D.T.W.A.

[Woodruff]

If all government employees were drug-tested, then the Center for Disease Control would face some serious turnover rates...

Aside from my above comment, Phatscotty, don't you see that this politician is just pandering to his voters? He's employing the basic principles of political marketing, so get real.

You can focus on that. I'm not saying that isn't true or part of it, it's the principle, no matter how it looks to whomever.

Which principle...the principle that the proposer stands to personally make a lot of money from the proposal or the principle that this will increase the taxpayer's load by quite a bit?

[Phatscotty]

I will tell you one thing. My friend from school has a serious drug problem. it started with alcohol and graduated to drugs, harder and harder. One day he broke his ankle, and then got put into oxy-contin. Now he gets drug tested regularly and if they find anything in his blood that is not supposed to be there, he will only get a half-fill. Guess what? He stops using all drugs about 2 weeks before he needs to get a refill. People respond when you threaten to take something away from them that they need. It's time to get tough and buck up because people who are getting help, it's only supposed to be temporary right? They should be saving as much as they can and living frugally and building a plan to make a better future, not getting high. Drugs have no place in any of that.

It is also true that money that is given to someone is spent much more freely than money that person has to earn by themselves. It's very easy to waste cash-handouts when you dont have to respect the value and time and effort and sacrifice of the person that had to earn that money and pay it as a tax. The system was good in it's intentions, but now it's a voting mechanism where all you have to do is promise people more shit and they will vote for you.

Once people learn they can vote the treasury, it's a road to bankruptcy. People will always have more to vote for even when all of their problems are solved, I guarantee you there will be a whole new list of problems.

This is common sense. We are trying to help people after all, aren't we?

I thought you weren't going to make this political. But anyway, I'm not sure the drug-addicted welfare recipients are able to really sway US economic policy in the way that you think.

Well- maybe the bankers hooked on coke.

Anyway, while I think a big part of the welfare system is dedicated to temporary measures, a big part is also dedicated to helping people throughout their lives. Lumping those groups in together seems a bit callous.

This is beginning to look like an attack on any form of welfare. Are you really willing to pay for drug tests for anyone who claims the right to welfare? Sounds expensive.

I dont see how any of that is political. the example of a school friend of mine is not political. The statement about how money is spent when its given rather than earned isn't either. Voting the treasury? Not really political a general democratic statement as both parties do it so...

I can not lump temporary recipients with lifetime recipients because I do not agree welfare is a lifetime program nor do I think it should be. We abolished slavery. We do not support one person living off the earning of workers for their whole lives.

I said right from the git go I know people need help and I'm not opposed to the idea. I am opposed to the program being run without accountability. That is not meant to be political, it's meant to be responsible. I do not have a hard time helping people who need it. I do have a hard time paying for people to get high. Personally, I would rather burn that money myself rather then let someone else get high off my money that I bust my ass for.

Who should pay for the drug tests for every recipient of government welfare that you're asking for?

It's a cost of the program, just like the person who answers the phone at the office, or the heat costs for the agency headquarters, or the 35% of all the money that is wasted, lost, or misplaced.

If we are going to have a program and we expect it to work, it should be done right. I guarantee you anyrecipient who is trying to find work and get their lives back on track and is doing drugs is not going to do as well as someone of the same example who is not doing drugs.

Some people will exit the assistance program sooner, and start paying taxes sooner...it's a green shoot move double pluses.
Some people who will stay on the program and have worse luck will still have all the money that they would have otherwise spent on drugs, money which can most certainly in 100% certitude be used in a better way than on drugs.

If a recipient is spending money on drugs, then the program is enabling them and their drug habits. That is no social virtue.

[Woodruff]

If a recipient is spending money on drugs, then the program is enabling them and their drug habits. That is no social virtue.

From a strictly Tea Party standpoint (as opposed to the Tea Republican Party standpoint that this situation resembles), it would seem that simply legalizing (and thus taxing) drug use would be a much more effective policy. It would have the added benefit of lowering some health care costs.

[Phatscotty]

If a recipient is spending money on drugs, then the program is enabling them and their drug habits. That is no social virtue.

From a strictly Tea Party standpoint (as opposed to the Tea Republican Party standpoint that this situation resembles), it would seem that simply legalizing (and thus taxing) drug use would be a much more effective policy. It would have the added benefit of lowering some health care costs.

What about responsibility? That does nothing for someone who needs aid. Someone who gets aid is not supposed to have "extra money" to "blow on drugs". You are missing the point. This is about welfare abuse and welfare reform, making it more accountable and more effective.

Nothing would be better for the economy then to help these people get into a job and working again IE paying taxes.......

That is the real end result where the fruit will be bore. Not only less people needing help, but more people paying into the system. Not to mention the pride and satisfaction, especially for someone who was knocked down into the dirt or in a rut for a few years.

[Phatscotty]

Utterly fucking silly law. Typical right wing populists cashing on the fearmongering.

So, they won't give welfare money if you test positive on a "drug". Then the drug addicts will just have to steal even more, there will be more crime, more deaths, starvation, disease, etc. Not to mention people who maybe just tried some weed for the stress may have their lives utterly fucked up.

While an alcoholic can spend his whole welfare on alcohol, beat his wife and kids while drunk, and no one will complain.

I don't see how any sensible human being could possibly see this as a good thing.

Exactly.

As much as I dislike supporting my derelict neighbors, it is the cheaper way to go. If you want to REALLY save money, you have to put more into their kids. Sadly, that is exactly what the current congress, many states are NOT doing. Here in Pennsylvania, we are seing a 50% budget cut to Penn State, and huge cuts to all other levels of education... of course, they are happy to fund the private vouchers.

AND... despite the stereotypes, most people on welfare are not on drugs. They often do have other issues.

So just give up on the parents and have the state raise the kids? No wonder our country is fucked up.

This has nothing to do with stereotypes and everything to do with the reality that some recipients hand their entire check over to a drug dealer the day they get the check, and the children suffer when there is no money left at the end of the month for food. This is something I do not want to support and I don't think anybody does. This bill will save many children from this horrible reality and give them a shot at life.

I guarantee you that when faced with the decision to either get the welfare check, or get high, they will choose the welfare check. Once they realize they can't do both, the enabling process is ended and the person can get back to what they were supposed to be doing, which is trying to get back on their feet.

If anything, you should be pissed that money is not taxed when handed to the drug dealer. Every dollar that is no longer handed to a drug dealer is going to be taxed now (6%). This will show up as a plus in government revenue, yet another promise.

[Woodruff]

If a recipient is spending money on drugs, then the program is enabling them and their drug habits. That is no social virtue.

From a strictly Tea Party standpoint (as opposed to the Tea Republican Party standpoint that this situation resembles), it would seem that simply legalizing (and thus taxing) drug use would be a much more effective policy. It would have the added benefit of lowering some health care costs.

What about responsibility? That does nothing for someone who needs aid. Someone who gets aid is not supposed to have "extra money" to "blow on drugs". You are missing the point. This is about welfare abuse and welfare reform, making it more accountable and more effective.

No, it's about lining the pockets of the proposer...that truly is ALL this is about. All that other stuff you're talking about is just handy excuses. And this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with welfare reform. Welfare absolutely needs reform...but not in this particular aspect. Our energies should be directed at making the system engine repel the lifetime membership on the welfare rolls. I don't care HOW the money is used while someone is on welfare (honestly, I don't), but they shouldn't be on it for life. There must be some balance to the system. It absolutely needs some sort of a graduated (as a decrease, not as an increase) scale as to how much an individual receives up until the point where the person is removed from the welfare system. My personal opinion is that point should be at around six months, provided that the welfare system ALSO provides career training to those individuals.

As well, are you seriously implying that drugs cannot be used responsibly? Because if you are, I think you've overlooked a whole boatload of people who demonstrably prove that you're absolutely and irrefutably wrong.

Nothing would be better for the economy then to help these people get into a job and working again IE paying taxes...

I agree completely. This will not, in my opinion, have a noticeable impact on that situation.

That is the real end result where the fruit will be bore. Not only less people needing help, but more people paying into the system. Not to mention the pride and satisfaction, especially for someone who was knocked down into the dirt or in a rut for a few years.

As I mentioned above, there are far more effective ways to accomplish this. But lining the pockets of a Tea Partier at taxpayer expense is too good to resist, apparently.

[Phatscotty]

This will not, in my opinion, have a noticeable impact on that situation.

You don't think drugs make people lazy? Sleep through a shift? blow of an interview? miss their first day of work? screw up priorities? make you dumb?

[Woodruff]

This has nothing to do with stereotypes and everything to do with the reality that some recipients hand their entire check over to a drug dealer the day they get the check

That isn't much of a reality, actually. This is not the situation for even a majority of welfare recipients.

This bill will save many children from this horrible reality and give them a shot at life.

I don't believe it will have much of an impact on this at all, actually.

If anything, you should be pissed that money is not taxed when handed to the drug dealer.

I've already suggested this should happen. You don't seem to have responded to those posts.

Every dollar that is no longer handed to a drug dealer is going to be taxed now (6%). This will show up as a plus in government revenue, yet another promise.

Which doesn't even come remotely close to balancing the profit to the Governor personally. All hail to cutting the deficit! When it's handy!

[Woodruff]

This will not, in my opinion, have a noticeable impact on that situation.

You don't think drugs make people lazy? Sleep through a shift? blow of an interview? miss their first day of work? screw up priorities? make you dumb?

I don't believe there is a significant population among welfare recipients that are on drugs to such an extent, no.

[Phatscotty]

This will not, in my opinion, have a noticeable impact on that situation.

You don't think drugs make people lazy? Sleep through a shift? blow of an interview? miss their first day of work? screw up priorities? make you dumb?

I don't believe there is a significant population among welfare recipients that are on drugs to such an extent, no.

You remember the food stamp black market? There were enough people selling their food-stamps for pennies on the dollar to warrant our gov't changing the entire process.

[Woodruff]

This will not, in my opinion, have a noticeable impact on that situation.

You don't think drugs make people lazy? Sleep through a shift? blow of an interview? miss their first day of work? screw up priorities? make you dumb?

I don't believe there is a significant population among welfare recipients that are on drugs to such an extent, no.

You remember the food stamp black market? There were enough people selling their food-stamps for pennies on the dollar to warrant our gov't changing the entire process.

I believe I've already stated that the welfare system needs to be overhauled. I just don't believe that doing so in a way that directly benefits the initiator of the overhaul in such a significant and painfully obvious way is the right way to go about things.

[Baron Von PWN]

If a recipient is spending money on drugs, then the program is enabling them and their drug habits. That is no social virtue.

From a strictly Tea Party standpoint (as opposed to the Tea Republican Party standpoint that this situation resembles), it would seem that simply legalizing (and thus taxing) drug use would be a much more effective policy. It would have the added benefit of lowering some health care costs.

What about responsibility? That does nothing for someone who needs aid. Someone who gets aid is not supposed to have "extra money" to "blow on drugs". You are missing the point. This is about welfare abuse and welfare reform, making it more accountable and more effective.

Nothing would be better for the economy then to help these people get into a job and working again IE paying taxes.......

That is the real end result where the fruit will be bore. Not only less people needing help, but more people paying into the system. Not to mention the pride and satisfaction, especially for someone who was knocked down into the dirt or in a rut for a few years.

hmm I thought the tea party didn't like the nanny state. the proposed idea seems like an unreasonable invasion of privacy to me. What better way to help theses people than subjecting them to arbitrary drug tests and the chance to end up on the street! Surely this will be the path to getting them back in the workforce.

[Woodruff]

If a recipient is spending money on drugs, then the program is enabling them and their drug habits. That is no social virtue.

From a strictly Tea Party standpoint (as opposed to the Tea Republican Party standpoint that this situation resembles), it would seem that simply legalizing (and thus taxing) drug use would be a much more effective policy. It would have the added benefit of lowering some health care costs.

What about responsibility? That does nothing for someone who needs aid. Someone who gets aid is not supposed to have "extra money" to "blow on drugs". You are missing the point. This is about welfare abuse and welfare reform, making it more accountable and more effective.

Nothing would be better for the economy then to help these people get into a job and working again IE paying taxes.......

That is the real end result where the fruit will be bore. Not only less people needing help, but more people paying into the system. Not to mention the pride and satisfaction, especially for someone who was knocked down into the dirt or in a rut for a few years.

hmm I thought the tea party didn't like the nanny state. the proposed idea seems like an unreasonable invasion of privacy to me. What better way to help theses people than subjecting them to arbitrary drug tests and the chance to end up on the street! Surely this will be the path to getting them back in the workforce.

The Tea Republican Party is a big fan of the nanny state, actually.

[MeDeFe]

I predict somewhat increased rates of poverty, those hit the hardest will be the children who are already in a shitty situation. Lawsuits are also highly likely due to the possibility of false positives.

It seems fairly typical. Judging from the short article you linked to it's a law designed to appeal to a large number of voters and make the governor and those who proposed the law seem as though they do something to improve public health, curb abuse of the welfare system, and act to reduce drug abuse. Ultimately I believe the law will probably be ineffective in achieving any positive results for society as a whole, it may well succeed in getting someone re-elected, though.

You should probably read it again. The bill accounts for children. If a parent is using drugs, is not the child at risk already?

I have read it again. I still get a very short article that only says that if a parent doesn't pass the drug test, another adult will have to file for the money that goes to the children. Well, what prevents a parent from giving a friend of theirs a 10% cut in return for giving them the money? Nothing at all.
That is hardly "accounting for children".

Of course a child whose parents are taking drugs excessively is at risk already, my point is that this law won't do anything to diminish that risk.

[natty dread]

Phatscotty, weren't you all about freedom? Why do you support the artificial "drug war", aka. modern prohibition?

Shouldn't people have the freedom to choose what chemicals they want to insert in their body? Why should the government be allowed to dictate what substances you can or can not get high off?

As for the welfare...

In the modern world, there will never be enough work for 100% of all people 100% of the time. That is a fact. So those people who are out of work need to be given some money for the time they are out of a job, so they can survive. You right-wing nuts are all hung up on that biblical moral code, you get your panties in a twist because you think it's "unfair" someone gets money without doing work while you have to work to get your money.

Well, that's too bad, because even though it would be an ideal situation that every person would have a job that would support them and their family, that is never going to be a reality.

[radiojake]

In the modern world, there will never be enough work for 100% of all people 100% of the time. That is a fact.

Indeed, the capitalist system requires unemployment to keep wages as low as possible. Shortage of jobs and excess applicants = the lowering of wages and a high profit for the capital owners. Then the common mythology of the hegemony tells us those who fall into unemployment somehow found themselves there on part of their own laziness or under prepardness. While in some cases this may be true, it ignores a plethora of hard working individuals who will perpetually struggle to keep above the poverty line because of the disadvantaged position they enter the economic system in.

[PLAYER57832]

This will not, in my opinion, have a noticeable impact on that situation.

You don't think drugs make people lazy? Sleep through a shift? blow of an interview? miss their first day of work? screw up priorities? make you dumb?

I don't believe there is a significant population among welfare recipients that are on drugs to such an extent, no.

You remember the food stamp black market? There were enough people selling their food-stamps for pennies on the dollar to warrant our gov't changing the entire process.

That reall is not why the system was reformed. It changed because we now have the technological ability to do better.

That said, as Woodruff noted, a lot of reform is absolutely needed. This system was basically designed for war widows. (ironically, welfare and social security were passed in roughly the same time, social security was the controversial one... welfare was passed without a hitch because it was just taken for granted that most women could not just go out, leave their kids and get a job).

[PLAYER57832]

In the modern world, there will never be enough work for 100% of all people 100% of the time. That is a fact.

Indeed, the capitalist system requires unemployment to keep wages as low as possible. Shortage of jobs and excess applicants = the lowering of wages and a high profit for the capital owners. Then the common mythology of the hegemony tells us those who fall into unemployment somehow found themselves there on part of their own laziness or under prepardness. While in some cases this may be true, it ignores a plethora of hard working individuals who will perpetually struggle to keep above the poverty line because of the disadvantaged position they enter the economic system in.

And that is why illegal immigration is perpetually supported, though in back-handed "deniable" ways, by industry and most powerful politicians.

They operate well to drive the entire system down.

[PLAYER57832]

That is the real end result where the fruit will be bore. Not only less people needing help, but more people paying into the system. Not to mention the pride and satisfaction, especially for someone who was knocked down into the dirt or in a rut for a few years.

This is a nice goal, but the above plan has so little to do with the real causes of welfare it won't impact it at all.

You pointed to your friend as a "classic example".. except he is more of an exception. Even when drugs are part of why someone is on welfare, just getting them off drugs is not usually enough to get them out and working, particularly in today's economy. People on welfare generally just don't have the skills.. and I mean as much "social" skills as straight things like adding and reading. In fact, the reason a lot of people wind up on drugs (weather on welfare or not) is a sense of dispair and hopelessness, often from real circumstances. Those "real circumstances" might be anything from physical pain (sometimesthe result of lack of medical care, sometimes the pain is just not readily treatable), mental health issues, circumstances.

You have been quick to criticize folks claiming "depression" as essentially lazy..but ask yourself how you would feel after being turned down from your hundredth job application, losing a child, or becoming physically incapacitated because you could not afford even basic medical care.

You want 2 direct correlations, very cost effective ways to ensure people work more? They are EXACTLY the thing you already dismissed... medical care and education. Universal and available to ALL.

As noted above, it won't keep everyone off welfare. Some people are always going to be poor, make stupid choices. However, for all the money it takes to rehab a heavy drug user, a little more money to help educate the kids and provide all around medical care will benefit society and the people involved far, far more.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, weren't you all about freedom? Why do you support the artificial "drug war", aka. modern prohibition?

Shouldn't people have the freedom to choose what chemicals they want to insert in their body? Why should the government be allowed to dictate what substances you can or can not get high off?

sure they should, but not when they are living off someone else. There are conditions.

If your son earns 100$, he can probably spend it how he wishes. But if you give him 100$ to buy books for school, is it really unfair for you to ask your son to make sure the money is spent on books and not on a hooker?????

[MeDeFe]

Phatscotty, weren't you all about freedom? Why do you support the artificial "drug war", aka. modern prohibition?

Shouldn't people have the freedom to choose what chemicals they want to insert in their body? Why should the government be allowed to dictate what substances you can or can not get high off?

sure they should, but not when they are living off someone else. There are conditions.

If your son earns 100$, he can probably spend it how he wishes. But if you give him 100$ to buy books for school, is it really unfair for you to ask your son to make sure the money is spent on books and not on a hooker?????

I see, so you're in favour of a daddy state rather than a nanny state.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, weren't you all about freedom? Why do you support the artificial "drug war", aka. modern prohibition?

Shouldn't people have the freedom to choose what chemicals they want to insert in their body? Why should the government be allowed to dictate what substances you can or can not get high off?

sure they should, but not when they are living off someone else. There are conditions.

If your son earns 100$, he can probably spend it how he wishes. But if you give him 100$ to buy books for school, is it really unfair for you to ask your son to make sure the money is spent on books and not on a hooker?????

I see, so you're in favour of a daddy state rather than a nanny state.

I'm against my tax dollars going into junkies pockets and enabling them to get their fix.

call that whatever you want...

[natty dread]

sure they should, but not when they are living off someone else. There are conditions.

Oh, I see. The fact that some people is not able to find a job means that you get to dictate how he lives his life, because you have been able to find a job. That makes perfect sense.

If your son earns 100$, he can probably spend it how he wishes. But if you give him 100$ to buy books for school, is it really unfair for you to ask your son to make sure the money is spent on books and not on a hooker?????

Phatscotty... you're such a fucking hypocrite. You preach for freedom and how the government should not interfere in your affairs, and let your make your own decisions. But apparently that only applies to things you think you should be able to do. You only care about your freedom to do as you like, screw anyone else's freedoms.

[PLAYER57832]

sure they should, but not when they are living off someone else. There are conditions.

Oh, I see. The fact that some people is not able to find a job means that you get to dictate how he lives his life, because you have been able to find a job. That makes perfect sense.

No, just having a job is not enough. You have to be wealthy to have that priviliage.

And then you not only get to decide welfare, you get to decide how much your employees make, too. ... and conveniently forget the fact that if you pay them too low, those people then have to get tax payer subsidies.

[Night Strike]

Phatscotty... you're such a fucking hypocrite. You preach for freedom and how the government should not interfere in your affairs, and let your make your own decisions. But apparently that only applies to things you think you should be able to do. You only care about your freedom to do as you like, screw anyone else's freedoms.

Where is the hypocrisy? The underlying belief is that there should be no welfare at all, but if there is going to be a welfare system, then there has to be a method of accountability for the individuals receiving the free money. Why do you want to give people money without making sure they are actually using it responsibly? Isn't it better to make sure people on welfare are doing everything possible to get off of it (and become tax paying members of the society) instead of continuing to leach off the system?