HailGreen28 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 A single mother has five children. All the children are on public assistance. Mom fails a drug test. What do you do?Stop the welfare checks immediately. Take the kids away NOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Stop the welfare checks immediately. Take the kids away NOW. Where do the kids go? What happens to mom? (I've spent the last six months dealing with Texas CPS regarding a potential adoption, and I don't exactly have a ton of faith in the foster care system). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinnedAussie Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 A single mother has five children. All the children are on public assistance. Mom fails a drug test. What do you do? Do you know our neighbour? If you add driving an unregistered vehicle since early March to that, that would be our neighbour to a tee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I want monthly drug tests for all politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Not having 600 dollars that you didn't work for or hustle for. Not having a roof over your head that you barely pay for. Not having free lunches at school for your kids. You need more ? oh great more homeless people, wonderful I want monthly drug tests for all politicians. +millions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Where do the kids go?What happens to mom? (I've spent the last six months dealing with Texas CPS regarding a potential adoption' date=' and I don't exactly have a ton of faith in the foster care system).[/quote']Grandparents. Biological father. Other relatives. Adoption. Foster home. Orphanages. Boys and Girls Homes. Given the low bar set by a drug addicted welfare single mother of 5, one of these will be an upgrade. You care about these children, don't you? We're assuming she's an adult, right? If she's smart, drug rehab. If she can't, how the hell can she responsibly raise 5 kids? If she's not an adult, there are juvie options like the ones for the younger kids, that could help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 It's nice to sit up there and pontificate on what statisitics say. Yeah, it's terrible the way the folks who aren't saying "Eff 'em, I don't care if they need to eat" are sitting up there and pontificating. And even worse, we're doing it based on the statistically average person on welfare, when we clearly should be basing our opinion on the exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 i think the whole 'people gotta eat' argument is a little shallow. honestly, if there are people starving, it sure as hell is being underreported. this is not a third world country. not alot of death by starvation going on. purely an extreme emotional argument. still, it should be handled like WIC is, where at least the coupons need to be used on food. i recall when i was working at a grocery store years ago, people would come in with their WIC coupons. gotta admit it drove me nuts to see them get 50 bucks worth of free groceries, then go to the cigarette counter and buy a carton of cigarettes. i know someone who got WIC coupons recently. my man would go to the store, get the nicest cuts of steak, among other things, and break out his WIC coupon. here i am waiting for a sale on the cheap stuff, and he's milking the system. he was also a raging pothead, but whatever. i dont have a problem with weed, but i do have a problem with what was going on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Grandparents. Biological father. Other relatives. Adoption. Foster home. Orphanages. Boys and Girls Homes. Given the low bar set by a drug addicted welfare single mother of 5, one of these will be an upgrade. You care about these children, don't you?QUOTE] As an adoptive parent whose home will be the foster home for another fostered kid in August, I call BS. There aren't enough foster homes. It took us 2 and 3 years to adopt our kids, and ours were cut and dry cases so the costs of just adopting are high. Read about the Orphanages and Boys and Girls Homes. Read some of the accounts of people going through them (Hope's Boy is one of my favorites or you can read some of the books on the Raven's Ohr (not just the movie)). Even if one makes a huge stretch and stipulates that options exist, you should probably look at the impact of spearating a kid from their biological family. There are HUGE attachment issues both for the moms and the kids. Just read Primal Wound for some basic research even though it is a tough sell/read for those who want emotional justice. It just doesn't exist. There probably are issues for dads too. I just don't know the research as well. So now you have separated the kids from the bio family and are paying a stipend which is more than you would have paid to the parent. How sure of the better outcome are you, and how are you defining better? On the "they aren't really going hungry" argument which seems to be common, the numbers seem to vary depending on the search, but it's either 37 million or 38 million in the U.S. are food source insecure. One link to a large study: http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/hunger-study-2010.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I would rather the kid(s) not be with the biological parent if clearly they cant raise them properly anyway. It's sad. But sadder to raise them in an environment where the parent(s) are abusing drugs instead of taking care of the children. Enabling drug users is certainly not a viable answer after all these years of proving it to them and ourselves. At this point we should understand that. They do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Yeah, it's terrible the way the folks who aren't saying "Eff 'em, I don't care if they need to eat" are sitting up there and pontificating. And even worse, we're doing it based on the statistically average person on welfare, when we clearly should be basing our opinion on the exceptions. As I said, from my experience, the exceptions are those who treat the system honestly. If i gambled, I'd bet my last ten bucks I know a lot more welfare recipients than you do, and that my firsthand experience with the people who fill up welfare rolls is much more extensive. I never said "F em". what you don't seem to get is they are F'ing themselves. Have you ever known a junkie? ever created one? I've known more than a few, and due to past "career" choices, I've seen what those products do to people first hand. I've assisted in their downfall, and I never gave anything to anyone that did not WANT to be where they were going. (and I never called anyone to make a sale. Never had to "sell" it to anyone. On the other hand my pager never stopped buzzing. Day or night.) The choice is there and it's entirely theirs. Stop doing it, get help, or lose your welfare. And if they make the wrong choice, just who is F'ing their kids? I've walked MANY miles in those shoes. Been on both sides of the addiction counter. Have you? I've had to make this choice. I had to choose between cocaine and my family. I got to the point where everything was on the edge of the cliff, and I made the right decision to stop. (Cold turkey, mind you. However, I don't pretend that everyone can do that. If I may be allowed a moment of indulgence, I've got willpower in excess. I'm a hard case when it comes to making up my mind to do something. So I absolutely know that it's hard to do , and that it can be done if that is what is desired. And often, that desire only comes when rock bottom is in view..) It's not impossible, and if I had chosen incorrectly, everything that would have happened to me would have been a result of that choice, and that is MY responsibility. I'll take my 32 years of firsthand experience with drugs and my 47 year experience of being lower middle class and living among these people who fill up your statistic pages.. over glancing at some numbers and pie charts and pretending I know what goes on. This is what fuels my stance on this issue. Firsthand knowledge. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 The costs involved with implementing this law are greater than the savings. I LOVE the idea of cutting off the govt teet from scum, the problem is, this only cuts off the flow from one avenue, and has way to many unintended consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 The costs involved with implementing this law are greater than the savings.I LOVE the idea of cutting off the govt teet from scum, the problem is, this only cuts off the flow from one avenue, and has way to many unintended consequences. Re-reading the post. Then looking at who wrote it. Then re-reading the post. Trying to get my jaw off my chest. Kilmer, you bleeding heart liberal, you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Interesting takes, for sure. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Did anyone give any thought to it not being an all-or-nothing proposition? Such as, if you test clean you get X amount, if you test positive you get X minus some amount. That way the people that use drugs and abuse the system get punished, but don't starve (unless they choose to spend ALL the money on drugs). The people that do what they are supposed to be doing get rewarded, and there is a financial incentive to be in the latter group? Obviously not a perfect solution, but it seems like it might be worthy of discussion. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Did anyone give any thought to it not being an all-or-nothing proposition? Such as, if you test clean you get X amount, if you test positive you get X minus some amount.That way the people that use drugs and abuse the system get punished, but don't starve (unless they choose to spend ALL the money on drugs). The people that do what they are supposed to be doing get rewarded, and there is a financial incentive to be in the latter group? Obviously not a perfect solution, but it seems like it might be worthy of discussion. :whoknows: The real danger is not really people starving. The real danger to me is that the government now has this ability to track the lifestyle of tens of thousands of people. On the one hand, no one wants a child living at home with a severe drug addict. On the other hand, people have a right to privacy. And on the third hand, we don't know what to do with foster children now. What this kind of law creates is a database of behaviors for a highly vulnerable class and it creates an impetus to completely overload an already overloaded foster care network. If Child Protective Services knows that drugs are in a home, they have an obligation to respond. There is no "Oh...it's just a little weed" or "She did some coke at a party last week." If you create an occasion where you know that someone has used AND you know that person no longer has any money at all, you have to respond. You are going to be vastly increasing the burden on an already overburned system and vastly increasing the number of kids in a foster care system that does not have enough foster parents. And you are going to be doing this without creating any real support system for those who need help. The only way this could possibly work is by spending an incredible amount of money. If you test positive, you are given free treatment for 90 days while your children are placed in a safe, well-funded home. Then a counselor works on family reunification while another counselor works on job training. Also, you need to provide some kind of child care to allow the parent to ease into the workforce. In other words, instead of a $600 check, you are spending about $100,000 to actually heal a family. If you implement those ideas, I can get behind drug testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 The real danger is not really people starving. i agree with this The real danger to me is that the government now has this ability to track the lifestyle of tens of thousands of people.doesnt the govt have a right to urine test employees? what about background checks? lets say someone made a mistake 15 years ago. i believe there are many govt jobs one would not qualify for, yet i'd rather hire that person over a drug addict. they can track the lifestyle of employees, but not the lifestyle of those getting 'free' money? i'm more inclined to buy the cost/benefit argument, if any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 The real danger is not really people starving. The real danger to me is that the government now has this ability to track the lifestyle of tens of thousands of people. I realize people arent going to actually starve. I was just using it as a blanket term for "being poor as **** and needy." And i dunno. Companies track a lot of the lifestyle habits of their employees. If you are on the government payroll basically, whats the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I realize people arent going to actually starve. I was just using it as a blanket term for "being poor as **** and needy."And i dunno. Companies track a lot of the lifestyle habits of their employees. If you are on the government payroll basically, whats the difference? Generally speaking, I'm against in drug testing for everyone except those with an obvious role in public safety. And I think the idea that welfare recipients are "employees" is a bridge too far. If they are employees, they should make minimum wage and have benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kubstix Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 The real danger is not really people starving. The real danger to me is that the government now has this ability to track the lifestyle of tens of thousands of people. Track the lifestyle of tens of thousands of people who receive checks from the GOVERNMENT. Does your employer who you receive checks from ever give you a drug test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Track the lifestyle of tens of thousands of people who receive checks from the GOVERNMENT. Does your employer who you receive checks from ever give you a drug test? A. No, I've never taken an employee drug test. B. They aren't employees. If you want to start classifying them as employees, that's fine. Because I will start quoting employment laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Generally speaking' date=' I'm against in drug testing for everyone except those with an obvious role in public safety.And I think the idea that welfare recipients are "employees" is a bridge too far. If they are employees, they should make minimum wage and have benefits.[/quote'] I'm not saying they should be treated like employees. Employees, by definition, work. These folks don't. I'm saying that subjecting them to certain minimum standards such as what are commonly required of employees does not get me up in arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 One other thing to consider is that there's a purely selfish angle to welfare, for you and I - the people who pay in to the system. I don't want to see vagrants roaming around my town. I'm happy to chip in a few dollars every month so that these people (whether they're lazy, addicted to drugs, have mental illness, or whatever) have some money to do whatever. The alternative is to have more homeless people, and I personally am not very interested in having more people on my streets. And like I said earlier, if we're going to do this, we should also do it for anyone who gets money from the state in the form of tax breaks, college tuition grants, or anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I'd support the measure if it was at minimum cost neutral. But it's going to end up COSTING the state more money. I supported Scott when he refused to take Fed money for the stupid train because it was going to end up COSTING the state more money than it would have brought in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 One other thing to consider is that there's a purely selfish angle to welfare, for you and I - the people who pay in to the system. I don't want to see vagrants roaming around my town. I'm happy to chip in a few dollars every month so that these people (whether they're lazy, addicted to drugs, have mental illness, or whatever) have some money to do whatever. The alternative is to have more homeless people, and I personally am not very interested in having more people on my streets.And like I said earlier, if we're going to do this, we should also do it for anyone who gets money from the state in the form of tax breaks, college tuition grants, or anything else. Continuing further down that train of thought, a lot of disaffected, desperate and homeless people will turn to crime or rioting in the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.