I love this idea. You're not supposed to be using drugs anyway, they are illegal. Testing those who use our government's resources would either reduce their use of drugs, or reduce the number of people getting assistance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
"I saw a page on Facebook that said: "Make Drug Tests Required to get Welfare." Personally, I feel like if you're receiving special assistance from the government, the government has the right (and the resposibility to taxpayers) to make sure that money is being spent legally. However, drug testing wouldn't be fool proof, and there are plenty of other ways to do illegal things with your gov't assistance. What are your thoughts on the matter? "

I love this idea. You're not supposed to be using drugs anyway, they are illegal. Testing those who use our government's resources would either reduce their use of drugs, or reduce the number of people getting assistance.

---

I thought welfare only lasts so long before they cut you off? So let those people doing drugs die from overdose or whatever - not like they will be missed in any way. Dont get me wrong i have seen some hard working folks on welfare but i also have seen others buying liquor/smokes when they really shouldnt be indulging themselves on these "luxury" items.

quote:

---

Over $800,000 went to catfish genetics research in the 3/2009 Omnibus bill (see link in edited previous post). And how exactly is research on the genetics of fruit flies and catfish beneficial to the reasearch of human genetics?

---

Because we share many common Genes? And those two species go through generations faster than humans? Its not exactly that hard to understand.

quote:

---

How is it a violation of privacy? Because it can help make sure those on welfare aren't using their money (that they get from the tax payers) to buy drugs? If anything, it violates the 14th Ammendment because it only targets one group of people who are receiving some form of state/federal aid

---

Because you're going on the assumption that they are already doing something illegal. 4th amendment. You have no probable cause to think that these people are on drugs.

quote:

---

How will studying the genetics of catfish increase the population? And no, spending over $800,000 of tax payer dollars to study a fish is not "still fine". And just because the money went to science doesn't mean it's not wasteful spending.

---

Through selective breeding "good" genes and canceling out "bad" genes. Mississippi—a state that produces around $245 million worth of catfish each year—are intent on selecting catfish broodstock with superior genetic potential. By unlocking the secrets of the catfish genome, they hope to find favorable natural variations within genes that control important traits such as lean growth, carcass yield, and improved survival in commercial ponds. Same can be said for NC.

quote:

---

I love this idea. You're not supposed to be using drugs anyway, they are illegal. Testing those who use our government's resources would either reduce their use of drugs, or reduce the number of people getting assistance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
"I saw a page on Facebook that said: "Make Drug Tests Required to get Welfare." Personally, I feel like if you're receiving special assistance from the government, the government has the right (and the resposibility to taxpayers) to make sure that money is being spent legally. However, drug testing wouldn't be fool proof, and there are plenty of other ways to do illegal things with your gov't assistance. What are your thoughts on the matter? "

I love this idea. You're not supposed to be using drugs anyway, they are illegal. Testing those who use our government's resources would either reduce their use of drugs, or reduce the number of people getting assistance.

---

Shrug. I'm not one of the people who finds this to be a particularly onerous invasion of privacy (like the new airport scanners: what do I care if people see me naked? That's how I walk around my apartment anyway. I'd be more concerned about long-term health concerns for people working there, how ineffective the measure is, etc.). On the other hand, I wouldn't want to deny social assistance to someone who's used drugs recreationally, and is in no way an addict. Similarly, I wouldn't want to deny social assistance to addicts, I'd just want to ensure that the money doesn't go to drugs--but that would require a whole lot of follow-through, and perhaps more guarantees than the government is willing to make (e.g. instead of a cash handout, rent is waived for you somewhere, and/or you get a large basket of food for the week, those items are guaranteed after a stint in rehab, etc.).

So while I'm not against the idea, I also don't see it as a particularly desirable "solution", and I doubt its effectiveness. Finally, I doubt the government's (yours or mine) willingness to provide the kind of social assistance required. Besides... would alcoholics and smokers get off without a peep?

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tha Gunslinga:
The thing is, EVERYONE receives government assistance of some form or another. That's what your taxes get you. Why shouldn't we ALL have our privacy invaded and our Constitutional rights ignored?

---

Have you read a summary of the Patriot Act? It's already happening.

On josh's point: You willingly submit to a drug test when you apply for a job, so it makes sense to me that if you want government aid, you could willingly sign up for a drug test. Don't want the aid, don't do the test. No violations of the Constitution, and we've got a layer of protection against people using welfare to buy drugs.

On super's point: Drug testing every welfare beneficiary would be massively expensive- probably more expensive than the money it would save not paying benefits to drug users.

My verdict: Assuming I wasn't against welfare benefits in the first place, my take is that...if you're going to continue hurting yourself by using welfare for drugs instead of food, that's your problem. It's like the homeless guy who takes his donations and buys alcohol instead of some food or some clothes to start applying for a job- they're not furthering their station, but it's not really hurting me (I would be paying the taxes anyway), so I'm not worried about it.

Everyday, I drive to work down the same few roads and everyday I drive past the same houses with the same...scumbags sitting on their porches drinking beer and smoking cigarettes that they bought with their cash assistance.

When I worked in a retail drug store where food stamps were accepted, the same people would come in and load up on Doritos, candy, gum, soda, whatever and use their benefit card. Then they would buy 2 packs of cigs, and not an off brand, mind you, but like Marlboros and pay with a 50 or 100.

People are becoming career welfare recipients and nothing is being done about it. Their children grow up and become career rcipients too. I have 4 kids and pay all of my bills to the best of my ability and struggle to have anything extracurricular and always go with out. Why should they live better than me when I bust my ass?

~MM

__________________
I am MeddlingMage...YOUR Motl Survivor 11 Champion and 2007 Captain N award winner, and I approve this siggy!

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeddlingMage:
Why should they live better than me when I bust my ass?

---

This resonates with me. What I'm about to say isn't a personal attack on you, MM, and in fact is not directed at you in any way, shape of form.

I've decided that the only difference between myself and a person who mooches welfare assistance is that I work for the money I blow. I need to change that. I still don't think it's fair taht people can mooch, and t never will be, but it could wind up being prohibitively expensive to do pee tests every so often. But if it was cost effective, I believe it'd be a good idea.

But yet, this 1 general contractor who works for a place called Opportunities for Chenango (the county in NY where I live) which does weatherization and other energy efficiency programs told me he almost got fired b/c someone who they were doing work on their place, FOR FREE, turned them in for some BS thing. Meanwhile, he had no job, and no car, but was playing his PS3 on his rather large screen tv.

I just don't think that's right.

No offense taken Josh In fact I don't even think it seemed even remotely close to offending me.

~MM

__________________
I am MeddlingMage...YOUR Motl Survivor 11 Champion and 2007 Captain N award winner, and I approve this siggy!

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeddlingMage:
When recipients sign up for welfare, they should have them sign a paper, that states; once a month/3months/year, whenever they have to re-certify or whatever they do, they should be made aware that they may be subject to random, on the spot drug testing. Sure they'll say to themselves, I just won't get high this week or whatever, but more and more people will get caught doing it.

Everyday, I drive to work down the same few roads and everyday I drive past the same houses with the same...scumbags sitting on their porches drinking beer and smoking cigarettes that they bought with their cash assistance.

When I worked in a retail drug store where food stamps were accepted, the same people would come in and load up on Doritos, candy, gum, soda, whatever and use their benefit card. Then they would buy 2 packs of cigs, and not an off brand, mind you, but like Marlboros and pay with a 50 or 100.

People are becoming career welfare recipients and nothing is being done about it. Their children grow up and become career rcipients too. I have 4 kids and pay all of my bills to the best of my ability and struggle to have anything extracurricular and always go with out. Why should they live better than me when I bust my ass?

~MM

---

Now...first off, how will drug testing solve this? You later rant seems to be about the abuses of Welfare. Which is fine but you have to put it into context, specifically how many (% wise) abuse the system as opposed to how many do not. No system is perfect, and people slip through the cracks. The same is true with our tax system. Some people get off not paying or reporting their taxes, while others use tax loopholes.

~MM

__________________
I am MeddlingMage...YOUR Motl Survivor 11 Champion and 2007 Captain N award winner, and I approve this siggy!

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeddlingMage:
I may be just ranting, and I don't wanna derail the thread, but if drug testing was ever implemented it would of course have penalties associated with failed tests.
You know like maybe, OMG get a job?

~MM

---

What if they already have a job? Not everyone on Welfare are unemployed, in fact most of them do have jobs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
What if they already have a job? Not everyone on Welfare are unemployed, in fact most of them do have jobs.

---

Also worth noting: when you don't have kids, a mortgage, a car, or student loans, it's quite easy to live on a VERY small amount of money. You might not make enough to stay afloat with your job alone, but you may ultimately, with welfare, have enough for a few luxuries.

Wish I could collect welfare right now. Or be hired, even for the lowly position of bagboy. =/

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

If you look at the statistics, the "typical" welfare recipient is a single white or black women (still more whites than blacks) and her two or three children. There is no welfare unless kids are involved, and very few welfare families where both parents are present. The welfare mom is likely in her 20's or 30's, and has little or no contact with her children's father. Her involvement in welfare is highly correlated to her educational level, and also to overall poverty levels in her community.

I'll give you that some welfare moms might be drug addicts, but if so their own stupidity catches up with them, and they are booted out of the system. In such cases society often picks up the cost to care for the kids.

While addict costs on welfare and on society are not minimal, I doubt these come anywhere near the total program costs from typical $600+ per drug test costs on every participant in the already-strained Welfare system (Congress won't let Medicare negotiate discounts for prescription drugs, so why would it allow Welfare to negotiate discount drug test rates). Adding drug testing can only occur if we want to pay a lot more tax money into the program.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
I think the anger, while real, is focused on perceptions rather than realities.

---

I know. And, honestly, if I was "getting mine," I probably wouldn't care at all. And, honestly again, a lot of why I'm not is my own fault. I'm mostly frustrated because I'm still paying for mistakes I made years ago.

In the meantime, it looks like our media is gearing up for another discussion on how to overhaul our healthcare spending. I doubt they'll succeed, though: with our Parliament prorogued and this villainous rogue in office, not only does it look like there's no election on the horizon, but it would take too much political courage on the part of any party to address the issue.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

In other news, Harper's assault on our democracy continues with five new Senate appointments. That brings his total to 34, every single one a Conservative Party loyalist, despite his multiple electoral promises not to appoint a single one until the Senate was reformed. Ugh. The one consolation here is that the Senate has very little real power. The downside is that this leaves the burden of responsibility on the Opposition's shoulders, and they're not very broad at all. Quite flimsy, in fact. They should go to the gym once in a while. Hell, EVER.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tha Gunslinga:
I think if you're addicted to drugs you need welfare much more than someone who doesn't. Can we drug-test all the welfare recipients and kick out those who pass the test?

---

How about a rehabilitation program for addicts on welfare? If you fail the test, you have to go to rehab if you want to continue to be on welfare. It may expensive but it will create a lot of jobs. It would at least give the person a chance for redemption before giving them the boot.

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
How about a rehabilitation program for addicts on welfare? If you fail the test, you have to go to rehab if you want to continue to be on welfare. It may expensive but it will create a lot of jobs. It would at least give the person a chance for redemption before giving them the boot.

---

Government is not capable of creating jobs. Any jobs it makes the illusion of creating are lost from taxpaying businesses who can't afford to hire as many employees due to the loss of money available to them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
Government is not capable of creating jobs. Any jobs it makes the illusion of creating are lost from taxpaying businesses who can't afford to hire as many employees due to the loss of money available to them.

If I want to support the rehabilitation of drug users, I will donate to a charity devoted to that cause.

---

So we should eliminate government completely? We'll assume that no foreign entity will take advantage and attack us. And we'll assume all our citizens will change completely from the human condition. They'll no longer covet their neighbors goods, they'll no longer lie and cheat and steal towards their own best self-interests.

Sorry, but I'll go with some big government for protection from those who would do me harm. And there are more "citizens" in that category than there are foreigners.

I know too many business executives who believe anything that isn't specifically illegal must therefor be ethical. They believe that an absence of regulation means they can do whatever they want. These are the same people who decry government regulation, and who demand removal of all governmental constraints from their businesses. The PR they use is a claim they know how to be model corporate "citizens". This is currently worse in financial industries, but the attitude is everywhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
So we should eliminate government completely? We'll assume that no foreign entity will take advantage and attack us. And we'll assume all our citizens will change completely from the human condition. They'll no longer covet their neighbors goods, they'll no longer lie and cheat and steal towards their own best self-interests.

Sorry, but I'll go with some big government for protection from those who would do me harm. And there are more "citizens" in that category than there are foreigners.

I know too many business executives who believe anything that isn't specifically illegal must therefor be ethical. They believe that an absence of regulation means they can do whatever they want. These are the same people who decry government regulation, and who demand removal of all governmental constraints from their businesses. The PR they use is a claim they know how to be model corporate "citizens". This is currently worse in financial industries, but the attitude is everywhere.

Note: In their defense, I believe business executives do understand what it would take to be ethical corporate citizens. Too many just don't think such a moral code should apply to them. Ethics are just some idealistic nicety. Its sort of like the "C" Street flavor towards Christianity.

---

I have no idea how you took "government cannot create jobs" as "get rid of government", as I very clearly didn't say that.

I'm arguing that some level of peace and safety, constructed and enforced by GOVERNMENT, allows all private enterprises to prosper, because they know the allowances and constraints of the environment in which they will compete.

In essence I am claiming a great deal of potential and actual synergy between business and government in terms of number of jobs and overall profitability. That synergy can be reduced or eliminated by activities and power grabs by either side, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only that their are powerful forces which seek to eliminate it for their own personal advantages.