Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My guess is that this legislation was drafted without consulting anyone with experience with the population the legislation is supposed to address. If the purpose is to ensure that the welfare population is drug free, presumably this law will do that, but I doubt that it's cost effective. OTOH it might decrease the welfare rolls, and of course, there's a cost savings there. Unfortunately it will serve to swell the number of children in foster care. Anyone who knows anything about this will tell you that welfare--ie keeping children in the homes with their parents with nutrition support--is significantly cheaper than foster care. Plus, long term studies have demonstrated again and again that children are better off with their parents. People who are addicted to drugs won't apply for welfare and their children will wind up in the system because they will be reported.
Are you saying that children are better off with parents, even if those parents are drug users? I guess it depends how neglectful they are and whether or not they seriously abuse the children?
I guess for me...and I know some of you don't understand this concept...is that I don't believe the gov't has a fundamental obligation to feed people, and if they do undertake to ensure no one starves, for how long and under what circumstances? At what point are people on their own? At what point do they rely on themselves, family, friends, and private charity for support if they're on drugs or just made other bad choices? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? Never?
I know...the consequences...the children will starve or be abused. People will end up in jail. I guess to me, if you care so little about your life and the lives of your children that you abuse them, then maybe they should be taken away and you belong in prison. I know that's harsh, but the alternative is that people are coddled and the gov't takes care of them.
Two Georgia lawmakers want welfare recipients to take drug tests, a controversial policy that’s been struck down as unconstitutional in other states, reports the Athens Banner-Herald.
Rep. Jason Spencer, (R-Woodbine), and Sen. John Albers, (R-Roswell), said Thursday they plan to introduce legislation to require people to pass a drug test if they are applying to receive cash welfare.
This nothinng more than a token gesture to cater to the bitter and mean people of the state. This exact same thing has been mentioned in Florida and in another state on this forum (I think Az) and has been already struck down as being unconstitutional.
Are you saying that children are better off with parents, even if those parents are drug users? I guess it depends how neglectful they are and whether or not they seriously abuse the children
Given the current state of our foster care system the answer is an unequivocal YES! Most children can have a half-dozen or more placements in a YEAR. Each time a child is disrupted in a placement his/her emotional development can be set back as much as a year. Foster care in itself is enough for children to develop emotional problems, and that's in an ideal situation. Most foster homes in this country are far from ideal. If the parent can maintain a minimal standard; ie three hots and a cot and ensure the child attends school, then yes, they are far better with their parent than they are in the system. Even better if we're able to put in some support and reinforcement, ie parenting classes, homemakers to teach proper nutrition. It's absolutely fabulous if we can get a bed in a rehab center, but that's damned near impossible as well. I don't know about Georgia, but in Alabama we only had one rehab center that a woman could go to with a small child. Considering that many times we discovered the substance abuse when the mother tested positive at the hospital when giving birth, you're talking about removing a newborn from its mother. Even if your mindset is "she shouldn't have used drugs, she gets what she deserves." Does the child get what he deserves too? Again, we have all types of evidence that children who don't bond with their mothers are more subject to failure to thrive and can literally die from lack of contact. Further they're more subject to illness and disease. From a pragmatic standpoint they're far more likely to cost the state money if they're separated from their mothers at this early age.
So yes, the state makes a lousy parent, much worse than even a substance abuser.
There are not enough homes, not by any stretch of the imagination. I've picked up babies in the middle of the night and not had a foster home to take them to. More than once, probably dozens of times, I've sat up in my office all night with children that I was not able to place. Again, I'm not talking about teenagers. It goes without saying that they're not easy to place. But sometimes even babies and small children are difficult as well. People are very quick to say that we should just take the children away, but they don't have any solutions as to what the hell we're supposed to do with said children. They have to be fed, clothed, sheltered, nurtured and educated just like any other kid and we can do it a lot cheaper and with less emotional damage to the child in his/her own home.
Quote:
I guess to me, if you care so little about your life and the lives of your children that you abuse them, then maybe they should be taken away and you belong in prison. I know that's harsh, but the alternative is that people are coddled and the gov't takes care of them.
And in an ideal world where we had enough foster homes and enough support in place for these children that might be a reasonable alternative. Unfortunately, this is not the case and given the attitude most in this country have toward taking care of children it's unlikely to occur. To me, taking the kids away in the name of not coddling the parent is a self-defeating gesture. You wind up with a kid in foster care for the rest of their life. Again and again I've tried to explain to judges that we stand a far better chance of getting a parent clean with their child in the house, than without. Many times the parent will at least a minimal standard of care because they have their kids. Once the kids are taken away they slip further into addiction and hopelessness. There's nothing more shameful to most mothers than being seen as "unfit." Shame is what keeps people addicted in the first place. It's a vicious cycle and it sucks big time. I hate it with the heat of a thousand suns, but I know that this is the truth, whether you care about the parent or the kids for the matter, removing kids is not cost-effective.
If you care about the kids keep in mind that children from the system are far more likely to become part of the one of more systems themselves--either welfare, foster care or criminal justice. A far greater burden on the taxpayer. Kids in foster care are far more likely to need psychiatric treatment than the general population. Many of them need residential care. I had kids in places that cost upwards of $350 per day and that was nearly ten years ago. God only knows what residential treatment costs now. Even in a therapeutic foster home, each kid costs a minimum of $1200 per month. Far more than even the most generous welfare benefits.
I'm not understanding your point. I think the Republicans would have no problem if the poor wanted to take less from gov't.
But they are all for the rich taking from the government
What we're discussing here is someone who comes to the gov't (which gets its money by taxing the work of productive citizens) and asks for money. What has been proposed is that if someone comes with their hand out, they should be expected to use the money that's given to them responsibly. If someone is taking drugs, do you think the money they get will go to food or to something else? If someone is on drugs, do you think they are using all of their own money wisely? Are they able to work and keep a job?
Using that logic, anyone that receives anything from the government should be tested, including the farmers and any business owners that gets subsidies. As far as drug users and work, you would be suprise how many people are doing it. Doctors,nurses,pilots, and anyone who works 12-16 hr shifts ingest a variety of stimulates both legal and illegal to stay awake. Also an addict will get drugs and not necessarily money to feed his/her habit regardless if it is legal or not
The solution here again is really simple for people getting welfare who don't want to be bothered or feel imposed upon...don't come to the gov't with your hand out. That's something within your control.
All that they will do is get someone else to pee in the cup for them or stay clean for a specified time (depending on their drug of choice). My question that many of the pollster have not mentioned is, who will administer the test and at what cost to the taxpayor?
Businesses and productive individuals would love to be left alone, but the gov't confiscates our income and burdens us with regulation.
This should really rile the Teapartiers, since this is an expansion of the government, because there has to be people that they can challenge any possibly faulty readings and there also has to a way to appeal such results.
Simetime, please don't quote with answers inline. That makes it very hard to rebut and respond without a lot of editing and copying that I don't wish to do.
First, be specific. What "rich" and who are we talking about. I am soooo freaking sick of people who hear talking points on the news, look at their own paycheck, and go on rants about "the rich." It's getting old. Obama defined the "rich" as people with income over $250K and then took it down to $200K. What is your definition? How are they "taking from the gov't?"
I actually agree with you about corporate welfare and subsidies. I would reduce or eliminate farm subsidies, although I'm not naive enough to not realize that unintended consequences can occur. Do you want to raise food prices by 25%? Then some would be screaming about that.
I'm not for anyone taking illegal drugs, but a doctor (your example) doesn't come with his/her hand out to the taxpayers. I also don't think you know what you're talking about with pilots. I'm a licensed pilot and know several airline left and right seaters.
I understand the point about the cost of testing. The same argument is used time and again. We make the perfect the enemy of the good and if things can't be perfect, then we do nothing. I don't know that short term it's about cost savings per se. I think we need to get a handle on to whom we give money and under what circumstance. There is a big issue with single mothers having children and then having more children while on welfare. There is a big issue with the entitlement attitude that exists (and stop referring to these programs as "entitlements" which drives me crazy). In my opinion, if people had to work 3 jobs or starve, or have fewer children they can't take of, they might make better choices out of necessity.
Simetime, please don't quote with answers inline. That makes it very hard to rebut and respond without a lot of editing and copying that I don't wish to do.
First, be specific. What "rich" and who are we talking about. I am soooo freaking sick of people who hear talking points on the news, look at their own paycheck, and go on rants about "the rich." It's getting old. Obama defined the "rich" as people with income over $250K and then took it down to $200K. What is your definition? How are they "taking from the gov't?"
I actually agree with you about corporate welfare and subsidies. I would reduce or eliminate farm subsidies, although I'm not naive enough to not realize that unintended consequences can occur. Do you want to raise food prices by 25%? Then some would be screaming about that.
I'm not for anyone taking illegal drugs, but a doctor (your example) doesn't come with his/her hand out to the taxpayers. I also don't think you know what you're talking about with pilots. I'm a licensed pilot and know several airline left and right seaters.
I understand the point about the cost of testing. The same argument is used time and again. We make the perfect the enemy of the good and if things can't be perfect, then we do nothing. I don't know that short term it's about cost savings per se. I think we need to get a handle on to whom we give money and under what circumstance. There is a big issue with single mothers having children and then having more children while on welfare. There is a big issue with the entitlement attitude that exists (and stop referring to these programs as "entitlements" which drives me crazy). In my opinion, if people had to work 3 jobs or starve, or have fewer children they can't take of, they might make better choices out of necessity.
Ok, I will rephrase it and say "wealthy" since rich is a relative term. The powerful make the laws and find ways to make them would in their own benefit and to the benefit of the wealthy (see congress and inside trading). BTW, don't act stupid if you are a pilot you know the difference between middle class and rich anyway. If you have an income that surpasses 1 million annually (clear), one can be considered to be well off. Are you insinuating that the president changed the amount to fit his own income? The president, when he leaves office will be in a higher income bracket thus paying more in taxes. As far as them taking from the government, has you ever seen some of the defense contracts? Well I have sen what many of them entailed (Do you remember the fraud in Iraq?)
I don't know what you are talking about regarding payment for doctors, I was referring to the drug usage of medical professionals as well as others who work extended shifts, this may include pilots as well. You cannot tell me that you (if you are a commercial pilot) have never heard of other pilots taking caffeine pills? Guess what those like any other stimulants are drugs. I have known nurses (especially E.R nurses) that work extended shifts to do this as well as other substances, interns and residents on call it is more common. None of them gets tested unless (sometimes) if they do something extremely wrong.
Do you think that drugs are the reason that women have kids and end up on welfare? There are various reasons why things like that happen, husband/boyfriend leaves/dies, lost of job after having kids, molestations/rape resulting in pregnancy and then be unable to get an abortion, ect. People that receive unemployment, SSI, workers compensation have contributed to these stop gap measures and therefore should get them. People on welfare are always targeted whenever the economy is in flux because they do not have a lobbyist to vouch for them in D.C. I'm not that naive to say that all people on welfare do not fit the sterotype of being lazy and breeding like rabbits either. The biggest problem with people that depend on welfare to live is education and money management. Many people take something as simple as this for granted, but yet it is never mentioned by those who want to make new rules or restrict benefits for those who need it.
To be completely honest with you, rather you test them are not like I said before, an addict will get whatever he/she needs rather the government gives them part of it or not. If you really think by cutting off their food stamps will do anything, they will simply resort to getting what they need by other means.....just hope that you are not the victim
Well, in order for me to pay taxes to the govt. I had to pass a drug test. Seems fitting that one who receives money from the govt. should have to do the same.
It has occured to you that this ignorant heffer is more of an exception than the rule? I was a caseworker for three years and I have seen people get on welfare and get off when their situations improved and I have seen cows like this one. There are more trying to improve their lives than sponge off of the government
Further, it's obvious that this woman is most likely bi-polar and having a manic episode. I hate the way people are circulating this video as though it were the norm for welfare recipients. Goodness knows there are people gaming the system, just as there are people gaming pretty much EVERY system, but most of the people I've known who received welfare benefits were doing their damnedest to get off them if for no other reason than the intrusiveness of government. That used to be my pitch as a caseworker, "Let's take care of these issues. I know you don't want me here, and I don't want to be here. Your compliance means I can be out of your lives much more quickly."
We really need to get a grip on our attitudes about the mentally ill in this country. I was personally nauseated at the way they kept repeatedly showing Charlie Sheen during his manic episodes (shored up by a good bit of self-medication). People thought it was funny, to me, it was like watching someone have a seizure. People who are bi-polar become regrettably impulsive during their manic episodes. To the point of self-destructiveness. I've seen it happen time and again. Mentally ill women are frequently taken advantage of sexually when they are having these episodes if they're not in an environment with proper boundaries, which would explain the 15 kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
It has occured to you that this ignorant heffer is more of an exception than the rule? I was a caseworker for three years and I have seen people get on welfare and get off when their situations improved and I have seen cows like this one. There are more trying to improve their lives than sponge off of the government
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
