Welfare reform in PA moving in the right direction, I hope. (transfer, neighborhood)

[gg]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Sorry, I completely disagree. I would have 0 sympathy on the so called "suffering" of those that show 0 desire to better their lives or be somewhat of a productive member of society.

Sure, some crime would probably go up if you kicked people off the public dole, but then with the money you would save from supporting deadbeats, policing of the blighted areas and detention of those that are so uncivilized to know no recourse than to commit crimes. And I'm sure this spike in crime would only be temporary as those would see that this new way of living really sucks And maybe some of these blighted areas would actually improve when the gangbangers and such ceased to be there.

You could further use the money that you would save to actually spend on people that do need government assistance such as those with mental disabilities that cannot survive in modern society to no fault of their own.

If you are an able bodied adult and show no desire to be a productive member of society I don't give 2 sh*ts what happens to you. As I said, a safety net is a good thing, but only when it is used as a safety net rather than a way of life.

Well said. I think people that are on assistance would surprise many by going out and work because they are hungry. A few might steal, but working is probably easier than trying to steal all the time.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Then when the druggies fail the kids can be put with a better family and actually have a chance to get out of that very bad circle.

Because, of course, there are just millions and millions of good families clamoring to take on the older kids in question.

Sheesh.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Because, of course, there are just millions and millions of good families clamoring to take on the older kids in question.

Sheesh.

They would be better served being brought up by the system than in a drug and gun filled life.

Sheesh!

[Aqua Teen Carl]

There's many hunches and theories as to what this could entail (both positive and negative) but personally I think we have a bit of a problem in our country as a whole right now. In the past few months we've seen massive pushes to cut education, wreck unions, and now to gut welfare all while putting forth effort to deal with Libya's problems. Never mind the fact that basic infrastructure has been a non-issue as well and gas prices continue to rise.

Although on the surface this looks like, "hey, those freeloaders are finally going to stop taking on money" (which is a good thing if it works) I fear this is yet another step towards neo-feudalism. I wouldn't be surprised to see American shanty towns within the next decade at this rate.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

I wouldn't be surprised to see American shanty towns within the next decade at this rate.

It is a free country and if people want to live in shanty towns and that is their right. If they can't clean a toilet, I guess they will just live in a lean-to. What can anyone say about that? Personally, I feel people will rise to the occasion, go to work and finally become more proud instead of living on a system and having no pride whatsoever. Having no pride proves to destroy neighborhoods. Look at the Hill and East Liberty. They were both nice places at one time, but they look worse than Ciudad Juarez, Mexico now.

[ossewa]

Here's what our shanty-town could look like if we put a little effort into it...

[Love2Golf09]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Just an aside, but the law is constitutionally questionable as it is

What evidence do you have to back up this claim? Just because you "feel" that this law would be unfair doesn't make it unconstitutional. The Constitution isn't based around your fragile emotions.

Not that lawmakers always care about what is constitutional

Correct! If lawmakers cared about following the Constitution then welfare would have never existed. The Patriots of '76 didn't risk their lives in support of income redistribution. Now, be a good Obamabot, ignore my points, and write me off as a racist, white, gun-clinging Christian.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

They would be better served being brought up by the system than in a drug and gun filled life.

I think it is clear you have no idea what "the system" looks like for most older kids. Conversely, not every parent who uses illegal drugs is exposing their children to a "gun filled life".

Again, there are laws on the books for abusive or negligent parents. Not all parents who use illegal drugs are abusive or negligent, and many kids would be worse off if taken from such parents and put in "the system".

There are no easy solutions. Not even massive state orphanages (although why someone would imagine that as an easy solution is beyond me).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Love2Golf09

What evidence do you have to back up this claim? Just because you "feel" that this law would be unfair doesn't make it unconstitutional. The Constitution isn't based around your fragile emotions.

It has nothing to do with my emotions: I just know the relevant Fourth Amendment caselaw. The case you should look at is Marchwinski v. Howard, 113 F.Supp.2d 1134 (E.D. Mich. 2000), affirmed by the Sixth Circuit, in which the federal courts struck down a Michigan law requiring TANF recipients to submit to random drug tests as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Marchwinski court was following the Supreme Court case Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997), in which the Supreme Court struck down a Georgia law requiring drug tests for all candidates for state office. As these cases make clear, there are only limited special circumstances in which a government can require drug tests without probable cause, and providing welfare does not fall within those special circumstances.

Correct! If lawmakers cared about following the Constitution then welfare would have never existed. The Patriots of '76 didn't risk their lives in support of income redistribution.

The Constitution says:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

Now, be a good Obamabot, ignore my points, and write me off as a racist, white, gun-clinging Christian.

Nah. I'd rather address your points, and demonstrate that you don't actually know much about our Constitution or the available caselaw on the Constitution, deficiencies which you are trying to cover up with bluster and insults.

[Faer]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

They would be better served being brought up by the system than in a drug and gun filled life.

Sheesh!

Growing up in "the system" generally IS the drug and gun filled life. Not many people lining up to take in minority teenagers.

Oh and EDIT: Are you really advocating letting A. just let the government raise children? and B. Adding drug testing is still a spending increase (omg); just one that people, apparently without much in the way of actual data, ASSUME will pay for itself.