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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

The argument should be that welfare recipients should not be portrayed as scumbags taking the system for a ride.

 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.

Nah.

That's not it.

Sheesh...

Besides, it's a dumb program because here in Missouri, A) the application is written to "ask" the reciepient if they're on drugs ( ), or B) the case worker "suspects" the reciepients is a druggie ( ): ripe for government malfeasance.

It's about as toothless as it could be, so why bother?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: random drug test on politicians is fething, PERFECT!

The argument should be that welfare recipients should not be portrayed as scumbags taking the system for a ride.

Yea but look who wrote it. The're just thinking everyone else is like them...scumbags.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

Frazzled I understand the right to unlawful search and seizure. Is it illegal then to take a test to receive a paycheck? I hop on the random test list usually quarterly. Should I be then fighting this unconstitutional drug test I am subjected too?

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

But it costs more money to identify and cut off these people than it does to simply hand out the money and walk away.

It also increases the crime rate as these people, once cut off, still gotta eat and fix. They don't just disappear.

It's using an emotional argument (government handouts being spent on drugs!) to support a money losing scheme.

Well, to get back On Topic, welfare abuse isn't from the people getting cash-assistance. That is only 16% of the TANF Block grants. The vast majority is being abused by the states NOT using it for cash assistance. This discussion has nothing to do with where the TANF abuse even is.

That's the whole point of this thread, that we waste time attacking poor people, when it is the states themselves who are misusing the money!

I love the OT!

 Easy E wrote:
Well, to get back On Topic, welfare abuse isn't from the people getting cash-assistance. That is only 16% of the TANF Block grants. The vast majority is being abused by the states NOT using it for cash assistance. This discussion has nothing to do with where the TANF abuse even is.

That's the whole point of this thread, that we waste time attacking poor people, when it is the states themselves who are misusing the money!

I love the OT!

That sucks... then the IG need to do some investigatings... and DoJ needs to do some prosecuting!

alas I am guilty of contributing to this derailment. I bow and back away.

However as I said in an earlier post, find the abusers, flog them, hear the lamentation of their women. Stealing is stealing, even if you are the one handing out the money.

 redleger wrote:
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.

That is cool that you did not choose to take assistance to help your family and relieve stress for them. However, not everybody decides to take that road, so you should not assume other people should do something just because you did. Some people need assistance. Some people with terrible drug addictions still need to eat. They also need a safe place to live and possibly a chance to get clean. There are programs out there helping people do that, despite what you think. There are programs, at least in Illinois, that help people get jobs when on unemployment. I get constant updates about job fairs through email. The problem is, a lot of these systems end up getting purged when people do get upset about welfare, because it is more important for people to eat and stay alive than be provided assistance in getting jobs. So the first things dropped are job searches, addiction centers, and mental illness clinics. Because you cant afford to feed these people and provide these services with a shrinking budget.

Also, sometimes people just need a steak. You can only live so long on cheap food and ramen before you are so malnourished and depressed you can barely think straight. Sometimes you need to eat a nice steak and get full. Feel like a human again.

Think about your arguments some, if you were in the position of eating cheap gakky food with terrible taste and terrible nutrition. Would you feel like a steak every once in awhile would help? Maybe perk you up and make you a little happier.

Empathy is a hell of a thing.

 redleger wrote:
The problem with our welfare system is that as I see it there is no incentive to remove yourself from the system.

Err, lol? You seem to be under the impression that life on welfare is a life of unimaginable luxury. It really isn't. There's plenty of incentive to remove yourself from the system because you can make a lot more money with a good job and have a much easier life. If people are staying on welfare for a long time then it's because there are more complicated issues than "I'm too lazy to work and welfare is easy".

The point where "no incentive" even remotely resembles a reasonable argument is if you're talking about people who have no job prospects beyond horrible minimum-wage jobs. And that's a problem with the system where horrible minimum-wage jobs exist and education is neglected. You can't fix the system by imposing stricter standards for welfare.

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.

The point is that this rule isn't necessary. The idea that people who are legitimately* on welfare are regularly buying expensive luxury items with "your" tax money is an idiotic conservative stereotype that has nothing to do with reality. Maybe a poor person might very rarely buy a nice steak for a major celebration, after saving up money to afford it and carefully planning their budget, but that's a rare thing. Arguing for strict limits on what you can buy with welfare money really just comes down to arguing that poor people should never be allowed to be happy. And that's not a practical argument for what policies are best for society, it's being a condescending and spiteful .

*As opposed to things like stupid college students laughing about how they can buy expensive steaks with welfare money they only get because parental support/student housing/etc aren't counted in the income test.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 redleger wrote:
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.

That is cool that you did not choose to take assistance to help your family and relieve stress for them. However, not everybody decides to take that road, so you should not assume other people should do something just because you did. Some people need assistance. Some people with terrible drug addictions still need to eat. They also need a safe place to live and possibly a chance to get clean. There are programs out there helping people do that, despite what you think. There are programs, at least in Illinois, that help people get jobs when on unemployment. I get constant updates about job fairs through email. The problem is, a lot of these systems end up getting purged when people do get upset about welfare, because it is more important for people to eat and stay alive than be provided assistance in getting jobs. So the first things dropped are job searches, addiction centers, and mental illness clinics. Because you cant afford to feed these people and provide these services with a shrinking budget.

Also, sometimes people just need a steak. You can only live so long on cheap food and ramen before you are so malnourished and depressed you can barely think straight. Sometimes you need to eat a nice steak and get full. Feel like a human again.

Think about your arguments some, if you were in the position of eating cheap gakky food with terrible taste and terrible nutrition. Would you feel like a steak every once in awhile would help? Maybe perk you up and make you a little happier.

Empathy is a hell of a thing.

Oh I totally agree, nothing better, IMO, than a fat juicy steak. We rarely have them even now, and we do OK. But once in a while I grab one off the shelf at the market, my wife gives me a weary eye, but I just skip lunch a few times to make up for it. Beef just keeps going up, FFS.

I am not saying they don't deserve it, Heck I encourage it. Just not with the assistance. Take a few bucks a week, set it aside and save up for it, the same way most american do when they want something. This is not about taking something away from them. In my mind its about how government funds are being spent. Hopefully the person on assistance has a job, I know food stamps alone cant feed a family.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ok, Ill just bow out, the narrative is forged, and seems like there is no discussion to be had.

 redleger wrote:
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.

One thing that was not discussed is sure there is a drug test but:
What happens if they show positive on drug use?
Get turned away? That would be a "wrong answer".
Be required to attend treatment for the addiction conditional to being fed (like the methadone clinics).
Being handed a free means to get the "hand-up" would be the smarter solution, it might even save the state money over the long-term.

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.

We all want to see effective use of tax payer's money.
This is why food-banks can be more effective: handing over anything like cash cannot be controlled for the use intended.
Selling a bunch of groceries is hard to get a good amount of cash for drugs and you control the amount of lobster and filet mignon the poor inappropriately try to eat like their betters...
(I find this element of the discussion such a "straw-man")

Ensure food is available, drugs less so, desire to take drugs: less so, that is the intent, right?

I admire your ability to make-do with what you had when times were tight.
I have seen my fair share of people with mental illness and drug addictions caused by bad circumstances.
The trick is to not only ensure their survival, but find a means of getting them so they can support themselves.
A less caring person would point out the alternative: to withdraw scant resources to the addicted so it can be saved for those "more likely" to recover.

I suspect the true crime is how little of the original money finally makes it's way to the needy.

 redleger wrote:
I am not saying they don't deserve it, Heck I encourage it. Just not with the assistance. Take a few bucks a week, set it aside and save up for it, the same way most american do when they want something. This is not about taking something away from them. In my mind its about how government funds are being spent. Hopefully the person on assistance has a job, I know food stamps alone cant feed a family.

But this is just nitpicking. Why does it matter whether the luxury item comes out of the welfare money or their other money? If I spend $10 of my cash on "normal" groceries and $10 of welfare money on a luxury thing it's exactly the same end result as spending $10 of welfare money on "normal" groceries and $10 of my cash on a luxury thing. You're trying to enforce some kind of separation of funds that doesn't make any sense.

 redleger wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

Frazzled I understand the right to unlawful search and seizure. Is it illegal then to take a test to receive a paycheck? I hop on the random test list usually quarterly. Should I be then fighting this unconstitutional drug test I am subjected too?

No. I may have been less clear than I intended. You have a right against illegal search and seizure and self incrimination for criminal charges. This is not a crime but a condition for a benefit. Typically the courts have rules that these are constitutional depending on the particulars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

But it costs more money to identify and cut off these people than it does to simply hand out the money and walk away.

It also increases the crime rate as these people, once cut off, still gotta eat and fix. They don't just disappear.

It's using an emotional argument (government handouts being spent on drugs!) to support a money losing scheme.

I am not disagreeing.

I also agree that the real problem is the massive bureaucracies sucking up the money.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 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, just give addicts public tax money and walk away then?

Yep because it is the most efficient use of funds plus doesn't abuse people who aren't in drugs.

Just give it to me. Its more efficient that way. I will disperse it very efficiently.

 Breotan wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 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, just give addicts public tax money and walk away then?

Essentially, yes. It's more cost effective in the long run.

Create and properly fund treatment centres for addicts and support systems to help them stay clean.

 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.

Then adopt a sensible harm-reduction based drug strategy, decriminalise possession, and provide easy access to the proper treatment. You can't "incentivise" an addict not to buy drugs by taking away the money they need to buy food, you just make them sick and, since they're probably going to be poor and have no health insurance, in turn they become a burden on local healthcare. Or they just die.

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.

Or it shows that the political discourse surrounding welfare in neoliberal developed countries is trapped in a vicious cycle - people demand these ineffective and unnecessary policies because they've been consistently lied to over a period of decades by ideologues and sensationalists seeking re-election or increased circulation, which emboldens them to lie even more. That's not an opinion by the way, it's a simple fact; look at the polling and you find people consistently overestimate levels of fraud, the amount of money welfare recipients actually get, the length of time most people receive welfare, and the number of "long term" recipients - not by a little, but to a grotesque degree. In the UK for example polling consistently shows people think 20-30% of welfare spending is lost to fraud, when the actual figure is less than 1% - indeed, more money is lost to clerical errors than fraud. But, people still believe it and support benefit cuts and tougher testing for disabled people because every day there's another distorted or cherry-picked newspaper headline, another lying politician on the TV, playing to their base instinct to see anyone outside their own little monkeysphere as being out-for-themselves scroungers.

Every time you think these kinds of draconian, dignity-destroying anti-welfare measures are necessary, just try remembering that everywhere it's been tried, a basic/minimum income system that amounts to simply giving everyone money - everyone, no conditions, no strings attached - works better than the creaking, inhuman bureaucracies that lying politicians have crafted from the idea of social security.

So yeah, there was a reason for this kind of rule to be introduced - it plays to the core voter base of certain parties who have spent years distorting said base's perception of welfare, and politicians like to get re-elected, evidently so they can skim money off welfare funds for other things rather than use it to help the poor. That's your reason.

here in California, they had something called the CALWorks program (not sure if it is still around) but one of my neighbors took classes and got licensed so she could watch her other neighbors kid, she was making about $750 a month for each kid (4 of them) while the Mother went to a part time fast food job, the CALworks program paid my neighbor the baby sitter, the baby sitter made more money then the mother and the mother still collected welfare assistance, the program eventually shut down, or at least that part did, wonder why ?

I think there should be a monthly drug test for welfare and at every job site. Anyone found to be on drugs at work should be sued and jailed for endangering people.

Also welfare is a strict place vs the poor alot less so vs the middle class. I drop off some lumber there every now and again and you see people in 100k plus cars getting their check. Then you see alot of druggies with 4 kids all dressed like trash even tho they get miney for the kids they spend it on drugs.

Only like half the people I seen around there look like they deserve help.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I think there should be a monthly drug test for welfare and at every job site. Anyone found to be on drugs at work should be sued and jailed for endangering people.

Drug testing welfare recipients is a waste of money. You spend $20 to deny someone on drugs $5. It makes no sense.

In my experience, it's the guys who come to work hungover that are the real danger, rather than the habitual stoners.

Also welfare is a strict place vs the poor alot less so vs the middle class. I drop off some lumber there every now and again and you see people in 100k plus cars getting their check. Then you see alot of druggies with 4 kids all dressed like trash even tho they get miney for the kids they spend it on drugs.

I can't make any sense of this. It seems like three half-formed thoughts barfed up all at once.

Only like half the people I seen around there look like they deserve help.

You should apply to the X-men with super powers of deduction like that. Really.

 feeder wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I think there should be a monthly drug test for welfare and at every job site. Anyone found to be on drugs at work should be sued and jailed for endangering people.

Drug testing welfare recipients is a waste of money. You spend $20 to deny someone on drugs $5. It makes no sense.

In my experience, it's the guys who come to work hungover that are the real danger, rather than the habitual stoners.

Also welfare is a strict place vs the poor alot less so vs the middle class. I drop off some lumber there every now and again and you see people in 100k plus cars getting their check. Then you see alot of druggies with 4 kids all dressed like trash even tho they get miney for the kids they spend it on drugs.

I can't make any sense of this. It seems like three half-formed thoughts barfed up all at once.

Only like half the people I seen around there look like they deserve help.

You should apply to the X-men with super powers of deduction like that. Really.

The lowest ammount a person can recieve around here is 480$ a month and they usually pay your rent and power.

For those with kids they recieve roughly 550$ per kid.

So a 20$ drug test could cut someone off 450$.

OgreChubbs wrote:


So a 20$ drug test could cut someone off 450$.

That's not what it means. The cost of implementing and maintaining a drug screening program is much higher than the savings such a program would generate.

Hence the $20/5 example, it's adding another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to an already top-heavy system.


Edit: spelling

 feeder wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:


So a 20$ drug test could cut someone off 450$.

That's not what it means. The cost of implementing and maintaining a drug screening program is much higher than the savings such a program would generate.

Hence the $20/5 example, it's adding another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to an already top-heavy system.


Edit: spelling

why maintain it when they can contract it out to the same ones the medical/medicare groups use? sounds like you are making excuses.

If people would stop being ignorant about what actually happens on welfare, we might actually stop wasting money fighting such non-issues as lobster eating drug abusing lifetime welfare abusers.


It simply does not happen enough to justify even worrying about it and anybody who thinks that it is an actual problem is simply ignorant of the facts.

 d-usa wrote:
If people would stop being ignorant about what actually happens on welfare, we might actually stop wasting money fighting such non-issues as lobster eating drug abusing lifetime welfare abusers.


It simply does not happen enough to justify even worrying about it and anybody who thinks that it is an actual problem is simply ignorant of the facts.

Because damn those poor people not working hard enough to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They would much rather give tax breaks to corporations and other large businesses

One very real problem with "incentives" to get off welfare is that it will often cost you a lot. Get education? With what money? Even government-funded schooling would require that you come to them, and good luck there if you don't have a car or a place to keep the kids. Get a job? Sure, but again car and child care - unless you score some big pay you'll fast be deeper in trouble than just staying on what is already calculated as barely above poverty.

And I'm not talking about just the US system here, these traps are real for lower-educated people even in our "socialist paradise" Nordic countries. Child care is subsidized but it can still make or break your plans to return to work now that the kid is a bit older and that useless drunkard dad took a hike.

 d-usa wrote:
If people would stop being ignorant about what actually happens on welfare, we might actually stop wasting money fighting such non-issues as lobster eating drug abusing lifetime welfare abusers.


It simply does not happen enough to justify even worrying about it and anybody who thinks that it is an actual problem is simply ignorant of the facts.

but would you be agreeable to certain things not being able to be bought with foodstamps like shellfish and soda and such?

If there is no economic incentive to end this alleged scourge of welfare abuse then why impose onerous restrictions and mandates? To make the affluent feel better?