[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

And when I say "people on welfare" I don't mean all welfare recipients.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

@ bolded:
really? I dont get it. To me all people on welfare are welfare recipients and all welfare recipients are people on welfare.

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

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.
I read what you said. I said I didnt get what you meant. To me people on welfare= all welfare recipients. Maybe you meant specific people on welfare? If you say people on welfare the "all" is assumed. If I said Americans I dont have to say all. It is implied.

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?
HELL NO! It is far from okay. Its ass backward and foolish.

Unfortunately some (again read SOME) people on welfare do see it as that.
I wasnt speaking about welfare recipients who see it as a prize, but about taxpayers who do. But I do understand and agree with your point.
And let me reiterate since you apparently want to read things that aren't there...
I got that the first time. My issue is that you appear to think that the majority of people on welfare are not good law abiding people. Not true.
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.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

From MCConnell Brue, Economicis 17th Edition:

Economics assumes that human behavior reflects "rational self-interest." Individuals look for and persue opportunities to increase their Utility--that is, pleasure, happiness, or satisfaction.

Utility- The want-satisfying power of a good or service; the satisfaction the consumer obtains from the consumption of a good or service.

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.

I never said it wasnt acceptable to consider both. In this situation only one is being considered (testing). In my opinion the one that should be the priority is efficiency. I believe that drug testing will not increase efficeincy thus it will be counter productive and should be avoided.