Thread: UA for Public Assistance?

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.

You know, on second thought, maybe I do agree that it's more than fiscally-motivated. I'll boil it down to my opinion, then bow out.

Drugs are illegal, but that's mostly besides the point. In my opinion, you are free to put whatever you want in your body. If you want to have a drink, go ahead. If you want a sandwich, go nuts. If you want to smoke some crack, be my guest. Sky's the limit.

What you are not free to do, under any circumstances, is force me to pay for you to do any of that. That is, to me, a fundamental difference in opinion.

Well, I'm sorry to be the one to bust your bubble, but a lot of economically motivated policy is sold to the public as nothing more than 'value' or 'principle' based. This is possible to large extent because most people have blind spot to the 'values' and the 'principles' when those go contrary with their political and/or economic biases.

And then there's the inverse too, 'value' based policy is being presented as economically motivated, especially these days.

It's a pretty perverse system, but it's one of the costs of a democracy, I suppose.

I think the society will be quite different if people are actually given honest assessment of the cost of the 'value' based policies, so instead of blindly rallying behind their politics of choice they could involve a little more rational thinking whether their 'principles' are worth the money it'll cost them.


If you want you can read some basic books on economics, or if those are too boring try some freakonomics-type articles.

Originally Posted by gugi

If you want you can read some basic books on economics, or if those are too boring try some freakonomics-type articles.

I would, but I have no idea how to read. ;(

Originally Posted by Jimbo7

I would, but I have no idea how to read. ;(

It's ok, as long as you know how to right...

The biggest question I have is this:

If the bill passes, WHAT PROBLEM WILL IT SOLVE ?

Originally Posted by Glenn24

The biggest question I have is this:

If the bill passes, WHAT PROBLEM WILL IT SOLVE ?

Really, it won't solve anything. All it is is a bit of political grandstanding.

Originally Posted by Glenn24

The biggest question I have is this:

If the bill passes, WHAT PROBLEM WILL IT SOLVE ?

Obviously it will solve the problem of people spending government assistance on inappropriate things.

Wait, no, it'll really just be a giant waste of state money so that some people can enjoy taking away aid from someone who smoked pot. We could spend all this drug testing money on programs to actually help these recipients to get jobs, but that's not nearly as fun. Look up why other states never bothered to implement this system for financial reasons.

Spend $110k in tax dollars per month on a program to ween people off welfare and placed back into the work force = "Those are my tax dollars, not theirs! Get a job just like I did!"
Spend $110k in tax dollars per month to catch a few pot heads = "Yeah! Serves those lazy druggies right -- my tax dollars being spent well."

So let me play devil's advocate if I may. Why is it the government's job to ensure these folks or anyone else for that matter is fed? You want to save some real money put a time limit on public assistance. This way, if someone runs up on hard times and needs some help they'll get it for, say 24 months. At month 25 you're done. Now don't get me wrong, I know that sometimes bad things happen to good people but I also know that there are GENERATIONS that have spent their entire lives bellied up to the government teet and consider it an entitlement (i.e. the world owes them something). As far as getting these people back to work, I'm sure there's lots of folks who (amazingly enough) locate and work jobs AND feed their families without asking for a damn thing from the government. What's more, there are probably 100 programs that the hardworking folks of the U.S. of A are currently tossing millions of dollars at that are now, and always have been miserable failures. You see, people that don't want to work, generally won't.

Originally Posted by gugi

It's ok, as long as you know how to right...

Now is that some sort of left handed compliment,
Or just a contemplation....?