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:

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?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/article1161158.ece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e1cA_2Cekk

Yeah Rick Scott sounds like a real piece of work. But he wouldn't personally profit from this... his wife would. No conflict of interest here.

Oh boy, that sure doesn't look good.

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.

You know who else sterilized undesirables to make a better society?

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?

Probably

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.

Ouze wrote:You know who else sterilized undesirables to make a better society?

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.

Ok, I have an idea:

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.

Sounds good, if they can afford drugs they don't need welfare.

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.

MrH wrote:Sounds good, if they can afford drugs they don't need welfare.

Surely it would only be sensible if there were enough people on welfare and on drugs, to justify the cost of the drugs tests?

No? It's just good because them welfare people be taking drugs, and we gots to get 'em.

sebster wrote:

MrH wrote:Sounds good, if they can afford drugs they don't need welfare.

Surely it would only be sensible if there were enough people on welfare and on drugs, to justify the cost of the drugs tests?

No? It's just good because them welfare people be taking drugs, and we gots to get 'em.

Wtfamireading.jpg

Ouze wrote:You know who else sterilized undesirables to make a better society?

I think I know the answer to this one!

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?

Beats going to work.

remilia_scarlet wrote:Ok, I have an idea:

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.

There are a few holes in the system, but, it'd be a start to improving things.

the problem is that it costs money to add more oversight. If it costs more to crack down on fraud than to just pay everybody... what's the point?

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.

mattyrm wrote:

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.

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.

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.

When it happens, can I watch?

And yes, that particular thing has always "amused" me.

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.

... I'm sure you have lofty ideals.

Even if, alas, we cannot apparently believe you.

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.

agnosto wrote:

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.