Someone sent this to me the other day. Sure makes a lot of sense.
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my
taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine testwith which I have no problem.
What I do have aproblem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’thave to pass a urine test.
Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on theirfeet. I do, on the otherhand,
have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass, doing drugs, while I work . . .
Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance
yes… but how much does it cost to give all of them a urine test all the time. And for that matter do we test everyone in their family as well? I see this as no matter what a lose/lose situation… but maybe i’m just a pessimist
Implement this program and put the testing out for bid to non goverment drug labs. I am sure that with as many people there are on welfare, the cost of testing would be minimal to what we are paying out in welfare checks. If testing positive then welfare checks will be cut off for say 6 months. At the 6 month period the person is retested.
I don’t think we need to test the whole family, just the adults.
IMO I do not agree with one’s apathetic view and turning a blind eye to a big problem will not make it go away.
but then you’re punishing the other people who depend on that cheque. notwithstanding the merits of drug testing in the first place (a separate discussion, for me) i have a problem with the scenario in which someone who’s using some of their pogey cheque to light up is also using some of that cheque to feed/clothe her kids, buy medication, etc. - what happens when you cut off their cheques? i can understand the sentiment behind the urine test plan, but i think the plan itself flawed.
How about temporary but mandatory birth control for women or families who are on welfare? Just the idea that if you are going to ask the rest of society to take care of you, you can at least not continue to add dependents that you can’t afford.
As long as we are going down this road, why not some form of workfare as opposed to welfare. My dad did the CC camps during the depression and it developed skills that kept him employed until his death.
As long as we are going down this road, why not some form of workfare as opposed to welfare. My dad did the CC camps during the depression and it developed skills that kept him employed until his death.
That’s old thinking, how dare you expect something from someone who is asking you to give them money. When was the last time you heard sayings like; “a penny saved is a penny earned” or “an honest day’s labor for an honest day’s pay”? Seriously, we’ve gone the other way, and are teaching it from the ground up, with a major “outcome” of education now being high self esteem. This, often artificially, high self esteem just leads to a greater sense of entitlement.
My big concern is for the kids in families that would have the welfare check removed (Are we testing for alcohol, marijuana, heroin, crack, etc?). What do we do then? Just say “screw em”?
It’s difficult for me to get a handle on what a typical welfare family spends their money on or what they own. I see some goofy stuff with home visits and dealings with low-income (welfare) families, but I also see a lot of other folks doing the best with what they can. I also don’t like the situation where, with daycare costs, people would actually “lose” money if they went to work. I definately favor more types of work programs or have some type of work connected to welfare. Heck, even with work programs, some folks would just work the minimum number of days, stop going to work, get fired, and file for unemployment.
Rather than welfare in the form of a check, food cards, etc … I would prefer to have the food programs be more of the WIC variety, where each family is allocated a certain amount of meat, milk, juice, and other food types based on the number of individuals n the household/guardianship.
I don’t see many welfare folks “living the good life” (so to speak), I see many of them struggling to make do with what they have, but as I have said before, the differences in priorities, goals, expenditures among the different SES classes are as severe as the differences in culture. Once I think I have the situation “figured out”, I always see something that changes my opinion.
There was talk about that at one time, but the courts don’t allow that kind of mandatory restrictions on women’s reporductive freedom.
As for workfare, it’s already in place just about everywhere if a family wants to receive long term aid. For the most part, it works pretty well, though I’d like to see the system go back to where a recipient could cut back on work hours if they were in school. If we’re serious about lifting people out of poverty long term, it makes sense to create an environment where it’s not overly difficult for them to get a low level nursing degree or construction trades certificate/license.
“why not some form of workfare as opposed to welfare”
They had that where my grandmother lived. People on welfare had to put in so many hours of community service to get the check. They would put in hours at the senior center she went to. Unfortunately they ate the food that was to go to the seniors, stole money and valuables, made a mess, and to quote my grandmother, “the 300 pound lady who slept on the pool table would yell at you if you asked her to move so you could play”. They did nothing but hang out and cause problems but there was no one to control the “volunteers”. So she stopped going to the senior center because she was scared.
In California you have to show you are looking for work to collect some forms of government help. I am in gas stations or a regular basis as part of my job. I regularly see people come in and ask the cashier to sign their sheet that they were looking for a job. I have seen this many times but I have never seen any of them ask if the station was hiring. One friend who owns gas stations tells them he would like to interview them for a job before he signs the paper. So far he has had no takers.
My point is (if I even have a point) that no matter how hard you try some dirtbags will continue to sponge off the system. The lack of work ethic is what got them in the position in the first place. Back in your grandfathers era people wanted to work. Sadly that is no longer true.
I’m all for the workfare. Have them sort trash for recycling. We can put it all in the same bin and let then sort it out. Pay them by the pound of trash they sort.
or hell they can just pick up trash off the side of the road. I’d rather have them out there doing it than inmates.
Did you guys know it was illegal to beg on the exit ramps? Saw two old guys getting arrested the other day for sitting at an intersection with signs begging for food/money.
