Drug Testing for welfare recipients

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by BaltoAlphaPsi

BUT! if in the end we save money by not giving it to the mass amounts of druggies....

It is not likely that we will, in the end, save money but cutting all the druggies out of welfare. I think there's a very large misconception that the majority of people on welfare are abusing it. Not true. And to be honest how many strung out druggies are coherent enough to continue to meet the requirements to get welfare? If you're strung out then it is not very likely that you're up on your paper work or doing what you're supposed to to get your money. Hell most druggies are so far gone that they barely remember to get the damn check out of the mail box. The only people that this could possibly hurt is the children. Parents get taken off of welfare because they're irresponsible then the little bit of funds that the kids were getting disappears, but the need that the kids have does not.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

It is not likely that we will, in the end, save money but cutting all the druggies out of welfare. I think there's a very large misconception that the majority of people on welfare are abusing it. Not true. And to be honest how many strung out druggies are coherent enough to continue to meet the requirements to get welfare? If you're strung out then it is not very likely that you're up on your paper work or doing what you're supposed to to get your money. Hell most druggies are so far gone that they barely remember to get the damn check out of the mail box. The only people that this could possibly hurt is the children. Parents get taken off of welfare because they're irresponsible then the little bit of funds that the kids were getting disappears, but the need that the kids have does not.

^^I agree, I think it punishes people (children and other dependents) who really aren't the ones that should be.

And, time out, I think missed something....are these state law-makers calling for state-reform? Or delegations from 8 states calling for Federal reform? because, from the way I read it, it seemed like state-lawmakers were calling for Federal reform.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I find this incredibly annoying. Make who get on birth control? And of course because you know someone that makes all of "them" lazy.

Yup it was!

^ I agree. I think that it will just wind up being a waste of money. Money that could be put to much better use.

The lazy person I was talking about is the person I know... who is lazy and doesn't want to work.

I'm sick of hearing about people on welfare popping out baby after baby (sometimes multiple fathers) and they just end up getting more money. They don't care about having safe sex or trying to get on their feet before bringing another baby into this world.

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

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

The lazy person I was talking about is the person I know... who is lazy and doesn't want to work.

I'm sick of hearing about people on welfare popping out baby after baby (sometimes multiple fathers) and they just end up getting more money. They don't care about having safe sex or trying to get on their feet before bringing another baby into this world.

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

@ 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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

Why is it either/or?

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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 by your question.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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 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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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

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.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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

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.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

So, dont waste money trying to root out druggies which are the minority in the system. Reform the system ...

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

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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

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.

[nikki1920]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

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.