You Want to Drug Test Welfare Recipients?

[MilSpecs]

Fourteen states are paying welfare to all the rest of the states. South Carolina might as well be a housing project in Delaware for all the money it's sent. I don't recall hearing anyone say that the people of West Virginia should have to do some make-work for Nebraska to justify the money they're getting.

This is a direct subsidy to the people of those states, too - they pay a smaller tax bill because those 14 states pay a larger tax bill; i.e., at the point of a gun. Would any resident of those states here be comfortable with Illinois, Ohio, NY and NJ dictating how they spend what they get from us? They clearly can't afford to support themselves. Maybe we should decide how late their bars should be open or take a look at their zoning practices.

Before you complain about paying for other people, make sure someone else isn't paying for you.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... rs/361668/

[Okeefenokee]

...

You are running wild with sensationalist ...

real people taking money from other real people at gunpoint, and giving it to other people who then use it to buy drugs.

I've got worse news for you. Someone out there is using welfare money to buy child porn. Others are doing the same with their salary as LEOs or teachers. Some are sending it to terrorist organizations, or any other bad thing you can think of. All of that money was taken from you at gunpoint too, if the welfare money was.

I don't think my questions were sensationalist at all. They weren't intended that way, in any case. They were intended to ramp down the sensationalism about drug use by comparing it to other vices, and the many other people who use chemical crutches, many of whom recieve some sort of government aid or another.

What is sensationalist about asking if moderate pot use is worse than spending 30 hours a week online, or a middle class person who gets tax breaks spending it with doctor feelgood?

Secondarily, if the aim is to promote healthier living among the poor, there are non-harmful, more effective things we can do that will save us money in the long run, while this program costs us money. One obvious example is going balls out to promote healthy diets, especially with kids.

Why is it so much more appealing to force somebody who was raised in foster care, has mental health issues and is barely hanging on to pee in a cup, so you can punish him if he self-medicates?

No, you're making a childish argument that because we can't stop everything, then we shouldn't bother with anything.

[LVH2]

Not my point.

If the issue is fraud and saving money, this is small potatoes that hardly justifies the fixation. Moreover, it's more expensive to fix the problem at the initial level, not even factoring in the criminality and homelessness you'll see down the line.

Fraud? Whoa boy. We're going to have private drug testing companies funding and giving speaking fees to pols, who will then decide how much to drug test the powerless and who gets the contracts? That's a gonna be some fraud. But nice and legal.

So you're gonna spend a fortune cuz some guy buying 20 bucks worth of drugs angers you.

If the issue is helping, there are vastly more effective ways, and in many instances, people are merely self medicating.

It would probably make more sense to boot people for obesity, which is also wasteful and has no positive effects.

My point isn't that you shouldn't address this issue because other issues exist, more that it's not really that much to worry about, any more than a houswife using tax breaks on white wine and xanax. and that kicking someone down and out, or messed up in the head doesn't really benifit anyone, and will often be counterproductive.

Eg you take someone who is making progress, but uses pot, and then kick them off stamps, or make them go to some idiotic program to combat their refer madnes.

In short, it's just mean.

[Martin Hash]

As I've stated before, it's a liberty issue on both sides: society can ask something of charity recipients but not make their personal choices. Society can only ask for society-related things, like you mutterfukkers need to WORK for the money.

[LVH2]

I don't mind your make work scheme in broad terms.

Some issues, like the disabled, or single mom's.

Some people, like many on welfare are not disabled, so much as messed up, be it chemical imbalances, abuse, or whatever.

I guess what I'm getting at is some of the make work jobs might need to be pretty easy.

When half the population need them, I wonder if we'll be able to come up with enough.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Some pointless make work scheme would probably cost more to administer than it is worth, just to assuage our weird atavistic puritan impulse to give work a moral component.

Or we could tie wages to edifying, if unprofitable tasks... but then people would moan because, for some reason, if there isn't some element of suffering then people aren't being duly punished for being economic failures, like god intended.

[Martin Hash]

I give "work" a broad definition: when you study, you are working; when you walk the dog, you are working; when you are reading a story to someone, you are working; when you are meeting goals you set for yourself, you are working. Almost anybody not in a coma, schizophrenic or Alzheimer's can "work."

p.s. Taking care of your kids is working too, especially if you take care of your neighbor's kids while she's working.

[Speaker to Animals]

You'd crush the soul out of pepole with your make-work idea. I have no trouble with a work program replacing welfare for able-bodied Americans, but that work must be meaningful. When we had these programs in the past, people built highways and dams. Their work was important. Telling people to dig and fill holes in order to feed themselves is cruel and, ultimately, would lead to serious personal and social problems.

Humans need meaning in their lives. The democratic party's welfare slash vote plantation dehumanizes quite enough. We ought to replace it with programs that humanize, provide meaning, and get people back on their feet again.

[LVH2]

I like what Hash is hinting at.

I thought you favored UBI, Speaker? I worry that UBI might result in the same problems you describe.

We have a lot of infrastructure to work on, but many are going to need softer work. You guys need to listen to your man, he gets it.



As someone who fits this description to a degree, at least enough to empathize with what it is like to be really dysfunctional, I think some of the things Martin is hinting at could be brilliant.

Let's say, for example, that "work" for a single mom is coming to a class on healthy cooking, with a daycare for the kids.

Let's say that, if you suffer from anxiety, depression, etc. work is completing courses on meditation, or meeting with a personal trainer.

These are make work programs for both the attendee and those running the programs. Though it needn't be required, in many cases the programs would pay for themselves, or turn a profit.

You get a three year old kid of fast food and Apple Jacks, and onto whole foods and it might pay for itself 1000 fold.

[Speaker to Animals]

Fake. Boo!