• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deal OKs bill requiring drug testing for welfare recipients

Then perhaps they should cut funding from other programs that are not needed?

Edit: They could also raise taxes.

Like incarcerating people for marijuana possession, cultivation, and distribution?
 
If they steal then they will go to jail and I'll get reimbursed. :shrug:

So you don't mind paying for their food and shelter after they have committed a crime?
 
If they steal then they will go to jail and I'll get reimbursed. :shrug:

jail is lots more expensive than food stamps. its a net loss for everyone financially and socially.
 
Like I said...sometimes spending more is better than not spending and letting a problem continue.

I think what you are missing is that your "solution" will create bigger and more expensive problems.
 
Read more: RN-T.com - Deal OKs bill requiring drug testing for welfare recipients

Gonna be yet another giant waste of money. Nothing but a giant pointless waste of money

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response? [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

I can see both sides pretty clearly.

Side One: Money is fungible. If someone is using money to buy drugs, they aren't using entitlement money for the purpose it was intended.
Side Two: If you don't let a mom collect welfare, she's going to use drugs anyway, so her kids are going to go hungry (hungrier).

Maybe in order to keep your kids you should have to test drug free. That's solve Side Two. It may be time to consider the rights of children instead of the rights of their drug addicted parents.
 
I can see both sides pretty clearly.

Side One: Money is fungible. If someone is using money to buy drugs, they aren't using entitlement money for the purpose it was intended.
Side Two: If you don't let a mom collect welfare, she's going to use drugs anyway, so her kids are going to go hungry (hungrier).

Maybe in order to keep your kids you should have to test drug free. That's solve Side Two. It may be time to consider the rights of children instead of the rights of their drug addicted parents.

That isn't free either.

Also, imagine if you were a child and snatched up and either warehoused or forced to live with strangers.
 
That's really what it boils down to, isn't it?

Hey, I might be more sympathetic in this thread if people didn't want to ban welfare recipients from buying certain kinds of food/drink just because they are welfare recipients.
 
Maybe in order to keep your kids you should have to test drug free. That's solve Side Two. It may be time to consider the rights of children instead of the rights of their drug addicted parents.
I think this is a fair question. But, it leads to further questions...

What is "better"? Is it better to be in a relatively stable, albeit imperfect home? Or, is it better to be shuffled around in a system that is essentially sterile and uncaring, sand thus unable to ever have any sense of stability?

I can see where some cases the imperfect household would be better, and some cases where foster care would be better, but I don't see where a blanket policy would serve the overall interests of the community well.

I'm thinking out loud here as much as anything else. I'm not sure I have a single answer to your point, but I do think it is worth pondering.
 
Aren't welfare entitlements intended to get someone back on their feet, not be a lifetime free paycheck?

If someone is doing drugs they are being counter productive because they are taking possible employment off the table ( jobs that require someone to be drug free which are many).

As for the children ( I don't think people should be allowed to have children if they don't have the means to provide for them, but that's a topic for another day).

If a parent spends their entitlement money on drugs instead of taking care of their family then the children should be relocated to another family or foster care. The parent who does drugs is the one that causes this hardship for the children not the government. No one is forcing them to do drugs.
 
Like I said...sometimes spending more is better than not spending and letting a problem continue.

it would make the problem worse though and be more expensive. if someone canter get a job and be a productive member of society, sending them to jail is more expensive than helping them before they get to that point. also a person who has trouble functioning in society with a criminal record on top has an even harder time becoming a productive member of society, thus they become even more expensive. in the end, everyone loses. the tax payers who have to pay more for this person amd the person who finds other harder to get a job and has no real alternatives in life. nobody is better off in this scenario.

the better approach is intervention before thar point is reached, but it has to very structured in a way that changes attitudes and gives a bit of fear in the person being helped so they are motivated to change if what is lacking is in their attitude or skillsets.

otherwise we are enabling bad behavior and nobody benefits from that either. the only goal if any successful program is to turn people into productive people who are a benefit to themselves and society. otherwise we run the risk of rising crime rates and a degeneration of the social order. its not about responsibility, morality, punishment, or revenge. in the end, the only thng that makes a difference is results.
 
Hey, I might be more sympathetic in this thread if people didn't want to ban welfare recipients from buying certain kinds of food/drink just because they are welfare recipients.

Should they be able to buy cigarettes?
 
it would make the problem worse though and be more expensive. if someone canter get a job and be a productive member of society, sending them to jail is more expensive than helping them before they get to that point. also a person who has trouble functioning in society with a criminal record on top has an even harder time becoming a productive member of society, thus they become even more expensive. in the end, everyone loses. the tax payers who have to pay more for this person amd the person who finds other harder to get a job and has no real alternatives in life. nobody is better off in this scenario.

the better approach is intervention before thar point is reached, but it has to very structured in a way that changes attitudes and gives a bit of fear in the person being helped so they are motivated to change if what is lacking is in their attitude or skillsets.

otherwise we are enabling bad behavior and nobody benefits from that either. the only goal if any successful program is to turn people into productive people who are a benefit to themselves and society. otherwise we run the risk of rising crime rates and a degeneration of the social order. its not about responsibility, morality, punishment, or revenge. in the end, the only thng that makes a difference is results.

Believe me, I know the problems associated with having a record. And I believe reform is needed in that department.

But again, ignoring a problem is just as worthless as spending less money.
 
Aren't welfare entitlements intended to get someone back on their feet, not be a lifetime free paycheck?

If someone is doing drugs they are being counter productive because they are taking possible employment off the table ( jobs that require someone to be drug free which are many).

As for the children ( I don't think people should be allowed to have children if they don't have the means to provide for them, but that's a topic for another day).

If a parent spends their entitlement money on drugs instead of taking care of their family then the children should be relocated to another family or foster care. The parent who does drugs is the one that causes this hardship for the children not the government. No one is forcing them to do drugs.

Sounds a little too intrusive for my taste. What should be done is this: Take all of that money wasted on drug testing welfare recipients and put it towards solving the problems that cause people to be on welfare. Whether that be more government sponsored job training, more safe sex awareness, or anti-drug enforcement/education. Fix those things and you will see less people on welfare.

I don't have any problem with a person raising X amount of kids relaxing with a joint at the end of the day without having to worry about losing all assistance.
 
Believe me, I know the problems associated with having a record. And I believe reform is needed in that department.

But again, ignoring a problem is just as worthless as spending less money.

what part of intervention before things get bad is ignoring the problem?
 
What gets me about these conversations is that most of the supporters of drug testing are basing their opinions on outdated information. Like the term welfare is outdated. It is now called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) If you read the information in that link you will learn that you cannot be permanently on TANF. And that there are already tough requirements for being on TANF. There are work requirements in place.

With few exceptions, recipients must work as soon as they are job-ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
To count toward a State’s work participation rate, single parents must participate in work activities for an average of 30 hours per week, or an average of 20 hours per week if they have a child under age six. Two-parent families must participate in work activities for an average of 35 hours a week or, if they receive Federal child care assistance, 55 hours a week.
Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of a family’s benefits.

[....]

Five-Year Time Limit:
Families with an adult who has received federally-funded assistance for a total of five years (or less at state option) are not eligible for cash aid under the TANF program.
 
Hey, I might be more sympathetic in this thread if people didn't want to ban welfare recipients from buying certain kinds of food/drink just because they are welfare recipients.
I don't go for the drug testing thing because I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is (supposed to be) one of our core societal values. If we're not willing to live it ourselves in our daily lives, then it's all just mindless prattle. And no, even though a private business can get away with it, I don't approve of it there, either. (Barring narrowly-defined exceptions) So, if my standards are that regarding drug testing, I sure as hell don't approve of restricting otherwise legal purchases.

Be that as it may, I think the two are different enough that they shouldn't be lumped together. One, food/drink, are legal purchases. The other, drugs, is not. While I prefer the "innocent until proven guilty" route, I do see the distinction between legal and illegal. IOW: I don't think someone would automatically be inconsistent if they favored drug testing while opposing legal purchase restrictions.
 
Back
Top Bottom