Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 19 Jun 2016, 6:01 am

There is essentially no more cash welfare anymore. You can get food stamps, disability, unemployment, but old fashion cash welfare is essentially gone.

research finds that because of welfare reform, roughly three million American children live in households with incomes of less than $2 per person per day, a global metric of extreme poverty. That’s one American child in 25. They would be counted as extremely poor if they lived in Africa, and they are our neighbors in the most powerful nation in the world


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/opinion/sunday/why-i-was-wrong-about-welfare-reform.html

It seems to me that we're (often) discussing the wrong things.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 Jun 2016, 1:26 pm

I think it is a problem of terminology rather than understanding. I think everyone here knows that welfare in the sense of long-term cash payments has been drastically reduced from 20 years ago. Welfare still gets used as a term encompassing all government assistance programs, though. Here, I think we are just arguing about whether it is right to force the poor to submit to drug testing.

People are very adaptive. We don't give as much cash welfare so people turn to SSI disability. Unfortunately, that is not an option with young mothers without much of a work history. You do get cash payments for disability. Other than that, food stamps and Section 8 housing assist the poor.

It is also an exaggeration to say that cash welfare has ended. States set the level of benefits so there is a great deal of difference among the states.http://www.cbpp.org/research/family-inc ... ost-states
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32760.pdf

And of course there is a limit of 5 years of receiving TANF. At some point for the chronically unemployed those benefits will end. What to do with families that have are unable to get work is one issue. Another issue is how much TANF payments have declined in 20 years. I think we want to reconsider cutting off families with children who hit the five year mark and also try to equalize benefits somewhat from state to state. I don't think that shifting government assistance from young poor mothers with children to middle-aged white guys who say they cannot work was a great way to go. In Oklahoma you can get $292 a month for TANF for a maximum of 5 years, but if you are married you can get $1,100 a month in SSI disability indefinitely. We need to keep our eye on the ball--making sure that children are adequately cared for. Adults have made their own bed to a certain extent.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Jun 2016, 6:50 am

freeman3
Here, I think we are just arguing about whether it is right to force the poor to submit to drug testing.

To what end?
Proponents of these bills claim they will save money by getting drug users off the dole and thus reduce spending on benefits. But states that are looking at bills of their own may want to consider the fact that the drug testing programs that are already up and running haven’t seen such results.


According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/0 ... ng-states/

If welfare recipients are subjected to nearless useless drug testing, then they should not be alone.
Likewise shouldn't all who receive public money?
- Legislators
Judges
prosecuting attorneys
public defenders
police personnel
fire personnel
Don't airlines already regularly test pilots?

You're more likely to find offenders in this group then in welfare recipients. They can afford to buy drugs for one. And we know that 9% of the adult population use illegal drugs.... But as the actual test results of welfare recipeints show ...not those on tanf.(Less than 2%)
You know who benefits for the drug testing? The labs doing the testing. And guess who made out on that?
Conveniently, Rick Scott pushed mandatory drug testing—provided, in part, by his wife’s company, Solantic⁠. Scott transferred his $62 million stake⁠ in the company to his wife only a few months before mandating drug testing for state employees and welfare recipients.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2 ... ef408c3470
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 20 Jun 2016, 8:04 am

A deduction in what you owe is in no way the same as a payment. These are people who are paying taxes, and the proposed $150,000 in itemized deductions is someone who is paying a LOT in taxes!
Now imagine making deductions subject to drug tests and these ultra wealthy stop making such donations. They don't need to do so of course and for every dollar donated they are not getting that same dollar amount deducted from what they owe. Suddenly stopping these allowances would cripple charities that benefit the poor. Like I said, be careful what you wish for!

It reminds me of someone who was in favor of a flat tax system, I asked what about municipal and state bonds? Projects are funded by these tax exempt bonds all the time, what happens to the way these things are funded? ...they had no answer other than "Oh, I didn't think of that" as is the case for any rash decision, unseen consequences abound and here, "penalizing" the most productive and most generous members of society seems like an incredibly STUPID idea!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Jun 2016, 8:29 am

freeman3 wrote:Are you guys serious? Her intent is not to drug test high-earning Americans but simply to highlight the way the poor that receive benefits are stigmatized at every turn. You want benefits? You got to pee in a cup. She does not want to drug test the rich--she wants the poor not to be drug tested to get benefits.. "why oh why punish the wealthy". I had a good laugh at that one.


Hypocrisy alert:

1. Every single person who wants allergy meds (pseudoephedrine) is treated like a meth dealer. No evidence needed of a crime. Punishment without benefit or due process.

2. Liberals want to take away weapons from law-abiding citizens without evidence of wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing.

At least welfare recipients receive something for their trouble. The rich? They are getting more of THEIR OWN MONEY back via credits. So what? They earned it.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Jun 2016, 11:33 am

fate
2. Liberals want to take away weapons from law-abiding citizens without evidence of wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing.


really?
or is it that they want people who purchase weapons to prove they can be responsible ?
Would it be a good idea therefore to drug test everyone trying to buy a weapon?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Jun 2016, 11:49 am

rickyp wrote:fate
2. Liberals want to take away weapons from law-abiding citizens without evidence of wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing.


really?
or is it that they want people who purchase weapons to prove they can be responsible ?
Would it be a good idea therefore to drug test everyone trying to buy a weapon?


No. What would be the probable cause?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 20 Jun 2016, 11:52 am

would it be a good idea to drug test people before they voted?
...to make sure they have a "responsible" vote

Heck, You want nothing to do with simple voter ID, assuring a voter is who he says he is yet here you ask for drug testing before buying a gun?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Jun 2016, 12:03 pm

GMTom wrote:would it be a good idea to drug test people before they voted?
...to make sure they have a "responsible" vote

Heck, You want nothing to do with simple voter ID, assuring a voter is who he says he is yet here you ask for drug testing before buying a gun?


How about drug testing before someone can engage in speech? How about testing someone before they attend/participate in a demonstration?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 20 Jun 2016, 12:08 pm

yes!
but not to voting or to getting any government handouts, those should be done on the honor system of course!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Jun 2016, 2:15 pm

fate
No. What would be the probable cause?

Airline pilots and even baggage handlers are subject to random drug tests now. Without probable cause.
The issue is public safety....
Professional and amateur athletes are subject to drug testing now. The issue is the crdibility of the competition.
One could make public safety the issue in testing of gun buyers...
One could make credibility of the legislation the issue when requiring legislators...

What is the reason welfare recipients should be subjected to random drug testing? So far it has proven, it states where it takes place, that welfare recipients are far less likely than the public at large to use drugs....
So what's the point again? SImply to make the reception of welfare as demeaning as possible?

GMTOM
You want nothing to do with simple voter ID, assuring a voter is who he says he is yet here you ask for drug testing before buying a gun?

Who are you refering to Tom?
I have no problem with voter IDS as long as they are free.
But the difference between voting and use of gun in terms of public safety and danger?Should someone who is constantly abusing drugs be trusted with deadly weapons? That can be answered yes or no.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Jun 2016, 3:16 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
No. What would be the probable cause?

Airline pilots and even baggage handlers are subject to random drug tests now. Without probable cause.
The issue is public safety....


Absolute crap.

People drive cars without being tested PRIOR to driving. That is a privilege.

You are talking about restricting a right guaranteed by the Constitution. You can't drug test voters and you can't drug test people who want to buy weapons.

Professional and amateur athletes are subject to drug testing now. The issue is the crdibility of the competition.
One could make public safety the issue in testing of gun buyers...
One could make credibility of the legislation the issue when requiring legislators..


I think we should drug test all Canadians.

So what's the point again? SImply to make the reception of welfare as demeaning as possible?


No, because some people (and I know some of them) are on welfare because they are on drugs.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Jun 2016, 5:41 am

fate
People drive cars without being tested PRIOR to driving. That is a privilege.

Thats true.
What else is comparable ?
Do you need to pass both theory and practical tests to get a license to buy guns?
Do you neeed to have liability insurance to own and use a gun?

Anyway, I'm not entirely serious about the drug testing requirements> I was only using them to demonstrate the inequality in asking for recipients of welfare to be demeaned by the enforcement of drug testing. All of the things I've listed could have greater negative effect if the person using guns, or voting in the legislature are drug addled then if someone on welfare uses . Plus, we know for a fact that there are more people doing any of the jobs I noted on drugs then of welfare recipients on drugs...

Fate
You are talking about restricting a right guaranteed by the Constitution

The right to privacy is guaranteed under the Constitution. And as you've claimed the right to search and seizure without probable cause exists. Why isn't it applied to people who require welfare assistance?
Have they given up these rights because theya re poor or because they've requested assistance?

Fate
The rich? They are getting more of THEIR OWN MONEY back via credits. So what? They earned it.

Tom
These are people who are paying taxes, and the proposed $150,000 in itemized deductions is someone who is paying a LOT in taxes!


Do you gentlemen insist in believing that the system is fair and that the very rich haven't gained far more from the govnerment than they contribute?
One small example. When the policy of Quantitative easing was introduced to kickstart the economy after the self imosed financial disaster, the benefits accrued primarily to a very small group of people.
Kevin Warsh, a former Fed board member and one of the Brookings panelists, held a different view explaining that quantitative easing as a policy works purely through an “asset price channel” enriching the few who own stocks or other financial products (and not the 96% of Americans who receive the majority of their income through labor).


http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front ... deo-wessel

None of these guys had to pass a drug test to receive the benefits of the many millions of dollars they recieved as a benefit of QE.
Doe that seem fair?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/ ... 4a257a116c
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Jun 2016, 6:58 am

A drug test tells you if a person has been doing drugs recently.
Someone buys a gun and uses it later, he buys it for defense, he buys it to hunt with, to target shoot, etc. Even if he is buying it to kill others with, his use or non-use of drugs in the past has little to do with his purchase now does it?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Jun 2016, 9:29 am

tom
A drug test tells you if a person has been doing drugs recently.
Someone buys a gun and uses it later, he buys it for defense, he buys it to hunt with, to target shoot, etc. Even if he is buying it to kill others with, his use or non-use of drugs in the past has little to do with his purchase now does it?


what i said
Anyway, I'm not entirely serious about the drug testing requirements> I was only using them to demonstrate the inequality in asking for recipients of welfare to be demeaned by the enforcement of drug testing. All of the things I've listed could have greater negative effect if the person using guns, or voting in the legislature are drug addled then if someone on welfare uses . Plus, we know for a fact that there are more people doing any of the jobs I noted on drugs then of welfare recipients on drugs.
.

But having said that...
Do you believe someone who regularly abuses drugs should be trusted with firearms?
We don't trust people to pilot planes who abuse drugs and so we randomly test them.
Firearms have the potential for great harm. Indeed that potential is played out constatnly. over 500 people have been shot in the US since the orlando shooting..
How many were due to judgement impaired by drug abuse?
Welfare recipients probably harm no one but themselves if they use drugs.
Drug testing gun owners would be more likely to reduce societal harm than drug testing welfare recipients. Plus we already know we'll catch more drug users among the general population than among welfare recipients.