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.
To directly debate the opening topic, add me to the list of people who say that as long as you are spending taxpayers' money then the taxpayers have the right to control how the money is spent. To put a smaller scale on it, if someone asks me to give them money to buy gas to get to work I have every right to make sure they're spending my money on gas instead of some on gas and some on cigarettes; also, that they aren't spending my money on gas so they can save their money for cigarettes later. If taxpayers are giving someone money for food (SNAP) or clothes for their kids (AFDC) then they have the right to make sure the money is getting spent on food and that their kids have clothes. And if your goal is to reduce "sin consumption", then drug testing (nicotine, alcohol, and illegal drugs) is one way to do it.
On the other hand, I'm also well aware that this money is a tiny drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things. If you look at it as a way to save money, then welfare drug-testing programs are a complete failure (unless you're a governor who signs an executive order mandating testing and also just happens to own a drug-testing company *cough* Florida governor Scott *cough*).
One way to look at it is that the cost of nicotine/alcohol/other drugs is what is keeping someone in poverty. Another way is to admit that in reality the key cause of poverty is lack of education. Even if that person gave up all drug habits entirely they would waste the money somewhere else. Instead of investing toward retirement or paying off high-interest loans, they'll blow any windfall on a car stereo or a new TV or a new ATV for the rural types. So if they're going to stay poor anyway, why not let them continue with a habit that gives them some measure of pleasure in an otherwise miserable life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy
The easy solution to this problem, which would remove the issue of privacy invasion, would be to stop welfare programs entirely... or at least set a lifetime limit of, say, four months. There's no reason on God's green earth why you need to be suckling at the public teat for more than four months.
I'm surprised at the number of people who have no clue about how poverty actually works. I assume you are fond of the statement, "Just get a job!" Most people have no clue that any job someone in abject poverty has any chance of getting will be part time minimum wage. As this is well below the poverty line, even with a job they still qualify for government/taxpayer assistance. Think about the next time some multi-millionaire CEO argues that he can't afford a minimum wage hike.
I guess *technically* speaking, we are all receiving money from the "public trough".
What you spend at Walmart goes through their systems to pay for the goods they sell, which goes to the manufacturers to make those goods, which goes to your paycheck while you work for the manufacturer. (Okay, greatly simplified, but that's the gist of it).
To take this another step further: are you also going to scrutinize ALL government workers? They are getting taxpayer money too. That they spend at Walmart (and the cycle continues).
So I guess it's just easier for some folks here to just make all the things they don't like illegal so they don't have to pay for it.
You're confused, no doubt. Confused about the difference between people spending what they earnby working, and those who spend what they are given by the taxpayers.
You're confused, no doubt. Confused about the difference between people spending what they earn by working, and those who spend what they are given by the taxpayers.
Not as confused as one might think. In some ways, it's a matter of philosophy or perspective.
Ultimately we are ALL spending taxpayer money in one way or another.
Putting restrictions on one group means that you need to put restrictions on all groups.
You're confused, no doubt. Confused about the difference between people spending what they earnby working, and those who spend what they are given by the taxpayers.
Actually, you're the one confused because we're talking about the people on welfare spending what they earn by working as well. This is not about how they spend the money they are given by the tax payers at all. The money they receive from the tax payers can only be spent for specific items. There is no debate at all around that.
Your argument is that they shouldn't be allowed to spend any of their own money on anything they want because, in theory, all the other money the earned could have been used for food.
I could easily argue that because you receive an interest deduction on your mortgage(or pick any other deduction including the standard deduction) you are receiving money from the government. Think about it, the entire SNAP program is essentially nothing more than a tax credit for food spent that's given instantly instead of after filing for taxes. They receive money equal to the cost of the food(a tax credit) which is similar to how you receive a percentage of your interest costs back(a tax deduction).
Do you think that it would be fair for me to say you can't buy anything you want because that money could be going towards paying the full price of your mortgage?
Not as confused as one might think. In some ways, it's a matter of philosophy or perspective.
Ultimately we are ALL spending taxpayer money in one way or another.
Putting restrictions on one group means that you need to put restrictions on all groups.
Its not a philosophy. It's just wrong. There is no justification for suggesting that people spending money that they earn is the same as people spending money that is given to them. Your entire point is nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeo123
Actually, you're the one confused because we're talking about the people on welfare spending what they earn by working as well. This is not about how they spend the money they are given by the tax payers at all. The money they receive from the tax payers can only be spent for specific items. There is no debate at all around that.
Your argument is that they shouldn't be allowed to spend any of their own money on anything they want because, in theory, all the other money the earned could have been used for food.
I could easily argue that because you receive an interest deduction on your mortgage(or pick any other deduction including the standard deduction) you are receiving money from the government. Think about it, the entire SNAP program is essentially nothing more than a tax credit for food spent that's given instantly instead of after filing for taxes. They receive money equal to the cost of the food(a tax credit) which is similar to how you receive a percentage of your interest costs back(a tax deduction).
Do you think that it would be fair for me to say you can't buy anything you want because that money could be going towards paying the full price of your mortgage?
You're playing semantics. You know exactly what the point is here. Comparing SNAP benefits to tax deductions is silly.
You're playing semantics. You know exactly what the point is here. Comparing SNAP benefits to tax deductions is silly.
It's not silly at all. SNAP and tax credits are the same exact concept. The government is paying for some/all of your specific expenses. The SNAP benefits are just given instantly instead of in April.
Let's make this really an apples to apples comparison and use a refundable tax credit instead of a deduction(though the underlying concept is the same). Take the recent first time home buyer credit as an example. If you were to make no money and bought a home while the program was in place, you would receive money due to the refundable nature of this credit.
Does receiving that money entitle the government to control what you spend all your other money on? After all, if you could afford to smoke, drink, go out to eat, or pretty much do anything but barely survive, you could have put that money towards the house.
Even without it being refundable, you're still having the government pay either all or a portion of your expenses with credits/deductions. You originally owed $X in taxes, but now you received $Y to pay for your tuition for example. You received government money. People like to net the two, but when you think about deductions, that's actually how they work. You're just getting reimbursed after the fact unlike SNAP which is an instant reimbursement.
It's not silly at all. SNAP and tax credits are the same exact concept. The government is paying for some/all of your specific expenses. The SNAP benefits are just given instantly instead of in April.
Let's make this really an apples to apples comparison and use a refundable tax credit instead of a deduction(though the underlying concept is the same). Take the recent first time home buyer credit as an example. If you were to make no money and bought a home while the program was in place, you would receive money due to the refundable nature of this credit.
Does receiving that money entitle the government to control what you spend all your other money on? After all, if you could afford to smoke, drink, go out to eat, or pretty much do anything but barely survive, you could have put that money towards the house.
Even without it being refundable, you're still having the government pay either all or a portion of your expenses with credits/deductions. You originally owed $X in taxes, but now you received $Y to pay for your tuition for example. You received government money. People like to net the two, but when you think about deductions, that's actually how they work. You're just getting reimbursed after the fact unlike SNAP which is an instant reimbursement.
Ahhh...I see you are getting the point I was trying to make. And taking more time and effort to explain it than I did.
Take your taxes example one step further and look at subsidies to farmers, tax dollars spent on construction projects, government earmarks, etc. Aren't these all taxpayer monies? How many people are spending them? Should we control their use of cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, too?
Theres a initial assumption that the food stamps, welfare, whatever I received back when I was unemployed, isn't money paid for by....me. Both before and after the event. While thats true for many, its not true for all.
The question I think people should ask themselves isn't "should we control this part of these peoples lives" but rather "If this were me, would this be OK?".
So my weakness is soda. Would I be OK with restricting that if I needed help? Not really. Now substitute X for Soda.
One problem with comparing SNAP benefits with farmer subsidies and government earmarks is a matter of scale. It's one issue when someone says, "I work part time, but I can't afford to eat so I need $200 of government money every month" where the cost of a cigarette habit is 20% of the money spent on food. Eliminating the cigarette habit would make a large dent in the food deficit. It's a complete other issue when a industrial farm gets $200,000/year in subsidies. A cigarette habit for every employee at that farm wouldn't even be noticeable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
The question I think people should ask themselves isn't "should we control this part of these peoples lives" but rather "If this were me, would this be OK?".
So my weakness is soda. Would I be OK with restricting that if I needed help? Not really. Now substitute X for Soda.
Another way to phrase this is, "I'll give you money if you will give up 'X'." You may give up 'X' and take the money, or... not. Your choice. So if I were in control of some agency and I offered to give you, say, free health care if you give up all unhealthy habits including soda, you would turn me down because you wouldn't want me controlling your life?
Mike Rowe (of "Dirty Jobs" fame) runs a foundation that sponsors scholarships/grants to technical trade schools. Before being considered, you must sign his S.W.E.A.T. pledge [pdf]. Among other things, you are promising to work hard, give up whining, and to "work your butt off". If you aren't willing to sign then you don't get the free money. Would you accuse him of trying control your right to be lazy?
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.
