Drug Testing for welfare recipients

[PhiGam]

While it would be "fair" to american taxpayers to eliminate welfare for addicts, its simply unrealistic. Too large of a portion of our population relies on it that if you took it away there would be riots, killings, anarchy, etc. A better solution would be to drug test welfare recipients and dock them a portion of their check (20% or so) if they test positive. This would give them an incentive to quit using drugs but also wouldn't cause an uprising if they tested positive.

And to whoever was saying "school or jail," incarceration costs $41,000 per year, which is way more than keeping that same person on welfare would cost.

To me the big problem that we have is that the democrats are giving social assistance (hundreds of billions in the PORK-ulus package) to illegal aliens rather then kicking their asses out of our country and back to Mexico.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

To me the big problem that we have is that the democrats are giving social assistance (hundreds of billions in the PORK-ulus package) to illegal aliens rather then kicking their asses out of our country and back to Mexico.

Ah, but the republicans don't really want them kicked out, either. A lot of small businesses and agriculture employ illegal workers, and some of those folks vote republican. Why do you think it's an issue that hasn't been dealt with?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

And to whoever was saying "school or jail," incarceration costs $41,000 per year, which is way more than keeping that same person on welfare would cost.

And you pulled that figure from where? What cost are you comparing that to?

Maybe it didn't occur to you but somehow incarceration and low income somehow goes hand in hand. Regardless of what it costs, the labor that you get out of an incarcerated person is much less than what it would cost to pay that same person if they had a degree.


But anyways...I just love how folks just want to point out the flaws of the system instead of coming up with a solution...oh...wait...coming up with a solution that is agreeable would be too...

socialist?

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

And you pulled that figure from where? What cost are you comparing that to?

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/018281.html), the FY 2007 cost was somewhere around $25,000.

If we're going to attack, let us be armed with the proper ammunition.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/018281.html), the FY 2007 cost was somewhere around $25,000.

If we're going to attack, let us be armed with the proper ammunition.

Thanks for the figures Munchkin

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Maybe it didn't occur to you but somehow incarceration and low income somehow goes hand in hand. Regardless of what it costs, the labor that you get out of an incarcerated person is much less than what it would cost to pay that same person if they had a degree.

The overwhelming majority of inmates produce exactly nothing of value for the economy, while the majority of people with degrees do, in fact, produce something of value (whether that's commensurate with their pay is altogether a different issue), so I don't really get this comparison.

The $25k or whatever (and it varies wildly) is essentially 'sunk cost' for the inmate with very little hope of recovering any of it.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

And you pulled that figure from where? What cost are you comparing that to?

Maybe it didn't occur to you but somehow incarceration and low income somehow goes hand in hand. Regardless of what it costs, the labor that you get out of an incarcerated person is much less than what it would cost to pay that same person if they had a degree.


But anyways...I just love how folks just want to point out the flaws of the system instead of coming up with a solution...oh...wait...coming up with a solution that is agreeable would be too...

socialist?

I pulled that figure from watching a senate debate... I wish I remembered who said it.

I know that low income and incarceration go hand in hand... I feel that I am actually agreeing with you here and don't understand what your deal is. I was arguing AGAINST madmax... take a xanax or something.

My "solution" was a reduction in the amount received in somebody tests positive for drugs and to completely cut off and deport any illegals that we know of- that would cut spending. The "PRUCOL" illegals need to be deported immediately... if you're here illegally then you need to go... plain and simple.

[libramunoz]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

I pulled that figure from watching a senate debate... I wish I remembered who said it.

I know that low income and incarceration go hand in hand... I feel that I am actually agreeing with you here and don't understand what your deal is. I was arguing AGAINST madmax... take a xanax or something.

My "solution" was a reduction in the amount received in somebody tests positive for drugs and to completely cut off and deport any illegals that we know of- that would cut spending. The "PRUCOL" illegals need to be deported immediately... if you're here illegally then you need to go... plain and simple.

I can't speak for other parts of the country, but in Texas one new thing that they have instituted is to have a person get a copy of their birth certificate or INS card.
This is something that's new and I think that it will be a big help.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

And to whoever was saying "school or jail," incarceration costs $41,000 per year, which is way more than keeping that same person on welfare would cost.

.

OK forget prisons. Build more gallows.

Welfare recipients add nothing to society other than more welfare recipients and more criminals. They are like the Ocotomom. We should cut them all off before they become Octowelfare recipients.

[libramunoz]

Originally Posted by madmax

Welfare recipients add nothing to society other than more welfare recipients and more criminals. They are like the Ocotomom. We should cut them all off before they become Octowelfare recipients.

This is wrong of you to say because NOT all welfare recipients are people who are dumb, on drugs, alcoholics, have no education, or are just the scum of humanity.
I have recieved food stamps twice in my life because we HAD no food! I have 2 degrees! I have worked many jobs and I know that when I got my food stamps I wasn't criminally inclined!
I got the food stamps because I NEEDED FOOD IN MY HOUSE! I wasn't trying to buy crack, crank, heroin, speed, meth, uppers, downers, cane, mary jane, etc! Hell, I was trying to buy some DAMN FOOD!
I was happy as a prostitute selling her goodies to get some food in my house! I was happy to get the food stamps! It wasn't the most glorious time in my life, but hell, when you need the services, you are GRATEFUL that they are there!
It doesn't have anything to do with being an addict or alcoholic--hell when you're hungry and needing food, having food stamps does help!
So for you to say that it just "produces" a cycle/cyclone of welfare recipients you are actually INCORRECT!
The fact is that MOST people that recieve government services DO NOT STAY ON THEM FOR MORE THAN 3 to 6 MONTHS, which was what these services were established for in 1935 with the New Deal.
Yes, there are some people that abuse the system, but sorry, let's dive into the real world, people do that EVERYWHERE! Some people are just loophole jumpers and if they can see a way to jump the system, they will when given the opportunity and chance!
So sorry, there are many areas where lumping people together only serves to show ignorance on your part.