HOW IS THIS NOT ALREADY A THING?!

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Imagine that!!!!

http://www.usherald.com/maine-welfar...heir-benefits/

I actually agree with this. As long as they are able bodied and can work, the government should put them to work whether it be military service, hospital work, or just various jobs.
I dont think anyone would disagree with that program. But remember not everyone in the welfare system is a leach, there are some people who are not able bodied that need this kind of support.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

I actually agree with this. As long as they are able bodied and can work, the government should put them to work whether it be military service, hospital work, or just various jobs.
I dont think anyone would disagree with that program. But remember not everyone in the welfare system is a leach, there are some people who are not able bodied that need this kind of support.

I don't think anybody has argued that there aren't those who deserve help, we can all agree there are.

But if these numbers are close to the same nation wide, then we can honestly say 4 out of 5 people are leaching the system.

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

I don't think anybody has argued that there aren't those who deserve help, we can all agree there are.

But if these numbers are close to the same nation wide, then we can honestly say 4 out of 5 people are leaching the system.

I would love to see real statistics that republicans are not pulling out of their asses. The problem is a lot of this is hearsay with very low instances of actually being true.
Heres a good quick article that has some good points on this debate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ment-benefits/

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

I would love to see real statistics that republicans are not pulling out of their asses. The problem is a lot of this is hearsay with very low instances of actually being true.
Heres a good quick article that has some good points on this debate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ment-benefits/

Well, for starters, that article I linked is true. I'd bet that situation is more true nationally than not.

Ok, let's discuss it.

That article has some interesting theories, many of which are questionable.

1) "Poverty looks pretty great if you're not living in it. The government gives you free money to spend on steak and lobster, on tattoos and spa days, on — why not? — cruise vacations and psychic visits.
Enough serious-minded people seem to think this is what the poor actually buy with their meager aid that we've now seen a raft of bills and proposed state laws to nudge them away from so much excess."

While I don't believe they are taking cruises and getting psychic visits, go to your local super market and start paying attention. I've stood behind many people with multiple buggies loaded with top shelf foods. Only to watch them pull out multiple SNAP, Louisiana Purchase, or whatever cards to pay for most of it. Then wheel it out and load it into an Escalade. So yes, I do believe there should be more "proof" of need presented to get it.

2) Kansas wants to block welfare recipients from spending government money at strip clubs (in legalese: any "sexually oriented business or any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment").

Why now are they wanting to block it, it never should have been allowed in the first place. That fact that they have to debate and pass laws to stop it only shows how problematic the system really is.

3) Then there are the states that want to drug-test welfare recipients — the implication being that we worry the poor will convert their benefits directly into drugs.

Nobody is implying that recipients are converting their benefits into drugs (although you can bet some do). The bigger question is, are they needing benefits because their drug habit is keeping them from working? If that is the case, should they get your and my hard earned tax dollars?

4) Sometimes these laws are cast as protection for the poor, ensuring that aid is steered in ways that will help them the most. Other times they're framed as protection for the taxpayer, who shouldn't be asked to help people who will squander the money on vices anyway.

The fact of the matter is both. First, it does protect the truly poor from losing their benefits when a social program goes bankrupt from abuse. Secondly, I do want to know my taxes aren't be squandered by abusers of the system. You should want to know too.

5) But the logic behind the proposals is problematic in at least three, really big ways.
The first is economic: There's virtually no evidence that the poor actually spend their money this way.

I don't believe the truly poor spend thier money that way. But it's not the truly poor I'm talking about.

The idea that they do defies Maslow's hierarchy — the notion that we all need shelter and food before we go in search of foot massages. In fact, the poor are much more savvy about how they spend their money because they have less of it (quick quiz: do you know exactly how much you last spent on a gallon of milk? or a bag of diapers?). By definition, a much higher share of their income — often more than half of it — is eaten up by basic housing costs than is true for the better-off, leaving them less money for luxuries anyway.

I believe that to be true, but then again, I'm not talking about the truly poor.

And contrary to the logic of drug-testing laws, the poor are no more likely to use drugs than the population at large.

I also believe that to be true, but the population at large is not getting our tax dollars to fund their drug habits.

6) The second issue with these laws is a moral one: We rarely make similar demands of other recipients of government aid. We don't drug-test farmers who receive agriculture subsidies (lest they think about plowing while high!). We don't require Pell Grant recipients to prove that they're pursuing a degree that will get them a real job one day (sorry, no poetry!). We don't require wealthy families who cash in on the home mortgage interest deduction to prove that they don't use their homes as brothels (because surely someone out there does this). The strings that we attach to government aid are attached uniquely for the poor.

I consider this a "strawman" arugment. And here's why.
Farmers receive "aid" as subsidies to not plant crops, oh yes they do. If they "over plant" they get penalized. Add to that the EPA and other government agencies have been making it harder for farmers to earn a fair living by imposing tighter and tighter regulations while importing crops from Mexico, China, etc, that don't have to.
Of course we have all seen and heard of educational grants being used for purposes other than education. You now, that new cell phone, rent, etc.
Kind of hard to point the finger at somebody who pays their taxes while earning their own living and say "Hey you, the guy paying for his own house, you shouldn't get a tax credit because you pay taxes." But, then again, they have to prove they payed the taxes to get the credit. Sounds like there is a string attached to it. And this only reinforces the "over tax so we can redistribute it" problems we have today.

7) That leads us to the third problem, which is a political one. Many, many Americans who do receive these other kinds of government benefits — farm subsidies, student loans, mortgage tax breaks — don't recognize that, like the poor, they get something from government, too. That's because government gives money directly to poor people, but it gives benefits to the rest of us in ways that allow us to tell ourselves that we get nothing from government at all.

Another "strawman" argument. Another example of "over taxed and redistributed". Can't say the government is giving you something if that "something" is what they took from you first. Starting to see a pattern yet?

8) Political scientist Suzanne Mettler has called this effect the "submerged state." Food stamps and welfare checks are incredibly visible government benefits. The mortgage interest deduction, Medicare benefits and tuition tax breaks are not — they're submerged. They come to us in round-about ways, through smaller tax bills (or larger refunds), through payments we don't have to make to doctors (thanks to Medicare), or in tuition we don't have to pay to universities (because the G.I. Bill does that for us).
Mettler's research has shown that a remarkable number of people who don't think they get anything from government in fact benefit from one of these programs. This explains why we get election-season soundbites from confused voters who want policymakers to "keep your government hands off my Medicare!" This is also what enables politicians to gin up indignation among small-government supporters who don't realize they rely on government themselves.

They are visible because they are tax payer funded. Look at your paystub to see just how visible they really are. Another example of "tax and redistribution". Add to the fact that many elections are won based on handouts and you'll see why tax payers such as myself get so pissed when we see the system being abused by those who keep voting for the politician who keeps promising more.

9) Mettler raises a lot of concerns about what the submerged state means for how we understand the role of government. But one result of this reality is that we have even less tolerance for programs that help the poor: We begrudge them their housing vouchers, for instance, even though government spends about four times as much subsidizing housing for upper-income homeowners.

I don't begrudge the truly poor for getting help. But I do have a problem with the "fake" poor milking the system. Subsidizing upper-income homeowners by giving back previously taken tax dollars is not subsidizing. But this is an easy fix, drop the middle class tax rate to a fair/flat tax level and do away with the interest deduction.

10) That's a long-winded way of saying that these proposed laws — which insist that government beneficiaries prove themselves worthy, that they spend government money how the government wants them to, that they waive their privacy and personal freedom to get it — are also simply a reflection of a basic double-standard.

Oh the poor "poor" people. Talk about the double standard for the rest of us who have to take drug test to earn the money, prove how much money we did or did not earn for tax purposes, prove how much interest we earned or paid out, explain where the money came from if we deposit $10k+ or withdraw more than 10K from the bank and have to fill out a form explaining what I want my own money for. Or my favorite, prove we have Obamacare spec'd coverage as a citizen of the USA while illegals and poor don't have to either, prove that they have coverage or prove they are a citizen.

[tpunx99GSX]

I would LOVE to see actual statistics and real data to support your arguments other than "Someone told me they were doing this, and i believe them" Because making that argument without ANYTHING to back it up, is elitist and just plain wrong.
There was a recent startalk i was listening to where they were talking about UFOs, and how scientists laugh at eyewitness testimony due to the fact that human eyes and minds are flawed where they will come to conclusions that have no scientific data to back it up.
Just because you want to see something some way, does not make it true, and you heard it from someone who heard it from another, does not make it true either.
Fact of the matter is that yeah, there COULD be people gaming the system, HOWEVER, you are painting with broad strokes a picture that the whole welfare system is broken and wasting your precious tax dollars which simple is not true. Is it flawless, no, Nothing is. Does it do more good than not? Yes. Could a WorkFare system work better in conjunction with a Welfare system, yes. But frankly, painting all welfare recipients as escalade driving, filet mignon buying cheaters is just stupid without any evidence.

[tpunx99GSX]

And the drug test argument, I am for drug testing. HOWEVER, This would need to be a BLANKET policy for anyone receiving govt money. Politicians, Farmers, Students, Teachers, i can go on. There is no reason to single out welfare recipients.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

I would LOVE to see actual statistics and real data to support your arguments other than "Someone told me they were doing this, and i believe them" Because making that argument without ANYTHING to back it up, is elitist and just plain wrong.
There was a recent startalk i was listening to where they were talking about UFOs, and how scientists laugh at eyewitness testimony due to the fact that human eyes and minds are flawed where they will come to conclusions that have no scientific data to back it up.
Just because you want to see something some way, does not make it true, and you heard it from someone who heard it from another, does not make it true either.
Fact of the matter is that yeah, there COULD be people gaming the system, HOWEVER, you are painting with broad strokes a picture that the whole welfare system is broken and wasting your precious tax dollars which simple is not true. Is it flawless, no, Nothing is. Does it do more good than not? Yes. Could a WorkFare system work better in conjunction with a Welfare system, yes. But frankly, painting all welfare recipients as escalade driving, filet mignon buying cheaters is just stupid without any evidence.

I guess the article I posted where statistics showed "After forcing these individuals to either work part-time for twenty hours each week, enroll in a vocational program, or volunteer for a minimum of twenty-four hours per month, the numbers showed a significant drop from 12,000 enrollees to just over 2,500" isn't proof enough for you? Talk about having blinders on,.......

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

And the drug test argument, I am for drug testing. HOWEVER, This would need to be a BLANKET policy for anyone receiving govt money. Politicians, Farmers, Students, Teachers, i can go on. There is no reason to single out welfare recipients.

I'm all for it, especially the politicians,........
Love the double standard that I have to take a drug test to earn the money I get taxed on, but the beneficiaries if my tax dollars don't.
It's also funny how you lump working people who earn their money (Politicians, Farmers, Students, Teachers, i can go on) into the same catagory as welfare recipients. Obviously, you don't know the difference between the two,.........

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

And the drug test argument, I am for drug testing. HOWEVER, This would need to be a BLANKET policy for anyone receiving govt money. Politicians, Farmers, Students, Teachers, i can go on. There is no reason to single out welfare recipients.

I love the idea of drug testing welfare recipients. Unfortunately, in states that have implemented this, they haven't really saved any money due to the smaller than expected number of people that test positive, and the expensive nature of drug testing.

The solution is to have people pay for the drug testing themselves. However, that creates a financial burden for those who are actually in need that they may not be able to afford in the first place.

[A//// Guy]

Yea the cost of doing the drug tests wasnt worth it. Making people work for their money like in that article about Maine, may be a step in the right direction.

[AwdGSX13]

Originally Posted by A//// Guy

Yea the cost of doing the drug tests wasnt worth it. Making people work for their money like in that article about Maine, may be a step in the right direction.

Florida was a good example of this, i agree that if you're an able body person you should be doing some kind of work to be able to receive a check. I can imagine that they're many small jobs that can be done. Possibly road clean up, any voluntary service. If they feel they are being targeted then they should start looking harder for a job.

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

I love the idea of drug testing welfare recipients. Unfortunately, in states that have implemented this, they haven't really saved any money due to the smaller than expected number of people that test positive, and the expensive nature of drug testing.

The solution is to have people pay for the drug testing themselves. However, that creates a financial burden for those who are actually in need that they may not be able to afford in the first place.

I need to find the article again but they have saved money by implementing the drug testing. You are right that they haven't tested the portion of people as positive they though but they also have had a drop in $ sent due to people not testing at all and giving up the benefits. To me, that's a win with or without actual testing needed.