You Want to Drug Test Welfare Recipients?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

This isn't about an assessment of morality. This is about fueling the very behavior that led to these people needing things like food assistance in the first place.

You are assuming that drug abuse led to poverty, instead of the reverse.

Either way, just depriving people of resources doesn't get them off drugs, providing resources to get them off drugs is better.

[Speaker to Animals]

This isn't about an assessment of morality. This is about fueling the very behavior that led to these people needing things like food assistance in the first place.

You are assuming that drug abuse led to poverty, instead of the reverse.

Either way, just depriving people of resources doesn't get them off drugs, providing resources to get them off drugs is better.

You all over the place with non sequitur and straw men.

The point here is that if you in such poverty that you need society to give you money to feed your children, then you should NOT be spending money on drugs. I know more than a few people receiving food assistance, and I swear to God, I can't think of a single one who doesn't have a regular weed habit.

And it isn't about depriving them of resources. That's such a load of crap. It's about ensuring that taxpayers' money is going to what we intend. If somebody has a drug problem, and the reason they cannot feed their kid is because they are spending like fifty bucks per month on weed, then we can divert services to get them off the drugs, and directly help these people rather than throw money at them.

The problem with how we deal with welfare is that we often are throwing gasoline on to the fire. There exist better ways to deal with these things than throwing money at people. We are not talking about the disabled, or the elderly.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Where is the non sequitur and where is the straw man?

My first sentence was in direct response to your post stating that drug abuse led people into poverty.

My second sentence basically just said exactly what the rest of your post said, but more succinctly and without all the hand wringing over the moral evils of smoking weed.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You could always, you know, not blow money on dope while you're fucking broke and getting assistance from other taxpayers. That's another option.

This fucking entitlement mindset is ludicrous. You're talking about the government taking your money at the point of a gun and giving it to someone else so he can buy dope. It's asinine.

I've read about the ROI Kath's talking about. It could be true. I'm skeptical as it's mostly been small scale pilot tests that could easily have been nudged in the right direction to keep the bennies coming.

It's no longer my problem what they do with it, and what they suffer, once the opportunity has been provided. I don't have to watch people starve and feel bad for not doing anything, because I know that they've been given a small piece of my taxes, to provide. If they fuck up anyway and live in hell, it's not my problem.

And for every piece of filth blowing his checks on lotto tickets, there are a dozen families that have food in their bellies. Looking at the extremes does not paint a balanced picture, no matter how righteous your anger. Get over it.

You're assuming that the existence of welfare is a foregone conclusion. You're also acting as though welfare is something which people are entitled to.

Wrong on both counts.

You don't start with, "Well they're gonna get the welfare anyway," because that's an assumption that isn't true. We're twenty trillion in debt and the welfare is going to stop eventually, and it's going to be welfare that kills welfare. Defense spending is 16% of the budget. Entitlements are over 60%.

And you can drop the good Samaritan routine. You aren't feeding the poor. You're paying taxes on penalty of jail just like the rest of us, and if you had the option, you wouldn't.

Not quite. I treat welfare as something important to the fabric of society - the alternative being a Dickensian nightmare in our streets. I support it completely, as established. I can't stop people from fucking up their kids, but I can help to provide the opportunity for them to improve. If they don't take it, I still did my part.

Those 'entitlements' include Social Security payments, Medicare, and Medicaid. If you're willing to slash welfare, then why don't we go ahead and pull Grandma's checks, too? She doesn't really need those heart pills, does she?

And pretending that the entire deficit revolves around the current budget is incredibly obtuse. Where do you suppose the TARP money came from? QE? Corn Subsidies? the VA? the insurance company subsidies for the ACA? All moneys raised through either inflation, or issuance of government bonds - which is what the debt consists of. It's not just an "oops we overspent" number - it's the total amount of government bonds outstanding - NOT COUNTING INTEREST.

Our budget is so ridiculously far beyond 'broken' that ripping money out of poor people is the very pinnacle of idiotic thinking - not even considering the social risks of leaving a few million people desperate, with no options. Lock n' load on the homefront. Yes, I would certainly pay for welfare given the choice, even if I were a complete psychopath, just for my own security.

[Fife]

A government bureaucracy designed to hand out money from the treasury could possibly lead to drug abuse problems among the people it is designed to help?




OBVIOUSLY, the solution is to create yet another government bureaucracy designed to keep the losers accepting the handouts in line. That's sure to work!

[Speaker to Animals]

Where is the non sequitur and where is the straw man?

My first sentence was in direct response to your post stating that drug abuse led people into poverty.

My second sentence basically just said exactly what the rest of your post said, but more succinctly and without all the hand wringing over the moral evils of smoking weed.

It's part of the problem, genius. If you need several hundred dollars in your EBT account each month to buy food for your children, and you spend almost that much on weed, then nobody can claim that your drug abuse does not lead to the problem. Remove the drug habit and you wouldn't need the EBT card, no?

[K@th]

So much fail in this thread. There's no evidence that a majority of welfare recipients are spending their money on drugs. All available evidence supports the exact opposite conclusion.

Also, nobody is addressing the fact that corporate welfare is costing us even more, because, well, reasons.

[Haumana]

Law is the law, if you're at the mercy of the man you can't argue if the man has a beef with your life.

But I would be very cool with lawmakers being drug tested. Sure a lot of weed would show up on the left side of things, but I'm genuinely curious to see if its all just viagra and vitamin supplements on the right.

Viagra and vitamin supplements on the right? I am willing to bet that the results would be staggering to most Americans. Hell, let's toss in a mid afternoon BAC test for shits and giggles. Discussing/Voting on legislation while inebriated ought to be against the law too.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Where is the non sequitur and where is the straw man?

My first sentence was in direct response to your post stating that drug abuse led people into poverty.

My second sentence basically just said exactly what the rest of your post said, but more succinctly and without all the hand wringing over the moral evils of smoking weed.

It's part of the problem, genius. If you need several hundred dollars in your EBT account each month to buy food for your children, and you spend almost that much on weed, then nobody can claim that your drug abuse does not lead to the problem. Remove the drug habit and you wouldn't need the EBT card, no?

No.

In whatever hypothetical you're working from, if someone has a self-sustaining drug habit, then they are a fucking drug dealer.

[DrYouth]

This is the quintessential right-left debate.

The right says - personal agency - personal responsibility and "no coddling"

Security comes from agency.

The right says there is no baseline security you are entitled to... You earn your keep.

But when people are sick, disabled etc... or even seriously down on their luck - they can't earn their keep.
Also people who are free riders - will take advantage of the system.
The right worries more about the free riders than the disabled or simply down on their luck.

The freedom to use drugs occasionally while on welfare comes second to the risk of free riders abusing the system.


The left says - security first - agency comes from security not vice versa

If you are secure you will gain agency.

This of course does not always happen - there is such a thing as hostile dependence.

The left worries more about the disabled or down on their luck than the free riders.

The freedom to use drugs occasionally while on welfare comes ahead of the risk of free riders abusing the system.