Welfare
Replies
-
My ex-sister in law used to live in the projects and was on welfare and WIC. We would go visit her and she would be outside with her neighbors grilling t-bones and drinking beer and Crown. They would brag about how you can trade food stamps for cash so you can buy alcohol and smokes. They always had a pack of cigarettes on them, too. They laughed at people who had jobs because they got to be home all day and the government supported them. This was when I was newly married and we were still in college. We ate tuna and noodles for dinner most of the time. So, yeah, I've seen many people abuse the system.0
-
You know I LOVE reading about people who identify as Christians whose attitudes bear no resemblance to what Christ actually stood for.
I live in a 'socialist' country (according to Americans anyways) and I would much rather my money went to people who needed it (even the 'lazy' ones) then not to someone who legitimately needed it. I read of people having to jump through hoops to get assistance in America and it disgusts me. The only people we are punishing my not supporting people are the children. Not the parents. The few who cheat the system will still eat. It's the kids who suffer.You cannot be asserting that since only 2% actually submitted to the test and were discovered, then that means only 2% were actually ON drugs. How many simply didn't take the test, got someone else to do it for them, bought any of the multitude of piss cleansers, etc.? We cannot know.
You do realise that they have rules for that stuff? If you're going to ask for citations you can't just make up situations without offering proof.0 -
I just asked a question, I didn't make anything up. My assertion is 100% reasonable.
A 2% rate of failure on a widely publicized and pre-planned drug test does not indicate that there is a 2% rate of drug use among the group in question. I work with at-risk youth. If I surprise tested them, I'd get a vastly different result than if I told them well in advance of their pre-planned test.
When was Jesus pro-fraud? Just askin'0 -
When was Jesus pro-fraud? Just askin'
Jesus was for helping the less fortunate.
I said it in another thread but thank God I wasn't born American.A 2% rate of failure on a widely publicized and pre-planned drug test does not indicate that there is a 2% rate of drug use among the group in question. I work with at-risk youth. If I surprise tested them, I'd get a vastly different result than if I told them well in advance of their pre-planned test.
Citation needed. You can't make stuff up and expect us to believe it.0 -
Student X entered our center 4 months ago. He has bragged to staff members that "you've never seen me sober". When I turned in a drug test request on him based on that comment, and after they told him they were going to test him "next Wednesday", by some miracle he passed. What a shocker. :huh:
Since he had already had one suspision test, the next one is given on a surprise basis, and in 2 weeks after "passing" the first test, he was given his surprise test. He failed, and we separated him.
Sorry, can't give you his name. Something tells me you're just looking to argue anyway, though.......0 -
As a Christian, I totally support the welfare program, unemployment benefits. I work in soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and food pantries. I am all for helping the less fortunate. I am not for enabling people who are only less fortunate because they WANT to be. Yes, there are actually people in America like that.0
-
The plural of anecdote is not data. (Love that quote!) Your story is not proof of anything. Give some statistics. You want to say that that 2% isn't accurate because someone might maybe have not shown up. 1600 people didn't show up. (Do you do any research or read links? It's easily verifiable) OK, then those people don't collect for a year now do they? You obviously don't know how the drug tests work either because they watch you. You can't use someone else's urine unless you somehow manage to run a catheter type system. Remeber, this was done by a Republican Governor who was bound and determined to catch those cheats (while padding his own pocket with the taxpayer money used to catch those cheats but that's OK because he's not poor right?) He wasn't about to let them go off into a room alone with a cup after giving them warning.Student X entered our center 4 months ago. He has bragged to staff members that "you've never seen me sober". When I turned in a drug test request on him based on that comment, and after they told him they were going to test him "next Wednesday", by some miracle he passed. What a shocker. :huh:
Since he had already had one suspision test, the next one is given on a surprise basis, and in 2 weeks after "passing" the first test, he was given his surprise test. He failed, and we separated him.
Sorry, can't give you his name. Something tells me you're just looking to argue anyway, though.......0 -
I don't think anyone is down with abuse of the system. I have myself been angry with the abuse from specific people, I don't think most people use the system like that.
Me personally I am more worried about the cronyism, the government contracts that are made so their buddies can get even more rich, the tax breaks for the uber wealthy, the NEEDLESS wars that we have gone into (and will again) not to help people but to help a few who get wealthy off of war and oil.
And if we are going to drug test the poor with illegal search of their person, then we should do it to every single person who is the beneficiary of tax dollars. We will go broke doing that, but at least we will be consistent.0 -
I agree. And really, what type of life is that anyways? I am not going to be bothered that other people chose to live in poverty and rely on government assistance, and I'm certainly not going to generalize that group onto the people who are on assistance because it's something that they really need.I think that the abusers are the exception, not the rule and that most people who use welfare (myself included) genuinely need it and would rather NOT need it.
But I do know that the abusers exist, there are many in my neck of the woods.0 -
id rather drug addicts received benefits than had to turn to crime, perpetuating the cycle0
-
I'm all for helping people and I also believe that the people defrauding the government are in the minority. That being said, there are huge elements of the system that needs to be overhauled. The real trick is helping a person in a humane and dignified manner while protecting the system against fraud. If I had to choose between losing some money and not drug testing our less fortunate citizens as if they were criminals and saving money but violating our own citizens civil liberites, I'd rather lose the money.
However, I do see way to many luxury items in the Welfare system. Food, shelter, heat and air conditioning (I hate the heat) as well as a gas card for travel or a bus pass, this all makes sense to me. But why do welfare recipients have basic cable? Internet when there are free public libraries? Alcohol and cigarettes? I hate the idea of a nanny state, and while I understand that many times a person can fall upon hard times through no fault of their own, I don't believe that being a welfare recipient should be all that comfortable.0 -
I'm all for helping people and I also believe that the people defrauding the government are in the minority. That being said, there are huge elements of the system that needs to be overhauled. The real trick is helping a person in a humane and dignified manner while protecting the system against fraud. If I had to choose between losing some money and not drug testing our less fortunate citizens as if they were criminals and saving money but violating our own citizens civil liberites, I'd rather lose the money.
However, I do see way to many luxury items in the Welfare system. Food, shelter, heat and air conditioning (I hate the heat) as well as a gas card for travel or a bus pass, this all makes sense to me. But why do welfare recipients have basic cable? Internet when there are free public libraries? Alcohol and cigarettes? I hate the idea of a nanny state, and while I understand that many times a person can fall upon hard times through no fault of their own, I don't believe that being a welfare recipient should be all that comfortable.0 -
The amount of money that would be spent to find and weed out those who are on welfare but don't need to be would be a lot more than just supporting the people who don't need to be on it.
Like somebody said before, people who abuse the system are the exception, not the rule. So if you don't want your tax dollars going to the abusers, why would you want to pay MORE to weed them out?
Great example of the principle of unintended consequences. When smug people are sitting in their homes feeling self-righteous, that part of it doesn't usually occur to them.0 -
I'm all for helping people and I also believe that the people defrauding the government are in the minority. That being said, there are huge elements of the system that needs to be overhauled. The real trick is helping a person in a humane and dignified manner while protecting the system against fraud. If I had to choose between losing some money and not drug testing our less fortunate citizens as if they were criminals and saving money but violating our own citizens civil liberites, I'd rather lose the money.
However, I do see way to many luxury items in the Welfare system. Food, shelter, heat and air conditioning (I hate the heat) as well as a gas card for travel or a bus pass, this all makes sense to me. But why do welfare recipients have basic cable? Internet when there are free public libraries? Alcohol and cigarettes? I hate the idea of a nanny state, and while I understand that many times a person can fall upon hard times through no fault of their own, I don't believe that being a welfare recipient should be all that comfortable.
I appreciate your overall sentiment. In the end, I think that, while you can always look for fraud, abuse, etc and try to "reform" the system, trying to set up a de facto "moral code" is not only a waste of time, it ultimately becomes petty and mean-spirited. I could have predicted verbatim the reports of "abuse" that would appear in this topic (and, pretty much, who would make them). As someone said in another thread, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Everyone has a story--for every account listed in this thread of instances of someone "abusing" the system, I can give you 10 stories of people who are using the help they desperately need to make their lives better. None of these anecdotes are of particular value.
Welfare programs such as supplemental nutrition programs, WIC, child nutrition programs in schools, and housing assistance made up about $176 billion of our total $3.8 trillion FY2011 budget. Add in the Earned Income Credit and it totals $246 billion. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_fy12bs12011n_40_609_605#usgs302).
Not exactly a crushing financial burden--heck, it's not even a full tithe. And, while I didn't check the specific programs, the total amount in the general "welfare" budget category is projected to be reduced every year for the foreseeable future. Not only that, but none of these figures factors in the extra economic activity generated by giving poor people more money to spend. I only know the figures for the earned income credit, not other welfare programs, but studies have estimated that every dollar spent on EIC generates $1.76 in economic activity. It's impossible to estimate the total effect, but the financial impact of what happens to these "welfare dollars" needs to be taken into account when evaluating the overall programs.
I almost skipped this topic entirely, because I find that this topic tends to bring out the worst in people. It tends to show people--many of whom consider themselves to be upright and "moral"--at their most petty and ignorant. I don't know why. I don't know what it is about our culture that compels so many people to be almost obsessed with denigrating those who are less fortunate. It's not enough to make people go through a dehumanizing process to get the grudging amount of assistance that the world's wealthiest nation provides. No, we have to make sure they FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES, TOO, and that they thank us, confess their sins, and promise, promise, promise to do better to get their next cup of gruel.
And, of course, we would never, never, NEVER, EVER ask our corporate welfare recipients to go through such a process. Hell, no. They don't even have to ask--they demand their welfare benefits and we hand them over with blubbering gratitude. $18.5 billion for school lunch programs? We are going to inspect EVERY lunch bag to make sure no one tries to sneak in a candy bar or a cookie. $20 billion for oil company subsidies? Where do we send the check? You want to spend it on new cars, private bathrooms, golf trips? No problem--just please give you server or maid a couple of extra bucks at christmas and we'll call it square.
And, yes, I know there is fraud, and, yes, I know that people try to "game" the system. That makes welfare recipients exactly the same as 99% of the citizens in this country. Welfare recipients just can't hire accountants and advisors to commit their fraud for them.
The way I look at it, society, esp a large complex society such as ours, is made up of an entire continuum of people. Some are saints, some are demons, and most of us are somewhere in between. In a perfect world, we would all be good citizens, steadfastly earning our keep like good worker bees. But it doesn't work out that way. Some people have trouble fending for themselves. Sometimes it's because of things that have happened outside of their control, sometimes it's just the random circumstances of their surroundings, sometimes it's because they just lack the basic intelligence and skills, and yes, sometimes it's because they are lazy or dishonest (or both). Overall, I think that last category is pretty small, and while I understand that people might find it aggravating, I don't think it's worth wasting a lot of emotion on it. "Welfare abuse' is not the cause of our current economic troubles--not even in the top 10 list.
We like to think highly of ourselves and our personal "morality". To me, trying to be a "moral" society means trying to help out those who are less fortunate--one might even say it's the "christian" thing to do. Personally, I'm willing to accept that a minimal amount of fraud and abuse are going to occur in order to help out the many, many others who need the help and use it to make a better life for themselves. We can always try to make it better--as a pragmatist, I have no problem with rigorously scrutinizing the efficiency and effectiveness of EVERY government program. And I am not espousing a stereotypical "liberal" position that large government programs are the only solution to every problem.
But I also don't think there is any reason not to allow people some personal dignity, even when they are receiving government assistance. I have a lot more things to worry about than someone buying a f--king bag of potato chips with their food stamps.0 -
Azdak 2012!!! :drinker:0
-
I'm all for helping people and I also believe that the people defrauding the government are in the minority. That being said, there are huge elements of the system that needs to be overhauled. The real trick is helping a person in a humane and dignified manner while protecting the system against fraud. If I had to choose between losing some money and not drug testing our less fortunate citizens as if they were criminals and saving money but violating our own citizens civil liberites, I'd rather lose the money.
However, I do see way to many luxury items in the Welfare system. Food, shelter, heat and air conditioning (I hate the heat) as well as a gas card for travel or a bus pass, this all makes sense to me. But why do welfare recipients have basic cable? Internet when there are free public libraries? Alcohol and cigarettes? I hate the idea of a nanny state, and while I understand that many times a person can fall upon hard times through no fault of their own, I don't believe that being a welfare recipient should be all that comfortable.
I appreciate your overall sentiment. In the end, I think that, while you can always look for fraud, abuse, etc and try to "reform" the system, trying to set up a de facto "moral code" is not only a waste of time, it ultimately becomes petty and mean-spirited. I could have predicted verbatim the reports of "abuse" that would appear in this topic (and, pretty much, who would make them). As someone said in another thread, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Everyone has a story--for every account listed in this thread of instances of someone "abusing" the system, I can give you 10 stories of people who are using the help they desperately need to make their lives better. None of these anecdotes are of particular value.
Welfare programs such as supplemental nutrition programs, WIC, child nutrition programs in schools, and housing assistance made up about $176 billion of our total $3.8 trillion FY2011 budget. Add in the Earned Income Credit and it totals $246 billion. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_fy12bs12011n_40_609_605#usgs302).
Not exactly a crushing financial burden--heck, it's not even a full tithe. And, while I didn't check the specific programs, the total amount in the general "welfare" budget category is projected to be reduced every year for the foreseeable future. Not only that, but none of these figures factors in the extra economic activity generated by giving poor people more money to spend. I only know the figures for the earned income credit, not other welfare programs, but studies have estimated that every dollar spent on EIC generates $1.76 in economic activity. It's impossible to estimate the total effect, but the financial impact of what happens to these "welfare dollars" needs to be taken into account when evaluating the overall programs.
I almost skipped this topic entirely, because I find that this topic tends to bring out the worst in people. It tends to show people--many of whom consider themselves to be upright and "moral"--at their most petty and ignorant. I don't know why. I don't know what it is about our culture that compels so many people to be almost obsessed with denigrating those who are less fortunate. It's not enough to make people go through a dehumanizing process to get the grudging amount of assistance that the world's wealthiest nation provides. No, we have to make sure they FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES, TOO, and that they thank us, confess their sins, and promise, promise, promise to do better to get their next cup of gruel.
And, of course, we would never, never, NEVER, EVER ask our corporate welfare recipients to go through such a process. Hell, no. They don't even have to ask--they demand their welfare benefits and we hand them over with blubbering gratitude. $18.5 billion for school lunch programs? We are going to inspect EVERY lunch bag to make sure no one tries to sneak in a candy bar or a cookie. $20 billion for oil company subsidies? Where do we send the check? You want to spend it on new cars, private bathrooms, golf trips? No problem--just please give you server or maid a couple of extra bucks at christmas and we'll call it square.
And, yes, I know there is fraud, and, yes, I know that people try to "game" the system. That makes welfare recipients exactly the same as 99% of the citizens in this country. Welfare recipients just can't hire accountants and advisors to commit their fraud for them.
The way I look at it, society, esp a large complex society such as ours, is made up of an entire continuum of people. Some are saints, some are demons, and most of us are somewhere in between. In a perfect world, we would all be good citizens, steadfastly earning our keep like good worker bees. But it doesn't work out that way. Some people have trouble fending for themselves. Sometimes it's because of things that have happened outside of their control, sometimes it's just the random circumstances of their surroundings, sometimes it's because they just lack the basic intelligence and skills, and yes, sometimes it's because they are lazy or dishonest (or both). Overall, I think that last category is pretty small, and while I understand that people might find it aggravating, I don't think it's worth wasting a lot of emotion on it. "Welfare abuse' is not the cause of our current economic troubles--not even in the top 10 list.
We like to think highly of ourselves and our personal "morality". To me, trying to be a "moral" society means trying to help out those who are less fortunate--one might even say it's the "christian" thing to do. Personally, I'm willing to accept that a minimal amount of fraud and abuse are going to occur in order to help out the many, many others who need the help and use it to make a better life for themselves. We can always try to make it better--as a pragmatist, I have no problem with rigorously scrutinizing the efficiency and effectiveness of EVERY government program. And I am not espousing a stereotypical "liberal" position that large government programs are the only solution to every problem.
But I also don't think there is any reason not to allow people some personal dignity, even when they are receiving government assistance. I have a lot more things to worry about than someone buying a f--king bag of potato chips with their food stamps.
Ha! And that's pretty much how I feel about it. I'm trying to come up with something of my own to say, but why ruin a perfectly good comment such as yours.0 -
id rather drug addicts received benefits than had to turn to crime, perpetuating the cycle
And feed their family...hmmm, maybe offer some assistance for getting off drugs instead of just sending them away. Maybe people who are just starting out on the path to becoming a drug addict are doing it because they want to, but many, MANY people who are addicted to drugs would much rather not be, but they can't just quit.0 -
snip...If I had to choose between losing some money and not drug testing our less fortunate citizens as if they were criminals
Why is the requirement of a drug test treating them as if they were criminals? I was required to pass a drug test to secure my income (employment). I didn't feel as though anyone was treating me like a criminal.0 -
No one here is "denigrating those who are less fortunate". I think if you'll read through the posts, we are specifically speaking of those who abuse the system.I almost skipped this topic entirely, because I find that this topic tends to bring out the worst in people. It tends to show people--many of whom consider themselves to be upright and "moral"--at their most petty and ignorant. I don't know why. I don't know what it is about our culture that compels so many people to be almost obsessed with denigrating those who are less fortunate. It's not enough to make people go through a dehumanizing process to get the grudging amount of assistance that the world's wealthiest nation provides. No, we have to make sure they FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES, TOO, and that they thank us, confess their sins, and promise, promise, promise to do better to get their next cup of gruel.
It is absolutely the Christian thing to do! These programs are important for those in need.We like to think highly of ourselves and our personal "morality". To me, trying to be a "moral" society means trying to help out those who are less fortunate--one might even say it's the "christian" thing to do.0 -
snip...If I had to choose between losing some money and not drug testing our less fortunate citizens as if they were criminals
Why is the requirement of a drug test treating them as if they were criminals? I was required to pass a drug test to secure my income (employment). I didn't feel as though anyone was treating me like a criminal.
For one, it is a presumption of guilt without probable cause. Why stop at drug testing? Search their houses, make them take lie-detector tests, etc, etc.
Using employer-required drug testing as the standard is also extremely misguided, IMO. You SHOULD feel like you are being treated as a criminal when you take those things. If more people resisted, we might be able to put an end to that crap. (But that's a different thread).
Bottom line: forget the ideological arguments--it's a complete waste of money. There is no practical need for doing it. Where it's been tried, the actual number of drug users detected was insignificant--and it cost significantly more to pay for the testing than it did to "save" the money that would have been paid to the evil drug users.
IMO, things like drug testing for welfare recipients is nothing more than paranoia, ignorance, and bigotry being thinly rationalized as some sort of "public policy".0 -
Florida did do drug screenings. 2% popped positive. http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/ Now, if you want to talk about abuse of taxpayer dollars, how about the fact that Gov Scott has a financial interest in the company that was awarded the sole contract for those drug screenings? So now your tax dollars go towards making a rich man even richer and you get to save a total of about $5000. So basically, instead of paying $1 towards the kids of a drug addict on welfare you are instead paying $95 cents to a rich man who gave his own company the contract to do the drug screenings. How is that really better?The amount of money that would be spent to find and weed out those who are on welfare but don't need to be would be a lot more than just supporting the people who don't need to be on it.
No it wouldn't. They (abusers/those who have no intention or desire to 'get off' welfare) stay on for generations. Weeding out the corruption is not an ongoing cost, especially after the first surge of enforcement. We would save more than it would cost us, in the long run.Like somebody said before, people who abuse the system are the exception, not the rule.
Where do you get this piece of information? Simply asserting that someone else said it doesn't make it true. Citation needed, plz.
What if we enforced the requirement that recipients must pass drug screenings (just like I had to do in order to get my income aka job) in order to be eligible for benefits? And just like when you're on unemployment, you had to show that you were attempting to secure a job?
And how exactly do people know what day to show up to get food? Do they give it out to anyone who shows up? Could someone making $70,000/yr decide they don't feel like spending money on groceries and just go get some food for free? You want to complain about the 2% of welfare recipients who are on drugs and say they need to be tested to abuse the system then why aren't there qualifications to get food from the churches? Wouldn't those people just abuse the system even worse if the people just handed out food to anyone who showed up? What would stop them from going to 7 different churches every week? Then they don't need to keep popping out babies or supposedly making their daughters have babies (the plural of anecdote is not data) because they could just sit home with no kids and get their needs met.
Thanks for doing the homework and bringing some actual facts to the discussion.0 -
Perhaps if people who were so focused on stopping the abuses in the welfare system focused even a minicule of comparative attention towards stopping the abuses of corporations and tax money they would sound a bit credible. Instead they just sound petty, vindictive, mean, and even a bit jealous. Why should I have to work when Suzy over there gets to stay home and have the government pay her to do so? I think we've all heard those arguments.0
-
Using employer-required drug testing as the standard is also extremely misguided, IMO. You SHOULD feel like you are being treated as a criminal when you take those things. If more people resisted, we might be able to put an end to that crap. (But that's a different thread).
Without trying to derail the thread, this is where we disagree. I see it (submitting to pre-employment drug testing) as just one more way in which I am demonstrating my suitability for employment. My employer also didn't take my word for it that I possess a degree, but wanted to see my credential and my transcripts. This isn't because they presume I'm lying, but in order to show and document I have earned the necessary skills and education required for this job. I don't have any problem using some of our government funds on the cost of the testing if it sends a strong message to everyone that drug use isn't OK. The government (taxpayers) won't subsidize it. I see our society slipping more and more towards a pro-drug mindset, (if not fully pro-drugs, certainly more and more passive/permissive) and I don't think it's a good thing. Even if the efforts at drug testing only produced a 2% failure rate, those 2% are now off the dole. And, in my opinion, that's good, because the help will now go to someone else who isn't using the money they get from my paycheck to buy drugs with.
I am not against welfare. But in my profession, I have worked with many who openly laugh at those who work for their income when, from their perspective, the government will take care of you. Is their logic flawed, and their math skills questionable at best? Of course. It still feels extremely yucky to feel taken advantage of.
I know, I know, the plural of anecdote is not data. But here is an anecdote that left an awful taste in my mouth. I was in San Francisco, near Fisherman's Wharf. This area has a very visible homeless population, and they often panhandle from the tourists. I saw a man who looked like he really did need help. His shoes had holes in them, his toes peeked through the tops. His clothing was raggedy and needed to be replaced. I saw him and I felt like I wanted to help him. Since I wasn't a tourist, but a local, I knew the area quite well and I knew where there was a grocery store right next to a goodwill, and I started talking to the guy so I could offer him a bag of groceries and a new outfit. My proposal was: I'll take you over there, get you a bag of food and a new set of clothes from the thrift store, and then I'll bring you back over here. When I offered help to him, he recoiled in horror. His reply was, Don'tcha just have a twenty you can give me or something?
That feels awful. The sensation of wanting to help someone and instead getting smacked with ingratitude or worse, fraudulent behavior in order to take further advantage......it feels sickening. It turns you off and it makes you less likely to offer assistance in the future.
Giving to someone who is grateful feels wonderful. It's really a magical sensation. But the opposite, feeling like you're being swindled, is a deterrent to future charitable acts. At least that's how I feel.0 -
I don't have a problem with drug testing for welfare. My hubby had to be drug tested. (I work for myself so I am willing to take my word for it. :laugh: )0
-
No one here is "denigrating those who are less fortunate". I think if you'll read through the posts, we are specifically speaking of those who abuse the system.I almost skipped this topic entirely, because I find that this topic tends to bring out the worst in people. It tends to show people--many of whom consider themselves to be upright and "moral"--at their most petty and ignorant. I don't know why. I don't know what it is about our culture that compels so many people to be almost obsessed with denigrating those who are less fortunate. It's not enough to make people go through a dehumanizing process to get the grudging amount of assistance that the world's wealthiest nation provides. No, we have to make sure they FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES, TOO, and that they thank us, confess their sins, and promise, promise, promise to do better to get their next cup of gruel.
Denigration is more than just specific words. It is also communicated by general attitudes and even points of emphasis.0 -
Giving to someone who is grateful feels wonderful. It's really a magical sensation. But the opposite, feeling like you're being swindled, is a deterrent to future charitable acts. At least that's how I feel.
And people wonder why I say there is no such thing as altruism.0 -
snip...If I had to choose between losing some money and not drug testing our less fortunate citizens as if they were criminals
Why is the requirement of a drug test treating them as if they were criminals? I was required to pass a drug test to secure my income (employment). I didn't feel as though anyone was treating me like a criminal.
For one, it is a presumption of guilt without probable cause. Why stop at drug testing? Search their houses, make them take lie-detector tests, etc, etc.
Using employer-required drug testing as the standard is also extremely misguided, IMO. You SHOULD feel like you are being treated as a criminal when you take those things. If more people resisted, we might be able to put an end to that crap. (But that's a different thread).
Bottom line: forget the ideological arguments--it's a complete waste of money. There is no practical need for doing it. Where it's been tried, the actual number of drug users detected was insignificant--and it cost significantly more to pay for the testing than it did to "save" the money that would have been paid to the evil drug users.
IMO, things like drug testing for welfare recipients is nothing more than paranoia, ignorance, and bigotry being thinly rationalized as some sort of "public policy".
Also, legally, a private employer has the right to drug test you if they have made themselves clear and you wish to keep their job. Contracts are signed,. If a person fails a drug test done by the employer, they are simply fired. However, I think that drug testing citizens who have lost their jobs or are unable to find work is a violation of their rights because it is done by a government entity who has the ability to incarcerate the drug abuser. So what we have here is the gov and some citizens demanding that all people who have fallen on hard times to be subjucated to drug test WITHOUT consent. We consent to be drug tested by our employers, there are jobs out there we could choose where there is no drug testing.
It is not a real option to tell an american citizen if you want this food we are going to make you pee in a cup. And as previoulsy stated, you will be giving the drug test to 100% of people to catch a small minority, 2% as stated. Forget the cost, which has already been showed to not be worth it. Even if it was cost effective, I do not like the GOV to have that kind of power over people for being in need of government money. We all pay into the system, we all get something out of it. This line of reasoning leads to the argument that if you use anything the government has provided with our own money, from public libraries to the roads, then they can warrantless wire tap you, search your cars with no probable cause, ect. ect. ect.0 -
snip...If I had to choose between losing some money and not drug testing our less fortunate citizens as if they were criminals
Why is the requirement of a drug test treating them as if they were criminals? I was required to pass a drug test to secure my income (employment). I didn't feel as though anyone was treating me like a criminal.
For one, it is a presumption of guilt without probable cause. Why stop at drug testing? Search their houses, make them take lie-detector tests, etc, etc.
Using employer-required drug testing as the standard is also extremely misguided, IMO. You SHOULD feel like you are being treated as a criminal when you take those things. If more people resisted, we might be able to put an end to that crap. (But that's a different thread).
Bottom line: forget the ideological arguments--it's a complete waste of money. There is no practical need for doing it. Where it's been tried, the actual number of drug users detected was insignificant--and it cost significantly more to pay for the testing than it did to "save" the money that would have been paid to the evil drug users.
IMO, things like drug testing for welfare recipients is nothing more than paranoia, ignorance, and bigotry being thinly rationalized as some sort of "public policy".
Also, legally, a private employer has the right to drug test you if they have made themselves clear and you wish to keep their job. Contracts are signed,. If a person fails a drug test done by the employer, they are simply fired. However, I think that drug testing citizens who have lost their jobs or are unable to find work is a violation of their rights because it is done by a government entity who has the ability to incarcerate the drug abuser. So what we have here is the gov and some citizens demanding that all people who have fallen on hard times to be subjucated to drug test WITHOUT consent. We consent to be drug tested by our employers, there are jobs out there we could choose where there is no drug testing.
It is not a real option to tell an american citizen if you want this food we are going to make you pee in a cup. And as previoulsy stated, you will be giving the drug test to 100% of people to catch a small minority, 2% as stated. Forget the cost, which has already been showed to not be worth it. Even if it was cost effective, I do not like the GOV to have that kind of power over people for being in need of government money. We all pay into the system, we all get something out of it. This line of reasoning leads to the argument that if you use anything the government has provided with our own money, from public libraries to the roads, then they can warrantless wire tap you, search your cars with no probable cause, ect. ect. ect.
At the risk of sounding bromantic, I like your answer better than mine.0 -
What some do not realize is that sometimes that mom staying home is actually helping her family out more than going to work. We have had to apply for food assistance recently. Like many Americans times have gotten tough on us. Rising costs combined with less hours for my husband have made it that way. But if I return to work (would be retail until I can finish my schooling) then after daycare costs and travel expenses were taken out we would actually have less money than we do with me at home. Now we at least qualify for assistance. If I worked even though we would actually be deeper in the hole we would not qualify for help. We have done everything we can to avoid getting assistance but it has simply become necessary.
My point being is there are cases you do not know the whole story. You cannot judge everything by what is right in front of your face.0 -
You can work nights and weekends and have your hubby watch the kids. You can work at a daycare center and bring the kids with you at a substantially discounted rate. You can open your own home based daycare and take in another kid or 2 (or however many based on your local laws).What some do not realize is that sometimes that mom staying home is actually helping her family out more than going to work. We have had to apply for food assistance recently. Like many Americans times have gotten tough on us. Rising costs combined with less hours for my husband have made it that way. But if I return to work (would be retail until I can finish my schooling) then after daycare costs and travel expenses were taken out we would actually have less money than we do with me at home. Now we at least qualify for assistance. If I worked even though we would actually be deeper in the hole we would not qualify for help. We have done everything we can to avoid getting assistance but it has simply become necessary.
My point being is there are cases you do not know the whole story. You cannot judge everything by what is right in front of your face.
I don't know how many kids you have or what their ages are but in most cases when someone says "I can't afford to work!" it's a cop out. Yes, there are some cases where that is true and it may make for a short term hardship but typically, financially speaking anyhow, there is more income with another worker in the household.
That said, if you want to be a SAHM and can afford to, more power to you. I haven't worked outside the home in almost 15 years and our boys are 14 and 11. I do own my own tax and financial planning business that I do from home though so I am contributing financially. If things ever got tough for us I'd go out and get a job outside the home when the kids are in school if I want to make sure to have that family time or on whatever schedule I can if we just can't make ends meet.
There are also extenuating circumstances where you won't hear me say one peep against someone getting aid and still being a SAHM. Those don't generally include having more kids than you can afford, not wanting to work, or making excuses that it would cost money to work. I'm talking about things like a spouse of a military reservist who gets activated and has a drop in pay that leads them to government aid, caring for a sick relative or child, being disabled (legitimately, not "I have a disease -- I'm an alcoholic. So I can't work." BS), working your own farm, etc0
This discussion has been closed.