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.

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.

Thank you Polonius

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.

Polonius wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

Yes, there are people who need it and never get it, and people who don't need it that do get it.

purplefood wrote:So it shouldn't feel good.

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.

Now do it again.

And again.

How many are you going to get "right?"

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.

biccat wrote:

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?

biccat wrote:

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.

As for your question: sure.

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."

It appears I was wrong.

Congratulations for raising the bar.

http://www.enotes.com/drugs-alcohol-encyclopedia/poverty-drug-use

biccat wrote:

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.

Here's my problem...

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.

Ahtman wrote:

purplefood wrote:So it shouldn't feel good.

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...

Sad but so very true.






Ghidorah

I don't think I'm qualified to comment on the constitutionality of this, but I'm totally for it.

I'd be more for it if marijuana was legal.

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.

PS:

I think I love ghidorah's sig.

So basically if I fallow what people are saying is they're fine with the fallowing scenario:

alcoholic father/mother with dependents = welfare

pot smoking father/mother with dependents = no welfare

I get the feeling most people who support that way of thinking don't really even think welfare should exist to begin with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA5za4VsskM

Crablezworth wrote:So basically if I fallow what people are saying is they're fine with the fallowing scenario:

alcoholic father/mother with dependents = welfare

pot smoking father/mother with dependents = no welfare

I get the feeling most people who support that way of thinking don't really even think welfare should exist to begin with.

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.

The main point is that alcohol is legal, and other drugs are not. Marijuana should be, but that's a subject for another thread.

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.