Proposal to Curb Welfare and Drug Abuse

5 Salt · 11-07-2007, 10:36 AM

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job.

I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to earn that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test - a hurdle for which I have no regrets.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who are not required to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to receive public assistance/welfare check? I certainly must so I can earn it for them.

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, however, have a problem with helping those who are clearly not interested in contributing to the economy and our society's greater benefit.

Imagine the money the State and Fed would save if people had to pass a urine test to receive a public assistance. If one wants to stop abuse of both kinds why not kill two birds with one test?

I am begining a letter writting campaign to my elected officials - join me if you agree.

Joe C · 11-07-2007, 11:07 AM

I've got no prob with restrictions for welfare recipients, I just think this could end up costing a lot more money than it would save. You'd need doctors or nurses to oversee the sampling process, laboratory fees, administrative staff to process all the paperwork and lab work. You'd probably need some attorneys to handle ACLU lawsuits.

Then again, I suppose if you consider it the type of thing where the benefits to society outweigh any financial costs, it could be a good idea.

CATCH AND EAT · 11-07-2007, 11:13 AM

Never really looked at it that way but I certainly understand your thought process. From a conservative point of view on paper it looks good. From a humanity point of view it is a bit distressing to think of letting people die on the streets because they could not control their addictions. I posted a thread not long ago about the government getting into the needle and pusher business of administering illegal drugs in San Francisco. Some agreed and some disagreed as to what was legally and morally right.

While I like your idea I do have issues with it. Safety of the individual denied care often trickles down to young children that were not given a choice of whom their parents were going to be. Thus starts the process that we automatically have to involved CSD in this mix of urinalysis testing to recieve aid. They fail the test, CSD steps in to protect the children, they pass the test no huge deal.

I too am frustrated with 18 year old dropouts having kid after kid after kid to get a raise in welfare. How do you stop this? Answer is you don't. You could certainly limit the amount of welfare to two children but then you will have a rise in abandoned children put into the social system. Here we go again with CSD.

Obviously sterilization is not the PC answer either. And if you are poor it is certainly no high on the list to use prescriptions for birth control or even purchase condoms.

I can appreciate what you are thinking here. Perhaps with more thought and planning your idea could work. But to just arbitrarily say test for aid, just not gonna fly.

Perhaps you can expand on your idea here so we can help the thought process you are following along and come up with some not so complex answers. Lots to think about and like I said I like the idea in general.

Irish Pennant · 11-07-2007, 11:53 AM

Before you go after the people at the low end of the totem pole, I think that drug test should first be done for all the elected officials, then on their consultants and on all lobbyist. Fix the head before the body.

Hogmaster · 11-07-2007, 12:59 PM

Calvin, I just don't understand what you propose with those that fail the drug tests. Are they to go to the street? Will they drain us worse through thievery, violent crime and/or jail time? As has been pointed out, do the children suffer excessively from such a policy? CSD can't keep up today, so it seems extremely doubtful that nuturing homes could be found for those kids. I understand a point could be made how much nurturing they receive today, but at least they would not be on the street, starving.

Ideally, I say let 'em hang. Realistically, I say try to encourage change. If they are able-bodied, get them a job. Give them a jail or work choice, and then hold to it...

weekender · 11-07-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hogmaster

If they are able-bodied, get them a job.

There is plenty of work out there. If they were interested in having a job they would have one.

Why work for $7 a hour when the state will pay you $6 an hour to stay home?

My personal opinion is that you should only be able to collect welfare without employment for as long as a normal person can collect unemployment. After that you have to work 40 a week to be eligible. If the money you make working 40 a week isn’t enough to live on, then your income is subsidized with welfare. Don’t want to flip burgers, pick beans, or do remedial labor? That’s fine, but you also don’t get the free handout.

crabbait · 11-07-2007, 04:18 PM

Then there is this little problem with the Constitution. Currently, the government can only drug test people who are in "safety related" positions, like those operating heavy machinery, air traffic controllers and the military.

In the current culture, I'm sure that would be a small hurdle as long as the poor get poorer.

mandinga · 11-07-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5-Salt Fever

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job.

I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to earn that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test - a hurdle for which I have no regrets.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who are not required to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to receive public assistance/welfare check? I certainly must so I can earn it for them.

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, however, have a problem with helping those who are clearly not interested in contributing to the economy and our society's greater benefit.

Imagine the money the State and Fed would save if people had to pass a urine test to receive a public assistance. If one wants to stop abuse of both kinds why not kill two birds with one test?

I am begining a letter writting campaign to my elected officials - join me if you agree.

I'm all for ending welfare and drub abuse....but this plan won't do either.

It will surely stir up a little net controversy...which is always fun.

JustCallMeDave · 11-07-2007, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5-Salt Fever

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to receive public assistance/welfare check? I certainly must so I can earn it for them.

Absolutely. That's why I'm advocating for a requirement for all elected government officials to submit to random drug tests.

lost_sailor · 11-07-2007, 07:49 PM

I'd rather that people were judged not by the chemistry of their urine, but by the content of their character.

I wish more people could stop seeing "the government" as some external force. If we stop and believe in the vision of the Revolutionary Americans (Ben, John, Sam, Tom, George et al), government of the people could really REALLY work.

Participate. I'm glad you all have to pee to get work. I guess ?? It seems weird.

Bait O' Eggs · 11-07-2007, 08:35 PM

Nice post Calvin

You are a wise man.

If they cant pass a drug test, no goverment handouts

If they choose to spend their money on drugs rather than supporting themselves, let Darwin complete his mission.

I dont like paying for both my groceries and their groceries. Since I am paying for their groceries, the only thanks I ask they let me go first by moving to the rear of the line.

The constitution may not allow drug testing of citizens, but that same document says nothing about druggies having a right to food stamps

matttheduck · 11-07-2007, 09:42 PM

I don't have any problem with taking random drug tests because - barring a false positive - I will pass every time.

It's probably not practical to have a "one strike and you're out" drug testing policy for recipients of government aid. I can certainly see it as a tool to identify who needs treatment programs and as an incentive to get people off the drugs. However, that kind of incentive is only going to reach a fraction of the drug users - they've refused to give up the drugs in the face of losing jobs, families, etc - would the threat of losing government assistance if they don't get clean in 3 months be a greater incentive? I don't know.

As long as you treat every recipient of government largesse the same - welfare, Medicare, defense contractors, Social Security, everyone, I don't think you'll run into any equal protection problems.

Queeg · 11-08-2007, 01:42 PM

Depends on the intent and the action we take when we identify the addicts. The original post seems to suggest we just cut them off and leave them to die in the street. If the intent is to provide them the opportunity to get help and try to reclaim their lives, maybe it's a good idea. But we'll need to sink billions into funding for effective treatment. SORRY.

What would Jesus do? Take the addict in and feed him, or kick him to the curb and spit in his face?

Clyde · 11-08-2007, 06:10 PM

The strong must always take care of the weak.

Silver Hilton · 11-08-2007, 07:05 PM

According to this http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/AX45.PDF, the average income of a family receiving AFDC in Oregon is $580 a month. How would you do living on that?

It costs about my employer about $125 to administer a drug test, which is about 25% of the monthly AFDC check. I'd be surprised if the government can get it done cheaper - we do a lot of them. If the program is to be meaningful in deterring abuse, you'd need to do it every week, so you'd basically double of the cost of welfare. That will have to come out of either raising taxes, or cutting some other spending. If you take it from the welfare program itself, you are literally taking food from the mouths of babies to feed your anger.

Now, most of the people on AFDC are single mothers. In my limited experience with these folks, they generally want the same as other mothers, to feed their kids and help them to grow up to do better than their parents. Perhaps it would be good to get some data that indicates that there is a high rate of drug abuse in this group before stepping up to this cost.

There is a lot of implicit cruelty and hatred in your proposition, that I think you should examine. I don't think Jesus would approve.

5 Salt · 11-09-2007, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Pennant

Before you go after the people at the low end of the totem pole, I think that drug test should first be done for all the elected officials, then on their consultants and on all lobbyist. Fix the head before the body.

Start from both ends and meet in the middle!

Mrs.Sharpshooter · 11-09-2007, 08:01 AM

"Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job.

I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to earn that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test - a hurdle for which I have no regrets.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who are not required to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to receive public assistance/welfare check? I certainly must so I can earn it for them.

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, however, have a problem with helping those who are clearly not interested in contributing to the economy and our society's greater benefit.

Imagine the money the State and Fed would save if people had to pass a urine test to receive a public assistance. If one wants to stop abuse of both kinds why not kill two birds with one test?

I am begining a letter writting campaign to my elected officials - join me if you agree."
__________________
I AGREE!!!! couldnt have said it better myself.