|
On August 29 2011 21:50 MrTortoise wrote:
Also there is a gross assumption that bny taking people out of welfare you area ctually goign to save money.
In uk it has been shown tiem and tiem again that the reason for welfare is that it SAVES money in the long run.
Welfare is a good thing, but it meant to be something to keep you ticking along until you find work - not intended as a sustainable lifestyle. I know not everyone wishes to work or to be part of the economy, but if that's the case, don't claim. Simple as. I used to work with the DWP and everyday we'd find another claimant finding more creative ways to get something for virtually nothing, this is not fair for the tax paying majority of a country.
On August 29 2011 21:50 MrTortoise wrote:UIts a shit ton cheaper for welfare than prison. But then in the states it looks like they want about 50% of the population behind bars by 2050
The states actually makes some pennies off it's prison population though, with 1% of it's population incarcerated and prisoners being paid slave wages to manufacture items in workshops to sell to the general population etc. I remember the intellectual and humorous game show, QI, bringing it up.
|
Touching into matter of welfare, I really hate people who abuse the support of the government for bad habits or just flat out abusing it. I definitely agree with this changes. I hope other state follow soon. I say those who fail the examination can get support for rehabilitation rather than financial.
|
On August 29 2011 21:22 PolSC2 wrote:
That's the problem with the US. The people on welfare see it as a permanent source of income.
On my Wife's side of the family, she has a cousin. This dirtbag cousin and the dirtbag boyfriend of hers are on welfare. Neither of them work, or even try to work. Actually, the guy gets a job and gets fired from it, so he can continue to collect without having to work. They have six (6) children, with plenty more on the way I am sure.
Oh, and the cousins parents are on welfare as well. They also own a brand new truck. I know it's new, because they have called me asking for a $550 dollar payment because they can't pay that month for whatever reason.
This is how the US views welfare. Because this is all it is.
Clearly, your one anecdotal example is representative of all people on government assistance.
|
On August 29 2011 23:26 patzernuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 21:22 PolSC2 wrote:
That's the problem with the US. The people on welfare see it as a permanent source of income.
On my Wife's side of the family, she has a cousin. This dirtbag cousin and the dirtbag boyfriend of hers are on welfare. Neither of them work, or even try to work. Actually, the guy gets a job and gets fired from it, so he can continue to collect without having to work. They have six (6) children, with plenty more on the way I am sure.
Oh, and the cousins parents are on welfare as well. They also own a brand new truck. I know it's new, because they have called me asking for a $550 dollar payment because they can't pay that month for whatever reason.
This is how the US views welfare. Because this is all it is. Clearly, your one anecdotal example is representative of all people on government assistance.
Just welfare.
|
On August 30 2011 00:08 PolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 23:26 patzernuk wrote:On August 29 2011 21:22 PolSC2 wrote:
That's the problem with the US. The people on welfare see it as a permanent source of income.
On my Wife's side of the family, she has a cousin. This dirtbag cousin and the dirtbag boyfriend of hers are on welfare. Neither of them work, or even try to work. Actually, the guy gets a job and gets fired from it, so he can continue to collect without having to work. They have six (6) children, with plenty more on the way I am sure.
Oh, and the cousins parents are on welfare as well. They also own a brand new truck. I know it's new, because they have called me asking for a $550 dollar payment because they can't pay that month for whatever reason.
This is how the US views welfare. Because this is all it is. Clearly, your one anecdotal example is representative of all people on government assistance. Just welfare.
No, its not representative of that either. One family of dumbasses does not disprove the use of welfare.
|
amazing ..... 30 pages of controversy over if it's right or wrong in a democracy for a state to get in one's counsciousness .
|
Totally out of line for rich bastards to implement something like this
just my 2cents
|
I don't get it....
Why is anyone even debating this shit?
No one should WANT to be on welfare, period. And the people that do, are the type's of people who use drugs.
If you don't want to be on welfare, and don't want to take a drug test. Get a job. Simple, right?
If that means swallowing your pride and working at McDonald's until you can find a better job? Guess what, there are millions of people who do this. What makes you special?
Obviously if you are one of those people who has only been recieving assistance for a month or two, this is not directed at you. Being inbetween jobs and relying on government funds for existence, are two different things.
As so many have said, beggars can't be choosers, this applies to finding a job as well as recieving money from your government. Too many people today feel entitled. How about a little hard work? You might be surprised what you can achieve if you stop being such a lazy shit.
To stay on topic, asking someone to pay for a drug test, and then reimbursing them for that cost if they are clean is, in my opinion, a brilliant way of weeding out drug users from collecting government assistance and using it for drugs. They've even provided a way for you druggies to support your children without ever having to handle the money. I love it.
Thanks for coming out.
|
This law was just blocked
+ Show Spoiler +
Granted, this was only a federal judge so it could still go to the Supreme Court. The judge issued the temporary injunction, but something interesting that I hadn't known about this is that the applicants would have to pay for the tests themselves.
EDIT:missed the reimbursement if you are clean... oops
|
its a shame, i dont see how people can be against this
|
i think that this is a great idea. fuck junkies, if theyre not contributing and sucking up my money, then fuck em. this is an awesome idea, and i would love to see more states do this. people who need welfare legitimately and dont use drugs have nothing to lose with this. the only people who have something to lsoe are druggies, and why should they get my money anyways? i dont work 40 hours a week and lose a large sum of my paycheck just so the state can give it to someone so they can get high. oh wait, i do!
|
Yeah why don't we just kill em while we're at it. And we can use their corpses to feed livestock!...
What exactly is wrong with so many of you I do not know. There should be systems implemented for rehabilitation. Where does this program leave a junkie once they're turned away from welfare?
Crime.
Great alternative.
You're going to say "They could always get clean". I just said that is the program we should be implementing. Not bar junkies from welfare but require them to attend methods (which I will not disclose*) to clean themselves up. Then welfare would truly be a temporary bridge to a better life instead of just a sinkhole for tax money.
In fact, all welfare should have more stringent improvement requirements built into it instead of the ridiculous amount you can bleed away for relatively nothing that we have as the current system.
*I am not an expert in mental illness or sociologist and have no suggestions for rehabilitation methods. There are, however, people that do have ideas who are also more qualified to present them.
|
Glad to see tax payer's dollars will continue to feed the drug addiction of junkies on welfare. That is a big win right there.
/sarcasm
Unfortunate that it means less money for people who legitimately require welfare.
|
What happened to personal accountability in this world? People get hooked on drugs and it's somehow the duty of the taxpayers to bail them out?
This is literally the only intelligent move Scott has made during his time in office and I fully supported it, and I hope the injunction gets overturned.
|
On October 25 2011 09:59 WTFZerg wrote:
What happened to personal accountability in this world? People get hooked on drugs and it's somehow the duty of the taxpayers to bail them out?
we no longer allow natural selection to eliminate the weak specimens
|
How people are against this law is beyond me, why would you want your tax dollar going to support someone who obviously isnt going to do anything productive with it...
|
On October 25 2011 10:00 SafeAsCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 09:59 WTFZerg wrote:
What happened to personal accountability in this world? People get hooked on drugs and it's somehow the duty of the taxpayers to bail them out? we no longer allow natural selection to eliminate the weak specimens
And to make matters worse, someone else is ALWAYS to blame.
Someone killed themselves by ODing on heroin? Well, obviously its the governments fault, because that person shouldn't have gone unnoticed.
Someone threw themselves off a bridge? Well obviously there isn't enough funding into mental health.
Someone was reduced to sleeping in their car? Well obviously there isn't enough homes provided by the government.
No one blames themselves for their shortfalls any more. It's always someone else who is to blame.
Sometimes the reason why you're on crack and on welfare is because you didn't stand up at 17 and say "I'm becoming an adult. I need to start to work towards what I want to be."
Whether it be studying, or flipping burgers. People feel so "entitled" to wealth and lifestyle.
SGWPIJGPHWE GP:J
Now I'm angry for the day! Thanks! 
|
On October 25 2011 10:04 Kingsp4de20 wrote:
How people are against this law is beyond me, why would you want your tax dollar going to support someone who obviously isnt going to do anything productive with it...
what about using welfare as a means of survival to get off drugs..?
|
On October 25 2011 10:04 Kingsp4de20 wrote:
How people are against this law is beyond me, why would you want your tax dollar going to support someone who obviously isnt going to do anything productive with it...
Maybe because people are addicted but would still like to eat? Do you value the (actually rather small) part of you income that goes to taxes covering welfare expenses higher than somebody else in the same, rich country not starving? It's not like it would be easy for an addict to get a job or get off the stuff just like that. I've worked with addicts. They have a really tough time getting a leg up as nobody will hire them, getting off the stuff without proper therapy (which they can't pay for and isn't covered) is close to impossible with some drugs (looking at you, meth and crack) and they end up doing anything, legal or illegal, to somehow cover their drug expenses before any other concern. That's how addiction works. Now take away their welfare and they'll just end up much deeper in the hole they're already in, doing more crazy illegal stuff as legal ways to obtain money are scarce for them. You'd end up with more robberies, more theft, just generally more crime which would probably cost more in the long term. We're talking prison expenses, extra police force and still higher overall crime rates for very low income parts of the society. It doesn't make it better to withhold basic coverage. With welfare people have a tiny bit of an option to get out of it, without it their status will be cemented.
|
On October 25 2011 10:20 Timerly wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 10:04 Kingsp4de20 wrote:
How people are against this law is beyond me, why would you want your tax dollar going to support someone who obviously isnt going to do anything productive with it... Maybe because people are addicted but would still like to eat? Do you value the (actually rather small) part of you income that goes to taxes covering welfare expenses higher than somebody else in the same, rich country not starving? It's not like it would be easy for an addict to get a job or get off the stuff just like that. I've worked with addicts. They have a really tough time getting a leg up as nobody will hire them, getting off the stuff without proper therapy (which they can't pay for and isn't covered) is close to impossible with some drugs (looking at you, meth and crack) and they end up doing anything, legal or illegal, to somehow cover their drug expenses before any other concern. That's how addiction works. Now take away their welfare and they'll just end up much deeper in the hole they're already in, doing more crazy illegal stuff as legal ways to obtain money are scarce for them. You'd end up with more robberies, more theft, just generally more crime which would probably cost more in the long term. We're talking prison expenses, extra police force and still higher overall crime rates for very low income parts of the society. It doesn't make it better to withhold basic coverage. With welfare people have a tiny bit of an option to get out of it, without it their status will be cemented.
If they cant pay for the drugs how are they going to do them...want to eat don't do drugs. I would rather "the rather small part of my income" go towards someone who isn't and addict or criminal and legitimatly fell on hard times and needs a hand up....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
