Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 84 of 84

Thread: Should Welfare recipients be drug tested?

  1. #61
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    "Hey, let's spend millions of dollars to save a hundredthousand dollars!"
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    How much straight cash should an individual be given after they have blown all of their money on an addiction and now need the money to survive?
    But, the US welfare system doesn't give "straight cash" benefits!

    "Food assistance" means EBT cards for eligible items, redeemed in the private sector. "Housing assistance" means section 8 subsidies paid directly to eligible private landlords (plus individual income to make up the difference) OR qualifying to live in low-income, HUD-subsidized, rent-controlled apartments, using paycheck income.

    "Utility assistance" is more complicated, but it's a coordinated effort between private sector electric/gas/oil companies and government entities to help struggling people pay for essential heating/cooling. It's especially important for seniors living on SS, but also the rural poor who aren't connected to the larger energy grid (and have to fill huge home-heating oil or propane tanks, or go "into town" to buy smaller propane tanks).


    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Drug use in and of itself does not equal addiction, true. That also might be the reason why I specified drug addicts. The purpose of most welfare is not to make sure drug users have a little walking around money, it is to provide a very basic safety net that allows an individual to survive while they get back up on their feet.
    Exactly. And the majority of "welfare" recipients are people simply down on their luck, or victims of bad circumstances (including The Great Recession), trying to get by and/or gain footing and move ahead. No one sets out to be on "American Welfare".....in fact, that negative stereo-type is why we still have elderly people freezing to death in their apartment, or families (with children!) living in tent communities, or out of their cars. 'Most' people avoid Homeless Shelters like the plague, and yet they're filled to capacity.

    Isn't it about time we kill and bury the Reagan-era myth of "Welfare Queens"? Or that it's overly used/abused by drug-addled, "lazy" people with character issues?

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    But, the US welfare system doesn't give "straight cash" benefits!
    Context, GGT. OG was suggesting straight cash benefits as a solution.

    "Food assistance" means EBT cards for eligible items, redeemed in the private sector. "Housing assistance" means section 8 subsidies paid directly to eligible private landlords (plus individual income to make up the difference) OR qualifying to live in low-income, HUD-subsidized, rent-controlled apartments, using paycheck income.

    "Utility assistance" is more complicated, but it's a coordinated effort between private sector electric/gas/oil companies and government entities to help struggling people pay for essential heating/cooling. It's especially important for seniors living on SS, but also the rural poor who aren't connected to the larger energy grid (and have to fill huge home-heating oil or propane tanks, or go "into town" to buy smaller propane tanks).
    EBT/Food stamp fraud is more common than you seem to want to believe, and ends up costing the tax payer billions of dollars a year. With the average EBT benefit being around $130 per person, per month, that's hardly peanuts.

    Exactly. And the majority of "welfare" recipients are people simply down on their luck, or victims of bad circumstances (including The Great Recession), trying to get by and/or gain footing and move ahead. No one sets out to be on "American Welfare".....in fact, that negative stereo-type is why we still have elderly people freezing to death in their apartment, or families (with children!) living in tent communities, or out of their cars. 'Most' people avoid Homeless Shelters like the plague, and yet they're filled to capacity.

    Isn't it about time we kill and bury the Reagan-era myth of "Welfare Queens"? Or that it's overly used/abused by drug-addled, "lazy" people with character issues?
    I think this sounds like a view of someone who is pretty detached from the reality on the ground. I've spent a good deal of time in low income neighborhoods, and what you say is true. There are a lot of people who are their because of circumstance. However, there are also many people there who are trying to take advantage of the system in any way they can. People who are in the positions they are in because of tremendously bad decisions and patterns of self destructive behavior that they seem doomed to repeat. These aren't one off cases, this happens with a fair amount of regularity. Blinding yourself to this reality isn't going to do anyone any favors. Aid is finite, and being a good steward of where that aid goes shouldn't be horrifying to you, it should be comforting.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Context, GGT. OG was suggesting straight cash benefits as a solution.
    I thought he was using sarcasm to make a point, but maybe that was Veldan. Anyway, seems to me you (as a Libertarian) should speak more to direct vs indirect assistance, as part of your philosophy. And what would happen, in reality, if "US Welfare" became a system of 'minicome', where designated people are given cash payments by the government...to spend as they please.



    You also seem to be ignoring unemployment benefits.
    The only people who qualify for unemployment "benefits" are those who've already been employed, and paid into that general insurance pool with paycheck deductions. Often for decades, without drawing a singe penny. We can discuss the differences between short-term and long-term unemployed "benefits", how much is funded by the employee or business or tax payor....but it's NOT part of our traditional "welfare" system.



    I think this sounds like a view of someone who is pretty detached from the reality on the ground. I've spent a good deal of time in low income neighborhoods, and what you say is true. There are a lot of people who are their because of circumstance. However, there are also many people there who are trying to take advantage of the system in any way they can. People who are in the positions they are in because of tremendously bad decisions and patterns of self destructive behavior that they seem doomed to repeat. These aren't one off cases, this happens with a fair amount of regularity. Blinding yourself to this reality isn't going to do anyone any favors. Aid is finite, and being a good steward of where that aid goes shouldn't be horrifying to you, it should be comforting.
    I only want to kill, and bury, the "popular stereotype" that began during the Reagan era: that "Welfare Queens" are driving their fancy cars (Cadillacs can be interchanged with Mercedes, BMWs, Range Rovers, etc.) to high-end grocery stores (Whole Foods or Wegmans), wearing designer clothes and $200 sneakers, to buy lobster and steak.....using WIC, SNAP or TANF subsidies.



    Look, I can remember having a moral conflict (and even 'feeling' some resentment) as a young mother, pinching my own household pennies, watching WIC and SNAP mothers buying the expensive Juicy Juice, 'real' cheeses, or prepared infant formulas that wouldn't be in our budget. But it didn't take too long to realize those families needed that extra help, while mine did not. At the same time, it became clear that under-funding inner-city public schools (via district property taxes) was just as misguided.

    I disagree with your hypothesis characterization -- that people are deliberately choosing to live in blighted neighborhoods, with crappy schools, gangs and high violent crime, in exchange for their "welfare" benefits.

  5. #65
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    EBT/Food stamp fraud is more common than you seem to want to believe, and ends up costing the tax payer billions of dollars a year.
    Citation needed.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us...nomy.html?_r=0

    [...]As Republicans in Congress demand cuts to the $79.8 billion food stamp program,[...]In fact, the black market accounts for just over 1 percent of the total food stamp program, which is far less than fraud in other government programs like Medicare and Medicaid.[...]
    1% of 79.8 billion is not "billions" last time I looked.

    Not to mention that I'm somewhat dubious as to whatever notions you have to "lock down" this program won't neither increase the bureaucratic overhead (and thus cost more than it saves) or leave people out in the rain.

    Now, I realize, the latter argument is not something that's usually considered in Fuck Yeah, 'murica! but still.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    People who are in favor of these types of drugs tests very often are people who also think there should be zero-tolerance with people who get higher benefits because they weren't entirely honest. Well, they got their way in The Netherlands; a zero-tolerance policy with a very stiff penalty system to back it up for EVERY one who got too much paid in benefits because of not giving full disclosure.

    So, nowadays I uphold decisions like in this case; A is unemployed and is entitled to a benefit. He's actively looking for a job and low and behold, he manages to get a full time job. On a friday he calls our call-center and tells that he has found a full-time job and that he would like us to terminate his benefit. His new employer is happy with this guy and offers him to start with some overtime on sunday, which he happily does.

    Then his last week of unemployment benefit is paid. He doesn't look at his bankstatement very carefully; so far he had no reason to do so because everything went real smooth in our contacts. But, something is not right this time. He could have known this if he had read the brochure we gave him four months earlier when he applied for an unemployment benefit and had memorized it. Because that brochure states that the period of calculation of his right for that week is based on a week from monday till the next monday. So unlike what he thought, his request to end his benefit completely because he had found a full time job only took effect the monday following that phone call. And he should have reported his first day of work as work parallel to a right to a benefit. Which he didn't.

    Of course, we found out, because his new employer reports to us due to payroll rules. And then we fined him €150,- for not telling us that he had worked on Sunday.

    The rules put the blame for this omission entirely on his shoulders, even though there can be no doubt that this wasn't an honest mistake. You got to love these zero-tolerance rules.
    Congratulations America

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Citation needed.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us...nomy.html?_r=0



    1% of 79.8 billion is not "billions" last time I looked.
    Well, it might help if you actually read the article you are citing.

    Although the sheer size of the program means that more than $3 billion is lost to trafficking, fraud and overpayments each year...
    And even if you were right, are you trying to imply that $798 million is peanuts?

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT
    I disagree with your hypothesis characterization -- that people are deliberately choosing to live in blighted neighborhoods, with crappy schools, gangs and high violent crime, in exchange for their "welfare" benefits.
    People deliberately live in areas with low costs of living, but that wasn't my characterization. My characterization was that there are people who often ended up in these circumstances because of choices and mistakes they had made and continue to make. Something I have seen first hand.

  8. #68
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    I've read the article. Did you?

    I find it intellectually lazy of you to use this snappy comeback without pointing out actually where I might be wrong. Makes you look so mature: "Oh, hey, you're wrong! But I'm not telling you why or giving you a hint!"

    Not to mention that even if it were double or triple the amount - that would mean that the rest is actually doing something worthwhile. "Oh, hey, let's starve a million people because 3,000 of them might be fraudsters."
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    I've read the article. Did you?

    I find it intellectually lazy of you to use this snappy comeback without pointing out actually where I might be wrong. Makes you look so mature: "Oh, hey, you're wrong! But I'm not telling you why or giving you a hint!"
    I thought directly quoting from the article you claimed to have read might have served as an adequate hint, but I can be more specific. Paragraph 12, sentence 1 of the article you posted reads:

    Although the sheer size of the program means that more than $3 billion is lost to trafficking, fraud and overpayments each year...
    That might sound familiar because I also quoted it in my original response to you.

    Not to mention that even if it were double or triple the amount - that would mean that the rest is actually doing something worthwhile. "Oh, hey, let's starve a million people because 3,000 of them might be fraudsters."
    Let's do a couple back of the bar napkin calculations here. If the average per capita cost is roughly $1,596.00 ($133.00*12) and over $3,000,000,000 is lost per year to fraud, trafficking, and overpayments, then we are looking at almost 2,000,000 people who are somehow abusing, gaming, or being over served by the system per year. I don't consider $3,000,000,000 an insignificant amount of waste, do you?

    For someone who is very vocal against black and white thinking, I find it odd that you are engaging in a false dichotomy fallacy. The only other alternative in your mind to trying to address and prevent welfare fraud is starving every recipient who may qualify and is not abusing the system? Is that an intellectually mature argument?
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 01-19-2014 at 03:09 PM.

  10. #70
    Uh, okay, but his "citation needed" was in response to your claim about fraud only, not fraud+traficking+overpayment. I'm also a little puzzled by the terms "lost" and "wasted". It's not as if they burn the money or something. If you want to remove some of the waste and inefficiency just put money in their hands instead of using this messed-up combo of credits, rebates, food stamps, benefits etc etc. You could shut down a few branches of government and sleep soundly knowing that money would be used efficiently to buy whatever needed to be bought.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Uh, okay, but his "citation needed" was in response to your claim about fraud only, not fraud+traficking+overpayment.
    Maybe I'm just not being pedantic enough, but I'm not alone in including trafficking with fraud. The point being there are a non-trivial number of people doing this, with a non-trivial cost associated with it.

    I'm also a little puzzled by the terms "lost" and "wasted". It's not as if they burn the money or something. If you want to remove some of the waste and inefficiency just put money in their hands instead of using this messed-up combo of credits, rebates, food stamps, benefits etc etc. You could shut down a few branches of government and sleep soundly knowing that money would be used efficiently to buy whatever needed to be bought.
    I don't think the concept behind our welfare system is that people get to spend money on whatever they want to. Nor am I convinced that that would be the best way to allocate the resources.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post

    People deliberately live in areas with low costs of living, but that wasn't my characterization. My characterization was that there are people who often ended up in these circumstances because of choices and mistakes they had made and continue to make. Something I have seen first hand.
    Sure, people make bad 'choices' or mistakes all the time, sometimes repeatedly, and often continued by next generations. But that's true of every socio-economic strata, not just poor folks. It's just harder for kids raised in poverty to break those negative cycles, without some extra resources that help them get out of poverty.

    The same need applies to 'middle-class' families who suffer a job loss, divorce, family illness, death, foreclosure, or bankruptcy and become the working-poor. Or seniors who lose their retirement savings <in a global financial meltdown> and can't live on SS checks, let alone find another job. Even our active-duty military and War Veterans need and use these "welfare" benefits, especially for food aid (since they don't all live on-base, or have access to PX subsidized food).

    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post

    I don't think the concept behind our welfare system is that people get to spend money on whatever they want to. Nor am I convinced that that would be the best way to allocate the resources.
    And I've been trying to explain that the US welfare system does not give recipients money to spend on "whatever they want"!

    Some of the fraud and trafficking (in SNAP or WIC) can be traced to people making tough choices based on household needs....like selling EBT cards in exchange for cash....to buy gas for their car, or get a car repaired, so they can get to work and not lose their job! Since all of that is underground bartering in black/grey shadow markets, it's fairly hard to study or "track".

    But it's a bit outrageous to presume it's being done to feed "drug habits"....since available data does show "welfare" recipients use drugs at slightly lower rates than the general population.

  13. #73
    I've been thinking about how Oldmunchkin fit into the US welfare system. Her lifestyle choices became disabling, that's for sure, but most of that came after her back injury working on oil rigs. She was a "round-about", I think that's the term, climbing up the machinery, pulling chains, de-tangling mechanisms. Very hard and dangerous physical work. She wasn't a payroll employee (of the oil company), but an independent/temporary contract employee.

    But she was sidelined after vertebral problems, herniated discs, and couldn't get the surgery recommended by physicians, because she didn't have insurance--but also didn't qualify for Medicaid at the time. Things got worse, and spiraled downward from there. Instead of getting the medical care she actually needed, she was put on the "Palliative Pain Pill" track. Not the best way to treat structural/anatomical pain, let alone someone known to "self-medicate" with alcohol or other drugs.

    I was surprised (and alarmed) when she was given prescriptions for Codeine, Oxycontin, Xanax, Valium, Ambien, Lyrica, anti-depressants, you name it. And she got those scripts after telling physicians she was using alcohol to self-medicate....I think Black Velvet whiskey and Carolans Irish Cream were her favorites. To top it off, she had a known history of pancreatitis.

    It makes me sad to think back on all the times she'd tell me about her back pain, numbness, limping, things that kept her stuck at home or in bed....when she really wanted to get a job and WORK. She wasn't one of those "lazy" welfare moochers some people like to complain about. And she didn't fit the typical profile of a "drug addict", although she did become reliant on prescription drugs to treat her pain.

    She didn't have many options available, the "welfare" system failed to help her in meaningful ways, and now she's dead.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Sure, people make bad 'choices' or mistakes all the time, sometimes repeatedly, and often continued by next generations. But that's true of every socio-economic strata, not just poor folks.
    Absolutely true. However we are talking about welfare programs, especially ones that are targeted towards people with lower socio-economic statuses.

    And I've been trying to explain that the US welfare system does not give recipients money to spend on "whatever they want"!
    GGT, again, I was addressing a suggestion by Minx that cash disbursements would be a solution to the welfare abuse problem. I don't think there is much value added when you keep telling me what I already know, while ignoring the context in which it is said.

  15. #75
    I'm not sure it's right to bring Munchkin into this (given what we've learned). But, based on what she would talk about with us, my conclusion is that no amount of government welfare can make up for family problems, possible issues with drinking and a decent amount of bad luck.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Absolutely true. However we are talking about welfare programs, especially ones that are targeted towards people with lower socio-economic statuses.
    My point was that anyone can need "welfare" assistance at some point in their lifetime -- including people from middle income/class groups that suffer job loss, financial loss, a family illness or death, etc. in a horrible economy. That's why the shrinking middle class, stagnant wages, and growing income disparity is a huge problem: more families fell into low-income/working poor status after the big meltdown, the 'recovery' has been slow and uneven....and some 46 million people now need Food Aid.

    GGT, again, I was addressing a suggestion by Minx that cash disbursements would be a solution to the welfare abuse problem. I don't think there is much value added when you keep telling me what I already know, while ignoring the context in which it is said.
    Context: Some Libertarians do think direct cash distributions would be more effective. Not just because it would eliminate a chunk of gov't agencies, and bureaucratic red tape, that could theoretically save public funds....but because it puts decision-making in individuals' hands, which theoretically gives them more power and control over their own destiny (aka Freedom).

    There are varying brands of Libertarianism, and moving theoretical parts, in this discussion. You've already said there is a role for government to play. I'm simply asking you to flesh that out with more detail, especially when other Libertarian principles (like personal privacy, private markets/Free Enterprise) become conflicts.
    Last edited by GGT; 01-23-2014 at 07:15 PM.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I'm not sure it's right to bring Munchkin into this (given what we've learned). But, based on what she would talk about with us, my conclusion is that no amount of government welfare can make up for family problems, possible issues with drinking and a decent amount of bad luck.
    "The best healthcare system in the world" wasn't available to her because she was poor and unemployed. She got stuck between Wyoming state and federal "welfare" programs, but didn't come from a family with enough wealth to pay OOP for medically necessary back surgery (let alone PT, mental health counseling, or rehab for substance abuse). She was a victim of crappy US public policy, that leaves millions of others just like her, clinging on the edge, swinging in the wind, falling in the cracks.

    I felt it was perfectly "right" to mention oldmunchkin. She wasn't just an active member of this internet 'community', posting her anecdotes and opinions for years. She was a real person!

    Reminder: every time we debate public policy, we're not just floating words, politics, ideas, theories, or ideologies -- we're talking about real people.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Context: Some Libertarians do think direct cash distributions would be more effective. Not just because it would eliminate a chunk of gov't agencies, and bureaucratic red tape, that could theoretically save public funds....but because it puts decision-making in individuals' hands, which theoretically gives them more power and control over their own destiny (aka Freedom).
    There may be some libertarians who advocate that the government hand out money with no strings attached, but I am not one of them. If you can try and keep your direct responses to me based somewhat on what I've actually said I would appreciate that.

    There are varying brands of Libertarianism, and moving theoretical parts, in this discussion. You've already said there is a role for government to play. I'm simply asking you to flesh that out with more detail, especially when other Libertarian principles (like personal privacy, private markets/Free Enterprise) become conflicts.
    I haven't said that there is a role for government to play here, in fact I started off by saying I don't agree with governmental welfare at all. What I have said is that seeing as how that is the role the government has assumed, I don't have a problem with some measure of accountability built into the system.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    There may be some libertarians who advocate that the government hand out money with no strings attached, but I am not one of them. If you can try and keep your direct responses to me based somewhat on what I've actually said I would appreciate that.
    I am trying. Don't fault me for asking you for clarification.

    I haven't said that there is a role for government to play here, in fact I started off by saying I don't agree with governmental welfare at all. What I have said is that seeing as how that is the role the government has assumed, I don't have a problem with some measure of accountability built into the system.
    Perfect example. If there is NO ROLE for "government", please explain in further detail. And if you're going to take the private, religious, or charitable contribution route, don't forget to take into account the public dollars those institutions use, directly or indirectly.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post

    Context: Some Libertarians do think direct cash distributions would be more effective. Not just because it would eliminate a chunk of gov't agencies, and bureaucratic red tape, that could theoretically save public funds....but because it puts decision-making in individuals' hands, which theoretically gives them more power and control over their own destiny (aka Freedom).

    There are varying brands of Libertarianism, and moving theoretical parts, in this discussion. You've already said there is a role for government to play. I'm simply asking you to flesh that out with more detail, especially when other Libertarian principles (like personal privacy, private markets/Free Enterprise) become conflicts.
    Meh the libertarian argument is "well if you insist on taking money from us at the point of the gun, just use the easiest transfer method available instead of having more money wasted on government employees." Its not really an endorsement supporting cash transfers from one person to another its just going for an option that involves less potential waste.

  21. #81
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    An argument, not the argument.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  22. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Meh the libertarian argument is "well if you insist on taking money from us at the point of the gun
    If you mean Taxation....that "gun" is the US Constitution, with elected Representatives deciding the targets and "bullets".

    just use the easiest transfer method available instead of having more money wasted on government employees." Its not really an endorsement supporting cash transfers from one person to another its just going for an option that involves less potential waste.
    Portraying any/all government intervention as "wasteful", or distilling components into its smallest monetary parts might seem like the "easy" answer, but it's really nothing more than lazy thinking.


  23. #83

  24. #84
    Sorry to be so pedantic, but that's more appropriately filed under this thread:

    http://theworldforgotten.com/showthread.php?t=3505

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •