Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.
I think that this will decrease efficiency in many ways. The cost will be huge and I think that the number of drug users will turn out to be insignificant (as in the amount wouldnt be enough to warrent all the testing). I'd say less than 20 percent of people on welfare are on drugs so that means that you'll be paying for 80% of the people to take tests (an inconviencing them) when they really dont need them. If you're going to test you'd have to do so randomly and multiple times in the year (because if you just scheduled it then people would be able to "beat" the test). And if these are tests where the person goes into a closed room and is not monitored then they could cheat the test as well. Then there is the issue of what you're going to do after a person has failed the test. Are you going to simply kick them off of welfare and let them fend for themselves? That doesnt seem likely because most of the people on welfare have children (or are in some way or another incapable of caring for themselves) and it is defeating the purpose to make more children homeless because of their parents drug use. If you do just completely cut them off then you have to spend money to increase law enforcement and place more stress and need for money on the court system because crime will surely go up. These children will end up in foster care which is already streched to its limits and thus that will need more funding. If you don't outright kick them off of welfare then it would make lawmakers look like idiots for having known drug users on welfare taking up tax dollars and not do anything about it. This means that they'd have to put more money into rehab programs (that druggies may or may not want to get into and that may or may not be successful). If rehab doesnt work out then you're back to the original point where you either kick them off of welfare and place the burden elsewhere or keep them on welfare and look like a complete idiot. And the big kicker is that all of this will be over only 1/5 of the people actually on welfare. More of the dollars that are going into welfare are ultimately going to be used by those that deserve them the least. So that means that 1/5 of the people then are pushed to the forefront of an issue that already has a plethora of image issues. Now the image of welfare suffers damage and even fewer tax payers will want to pay for it while it needs more tax payer dollars.
@bolded:
Im willing to bet that the education level on average of welfare recipients is a high school diploma (though that is changing now with the economy where it is). So, the people on welfare being highly educated is probably specific to your state or very few states.
Welfare was not designed for highly educated highly capable people. Unemployment can only go so far and it can only help so much. This program wasnt made to help everyone out. If you have a PhD my expectations of what you should be doing for yourself without the government are much higher. Our schools are in desperate need of teachers and our military needs people as well. If you have a PhD then it is my opinion that you have far more options than a person with no education does. There are plenty of foreign countries and companies that need educated people. They need doctors and lawyers and professors. Your opportunities are so much more vast with a masters or a PhD that honestly I am much less concerned about you than I am about someone who is uneducated. The military wont take you if you dont at least have a highschool diploma or the equivilant. If you have a PhD and you cant get ANY other job then the military is always in need of people and you'll make much more than you can on unemployment. You wont make what you're worth, but you'll make enough to survive.
|
I wasn't really remarking specifically about people on welfare. It was a bit of a hijack. I agree with you that for the most part people on welfare probably do not have education. My remarks were about unemployed people in general. The attitude you have toward the unemployed is the same as that of the leaders of this country for the past decade, and frankly it's just not as progressive as we need to address the issues of today. I'm of the opinion that we DO need to care about educated people that are unemployed, just as much as we need to care about people that don't have a hs diploma or college degree. If there are no jobs for people with a college degree, what incentive is there for people to get educated? Also, our society cannot exist just on restaurant workers, baristas, lawyers and doctors. We NEED other high wage-earning jobs and the professions that earn them. We should be very worried when the only jobs in our country are at quick serve restaurants.