|
On October 25 2011 16:10 FryktSkyene wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 16:05 SynthFae wrote:
My only question is why just drugs? What about alcohol? What about candies? Is someone spending all their welfare money on sweets somewhat better? Money wasted is money wasted. Rather than doing all kinds of fancy tests, do a simple screening process in case of doubt. Now, with law like that everyone applying for welfare will have to be tested, tests costs as well and if the percentage of people they will actually filter out will be relatively small it will be actually bigger waste of money in the end.
All in all the system of welfare all around the world is flawed, but most politicians just look for solutions that will look nicely on their press conference rather than for ones that will actually solve problems. I doubt it will be change much, or bring any real savings. How do you propose we do a 'Candies Test' then? o.O
Dangle a candy in front of the person, if they greedily grab it they are guilty. Flawless!
But on a more serious note - as i said, screening process. I'm not sure how it's called in English, nor if it's common practice, but here we have something called Environmental Interview, conducted by either police patrol or social worker, asking around Your friends, family, neighbours, co-workers/class mates.
|
The american people have a right to know whom they're supporting and their circumstances. All for this.
|
A few weeks ago, a US District Court judge ruled drug screening for TANF recipients violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment). Article can be found here. I fully support the judge's ruling.
- Of the more than 4,000 people tested, only 2.6% tested positive for drugs (the majority of which was marijuana). That's more than the state average (which is 8.1%). Despite Florida's claim it would save the state a significant amount of money, it actually costs the state more to implement it.
- It unfairly targets minorities and the poor who are more likely to need government assistance because of the government and society's actions towards them in the past.
- Family members of those who do drugs face tremendous consequences by losing TANF benefits (eg., children and spouses).
- It ignores the fact that drug abuse and mental/psychiatric disorders are often linked. The US, as I imagine we all are aware, put mental health on the low priority list.
- People in poverty are more likely to face numerous barriers to education, have poor job skills, and low psychological functioning that impedes their ability to get out of poverty.
- It ignores that current understanding of drug addiction which physically alters one's brain to the point that people continue to use even though they want to quit but cannot do so.
- More importantly, we're ignoring the fact that drug use in the United States has significantly declined since its peak in the 1980s yet we pretend as if its increasing.
- Even among those who do have jobs, many cannot find a job that pays a livable wage without being a TANF recipient.
- Even among those who do use drugs and receive government money, they are more likely to enter treatment and finish it than those who do not receive government money.
These findings have been consistently replicated in study after study (East, 1999; Stromwall, 2001; Montoya & Brown, 2007; Dandizger, et al., 2000; Delvia, et al., 2000; Olson & Pavetti, 1996; Jayakody, et al., 2000, Raynor & Williams, 2012, Pollack & Reuters, 2006).
By placing MORE barriers to employment and services that help people get out of poverty, you do the exact opposite. You increase the risk that they become involved in crime and drugs. Budd (2010) sums it up nicely: "The vast majority of the legislation imposes testing without regard to suspect drug use, reflecting the implicit assumption that the poor are inherently predisposed to culpable conduct and thus may be subject to class-based intrusions that would be inarguable impermissible if inflicted on the less destitute."
If we allow drug testing for welfare, where does it stop? Drug testing to get into a public college? Government employees like Representative Trey Radel? To pre-empt the argument that people have to get drug tested for jobs, it doesn't really apply as they're private employers.
|
On January 15 2014 05:05 Dknight wrote:A few weeks ago, a US District Court judge ruled drug screening for TANF recipients violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment). Article can be found here. I fully support the judge's ruling. - Of the more than 4,000 people tested, only 2.6% tested positive for drugs (the majority of which was marijuana). That's more than the state average (which is 8.1%). Despite Florida's claim it would save the state a significant amount of money, it actually costs the state more to implement it.
- It unfairly targets minorities and the poor who are more likely to need government assistance because of the government and society's actions towards them in the past.
- Family members of those who do drugs face tremendous consequences by losing TANF benefits (eg., children and spouses).
- It ignores the fact that drug abuse and mental/psychiatric disorders are often linked. The US, as I imagine we all are aware, put mental health on the low priority list.
- People in poverty are more likely to face numerous barriers to education, have poor job skills, and low psychological functioning that impedes their ability to get out of poverty.
- It ignores that current understanding of drug addiction which physically alters one's brain to the point that people continue to use even though they want to quit but cannot do so.
- More importantly, we're ignoring the fact that drug use in the United States has significantly declined since its peak in the 1980s yet we pretend as if its increasing.
- Even among those who do have jobs, many cannot find a job that pays a livable wage without being a TANF recipient.
- Even among those who do use drugs and receive government money, they are more likely to enter treatment and finish it than those who do not receive government money.
These findings have been consistently replicated in study after study (East, 1999; Stromwall, 2001; Montoya & Brown, 2007; Dandizger, et al., 2000; Delvia, et al., 2000; Olson & Pavetti, 1996; Jayakody, et al., 2000, Raynor & Williams, 2012, Pollack & Reuters, 2006). By placing MORE barriers to employment and services that help people get out of poverty, you do the exact opposite. You increase the risk that they become involved in crime and drugs. Budd (2010) sums it up nicely: "The vast majority of the legislation imposes testing without regard to suspect drug use, reflecting the implicit assumption that the poor are inherently predisposed to culpable conduct and thus may be subject to class-based intrusions that would be inarguable impermissible if inflicted on the less destitute." If we allow drug testing for welfare, where does it stop? Drug testing to get into a public college? Government employees like Representative Trey Radel? To pre-empt the argument that people have to get drug tested for jobs, it doesn't really apply as they're private employers.
Sounds very reasonable to me. I know it's a contentious subject, so will be interesting to hear counterarguments (too lazy to dig through thread). I would think the "cost" of denying people who need the help is greater than allowing some to abuse. Similar to how throwing an innocent person in jail is worse than letting a guilty one go free.
|
This drug testing is a classic example of what conservatives say liberals always do. They have their 'hearts' in the right place but what they are trying to do is wrong.
While it may make you feel like it's the right thing to do, it's obviously not. If you stay in the land of rhetoric it's easy to make sense of a policy that says "no government aid for those who use drugs." Unfortunately the reality of implementing something like that has far reaching consequences that go beyond the goal (as mentioned above).
Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance.
The way our system is currently designed many of the negative outcomes are inevitable. The country only has so many jobs that actually pay a wage that doesn't require government subsidization so inevitably some of the best and most honest and hard working people will find themselves in need of government assistance.
If you really wanted to get people off of government assistance you should advocate for large corporations to slash executive pay to parity early post WWII rates of executives when compared to the average employee.
Something along the lines of voluntarily limiting their pay to about 30x more than the lowest paid employee, far from perfect but still a huge improvement. 15x would be better but then you would need to pay $66,000 to make a million a year (before taxes[but those taxes would be a hell of a lot lower if you got to put more of the burden on your employees by paying them more.])
|
Drug testing welfare recipients is based on the fantasy that many, if not most, if not nearly all welfare recipients sit around and engage in self-gratification and little else. Just like most people in general, most people receiving welfare benefits do not do drugs. There is no reason to think that receiving welfare makes you more likely to do drugs, or that doing drugs makes you more likely to receive welfare. It just doesn't make sense. Sure, many people know someone on food stamps and government health insurance and housing assistance with his Obamaphone who smokes weed and drinks all day, but that person is by no means representative of people receiving welfare.
|
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
|
On January 15 2014 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
Something along the lines of voluntarily limiting their pay to about 30x more than the lowest paid employee, far from perfect but still a huge improvement.
No, No, No and NO. Absolutely not. This sets a very bad precedent. It will go from voluntary to mandatory sure as shit.
|
Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance.
This "undeniable transfer of wealth" has in fact not occurred, as anyone looking honestly at the statistics can easily see.
Anyone who tells you that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor is either lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about.
|
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
So they should use tax payer money to sit around and do drugs and be a drain on society? That's a childish and cruel thing to do to tax payers, to force them to pay for someone who will never be of use to society who will simply sit around and do illegal drugs and never work on getting any sort of job. Unfortunately yes, implementing a system of defamatory drug screening for welfare does cost more than letting the drug users sit on it, so the system is then not worth keeping.
|
On January 15 2014 06:35 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance. This "undeniable transfer of wealth" has in fact not occurred, as anyone looking honestly at the statistics can easily see. Anyone who tells you that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor is either lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about.
Ya, that line is usually just to stir up the populists. Everyone has gotten richer, the rich have simply gotten richer even faster. It's funny how you argue drug testing is classest, and then goes on to demonize another class.
edit: I'd probably agree with Dknight though, if testing cost so much more, most likely the costs are greater than the benefits of not giving a few druggies money.
|
On January 15 2014 06:35 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance. This "undeniable transfer of wealth" has in fact not occurred, as anyone looking honestly at the statistics can easily see. Anyone who tells you that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor is either lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about.
I am totally confused as to how you guys look at the statistics of less people having more wealth, and the avg/min wage buying less now than it did in 1950 and say that everyone is getting richer.
The closest article I found supporting the insane idea that everyone is getting richer and at little to no cost to the poor but it pretty much just shows why such a viewpoint is totally nonsensical.
"The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows."
That means instead of the top 1% getting a raise they could of DOUBLED the entire annual income of the bottom 20% of ALL Americans without losing a nickel compared to previous years.
So you mean to say 1% of Americans 'earning' a RAISE equal to the entire annual income of 20% American workers didn't come at the 20%'s expense who saw no real wage increase?
American workers are more productive than they have been in decades but getting paid less than they used to, and executives salaries have been growing further and further away from their average workers salary. This is indisputable evidence that it has come at a cost to the poorest among us and even well up into the bottom 80% of income earners in America.
If you can't understand that than I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.
One of a million supporting sources
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
you are right, instead of drug addicts coercing people to give money to feed their drug habit, you have the government coercing people to give money to drug addicts to feed their drug habit. This is clearly more civilized because the government is involved.
To reduce bank robberies, I suggest giving money to anybody who claims they are going to rob a bank to feed their family. If you are against this you want people to DIE and a cruel son of a bitch.
|
How much does a drug test cost? Cost of test vs Amount of money saved due to people no longer on welfare due to failing, probably not worth it, also not spending it on welfare would probably lead to more crime for people to get there money for there fix.
|
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
Because drug addiction is expensive and almost always self-inflicted. Kinda erodes most people's sympathy, even when it's for legal drugs.
...of course, there are other choices liable to erode my and many others' sympathies. Such as reproducing when you can't afford children. That one's a stickier wicket, though, because there's an innocent involved. Can't very well separate aid for a child from aid for the parent, unless you're willing to separate child from parent.
|
On January 15 2014 13:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 06:35 DeepElemBlues wrote:Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance. This "undeniable transfer of wealth" has in fact not occurred, as anyone looking honestly at the statistics can easily see. Anyone who tells you that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor is either lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about. I am totally confused as to how you guys look at the statistics of less people having more wealth, and the avg/min wage buying less now than it did in 1950 and say that everyone is getting richer. The closest article I found supporting the insane idea that everyone is getting richer and at little to no cost to the poor but it pretty much just shows why such a viewpoint is totally nonsensical. "The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows." That means instead of the top 1% getting a raise they could of DOUBLED the entire annual income of the bottom 20% of ALL Americans without losing a nickel compared to previous years. So you mean to say 1% of Americans 'earning' a RAISE equal to the entire annual income of 20% American workers didn't come at the 20%'s expense who saw no real wage increase? American workers are more productive than they have been in decades but getting paid less than they used to, and executives salaries have been growing further and further away from their average workers salary. This is indisputable evidence that it has come at a cost to the poorest among us and even well up into the bottom 80% of income earners in America. If you can't understand that than I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. One of a million supporting sources
None of that shows that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor. Again, to claim that there has been a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich reveals either dishonesty. ignorance, or confusion. You want a country where the rich actually have gotten richer at the expense of the poor, look at Russia.
It beggars belief that the rich increasing their income has somehow caused the inflation that is the reason that a dollar buys less today than it did in 1950 or 1960. There's a leap of evidence and logic there, just as there is in the use of the contention that "the top 1% increased their wealth as much as the bottom 20% earns entirely," which in no way proves that the increase in wealth was "transferred" or taken from the bottom 20% to the top 1%. If we accept the assumption that if this income did not go to the top 1% it would have gone to the bottom 20% then certainly, but there is no actual reason to think that that would have been the case.
The CBO data shows that from 1979 - 2007 incomes for the poor rose 18%, the middle class 40%, the top 81-99% rose 65%, and the top 1% rose 275%. Even if you think that is terribly out of whack and prefer to ignore that by any material measure the poor have risen farther than that 18% suggests, it still cannot possibly constitute the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor. The poverty rate has fallen from 26% in 1968 to 16% now. How is that possible if the rich have been getting richer at the expense of the poor? And on and on and on. But go make a thread about income inequality and how we need to end these mythical wealth transfers to save society if you want to continue chicken littleing about it.
|
On January 15 2014 08:53 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do. So they should use tax payer money to sit around and do drugs and be a drain on society? That's a childish and cruel thing to do to tax payers, to force them to pay for someone who will never be of use to society who will simply sit around and do illegal drugs and never work on getting any sort of job. Unfortunately yes, implementing a system of defamatory drug screening for welfare does cost more than letting the drug users sit on it, so the system is then not worth keeping.
So because you can't deny the minority of people who do drugs from getting assistance in feeding themselves and their children, you'd rather deny EVERYONE even those in need who have jobs and are good people in need of a little help instead and make their children starve. Because what's worse than a drug addict getting free food? A child being denied food because her parents did nothing wrong at all and are on hard times.
|
Hopefully everyone agrees that a welfare drug-testing program is counterproductive if it fails to save money. If it did actually save an appreciable sum, then the questions of "is it right? is it a violation of privacy?" would hold greater relevance.
On January 15 2014 15:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The CBO data shows that from 1979 - 2007 incomes for the poor rose 18%, the middle class 40%, the top 81-99% rose 65%, and the top 1% rose 275%.
Income measured against the price of what? Housing, transportation, and basic foodstuffs?
|
tired of read bullshit, watch that : http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?g=3&c=bl3
for reply to this topic: they should use more money for treat the people who take drugs
( that realy hard to stop and most of them would be okay to do amazing jobs or help society if they are helped and cured )
many of them are good people and even more of them dont even take drugs on welfare
( how they can pay for it when usualy they dont have enough just to eat LOL ??? )
this law was just making them even more miserable and saying that their fault.... just wrong, you guy know how hard it is to stop smoke?
hard drugs can be 5-10X TIME more hard to stop.....they should get help not remove the money they got.
that not like the money they got that high anyway and the reason the money statue co curently like that also not the reason....
rich people want midle-low class to bash on the welfares people so people dont see the problem lie with the rich people....
stay classy. stay blind.
|
On January 15 2014 15:51 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 08:53 hunts wrote:On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do. So they should use tax payer money to sit around and do drugs and be a drain on society? That's a childish and cruel thing to do to tax payers, to force them to pay for someone who will never be of use to society who will simply sit around and do illegal drugs and never work on getting any sort of job. Unfortunately yes, implementing a system of defamatory drug screening for welfare does cost more than letting the drug users sit on it, so the system is then not worth keeping. So because you can't deny the minority of people who do drugs from getting assistance in feeding themselves and their children, you'd rather deny EVERYONE even those in need who have jobs and are good people in need of a little help instead and make their children starve. Because what's worse than a drug addict getting free food? A child being denied food because her parents did nothing wrong at all and are on hard times.
Please read what I said before jumping in with your sensationalist absurd statements. I said drug addicts should not get tax money to fuel their addiction because they are a drain on society and will never be of use to it. I never mentioned anyone other than drug users. I am very much for government assistance for people who actually work or are looking for work, or in some way contribute to society. These drug users who sit on welfare however, contribute nothing to society and paying for them is a drain on society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
