What penalties would you give to a mother of children if she failed a piss test? Would you have her pick up litter or would you just cancel assistance all together . Suggestions and thoughts.

No it costs taxpayers money needlessly.

According to USA Today, three years after the program began Arizona had tested more than 87,000 welfare recipients. The total number of drug cheats caught was exactly one — a single positive result, which saved the state precisely $560.
.... found that over the course of more than five years, "42 people have been asked to take a follow-up drug test and 19 actually took the test, 16 of whom passed. The other 23 were stripped of their benefits for failing to take the drug test."

That adds up to a grand total of three failed tests from 2009-2014. The net savings reaped from withholding benefits for those who either tested positive or failed to complete a drug test was around $3,500, once the $500 cost of testing the 19 is factored in, according to one state agency report. The haul is shockingly unimpressive when you consider the $1.7 million in savings state officials promised when they began the program.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/22/1404639/-Arizona-drug-tested-87-000-welfare-recipients-and-found-they-are-flushing-taxpayer-dollars#

I'd rather just have them work for welfare.

like_that;1747147 wrote:I'd rather just have them work for welfare.

Would picking up liter and beautification be a choice. I think people who get help could be used in this way . Maybe cut grass or paint and help clean up parks etc . It's time we give people some purpose and motivation .

steubbigred;1747155 wrote:Would picking up liter and beautification be a choice.

We already pay twice as many people double what we should to do that....gubmit work, gotta love it.

It's a good idea in theory, but will work horribly in practice. For starters, it would be horribly unacceptable to fire these people for sub-standard work. So you'll get 1-2 hours of shitty work out of them for 8 hours of pay (most of these people don't want to work or can't, or already have jobs). It would probably end-up costing us MORE money by the time you factor in supervision and administration.

My solution is simple; if you are on welfare, the government gets 100% control of everything in your life. Don't comply? 1 year in jail. Second offense 10 years in jail. Problem solved.

gut;1747174 wrote:We already pay twice as many people double what we should to do that....gubmit work, gotta love it.

It's a good idea in theory, but will work horribly in practice. For starters, it would be horribly unacceptable to fire these people for sub-standard work. So you'll get 1-2 hours of shitty work out of them for 8 hours of pay (most of these people don't want to work or can't, or already have jobs). It would probably end-up costing us MORE money by the time you factor in supervision and administration.

Research by the Levy Institute at Bard College suggests it would cost 3% of GDP and end two thirds of all poverty even at today's minimum wage but that it should be administered locally with federal funding.

Compare that to the welfare state plus private charity which costs 10-15% of GDP and requires big gubmint bureacracy.

UMKC devised a pilot program in Argentina during the currency crisesthat was very successful.

Of course, your biggest mistake is the largely false and negative opinion of the poor and unemployed. It is essential to,human nature to want to work but there are only 4-6 million jobs in the economy and 25 million people who want a job right now. So, lots of folks figure out otherwise to sustain themselves in this prisoners dillemna.

Moreover it would make these folks more employable as private employers would have a ready system of vetting work ethics.

sleeper;1747175 wrote:My solution is simple; if you are on welfare, the government gets 100% control of everything in your life. Don't comply? 1 year in jail. Second offense 10 years in jail. Problem solved.

Do you want the communist revolution? That's how you get the communist revolution.

BoatShoes;1747176 wrote:Research by the Levy Institute at Bard College suggests it would cost 3% of GDP and end two thirds of all poverty even at today's minimum wage but that it should be administered locally with federal funding.

Compare that to the welfare state plus private charity which costs 10-15% of GDP and requires big gubmint bureacracy.

UMKC devised a pilot program in Argentina during the currency crisesthat was very successful.

Of course, your biggest mistake is the largely false and negative opinion of the poor and unemployed. It is essential to,human nature to want to work but there are only 4-6 million jobs in the economy and 25 million people who want a job right now. So, lots of folks figure out otherwise to sustain themselves in this prisoners dillemna.

Moreover it would make these folks more employable as private employers would have a ready system of vetting work ethics.

Levy Insitute at Bard College? Do I need to look that up or can I assume it's a rather liberal thinktank? LMFAO, "a liberal Keynesian advocate of a greater govt role in the economy and society".

I don't miss anything, once again you demonstrate a basic lack of common sense. I didn't say all people on welfare are incapable or lazy (as many already have jobs). Basic math skills would have you realize that putting $1.5T in welfare and charity to work on govt projects is going to cost you AT LEAST $1.5T unless the private sector is creating jobs.

What you fail to realize is we don't have litter and other stuff that needs being done and isn't being done. The vast majority of these people aren't capable of doing some of the major infrastructure projects without significant training...and we already have loads of money and opportunity for skills/training programs.

You need to create REAL jobs for these people and not digging ditches to fill in.

This idea is simply a failure in the real world where these jobs are largely already filled by inefficient govt workers.

Try to understand one simple concept and it will make many of your posts more insightful: the gubmit IS NOT a long-term employment solution, is not efficient and does not create economic value in the vast majority of its programs.

Now, if you want to fire all the city sweepers, garbagemen, parks and maintenance workers and replace them with an army on welfare wages....then maybe you have something. Of course, not only would you not be willing to do that (you're just trading unemployment, for starters), but the results would be disastrous.

gut;1747174 wrote:We already pay twice as many people double what we should to do that....gubmit work, gotta love it.

It's a good idea in theory, but will work horribly in practice. For starters, it would be horribly unacceptable to fire these people for sub-standard work. So you'll get 1-2 hours of shitty work out of them for 8 hours of pay (most of these people don't want to work or can't, or already have jobs). It would probably end-up costing us MORE money by the time you factor in supervision and administration.

I was more thinking in line with the program Maine has. The government doesn't necessarily have to employ everyone. If they are going to give welfare away I rather see it go to people who earn it, than sit on their asses.

Yes, all assistance, if you have no job. I have 2 cousins on welfare, both are legit, work minimum wage jobs, and are likely clean. I have 1 other that is a dope fiend and she is for sure fucking the system. I have another cousin that is a dope fiend and somehow collects SSI at the ripe old age of 21. I know of a couple bums on unemployment (one who has miraculously been extended to the point where he's been pulling a year on a job he had for 2 years) and they are both big time weed smokers.

sleeper;1747175 wrote:My solution is simple; if you are on welfare, the government gets 100% control of everything in your life. Don't comply? 1 year in jail. Second offense 10 years in jail. Problem solved.

Yea...this is why you're not a leader of anything...

If I have to pass a drug test to get a job, then you should have to pass it to get welfare benefits. I also think you should be working or actively seeking work to receive benefits. No sitting on your ass collecting a check.

j_crazy;1747187 wrote:Yes, all assistance, if you have no job. I have 2 cousins on welfare, both are legit, work minimum wage jobs, and are likely clean. I have 1 other that is a dope fiend and she is for sure fucking the system. I have another cousin that is a dope fiend and somehow collects SSI at the ripe old age of 21. I know of a couple bums on unemployment (one who has miraculously been extended to the point where he's been pulling a year on a job he had for 2 years) and they are both big time weed smokers.

Agreed.

What I see is the junkies, selling their food stamps for half the price (in cash) so they have drug money. They get the money from their buyer, take that person to the grocery store and buy their groceries for them. Pretty sickening.

BR1986FB;1747191 wrote:Agreed.

What I see is the junkies, selling their food stamps for half the price (in cash) so they have drug money. They get the money from their buyer, take that person to the grocery store and buy their groceries for them. Pretty sickening.

I had somebody try to sell me their stamps this past Saturday actually right in the middle of the grocery store. He wasn't even trying to be discrete.

like_that;1747186 wrote:If they are going to give welfare away I rather see it go to people who earn it, than sit on their asses.

Yeah, but my perspective is we already have plenty of gubmit employees sitting on their asses not earning their paychecks. There aren't too many govt jobs out there needing done that some bureaucrat hasn't already found a way to get budgeted.

You want fewer people taking less welfare, you cut the amount and term of benefits...and get out of the way of the private sector to create jobs. It's the proven solution.

gut;1747194 wrote:Yeah, but my perspective is we already have plenty of gubmit employees sitting on their asses not earning their paychecks. There aren't too many govt jobs out there needing done that some bureaucrat hasn't already found a way to get budgeted.

You want fewer people taking less welfare, you cut the amount and term of benefits...and get out of the way of the private sector to create jobs. It's the proven solution.

Again, the government doesn't have to "employ" them. If they require x amount of volunteer hours anywhere, they don't have to waste the money on supervising them.

Businesses are private and can choose to administer drug tests. Government is supported by tax payers we don't need to do something that has already been proven to be a waste of money in multiple states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

like_that;1747192 wrote:I had somebody try to sell me their stamps this past Saturday actually right in the middle of the grocery store. He wasn't even trying to be discrete.

I've seen people trying to buy/sell stamps on Facebook.

The posts typically go like this:

"Who got dem stamps?'

or

"Who need dem stamps?"

The issue I take with this, for the most part, is that it arbitrarily picks something on which publicly funded monies could have been spent on.

More colloquially put, people are saying, "If you have enough money to buy drugs, then you are being given too much."

However, the natural extrapolation of this argument can venture into whole other areas.

"If you have enough money for [tattoos/that Gucci sunglasses/Louis Vuitton purse/the manicured nails/the weave/the newest iPhone/the Lincoln Navigator you're driving/etc.], then you are being given too much."

Now, these examples might seem extreme (though the above were all from a single person I was behind at a Giant Eagle who used an EBT to buy lobster, and there are other similar situations I've come across), but what happens when we get into the nitty-gritty?

"If you have enough money to buy your child a birthday cake, then you are being given too much."

"If you have enough money to afford a vehicle, then you are being given too much."

The above two are, technically, not necessities in many cases. A child doesn't need a birthday cake in order to survive, and public transportation in larger cities will suffice for many people. However, are we ready to say that they're luxuries to the degree that people should be disallowed?

The one response I've heard to this is that drugs are unique because they're illegal. But so is speeding. So is jaywalking. So is drinking while standing on the road verge in front of your own house.

It's not efficient in that it wastes more money than it saves, and it's not consistent in that it isolates a single crime and ignores any others.

Now, what I would like to see would be for the assistance to be tied to one's identity, and for ID to be required when using it to pay. I know I heard something about this being proposed earlier this year, but I don't recall anything coming of it.

Now, what I would like to see would be for the assistance to be tied to one's identity, and for ID to be required when using it to pay. I know I heard something about this being proposed earlier this year, but I don't recall anything coming of it.

I actually really like this proposal. However, the problem with doing so will be similar with the issue with needing ID's in order to vote. A lot of activists will scream that it is racist to require an ID for anything.

gosh a ruddies, another way to degrade poor people and it is also ineffective waste of money

CenterBHSFan;1747319 wrote:I actually really like this proposal. However, the problem with doing so will be similar with the issue with needing ID's in order to vote. A lot of activists will scream that it is racist to require an ID for anything.

I would think that there would at least be precedent, though, with the way we do debit or credit cards today that have "See ID" on the back. Just make all of those cards say it, and make them look similar to a standard debit card. If it's done properly, nobody will know the difference, and those using EBT/SNAP/etc. will not have to announce that they're using it. I would certainly think that this added discretion would only increase the sense of dignity in the moment, which I have a hard time believing those same people would rail against.

CenterBHSFan;1747319 wrote: A lot of activists will scream that it is racist to require an ID for anything.

I don't know why. From what I've seen, it's mostly white trash abusing this system.

Voting is a right and welfare is not. People aren't big on the "show me your papers" when it comes to voting but welfare is not in the least bit similar to that. You are applying for a handout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gut;1747181 wrote:Levy Insitute at Bard College? Do I need to look that up or can I assume it's a rather liberal thinktank? LMFAO, "a liberal Keynesian advocate of a greater govt role in the economy and society".

I don't miss anything, once again you demonstrate a basic lack of common sense. I didn't say all people on welfare are incapable or lazy (as many already have jobs). Basic math skills would have you realize that putting $1.5T in welfare and charity to work on govt projects is going to cost you AT LEAST $1.5T unless the private sector is creating jobs.

What you fail to realize is we don't have litter and other stuff that needs being done and isn't being done. The vast majority of these people aren't capable of doing some of the major infrastructure projects without significant training...and we already have loads of money and opportunity for skills/training programs.

You need to create REAL jobs for these people and not digging ditches to fill in.

This idea is simply a failure in the real world where these jobs are largely already filled by inefficient govt workers.

Try to understand one simple concept and it will make many of your posts more insightful: the gubmit IS NOT a long-term employment solution, is not efficient and does not create economic value in the vast majority of its programs.

Now, if you want to fire all the city sweepers, garbagemen, parks and maintenance workers and replace them with an army on welfare wages....then maybe you have something. Of course, not only would you not be willing to do that (you're just trading unemployment, for starters), but the results would be disastrous.

The proposals we have talked about have administration done through the non-profit, social entrepreneurship and venture capital sectors - so no new government employees. Government just supplies the funds. This in essence makes the government a market maker for the marginally employable and the free market will find valuable things for these folks to do.

Again, no gubmint employees. If people were serious about wanting to actually reduce the size of government this is the way to go because this market could demonstrate ways to improve social conditions better than local government agencies which could engender desire to end the programs.

So all of your objections are defeated. The private sector creates the jobs and there are no new government employees. The government just provides the capital. And, it costs 3% of GDP vs. the 15% of GDP that welfare and private charity for the poor costs.

This market will create way more value than having people on welfare who do nothing or people being massively unemployed.