Drug tests for welfare recipients

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

Think for a moment about how much money we would have for welfare programs to get people back on their feet if we stopped prosecuting people for having the wrong types of plant extracts...

Welfare is an incentive not to work. Period, Econ 101. That being said, it is also sometimes necessary because it is probably immoral to be the richest place on earth and have any citizen starve.

Should we drug test, sure, but only for thing that actually affect the act of looking for a job. Abercrombie won't hire you to model if meth rotted the teeth out of your head. (Then again, no Abercrombie studmuffin has ever smiled, so you never know...)

 

[Pendlum]

Think for a moment about how much money we would have for welfare programs to get people back on their feet if we stopped prosecuting people for having the wrong types of plant extracts...

Welfare is an incentive not to work. Period, Econ 101. That being said, it is also sometimes necessary because it is probably immoral to be the richest place on earth and have any citizen starve.

Should we drug test, sure, but only for thing that actually affect the act of looking for a job. Abercrombie won't hire you to model if meth rotted the teeth out of your head. (Then again, no Abercrombie studmuffin has ever smiled, so you never know...)

I'm curious, have you been on welfare? Know anyone on welfare?

 

[B_starinvestor]

I'm curious, have you been on welfare? Know anyone on welfare?

obviously not

 

[B_jeepguy2]

I have worked for several large corporations and I have NEVER been required to take a drug test. I think drug testing is more of a blue collar thing because companies assume that people on that level are more likely to use drugs than those in the executive suite.

 

[B_Nick4444]

I like Sarge's point above. That recipients of bail-out money should have to pass drug test as well. All persons in management positions. Not just the CEOs. Why should the corporate welfare bums be treated any differently than their victims?

because of their status as a maligned "minority"?

 

[Pendlum]

obviously not

Thanks for answering for him.

Nice avatar by the way, I'm sure that will go over well.

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

I have known people on welfare before. One of my past roommates was on welfare for a time. He hated it. He said it was degrading, and an insult to his personal sense of pride. He got a job as soon as he could.

I've been drug tested for jobs before, it sucks. It's degrading, and invasive of my privacy. I don't have an objection to a clause in my contract that I can be tested if there is a perception that my work is being seriously affected by something, but not as a condition of employment or just randomly.

 

[Pendlum]

So the fact that he was welfare which he found degrading (and I'm sure many people do who are on it), he got a job? Sounds like incentive. I'm sure there are some who content living on welfare, but my guess is many, if not the majority, aren't if only for the social stigma involved.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Welfare is an incentive not to work. Period, Econ 101.

Spoken like a person who never grew up in a poor city or town that is essentially disadvantaged. You make it seem as if people strive to become products of the system, making roughly $437 a month with Food Stamps, for a mom with one child. Wow, with all of that "prosperity", who would ever want to lift a finger again?!

Fail. Period.

That being said, it is also sometimes necessary because it is probably immoral to be the richest place on earth and have any citizen starve.

Nobody blames anyone for being rich. Why would anyone demonize something they all strive to be? Stop playing the martyr for people who don't give a care whether you sink or swim. It's incredibly dishonest for people with more to blame people with less for their own inabilities to make and/or save money. Forcing poor people on welfare and/or UI to undergo a drug test is just adding insult to injury to people who find themselves in unfortunate financial and social circumstances. There's always going to be a few people that abuse a system. Perhaps if more time was assessed finding the few perpetrators instead of penalizing the entire bunch, you'd solve the problem much faster?

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

Because he is a proud and self reliant person, welfare was the stick and a job was the carrot. If you are predisposed to laziness, welfare is the carrot and a job is the stick.

...I said I was against drug testing unless agreed to in a contract...

The following assumes the ability to work:

If you have literally nothing, not a cent to your name, and no social safety net (family, church, gov'mint) you will find a way to make some money, or you will die.
If you have a bare existence subsidised by someone else's charity, you will try and make some money if you have any sense of self worth.
If you have a comfortable existence subsidised by someone else (apartment, cable tv, etc) you will not have much incentive to work unless you want luxuries, and you will spend the money you make on luxuries first, since all your basic needs are taken care of. Nearly every school of psychology and economics tells us this. I am trying to not be judgemental about it, it's just how people are.

If you want everyone who is able to be employed employed, you have to create an environment where they are incentivised to get jobs. If you create an environment where a person can survive in relative comfort without doing a hand's turn, odds are a segment of the population will.

 

[Pendlum]

So you believe that most people on welfare are lazy. I can't I say I know for sure, but I don't believe that. I believe most people on welfare are disadvantaged and truly want to be off of it and self reliant.

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

No, i am saying that there is an economic incentive to remain on welfare if you have all your necessities taken care of because any extra income you can get is disposable. Suppose a person is on welfare and gets an extra check (not from a social program) for $2,000, will they more likely use it for some type of consumption (a party, a new TV, whatever) or invest it in bettering their condition (job training, new apartment, etc)? I would contend that they use it for the former more often than not.

 

[B_starinvestor]

So you believe that most people on welfare are lazy. I can't I say I know for sure, but I don't believe that. I believe most people on welfare are disadvantaged and truly want to be off of it and self reliant.

There is a vast mixture - some are trying to get off, others are content with it as a way of life.

It is just like anything else, there are those who exploit the system; others that are truly deserving.

 

[b.c.]

If there are economic incentives to remain on welfare then it's not the fault of people who have to make hard choices about that "bottom line", nor any so-called "predisposition to laziness" (lol-the stereotypical bullshit never ceases to amaze). Perhaps it is because of policies, programs, and accompanying economic/social situations that enslave people into dependence on it.

As others pointed out, federal assistance take many forms, from corporate bailouts, medical programs, even vouchers for parents wanting to send their kids to private or parochial schools on the public's dime. Assuming that any percentage of them are in need of drug testing or even predisposed to drug use is, imo, a bogus issue designed to target certain segments of our population.

 

[Pendlum]

There is a vast mixture - some are trying to get off, others are content with it as a way of life.

It is just like anything else, there are those who exploit the system; others that are truly deserving.

Of course, and if some people get to exploit the system so that the truly deserving get what they well, deserve, then I'm fine with that. Better than tossing them to the wolves because someone else might exploit the system.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Of course, and if some people get to exploit the system so that the truly deserving get what they well, deserve, then I'm fine with that. Better than tossing them to the wolves because someone else might exploit the system.

True

 

[Pye]

I consider myself very liberal and I don't have any issue with someone that is on welfare being required to take a drug test.

The money from welfare should help a person survive. I actually believe that it should be a card that only allows for certain necessary items to be purchased (I believe that has been tried).

I don't like the idea of people on welfare purchasing luxury items such as cigarettes, alcohol or illegal drugs.

Welfare should help people pay their rent/mortgage and put food on the table. Sure the amount is low but it's something and it shouldn't be used for drugs (excluding necessary prescription medication).

 

[B_VinylBoy]

No, i am saying that there is an economic incentive to remain on welfare if you have all your necessities taken care of because any extra income you can get is disposable.

Can you find me people who can actually take care of all of their necessities on a Welfare check? I'd love to see you (or anyone) live on $437 a month, pay rent, utility bills, provide clothes, transportation when needed, etc...

Suppose a person is on welfare and gets an extra check (not from a social program) for $2,000, will they more likely use it for some type of consumption (a party, a new TV, whatever) or invest it in bettering their condition (job training, new apartment, etc)? I would contend that they use it for the former more often than not.

And where is this mysterious $2000 coming from? The lottery?
Besides that, how can anyone look towards a new apartment when they can barely afford the bare essentials they need to survive now? As if $2K is going to bring some real relief to someone who is stuck on Welfare. You can't plan for your the future if your present is in such disarray.

Being that I was born poor and raised in a poor part of the city, I'll tell you exactly what would happen to that $2K. A mass majority of it would be used to play catch-up on bills that are overdue. They may even try to pay their rent an extra month in advance so they won't have to worry about it next time. They may decide to spend a little bit of it on something personal or for their family, like a new TV or a night out to dinner, as a temporary morale boost to their overall self esteem. Because God forbid if a poor person actually takes a small portion of what they actually get to make themselves crack a smile once in a while.

You fix the problem of people being on Welfare by making adequate jobs & housing more accessible to the areas that need it most. Unfortunately, too many corporations would still rather set up their new offices in Dubai than in America, never mind places like Brooklyn, Queens or the Bronx, if not just to save money but in fear that they're going to get mugged by a crackhead. And real estate developers would rather make multi-million dollar condos instead of reasonably priced housing that may not be luxurious but takes care of the bare essentials and passes regular housing codes. All of this further alienates the disadvantaged.

You most certainly don't fix the problem by telling all of them to piss in a cup.

 

[Pye]

Can you find me people who can actually take care of all of their necessities on a Welfare check? I'd love to see you (or anyone) live on $437 a month, pay rent, utility bills, provide clothes, transportation when needed, etc...

No...you can't-- which is all the more reason to be assured that MY tax money is not going to pay for illegal drugs

 

[midlifebear]

Any one willing to believe that Star has:
1. never volunteered at a food bank
2. never given a homeless survivor living on the streets 1 or 5 dollars, just because it would help them buy a "Happy Meal!"
3. never investigated why so many millions of adult 'Mericuhns cannot read and donated money to a local literacy program or better yet committed to volunteer three hours a week for six months to be an adult literacy instructor, working one-on-one to share his gift of being able to read
4. never done ANYTHING for the miilions of poor and disenfranchised living in the USA
5. or that he proudly thinks that by giving to his "church" or that once-a-year donation to The United Way is sufficient to do any good for anyone?

Come on, bright eyes, tell us about some humanitarian gesture you've made instead of complaining about boogaboos with which you have no real life experience. Come on, now. I'm not talking about that one time you helped an old lady cross a street and then insisted she pay you 50 cents for the effort. Let's hear something positive for a change.