Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 15  Next

How do you know that?

   

It's not a good idea because next thing you know you and me are being branded workers, unable to vacation at certain spots, or eat at certain restaurants, or live in certain areas....

Food stamps, and rent stamps...as much as I like those ideas I feel they are an erosion of the right to privacy which down the road will eventually erode my right to privacy. Also, it reduces the motivation for someone newly on welfare to get off it as quick as possible before someone finds. Once everyone knows and you are over the embarassment it would be so much easier to just stay on welfare....Also, they could still be traded for cash or drugs but at less than face value.

Workfare? If they don't have a highschool diploma then they should be working on that. After that, if they aren't a primary caregiver or out looking for work then can go sit at the welfare office for eight hours a day either searching resources for a job or doing absolutely nothing and if they continue to do absolutely nothing they can be penalized somehow. Maybe weekends in jail if they aren't doing anything to get off welfare.

   

Sarcasm. Not at all!

Explain how society would benefit by paying $100,000 to lock up a person who hasn't been convicted of any crime, as opposed to paying $10,000 towards their living expenses!

   

Just think of all that money that gets smoked up, shot in their arms or snorted up their noses that could be used for these program to get them off welfare.


but ah the hell with it lets not change something thats not "broken". After all there really isn't anyone on wellfare is there.

It's more important that we protect someones right to be stoned as well as poor.

   

Yes, because it protects our rights, as I've already mentioned. [insert rolling eyes]

   

Ummm, what I was getting as was if you started cutting off welfare for people who tested positive for illicit drugs then the chances are they'd break the law either to feed themselves and their family or to buy drugs....

I'd rather give someone $10,000, even if they are spending it on drugs, than pay $100,000 to have them looked up in jail because they were reduced to commiting a crime.

   

Yeah and "rights" are more important than getting off drugs.


go spark up yourself another fatty and have a couple of rocks while your at it

   

WTF are you talking about? An addict isn't going to stop abusing because you demand a drug test for welfare! They are going to prostitute themselves, or deal to kids in your neighbourhood, or break into your house and car, or mug you downtown.....

For someone who claims to be 40 years old you are very niave....go crawl back into your hole where everything is perfect and just the way you like it.

   

Whizinator. So much for drug tests.

   

yeah ,so we should just tell them to go to hell since theres nothing we can do to help them.


since they're prostituting themselves and dealing to the neighborhood kids they sure don't need a welfare cheque anyway .

   

Ummm, they've gone from drug users to criminals now. Once the law catches up to them are you suggesting we let them go free because since we aren't going to give them any welfare we certainly aren't going to put them up for $100,000 a year in prison?

   

Because no one on this thread want to test them to help them, they want to test them so they can penalize the ones that fail the drug screening.

   

The more tests you impose on welfare recipients, the more you undermine welfare as a crime prevention tool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_equilibrium

   

I should have spoken up sooner, I guess. It was on the last thread ( sheperds dog) we had about this very subject that my suggestion was in fact that for anyone who failed the drug test be offered full help with their problem. Their 'paycheck' would be based on their success rate. ie 'miss a day of school and get docked a days pay. Just like happens to us when we miss a day of work!I also suggested that all who applied for welfare and did not possess at least a high school education be required to at least attain their GED.At the taxpayers expense. -'Short term pain for long term gain'! And then further training as desired/required. Trades, lifeskills,etc. As well, paychecks would be dependant upon successful participation. As well, a certain number of hours of community service would be required of each welfare recipient.
Refusal to help themselves would be grounds for refusal of assistance.

   

I said, "For those of you talking about the costs of testing welfare recipients... how about all the money saved by cutting off all those people who are using it to buy drugs? It could be put toward other things that actually benefit the public. "

While I didn't elaborate any further on what should be done after they are caught, other than taking them off the public dole, I did mention using the money saved for things that benefit the public. I would include drug rehab as one of these things.

However, the problem you run into here is that if you just automatically put everybody that fails a drug test into rehab, you will run into that age-old issue... how do you make somebody quit if they don't want to? So far there has been no method known to humankind to successfully accomplish this. So unless you can find one, automatic rehab is just as big a waste of taxpayer money as funding their habit.

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 15  Next