Thread: UA for Public Assistance?

I needed a new SSN card so I went down to the SSN office and my eyes were opened. If you want a reason to believe public assistance/welfare needs to end go to any SSN office and listen to the conversations. Topics will include what to write on the forms to get the most from the government or which doctors to go to for exams. Even the people who work there are telling applicants what to write. They walk in with the support of a cane or crutches and when in the parking lot going home walk away without any problems.

Originally Posted by HNSB

Awesome! Now taxpayers wont have to pay for a few drug users to be on public assistance. They just need to pay for administering millions of drug tests every year.

Very good point. This whole thing has to do with principles more than it does with saving a few bucks. Those who think it will save money are wrong, it'll only make sure that people will feel they are not getting their tax dollars stolen by junkies. They'll be giving them to an additional expensive publicly administered government program instead.

So, if the botom line is $$, then this law will be completely and utterly useless.
It is strictly about not giving free money to junkies, which is can be a perfectly good reason to pass this law, I'm sure we'll find plenty of arguments to debate about this.

Now that brings another question: What happen's next ? Do the junies think rationaly and just say "Ah crap, I don't have enough money. Oh well, I'll just stop taking drugs". But if they think rationally, they wouldn't be doing drugs in the first place....

Or do they just steal an old woman's purse to get the money ?

I think I'll go and have some lunch, I'm finding questions but no anwers.

I enjoy the 4th amendment but between police road blocks and the TSA its pretty much gone. Plus, most folks these days have to pee in a cup to get a job. I want the people who get my tax money to pee in a cup, too.

Drug testing... Hmmm...
I think legalizing recreational drugs has a larger
potential for social good than this move. The levels
of crime stemming from and directly associated with
the war on drugs boggles the mind.

I do not approve of recreational drugs any more than I
approve of tobacco. And yes I was once a happy pipe smoker.
Having said that the current laws are causing much greater social
harm than they are resolving.

I might also add that current social programs are not well audited.
Agencies work hard to make it difficult to correlate all the largess
society bestows on the needy. For example those that qualify
for below market rate housing do not report the below market rate
delta as income and the landlord does not report this "hidden payment".
Child services are not honestly rolled into the income of a family tax
payer. With the net sum of all these services some but not all of
the needy live well above the level of a working stiff working two
jobs and breaking his back.

The governor of Florida is trying but ... I fear the net result will
be to fill prisons and push many more members of society out
of society for simply failing to pass a drug test.

This makes me so mad that ....
it is time for a scotch as soon as I know I do not have to drive tonight.
Perhaps I will have a fine cup of coffee or tea ... who knows.

Originally Posted by niftyshaving

Drug testing... Hmmm...
I think legalizing recreational drugs has a larger
potential for social good than this move. The levels
of crime stemming from and directly associated with
the war on drugs boggles the mind.

I do not approve of recreational drugs any more than I
approve of tobacco. And yes I was once a happy pipe smoker.
Having said that the current laws are causing much greater social
harm than they are resolving.

I might also add that current social programs are not well audited.
Agencies work hard to make it difficult to correlate all the largess
society bestows on the needy. For example those that qualify
for below market rate housing do not report the below market rate
delta as income and the landlord does not report this "hidden payment".
Child services are not honestly rolled into the income of a family tax
payer. With the net sum of all these services some but not all of
the needy live well above the level of a working stiff working two
jobs and breaking his back.

The governor of Florida is trying but ... I fear the net result will
be to fill prisons and push many more members of society out
of society for simply failing to pass a drug test.

This makes me so mad that ....
it is time for a scotch as soon as I know I do not have to drive tonight.
Perhaps I will have a fine cup of coffee or tea ... who knows.

I wish there was an emoticon for standing up and applauding.

I had to submit to a drug test before being employed and randoms while I EARN MY PAYCHECK, I'm glad they are making everyone (even if I get down on my luck and need help) test for drugs. Finally some tax money well spent!

Originally Posted by shooter74743

I had to submit to a drug test before being employed and randoms while I EARN MY PAYCHECK, I'm glad they are making everyone (even if I get down on my luck and need help) test for drugs. Finally some tax money well spent!

I don't think you (and apparently many of the previous posters) understand what the bill does. They are not making everyone, just a small fraction of people, take the test. This is simply cheap populist politics to capitalize on the gullibility of those who're better at following than at critical thinking.

When the governor, the legislature, the judges, etc. start peeing in a cup before voting or signing anything, and the results of the tests are made public afterwards, then things like this may become meaningful.

Athletes do it, a lot of the decent private sector jobs do it, now that it's supposed to enter the public sector, why restrict the great benefits of this system to only the ones on welfare?

I care way way more whether the governor, the president, the judge, the congressman, etc. is a crackhead than whether the bum on the street corner is. The decisions the last one makes are next to irrelevant for my well being, while the decisions of the former can have effect on my grandchildren.

Originally Posted by gugi

I care way way more whether the governor, the president, the judge, the congressman, etc. is a crackhead than whether the bum on the street corner is. The decisions the last one makes are next to irrelevant for my well being, while the decisions of the former can have effect on my grandchildren.

Agreed. However, there are constitutional (both federal and state) measures to remove these people from office. Not the case with the welfare recipient. Additionally, we as taxpayers are paying these officials to perform a job, whereas to the welfare recipient it has been shown that is not often enough the case. I think what people are looking for here is some small measure of control over out-of-control spending, especially on those which a majority of us can agree do not deserve it.

This is most certainly true, there are measures to remove them from office if they break the law, but they're not tested for drugs on a consistent basis if at all, so this really makes it a bit toothless. It's the same principle that the republicans argue the existence of big voting fraud due to photoID not being required.

The welfare recipients are paid to perform a job as well. That job is is to not engage en masse in violent crime. If this had anything to do with money we'll be seing the actual fiscal motivation of such policy with serious data and models that can be verified. But presenting to the public truthful estimates of the cost of such policy including expenses and crime increases is probably a political suicide.

If my rather hard-earned tax dollars are paying someone to simply not engage in violent crime then I need to get my butt out there and commit some felony batteries, because I haven't seen a dime of that money, myself.

We are paying people out of our own pocket simply out of a fear that they will commit violent crimes if we don't? I cannot agree with the theory or the logic behind that. Violent criminals ought to get cells and bars, not cash.

I read today that if the testees (I love that word) fail the test they, not the state, foot the bill. The fiscal motivation is that many numbers of drug tests are cheaper than throwing money away month after month on someone who has no intention on improving his situation. I do agree, though, I too would like to see the predicted numbers and how they play out. This needs more "oomph" behind it to look justified.

Welfare has its place, I suppose. But I think recently it's entered dark territory in that it's becoming a permanent entitlement, rather than a temporary boost. I like the initiative here in trying to re-steer that ship.