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.
There was a bill in Missouri last winter which would have allowed for testing if a case worker had reasonable suspicion, and I can't recall if it passed or not (don't live anywhere near there).
Can anyone who feels that a substantial amount of money could be saved by placing more restrictions on welfare benefit receipients, food stamps, etc., what amount of money do we as a nation spend on such things? What percentage of our entire budget is consumed by specific welfare programs such as food stamps, etc? Not counting medicaid.
Do any of you know that answer?
It would be interesting to compare that number with whatever number we can come up with which is spent to contract with companies like Blackwater, etc.
Andrea--we've certainly created a monster. I really don't know what the answer is. It used to be that they cut off benefits during the summer months for those on assistance because there was always work available on farms. This was way back in my grandparents' day though, and I know that because they owned a family farm and people would come to work for them.
LOL I agree! I do like your idea of training programs...although I think that would probably cost more than doing drug tests (especially considering the drug tests would, as far as my idea goes, be paid for out of the welfare check). And I'm not sure too many employers would sign on for that kind of task. Some people just don't seem trainable, they have to WANT it, to be worth anything to me, know what I mean? Being an employer has somewhat made me lose all faith in humanity, although I try to keep a positive outlook and give people the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, I was speaking to another friend who owns a restaurant and she said she doesn't participate in those programs that help people get back to work b/c it's too much paperwork and responsibility. I don't know what all is involved but it seems they make it somewhat difficult on the employer, which is not how it should be when the employer is doing everyone a favor by trying to rehabilitate these workers.
LOL........more of your tax dollars get wasted on those politicians we vote into office & their agendas but, some of you want to drug test the poor because you think THEY are stealing your money?.....LOL
But to me, you should not be partying if on welfare. It's not time for fun and games. If you're facing losing your home, not being able to put food on the table, a medical crisis, being out of work, etc., you have other things to worry about than hanging out with friends smoking some weed.
This argument assumes that people are on welfare temporarily.
For those who make a way of life out of it, they absolutely should not be allowed to do these things if they are permanently living off the public dole! If they can afford a $20 sack, they can afford for us to take $20 off their food stamp allowance.
Sure, drug use is what humans do, but most do not live their entire lives using and abusing. That equates to addiction and is not something to be looked at positively in our society. Experimentation arguably happens during one's formative years, not when they are old enough to be independent and receive welfare.
Drug abusers should be looked at as people with addiction problems (like alcoholics), no doubt about it. I have also said previously that I can see decriminalizing all drugs and allowing users/abusers to pay out the @ss for it in taxes. This also eliminates these folks from clogging our jails and courts. But on the same token, I still don't think it's right for someone to spend a bunch of money, or even some money, on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, any kind of mind-altering substance for fun, if they are receiving monetary support from the taxpayers.
Heck, just say I was a pot smoker and I couldn't afford to purchase pot on my salary but yet someone making 1/4 of what I make CAN afford it due to having food, housing, cell phone, utilities, child care paid for by the taxpayer...it's just not right.
Then why do you suppose that medical doctors prescribe anti-anxiety medications for people who are going through enormously stressful experiences, like, for instance, facing the loss of their home, losing a job, etc? I believe that the loss of a job and/or home are both considered in the very top five stressful events in the lives of human beings.
PERHAPS people are not partying at all. Perhaps they don't have health insurance because they have no money and they can't see a doctor about the horrendous anxiety they are experiencing over the fact that they cannot find work, they are close to being homeless, can't feed their children, and they just need a night which is not sleepless.
People who can afford to see doctors can get the help they need via medications and counseling to get through horrific times like these, yet the poor are expected to not even eat junk food for relief..
It's very easy to be so harshly judgemental about those who have less than we do.........isn't it?
LOL I agree! I do like your idea of training programs...although I think that would probably cost more than doing drug tests (especially considering the drug tests would, as far as my idea goes, be paid for out of the welfare check). And I'm not sure too many employers would sign on for that kind of task. Some people just don't seem trainable, they have to WANT it, to be worth anything to me, know what I mean? Being an employer has somewhat made me lose all faith in humanity, although I try to keep a positive outlook and give people the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, I was speaking to another friend who owns a restaurant and she said she doesn't participate in those programs that help people get back to work b/c it's too much paperwork and responsibility. I don't know what all is involved but it seems they make it somewhat difficult on the employer, which is not how it should be when the employer is doing everyone a favor by trying to rehabilitate these workers.
Well..as far as your idea about taking it out of the welfare checks...how is that fair to those who pass the tests? They get so little as it is. And then there's legal precedent that goes back to the children not supposed to be suffering for the sins of the parents.
Job training is expensive, yes. Awhile back Oregon had a program where a business would take on a welfare recipient for 6 months, offer some job training skills (and only pay a dollar an hour--the person got minimum wage, but the rest was paid by the state). I don't think that program is still in place but when it was I did hear a lot about how some employers were just using the program for cheap workers and not doing their part by really training them. Still...
LOL........more of your tax dollars get wasted on those politicians we vote into office & their agendas but, some of you want to drug test the poor because you think THEY are stealing your money?.....LOL
Goodness, how many times do I have to say this? Start a new thread if you want to know our opinions on that!
Then why do you suppose that medical doctors prescribe anti-anxiety medications for people who are going through enormously stressful experiences, like, for instance, facing the loss of their home, losing a job, etc? I believe that the loss of a job and/or home are both considered in the very top five stressful events in the lives of human beings.
PERHAPS people are not partying at all. Perhaps they don't have health insurance because they have no money and they can't see a doctor about the horrendous anxiety they are experiencing over the fact that they cannot find work, they are close to being homeless, can't feed their children, and they just need a night which is not sleepless.
People who can afford to see doctors can get the help they need via medications and counseling to get through horrific times like these, yet the poor are expected to not even eat junk food for relief..
It's very easy to be so harshly judgemental about those who have less than we do.........isn't it?
Well..as far as your idea about taking it out of the welfare checks...how is that fair to those who pass the tests? They get so little as it is. And then there's legal precedent that goes back to the children not supposed to be suffering for the sins of the parents.
I don't know, I just see it as a cost of doing business, I guess.
Quote:
Job training is expensive, yes. Awhile back Oregon had a program where a business would take on a welfare recipient for 6 months, offer some job training skills (and only pay a dollar an hour--the person got minimum wage, but the rest was paid by the state). I don't think that program is still in place but when it was I did hear a lot about how some employers were just using the program for cheap workers and not doing their part by really training them. Still...
More mooching off the state by corporations, lovely. I believe you, and I think it's wrong for the companies to have taken advantage like that.
It seems there has to be a happy medium in here somewhere.
So you are fine with Medicaid? It's just food stamps you object to giving to people who are poor? Do you realize that when someone applies for food stamps they are also asked if they want to sign up for Medicaid? Additionally, does Medicaid pay for prescriptions?
Also, is it possible to live on "welfare" forever? If so, please explain that one for us.
Generalize much, andrea?
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.
I do like your idea of training programs...although I think that would probably cost more than doing drug tests (especially considering the drug tests would, as far as my idea goes, be paid for out of the welfare check). And I'm not sure too many employers would sign on for that kind of task. Some people just don't seem trainable, they have to WANT it, to be worth anything to me, know what I mean? Being an employer has somewhat made me lose all faith in humanity, although I try to keep a positive outlook and give people the benefit of the doubt. 
Anyway, I was speaking to another friend who owns a restaurant and she said she doesn't participate in those programs that help people get back to work b/c it's too much paperwork and responsibility. I don't know what all is involved but it seems they make it somewhat difficult on the employer, which is not how it should be when the employer is doing everyone a favor by trying to rehabilitate these workers.
