Killer Joe
New member
Hey, do you think welfare recipients or anyone recieveing Gov't assistance of any kind ought to be subjected to random drug testing?
Drug Testing for Welfare recipents
- Thread starter Killer Joe
- Start date
E
EricBess
Guest
Does it matter? Even if it's supplemental, if the people on welfare are purchasing drugs, should they be receiving that supplement?
Personally, I think the welfare system in this country is pretty messed up. It is structured in such a way as to make people dependent. I don't know all the rules, but what I've seen is that it tends to be all-or-nothing, so if you get a better job, you suddenly lose welfare completely and take a loss. Where is the incentive to contribute to society if you get less money for it? Sure, if the job pays well enough, but typically, if someone is on welfare, it is because they either don't have a job or have a very low-paying job. How many people do you know in very low-paying jobs that have the skill-set to get a high-paying job without working their way up the ladder? If there were some sort of sliding scale, there might be an incentive to try.
But as to the question at hand, if you take government money, they you should be willing to subject yourself to the rules of that money.
Personally, I think the welfare system in this country is pretty messed up. It is structured in such a way as to make people dependent. I don't know all the rules, but what I've seen is that it tends to be all-or-nothing, so if you get a better job, you suddenly lose welfare completely and take a loss. Where is the incentive to contribute to society if you get less money for it? Sure, if the job pays well enough, but typically, if someone is on welfare, it is because they either don't have a job or have a very low-paying job. How many people do you know in very low-paying jobs that have the skill-set to get a high-paying job without working their way up the ladder? If there were some sort of sliding scale, there might be an incentive to try.
But as to the question at hand, if you take government money, they you should be willing to subject yourself to the rules of that money.
It matters, because they aren't using the government money for the drugs, so why should they be subjected to drug tests?
So... it's the "taking" (or receiving) of government money that should subject the recipients to certain rules/restriction?
How about government employees? They are being paid "by the government" and thus are the recipients of government money. Should they be subjected to drug tests to make sure they're not using their salaries to buy drugs?
Let's extend this further. There are family-planning programs that recieve government money to help their "constituents". Should they be forced to use birth control or basically, itemize the money received to make sure it goes towards "family" needs?
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
Spidey, Government employees aren't being given money, they are earning it.... big difference
Also, if recipients are buying drugs it's with welfare money, just redistribution of resources.... if you get $100 from the government and make $50 bucks on your own, but spend $25 on drugs, which money did you spend? It doesn't matter, it came from the same pool of money.
But, what moron thought up the idea of drug testing welfare recipients? Does anyone realize how much that would cost and how much bigger the government has to be to administer that program?
Also, if recipients are buying drugs it's with welfare money, just redistribution of resources.... if you get $100 from the government and make $50 bucks on your own, but spend $25 on drugs, which money did you spend? It doesn't matter, it came from the same pool of money.
But, what moron thought up the idea of drug testing welfare recipients? Does anyone realize how much that would cost and how much bigger the government has to be to administer that program?
Killer Joe
New member
No one thought of it, I was just just asking a question because I keep thinking of what some conservatives are calling wasteful spending; welfare seems to fit that bill. Also, the drug testing could be syphoned from the welfare recipent's money; they test positive they pay for it, if they don't the Gov'tpays for it. Also, random testing is much easier than all to be tested.
The Tea Partyers are OUTRAGED citizens and I am inclined to agree with some of the schools of thought; like wasteful spending. The personal problem I have is that liberals want to oppose any school of thought that opposition parties have and visa versa goes without saying. My Dad left my Mom high and dry with no income or any way for her to earn money (he believed the little woman should stay home). I was 1 year old and she had to move in to her mother's house and needed assistence; welfare. We were on welfare for about a year or so until she was able to take a civil service test and got a job with the state as a secretary then we were off of welfare. It was a temporary support of money when we needed it. She got her act together and took the CS test ant a got. Surely she isn't the only one who could do that. Huh? Maybe I'm wrong and most welfare recients do that and I just don't KNOW about it.....or maybe pigs fly.
The Tea Partyers are OUTRAGED citizens and I am inclined to agree with some of the schools of thought; like wasteful spending. The personal problem I have is that liberals want to oppose any school of thought that opposition parties have and visa versa goes without saying. My Dad left my Mom high and dry with no income or any way for her to earn money (he believed the little woman should stay home). I was 1 year old and she had to move in to her mother's house and needed assistence; welfare. We were on welfare for about a year or so until she was able to take a civil service test and got a job with the state as a secretary then we were off of welfare. It was a temporary support of money when we needed it. She got her act together and took the CS test ant a got. Surely she isn't the only one who could do that. Huh? Maybe I'm wrong and most welfare recients do that and I just don't KNOW about it.....or maybe pigs fly.
Not really. Aside from the fact that I'm sure a lot of employees do other things than work (I'm a good example
), the point is that the money all comes from the "tax money pool". Taxpayers pay into the pool and the government determines how it's doled out. It doesn't matter if it's part of a welfare program or someone's salary, once the tax is paid, taxpayers lose any direct control over how it's spent.I would be far more interested in trying to curb waste via fraud - I bet there is a LOT more money being wasted that way by paying people who falsely claim disability or whatever via Social Security's Title 16 program or Medicare (two big programs that I can think of). In fact, I know personally of two situation where either it's happening or probably will happen. And we all know this is going on, as opposed to speculation of whether welfare recipients are using their money for drugs or not.
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
If you see welfare recipients and government employees as the same or the money allotted to them as the same, then I can't discuss this any further, since earning something and getting it for nothing are very different. That it comes from the same "pool" is irrelevant.
I do agree that fraud is a big problem, as is inefficient spending.... I am of the idea that we shouldn't ask for smaller government or bigger government, but more efficient governement.
I do agree that fraud is a big problem, as is inefficient spending.... I am of the idea that we shouldn't ask for smaller government or bigger government, but more efficient governement.
turgy22
Nothing Special
I think you and Mooseman are closer to being in agreement than you're sounding. The argument is that there's currently very little accountability in welfare recipiency (<--- not a word, but you get the idea.) All you need to do to get a check is to be poor. That's basically the only requirement (although I'm guessing you also need to prove that you're poor.)
When a government worker goes to their job, even if they aren't working for 40 fully productive hours a week, at the very least, they're at their place of employment, probably under someone's supervision. If that supervisor happens to catch them, let's say, building a tribal deck when they should be working, there's a possibility they'll be fired or at least receive some sort of reprimand. The same isn't true for a welfare recipient to receive a check.
While I don't necessarily think welfare recipients should be subjected to drug testing, I can see the logic behind the idea (though, as Mooseman said, it would probably just end up being a bigger waste of money than not). As things stand now, companies that do pay their workers for actual work have the right to set some standards for outside-the-office behavior, including drug testing. I don't see why things should be any different for people that aren't working.
When a government worker goes to their job, even if they aren't working for 40 fully productive hours a week, at the very least, they're at their place of employment, probably under someone's supervision. If that supervisor happens to catch them, let's say, building a tribal deck when they should be working, there's a possibility they'll be fired or at least receive some sort of reprimand. The same isn't true for a welfare recipient to receive a check.
While I don't necessarily think welfare recipients should be subjected to drug testing, I can see the logic behind the idea (though, as Mooseman said, it would probably just end up being a bigger waste of money than not). As things stand now, companies that do pay their workers for actual work have the right to set some standards for outside-the-office behavior, including drug testing. I don't see why things should be any different for people that aren't working.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Ok, let me try to put one of these points on an even keel. Yes, I think Welfare recipients should be subjected to random drug testing. I also think that most government positions do administer drug testing upon initial hire, and possibly some do random testing and some may even impliment testing after any injury incident. Most of the jobs I have worked at (except those in the restaurant industry, go figure) have required drug testing prior to hire, and occasionally do random testing. As for the "pool of money" I agree with Moose here. The difference is earning versus non-earned. Even if someone "goofs off" all day at thier job, they are still at a job. I have had varying degrees of physical employment. The most money I ever made at a job also gave me the most free time during my work hours. Look at it as a perk (as long as your boss don't find out ). I agree that even though government employment in general may be a very lax job, it makes it a very desireable position and that the bit of work that gets done in that position is possibly (well...maybe) being done by a qualified individual. They are still earning thier pay, even if it is not as back breaking as pouring concrete. A person on Welfare that sits around filling his nose, shooting up, whatever, is not even trying to be a contributing member of society. They are being a drag and therefore should not be recieving this free money until such time as they can clean up thier act.
Yes, there is/may be a ton of wasteful spending, and no, I am sure that we cannot eliminate all of it. But anywhere that we could make a start is better than not trying at all.
). I agree that even though government employment in general may be a very lax job, it makes it a very desireable position and that the bit of work that gets done in that position is possibly (well...maybe) being done by a qualified individual. They are still earning thier pay, even if it is not as back breaking as pouring concrete. A person on Welfare that sits around filling his nose, shooting up, whatever, is not even trying to be a contributing member of society. They are being a drag and therefore should not be recieving this free money until such time as they can clean up thier act.Yes, there is/may be a ton of wasteful spending, and no, I am sure that we cannot eliminate all of it. But anywhere that we could make a start is better than not trying at all.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Yay for posting something at the same time as turgy, and even if it may not look the same, he hit a lot of the same points (with the same opinions that I have) that I did.
Killer Joe
New member
reipiency? Oh, I see that the "PALIN" runs strong in you, it does.
More Efficient Government, I LIKE that!
More Efficient Government, I LIKE that!
Well, they get cut off, I believe. Either way, the source in income is cut.turgy22 said:
I also specifically said government employees, NOT private sector employees as they're not getting paid from the "tax pool" and the owners can subject their employees to whatever they want (within reason, but you hopefully get the point).
It's akin to "bigger government", which isn't the necessarily the subject here, but imaginably, if you held government employees accountable for their hours, the government could conceivable get smaller.
So let's say we get rid of the welfare drug users. What do they do next? They're probably not going to give up drugs, so they need to get the money in some other way. Presumably this means stealing it, since if they weren't getting by with the income they had with welfare, they sure aren't by then. So someone's belongings are taken, someone could get caught, someone goes through the legal system, someone could be incarcerated and/or have their public defense paid, etc.
The taxpayer is paying for some or all of this in some way. So in the long run, what does it matter if someone misuses welfare money vs having their costs paid in other ways societally?
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Would it be cold and callous to suggest leaving them out in the cold (Darwinism, even though ultimately he was not correct in all his theories)?