Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

[layoutshooter]

Silly me, I wasn't thinking of cupcakes as a luxury item.
Of course they CAN buy luxury items with welfare money; however, common sense indicates that they have other sources of income. That was my point.




Silly me again. I didn't think frozen pizza was a luxury item either.
Your rant regarding the controlling of how people should eat has shades of Mayor Bloomburg on it.

I don't give a flip what people eat when they pay for it with MONEY THEY EARN THEMSELVES! When on the dole, they should be able to ONLY buy what is NEEDED. They CAN buy cupcakes with the EBT card. Candy too. It is not a rant either. The FACTS are this. Hard working people EARN that money. It is taken from them, by force, and given to someone else. When that money is taken from the rightful owner, it limits THEIR ability to provide for themselves and their own families. Therefor, those who are on the take should have limits too.

ExtortionThe obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

 

[Turtle]

Humble, a few people want to punish the poor for being poor, and if they can do that by also stomping on what little self-respect and dignity the poor still possess, then all the more better. Clearly, everyone on public assistance is on it because of their own foolish decisions, or because they like to be on welfare. These people should not be allowed to have anything other than food and water, and just enough to keep them alive (although a there are a few who would argue that that's even too much). They should have to go out and kill their own food, and prepare it over a wood burning fire, because they shouldn't be allowed to have electricity, either, since that's a luxury. Every penny that someone on public assistance manages to earn should reduce the amount of their welfare, penny for penny.

 

[witness23]

 

[layoutshooter]

Humble, a few people want to punish the poor for being poor, and if they can do that by also stomping on what little self-respect and dignity the poor still possess, then all the more better. Clearly, everyone on public assistance is on it because of their own foolish decisions, or because they like to be on welfare. These people should not be allowed to have anything other than food and water, and just enough to keep them alive (although a there are a few who would argue that that's even too much). They should have to go out and kill their own food, and prepare it over a wood burning fire, because they shouldn't be allowed to have electricity, either, since that's a luxury. Every penny that someone on public assistance manages to earn should reduce the amount of their welfare, penny for penny.

It is not punishment. It is not stomping on their dignity. It is making use of limited funds, funds taken by force from their rightful owners, to provide a basic living so that they do not starve to death. Prepared foods cost considerably more that food that needs prepared. Teaching them, by restricting what can be bought with public funds, how to buy properly, cook right etc would benefit them in the long run. It would stretch the funds they have further and would likely provide a better, healthier diet.

Charity SHOULD be a gift given freely. We are forced to provide charity. It is just ANOTHER form of redistribution of wealth, pure and simple. There should be NO free rides. There should be a work requirement, for those who are able to work. The ONLY people who should be given public funds, are those who are either physically or mentally, unable to provide for themselves. I do, however, contend that private charities would do a far better job of that than the federal government is doing.

 

[Ragman]

Are we going to have this argument again? Geez o petes!

 

[layoutshooter]

Are we going to have this argument again? Geez o petes!

Got nuthin else to do right now. It's raining, thunder and lighting, so I can't paint decoys. My work out at Pointe Mouillee does not start until tomorrow morning.

 

[cheri1122]

Humble, a few people want to punish the poor for being poor, and if they can do that by also stomping on what little self-respect and dignity the poor still possess, then all the more better. Clearly, everyone on public assistance is on it because of their own foolish decisions, or because they like to be on welfare. These people should not be allowed to have anything other than food and water, and just enough to keep them alive (although a there are a few who would argue that that's even too much). They should have to go out and kill their own food, and prepare it over a wood burning fire, because they shouldn't be allowed to have electricity, either, since that's a luxury. Every penny that someone on public assistance manages to earn should reduce the amount of their welfare, penny for penny.

Should they be allowed to have guns and fishing tackle for killing their food, or should they just 'man up' because those are luxuries that only working folks deserve?
And if we let them have guns and tackle, what kind of restrictions should be placed on them? Saturday night specials aside, guns can get real pricey, you know. Someone who earns their money shouldn't have to see someone who doesn't sporting a nicer gun - that would be wrong.
And forget the Nikes - if Frank McCourt could wear shoes patched with bicycle tires, so can our poor people!

 

[LDB]

Or maybe the point, minus the liberal hand wringing and teeth gnashing, is welfare recipients don't need smart phones, cable tv with movie packages, gym memberships etc. while they are on public assistance.

 

[Ragman]

welfare recipients don't need smart phones, cable tv with movie packages, gym memberships etc. while they are on public assistance.

Agreed.

OMG! I just agreed with LDB!

 

[LDB]

No need to be so surprised. Everyone is right once in awhile. This was your turn.

 

[davekc]

There should also be limits on the length of time someone stays on it as well. Too many "I don't wannas" from many people recieving help.
And we should "help".....but not provide that help as a replacement career. Bad things do happen to good people and we should help, but there has to be limitations.

 

[Turtle]

It is not punishment. It is not stomping on their dignity.

Of course it is. You can claim it's not all you want, but the end result is both of the above. You want them to be miserable, miserable enough to have them get off their butts and find a job, because you think if they are miserable enough, they will.

Leo, if someone is on welfare and they have cable TV with a movie package, regardless of how they got it or who is paying for it, they shouldn't have it? Why not?

That's a rhetorical question. The answer is because you want them punished and miserable. Smartphones? Pah! They shouldn't be able to be available to answer the phone if a prospective employer calls them for a job. I understand. Gym memberships? That doesn't even make sense. Fat, lazy people with cable TV and movie packages don't have gym memberships.

 

[layoutshooter]

"Of course it is. You can claim it's not all you want, but the end result is both of the above. You want them to be miserable, miserable enough to have them get off their butts and find a job, because you think if they are miserable enough, they will."

I don't want them to be miserable, I want them to become productive, regain their pride in themselves and succeed on their own merit. That way they would no longer be miserable. Knowing that one is not able to fend for themselves leads to feeling miserable.

It is, however, not their money. It is money earned by someone else, taken from them, and given to someone who did not EARN it. It is redistribution of wealth and that is a failed idea.

The problem is they are told they need help, and after a long enough time, they begin to believe it.

What we need is to start showing people what effort is capable of producing. Many of us know that the "poverty level" is artificial and means nothing. There are just far too many out there who are below the "poverty level", take no public monies and are doing very well. That is true for all races, colors etc. Instead of the constant drum beat of why we MUST help, we SHOULD be putting the "successful poor" out there as examples of what CAN be done when one puts their mind and effort to it.

There is no need for a gym membership, they are not working, they have plenty of time to walk. Smart phone? No need. An inexpensive phone, that can dial 911 and take incoming calls is all that is needed.

How is eating good, home cooked meals going to make some one miserable any way? If a person is not working they would have PLENTY of time to cook, bake etc. There is just no need for most prepared foods, which are far more expensive and not nearly as healthy.

 

[Turtle]

"Of course it is. You can claim it's not all you want, but the end result is both of the above. You want them to be miserable, miserable enough to have them get off their butts and find a job, because you think if they are miserable enough, they will."

I don't want them to be miserable, I want them to become productive, regain their pride in themselves and succeed on their own merit. That way they would no longer be miserable. Knowing that one is not able to fend for themselves leads to feeling miserable.

Yet they cannot become productive and regain their pride when you priovide them with just enough to survive on and nothing more.

It is, however, not their money. It is money earned by someone else, taken from them, and given to someone who did not EARN it. It is redistribution of wealth and that is a failed idea.

I don't disagree with that, but, too many people are under the assumption that if all welfare suddenly disappeared because those wages were no longer "stolen" from those who work, that everyone would suddenly have more more at their disposal. That's a fallacy. One of two things would happen. Either wages would drop back down to a level that is the same as the take-home pay now, or the money would simply be diverted to other projects (infrastructure, defense) and politician's pockets.

The problem is they are told they need help, and after a long enough time, they begin to believe it.

I don't disagree with that at all. Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Do that day after day and pretty soon he thinks your fish are his fish. Like Dave said, there needs to be a time limit on assistance, because there needs to be an incentive to remove yourself from the assistance. But you don't need to beat them down and punish them while they're getting it.

What we need is to start showing people what effort is capable of producing. Many of us know that the "poverty level" is artificial and means nothing. There are just far too many out there who are below the "poverty level", take no public monies and are doing very well. That is true for all races, colors etc. Instead of the constant drum beat of why we MUST help, we SHOULD be putting the "successful poor" out there as examples of what CAN be done when one puts their mind and effort to it.

I would have to disagree with such broad-brush stereotyping unless and until I know what you mean by "doing well."

There is no need for a gym membership, they are not working, they have plenty of time to walk. Smart phone? No need. An inexpensive phone, that can dial 911 and take incoming calls is all that is needed.

I can't imagine that very many people on welfare have gym memberships. Bring it up as part of the stereotype was asinine, if you ask me. I do agree that an inexpensive phone that can dial 911 and take incoming calls is all that is needed, plus the ability to dial a prospective employer might be good, provided they have readily available and easy accessible Internet access. Oh, wait, they get that with a smartphone.

How is eating good, home cooked meals going to make some one miserable any way? If a person is not working they would have PLENTY of time to cook, bake etc. There is just no need for most prepared foods, which are far more expensive and not nearly as healthy.

I never said eating good, home cooked meals would make someone miserable. I do, however, know people who would starve within two weeks if that's the only way they could eat. But in any case, there's nothing wrong with eating prepared foods once in a while. It's how people live nowadays.

 

[Heisenberg]

Why are you guys bashing public assistance programs? We send Israel 6 billion dollars a year and their people all have free housing and medical. We send billions of dollars all across the world to help people and you guys are whining about a welfare recipient getting 600 dollars a month. How about all of the money we spend on bombs and wars? I don't see anyone complaining about that! I don't have any problem with helping American citizens when they need assistance. We have plenty of money to help these people if the government stopped sending my tax dollars to other countries. I gladly pay taxes knowing that my money goes to help the poor and disabled people in our society. It's all about helping people. What ever happened to compassionate conservatism in this country? Since when did we start vilifying the poor who live amongst us?

 

[layoutshooter]

I would have to disagree with such broad-brush stereotyping unless and until I know what you mean by "doing well."

Just one example of "doing well". 7 children, , 5 still at home. One income, well below the "poverty level". They own their home, two vehicles. They home school their children. One has graduated from college, one in now. No student loans. They went to school on full ride academic scholarships. The oldest son, senior in high school is going to get two scholarships, part ride for academics and the rest for skeet shooting. That is "doing well".

Internet is free at libraries, there is no need for smart phones.

I still contend that in the case of able bodied, able minded, people, long term unemployment is a choice. A choice aided by a "system" that is designed to insure failure. A "system " that is designed to keep people dependent. The longer a person is dependent the more likely it is they will remain dependent. Time limits are a must, so is a work requirement.

I am not trying to beat people down, nor am I trying to vilify them. I want the exact opposite. I want everyone to know the quiet confidence that comes from providing for one's self. The dignity of independence. Our "system" is the cause of the misery. What we have now is not "welfare", it is not, "uplifting". It is more like an anchor and chain around people's necks.

That is the problem with government forced charity. It is in the best interest of the government to keep people in their "place".

 

[LDB]

Leo, if someone is on welfare and they have cable TV with a movie package, regardless of how they got it or who is paying for it, they shouldn't have it? Why not?

If you are paying for it then they definitely should have it. If Comcast is donating it free then they definitely should have it. If they are getting enough money from "entitlements" to afford that on top of adequate and proper food and shelter and clothing and toothpaste and whatever other nits will be picked then they are getting too much entitlement. Television is not a necessity and certainly cable with or without movie packages is a luxury.

 

[LDB]

Smartphones? Pah! They shouldn't be able to be available to answer the phone if a prospective employer calls them for a job.

Which was it, an extra dose or ornery pills or stupid pills? There are basic phones available for $10-20 a month that will talk to prospective employers all day long. It doesn't take a $60-80 a month smartphone to do that. Now if you want to pay the difference then give them all smartphones. A phone is almost a necessity, a smartphone is a luxury.

 

[Turtle]

Neither. You can get a smartphone for $20 a month, too.

 

[muttly]

I pads, smart phones, cable tv, internet etc are all luxuries. I know some people who have cancelled their cable and internet for budget reasons and they aren't on food stamps. If someone really needs the food stamps after they budgeted these items then they should receive it. There is still free tv and internet available as well as cheap phones available. Regarding drug testing, yes they should. The government drug tests you for their jobs. Regarding food purchases with stamps. They should be able to buy whatever FOOD PRODUCT they want including Susie Q's and Faygo red pop. Alcohol and tobacco excluded.