Poll: Should welfare and/or food stamp recipients be subjected to drug testing?

[chipwhich]

Hell, I could spare an extra $20.

Heck, just turn over your whole paycheck and let them decide how you spend all of your money.

[Spec138]

Yes, I've heard the "reasoning" before: Any time you set foot outisde your cave, then any rule that anybody wants to demand of you, you agreed to.

Don;'t want the government keeping records of who you talk to on the phone? Don't use a phone.

Don't want the power company to phone the narcs if they think you're using too much electricity? Don't use electricity.

Don't want to throw the Fourth Amendment out the window? Don't have a job, or welfare, or in any way interact with any other person.

Come on, you know that's not what I said. You are misconstruing my point, the other cases you cited have obvious privacy nuances that agreeing to a contract with an employer doesn't have. You're comparing government infringement to an agreement you personally made with an individual or corporation.

[Springfield]

Heck, just turn over your whole paycheck and let them decide how you spend all of your money.

Couldn't the same argument be said about military spending?

[Larry]

Question. Does the power company really do that if they think you are using too much electricity? My father in law has a kilm and a sauna in his basement, and has never had any inquiry about this. Ive heard this before, but i thought it was for the most part a myth.

I've actually seen articles about communities passing laws requiring the power company to do that.

Now, I'll confess. Did the law pass, and did it get followed, and did the resulting evidence actually stand up in court? :whoknows:

OTOH, I was just coming back to my post to add another item to the list. We've recently had court rulings that the cops don't have to have a warrant to put a GPS device on your car, so they can track everywhere your car goes for a month, without any warrant at all. The court's "reasoning" was that "well, the cops could have simply followed the car for a month, if they had a thousand unmarked vehicles are thousands of man hours of available labor", and "well, if the car wasn't parked in a closed, locked, garage, then the citizen consented to people covertly planting tracking devices on his car".

Maybe I'm old fashioned, (does that make me a staunch conservative?), but to me, the rule that you can't be spied in without a warrant, and that what you do on your weekends is nobody's business, and that you can't be forced to prove that you haven't committed a crime, was supposed to be, well, maybe not 100% of the time, but maybe 99% of the time.

I understand there may be valid cases where there need to be exceptions. People with security clearances, for example. People who work in police evidence lockers. Astronauts.

But not "every minimum-wage clerk who works for a big corporation". Not "every person who has a credit card or a bank account or a phone".

---------- Post added May-6th-2011 at 07:18 PM ----------

Come on, you know that's not what I said. You are misconstruing my point, the other cases you cited have obvious privacy nuances that agreeing to a contract with an employer doesn't have. You're comparing government infringement to an agreement you personally made with an individual or corporation.

1) I assume that you missed the words "Don't have a job, or welfare, or in any way interact with any other person" in my post.

2) I'll also skip over the act that what's going on in this thread is "Well, if employers can do it, then the government can, too." Which rather contradicts your argument that there's a difference between the powers employers have, and the powers that the government has.

3) Yes, I'm well aware of the oft-expressed myth that employers have the right to make any demands they want of their employees, and the employee must agree to them or else not have a job.

Does your employer have the right to demand that you allow him to vote for you in the next election? Go get an absentee ballot, sign it, and hand it over to your boss, to fill out?

(I'll point out that I have read newspaper stories about employers, for example, informing their employees that "this month, every one of you is going to receive a $1,000 bonus, and every one of you is going to donate that $1,000 to (insert name of a political cause)." Does your employer have the right to order you to make a political contribution?)

[Spec138]

Its not a job. Its a minimum social safety net. It doesn't matter if they deserve it. They need it, and the people who need it the most are the ones who are most likely to have drug and alcohol problems.

That bum over there, lying on the sidewalk babbling to himself - he needs to eat. If you drug test him, he's going to come up positive - and he is STILL going to need to eat.

Even worse, that crack whore over there... not only does she need to eat, but her kids need to eat too.

You'll notice I didn't say I think welfare should require a drug test, I said I don't lean one way or the other. I don't think I or anyone has enough information to know how this would really affect the poor. I was responding to Larry's post about employer drug testing.

[MissU28]

Yes.

And in a perfect world, those people who did test positive would be immediately shipped to a rehab facility OR a mental institution. That's what my ideal law would say: If you want money, you have to subject to drug testing. If you fail these tests, you will be subject to a medical examination to see if you are mentally ill, in which case we will send you to a mental hospital (where all mentally ill people should be anyway). If you are not deemed mentally ill, we will put you in rehab for 30 days, after which you can reapply for our services.

I also think pot should not count as a drug in this case. Crack, cocaine, heroine, etc. should.

p.s. i know how ridiculously expensive this all would be, which is why I said 'in a perfect world'

[Spec138]

1) I assume that you missed the words "Don't have a job, or welfare, or in any way interact with any other person" in my post.

2) I'll also skip over the act that what's going on in this thread is "Well, if employers can do it, then the government can, too." Which rather contradicts your argument that there's a difference between the powers employers have, and the powers that the government has.

3) Yes, I'm well aware of the oft-expressed myth that employers have the right to make any demands they want of their employees, and the employee must agree to them or else not have a job.

Does your employer have the right to demand that you allow him to vote for you in the next election? Go get an absentee ballot, sign it, and hand it over to your boss, to fill out?

(I'll point out that I have read newspaper stories about employers, for example, informing their employees that "this month, every one of you is going to receive a $1,000 bonus, and every one of you is going to donate that $1,000 to (insert name of a political cause)." Does your employer have the right to order you to make a political contribution?)

1) I don't know why you bring up me missing that part of your post. I've never been drug tested on a job, I have first hand experience that argument that I must give up my 4th amendment right to work is false.

2) I don't care about what is going on in this thread, I read it until your post which I responded to. To be honest what you've written in these first two points has made little sense to me.

3) This sounds like it would fall under electoral fraud but I'm not a legal expert.

EDIT: Let's turn the slippery slope on you now, by your reasoning what right does an employer have to dictate your dress code?

[LD0506]

That bum over there, lying on the sidewalk babbling to himself - he needs to eat. If you drug test him, he's going to come up positive - and he is STILL going to need to eat.

Yup, but he WANTS to just get ****faced again, so just giving him $$ and letting him decide isn't the answer. Eat? Yes. Safe place to sleep? Sure. Shower, laundry? Yeah, why not. Blank check to just keep being a ****roach? Nope

Even worse, that crack whore over there... not only does she need to eat, but her kids need to eat too.

Then she needs to be spayed and the kids need attention from someone able to provide it. There is no God-given, constitutionally protected right to be a worthless sack o'crap whose sole intent is to live the parasite lifestyle at someone else's expense. No matter how many excuses or rationalizations are trotted out, the simple fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of deadbeats are that way because they are allowed and even encouraged to be by the neverending manna flowing from government coffers.

And BTW, if anyone wants me to pass a drug test before I file taxes, I'll be glad to.

[Larry]

Yup, but he WANTS to just get ****faced again, so just giving him $$ and letting him decide isn't the answer. Eat? Yes. Safe place to sleep? Sure. Shower, laundry? Yeah, why not. Blank check to just keep being a ****roach? Nope

Well, if this were a thread on whether the government should hand out blank checks, then that post sure would have closed it.

. . . the simple fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of deadbeats are that way because they are allowed and even encouraged to be by the neverending manna flowing from government coffers.

Wow. I bet it would only take you a few moments to come up with proof of that "simple fact", huh?

And BTW, if anyone wants me to pass a drug test before I file taxes, I'll be glad to.

Good thing I've got a Constitution that protects me from all the people who are afraid of freedom, huh?

[Fresh8686]

Waste of time and money for the most part IMO. IIRC cocaine clears your system in as little as 5 days and for those so far gone they can't control themselves for more than 5 days they'll end up breaking into people's houses to steal to support they're habit. Sounds like a lose lose situation to me.

And another thing, you can't overlook the fact that you would be punishing these addicts kids for the sins of they're parents. I don't feel comfortable letting kids starve because they've done nothing but be unlucky enough to be born to parents who use drugs.

[Predicto]

Yup, but he WANTS to just get ****faced again, so just giving him $$ and letting him decide isn't the answer. Eat? Yes. Safe place to sleep? Sure. Shower, laundry? Yeah, why not. Blank check to just keep being a ****roach? Nope

Then she needs to be spayed and the kids need attention from someone able to provide it. There is no God-given, constitutionally protected right to be a worthless sack o'crap whose sole intent is to live the parasite lifestyle at someone else's expense. No matter how many excuses or rationalizations are trotted out, the simple fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of deadbeats are that way because they are allowed and even encouraged to be by the neverending manna flowing from government coffers.

.

Blank check.... Neverending manna.... lol Do you know how much cash a single welfare recipient in California gets per month?

About 200 bucks.

Yeah, that's living the easy life.

[DRSmith]

Yes I believe you should test them, for two reasons one it helps those who are hurting themselves, secondly the money given to them is to help the over all economy also and the money spent on illegal goods does not help create demand and jobs.

[LD0506]

C'mon Predicto, you're smarter than that. The issue extends far beyond just people trading food stamps in @ 10c on the dollar to unscrupulous merchants for dope money (which, in spite of all the snarky commentary in the world, does happen a LOT), this thread addresses just one aspect of that. There are "families" that are in their third generation of fleecing the system for their livelihood, and all the rationalizations and denials that it is merely "struggling single mothers trying to offer the barest crumbs to their hungry urchins" the stark reality is that the system doesn't work and that abuse is rampant. Subsidizing addictions as a lifestyle choice is indefensible on any level.

A commonsense reality check: if this way of "helping" really helped, why does the problem grow worse the more money gets thrown at it?

[Riggo-toni]

You people realize most families of enlisted men in Iraq or Afghanistan qualify for food stamps? Would you want their wives required to take drug tests?

[DRSmith]

You people realize most families of enlisted men in Iraq or Afghanistan qualify for food stamps? Would you want their wives required to take drug tests?

Nobody who works for a living should be paid so little that they qualify for state aid

[Predicto]

C'mon Predicto, you're smarter than that. The issue extends far beyond just people trading food stamps in @ 10c on the dollar to unscrupulous merchants for dope money (which, in spite of all the snarky commentary in the world, does happen a LOT), this thread addresses just one aspect of that. There are "families" that are in their third generation of fleecing the system for their livelihood, and all the rationalizations and denials that it is merely "struggling single mothers trying to offer the barest crumbs to their hungry urchins" the stark reality is that the system doesn't work and that abuse is rampant. Subsidizing addictions as a lifestyle choice is indefensible on any level.

A commonsense reality check: if this way of "helping" really helped, why does the problem grow worse the more money gets thrown at it?

I can recognize a genuine problem and still think that this is a ridiculously bad "solution."

[Springfield]

So nobody really answered my question.

How much per tax dollar do we spend on welfare/food stamps?

[Beans]

i've seen some questionable things with food stamps before, having worked in a grocery store and growing up and living in an area with some poverty. i've yet to see anything like this. i always hear this scenario (usually followed by a beamer in the parking lot sitting on 22"s with spinners), but i've yet to see it.

this idea was proposed in WV 2 years ago (i posted it somewhere in the 'gate), but it died before it ever got to a vote.

Well, let me assure you, that as a teenager working in a grocery store on the "bad" side of town, I saw that happen every single day. Oh yeah, carts full of nothing but steaks and pork ribs was a norm as well. The grocery store loved it. Didn't have to load the groceries into too many BMWs or luxury cars. It seemed the most common vehicles were Explorers/Expeditions with/or without rims; however, if it was a mercedes or lexus (or something along those lines) it was more than likely 15+ years old.

[stevenaa]

Nobody who works for a living should be paid so little that they qualify for state aid

Correct. The level at which you qualify should be lowered. We're 'helping' people who could completely support themselves. But we wouldn't want them to be embarrassed by a lifestyle without flat panels and cell phones for each of their kids, and satelite/cable TV. I see the 'lifestyle' of people who qualify and use government assistance and it appalls me. There are truly impoverished families who need the assistance for genuine reasons. I belive they are the in the minority of recipients.

The assistance we provide should be aimed at educating the children of these families. Education is the only thing that will break the cycle. To continue to throw money at it, unregulated, only makes the situation worse.

[DRSmith]

Correct. The level at which you qualify should be lowered. We're 'helping' people who could completely support themselves. But we wouldn't want them to be embarrassed by a lifestyle without flat panels and cell phones for each of their kids, and satelite/cable TV. I see the 'lifestyle' of people who qualify and use government assistance and it appalls me. There are truly impoverished families who need the assistance for genuine reasons. I belive they are the in the minority of recipients.

The assistance we provide should be aimed at educating the children of these families. Education is the only thing that will break the cycle. To continue to throw money at it, unregulated, only makes the situation worse.

Or you raise the minimum wage, too many people working for a living qualify, or you start charging companies what ever the government has to provide in assistence to people and administration costs also.

People say they want less government and that private business is the key well let's start seeing private business be just that.

[Larry]

The issue extends far beyond just people trading food stamps in @ 10c on the dollar to unscrupulous merchants for dope money (which, in spite of all the snarky commentary in the world, does happen a LOT)

Why, I bet that any minute, now, you'll be able to come up with something that proves that, won't you? Something that shows exactly how often it happens, right?

There are "families" that are in their third generation of fleecing the system for their livelihood

I'll grant, I heard a radio story decades ago (I assume it was on NPR, since the story was longer than 30 seconds) about a family.

Single woman, never married, has never held a job in her entire life. She's "disabled": (She has a nervous condition that renders her unable to tolerate having a person tell her what to do, or some such. She tried working once or twice, but she just couldn't cope with people actually telling her to work.)

She has nine children.

None of her children have ever held a job, either.

She has 22 grandchildren, 13 of which are over the age of 18. Not one of them has ever held a job. Every one of them is "disabled".

(NPR managed to interview one of the grandchildren. When NPR identified themselves, and asked her about her situation, she told them "Just keep the money coming", and hung up the phone.)

So I'm aware that there exists, somewhere in the US, at least one person for whom your claim is true.

(Or at least that there was such a person. As I understand it, the rules changed, a lot, under Reagan. This may not be true, today. But still, I'd be really surprised if there wasn't one person, somewhere in the world, for whom it's true.)

OTOH, I also have heard the stat that the average person on welfare, is on welfare for something like sis weeks.

What that tells me is that, for every welfare queen, there must be thousands of people who are on welfare for three weeks each, to pull that average down.

So, frankly, if you really really want to point at your (completely unsupported) claims of the welfare queen, and then use that claim to argue that the thousands of genuine poor people don't exist, then you're gonna have to come up with a lot more support.

the stark reality is that the system doesn't work and that abuse is rampant.

Prove it.

[Hunter44]

You people realize most families of enlisted men in Iraq or Afghanistan qualify for food stamps? Would you want their wives required to take drug tests?

Yup.

[Springfield]

So nobody really answered my question.

How much per tax dollar do we spend on welfare/food stamps?

Looks like it's about 11% from what I can tell. Wouldn't that cost increase if you had to pay for all of those poor people to get drug tested?

I'm still against testing them by the way. By that logic, we should probably test all people who could possibly abuse our government. Test our senators and representatives. Test our troops. Test people applying for FHA home loans. Test people who have a 401k because well, that's not taxed.

No, you want to test poor people because they are the only ones using drugs.

I hear people from the right complaining about the democrats for creating a "parent state". You'd only be furthering the whole "parent state" model by testing welfare recipients for drugs.

[Mad Mike]

A commonsense reality check: if this way of "helping" really helped, why does the problem grow worse the more money gets thrown at it?

You want a common sense reality check? Here it is.

We are in the worst recession in a lifetime. Skilled, college educated people are out of work. Fat cats on wall street steal from the system and get multi-million dollar bonuses. But lets go after all of the poorest people in America. Lord knows we cant go after the "unscrupulous merchants" who are taking advantage of them. And not just the worst offenders. That wouldn't get enough people off the system. If they don't live up to your standards, F'm. Let them starve.

Honestly. The direction this nation is heading sickens me.

[elkabong82]

Correct. The level at which you qualify should be lowered. We're 'helping' people who could completely support themselves. But we wouldn't want them to be embarrassed by a lifestyle without flat panels and cell phones for each of their kids, and satelite/cable TV. I see the 'lifestyle' of people who qualify and use government assistance and it appalls me. There are truly impoverished families who need the assistance for genuine reasons. I belive they are the in the minority of recipients.

The assistance we provide should be aimed at educating the children of these families. Education is the only thing that will break the cycle. To continue to throw money at it, unregulated, only makes the situation worse.

People on government assistance aren't the only ones who try to live outside their means. The middle class does it as well. Yes, they work for a living so can spend as they please, but the middle class over-spending has had negative consequences as well, such as contributing to the housing and financial industry collapses, buying gas guzzling SUVs that weren't needed, helping to skyrocket the US over consumption of gas, and other extraneous spending which in the long run meant less money saved to pay bills which also contributed the economic downspiral. I don't want to say that I don't recognize the difference between recipients milking the system w/ irresponsible spending and wage earners sepnding irresponsibly, I do recognize that difference. All I'm saying is that most of us are middle class and have made poor spending decisions at one point, it is a general trend for the middle class to over spend, so we should at least be understanding of why people on assistance try to live greater than their means.

That doesn't mean it should be forgiven, and I've seen foodstamps which were limited to certain items, which I think is a good system to prevent poor spending choices. But I think there should be more understanding instead of apprently so many operating off the assumption that most recipients are lazy and just abusing the system. The system doesn't give them enough to live it up like kings on someone else's dime, which a bunch of people seem to be tryin to portray in here.

Do you have any evidence to support your belief that the majority of recipients don't need it?

I completely agree education is the best tool to break the poverty cycle. Free public education has been fundamental in our country's success. I even support having certain state colleges converted to where either tuition is covered by the state, or improving the financial aid system to have more qualify and for greater amounts. I think if college was set-up to where the majority of people who need financial aid get aid which basically pays for the entire experience we'd be better off as a country. I higher-educated populace, and going into higher-earning jobs so eventhough they accrued more debt they will be in a better situation to pay it off then someone who had to drop out half way through because financial aid didn;t cover enough (I personally saw this happen several times to friends while in college when the economy spiraled).

---------- Post added May-7th-2011 at 03:48 PM ----------

C'mon Predicto, you're smarter than that. The issue extends far beyond just people trading food stamps in @ 10c on the dollar to unscrupulous merchants for dope money (which, in spite of all the snarky commentary in the world, does happen a LOT), this thread addresses just one aspect of that. There are "families" that are in their third generation of fleecing the system for their livelihood, and all the rationalizations and denials that it is merely "struggling single mothers trying to offer the barest crumbs to their hungry urchins" the stark reality is that the system doesn't work and that abuse is rampant. Subsidizing addictions as a lifestyle choice is indefensible on any level.

A commonsense reality check: if this way of "helping" really helped, why does the problem grow worse the more money gets thrown at it?

That's a similar solution as to what country's who can't afford welfare use, like Mexico, much of South America, to not really throw much money at the problem because it won't work and they can't really afford the money.

History shows that the countries which remain 3rd world countries are those which cannot find a way to raise their poverty line and lowest quality of life. Poverty is a trap, once you fall in it's increasingly difficult to get out, like quick sand. Poor families rely on all their members to work, soas soon as they can they foresake school more and more in favor of work so the family can survive. Thus you get uneducated families that won't rise out of the lower class. The staggering difference in education between the noble and peasant class in the middle ages was perhaps the most significant reason why the classes remained so vastly separated for so long. Education is critical, and families that are so poor they need all members to work as soon as they can typically stop education in favor of work. And it's not like it's easy for them to gain more education later on, because they aren't in high-paying jobs so they can't afford the costs and time of school when they're working. There are many families like this, I see a lot of them down here in TN. It's not simply about a majority milking the system.

Bottom line, as history shows, the lower country's poverty line/lowest quality of life, the lower the country itself is overall.