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.

I guess it's not just poor folks abusing the Welfare system....

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/moneybox/2016/06/_welfare_money_often_isn_t_spent_on_welfare.html

Schott and her colleagues have combed through the hundreds of annual reports states have sent to the feds since welfare reform, describing, often in frustratingly vague terms, where the money goes—all $16.5 billion of it—and which of the four purposes justifies that spending.

“When we started slicing and dicing and organizing them,” she says, “we began to see very dramatic patterns.” One of the most dramatic patterns Schott found was that nationwide, according to the latest data, states are collectively spending just a quarter of TANF money on actual cash assistance for poor families. Less than a quarter is being spent on child care and “work supports” to help those families find jobs. As for the rest of the money? Much of it is being spent on pretty much anything that might fit—even vaguely—under purposes 3 and 4.

“If TANF had been successful in getting all of these families from welfare to work, maybe it would be okay to start looking at other ways to be using these funds. But that’s not what happened,” Schott says. “What we’re seeing is poverty is increasing, while welfare receipt is decreasing.”

Clearly, Welfare abuse is a big problem and it is mostly coming from state government's misusing TANF Block grants, and not poor people. Color me shocked!

Nope we should keep on drug testing the poor people and restrictions on the food they can buy

Transfer payments from Feds to States should go directly to accounts that only the specified departments can draw from.
I suspect it is transferred as a "general" account and is assumed to be divided "properly".

Proves that direct transfer to those who are assigned the money is the way to go. Middlemen always want to claim a piece of the pie. I am sure "administering the account" is the first big withdraw statement.

I like driving up to the local food-bank or shelter and make sure they get the money from me. I suspect the tax dollar is about 4 cents by the time the people who need it, see the money.

 Ustrello wrote:
Nope we should keep on drug testing the poor people and restrictions on the food they can buy

D-Usa will be happy that Oklahoma fits prominently into this article. Oddly enough, i have been seeing the great state of Oklahoma's name associated with all sorts of nefarious skull-duggery lately.

Oklahoma,the more I learn about my current residence, is turning out to be crooked like a dirge.

I don't think drug tests are a bad thing, I see the merit. I see the merit on limiting certain purchases. why allow food stamps to buy lobster, when that money could stretch further. If they need assistance, then let there should be a form of control of the money. There should be an incentive to remove one self from assistance.

I am no scholar, my studies have been leadership and tactics, ballistic math and marksmanship. But abuse will happen in any situation where something is given for free, and someone has the ability to skim from those deserving. Take those responsible, apply the proper form of sanction/jail time and change a system that allows skimming.

 redleger wrote:
I don't think drug tests are a bad thing, I see the merit.

They are a bad thing. Aside from the rather horrible idea that a person struggling with drug problems doesn't deserve to eat they just don't accomplish much. We end up spending more money on the testing than we save in "fraud" prevented. So at that point it's just a spiteful "you don't deserve this, even if it costs me money to take it away from you".

I see the merit on limiting certain purchases. why allow food stamps to buy lobster, when that money could stretch further.

Why are you assuming that poor people are too stupid to figure this out without someone enforcing the rule?

 Peregrine wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I don't think drug tests are a bad thing, I see the merit.

They are a bad thing. Aside from the rather horrible idea that a person struggling with drug problems doesn't deserve to eat they just don't accomplish much. We end up spending more money on the testing than we save in "fraud" prevented. So at that point it's just a spiteful "you don't deserve this, even if it costs me money to take it away from you".

I see the merit on limiting certain purchases. why allow food stamps to buy lobster, when that money could stretch further.

Why are you assuming that poor people are too stupid to figure this out without someone enforcing the rule?

1. The drug test should be a reason for them not to spend the little money they have on drugs. I know addiciton is a mofo, but there should definately be incentive to not spend your money on drugs.
2. Because the reason the rule had to be implimented in the first place shows there was a reason for making it in the first place.

I believe the lobster rule was invented out of whole cloth rather than actually being there for a reason.

And it's ridiculous to drug test welfare recipients. You don't give up your rights because you're poor.

 skyth wrote:
I believe the lobster rule was invented out of whole cloth rather than actually being there for a reason.

And it's ridiculous to drug test welfare recipients. You don't give up your rights because you're poor.

what rights are being given up?

Right to privacy and not to be searched.

 Peregrine wrote:

Why are you assuming that poor people are too stupid to figure this out without someone enforcing the rule?

Because their poor and poor is of course synonymous with useless, feckless and unpleasant, obviously.

The drug test is voluntary, as is the acceptance of assistance, there is no violation of rights.

 redleger wrote:
as is the acceptance of assistance.

Voluntary? I suppose there is always foraging for food.

My point being is in life there has to be priorities. Illegal narcotics, or government assistance. Middle class has to make choices to stretch paychecks every month. I see no reason there shouldn't be a choice for lower class either.

 redleger wrote:
My point being is in life there has to be priorities. Illegal narcotics, or government assistance. Middle class has to make choices to stretch paychecks every month. I see no reason there shouldn't be a choice for lower class either.

Ah, let them eat cake?

So the drug testing to get food is like medical triage?

Give food only to those have the greatest likelihood of success / survival to benefit?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Why are you assuming that poor people are too stupid to figure this out without someone enforcing the rule?

Because their poor and poor is of course synonymous with useless, feckless and unpleasant, obviously.

dude no, I am certainly not even swimming anywhere near those waters. There certainly seems to be a rash of people lately trying to put words in other people's mouths instead of simply reading and having a discussion.

Truth is, in 9 months I could easily be on a corner begging for good. I also know if I wan't a job I have to stay drug free, because most government jobs make you take take a drug test to get a paycheck you earn by putting in 40 hours or more a week. How is not working for a paycheck entitle anyone to a different standard?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
So the drug testing to get food is like medical triage?

Give food only to those have the greatest likelihood of success / survival to benefit?

no, that is not the point. the point is if they have money for drugs, they should spend it on food instead. How is this not obvious.

 redleger wrote:
The drug test is voluntary, as is the acceptance of assistance, there is no violation of rights.

Still, the government doesn't get to search you without good reason. It's a Constitutional right. Being poor and needing assistance is not a good reason.

Would you support a mandatory drug test to take itemized deduction on your taxes. That is, after all, voluntary.

Would you support mandatory drug testing to get married? That is, after all, voluntary.

Would you support mandatory drug testing for living in the city you live in...After all, living there is voluntary.

 redleger wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I don't think drug tests are a bad thing, I see the merit.

They are a bad thing. Aside from the rather horrible idea that a person struggling with drug problems doesn't deserve to eat they just don't accomplish much. We end up spending more money on the testing than we save in "fraud" prevented. So at that point it's just a spiteful "you don't deserve this, even if it costs me money to take it away from you".

I see the merit on limiting certain purchases. why allow food stamps to buy lobster, when that money could stretch further.

Why are you assuming that poor people are too stupid to figure this out without someone enforcing the rule?

1. The drug test should be a reason for them not to spend the little money they have on drugs. I know addiciton is a mofo, but there should definately be incentive to not spend your money on drugs.
2. Because the reason the rule had to be implimented in the first place shows there was a reason for making it in the first place.

1. Not really, because the government should not be attempting to curb addiction with incentives like eating and living in a clean apartment. They should be dealing with addiction by bolstering services which directly help people with addictions and safe needle exchanges.
2. The rule was implemented to show it needed to be there, then it fell flat on its face and has shown that it does not need to be there at all. It failed. It failed hard.

 redleger wrote:
1. The drug test should be a reason for them not to spend the little money they have on drugs. I know addiciton is a mofo, but there should definately be incentive to not spend your money on drugs.

There is incentive, it's called "getting to eat". You do realize that drug addiction isn't as simple as just deciding not to spend money on drugs, right? And that welfare requirements are based on total income, not total income after buying drugs, so we're giving the exact same amount of welfare money to a person regardless of how they spend their other money?

Also, I notice that you didn't acknowledge the fact that drug testing has been demonstrated to be a waste of money that costs more than it "saves". Regardless of how you feel about the moral issues of giving money to drug addicts it's pretty clear that spending $10 to keep someone "undeserving" from getting $5 is not a very sensible plan.

2. Because the reason the rule had to be implimented in the first place shows there was a reason for making it in the first place.

The rule was implemented out of a combination of stereotypes about welfare abusers that have nothing to do with reality and condescending "you don't deserve that" attitudes from conservatives. It has no practical reason to exist.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 redleger wrote:
as is the acceptance of assistance.

Voluntary? I suppose there is always foraging for food.

James cameron presents: Foraging for food in the great urban food deserts

 redleger wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
So the drug testing to get food is like medical triage?

Give food only to those have the greatest likelihood of success / survival to benefit?

no, that is not the point. the point is if they have money for drugs, they should spend it on food instead. How is this not obvious.

The thing is, the vast majority of people on assistance don't do drugs regardless. The problem is that these 'solutions' are out looking for a problem. The whole point of them is really to tar the poor as being 'bad people' that need this sort of measure. They are government overreach into people's lives.

 redleger wrote:
My point being is in life there has to be priorities. Illegal narcotics, or government assistance. Middle class has to make choices to stretch paychecks every month. I see no reason there shouldn't be a choice for lower class either.

Why do you think that there isn't a choice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:
no, that is not the point. the point is if they have money for drugs, they should spend it on food instead. How is this not obvious.

And if they spend all of their money on food instead of drugs they still receive the exact same welfare money. Forcing them to stop buying drugs doesn't save you any money, it just gives you the opportunity to attempt to enforce your opinions about someone else's spending choices.

Testing welfare recipients for drugs is a money losing system. Why waste money in such a fashion?

 redleger wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
So the drug testing to get food is like medical triage?
Give food only to those have the greatest likelihood of success / survival to benefit?

no, that is not the point. the point is if they have money for drugs, they should spend it on food instead. How is this not obvious.

Think hard on what you have said.
How many people with a drug habit will actually have enough self control to choose to stop taking drugs so they can eat?
Nevermind that it may take a fair bit of time for the drugs to leave their system enough to pass, so what do they do in the meantime?
Get very stressed and take more drugs.

How is this not obvious that the drug test "solution" fails utterly in forcing people to spend the money on food as you propose?
It is quite helpful in speeding their demise I am quite sure.

 feeder wrote:
Testing welfare recipients for drugs is a money losing system. Why waste money in such a fashion?

Because it plays well to the conservative middle class who are outraged that those damn druggies get any assistance at all.

 skyth wrote:

 redleger wrote:
The drug test is voluntary, as is the acceptance of assistance, there is no violation of rights.

Still, the government doesn't get to search you without good reason. It's a Constitutional right. Being poor and needing assistance is not a good reason.

Would you support a mandatory drug test to take itemized deduction on your taxes. That is, after all, voluntary.

Would you support mandatory drug testing to get married? That is, after all, voluntary.

Would you support mandatory drug testing for living in the city you live in...After all, living there is voluntary.

It is a constitutional right to not be searched without due process of law. This is not a criminal proceeding, but a requirement for certain welfare payments.
While I disagree with doing it, I can understand some of the arguments. I'd just rather mandatory drug testing for politicians first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Testing welfare recipients for drugs is a money losing system. Why waste money in such a fashion?

Because it plays well to the conservative middle class who are outraged that those damn druggies get any assistance at all.

Exactly. The argument is that druggies should get help, and that the government should not be paying for their drugs.

 Talizvar wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
So the drug testing to get food is like medical triage?
Give food only to those have the greatest likelihood of success / survival to benefit?

no, that is not the point. the point is if they have money for drugs, they should spend it on food instead. How is this not obvious.

Think hard on what you have said.
How many people with a drug habit will actually have enough self control to choose to stop taking drugs so they can eat?
Nevermind that it may take a fair bit of time for the drugs to leave their system enough to pass, so what do they do in the meantime?
Get very stressed and take more drugs.

How is this not obvious that the drug test "solution" fails utterly in forcing people to spend the money on food as you propose?
It is quite helpful in speeding their demise I am quite sure.

'Stop taking drugs and eat something'. This should be the welfare advertising slogan.

can't say I haven't learned a thing or two. Unlike many dakka users I can see where many points are valid. If drug testing is a juice, that is not worth the squeeze, then what are the options.

I was a young Soldier when we had our first child. Money was tight, and that is an understatement. Could not live on post due to wait times, and rent, child rearing costs, normal bills literally left us with 5 dollars to rent a movie at the end of every month. We didn't go out to eat for over a year.

I could have gottenon assistance. Most E-4 and below qualify for some form, whether it be WIC or food stamps. But we made it happen. So I do for sure take exception with those who , even if in the minority, who cheat the system. Whether it be the ones handing out aid or the ones accepting it.

It most certainly is voluntary. The problem with our welfare system is that as I see it there is no incentive to remove yourself from the system. No form of education or training, no hand up, only a hand out. Now statistically in the low income communities, drugs most certainly are a problem, especially in the town im currently living in. to say other wise is naive.

So if we should then be allowing anyone to accept the assistance, with no reason to have them stop, then what other options do we have? Ill concede the drug testing expense part, but on the other point, I don't think I could be as easily swayed.

regardless whether it is a necessary rule in your eyes or not, I would definately say that keeping them from buying filet mignon, even when temptation is great, is not necessarily a truly horrible thing.

or its many variants:

"Drop the pipe and pick up a fork."
"Put down the lighter and down some milk instead."
"Get off my lawn!" oh sorry how did that get in there...