That's the argument for choice? I know people who DO live with their parents along with their own kids on welfare. I've known people who had a boyfriend make $35/hr at a union job not get married because it would end their single parent help/welfare from the gov't (don't know their exact benefits but getting married would end them). Wiskas is right. If they are on it for an extended period of time then something is not right, it's not a lifetime handout. A very extended family member lives with her mother and won't get a job because for each kid she has, she gets more money. She has zero incentive to get an education or get a job because the gov't is going to pay for it anyways. This shit happens far too often and it gets ignored by the libs because we wouldn't want to infringe on someone's rights who is essentially stealing and being a leech on society.
I'd piss in a cup any day. I could sell my piss, it's so clean...................a fact that I'm proud of given my past, as related to the topic matter at hand. And for the record, I don't suck a government tit.....haven't had to. People are on welfare by choice every bit as much as a person chooses to work. There are those that work that believe they don't have a choice either. The connection between long term (career) welfare dependency and drug dependancy is well known to the officials that oversee caseloads. They know it, but have little leverage to get these families into rehab, so the problem becomes lifelong and spans generations. Piss testing them and getting them into treatment is the only hope of thereby dealing with the problem instead of condoning no ability to take action. Casting a blind eye is what we've been doing, that isn't prooving to be working so well. http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=b579f1e4455593484f4e17887cb90457 http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/19_02_07.pdf http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/research/poverty/pdf/jcpr_pollack.pdf http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/jcp...ollack_danziger_jayakody_seefeldt_SRI2001.pdf finding papers/studies on the subject isn't very hard.
The fourth amendment argument is a good point. The slippery slope is not. Welfare is different from other government services. Roads for example, we pay for via taxes. Getting a write off for your house? You are still paying taxes. Welfare recipients are not paying for these services, other people are. And I still want to know why the race card was played. (also you could apply the slippery slope to the marriage argument depending on how broad of a view you are taking)
So what constitutes "reasonable search and seizure" ? I understand this to be directed at law enforcement and prosecution. Under the premiss you're going on all piss tests are unconstitutional and violate the forth and seventh admendments. The aplication of the constitutional doesn't seem to apply as the acceptance and a grant of public funds is voluntary and conditional. IE: you're not forced to take the funds if you do not agree to abide by the terms of the grant .... also the other way around: you'll not get funds if you are deemed to be not in compliace of conditions which are in the form of administrative policy and regulations in accordance to the laws at the time.
Let's spin this another way: you all should be happy that welfare users are buying crack with their funds, that shit is an appetite suppressant and thus they're spending less on food!
instead of criminalizing welfare recipients, why don't we just make it harder for them to trade government assistance for drugs? Just a thought. Or if welfare programs were privatized non-profits, then the non-profits in charge could require any terms they would like. (ie, be unemployeed for x amount of days, must complete this many hours of community service, regular drug test etc etc). This could potentially solve many problems. (and of course create others) That's a negative. When you sign on that doted line to go to work for a private company, you enter a contract allowing them to perform the drug test. If it's the cops doing it, they obviously have a warrant.
I wouldn't mind that suggestion for community service to be completed. You get a handout, use it on drugs, get caught and you get community service. At least then they'd be somewhat helpful to society.
ha, juball has me convinced I don't know if thats possible. I know a few car stereo shops in houston were taking katrina vouchers as payment after the influx of NO folks moved in. Shit, the place I worked at, my boss let people pay with food stamps a few times (which he would turn around and use to buy weed)
I'd written two replies about it, and forum bugs killed what I wrote when I tried to post. Must be the white man keeping me down. Ok, simple test. Picture in your head a person on welfare. Picture in your head a person a person smoking crack. Picture in your head a person on welfare smoking crack. Now tell me what color their skin is. (I'm using crack as an example, because, as I'm sure you know crack is a "black drug" and was specifically mentioned by nidex, Sparky, you, and MSP) A person would either have to be ignorant or a liar to not acknowledge that discussions of "welfare" in America are VERY often discussions of race. Usually white people bitching about "welfare queens" and "leaches" "ghetto folk" and "teenage moms squeezing out kids", telling other people how they ought to be living their lives. Facts: There are more whites than blacks on welfare. Drug usage by race puts blacks only slightly above whites. More than half of Americans have utilized some form of "welfare" in their lives. More than half the people who use welfare get off it in under two years. 20% get off in less than 6 months. This means it is most often used as temporary help, just as it should be. There is a 5 year cap on most "welfare" programs, people are not milking the system for their whole lives. Most people are only receiving a few hundred a month I believe, no one is getting rich here. The number of teen-mothers on welfare is like 8%. With regards to 'food stamps' many sates use debit cards which are programed to only work for approved purchases. For example, they can not be used to pay for tobacco or alcohol. Also, after the Clinton welfare reform of 1996, mothers can no longer get larger welfare checks if they have a child while receiving welfare. Most people bitching about 'welfare' simply don't have a clue what they are talking about. More comments: As was pointed out by those of us who oppose the idea of drug testing, we all agree if you are struggling to pay the bills, you probably shouldn't be spending money on drugs. While I'm generally not a fan of the 'slippery slope' argument, where does this stop? If many of you who support this are doing so on financial grounds, arguing that they should spend their money elsewhere to better themselves, should we also search their houses for a video game system? I mean, they don't need an xbox, they shouldn't be spending money on toys! Should we go around studying everything someone on welfare buys and telling them if we think they should have it?
I won't get into everything you discuss because it's going to be a disagreement. As mentioned above though: have you been to section 8 housing? They live better than most middle class families. They pay very little in rent, don't always have to get a job and usually have more video games/luxuries than I do. I've been there. Hell I worked on a computer in section 8 housing that was far better than the computer at my house. And do you know who paid for that service call? Not the owner of the home/PC.
But you guys are missing a very simple point... If you dont do drugs to begin with this wont affect you at all
It stops at drugs. Because that is the only place you can reasonably (and easily) test Here is my point: If a person receives welfare assistance, that person should not be spending any money on drugs. There are easy and reliable ways to test for drug usage. Everyone on welfare should be subject to these tests on a regular basis. It will in no way affect the people who are already doing what is right
So we take away welfare for people making under a certain wage or unemployed and then what? You know how much drug testing costs and you don't think they wouldn't find a way around it within weeks? The end would add to more corruption/ payoffs than already exists today. What's our plan? Are we going to starve them and their children to death? Hungry people don't stay hungry for long. I live in another country with no welfare for six months of the year, I hope I never see it here, it's not a pretty sight.
And plus, you know, what if their friend smoked them out? Cuz then they are not 'wasting' their own money right
Even if the drugs were free a person out of work should be focused on education and getting a new job. Blazing away with the other losers in the trailer park doesn't count as "networking".
The new forums blow so far. DAN PLEASE BRING BACK THE OLD ONES With regards to the whole race thing, you are basing it entirely on assumptions then. You cannot say what anyone "pictures" a welfare recipient as. My stereotype would be fat white redneck woman with 5 kids yelling "you think you're better than me", but thats because the poor areas I have lived in/grown up in were predominantly white. MSP is racist, but the rest of it is you rushing to defend an imaginary attack on black people The money going towards them isn't the issue for me, its the sense of entitlement it creates. Everyone in this country is lazy and wants to blame someone else (for the most part.) This isn't helping. If someone is at that point, most of them need a swift kick in the ass, and giving them a lifeline like this isn't going to help do that. Why make an effort when you can dick around for a bit while someone else pays your bills? The xbox thing is a good point. I would have said bullshit 5 years ago, that no one would waste as much time on videogames as they would on drug addiction, but now I have seen the powers of world of warcraft and I believe. I think my argument is falling apart now that you brought that up
Haha, I like how it automatically turns into a race thing because "crack" was brought up and crack is a black/inner city type drug. Many crack users are black- but believe me I've seen my share of white crackheads too. The same as how meth is generally a white/rural redneck type drug... I don't see how that's racist? You guys are way too politically correct sometimes.
sorry, these new forums suck at converying emotion/tone also. FUCK YOU DAN should've been a =p in there (it was a joke about those people calling you racist all the time)
That's cool, conveying thoughts in this form certainly leaves a lot to be desired. I have a low opinion of their culture, and think that frankness and openness about it is essential for them to finally get out of this mess. So many people dance around the topic, and criticism of any kind is branded as racism. Anyway, like you my primary mental image of welfare abuse involves white trash and trailer parks. Don't be me wrong, the hood is right behind it, but it's definitely not a race issue. Negro Defender Man can put his cape and spandex away now, little Jamal isn't in any danger.
There should be, at the very least, a three strikes thing taking place. Nowhere did I even hint that drug screening should be used to kick a person immediately off of assistance. One dirty piss test, treatment or forfiet, two dirty tests inpatient treatment, three and you're on your own. Parolees face those alternatives with the exception of a violation on third strike and back to the slam. Why not people recieving assistance. This seems like it'd be a good opportunity to help clean up some families.....at least a few. The "system" knows who those people are, it is not hard to spot them. There are ythe usual percentage of meth/crack/smack users on the welfare roles that end up with drug related arrests. The way the system is structured now, is that the ey do not have much they can do to intervene and the "system's" hands are tied in a lot of cases. It is not permitted for the "system" to even check into leagal citizen status of those that apply for assistance. That is how so many illegals end up on assistance and it's one helluva incentive for the poor of Mexico to make the trans border journey to the States. "The system is broken, but it's the only one we have". If you bring up the faults and deficiencies of any regulatory, enforcement, or assistance program with any official or case management person in those fields, this is the exact thing you'll hear. I've personally heard that exact quote verbatum from the DOJ, HHS, DoE, SSA, ADC......all of them say exactly the same words. (Q)Why is this the only system the American people have? (A) Because there is not enough will to find or develop a new one. Citing constitutional garranties has become the excuse and common sense goes down the administrative toilet. There are ways within the rights of all individuals to get the job done, nobody want to try something new when they get their paycheck reguardless of the effectiveness of how they do it is that they do. Thus: "The system is broken, but it's the only one we have".
This was never a race thing, can we please move on? Geesh, nobody say "fag" or Tassia will jump out of the woodwork and start that bullshit too.
You must have missed the above post. Welfare in America and opposition to it is HIGHLY CORRELATED to race. I mean, not on this forum I'm sure, because no one here holds any racial bias, but in the rest of America.
