandma just refuses to keel over and divy up that estate to its rightful inheritors. Its quite vexing.
Well said...
Seriously though, it's her generation and my father's that refused to properly fund, or adjust the retirement age for SS. I wouldn't dream of begrudging them their age and at this point SS or lack thereof doesn't bother me much. I just consider myself fortunate that retirement is so far out and I am secure enough financially that I can plan for it not being there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nectarprime wrote:
Eilif wrote:
I think they're both equally errant in the eyes of the law, not to mention, you don't know if the $ used for drugs was theirs or the governements (it doesn't matter in my perspective).
Ok, I understand your point of view now. Everyone who smokes pot is a filthy drug user.
See the difference is I use MY HARD EARNED MONEY to buy pot for myself.
These people exploiting welfare are taking advantage of something that out government provides to help people. Every hour you work is getting them a little more dope! And yet you see that as the same as me buying marijuana with money that I earned myself?
Quite the opposite my friend, hence my use of "in the eyes of the law". I'm an abstainer when it comes to recreational drugs, but I'd still much rather see posession (not dealing) of most drugs decriminalized.
If I may go off topic, this topic is just one more example of how the US is in love with punitive laws to it's own detriment. From Mandatory minimums, to the "war on drugs", we've been fighting a losing war for decades and what has it gotten us? The poor are getting poorer and winding up in jail more often, we lock up a higher pecentage of our people than almost any other 1st world country (and more than China or Russia). All this while removing "correctional" programs from Corrections institutions and cutting funds to rehab, job training and a host of other programs that are much more efficient than locking people up.
Wake up people, it's not working. Stigmatizing drug users and denying them services doesn't make the US a better place for anyone. Locking up more people doesn't make you safer.
It may make someone feel vindicated to take services away from those they don't feel "deserve it" but it won't help the problem.
VermGho5t wrote:
If you (general 'you' of welfare users who fit the characterization of the thread), make the choice to apply for welfare assistance, you are doing so for assistance to get 'back on your feet', and be financially stable. If you rely on this assistance to sustain your lifestyle, this is an abuse and drain of the social service that people such as me, are having my hard work being wasted.
God forbid you "waste" your hard work. Toy soldiers are clearly a critical expense.
And it's up to you to determine and judge my wastefulness? No it's not.
I worked my ass off to earn my dough to spend it however I please. People on welfare shouldn't have this option: they should get it in the form of all food stamps, government food, or some other gak program politicians in Sacramento or DC are going to come up with to take more of what I earn away from me.
VermGho5t wrote:
If you (general 'you' of welfare users who fit the characterization of the thread), make the choice to apply for welfare assistance, you are doing so for assistance to get 'back on your feet', and be financially stable. If you rely on this assistance to sustain your lifestyle, this is an abuse and drain of the social service that people such as me, are having my hard work being wasted.
God forbid you "waste" your hard work. Toy soldiers are clearly a critical expense.
And it's up to you to determine and judge my wastefulness? No it's not.
And it isn't really up to you to decide every government expenditure. Your options are recognizing that everything doesn't revolve around your ideas or moving to someplace that makes you happier. There are all sorts of things people's taxes pay for that they may not like. Pacifists don't want their money to go toward building bombs and missles but they still pay for it in their taxes.
I voted wrong on the poll when I picked "hell yes"
I still stand by all my previous posts and think that drug tests for Welfare is ill-concieved, and an unfair focus on denying services to one particuar group of people. However, the OP was regarding Constitutionality. As regards Constitutionality, I think there's probably a 50/50 chance that the courts would uphold such a law.
Of course, there's probably the same chance that it would be struck down later due to privacy issues.
Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, US companies have the right to drugs test their employees.
Somewhat true. If it is a govt job (local/state/fed) you have to be able to prove that the position has safety or other issues where drug use would endanger. So, bus driver? You can test. Office secretary/librarian, you cannot. Police officer/ambulance driver? You can test. Several cases have gone to court over this, and though simplified, the above is about right. Access to sensitive or classified info can be a reason to test (which means maybe you CAN test the secretary if he/she will have access to social security numbers (senstiive info) for example. Laws vary by state, some much more permissive than others. See Lanier v Woodburn as a good example.
Private employers have a little more leeway, especially in hiring. You do not have the 'right' to a job (at will of employer) and they can require a test as part of the hiring, even for a cashier at Dairy Queen for example. Testing of current employees has to meet certain standards, again these vary by state.
A drug test IS a search according to the Supreme Court (which is why you can refuse to submit to one when pulled over by a cop for DUI). Having said that, since driving is a licensed activity, failure to submit to a test can result in failure to be granted a license. Most driver license applications include words to that effect in the fine print.
As to the constitutionality of testing welfare recipients? I expect this to go to the Supreme Court at some point. I have trouble with it on a couple of levels. It does force a class of citizen to submit to a search without any probable cause. I don't like that. The other issue is we are worried about folks abusing a gov't program, yet then decide the solution is another gov't program that the tax payers have to fund. I think current stats show in FL less than 4% have tested positive. So we fund the 96% of the tests that are negative. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.
If you have a problem with welfare, change that system. Don't add another layer of gov't, granting a search power. Not liking the fact that your tax dollars are spent a certain way does not justify more gov't, and certainly not gov't permission to violate 4th ammendment rights.
Any one have any evidence Solantic got the contract for this, or benefits from it it any way? Did Solantic even bid on the contract (they said they were not going to)?
Or is this just guessing?
Does his wife even still hold the shares (I thought GOV Scott went back and sold it all to get out of the issue)?
Honest questions. All the info I can find on it is from before the law was enacted. The only recent article I saw mentioned only 2% of testees came up hot, and did not mention the conflict of interest issue.
The company he founded does do some drug testing, but the shares are now in a trust for his wife, and didn't bid on the contract. So, conflict of interest (legally) isn't an issue.
What is messed up is that applicants must front the cost of testing. That alone might do more to deter applications than the fear of testing positive.
The sixth Circuit found a similar Michigan law to be unconstitutional back in 2003, so there's legal precedent that this is a problem. The sixth circuit is not the most respected, but it's rarely overturned. Probably the most moderate circuit.
The company he founded does do some drug testing, but the shares are now in a trust for his wife, and didn't bid on the contract. So, conflict of interest (legally) isn't an issue.
What is messed up is that applicants must front the cost of testing. That alone might do more to deter applications than the fear of testing positive.
The sixth Circuit found a similar Michigan law to be unconstitutional back in 2003, so there's legal precedent that this is a problem. The sixth circuit is not the most respected, but it's rarely overturned. Probably the most moderate circuit.
It also says:
In April, Scott, who had transferred his ownership interest in Solantic Corp. to a trust in his wife's name, said the company would not contract for state business, according to local media reports. He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company, local media reported.
I'm guessing he did what he needed to in order to mitigate the conflict of interest issue. As I stated in my first post to this topic, I think the issue will get to the Supreme Court eventually (unless FL cancels it due to it being economically dumb) and that I don't like giving the gov't more search powers. But saying the law was passed so Scott could economically gain seems silly.
Comments like
Well, as has been stated, the Florida governer likes this government expense because his wife owns a major drug testing firm.
seem to be demonstatively untrue and don't really further the discussion.
Don't worry about the Governor and his wife. Even though they sold their shares, Solantic isn't likely to forget who offered them up a big tasty government contract anytime soon.
But saying the law was passed so Scott could economically gain seems silly.
Yes, because no politician has ever done anything like that before.
Again, did Solantic bid on the contract? Did they get it?
Since Scott has gotten rid of his ownership, and meets the FL legal requirements to avoid conflict of interest, if Solantic DID get the contract, were there any protests from other companies that bid? How did those turn out?
And, regardless, how does that influence the constitutionality of the law?
Heck, Al Gore profits from a bunch of environmental regulations. That in and of itself does not mean the regualtions are good or bad for either the economy or the environment.
When Haliburton got a bunch of contracts in Iraq folks went ape crap because VP Cheney at one time had been involved in the company. That did not change the fact that at the time Haliburton was the only company that could execute those contracts in the time window needed.
Either the drug testing passes through the courts, or it does not, based on the constitutionality of the law. Issues of Scott's relationship with Solantic will not change that.
CptJake wrote:Again, did Solantic bid on the cotract? Did they get it?
The concern seems to be that Solantic provides walk-in drug testing for a relatively low price ($35 IIRC). People use this as a pre-screening for job or other required drug tests. So hypothetically, welfare applicants who are required to take a drug test are more likely to use Solantic as a pre-screening, thereby increasing their business.
Interestingly, and not surprisingly, these allegations tend to follow political lines.
If they are worried enough to pony up $35 bucks, it is probably because they are doing drugs. Frankly I could care less if some company profits from that, no matter who owns it. No one makes the welfare applicant pre-screen themselves.
If they are not worried about pissing hot they don't pre-screen.
And if Solantic can offer that service, so can other companies. If they want a piece of that action, they'll jump in to the market.
And again, none of that decides the constitutionality of the requirement in the first place.
Edit: I'm not calling ANYONE a left leaning tree hugger. I'm not one either, I'm against drug use, I am against welfare fraud, and also against the gov't imposing searches without a reasonable cause.
CptJake wrote:If they are worried enough to pony up $35 bucks, it is probably because they are doing drugs. Frankly I could care less if some company profits from that, no matter who owns it. No one makes the welfare applicant pre-screen themselves.
If they are not worried about pissing hot they don't pre-screen.
And if Solantic can offer that service, so can other companies. If they want a piece of that action, they'll jump in to the market.
And again, none of that decides the constitutionality of the requirement in the first place.
Edit: I'm not calling ANYONE a left leaning tree hugger. I'm not one either, I'm against drug use, I am against welfare fraud, and also against the gov't imposing searches without a reasonable cause.
If you're against drug use, I assume you don't drink alcohol?
Well, i'm sorry for not getting my facts completely straight. Of course, I'm the only person in this thread since the OP to actually look for facts, so I like to think I've added a little to the discussion...
And since the first page of this thread, the consensus is that as a case of first impression, there's no real way to comment on the constiutionality of the issue. Even knowing that there is out of circuit doesn't change anything. The conversation has been dominated by discussions about the policy aspect of the law. And a perceived conflict of interest does change the way you view the law.
What will be interesting to see isn't the number of denied applicants, but how the number of applicants changes. If a small percantage of claims are rejected, but the number of applications halves, than it's a more fiscally sound practice.
My problem, more than the search aspect, is requiring people that want financial assistance to pay essentially an application fee. Seems to run counter to the nature of the program.
CptJake wrote:Assume wrongly. Alcohol is legal for 21 and above where I live.
I'll restate more clearly. I am against illegal drug use and all drug abuse.
Now, how does that change the constitutionality of the law being discussed, or are you just being a troll and looking for a way to attack me?
I guess, the question is why is funding illegal drug use with welfare benefits any worse than funding alcohol? If it's a matter of drug use, than alcohol is worse than pot (though better than crack or heroin). Why a person buying something illegal with welfare benefits is any worse than any other expenditure seems to elude me.
And people that want drugs always come up with the money. Those drugs are getting bought whether or not we give them welfare.
CptJake wrote:Assume wrongly. Alcohol is legal for 21 and above where I live.
I'll restate more clearly. I am against illegal drug use and all drug abuse.
Now, how does that change the constitutionality of the law being discussed, or are you just being a troll and looking for a way to attack me?
I guess, the question is why is funding illegal drug use with welfare benefits any worse than funding alcohol? If it's a matter of drug use, than alcohol is worse than pot (though better than crack or heroin). Why a person buying something illegal with welfare benefits is any worse than any other expenditure seems to elude me.
And people that want drugs always come up with the money. Those drugs are getting bought whether or not we give them welfare.
It's because marijuana is a gateway drug that leads to crack and heroin and prostitution! Haven't you seen Reefer Madness??!? No one has ever done anything bad while drunk on alcohol ever!
Polonius wrote:Well, i'm sorry for not getting my facts completely straight. Of course, I'm the only person in this thread since the OP to actually look for facts, so I like to think I've added a little to the discussion...
And since the first page of this thread, the consensus is that as a case of first impression, there's no real way to comment on the constiutionality of the issue. Even knowing that there is out of circuit doesn't change anything. The conversation has been dominated by discussions about the policy aspect of the law. And a perceived conflict of interest does change the way you view the law.
What will be interesting to see isn't the number of denied applicants, but how the number of applicants changes. If a small percantage of claims are rejected, but the number of applications halves, than it's a more fiscally sound practice.
My problem, more than the search aspect, is requiring people that want financial assistance to pay essentially an application fee. Seems to run counter to the nature of the program.
In fairness they are supposed to be reimbursed. Of course, we all know how efficient the gov't can be with stuff like that...
Assuming the do get reimbursed, and assuming they gain more than they lose by paying the 'application fee', that part does not really bother me as much as the search issue. If found constitutional, it can be used as a precedent to expand upon, and I'm not comfortable with that.
I have not read all the posts, so apologize if I repeat something.
Firstly, yes I think it would be constitutional to test welfare recipients, unemployment recipients, and public/elected officials.
In fact I demand it, especially that last bit there.
In most states of the union, if you are on Welfare, foodstamps, unemployment or the like, you are required to look for work to try and get off the welfare. More and more companies drug sceen applicants now, probably most.
The exception to this rule are those on social security/ disability.
So the arguement can be made that you are unable to fullfill the requirements of welfare contract of trying to get a job.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In regards to the discussion of the drug testing fee. I would be fine with we the tax payer picking that one up.
If we pay $35 to get someone drug tested, and they come up positive, it just saved us thousands and thousands of dollars over the next several years.
If we pay $35, and they are clean and get the welfare, we recoup that cost, by giving them $5 less welfare each month for the next 7 months.
CptJake wrote:Assume wrongly. Alcohol is legal for 21 and above where I live.
I'll restate more clearly. I am against illegal drug use and all drug abuse.
Now, how does that change the constitutionality of the law being discussed, or are you just being a troll and looking for a way to attack me?
I guess, the question is why is funding illegal drug use with welfare benefits any worse than funding alcohol? If it's a matter of drug use, than alcohol is worse than pot (though better than crack or heroin). Why a person buying something illegal with welfare benefits is any worse than any other expenditure seems to elude me.
And people that want drugs always come up with the money. Those drugs are getting bought whether or not we give them welfare.
Funding alcohol (or in my opinion, cell phones/cable TV or anything not essential) with welfare is just as bad, BUT because alcohol is not illegal you cannot test for it as a condition for receiving welfare. I think that is the difference, good or bad.
Polonius wrote:I guess when a person is asking for a few hundred dollars a month for basic living expenses, $35 is more of a hurdle than it is to you or I.
Very True. Depending on the situation, $35 bucks can be alot of $ to come up with.
I run a very small weekly LEGO/Math program for third graders here in the neighborhood. It's not at all uncommon to have a student or two each semester who has to pay the 10 dollar classroom fee (one time fee for 10 sessions and the kids get $50 of free LEGO at the end of the program) in installments of 2 or 5 dollars a week.
Eilif wrote:I run a very small weekly LEGO/Math program for third graders here in the neighborhood. It's not at all uncommon to have a student or two each semester who has to pay the 10 dollar classroom fee (one time fee for 10 sessions and the kids get $50 of free LEGO at the end of the program) in installments of 2 or 5 dollars a week.
If they weren't so lazy and would just get a job they wouldn't have that problem. Oh that's right, the government is holding back an entire generation of able bodied workers with their age discrimination laws.
Polonius wrote:Yet somehow a person with no future making the perfectly rational choice of simply getting wasted to forget it all
This sentence does not compute.
I feel sympathy for the person who "has no future". But it's still not perfectly rational to "get wasted". You'll get a future alright, it's just a future which is WORSE than the one you currently have.
dogma wrote:Maybe, maybe not. I know getting wasted hasn't hurt my future. In fact, the friends I've made doing that have probably helped it.
Did you get wasted on crack or crystal meth?
If I did do you think I would talk about it on the internet?
I just realized that could be taken several ways. I'm positing that "getting wasted" means a lot of different things. Some future accountant smoking a joint is likely going to be effected in a substantially different manner than someone injecting black tar heroin. On the positive:
Frazzled wrote:
I just realized that could be taken several ways. I'm positing that "getting wasted" means a lot of different things. Some future accountant smoking a joint is likely going to be effected in a substantially different manner than someone injecting black tar heroin.
I mean, I know a couple lawyers who have done both, a used car dealer who loves him some cocaine, and an economist who is fond of meth. Drugs don't necessarily preclude you from being successful.
Yeah, I mean, do you think Americans know how much student loan money is spent on illegal activities?
I'm not one to get on a soap box about substance abuse, I drank far more than my share in college.
That wasn't my point though. My point is, at some point I think it's actually not the wrong choice to simply say "i will never be a productive, independent person. Why not just get wasted as much as I can and ride this out."
Frazzled wrote:
I just realized that could be taken several ways. I'm positing that "getting wasted" means a lot of different things. Some future accountant smoking a joint is likely going to be effected in a substantially different manner than someone injecting black tar heroin.
I mean, I know a couple lawyers who have done both, a used car dealer who loves him some cocaine, and an economist who is fond of meth. Drugs don't necessarily preclude you from being successful.
I think its a job requirement that used car salesmen are high on cocaine. Economist + meth = profit!
Ahtman wrote:Don't worry about the Governor and his wife. Even though they sold their shares, Solantic isn't likely to forget who offered them up a big tasty government contract anytime soon.
But saying the law was passed so Scott could economically gain seems silly.
Yes, because no politician has ever done anything like that before.
You sound like a man who has read a lot of Carl Hiaasen books.
Welcome to Florida. Do I think we should do it? No. Do I think we need to reduce spending? Yes. I think everyone on public assistance (food stamps, section 8 housing, medicaid, etc) should submit to random drug tests. Work in the health care field in Florida and you'll find more people addicted to prescription pain killers and they come into the hospitals to get their fix. They present to the ED with generalized pain. If you deny them, they say the magic words to get into any hospital, "I've got chest pain and massive pressure on my left shoulder." Bam you're in the hospital with your script for diloted and any other pain killer you can get from the doctor. They get their 3 hots and a cot for 3-4 days while they run the tests to see if they had a heart attack or if there are any problems and will get discharged. There was no medical reason for them actually being there other than they are addicted to pain medications.
Ghidorah wrote:I give a resounding "HELL NO!" In fact, I would go a step further and implement random drug testing for existing recipients too. Why on earth should the taxpayers foot the bill for people to buy weed (or worse)? I spent a VERY long time amidst welfare recipients in Cincinnati, Ohio. I have seen soooo many people abuse the welfare system. I knew a family of 5 that would spend the $380/mo. cash on a limo and a night out partying and use the $400+ in food stamps to buy all the expensive t-bones and what-not, only to feed their kids baloney and ketchup sandwiches 2 times a day for the last week of the month. This was over and over and over every month. So many people sold their food stamps for .60 cents on the dollar and bought crack, weed, beer, whatever.
I see NOTHING at all wrong, immoral, or unconstitutional in any way. They get reimbursed if they pass the screen. They don't DESERVE to piggy-back off of the work of legitimately employed Americans if they spend the money (or any part of the welfare benefits) on drugs.
Frazzled wrote:
I just realized that could be taken several ways. I'm positing that "getting wasted" means a lot of different things. Some future accountant smoking a joint is likely going to be effected in a substantially different manner than someone injecting black tar heroin.
I mean, I know a couple lawyers who have done both, a used car dealer who loves him some cocaine, and an economist who is fond of meth. Drugs don't necessarily preclude you from being successful.
I think its a job requirement that used car salesmen are high on cocaine. Economist + meth = profit!
They don't necessarily mean it won't catch up to you either.
I worked with a public accounting manager who did meth to stay up and meet dead lines. He ended up getting fired over it when his wife left him and notified the firm that he was using it... other than that, he would stay up for about a week 24 hours a day to meet a deadline, sleep for 24 hours, get back up and repeat the next week. The guy was really smart and driven, but you can only burn the candle at both ends for so long until there is nothing left. I think he's in jail now (he was high as a kite and ran some kids over when he went to pick up his kids from school - I think he hit two and killed one of them but in his defense, they did dart right behind him at the last second when they showed the video on the 11PM News). I'll see if I can find his mug shot - I don't recall if he was in Miami/Dade or Hillsborough (Tampa).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Troy wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:Corporate welfare reform would be nice too. It's all well and good to whine about people abusing the system but some perspective is necessary. This lady sounds like a real piece of work but I don't hear any complaints about oil companies getting billions in subsidies.
That's like screaming at an ant eating crumbs off your floor while not noticing the dudes stealing your tv.
That's what I can't stand about america, tax the rich, for the love god.
They aren't subsidies they are tax breaks, but otherwise you're 100% correct.
Exactly - subsidies are what they pay my aunt and uncle not to farm on their 3,000 acres of farm land so that we can keep the price of corn down. Its not a bad gig when you can get it.
Ahtman wrote:Don't worry about the Governor and his wife. Even though they sold their shares, Solantic isn't likely to forget who offered them up a big tasty government contract anytime soon.
But saying the law was passed so Scott could economically gain seems silly.
Yes, because no politician has ever done anything like that before.
You sound like a man who has read a lot of Carl Hiaasen books.
I have not. I'm not saying there is any kind of conspiracy here but I also don't believe that just dumping stocks means that they suddenly have no ties to the company. They still are very well connected; it may be inappropriate, it may not. It isn't as if there is no precedent in American (or any other for that matter) politics for this kind of thing. It looks bad, and since this isn't elementary school politics, that can be just as bad as doing something bad. Of course following that up with scoffing at the idea that there could be some collusion between between big business and government is silly is just flat out naive when we know it happens from time to time. This isn't a conspiracy theory. I believe just recently in England some public officials and police resigned because of a bit of inappropriate closeness. I'm not saying they did it, I'm taking issue with the at the idea that it isn't possible for it to happen.
They don't necessarily mean it won't catch up to you either.
It also doesn't mean it will either. This is the real world where bad things happen and there isn't always a lesson at the end of a story. It isn't an after school special with a moral.
Ahtman wrote:
I have not. I'm not saying there is any kind of conspiracy here but I also don't believe that just dumping stocks means that they suddenly have no ties to the company. They still are very well connected; it may be inappropriate, it may not. It isn't as if there is no precedent in American (or any other for that matter) politics for this kind of thing. It looks bad, and since this isn't elementary school politics, that can be just as bad as doing something bad. Of course following that up with scoffing at the idea that there could be some collusion between between big business and government is silly is just flat out naive when we know it happens from time to time. This isn't a conspiracy theory. I believe just recently in England some public officials and police resigned because of a bit of inappropriate closeness. I'm not saying they did it, I'm taking issue with the at the idea that it isn't possible for it to happen.
I'll ask again, did the company get the contract? If so, was it fairly bid/were there protests on the award?
So far, even after looking up current and upcoming contracts on the FL state gov web page, I can't find where this company got the contract...
Ahtman wrote:
I have not. I'm not saying there is any kind of conspiracy here but I also don't believe that just dumping stocks means that they suddenly have no ties to the company. They still are very well connected; it may be inappropriate, it may not. It isn't as if there is no precedent in American (or any other for that matter) politics for this kind of thing. It looks bad, and since this isn't elementary school politics, that can be just as bad as doing something bad. Of course following that up with scoffing at the idea that there could be some collusion between between big business and government is silly is just flat out naive when we know it happens from time to time. This isn't a conspiracy theory. I believe just recently in England some public officials and police resigned because of a bit of inappropriate closeness. I'm not saying they did it, I'm taking issue with the at the idea that it isn't possible for it to happen.
I'll ask again, did the company get the contract? If so, was it fairly bid/were there protests on the award?
So far, even after looking up current and upcoming contracts on the FL state gov web page, I can't find where this company got the contract...
I didn't say they got it. If it helps go back and check. Of course you also don't know. At this point it could be either: Schrodinger's Testing facility. i took issue with the idea that it was silly to even consider such a connection would happen when these kind of connections have happened before.
Polonius wrote:Yeah, I mean, do you think Americans know how much student loan money is spent on illegal activities?
I'm not one to get on a soap box about substance abuse, I drank far more than my share in college.
That wasn't my point though. My point is, at some point I think it's actually not the wrong choice to simply say "i will never be a productive, independent person. Why not just get wasted as much as I can and ride this out."
Good point. We should make them pay us back for the welfare they use.
remilia_scarlet wrote:I would love to find the man a job in society, so he won't need a welfare check anymore, after all, walmart is always hiring.
What and take him away from his lucrative career as a redneck model/ meth-dealer/ "squeal like a pig" backwoodsman?
I was thinking more along the lines of joe dirt/pickup bandit/ lucky from king of the hill, living off of a combination of welfare and settlement money.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That cannot be unread.
CptJake wrote:Assume wrongly. Alcohol is legal for 21 and above where I live.
I'll restate more clearly. I am against illegal drug use and all drug abuse.
Now, how does that change the constitutionality of the law being discussed, or are you just being a troll and looking for a way to attack me?
Actually I was just trying to confirm my suspicions, I appreciate your honesty.
Florida's main problem drug wise is all the pill farms dishing out oxy.. but why worry about the oxy addicts and booze hounds it's those darn dopers and their illegal devil's weed
nectarprime wrote:How nice of you guys to judge someone based on their looks. I guess that's never happened to you, Remilia?
Yeah, he/she gets pre-judged on account of being an anime character; "My, what big eyes you have!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote:
Florida's main problem drug wise is all the pill farms dishing out oxy.. but why worry about the oxy addicts and booze hounds it's those darn dopers and their illegal devil's weed
Oklahoma is the crystal-meth and pot capital of the U.S. When I was a social worker, I learned what a meth user smells like; yes, they have a distinctive smell...if the teeth and other things didn't tip you off first.
Well the Gov of Florida needs to look like hes doing something so picking on the weakest, least likely to have legal counsel, least likely to vote in the next election is the way to go. This law affects poor people only....they do not drug test business owners, Farmers, corporate employees that recieve state monies/subsidies do they? This is purely a distraction from the real issues that plague Florida....faltering economy, poor real estate market, high unemployment....
nectarprime wrote:How nice of you guys to judge someone based on their looks. I guess that's never happened to you, Remilia?
I guess the joke went completely over your head, who knows, the guy could be a millionaire. The point is that many people on welfare don't work, therfore, don't have to worry about looking nice, or taking pride in themselves.
Dogface 76 wrote:Well the Gov of Florida needs to look like hes doing something so picking on the weakest, least likely to have legal counsel, least likely to vote in the next election is the way to go.
Worked in Arizona, Colorado and other states by focusing on "them illegals that been takin our jobs".
Polonius wrote:Yeah, I mean, do you think Americans know how much student loan money is spent on illegal activities?
The funny part is that the higher you go in terms of academic prestige, the more drug use tends to occur. Kids at directional schools have nothing on the Ivies when it comes to partying.
remilia_scarlet wrote:I agree, last thing I want to do is pay for someone else's habits. These days, more and more people are getting on government assistance that don't even need it, so, it's becoming a burden on the government. I have this neighbor, who's 23, perfecly capable of working, but is on disability for ADD. He does nothing but play second life all day, and spends money on that game, so, in short, we're paying for his habits.
This!!!! I have always been a big fan of this option as well:
If you are on welfare or have lost your job, you have 3 choices.
1) If you are physically or mentally unable to care for yourself and have no family capable of supporting you then you MUST become a ward of the state. You will report for medical treatment as necessary for your condition and be subject to a panel of doctors that will review your condition twice a year and determine your level of disability. You must also submit for monthly drug testing, mandatory birth control and quarterly visits by social services, in your home. In return you will receive your welfare disbursements. You will also receive the necessary medical/mental care you require and food security you need, and social programs to help you live a quality life.
2) Look for a job and receive no unemployment or welfare payments whilst you do so. You are free to enjoy your life without the intrusion of the government.
3) Report to the local Workforce commission local office at 8 am. From 8 am to 12 pm you will utilize the WFC computers, hard copy and counselors to find a job, or receive job training on selected fields. (i.e. Computer Usage, Filing, Plumbing, Construction, interviewing skills... etc.) - at 12 pm you will be allowed 30 minutes for lunch onsite provided by the state. From 12:30 till 5 PM you will be required to preform services in your area. Painting over graffiti, planting trees, picking up garbage from the roadside, building playgrounds, digging ditches, clearing abandoned lots of debris...etc. For this you will receive a livable wage based upon the median income in your area.
remilia_scarlet wrote:I agree, last thing I want to do is pay for someone else's habits. These days, more and more people are getting on government assistance that don't even need it, so, it's becoming a burden on the government. I have this neighbor, who's 23, perfecly capable of working, but is on disability for ADD. He does nothing but play second life all day, and spends money on that game, so, in short, we're paying for his habits.
This!!!! I have always been a big fan of this option as well:
If you are on welfare or have lost your job, you have 3 choices.
1) If you are physically or mentally unable to care for yourself you MUST become a ward of the state. You will report for medical treatment as necessary for your condition and be subject to a panel of doctors that will review your condition twice a year and determine your level of disability. You must also submit for monthly drug testing, mandatory birth control and quarterly visits by social services, in your home. In return you will receive your welfare disbursements.
2) Look for a job and receive no unemployment or welfare payments whilst you do so. You are free to enjoy your life without the intrusion of the government.
3) Report to the local Workforce commission local office at 8 am. From 8 am to 12 pm you will utilize the WFC computers, hard copy and counselors to find a job, or receive job training on selected fields. (i.e. Computer Usage, Filing, Plumbing, Construction, interviewing skills... etc.) - at 12 pm you will be allowed 30 minutes for lunch onsite provided by the state. From 12:30 till 5 PM you will be required to preform services in your area. Painting over graffiti, planting trees, picking up garbage from the roadside, building playgrounds, digging ditches, clearing abandoned lots of debris...etc. For this you will receive a livable wage based upon the median income in your area.
Your points:
1. MUST be a ward of the state and mandatory birth control? Please. You going to make them wear yellow stars or some other symbol too?
2. So what is the incentive to look for a job instead of stay on welfare?
3. Kind of contradicts 2, but you will be providing them a livable wage and a meal a day for a half day of work, plus paying other folks for a half day of providing classes and resume writing help and so on. That does not sound like an efficient use of my tax dollars. Who provides day care for them as they spemd form 0800-1700 in this program?
Any plan that requires MORE gov't and more control is not a good one in my opinion. Besides the cost of the above programs I would seriously doubt they could be implemented and make it through the obvious court cases that would come up.
1. MUST be a ward of the state and mandatory birth control? Please. You going to make them wear yellow stars or some other symbol too?
2. So what is the incentive to look for a job instead of stay on welfare?
3. Kind of contradicts 2, but you will be providing them a livable wage and a meal a day for a half day of work, plus paying other folks for a half day of providing classes and resume writing help and so on. That does not sound like an efficient use of my tax dollars. Who provides day care for them as they spemd form 0800-1700 in this program?
Any plan that requires MORE gov't and more control is not a good one in my opinion. Besides the cost of the above programs I would seriously doubt they could be implemented and make it through the obvious court cases that would come up.
You should read the post: # 2 reads..."You will receive NO welfare or unemployment."
As far as you counterpoint on #1. Your knee jerk reaction and your whip-like travel to Nazi-ism is just a cop out. If you can't care for yourself, how can you care for a child? Think realistically, not rhetorically.
As far a child care goes... how about those receiving welfare / child support? Those unfit for physical labor could care for the children of those who are. "State funded Child care," kinda like the schools as they are now, no? How much do you think the average city employee who picks up garbage, cleans toilets and clear refuse from abandoned lots receives? We could re-task those city employees to other areas vital to infrastructure... I.e. if you lived near Houston, how about that 8 year long construction job on the 3 mile stretch between HWY 290 and I-45. Lets finish that.
As it goes right now. Your tax dollars spent on welfare and unemployment do not better the community in any way. I would rather pay for a garbage/grafitti/eyesore free city than pay the same amount and receive nothing.
Connor McKane wrote:
As far as you counterpoint on #1. Your knee jerk reaction and your whip-like travel to Nazi-ism is just a cop out. If you can't care for yourself, how can you care for a child? Think realistically, not rhetorically.
Considering that vaccination is controversial in certain groups I doubt you'll get many people to sign on to mandatory birth control.
Connor McKane wrote:
As it goes right now. Your tax dollars spent on welfare and unemployment do not better the community in any way. I would rather pay for a garbage/grafitti/eyesore free city than pay the same amount and receive nothing.
One could argue that the social safety net intrinsically betters the community, particularly as regards unemployment benefits.
I have had this discussion many other times on other sites and forums....here are my opinions.
Should you drug test people on welfare? My answer is no. This is why:
If you look at welfare statistics, from the actual government, not from some political pundit, you will see that any numbers you get from politics are used simply as scare tactics. Also, looking at the length of welfare recipients, how long do they suck on the government teet? Last I read, over 75% or 3/4 of welfare recipients are off welfare and back on their feet with in the first two years. It then breaks down from there. If you look at the ones that are on it for life, it is way down there. Drug testing costs money, lots of money. Who is going to pay for these drug tests? The tax payer is. Considering the low amount of people that use welfare as a crutch versus the multiple millions of dollars, hell 100s of millions it would cost to drug test these people is absurd.
Yes, some people will abuse it, yes some people will be on drugs while on welfare. I don't even see what being on drugs even freaking means. What does it mean? I know people that are doped up on adoral, xanex, they smoke pot, they take anti-depressants, sleeping pills, pain killers, and so forth. Everyone these days is on drugs, and doctors prescribe them like they are candy. There is clearly a fine line between substance use and substance abuse, heck I'd even argue there is a fat line (pun intended? not sure) between the two.
I've dabbled in drugs, and done pretty much everything in my life time. I am over that now, but the whole time I held a steady job, a career you could say, never got fired, never messed up at work, and kept all my partying as a social thing. Never once did it control my life.
However, I am digressing, the main reason I am against it is because it would cost a butt-ton of money and maybe stop less than 1% of people from getting welfare, or getting caught and there are like tons of ways to beat a drug test anyway.
@ dogma: "One could argue that the social safety net intrinsically betters the community, particularly as regards unemployment benefits."
While it might seem so, I would disagree.
The social safety net is a good idea for those that utilize it, but as long as you receive something for nothing, there is no benefit to the tax payer.
There is also no incentive for self sufficiency. If there is no consequences for failure, then why save and be smart with your money? Why try to excell, just do as little as you can and dont worry about being fired, Joe Taxpayer will cover my cell phone bill?
While Mandatory Birth Control seems on the surface to be Nazi-like, think to yourself these points:
We will all agree that human beings are the only animal in nature that allows its misfits to reproduce on a large scale.
Any idiot with genetailia can reproduce. But should they? Absolutely, if you can care for your own children.
Ask yourself: Would you like to have social services show up on your doorstep with a child and say "You are now legally this child's guardian. You will care for it and pay for all its expenses till it dies."
Because every time some nimrod unable to care for himself, let alone a child, knocks up some Jerry Springer trailer queen... that is EXACTLY what happens.
Hmm, I would say if the government did actually enforce this, I don't see how it would violate any rights. You aren't guaranteed access to all government and social services, that is not one of your inherit rights in the constitution or the bill of rights.
Now that you bring up the legality side of this, what happens when someone is denied welfare from a paper work snafu, or just plain idiocy. I mean this is the government we are talking about here. I just bought a new car and it took me 1 full day to get the tags and plates for it. I had to go to 4 different buildings downtown to fill out paperwork. It was completely 100% inefficient, and costing tax payer dollars to basically have people have pointless jobs created by government red tape. So, they get denied and then they sue the government. Then more tax dollars, time and resources are being wasted on a case which could have been avoided in the first place if the government didn't make crap so complicated.
Now, before you all go and start thinking, man this dude sounds like a libertarian, well you are wrong. My answer to libertarians is shut the hell up and pay your taxes just like everyone else, same goes for corporations. I am in fact, completely independent, but take the salad bar approach (or buffet approach) to my political views. I like some aspects of parties, and some parties more than others, but I will never claim to be one since I hate several things (some more) in every political party there is.
Connor McKane wrote:
The social safety net is a good idea for those that utilize it, but as long as you receive something for nothing, there is no benefit to the tax payer.
There are several key benefits, one of which is the peace of mind that comes from knowing you have something to fall back on if that risk you took doesn't pay off; be it going to school, or moving to find a new job. Then there's the negative pressure that a social safety net places on crime, and the positive effect welfare has on aggregate demand for many different goods (which is economically beneficial).
Connor McKane wrote:
There is also no incentive for self sufficiency. If there is no consequences for failure, then why save and be smart with your money? Why try to excell, just do as little as you can and dont worry about being fired, Joe Taxpayer will cover my cell phone bill?
And yet most people aren't on welfare, which should say something about the quality of life associated with it.
Connor McKane wrote:
While Mandatory Birth Control seems on the surface to be Nazi-like, think to yourself these points:
I didn't say it was Nazi-like, I said it would probably be unpopular because other, less controversial, government mandated medical procedures are not universally accepted.
Connor McKane wrote:
We will all agree that human beings are the only animal in nature that allows its misfits to reproduce on a large scale.
Actually, I don't agree with that at all, because the term "misfit" is extremely vague and the people that we might actually call "misfit" generally don't reproduce. It isn't as though other species only reproduce with the fittest members of their kind, there is a wide range of variance.
Connor McKane wrote:
Ask yourself: Would you like to have social services show up on your doorstep with a child and say "You are now legally this child's guardian. You will care for it and pay for all its expenses till it dies."
Because every time some nimrod unable to care for himself, let alone a child, knocks up some Jerry Springer trailer queen... that is EXACTLY what happens.
Well, no, it isn't what happens. While tax dollars will support the child, to some extent, no one is making you do anything except pay taxes and the tax payer is not legally responsible for the child's welfare. You're equivocating.
2. So what is the incentive to look for a job instead of stay on welfare?
You should read the post: # 2 reads..."You will receive NO welfare or unemployment."
Exactly, under your plan, I can get paid a living wage (replacing unemployment and welfare in your scheme) to take training half a day and work half a day, or I can get NOTHING to go out and try to find a job. So I'll ask again, what is my incentive to get off the dole and find a job?
Connor McKane wrote:
In fact I have noticed something about you, my friend. You are incapable of ever finding any value in something someone else said.
It is as if your only contribution here is to be argumentative and contrary. You are right and everyone else is wrong.
Do you want a pat on the back? That's a strange thing to request given the following.
Connor McKane wrote:
I stand by my statement and luckily I don't have to defend my opinion. Not to you, or to anyone.
You don't have to, but if you can't then maybe the issue is with your opinion and not any particularly contrary interlocutor.
Connor McKane wrote:
As far as you counterpoint on #1. Your knee jerk reaction and your whip-like travel to Nazi-ism is just a cop out. If you can't care for yourself, how can you care for a child? Think realistically, not rhetorically.
Considering that vaccination is controversial in certain groups I doubt you'll get many people to sign on to mandatory birth control.
Not to mention, enforcing it would be EXTREMELY intrusive, and would never pass the constitutionality test.
And what do you do to folks who become disabled after they have a kid?
I am thinking realistically. Your plan could not work in the US. Thankfully.
Mannahnin wrote:Conner, you really are wrong. Your arguments were terrible and indefensible.
I disagree. So you are wrong... because being a MOD doesn't make you right on any particular issue. You are entitled to your opinion as am I.
Dogma already explained to you why your arguments are incorrect or insensible. I'm not relying on my moderator status for any authority when I tell you that your opinions on this matter are misguided and not based on reality.
2. So what is the incentive to look for a job instead of stay on welfare?
You should read the post: # 2 reads..."You will receive NO welfare or unemployment."
Exactly, under your plan, I can get paid a living wage (replacing unemployment and welfare in your scheme) to take training half a day and work half a day, or I can get NOTHING to go out and try to find a job. So I'll ask again, what is my incentive to get off the dole and find a job?
Better than paying people to sit around and watch daytime TV. They get training they need to find a job or simply to better themselves. They serve their community for 1/2 a day. But as anything goes in life, if your performance is unsatisfactory on plan #3 then you would be placed on plan #2.
The incentive is most people don't want to pick up trash, or work in the sun, or dig ditches. They should want to better themselves.
And people do want to better themselves. Virtually no one likes being on welfare, and the vast majority of people get off it within a fairly short period of time.
Given that a tiny percentage of people actually stay on it for long periods, and given that it would cost enormous amounts of taxpayer money and be a huge invasion of people's privacy (this in the USA, where we're supposed to love freedom and people's rights, and be the defenders of them), the idea of drug testing all of these people is silly and dumb.
Mannahnin wrote:Conner, you really are wrong. Your arguments were terrible and indefensible.
I disagree. So you are wrong... because being a MOD doesn't make you right on any particular issue. You are entitled to your opinion as am I.
Dogma already explained to you why your arguments are incorrect or insensible. I'm not relying on my moderator status for any authority when I tell you that your opinions on this matter are misguided and not based on reality.
And again thanks for your opinion, because you really aren't saying anything other than "You're Wrong." Which you are absolutely entitled to do, but again it doesn't make you right.
Connor McKane wrote:
The incentive is most people don't want to pick up trash, or work in the sun, or dig ditches.
Most people don't appear to want to be on welfare either.
Connor McKane wrote:
They should want to better themselves.
Is that why you don't want to defend your opinions?
Oh no, don't get me wrong, it isn't that I don't want to defend my opinions, I simply don't have to. See, explaining my opinions to you is a waste of time, since you wont be able to do anything but disagree, it's your nature, I don't fault you for that. If I wanted to argue like that I would go argue with the stump in my front yard.
You can't change the minds of people like you. You are 100% correct and everyone else is wrong, there is no argument you are capable of having... I don't care how many syllables you use.
Connor, dogma does like to argue. No doubt about that. You can choose not to argue with him, or you can choose to debate him on the facts. Sometimes I see him making sophist arguments just for the sake of arguing, and the way to deal with that is to stick to the topic at hand and be clear about what you're talking about. But this isn't one of those times.
This is an occasion on which the arguments you're putting forward are not good ones, and he's enjoying himself by knocking them down, but that's because they don't stand up to reasonable scrutiny. It's not sophistry he's engaging in here. He's pointing out real flaws in your reasoning.
Connor McKane wrote:
Oh no, don't get me wrong, it isn't that I don't want to defend my opinions, I simply don't have to. See, explaining my opinions to you is a waste of time, since you wont be able to do anything but disagree, it's your nature, I don't fault you for that. If I wanted to argue like that I would go argue with the stump in my front yard.
You can't change the minds of people like you. You are 100% correct and everyone else is wrong, there is no argument you are capable of having... I don't care how many syllables you use.
My mind has been changed before, by people on this forum. It doesn't happen often because, as Mannahnin (I always forget that second N) has noted, I like to argue and I'm pretty good at it (he didn't say that second part). I mean, I basically get paid to do it. I also engage in sophistry from time to time, because its fun, and basically the world's first form of trolling (funnily enough, I am a sophist by profession using the original definition).
MrDwhitey wrote:Oddly, I thought part of the whole social welfare thing was to prevent starving people, even the undesirables.
I believe that there is a fundamentally tilted argument here that we have entered into. Because we aren't discussing the constitutionality of anything at this point.
I think the real disagreement is over "rights."
Some believe that the "undesirables" as they have now been called have a right to have everything the "desirables" have.
Don't have a job? No problem you don't have to work for the things in your life. Here is some money.
Didn't get an education? No problem you don't have to work for the things in your life. Here is some money.
On Drugs? No problem you don't have to work for the things in your life. Here is some money.
You feel these people deserve the things in life for free, that people like me have to work for. So you want to reward failure. Because if we dissolved the whole "Social Security" net, you would have to suffer from the fall, and you want that safety net there because you might be feeling like you are going to fail at some point in your life, and you want that to be there.
Don't be afraid of failing, plan for your success, if you fail, plan for that too... but don't make ME your safety net.
Life isn't fair guys, it is hard, and takes work courage and drive.
You want people to say I am saying "Kill Disabled Babies." Which is a tried and true way of arguing for the Left. I am saying, "Poop or get off the pot."
And I know you are just wringing your hands in anticipatory, salivating glee waiting for this post so you can post your rebuttal. I'll save you the effort and just ignore you, since I too now feel you have nothing of value to contribute.
Feel free to go ahead and ram it in me in your subsequent posts and claim "COWARD" for not wanting to continue the less than pointless discussion which you will feel you have won.
Having lived on both sides of the poverty line. My honest advice would be to leave poor people alone. The US government wastes around 1 trillion dollars in tax payers money every year. If you want to know where its being wasted, don't look at poor people. They don't have it, they are poor. To find your money follow the trail... Money always travels upwards.
Any money poor people receive gets sucked away instantly paying for things like rent, medical bills (particularly for the elderly) and loans. This means that the money inevitably ends up with Pharmaceutical companies, housing corporations and banks, and lining the pockets of CEOs.
Often this money is just wasted. Private companies will usually bleed the government for everything they can get, they overcharge, offer poor value, and don't care about waste because the tax payer fits the bill. These companies don't always put back in either.
Multinational corporations with offshore headquarters and high-powered tax attorneys, hedge fund managers, oil companies, all cost the IRS hundreds of billions every year by under-reporting employment tax. Getting special tax breaks and even subsidies for stuff they do anyway. Or just exploit loopholes to not pay tax.
The U.S. farm subsidy program, cost taxpayers nearly $20 billion in 2007. A Cato Institute study found that, two-thirds of the subsidies went to the richest 10 percent of recipients. Recipients include Ted Turner, and former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay. A later study found that around 93 billion was wasted on corporate subsidies.
Then there is military spending where due to the low transparency and secrecy money often just "goes missing". The Pentagon estimates that there is about a trillion dollars that they can't account for. The military also invests a lot of money in expensive projects and then cancels them. In fact this happens across all government agencies. They build bridges to nowhere, pay millions to store satellites they never intend to launch. Consider the FBI’s infamous Trilogy computer upgrade... Its final stage was scrapped after a $170 million investment.
Then lets not forget the hundreds upon hundreds of billions, that the federal government has to pay each year in interest on the national debt. That's interest on money that they could have saved ten times over by being less wasteful, instead of borrowing.
Now going back to benefits. One of the biggest problems with the benefit system is that it is often very difficult and confusing for people who really need welfare to actually claim what they are entitled to. There is a lot of bureaucracy and hoops to jump through, before you even get to the stage where you can try to claim anything.
For example my father should have been entitled to a full disability allowance here in the UK, when he was dying of cancer. This allowance is intended to help someone, who is too ill to work, pay for their rent, food, heating and so on. We probably wouldn't even have known about the allowance if not for a charity appointed accountant advising us of it. It was a great comfort to my father to know that his affairs were being taken care of and that he was not running up a huge debt while in hospital.
However after his death we found out that we could not claim anything. The reason for this is because an assessment had not been done. The reason the assessment had not been done was because my father had been admitted to hospital the day before people called to do the assessment. He was never discharged, that's where he died. However dying before the assessment can take place, apparently does not indicate that you might have really been sick for the purposes of the assessment. My farther paid national insurance his whole life and was 12 years in the armed forces. The allowance was applied for by a professional (charity appointed) accountant, who specialised in getting these exact benefits for people in exactly the same situation as my father. Still the benefit was denied to us. Not because he wasn't entitled. Simply because he was unable to jump though all the hoops in time.
This is not an isolated incident. Every day there are people who are sick, old, out of work. People unable to feed their children, people about to lose their homes, people requiring medicine, people freezing in their own homes. People who genuinely need help, but never receive it because they are unable to navigate the increasingly complicated and bureaucratic benefits system.
Now you want to throw in compulsory drug testing for applicants? Please! Without meaning to be offensives (this is purely for emphasis) but would you please F**K OFF!!!. Aside from all the extra millions that would inevitably be wasted, by subcontracting a private company to manage all the drug testing... If you really want grab your pitchfork, and join the angry mob on their crusade against burdens on the disgruntled tax payer. Why not turn your attention first to fat-cat CEOs, and the politicians who do their bidding... Those are the real burdens on the tax payer, those are the real leeches on society.
No one likes benefit fraud, it's wrong. But you need to have your priorities in order. The guy who makes a few extra dollars each month by pretending to have a limp, is just a diversion. You need to get angry at the CEO syphoning millions into an offshore account. You need to do something about systematic waste of billions of tax payer dollars each year, by incompetent government agencies and self-serving private enterprises. Maybe when that is all done you can start worrying about a few poor people selling their food stamps.
Connor McKane wrote:
Some believe that the "undesirables" as they have now been called have a right to have everything the "desirables" have.
The issue isn't so much that people believe the "undersireables" deserve everything the "desireables" do, to the extent that deserving something matters at all. Indeed, its pretty hard to argue that people on welfare get everything that people not on welfare get.
Connor McKane wrote:
So you want to reward failure.
I don't think anyone considers welfare a reward.
Connor McKane wrote:
Because if we dissolved the whole "Social Security" net, you would have to suffer from the fall, and you want that safety net there because you might be feeling like you are going to fail at some point in your life, and you want that to be there.
Don't be afraid of failing, plan for your success, if you fail, plan for that too... but don't make ME your safety net.
You realize that planning for failure is one of the best arguments for the social safety net, right?
And, let's be honest here, you don't really have a choice regarding whether or not you're a social safety net. It might not be a state program that supplies aid, but desperate people most definitely can extract it from you.
Having lived on both sides of the poverty line. My honest advice would be to leave poor people alone. The US government wastes around 1 trillion dollars in tax payers money every year. If you want to know where its being wasted, don't look at poor people. They don't have it, they are poor. To find your money follow the trail... Money always travels upwards.
Any money poor people receive gets sucked away instantly paying for things like rent, medical bills (particularly for the elderly) and loans. This means that the money inevitably ends up with Pharmaceutical companies, housing corporations and banks, and lining the pockets of CEOs.
Often this money is just wasted. Private companies will usually bleed the government for everything they can get, they overcharge, offer poor value, and don't care about waste because the tax payer fits the bill. These companies don't always put back in either.
Multinational corporations with offshore headquarters and high-powered tax attorneys, hedge fund managers, oil companies, all cost the IRS hundreds of billions every year by under-reporting employment tax. Getting special tax breaks and even subsidies for stuff they do anyway. Or just exploit loopholes to not pay tax.
The U.S. farm subsidy program, cost taxpayers nearly $20 billion in 2007. A Cato Institute study found that, two-thirds of the subsidies went to the richest 10 percent of recipients. Recipients include Ted Turner, and former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay. A later study found that around 93 billion was wasted on corporate subsidies.
Well said, and I cannot agree more. When politicians in America make deal of things like planned parent hood, religion, gay marriage, pro life/choice, gun control, health care, taxes, and other things you could maybe call social ideas where people draw lines in the sand and say you are either for us or against us. If you are against us I will NEVER vote for you ever, even if I agree with the other 95% of your policies. This creates a political elitism and divides us.
People then get caught in these pillars of politics and they think they are fighting for these social changes, when in fact it is all sort of a ruse. Both parties in the US are pro mega corporations, pro rich, pro authoritarian, pro screwing over the middle class and poor, and everything else they divide on are social issues. I am not saying social issues aren't important, but when you draw the line and I think the pro life/choice people are the worst, you are limiting yourself from a larger scope of things. The pro life/choice people literally campaign for just those policies and nothing else. The extreme ones I mean. They ignore every other important thing.
Like right now there is this debate about taxes here. Whether or not to give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations to create jobs. Everyone is trying to get behind this create jobs thing....Hmm, apparently all of the politicians and people arguing their sides failed, didn't show up, or slept through their economics classes. We live in a supply and demand economy. If something is in high constant demand, then it drives the economy, but the middle class are the ones spending their disposable income on these consumer goods driving economy. If they don't have money to spend, there is no economy. 1% of Americans are millionaires or richer. 66% of Congress are millionaires.
Now, lets look at the hard data. Has taxes ever affected job creation? No, it hasn't. Not a single time in this country's history has taxes every affected job creation. In fact, job creation was at an all time high when taxes were also, at an all time high. Right now corporate america is sitting on over 2 trillion dollars in profits, the lowest taxes and interest rates of the past decade, maybe even longer and they aren't going to create any jobs. This is because the demand for jobs is going down, in almost every field. Companies now expect you to do the work of two or three people, or have a team of people split a whole department's responsibilities. Also, technology is making it easier. Trust me on this I work in IT as a sys admin. I am doing the job of about 3 full time people (sever admin, client management, LDAP directory admiin, Casper admin, end user support, package creation/deployment, internal co-worker support, technical writer, programmer, and all around tech support dude), and to be honest the only reason I can do all these jobs is because I have automated a lot of them with scripts and programs that get the job done. So, no one is going to just create jobs because they have money, they are going to only create jobs when they actually need workers. This is a huge misconception people have on taxes and job creation.
Now, this all ties in together here, so let me draw a conclusion. Also, before I finish, I'd like to say thanks for your post as it brought up some really good points. In conclusion, and overall reality, welfare on a political level is a social tool that conservatives love to spin about how it is wasting tax dollars. How it is costing hard working Americans their tax money by supporting cheap, lazy, drug addicted, uneducated people that are in some cases not even human. I mean they dehumanize poor people by doing this crap, it is quite sad and sickening. I know this because at one point my family received government assistance after my parents got divorced and my mother went back to school and got her masters degree so she could provide for us. After she got her degree, and she got a job, she didn't need government assistance. We didn't have food stamps but lived in section 8 housing. All the while, the rich are ripping you off exponentially compared to all of our social services. Every social service your tax dollars go to, police, firemen, roads, water, education, health care, welfare, etc. is all a drop in the ocean to what the government gives corporations in kick backs, tax credits, and of course the power to lobby in DC.
If you really want to be fiscally conservative, you need to follow the money, and the poor people ain't getting it. The rich people are, and they are creating larger and larger gaps of wealth in this country. I am not against corporations, or free markets or capitalism. I do believe in regulations, to force everyone to play nice. However, these rich mega corporations and the elite rich people of this country just need to shut up and pay their taxes.
The decision (opinion here) was directed to whether a preliminary injunction should be granted. It was not a finding that the drug testing was unconstitutional, it was a decision that the plaintiff (the welfare applicant) is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.
There is certainly some problems with the judge's decision here (particularly the almost summary dismissal of Wyman and the consent of the applicant to the search), but that's more from the scholarly end and probably isn't all that interesting to non-lawyers.
The decision (opinion here) was directed to whether a preliminary injunction should be granted. It was not a finding that the drug testing was unconstitutional, it was a decision that the plaintiff (the welfare applicant) is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.
Fair enough. What I also found interesting was that of the 7,000 people tested, 32 people tested positive. So, that's less then half of 1%. Assuming the worst case - that every single one of the failures was for a family of 4, thus eligible for the maximum $4,368 per year payment, and presuming none of them pass a drug test and hence are ineligible for a full 12 months - then the state saved at best $139,776, yes? How much do you think they spent setting up this program? How much will they spend defending it in court? Do you think it's less then $139,776?
Ok, Forget the legal battle for now - we don't need that to calculate that. Since the test costs $35, and the people who passed the tests (6,968) are reimbursed by the state, we know this program cost at least $243,880.
Maybe they'll save money on volume, though. /snicker
Ouze wrote:Fair enough. What I also found interesting was that of the 7,000 people tested, 32 people tested positive.
...and 1600 refused to take the test.
If we assume that those 1600 refused to take the test because they knew they would fail, that makes 19%. That means the state saved $7.1 million (using your numbers).
As always, the intent of laws is not simply to punish but also to deter the undesired behavior. How much does it cost to prosecute murderers and maintain a homocide division of the police force? Does the benefit of prosecuting murderers (measured by earning potential of future victims) outweigh the cost? I doubt it.
Ultimately, I agree that there should be an investigation into whether this makes sense financially or not. But the benefit of the deterrant effect that these laws have should not be discounted.
Ouze wrote:Fair enough. What I also found interesting was that of the 7,000 people tested, 32 people tested positive.
...and 1600 refused to take the test.
If we assume that those 1600 refused to take the test because they knew they would fail, that makes 19%. That means the state saved $7.1 million (using your numbers).
As always, the intent of laws is not simply to punish but also to deter the undesired behavior. How much does it cost to prosecute murderers and maintain a homocide division of the police force? Does the benefit of prosecuting murderers (measured by earning potential of future victims) outweigh the cost? I doubt it.
Ultimately, I agree that there should be an investigation into whether this makes sense financially or not. But the benefit of the deterrant effect that these laws have should not be discounted.
I'm more interested in the legal side, however.
We have no idea why they refused to take the test, though. My numbers all came from the actual data, the rest is wholly supposition. One possibility - and call me crazy, but I could see this - is that people so poor as to need TANF might not have an extra $35 to pay for the test up front.
This was never advertised as a deterrent. It was advertised as a cost-savings program - ""The goal of this is to make sure we don't waste taxpayers' money" - Scott's own words. It's spending nearly $2 for every dollar it saves.
Ouze wrote:We have no idea why they refused to take the test, though. My numbers all came from the actual data, the rest is wholly supposition. One possibility - and call me crazy, but I could see this - is that people so poor as to need TANF might not have an extra $35 to pay for the test up front.
Sure that's possible. But it's no more possible than people refusing to take the test because they're likely to fail.
Most people don't balk at paying $35 to get $4,000, in my experience.
Or people are feel that it's wrong, are outraged, feel that they shouldn't have to submit to the test for whatever reason they have. Like the fellow in the article.
I think it's far more likely that people avoid the test knowing they'll fail than because of the cost. that's supposition, but that's based on my experience reading case files of welfare recipients. Nearly everybody can come up with $35, illegally if not legally. (which leads to some interest consequences). Let's say this: rarely do I read a case file where a person says they can't afford booze, drugs, or cigarettes. But the same people will say they can't afford a $5 co-pay for treatment.
You could probably make a decent "tragedy of the commons" argument about the $35 as well, given the massive psychological difference between something you pay a small amount for and what you get for free.
I reread the article and all I could find was this:
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the state last month on behalf of Luis Lebron, a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father from Orlando who is finishing his college degree.
Lebron met all the criteria for receiving welfare, but refused to submit to a drug test on the grounds that requiring him to pay for and submit to one is unreasonable when there is no reason to believe he uses drugs.
Infreak wrote:Where did you read that he consented to the test?
You'll have to read the opinion (linked above): "It is uncontested that Plaintiff electronically signed a “Drug Testing Information and Consent Form,” which is clear evidence of his consent to be drug tested."
He agreed to be tested and then revoked that agreement (by refusing to take the test). That raises a significant constitutional issue that the court hand-waves away.
Ouze wrote:Fair enough. What I also found interesting was that of the 7,000 people tested, 32 people tested positive. So, that's less then half of 1%. Assuming the worst case - that every single one of the failures was for a family of 4, thus eligible for the maximum $4,368 per year payment, and presuming none of them pass a drug test and hence are ineligible for a full 12 months - then the state saved at best $139,776, yes? How much do you think they spent setting up this program? How much will they spend defending it in court? Do you think it's less then $139,776?
So, like I was saying, that whether or not it was constitutional to test people for drug use, an open slather test everyone who applies for welfare is a stupid policy.
It's logic built around the assumption that all those welfare people are just drug taking losers, a position deeply held by many people, but utterly wrong, and completely at odds with any street level look at the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:I think it's far more likely that people avoid the test knowing they'll fail than because of the cost. that's supposition, but that's based on my experience reading case files of welfare recipients. Nearly everybody can come up with $35, illegally if not legally. (which leads to some interest consequences). Let's say this: rarely do I read a case file where a person says they can't afford booze, drugs, or cigarettes. But the same people will say they can't afford a $5 co-pay for treatment.
I think the most likely explanation is principle. People refused to take the test because they don't believe that the government has any right to test them. A decision made easier by the knowledge that there was every chance of this program being overturned in court.
Given the number of people who threaten to resign or move on from their jobs when a drugs policy is brought in, I think seeing a tick under 20% of people taking a stance on principal is about right.
I think the most likely explanation is principle. People refused to take the test because they don't believe that the government has any right to test them. A decision made easier by the knowledge that there was every chance of this program being overturned in court.
Given the number of people who threaten to resign or move on from their jobs when a drugs policy is brought in, I think seeing a tick under 20% of people taking a stance on principal is about right.
Do you really think that people who most likely need welfare to keep themselves and their families from being hungry, homeless or both, are going to refuse a drug test that would at the very least delay their benefits over a principle?
I think the most likely explanation is principle. People refused to take the test because they don't believe that the government has any right to test them. A decision made easier by the knowledge that there was every chance of this program being overturned in court.
Given the number of people who threaten to resign or move on from their jobs when a drugs policy is brought in, I think seeing a tick under 20% of people taking a stance on principal is about right.
Do you really think that people who most likely need welfare to keep themselves and their families from being hungry, homeless or both, are going to refuse a drug test that would at the very least delay their benefits over a principle?
Some might, based on principle, others based on the fact that they use drugs. Some might be principled drug users.
It’s a simple matter from my perspective; it costs more to imprison someone than it does to keep them on welfare.
If they believe you are in possession of drugs. Then yes, it is constitutional especially if you are on campus and you signed stuff for high school that literally says "You will be subject to drug testing"
Asherian Command wrote:If they believe you are in possession of drugs. Then yes, it is constitutional especially if you are on campus and you signed stuff for high school that literally says "You will be subject to drug testing"
At the very least read the thread title. Not to mention that its arguable whether or not schools can administer drug test with out reasonable cause or suspicion.
Polonius wrote:I'm gonna be the donkey-cave that suggest that people applying for welfare are less concerned with principle and more concerned with getting a check.
And "threatening to resign" is a far cry from "not having any money."
I'm going to question the assumption that welfare recipients 'have no money'.
There are generally options available, in the short term, for a whole lot of unemployed folk. They can admit defeat and move back home, or borrow from friends or family, or max out credit cards. These aren't good options, they certainly aren't long term options, but there are options besides 'not eating'.
And when you consider folk might believe there's a job for them just around the corner, or that this piece of legislation might be overturned, I can see a decent number making that decision.
I'm not saying that accounts for every case. I just think biccat's assumption that all 1,600 people are drug users is pretty fanciful.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Do you really think that people who most likely need welfare to keep themselves and their families from being hungry, homeless or both, are going to refuse a drug test that would at the very least delay their benefits over a principle?
Like I said to Polonius, I don't think each welfare cheque is the difference between no food and food.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote:Some might, based on principle, others based on the fact that they use drugs. Some might be principled drug users.
It’s a simple matter from my perspective; it costs more to imprison someone than it does to keep them on welfare.
Yeah, there's also the number of people who will simply move to other means to get their hands on enough money to keep going. Turn to theft and, ironically enough, selling drugs.
The constitutionality of drug testing those on welfare will depend a lot on how the law is written. A federal court can approve a state's law and the cut down another state's law. When dealing with a complicated legal issue such as drug testing those on welfare it's often not so much what a law says as how it says it.
The better question to ask is this: What are you going to do about it if a parent comes up positive?
Are you going to have DCFS remove a child from their parent's care and throw the parent in jail because they came up positive for weed?
If the parent is on crystal meth are you not going to tell DCFS about the problem, deny benefits, and ignore the child knowing their parents won't feed them?
Do you really think for 1 minute a heroin or crank addict will choose to voluntarily drug test to a government agency rather than just let their kids go hungry?
Drug testing for food stamps is a poorly thought out idea. If you want to hammer the druggies that neglect their kids while on food stamps make it an additional felony fraud charge and extra years in prison if parents are convicted of child neglect while collecting food stamps for the kid.
schadenfreude wrote:Drug testing for food stamps is a poorly thought out idea. If you want to hammer the druggies that neglect their kids while on food stamps make it an additional felony fraud charge and extra years in prison if parents are convicted of child neglect while collecting food stamps for the kid.
It's poorly thought out because we have little if any statistical evidence to establish that a person who collects welfare is particularly more likely to be a drug user.
That said, it also speaks volumes that the punishment for the crime is to lock the person up, rather than seek rehabilitation and maybe, you know, help them become a useful member of society.
schadenfreude wrote:Drug testing for food stamps is a poorly thought out idea. If you want to hammer the druggies that neglect their kids while on food stamps make it an additional felony fraud charge and extra years in prison if parents are convicted of child neglect while collecting food stamps for the kid.
It's poorly thought out because we have little if any statistical evidence to establish that a person who collects welfare is particularly more likely to be a drug user.
That said, it also speaks volumes that the punishment for the crime is to lock the person up, rather than seek rehabilitation and maybe, you know, help them become a useful member of society.
Punishment is NOT rehabilitation, nor should it be. A crime can (should) be punished. That is a separate issue to rehabilitating the person. Two different processes, sometimes they do occur at the same time, but still different.
sebster wrote:I just think biccat's assumption that all 1,600 people are drug users is pretty fanciful.
You quite clearly missed the context of that statement then.
The argument that only 32 people out of 7000 failed the drug test is not indicative of the number of welfare applicants on drugs. It's only indicative of the number of people who took the test and failed. It's possible that a number of those who refused the test (or didn't apply knowing that the test was required) were also drug users.
In fact, I'm going to flatly state that I find the assumption that only 0.5% of welfare applicants are drug users to be completely absurd. Especially given that national marijuana use (monthly) is around 5%. (possibly biased site, but it's only used to show that the 0.5% result is absurd, which I think is pretty evident).
It iis also possible (I would submit likely) that some of the 7000 that passed are drug users, and either 'beat' the test or stayed clean long enough to take it.
That has no bearing on the constitutionality of the law.
schadenfreude wrote:Drug testing for food stamps is a poorly thought out idea. If you want to hammer the druggies that neglect their kids while on food stamps make it an additional felony fraud charge and extra years in prison if parents are convicted of child neglect while collecting food stamps for the kid.
It's poorly thought out because we have little if any statistical evidence to establish that a person who collects welfare is particularly more likely to be a drug user.
That said, it also speaks volumes that the punishment for the crime is to lock the person up, rather than seek rehabilitation and maybe, you know, help them become a useful member of society.
Do you think our society has reached a point to which after all the annecdotal and narrow sampling sizes of data with what we regard as social ills and vices that they see no recourse for those who break the law other than jail? I mean, just look at sex offenders in America. Not on iota of remorse for them and they're hounded by the law and community until they're driven out of society.
