But don't we put restrictions on other people seeking public assistance? For instance, if you're applying for federal student loans, they can look into your criminal history.

I don't think it's treating these people as "second class citizens," as much as it's ensuring that the money is going to the right places.

Just throwing it out there, but maybe if they do test positive for drugs, future benefits are conditioned upon completion of a recovery program?

The birth control aspect is offered to men as well, FWIW. This economy has really humbled some people who thought they were too "good" for public assistance. I had ideas of what my clients would be like when I started working here, but I was proven wrong. A small minority of my clients would fit the "welfare stereotype".

If a person has been convicted of distributing drugs, they are not eligible for assistance for 10 years or life, I cant remember which. The policy used to be possession or distribution, but now its just distribution. That JUST changed.

ETA: Food stamps are supposed to supplement a family's food budget. Too many rely on it to be their only provision for food, and have no idea how they've used up their monthly benefits by the 10th of the month. They are supposed to purchase only food products with it (can't use them to pay for already prepared items, like the rotisserie chicken), but people and stores find ways around it.

Welfare has been rebranded. (As of August 22, 1996, don't ask how I know this date, lol!) These are not "welfare" programs, they are public assistance. Food Stamps are now SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I think we need to make people who receive assistance more accountable for proving HOW, if at all, they are trying to better their situation. There are too many people who are content to sit back and let the state take care of them and their children, but get beligerent when I need them to verify how they are paying for their expenses when they have no income. "Ms Nikki1920, why are you all in my business? Why do you need to know that?" EYE don't need to know anything, but you came in here, said you needed assistance and I need some information to determine how much, if any, assistance you are entitled to receive. If you don't want to give me the info, there is the door and have a great day.

Exactly. If you can't make your own money because you fail your drug tests and aren't hired, then don't take my tax money. I have no problem whatsoever with welfare recipients having to pass drug tests.

@ bolded:
really? I dont get it. To me all people on welfare are welfare recipients and all welfare recipients are people on welfare.
@ underlined:
That was my point. Most of the people who complain about welfare base their complaints on the people they know or the people they've seen which is unrealisitc. Did DS see every woman who got a check on the first in his shoe store? No. Were most of the women he saw druggies? Probably not. So is it realistic to say that because he worked in that shoe store and dealt with those few women that this is how most/all welfare recipients are? No.

I swear some people act like welfare is a damn prize. Most people on welfare would rather not have it. There are many more issues with welfare than just the person's personal issues. Anyone ever think of the fact that if you are on welfare and you get a job (working for minimum wage) then the amount of welfare you get is decreased by such sufficient amounts that it at a point becomes less efficient for you to work. If a person works min. wage jobs they cannot make enough to support themselves far less themselves and children. When the welfare you're getting is worth more than you can make working what do you do? Keep working until ish hits the fan and you wind up on welfare again or quit working and keep welfare? Economics will tell you that each person acts in their own best interest to maximize utility, thus a person with any sense would quit working and remain on welfare. Why? Its the best option. This senario is created by the dumbass policies that we currently have regarding welfare. Some people get outraged about welfare recipients dependency on the system, but they are not outraged about living wage issues and the policies that make welfare a cripling and dependent system.

So, dont waste money trying to root out druggies which are the minority in the system. Reform the system to subsidize low wage workers and provide education and training so that workers can increase their utility and earn a wage that will enable them to care for themselves and their families.

This is demonstrably false using the definition of "utility" that you're alluding to.

Why is it either/or?

Could you explain what you mean by the definition of utility being false?

What is either/or? I didnt mention either/or. The words arent even in there so im a little :confused: by your question.

You posted: "So, dont waste money trying to root out druggies which are the minority in the system. Reform the system to subsidize low wage workers and provide education and training so that workers can increase their utility and earn a wage that will enable them to care for themselves and their families."

That made it seem like a choice - either you "root out druggies" or you reform the system, but that you couldn't do both. It seemed like RC's post was wondering why you couldn't try to do both.

I would think that "rooting out druggies" IS a type of reformation.

SCHEEEECH!!! hehehehe!!

Most of the bamas on welfare couldn't give a kitty about regular school, what makes ya think they are gonna care about budgeting class?

HA!

...continue...

@ bolded:
No it didnt. The underlined portion of your post seems like a choice. I was quite clear. "DON'T waste money trying to root out druggies." What choice is there? If I say dont turn left does that mean either turn left or keep straight? No, it means Do NOT turn left. No option there.

It is a type of reformation. I was specific about the type of reformation which is why if you keep reading the sentence you find exactly how I would like to see it reformed. If it makes it more clear I'll say it this way:
Do not reform the welfare system by rooting out druggies. Reform the welfare system by subsidizing low wage workers and providing education and training.

For a standard urine test, the testing company we use charges ~$50. I'm sure the goverment would pay less with the volume of people they would be sending.
This checks for all illegal drugs as well as excessively elevated levels of prescription drugs. It is also a non-attended drug screen. So the person is outside the door, not in the room with the person as they give the specimen. Attended screens cost more. ( They do check the temperature of the specimen. If it is out of a certain range, then it is rejected).

This is provided for those who receive cash assistance and SNAP benefits. A lot of people choose to ignore the education part of receiving assistance. But a lot of our clients are functionally illiterate, have undiagnosed comprehension, mental and processing issues/problems or have learning disabilities.

So, when people are required to drug test for a job, are they being treated as second class citizens?

I didn't say all people on welfare. READ.
Hmmm so it's ok that some (read SOME) people are just plain ol lazy and don't want to work but continue having kids?
Unfortunately some (again read SOME) people on welfare do see it as that.

And let me reiterate since you apparently want to read things that aren't there...

I have absolutely no problem with good, law abiding people being on welfare if they are trying the best they can. I do have a problem with people who break the law (drugs, theft, violence, etc) who are not trying the best they can being on welfare.

You said: "Economics will tell you that each person acts in their own best interest to maximize utility, thus a person with any sense would quit working and remain on welfare."

This is a theoretical maxim that is almost always violated unless you use an exceptionally broad definition of "utility" . . . for example, credit card debt does not maximize the utility of a dollar, and may or may not maximize the marginal utility of the person's enjoyment (or "need it now" factor), so that's a clear violation of the maxim.

There are really dozens of examples that agree - the individual should work to maximize individual utility, but that doesn't mean that they do.

You are saying that, instead of a low-yield effort to keep out drug users (note: you've not really backed up the fact that it's low-yield - we still have little evidence either way, although the popular assumption is that the number would be higher than the population at large but lower than some people expect), we should focus on efficiency.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to consider both, or consider the former a part of the later. They can occur together.