California Considers Welfare Drug-Screening

[seraosha]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322605,00.html

This is such a brilliant idea, that it's a wonder no one proposed it before.
And when you consider who is proposing the law that welfare recipients be tested for drug use, it's a sure thing to get passed.

+1 for R.J.'s Law!

[Ordie]

I don't doubt the potential benefits however I have questions.

1) Who will pay for the administration and recording of the drug tests? California is already in the budget crisis mode, I doubt there's any funding to do this.

2) What are the potential externalities if "desparate druggies" are not given thier monthly ration of state funds? Do we expect a rise in drug related crimes and law enforcement resources? In economic terms its cheaper the 'give' money to a druggie than put them in prision. (excuse me for my crass comment but the governor is set to release thousands of prisoners as a cost cutting measure).

I'm sure there are other questions. To me, I hate it when someone proposes a 'simple' solution to complex problems.

I hate druggies more than anything else but I don't think this regulation will help much.

[seraosha]

Perhaps they'll just invade Tijuana?

[Calanen]

I don't doubt the potential benefits however I have questions.

1) Who will pay for the administration and recording of the drug tests? California is already in the budget crisis mode, I doubt there's any funding to do this.


Just make it a random thing, so they never know when they might get hit. That would not cost much.

[Mu-Meson]

This proposal makes too much sense. I suspect it won't happen.
As for who pays, I wonder if the govt is able to see that it will pay for itself. Cut welfare to druggies = money saved.
Of course, I read once about a IRS program that targeted people who were lowballing on their taxes, and the program was raking it in. The program cost like $10 mil and brought in an extra $50 mil in taxes. The program was cut as part of budget slimming measures. :roll:

[Invisigoth]

Lovely, so needing wellfare makes you a suspected drug user? Why not have mandatory drug testing for the entire population? People seem enthusiastic enough, and if you don't have anything to hide you don't have anything to fear right? :)

[Firetxmi]

Lovely, so needing wellfare makes you a suspected drug user? Why not have mandatory drug testing for the entire population? People seem enthusiastic enough, and if you don't have anything to hide you don't have anything to fear right? :)

Haha. Excellent idea! :D

[Dasein]

1. Will there be any provisions for drug counseling, or is this bill just going to cut off benefits for people who test positive without any recourse? Do they seriously think those gripped by a serious addiction won't turn to other means to get their drugs - theft, prostitution and other much less desirable behavior could easily be the result here. For a program like this to be remotely effective, it would need to be coupled with a means of actually breaking addictions.

2. What is the review process, as no drug test is immune from false positives, either from imperfect screening measures or errors in handling?

3. What will happen to the dependents of those denied benefits?

4. Will these be an all-or-nothing type situation, and why should someone who smoked a bit of marijauna be treated the same as a full fledged heroin or crack addict?

[Abolith]

Lovely, so needing wellfare makes you a suspected drug user? Why not have mandatory drug testing for the entire population? People seem enthusiastic enough, and if you don't have anything to hide you don't have anything to fear right? :)

sorry man but having had family working in this field, (and has for 22 years, now retiring in 2 months), a sizable chunk of the "clients" are serious drug users... who live life on perpetual aid. Be it food stamps, general assistance, GAIN, or any of other dozen or so programs, they simply have no desire to ever change or be even a semi-productive member of society.

[Invisigoth]

sorry man but having had family working in this field, (and has for 22 years, now retiring in 2 months), a sizable chunk of the "clients" are serious drug users... who live life on perpetual aid. Be it food stamps, general assistance, GAIN, or any of other dozen or so programs, they simply have no desire to ever change or be even a semi-productive member of society.

I am not disagreeing with your experience, I am just saying that while a sizable chunk might misappropriate the funds they receive I don't think that the government has the right to forcibly drug-screen people who have had no previous criminal- and especially drug-related record.

People will argue that because certain persons receive welfare the government can impose this type of sanction on them, and I absolutely disagree. Just because you receive welfare does not make you a criminal and mandatory drug-screening suggests exactly that.

My 0.02
Inv

[Cralis]

On the other hand, this brings accountability. Really what they need is some form of accountability process to insure that the recipients of welfare don't use the money for drugs, alcohol, and prostitutes. Likewise, such accountability would catch people who have an unreported source of money that they can live from and are leeching from the government.

I don't know how to go about doing it while preserving privacy rights (which I hold dearly), but this is a logical extension of the fact that government has to be accountable to the tax payers for the money they spend (or at least try to be, yeah yeah i know).

[CG51]

They tried that in Florida in the late 90's during Clinton's Walfare Reform. The state was sued and the policy was rescinded.

Those poor jobless crackheads, how will they support their children when they have to pay for rent, lights, food, ect. without their entitlements.

Good luck to Cali

[Laworkerbee]

Lovely, so needing wellfare makes you a suspected drug user? Why not have mandatory drug testing for the entire population? People seem enthusiastic enough, and if you don't have anything to hide you don't have anything to fear right? :)

It's a program you sign up for and rules must be followed, don't like the rules? easy don't take the assistance.

[shocker1]

It's a program you sign up for and rules must be followed, don't like the rules? easy don't take the assistance.
I tend to agree however would you feel the same about drivers license? Slippery slope theory does apply. I remember in the 90's all the talk about the cameras on the streets proposals around here. Back then they were needed to monitor traffic conditions. Well now what do you know they discovered the new cameras can check your tags, speed, adherence to traffic signals and conveniently mail you a fat ticket. With a nice web site to pay, no need for courts. Wow what an unintended benefit for all.

To me it may come down to incriminating ones self to the authorities or not for some. Sounds like a cluster of lawsuits will follow.

[Laworkerbee]

I tend to agree however would you feel the same about drivers license?

I don't think that is such a bad idea as well.

All I'm getting at in my earlier post is if you want to live on assistance you have to accept some intrusion into your life to make sure you are following the rules.

Currently people living in section 8 housing here in California are open to surprise inspections for drugs, if found you lose your right to section 8 housing. I believe that was done to put a dent in dealing by gangs in section 8 housing, I have no idea if it has been successful or not; the Jordan Downs housing project is still a no go area for all emergency workers and police in Los Angeles.

[Freibier]

What a brilliant idea to produce more criminals:roll:

[shocker1]

I don't think that is such a bad idea as well.

.
Humm, I don't think so. That is a terrible idea innocent until proven guilty and all that. It is your right not to incriminate yourself. The less government acts like my mommy the better. Government is a terrible caretaker.

[Ordie]

The more laws politicians create, the more people break the laws.

This reminds me of the mandatory sentencing of drug offenders. It never solved the drug problem but created a prison industry sapping state resources away from schools.

[Laworkerbee]

Humm, I don't think so. That is a terrible idea innocent until proven guilty and all that. It is your right not to incriminate yourself. The less government acts like my mommy the better. Government is a terrible caretaker.

I think I woke up as a Socialist this morning :|

[SOG]

yup, where i used to live in san diego, chick next door was on welfare. she also sold drugs (multiple cars every day pulling up in our parking lot, she would walk out, hang on their car window, slip them a bag and walk back in), smoked weed, smoked crack (i could smell the weed all the time, broken crack pipes on our property), manufactured drugs (as the wonderful chemical odors coming from their place could attest to) and on top of all this wonderful behavior she spit out four kids from the time she was 16 years old. her oldest kid (daughter) is on the path same as her, her next oldest kid (son) was running away from home all the time and hanging out with gangs.

i am for drug testing x10. the fact is, your getting a great benefit from the state. unlike retirement (which you worked your whole life for) i don't see the issue in taking a piss test once a year. case in point: my blind friend is on housing assistance and in home support assistance. each organization comes out once a year and does a thorough inspection of the services they pay for. how is a random piss test once a year any different.

the thing that pisses me off even more, is people want to shelter many of these drug addicts and keep them suckling on the state instead of living life like they should. am i to understand you want these people to be down trodden, have pathetic poor lives with no hope and recourse, to never realize any potential? yes.

accountability is a bitch. eat it.


What a brilliant idea to produce more criminals:roll:

so they were already doing something criminal and this act would produce more criminals? right. sdrawkcab. or because leaching untold millions off the state isn't criminal. i'd rather spend the millions housing them in prison then keeping them well fed on the streets. how much does it cost to house one inmate per month in jail?

[Freibier]

I think I woke up as a Socialist this morning :|Well, at least you don't sound like one ;)

[Laworkerbee]

Quiet Jerry p-)


how much does it cost to house one inmate per month in jail?

Way too much Pal, the average cost of a year of incarceration is close to $45,000. Thats a full college tuition missed out on.

[shocker1]

I think I woke up as a Socialist this morning :|
I don't blame you, it is your surroundings.p-)

[shocker1]

so they were already doing something criminal and this act would produce more criminals? right. sdrawkcab. or because leaching untold millions off the state isn't criminal. i'd rather spend the millions housing them in prison then keeping them well fed on the streets. how much does it cost to house one inmate per month in jail?
Rethink the implications of this. Take almost criminals, force them to incriminate themselves and send them to the professional criminal training camp. Once in that system most repeat and stay for good. What you have done is take away hope, very dangerous to build up such a population of outcasts.
Also remember innocent children may be depending on those who you want to cut money from. They will end up in state care and that my friend increases this vicious cycle of no hope.

[dedbunniez]

Rethink the implications of this. Take almost criminals, force them to incriminate themselves and send them to the professional criminal training camp. Once in that system most repeat and stay for good. What you have done is take away hope, very dangerous to build up such a population of outcasts.
Also remember innocent children may be depending on those who you want to cut money from. They will end up in state care and that my friend increases this vicious cycle of no hope.

I don't think that anyone is advocating that they should be put in jail. I think people are saying that if you can't pass a drug you get no federal aid. In fact, if a college student is convicted of a drug offense he is no longer eligible for financial aid. Turn it around. If someone who is on welfare gets convicted of a drug offense then no more welfare, section 8 etc. This way little to no tax payer money, just have the welfare computers connected to the police computers or however one may figure it out.

I say this is a good idea.

[shocker1]

I don't think that anyone is advocating that they should be put in jail. I think people are saying that if you can't pass a drug you get no federal aid. In fact, if a college student is convicted of a drug offense he is no longer eligible for financial aid. Turn it around. If someone who is on welfare gets convicted of a drug offense then no more welfare, section 8 etc. This way little to no tax payer money, just have the welfare computers connected to the police computers or however one may figure it out.

I say this is a good idea.
Reread SOG's post as that is what I was addressing. You do this it is a one way or the other with no room for individual circumstance. If counseling for the first failed test was offered then this would be equitable. that way a kick in the ass is given before cutting off aid that could cause even more problems doing so. Government is our servant last time I checked. We should even protect the failed and less of us from overbearing government.

I will tell you this. Chattanooga tried a similar program for their housing. Here the NAACP cried racism and such, once the Southern guilt kicked in that program was binned. What really kicked it off was the squatters camps that popped up. Guess it is different on the left coast.

[California Joe]

They should piss test them, they should get them fixed so they don't procreate and they should make them all pre sign release forms for when they're on Cops. There.

[Ordie]

If you're tired of the drug problems, crime, then tax yourself for better schools not prisons or added bureaucracy. The only means to fight the drug problems to get rid of demand at its source through education.

Many of the schools let out early at 2:30 PM sometimes at Noon (for teacher training). Most parents get off at work at 5 PM. There's alot of time in-between for kids to get into trouble.

Ordie's proposal

1) Public schools should be on the quarter system including summers (like college).
2) Extend hours from 8 AM to 5 PM (business hours)
3) Starting teacher's pay at $65K ($80K with Masters Degree)
4) Parents have a choice of any public schools statewide and divert its tax revenues to that specific public school. (this forces to schools to either bring up the bar or specialize).
5) Two teachers per classroom (one to assist those falling behind, the other to lead).
6) Kids should hand deliver $5.00 per week to the school to teach them that education is not free.
7) Get rid of school districts (there's too many of them)

Sorry to rant. I'm just tired of fighting the results vs. the source.

[Laworkerbee]

I'd vote for you Ordie.

[wotsnext]

Do you piss test your Police?

[shocker1]

Do you piss test your Police?
Yes and you cannot get a decent job with insurance without filling a cup.

[wotsnext]

UK police take a test to join, But I belive they are not retested in service.

[Mastermind]

I work for an Engineering firm and we have to take a piss test to get on a job site now days! Some of our field guys have to take weekly tests, especially if they are using high risk equipment or working elevated jobs.

However, this "Welfare for clean piss" law will fail the first time a big 'ol slob of a mom with eight kids fails it and her kids go "hongry" and without free medical care. Nope...society is just not ready for that picture on CBS dinner time news..

I imagine some city like San Francisco will have a "Welfare Amnesty" law, inviting them to come live there free of the evil intrusion of the state "piss" cops.

God...I can hardly wait to see what the world is like in twenty years. It's gonna be a friggin nasty mess.

[JJC]

If you're tired of the drug problems, crime, then tax yourself for better schools not prisons or added bureaucracy. The only means to fight the drug problems to get rid of demand at its source through education.

Many of the schools let out early at 2:30 PM sometimes at Noon (for teacher training). Most parents get off at work at 5 PM. There's alot of time in-between for kids to get into trouble.

Ordie's proposal

1) Public schools should be on the quarter system including summers (like college).
2) Extend hours from 8 AM to 5 PM (business hours)
3) Starting teacher's pay at $65K ($80K with Masters Degree)
4) Parents have a choice of any public schools statewide and divert its tax revenues to that specific public school. (this forces to schools to either bring up the bar or specialize).
5) Two teachers per classroom (one to assist those falling behind, the other to lead).
6) Kids should hand deliver $5.00 per week to the school to teach them that education is not free.
7) Get rid of school districts (there's too many of them)

Sorry to rant. I'm just tired of fighting the results vs. the source.

The biggest issue at least for NYC public school system is source of funding. States do most of the PS funding, and when property tax is a prime revenue that funds PS, it's an issue with urban areas where not a lot of people own property. Long Island has top performing schools, but most are property owners and the tax is super high.

I think even if you implement what you are saying, it won't change much if the community doesn't change their way of life. Education starts at home, and I know that there is this attitude from parents that "it's the school's job to educate not mine."

[CG51]

They should piss test them, they should get them fixed so they don't procreate and they should make them all pre sign release forms for when they're on Cops. There.

Hehe, nice.

If a woman/child screws up her life and has a child early in life and has no skills, trade or education to take care of it, I understand, mistakes happen. Maybe even with the second one, it was a mistake, I understand, mistakes happen. After the second and you still want government entitlements, you should have your tubes tied (state funded of course).

[Dasein]

Hehe, nice.

If a woman/child screws up her life and has a child early in life and has no skills, trade or education to take care of it, I understand, mistakes happen. Maybe even with the second one, it was a mistake, I understand, mistakes happen. After the second and you still want government entitlements, you should have your tubes tied (state funded of course).

What if you were able to support yourself, but ran into hard times, like say a major medical issue coupled with your house burning down?

Keep in mind that the vast majority of people using public assistance do so for short periods of time, and a very small segment of the population is the sort of chronic welfare recipient people are talking about here. Really, what you see is a classic power-law curve, where a small number of people are responsible for the majority of the costs.

[SPQR]

All politicians should be drug tested randomly AND frequently in order to hold office. ALL drugs, including prescription drugs, should be public record.

-then- and only then

All those on public assistance or on any public payroll (including student loans) should be tested (for tobacco AND alcohol also) in order to receive funding. If you've got enough for a pack of smokes and a gram of coke, you obviously don't need my tax dollars!

The formula is simple... support yourself = right to privacy. Take my tax money = no privacy. Lastly, no public money for illegal aliens.

[CG51]

What if you were able to support yourself, but ran into hard times, like say a major medical issue coupled with your house burning down?

Keep in mind that the vast majority of people using public assistance do so for short periods of time, and a very small segment of the population is the sort of chronic welfare recipient people are talking about here. Really, what you see is a classic power-law curve, where a small number of people are responsible for the majority of the costs.

Medicaid is walfare. What percentage of the population are on Medicaid? (you might be suprised;) It is the most abused program out there. People assume that food stamps is the only walfare program out there; incorrect.

[shocker1]

The formula is simple... support yourself = right to privacy. Take my tax money = no privacy.
That is unconstitutional, your rights are not conditional based upon your need of public services. Plus, you are basically incriminating yourself at the will of a strong arm state using intimidation and financial threats. This is a prime example of how this could get ugly.

[Firetxmi]

The formula is simple... support yourself = right to privacy. Take my tax money = no privacy. Lastly, no public money for illegal aliens.

I vote for Breathalyzers and piss tests in order to use public transportation.

Formula:

Dont use public transportation= get wasted and stoned; Use public transportation= no drugs/ alcohol. Otherwise.... Walk the 10 miles home

[being sarcastic of course]

[SPQR]

That is unconstitutional, your rights are not conditional based upon your need of public services. Plus, you are basically incriminating yourself at the will of a strong arm state using intimidation and financial threats. This is a prime example of how this could get ugly.

Your arguement doesn't stand up. Nobody is FORCED to accept welfare. If they were, then yes, it would be an infringement on their rights. Airline pilots are drug tested, do you consider this an infringement? Afterall, they aren't forced to be pilots. Its simply a requirement to get their paycheck and continue on that line of work. There is also no requirement for or endorsement for or any reference to "public services" in the constitution. Public services (welfare) are not a "right" in any sense, they are merely a form of lite socialism concocted decades after the death of framers of the constitution. The
will of a strong arm state is taking money that I and my wife earn (we both work 2 jobs) and giving it to those who don't work. If that person decides they have enough surplus cash laying around (my cash!) to buy a bag of weed, then they don't need my money!!! Drug testing them (I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco included here) keeps everything fair and provides accountability.

There are charitable organizations, churches and civic groups they (potential welfare recipients) could turn to if not family other than the taxpayer funded welfare system if they were opposed to drug testing. Or, they could find a way to work. The rest of us do it wether or not we have kids, illness, injury, ect ect.

[Mastermind]

I know that when I was akid, there was no "welfare". there was a thing called "State Relief". The Feds were completely out of it. For a time, when I was only four, my mother had three small kids, and no hubby (the responsibility of a family was just "too much" for the poor guy)...when he left, he gave Mom five dollars to get by on. We lived in a garage...Mom part timed at a corner grocery and the owners paid her with fruit and vegetable "seconds"...a neighbor, also struggling, worked part time at the local dairy...be brough us a quart of milk a day...Mom had to fix him a breakfast of "soft food" becasue the guy had no teeth...we also had another neighbor who worked at a bakery...she would bring loaves of two day old bread and leave it on a box in the yard...everyone shared. Down the road, there was a meat packing place...they had a little back door where we could pick up beef hearts, tongues, kidneys, and occassionally, mis-cuts of ribs and such...Mom always had a stew or something on the stove. We never went hungry..and the six dollars from the state relieve every month helped pay the rent. Mom took in ironing for a nickle a piece to help pay the rest of the rent. She also took in laundry...we would lug dirty laundry to a local laundromat (wringer washers and open tubs) and us kids would play in the empty lot next door while she did the loads, then we would lub the wet laundry back where she would hang it out on the fence to dry...then iron it. We got by for over a year and a half that way. Eventually, she got married to an Air Force guy...we suddenly were in tall cotton!

Life often goes nuts on people. But, the Federal government has no business forcing me to give my hard earned money to my down and out neighbors. I should have that option if I choose to do so.

Second, I always remembered those really harsh times...and vowed to never let my family go through that. I worked hard all my life, went to school, and never let honest work go wanting. When we were struggling, I took on second jobs, I even made extra moeny as an adult mowing lawns, delivering papers, repairing windows, painting houses...there was always work to be had, and my kids never once went without.

Federally mandated Welfare is nothing but socialism by another name...and it ruins people, families and lives.

[Cralis]

Medicaid is walfare. What percentage of the population are on Medicaid? (you might be suprised;) It is the most abused program out there. People assume that food stamps is the only welfare program out there; incorrect.

There are MANY welfare programs out there. Section 8. WIC. Supplemental Income. To name a few.

One interesting thing is Medicare. Did you know that once you turn 65 you MUST take Medicare if it is available to you? By law insurance companies drop you from their insurance and are only allowed to offer you supplemental insurance. This just happened to my dad, and he had a much better plan through bluecross/blueshield.

Socialism for the win! (NOT)

[Cralis]

Hehe, nice.

If a woman/child screws up her life and has a child early in life and has no skills, trade or education to take care of it, I understand, mistakes happen. Maybe even with the second one, it was a mistake, I understand, mistakes happen. After the second and you still want government entitlements, you should have your tubes tied (state funded of course).

Do you honestly believe that "people like her" have no skills? She can't wash dishes? Serve food? Answer phones? Sweep the floor? Wash tables? The fact is that the majority of people whom "fall under this category" are much more capable of working then we allow for them. How do I know? I used to work for our state's dept. of human services.

We need to stop coddling these people and make them do something with their life, rather than sit on welfare all day and watch soaps. Some people in the system honestly do try to make themselves better and do make themselves better, but there is a HUGE chunk (I'd say at least 2/3rds) who don't. Granted, some of the disabled can't do that, but you'd be surprised how many are perfectly healthy (and perfectly lazy).

My personal favorite was this gal who was on the state's welfare system for >>23<< years. Why? Because she was so uneducated she couldn't learn anything (ie. never went to classes). When she finally did manage a 2 year degree and got a real job >>23<< years later, they had a party celebrating the occassion. Right there in DHS. Disgusting. She was 46 at the time. You do the math.

[Dasein]

Welfare is not socialism by any means, and has been around as a concept far longer than Marxism and it's derivatives. Welfare is no more socialism than any other form of government spending - we don't refer to the military as a socialist enterprise, so why welfare?

[Dasein]

We need to stop coddling these people and make them do something with their life, rather than sit on welfare all day and watch soaps. Some people in the system honestly do try to make themselves better and do make themselves better, but there is a HUGE chunk (I'd say at least 2/3rds) who don't. Granted, some of the disabled can't do that, but you'd be surprised how many are perfectly healthy (and perfectly lazy).


The exact opposite is true - the vast majority of people who receive public assistance (other than Medicaid) do so for short periods of time - weeks or months - while it is the exceptions who are chronically using public assistance.

[Dasein]

I know that when I was akid, there was no "welfare". there was a thing called "State Relief".

That must have been a long time ago, since the AFDC program was created in 1935 with the Social Security Act.

[SPQR]

MasterMind,
I always enjoy hearing your take on things. If I ever run into you on the street I'd like to buy you a beer (or two).

I'm not completely opposed to a limited, temporary form of welfare as long as heavy checks and balances are in place (like drug testing). I understand that there are valid cases for it. I personally know an older gentleman who collects state renters assistance; he has health problems, a few mental issues and no family. Human nature being what it is, all programs like welfare start out with the best of intentions but quickly become untennable and abused beyond recognition.

Another huge factor bankrupting the system for valid welfare cases is that ILLEGAL ALIENS are collecting these taxpayer funds. Sometimes several times over because the illegals can have many alias's, there is just no way to verify. Between cutting off the drug abusers who squander there welfare checks and illegals, we could save enough to keep the system afloat for those who have a genuine reason for such aid.

[Dasein]

MasterMind,
I always enjoy hearing your take on things. If I ever run into you on the street I'd like to buy you a beer (or two).

I'm not completely opposed to a limited, temporary form of welfare as long as heavy checks and balances are in place (like drug testing). I understand that there are valid cases for it. I personally know an older gentleman who collects state renters assistance; he has health problems, a few mental issues and no family. Human nature being what it is, all programs like welfare start out with the best of intentions but quickly become untennable and abused beyond recognition.

Another huge factor bankrupting the system for valid welfare cases is that ILLEGAL ALIENS are collecting these taxpayer funds. Sometimes several times over because the illegals can have many alias's, there is just no way to verify. Between cutting off the drug abusers who squander there welfare checks and illegals, we could save enough to keep the system afloat for those who have a genuine reason for such aid.

Would it cost us more to deal with the consequences of denying these people welfare than it does to currently allow them to get what benefits they do?

[Laworkerbee]

Would it cost us more to deal with the consequences of denying these people welfare than it does to currently allow them to get what benefits they do?

What of the cost of enabling "these" people to not move forward in their lives?

[SPQR]

Would it cost us more to deal with the consequences of denying these people welfare than it does to currently allow them to get what benefits they do?

Don't be racist.

Are you saying that since our system is so broken and full of holes that most illegals can get a "free" gov check in the mail, and, if cut off they would turn into a murderous raping & pillaging mob? Or the same for citizen drug using welfare recipients?

Typical liberal racism and socialist elitism.

After working in the criminal justice system in Kommiefornia, I can legitimately say that the criminal element in these groups is already practicing their trade on a daily basis AND collecting their checks. Would there be a slight upward trend in theft and petty crime if these groups were cut off, sure. Nothing that enforcing the law and liberally deporting wouldn't cure.

Most illegals and small time drug using welfare recipients are, or could be decent people if given a chance and a reason to work or do things within the legal frame-work. The social welfare state destroys the reason to live within the legal frame-work. Illegals come to my state because everyone can enjoy all the medical care, schooling, and welfare that the state offers while working under the table and off the books. They do quite well with these dual sources of income, who can blame them? People who excell at living the drug lifestyle on the taxpayer dime have a grand 'ole time. Why work? Stay home all day, someone else will foot the bill for the food, rent and next high... Can life get any better than that? Its a dream come true.

Can't you see that we aren't doing these people any favors nor are we being fair to the rest off us picking up the tab. This cycle/system cannot sustain itself nor is it productive or healthy to any society to propogate it.

We have a valid reason to start slowly curtailing the gravytrain with drug testing welfare recipients - WE ARE BROKE! Its a good start. The party is over, sure it was fun while it lasted but don't let the door hit ya on the way out... McDonalds is hiring.

[Dasein]

Don't be racist.

Are you saying that since our system is so broken and full of holes that most illegals can get a "free" gov check in the mail, and, if cut off they would turn into a murderous raping & pillaging mob? Or the same for citizen drug using welfare recipients?

Typical liberal racism and socialist elitism.

After working in the criminal justice system in Kommiefornia, I can legitimately say that the criminal element in these groups is already practicing their trade on a daily basis AND collecting their checks. Would there be a slight upward trend in theft and petty crime if these groups were cut off, sure. Nothing that enforcing the law and liberally deporting wouldn't cure.

Most illegals and small time drug using welfare recipients are, or could be decent people if given a chance and a reason to work or do things within the legal frame-work. The social welfare state destroys the reason to live within the legal frame-work. Illegals come to my state because everyone can enjoy all the medical care, schooling, and welfare that the state offers while working under the table and off the books. They do quite well with these dual sources of income, who can blame them? People who excell at living the drug lifestyle on the taxpayer dime have a grand 'ole time. Why work? Stay home all day, someone else will foot the bill for the food, rent and next high... Can life get any better than that? Its a dream come true.

Can't you see that we aren't doing these people any favors nor are we being fair to the rest off us picking up the tab. This cycle/system cannot sustain itself nor is it productive or healthy to any society to propogate it.

We have a valid reason to start slowly curtailing the gravytrain with drug testing welfare recipients - WE ARE BROKE! Its a good start. The party is over, sure it was fun while it lasted but don't let the door hit ya on the way out... McDonalds is hiring.

You're dodging the question. I'm not asking if it's racist, elitist, socialist or whatever. I don't care. I'm asking which would cost more.

[Dasein]

What of the cost of enabling "these" people to not move forward in their lives?

I fail to see how cutting off welfare benefits for a drug addict enables them to move forward. They need addiction counseling to get them off the drugs.

[Laworkerbee]

I fail to see how cutting off welfare benefits for a drug addict enables them to move forward. They need addiction counseling to get them off the drugs.

Addiction counseling is free and available to anyone who wants it.

[StukaJr]

Welfare fraud is a big problem - especially in Los Angeles... The system needs to be overhauled and attacked on every angle to ween off the dead weight. I've known ex-Soviet families that made healthy income and still collected welfare and inner-city black families that haven't worked for generations - LA actually has programs that introduces teenagers to work environment as they can't get that knowledge at home... I've known plenty of families of ex-Soviet immigrants that owned businesses while receiving welfare and black families with generations never having to work... The system is clearly not working and needs to be fixed.

Unemployment paycheck is a free ride for 6 months only - and that's system every working person pays into... Welfare is lifetime for those that play it plus free medical - and you can be a dope fiend? What kind of crap is that?

[SPQR]

You're dodging the question. I'm not asking if it's racist, elitist, socialist or whatever. I don't care. I'm asking which would cost more.

There is no question;
If you don't pay welfare to someone abusing the system, it costs nothing.

If your infering that all these people who are cut off will immediately become hardcore criminals (thereby costing the system for incarceration), then I answered in my previous post... The hardcore criminal element in the welfare abusers is already commiting crimes right now, this minute, everyday, 24/7. No need to send them a paycheck too. The cost is a wash; no change for that aspect.

If your infering that the petty welfare rip-off artists will turn into hardcore criminals... then yes, thats elitist and, depending on the demographic; also racist. Majority of the welfare rip-off artists don't have the aptitude, determination or conscience to go hard-core criminal.

All in all, cut off the riff-raff from the welfare nipple and you save milk.

[Cralis]

The exact opposite is true - the vast majority of people who receive public assistance (other than Medicaid) do so for short periods of time - weeks or months - while it is the exceptions who are chronically using public assistance.

Not in Oregon and California. Unless you count each time they hit the system as completely separate times. A huge chunk of them will go on for a few months, go off for a few months, and go right back on. Sometimes they'll stay a year, and get off for 3 months. There are some who use it temporarily when they become unemployed... wait thats what unemployment is for and the medical assistance programs up here are no longer accepting new members BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE MORE THAN THEY CAN PAY FOR.

Ask me, I'd have loved to use them for a month after I was unemployed so I had health coverage instead of paying out of my pocket when my daughter got sick.

In fact, it is so bad here that the federally assisted programs are all closed to new members as well.

And before you say "its a sign of the recession", its been this way for the last several years.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I've been on welfare payments in the past due to unemployment.

I'm currently going through the process of applying for the Disability Support Pension because of health reasons.

If people think it's so ****ing easy living on welfare and is nothing but a free ride. Think a ****ing again. Within a week you are counting every single coin you have to scrape enough money together to pay for essentials. Putting 10 bucks worth of fuel in the tank instead of 50.

And if you come from a high paying job, have loans, credit card, paying rent all of which will be greater then any welfare payment mind you.

Having been in the system, worked providing services to people in the system, volunteered in soup kitchens I can categorically state that 99.9% of welfare recipients are not on welfare by choice nor do they want to stay on welfare.

I'll also say this. Every single one of us have at some point abused the government system. We all try to come up with ways to avoid paying taxes, transferring ownership of assets to trusts to avoid personal costs associated with the assets, having offshore bank accounts, screwing workers out of retirement/severance packages yet executives still get million dollar packages when a company calls in chapter 11.

If poor people abuse the system. It's nothing compared to the ****ing rich ****s. **** em.

[Laworkerbee]

I like you Minardiau, you are genuine.

[Cralis]

Unemployment != Welfare. Two entirely different things, handled by two different agencies, and granted two different sources of funds from the Feds.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I like you Minardiau, you are genuine.

Thanks man.

I'm just sick and tired of all the ****. It's all fine and dandy to be critical of the benefits low income, pensions, people with disabilities and the unemployed get when you're on 100k a year when these people are struggling with 300 bucks a week. When the mean average rent for even Newcastle is 210 bucks a week.

It's ****ed. And it's also the people who earn less then 40k a year who seem to get screwed the most by big business.

Back when I finished my apprenticeship. The company I worked for. It went broke. I personally was owed around 6k. Not a lot of money. But considering I was only on about 400 bucks a week at the time it was ****ing huge. This was my house deposit. Gone. Yet the bank still wanted it's millions, the managing directors still lived in million dollar beach front houses with their trust accounts, BMW's, yachts. I ended up on the dole barely managing my current expenses.

Oh and 6 months later at the auction the directors are back buying up and within 12 months they have started another business again making the same **** under a different but very close name as the company that went broke.

**** em.

[SPQR]

I've been on welfare payments in the past due to unemployment.

I'm currently going through the process of applying for the Disability Support Pension because of health reasons.

If people think it's so ****ing easy living on welfare and is nothing but a free ride. Think a ****ing again. Within a week you are counting every single coin you have to scrape enough money together to pay for essentials. Putting 10 bucks worth of fuel in the tank instead of 50.

And if you come from a high paying job, have loans, credit card, paying rent all of which will be greater then any welfare payment mind you.

Having been in the system, worked providing services to people in the system, volunteered in soup kitchens I can categorically state that 99.9% of welfare recipients are not on welfare by choice nor do they want to stay on welfare.

I'll also say this. Every single one of us have at some point abused the government system. We all try to come up with ways to avoid paying taxes, transferring ownership of assets to trusts to avoid personal costs associated with the assets, having offshore bank accounts, screwing workers out of retirement/severance packages yet executives still get million dollar packages when a company calls in chapter 11.

If poor people abuse the system. It's nothing compared to the ****ing rich ****s. **** em.

Yours is exactly the kind of situation that public benefits were designed and intended for. In your opinion, should the gov drug test, check citizenship, ect to cut off benefits of those that are ripping the system?

And as for the fat cat corporate directors... aka Enron types that screw everyone and run, your preeching to the chior here. I'd love to send them all to Guantanimo.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I don't believe anyone on a government benefit should be drug tested. Unless ordered to do so by the courts because of domestic violence history, custody of children and so forth. Even still they shouldn't lose any benefits.

Fact is. Even drug addicts, alcoholics. Will from time to time relapse and go back into the habit. Breaking addiction is not an easy thing to do. What should be done is more government services be made available to ensure that if they go back into the habit there are services that they can easily access to get them back into normal society.

[Group9]

The people of California need to make up their minds. First, they pass a state law that pretty much says you can use medical marijuana for just about anything anyone can think of, and then they want to start drug testing their welfare recipients and make being drug free part of the deal.

I think there going to find a lot of people using drugs. How did they think that medical marijuana thing was going to work out?

And, how do you tie someone's benefits to drug use, when you have said drug use is, for all intents and purposes, okay, there?

Wacky left coast.

[Cralis]

First, what I'm mostly seeing is hate fueled by a person's personal experience. Yes there are corporations who take advantage of the people that work for them - just like there are corporations who go out of their way to help their people. You have a legitimate reason to be upset and hateful, but my experience has taught me that I usually solve nothing and create more problems in my own life by being that way. I'm not going to get into that debate because it will be fueled by personal feelings and experiences, and not be reasonable thought.

Not to mention the fact that I believe, in the end, everyone will reap what they sow. So I can move on sure of the fact that the "bad person" will "get it" in the end.

I am one who makes less than 40k a year, and always have. Yet I am also one who criticizes how the system is run. How does that fit into your pre-organized picture of the world? I have worked for my state's Dept of Human Services and there are a LOT of hangars, dead-weight, and fraudulent people using the services. I probably wouldn't even care if my taxes didn't get used for it, and I didn't work there (and was blissfully ignorant of the truth).

I've run businesses, sub-contracted, been in the labor force, and even been in the military. It is what you make of it. I know lots of people who make 40k or less a year and are perfectly happy with it. I also know lots of people (myself included) who are "doing ok" with 40k or less a year, and am working towards making more (whether by increasing job skills or forming one's own business). Its not as black-n-white as you make it out to be.


Fact is. Even drug addicts, alcoholics. Will from time to time relapse and go back into the habit. Breaking addiction is not an easy thing to do. What should be done is more government services be made available to ensure that if they go back into the habit there are services that they can easily access to get them back into normal society.

Drug users are a BIG problem. They are also a big abuser of the system. Being on welfare actually enables many of them to continue abusing! Both of my parents worked law enforcement in parole and probation, and could testify to the number of addicts they had on their caseloads who were active abusers, collected welfare, and didn't work. As for "getting them help", here in Oregon alone there are dozens of free government and privately funded organizations and drug rehab programs/facilities that will help these people. However, WELFARE should NOT be one of them. If you clean your life up and need some help to get on your feet? No problem. If your using drugs and expecting the government to keep you in a home, paying your bills, and helping you pay for food? Hell no.

Some people have to hit rock bottom before they will consider looking up and changing their life.


The company I worked for. It went broke.

Your situation is what unemployment is supposed to help prevent. Have I done it? Almost exactly, and yeah it sucks. But I made it through and now I'm living much better.

Being bitter and looking for people to blame doesn't help. Your arguement sounds persuasive only because it is personal and touching. And there are some people in situations like yours. But there are also a huge swatch of free-loaders, frauds, and abusers of the system. Because this is MY tax dollar, I support anything that will make them and the system more accountable for it. Not to mention that I don't want my tax dollar to buy someone's hit for the day.

It also sounds like you don't have a good concept of what qualifies for welfare in the USA. I was making 1800-ish base income a month in the military, and because I had two children I was slightly under the federal poverty level. But at the same time I had 10k in the bank. How does that work?

Before I joined the military I made about 1350/mo and was considered eligible for food stamps and housing assistance because my wife didn't work. WTF? The only assistance I ever wanted (needed) was insurance assistance because it was (and still is) virtually impossible to get anything resembling actual insurance at an affordable price. However, at the time I made that income I was covered by a full plan, so no need there.

I remember working at DHS and going to this "new employee familiarity seminar" where they would tell us how bad off it was and such. Part of it was where they would "assign" you a fictional person with income, housing, etc. situation and you had to "use the services" to make your life "bearable". I remember my "person" was a mother with two children who made 1400/mo (more than I did, mind you) but was in "dire need" because she had 800/mo rent (6 years later and I don't pay that for a 3 bedroom apartment!), a 400/mo car rental, and owed 12k in debts. My solution was "live down" in a smaller cheaper place, dump the expensive card, and use a consumer credit counseling service to negotiate and bring your debt under control.

I was told that the solution was considered "unacceptable" and I had to "use the services" to get "what I deserved."

I could go on and on about clients who did nothing but watched TV all day, one older gal who felt "she earned a rest at her age" (early 40s), another guy who had 7 children and another on the way, plus an affair outside of the marriage and that chick was pregnant, and had been on welfare since before the first child, and much more.

The system is broken my friend. We desperately need to clean it up or the people who need won't have it, and the people who don't will continue to get a relatively free ride.

Second, your taking the criticism and suggestions for fixing the system personally. Nobody is attacking you or trying to say that you don't deserve any assistance. There are many people who DO need legitimate help. For a few years before (and a year after) we were married my wife got medical insurance assistance from the state because we couldn't get a job with medical coverage! Did we collect other benefits? No, we didn't need them. But then again I took the fact that I needed assistance as a responsibility and not as a chance for a free ride.

Getting "out of taxes"? The only way you can "get out of taxes" is through legitimate means of tax-responsibility reduction. Whether its business investments, retirement funds, earned income credits...whatever, they are legitimate. There is no "cheating" or "evading" as your suggestion. Unless you mean that someone is getting to do something that you can't or haven't figured out yet! Big deal.

Most tax breaks are for business investments and trusts. One thing - it requires money to do them in the first place. So yeah your getting a tax break, but your using up money out of your pocket. At the end of the year you'll have spent more than you gained. Yay. But it is just like anything else business - you have to spend money to get money.

Anyways, its late, I'm sick, and I've ranted too long. I just hope someday we can get past the hatred and get a logical view of the subject at hand. Only then can we do some creative thinking.

[Mastermind]

Welfare, as we know it today, is nothing but socialism by another name. In every society, there are producers and those who, though able bodied, will not produce anything but children. Now, some people may want to make excuses for those who do not produce or contribute to society. They do this, primarily out of a sense of pity and a sense of guilt. Two very natural emotions. However, it is beyond my comprehension why those people think it is the government's job to support those people...especially the ones who become powerful in government...they tend to ease their consiences with my money rather than their own. They insist they have the right to reach into my pocket, take food, clothing and shelter from my family and in turn, after stripping off a huge percentage for their bureaucrat they hire to manage the dough, give it directly to those who, for what-ever reason, do not produce or contribute.

Now, I am not saying the downtrodden should be swept off into the gutter...there are projects the government should rightly do...such as job training and enterprenurial assistances, such as temporary tax incentives and even guaranteed small business loans, to help these people become productive and self supporting. But! To just hand cash straight over to slovenly, able bodied citizens is criminal and is a form of slavery...a kept people are slaves to the system and will do anything to maintain the status quo. It allows nefarious politicians to garner votes through dispensing the treasury even more, perpetuating for eternity the position of these poor unfortunates.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin...the best assistance to the poor should be to either entice them or drive them from their poverty.

But, to give men and women cash for just existing is doing no service to them or to the society in which they persist.

[SPQR]

I think I now have my write-in canidates for president and vice-president in November:

Cralis & Mastermind

[Laworkerbee]

The people of California need to make up their minds. First, they pass a state law that pretty much says you can use medical marijuana for just about anything anyone can think of, and then they want to start drug testing their welfare recipients and make being drug free part of the deal.

I think there going to find a lot of people using drugs. How did they think that medical marijuana thing was going to work out?

And, how do you tie someone's benefits to drug use, when you have said drug use is, for all intents and purposes, okay, there?

Wacky left coast.

Not really Wacky

Those who have a prescription are exempt for testing positive for marijuana use.

Welfare is federal assistance and the Fed's don't recognize our marijuana laws here in California.

[JJC]

Not really Wacky

Those who have a prescription are exempt for testing positive for marijuana use.

Welfare is federal assistance and the Fed's don't recognize our marijuana laws here in California.

Are you telling me Cali is ignoring Gonzales v. Raich ruling?

[Laworkerbee]

Are you telling me Cali is ignoring Gonzales v. Raich ruling?

I believe so...

[JJC]

I believe so...

Humm, Gotta call my boys at DOJ and see what fed funds we can cut then. p-)

[Laworkerbee]

Humm, Gotta call my boys at DOJ and see what fed funds we can cut then. p-)

Perhaps Hank could shed some light on it all, we have amended our constitution here in California to allow the prescriptions.

The DEA does raid cannabis clubs and as far as I know the LAPD does not assist them what so ever.

[Bia]

...pee in a jar and you're owned.

[deagle]

i think thats a good measure to make sure money granted is used for the correct purposes.

[StukaJr]

In the defense of the people in "high" paying jobs (I guess anything above 50K but before an individual starts filing as a "small business")

We do pay higher tax brackets - federal tax alone takes an extra 10% just for being the Middleclass. Should we become unemployed - we'll get paid from Unemployment insurance we pay into when we are employed (not mentioning living on savings and independently for a time). Even though it's "our" 62.5% of taxable income - we'll be hassled to prove that we are actively seeking a job (unlike lifetime welfare recipients). When putting children through college - we don't qualify for any kind of state or federal grants and majority of scholarships are disqualified due to "high" income.

I can see my wages climb from school into a series of stepping stone jobs I bet on benefiting my career - I may feel set and secure now, but I certainly did not feel too sure when I coupled 32 hours of retail work per week with 50+ hours of trade school for a year and a half. I don't recall complaining when my first annual salary was two thousand dollars more than my yearly tuition the year I've graduated - because it was a step towards the future. I didn't complain when quarter of my salary went to pay for my school tuition - because I've calculated that two and a half years and I'd be free!

When the industry I've chosen has collapsed and I was out on the street - I haven't even had time to file for unemployment checks (did not collect a red cent), as all the time I wasn't surfing for **** - I was looking for transitioning into a career where I had some salvageable experience. Eight months, depleted savings, 10K plus of taxes I owed on contract work I scrounged - I was employed full time at half my salary and with automated withdrawals to backpay tax money I owed... First month and a half - I might as well not have worked as California thought I could subside on 400 a month just as well... But yet I bore through with it as it was a hurdle I had to pass.

I feel like I can tell welfare recipients to pee in a cup on their next "payday" is because I know poverty and have worked pretty effing hard to move up... It's not all milk and honey working "up the ladder" - at any point one can be expected to abandon a comfortable lifestyle and have their hard earned money diverted from luxury auto's and expendable income... I really don't see on the tax form where I can write off "30K a year for private school because state funded system sucks donkey balls" or "supporting an ailing member of the family because disability pays below a poverty level"...

[Mastermind]

Excellent Stucka...been there-done that. I too, raised a family, often had not enough money to buy a new pair of work boots, used duct tape to hold things together ...bought baby formula instead of boots or work clothes...made do, took any job, sometimes working two and hours extra on week ends...always volunteering for the coldest, most dangerous, hottest, most nasty jobs to make more money. GDmned gvt had no problem reaching into my pocket to take cash from my family to give it to 'effing bums sitting around screwing and watching new color TV's...But, my family and I never took a red cent...we made it all on our own...put two boys through collegs, to top it all off. Those jackasses can go piss in a cup or go piss upwind off a cliff for all give a rats as5!