Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:

dogma wrote:

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.

Ahtman wrote:

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:

dogma wrote:

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.

Yeah, i think it's worth noting.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:

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.

Why?

nectarprime wrote:

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.

Troy wrote:

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.

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.
-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.

Troy wrote:Buildings existed before government.

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

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.
-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.

dogma wrote:

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:

dogma wrote:

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.

VermGho5t wrote:
And it's up to you to determine and judge my wastefulness? No it's not.

But you can determine the wastefulness of others?

VermGho5t wrote:
I worked my ass off to earn my dough to spend it however I please..

I don't believe you.