U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should people be required to submit to a drug screen before receiving unemployment benefits or welfa
Yes 118 65.19%
No 63 34.81%
Voters: 181. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2010, 09:22 AM
 
1,595 posts, read 2,287,075 times
Reputation: 845

Advertisements

and should women on rental assistance have their tubes tied so they can't keep having babies to stay on rent subsidy, assistance and/or welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2010, 09:40 AM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,266,357 times
Reputation: 13393
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Maybe I used the wrong word... it is our business, as in I agree we should be aware & concerned. But when it comes down to personal spending, I just don't get the logistics of worrying about this. If you don't support welfare and/or UI, that is one thing - it's just when people start dictating "they can spend their money on this, but not on this, and only if they do this, etc" that I think we're crossing the line. Does that make more sense?
Yes, but I still disagree. When one party gives/lends another party monies for an intended purpose there are expectations involved. I took out a home loan to buy a home. It's not as if I can do what I want with those monies. I was given grants/scholarships for tuition when in college. It's not as if I could or should be able to take that money and spend it on anything other than its intended purpose. It's a pretty simple concept from where I sit. And when people start doing other things with monies other than intended purposes, it lends to trouble for society.

For example, a friend of a friend (my dh's ex, who is sort of a friend) took out massive students loans when getting her art degree. Her loans exceeded the amount of tuition for the purpose of living expenses. She was on section 8, her rent was a $100/mo, so she had a lot of extra cash. She went to India, Thailand, Europe, etc every summer. She had a blast. 65k later in this economy, with an art degree from a state school, she has defaulted on her student loans. What are the consequences of this behavior? In the end it's going to make it harder for other students to get need based loans. The tax payer ends up footing the bill and we all, especially those in need, have to sacrifice for it. It's unethical and unacceptable. That we should sit idly by with the premise that "well, it was her money to do what she wished" is not a position I can buy into.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
28,285 posts, read 43,641,612 times
Reputation: 18816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
Yes, but I still disagree. When one party gives/lends another party monies for an intended purpose there are expectations involved. I took out a home loan to buy a home. It's not as if I can do what I want with those monies. I was given grants/scholarships for tuition when in college. It's not as if I could or should be able to take that money and spend it on anything other than its intended purpose. It's a pretty simple concept from where I sit. And when people start doing other things with monies than intended purposes, it lends to trouble for society.
I totally agree with this concept, I just don't think it's logistically possible to control how people spend money. Bank loans are one thing, since the IRS can report (I'm assuming) whether you've bought a home or not... students loans, again, are tracked more carefully and usually reported to the school. In essence, welfare and UI specifically are more like income, just not in the traditional sense of WORKING for the funds. And if we can't track or control how people spend their paychecks, how can we do that with unemployment or welfare checks? And what about people on SSI or disability? Aren't those tax-funded monies too?

Example - if somebody is paying for a video game at Best Buy, do you really know where that money came from? Maybe they're on UI, and chose not to buy as many groceries that week, since playing "Warfare III" was more important to them. That is their decision to make, and in the end only THEY will suffer the consequences (by going hungry, losing electricity, or whatever). Sure, you can drug test people receiving benefits, but that still doesn't ensure the money's being used for "essentials" only! It also could kick good, honest people off their sole form of support, all because their friend gave them a joint last week. Do you see where this becomes an issue of privacy and confusing logic?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,995,272 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantthinkofaname View Post
and should women on rental assistance have their tubes tied so they can't keep having babies to stay on rent subsidy, assistance and/or welfare.
Medicaid will pay for voluntary sterilization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 10:56 AM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,266,357 times
Reputation: 13393
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
I totally agree with this concept, I just don't think it's logistically possible to control how people spend money. Bank loans are one thing, since the IRS can report (I'm assuming) whether you've bought a home or not... students loans, again, are tracked more carefully and usually reported to the school. In essence, welfare and UI specifically are more like income, just not in the traditional sense of WORKING for the funds. And if we can't track or control how people spend their paychecks, how can we do that with unemployment or welfare checks? And what about people on SSI or disability? Aren't those tax-funded monies too?
I don't think we can track the funds. I'm just stating my position and the reasoning behind it for the purpose of this thread. It really begins and ends there-the thread.

Quote:
Example - if somebody is paying for a video game at Best Buy, do you really know where that money came from? Maybe they're on UI, and chose not to buy as many groceries that week, since playing "Warfare III" was more important to them. That is their decision to make, and in the end only THEY will suffer the consequences (by going hungry, losing electricity, or whatever). Sure, you can drug test people receiving benefits, but that still doesn't ensure the money's being used for "essentials" only! It also could kick good, honest people off their sole form of support, all because their friend gave them a joint last week. Do you see where this becomes an issue of privacy and confusing logic?
I don't view typical UI as welfare. It's an insurance program and it is income. Once UI funds dry up and it turns into welfare is another story. I also don't think folk on UI should be theoretically drug tested. Nor do I think those on welfare should just stop receiving aid. For addiction, help should be funded by the tax payer, imo. Also, a 3 strike rule could be helpful. From a more conservative stand point, I don't care if folk on welfare are given a joint. They should be, aside from the disabled, spending their waking hours getting their shyte together. Partying is not for dependents. That might be a tight wad view, but that's how I feel about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,995,272 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn View Post
Sounds like you've really thought out the ramifications, of drug testing. Most people on this thread, haven't thought about anything regarding this issue, except their 'tax dollars'. And they NEVER worry about where their tax dollars go, with regards to absurd wars, and other nonsensical governmental spending. They only want to pick on the poor, who get welfare, food stamps, and UI benefits.

I'm against drug testing of welfare and UI benefit recipients, not only because of the reasons that you mentioned, but also because it would be a blatant invasion of privacy. Our freedoms as Americans, have been eroded already, since George Bush was President. And now, most of these posters want to drug test people who collect government benefits, to survive. Unbelievable! I guess they won't be happy, until the poor in our country are treated like those in prison camps were, in Nazi Germany!
You're again painting with a HUGELY broad brush. If you want to know our opinions on the wars, etc., START ANOTHER THREAD! I have said this time and time again and when I finally just start a thread myself, nobody posts. So, hush up.

You have not addressed the fact that welfare folk give up some privacy when they apply for welfare in the first place...specifically of their financial affairs. That, in my opinion, is more private than whether your not you're a crackhead. As of right now, even if the gov't agency issuing the welfare KNEW that someone was doing crack and abusing the system, there is nothing they could do about it, which is a travesty.

You also have no provided any alternative, have you? If so, please tell me which post. Instead of adding nothing to the discussion by just going on rants about Bush and Nazis and dumbing down the conversation by saying everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, how about you provide some alternatives to drug testing to ensure that abuse of our welfare system is stopped?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,995,272 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Of course I do, but what can I do about that? I guess according to all of you, I can whine about it on the internet... then what?
Write your representatives. Elect people who stand for what you believe in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,995,272 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
I know drug testing isn't state-mandated, I just meant it's odd that you've ALWAYS had to take one when I've NEVER had to... and generally California is more liberal on these issues. I guess it depends on your field of work (I'm a librarian), but none of my employers have required drug screening.



I bet a LOT of people would disagree over on the unemployment sub-forum... go ahead, I dare you to say that to them. Maybe you were correct in the times of a healthy economy, but these days it takes longer than 26 weeks for most people to find employment - even McDonald's has stopped taking applications, as they were getting hundreds to thousands for each open position. Have you read the news lately?



If they choose not to eat in order to get high, how does that affect you? I'd understand your point if they got EXTRA money for drugs, but they're still getting the same benefits either way - right?



That's all good in theory, but in reality they still treat medical marijuana like illicit drugs... this has been an ongoing debate in California, so it really does cause me to question the whole concept.
It affects me b/c not only do we have high people on our hands, we have malnourished people on our hands. People who are hungry are arguably more violent, as they are willing to do things non-hungry people wouldn't do to get a bite to eat. Crime goes up. Crime goes up when drugs are involved. Perhaps if people had to choose between eating food bought using food stamps and not doing drugs versus doing drugs and not eating period (spending money on drugs and not being able to use it for food but also not getting food stamps), hopefully they would choose the former. Of course people are still free to be idiots and use drugs instead, I'm not sure what we can do about that short of throwing them all in jail...but I don't think that's a good idea, I'm actually more for legalizing drugs than I am for being more harsh on enforcement and punishment. In a perfect world, the gov't would legalize all drugs, tax the crap out of them, pay down the national debt, get the druggies out of jail and save money there, and straighten up the welfare system so none of the moochers could do what they do best and freeload.

But that is neither here nor there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
28,285 posts, read 43,641,612 times
Reputation: 18816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
I don't think we can track the funds. I'm just stating my position and the reasoning behind it for the purpose of this thread. It really begins and ends there-the thread.
Gotcha... as I said, I do understand the reasoning, so I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

Quote:
I don't view typical UI as welfare. It's an insurance program and it is income. Once UI funds dry up and it turns into welfare is another story. I also don't think folk on UI should be theoretically drug tested. Nor do I think those on welfare should just stop receiving aid. For addiction, help should be funded by the tax payer, imo. Also, a 3 strike rule could be helpful. From a more conservative stand point, I don't care if folk on welfare are given a joint. They should be, aside from the disabled, spending their waking hours getting their shyte together. Partying is not for dependents. That might be a tight wad view, but that's how I feel about it.
I can agree with most of the above, but I was just pointing out the realities... and the OP kind of lumped welfare & UI together, so it's good to point out the differences between the two. I still don't agree with prying into anyone's personal lives, but welfare is 100% "government money," so it's fair to be more concerned with how that's spent. I suppose that's why WIC, Section 8 and EBT (food stamps) were invented, to ensure they're at least covered for the basics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 11:13 AM
 
1,296 posts, read 1,912,171 times
Reputation: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Why were you quoting me when you wrote this? We're on exactly the same side!
I've been in the habit of quoting everyone, even if I agree with them. And I do agree with you 100%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top