States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Post Reply
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by GabonX »

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site - notwithmytaxdollars.com - that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.

A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.

Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.

Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At least six states - Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia - tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.

They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090326/D975MFE80.html

In Philadelphia "food stamps" amount to a state issued debit card. I have a friend who worked there last summer and told me about an unsightly woman with bloodshot eyes who came in trying to get cash. They turned her away.
User avatar
Night Strike
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Gender: Male

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by Night Strike »

Drug testing to use welfare money sounds good to me. Those individuals who wish to receive government aid for college have to be clean from drugs, so it would be consistent. This could be a step forward to true welfare reform: stop giving money to the people who just want to buy drugs.
Image
User avatar
got tonkaed
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by got tonkaed »

Lots of interesting things in the article in my opinion.

One - the West Va seems to be an odd one considering the relative poverty in the state. You also dont tend to think of people in the Appalachia area as being overly drug ridden, but of course i dont know the area nearly as well as the legislators. The interesting thing is i believe in the argument from Blair, is that seemingly his position is at ends with the traditional conservative stance of needing to protect liberties. Typically you wouldnt think of republicans as demanding to extend a precedent for further invasions of privacy.

Many of the more "modest" proposals as are highlighted in the article dont really seem to be all that different, essentially drug usage equates to no benefits. I think all of these are debatable depending on the political philosophy stance you hold, but it is very interesting that these things seem to be happening spotaneously. It would be one thing if it was part of a seemingly national movement, but it doesnt really appear to be so. It would actually be very interesting to see how this would change the recently posted Freedom in the 50 states poll as this seems highly invasive in terms of freedom, though it certainly can be argued to serve a particluar aim.

I find it somewhat ironic to see someone at the ACLU arguing that an invasion of liberties is a good stance to take...who hired that guy?

The Brookings guy brings up an interesting point about timing, given the current economic situation. But i think a simple counter could be offered that people are less interested in charitable programs, as the stigma of welfare recipients still overwhelms the fact that theres an uptick in the number of people who need benefits. Its as if, even though more people who were working now need the benefits, people cant get over the seemingly false impression that everyone who needs assistance is a drug abuser. Or possibly because more people need benefits, people are more inclined to take the stance that they need to get the "less productive" off the assistance rolls. Could be either i suppose.

What i find interesting is that if TANF, which although a program riddled with problems, was designed for families is getting some legislation to do drug testing, while its remaining relatively stable. Seemingly that means either we assume the people who are the drug users comprise these 3.8 million at an overrepresented number (which even if it were the case seems to be taking money away from children potentially) whereas the uptick in food stamps in unemployment is getting the response in the other states, which seems to suggest they feel the new people on unemployment are potentially drug users? Odd position to take in my view.

I would imagine a lot of people like the idea that felons or parolees cant get benefits. I would also imagine these people love revidicism. I will say from simply a cost analysis and from the perspective of being able to deal with false positives, i would imagine in many areas the testing would pay for itself if laws were enacted, which makes the budget balancer in all of us leap for joy.
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by GabonX »

got tonkaed wrote: Lots of interesting things in the article in my opinion.

One - the West Va seems to be an odd one considering the relative poverty in the state. You also dont tend to think of people in the Appalachia area as being overly drug ridden
Drugs are available everywhere. I grew up in Lancaster County, heart of the Amish, and I can tell you that there was marijuanna, mushrooms, ecstacy, PCP, cocaine, LSD and virtually anything else which would interest a user there. As near as I can tell this is the norm in both small towns and major cities through out the United States.
got tonkaed wrote: It would be one thing if it was part of a seemingly national movement, but it doesnt really appear to be so.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but much of welfare is distributed by the States and not the Federal Government.
got tonkaed wrote:The interesting thing is i believe in the argument from Blair, is that seemingly his position is at ends with the traditional conservative stance of needing to protect liberties. Typically you wouldnt think of republicans as demanding to extend a precedent for further invasions of privacy.

It would actually be very interesting to see how this would change the recently posted Freedom in the 50 states poll as this seems highly invasive in terms of freedom, though it certainly can be argued to serve a particluar aim.

I find it somewhat ironic to see someone at the ACLU arguing that an invasion of liberties is a good stance to take...who hired that guy?
What you have said is based on the assertion that this somehow infringes on personal liberties. It does not because everyone would have the choice not to recieve benefits. This is not obligatory.

If anything it is infringing on the tax payers right to keep their money if taxed funds are being spent frivilously. A system where the government takes money from one person and gives it to another so that they can spend it on frivilous and illegal products is no good. The fact that these illegal products will cause health problems which will further add to the burden of the taxpayers makes it worse.

As a general principle, if a person is given a choice as to whether or not they want to make an agreement, the terms of that agreement can not violate that person's rights, so long as they are not being coerced into taking the deal by the offering party. Creating terms for unemployment benifites which include monitoring what the recipient can and cannot purchase is completely reasonable and is in fact essential if the taxation and redistribution program is to be just.
User avatar
Timminz
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Gender: Male
Location: At the store

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by Timminz »

What kind of treatment programs are available for addicts? How much do they cost?
User avatar
got tonkaed
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by got tonkaed »

as per the states comment, you are correct, i just find it odd/interesting that all of these states are seemingly doing this on their own at similar times. It would seemingly be more likely that there would have been some type of national push for this that was dealt with on a state by state basis, but it really doesnt seem to have happened like that.

While this may be true in a theoretical sense, it doesnt seem to apply to people who were on benefits before the new plans would be implemented. If they are already on the benefits as it stands, it would seem they are being coerced or are more along the path of coercion in order to have to continue getting benefits they were already recieving. I agree entirely that they have a choice to at that point not take the benefits should they wish to continue their drug use. However im still not sure they are in the right in terms of protecting liberties by forcing them to take the test in the first place.

I find the tax point to be quite a bit difficult to argue. As it is so difficult to really ascertain where most of ones tax dollars are being spent the point is really only in a very distance philosophical point at best. There are certainly far greater areas of waste that could be pointed out that dont really require us to infringe on anyone in terms of forcing them to take drug tests. Furthermore if we are going to pursue such a policy line, why not tie any and all government funding to drug tests? Recieving government grants? Take a drug test. Financial aid from the government? Take a drug test. Medicare recipent? Take a drug test. It does become a liberty issue if you are deciding that it in this space you are going to require a drug test when you are not going to require a drug test in other spaces.

And also if we can mandate how people can or cannot spend their money now, why not mandate health insurance? Now one thing all of the sudden becomes an infringment on your right to spend your money as youd like, but the other isnt.

Just and liberty are not so easy concepts to unpack, and should not so easily be thrown around.
User avatar
Timminz
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Gender: Male
Location: At the store

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by Timminz »

got tonkaed wrote:There are certainly far greater areas of waste that could be pointed out that dont really require us to infringe on anyone in terms of forcing them to take drug tests. Furthermore if we are going to pursue such a policy line, why not tie any and all government funding to drug tests? Recieving government grants? Take a drug test. Financial aid from the government? Take a drug test. Medicare recipent? Take a drug test. It does become a liberty issue if you are deciding that it in this space you are going to require a drug test when you are not going to require a drug test in other spaces.
I have nothing to add, but I thought the previous post, especially the quoted part, was worth mentioning again.
User avatar
pimpdave
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:15 am
Gender: Male
Location: Anti Tea Party Death Squad Task Force Headquarters
Contact:

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by pimpdave »

GabonX wrote:
got tonkaed wrote: Lots of interesting things in the article in my opinion.

One - the West Va seems to be an odd one considering the relative poverty in the state. You also dont tend to think of people in the Appalachia area as being overly drug ridden
Drugs are available everywhere. I grew up in Lancaster County, heart of the Amish, and I can tell you that there was marijuanna, mushrooms, ecstacy, PCP, cocaine, LSD and virtually anything else which would interest a user there. As near as I can tell this is the norm in both small towns and major cities through out the United States.

Lancaster isn't nearly as far from a major American metropolis as West Virginia Appalachia is. There wouldn't be many heroin addicts, for sure, because heroin addicts need a constant supply. Maybe occasionally there will be a market for "party drugs" like coke, weed, or X, but they wouldn't be in constant supply. (although maybe there are some pot farmers down there)

I would think the primary problem drug in that area would be crystal meth, given that it has flourished in that area for decades and is relatively cheap to manufacture (and is often "cooked" by amateurs).

Oh, and also probably really low class "drugs" too, like moonshine, or gasoline huffing.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by GabonX »

got tonkaed wrote:While this may be true in a theoretical sense, it doesnt seem to apply to people who were on benefits before the new plans would be implemented. If they are already on the benefits as it stands, it would seem they are being coerced or are more along the path of coercion in order to have to continue getting benefits they were already recieving. I agree entirely that they have a choice to at that point not take the benefits should they wish to continue their drug use. However im still not sure they are in the right in terms of protecting liberties by forcing them to take the test in the first place.
Once again, people have a choice as to whether or not they want to recieve funding, they are by no means obligated to, and frankly should be discouraged from, taking funds from the government. Changing the terms of a social service that the recipient does no labor to recieve is not and should not be viewed as a violation of that person's rights. If a person essentially wants something for nothing they are not entitled to have a hand in creating the terms of the agreement.

As for people who are already recieving benifites being coerced into taking a drug test, it is worth noting that welfare is not supposed to be a permanent arrangement. Instituting drug tests for people who take drugs and already recieve other people's money would act as a motivator for the person to either quit doing drugs, or provide for themselves. Once again, they are in no way being forced by the government to continue taking welfare.

got tonkaed wrote:I find the tax point to be quite a bit difficult to argue. As it is so difficult to really ascertain where most of ones tax dollars are being spent the point is really only in a very distance philosophical point at best. There are certainly far greater areas of waste that could be pointed out that dont really require us to infringe on anyone in terms of forcing them to take drug tests.
You are correct that there are other, and perhaps even greater, areas of wasteful spending, however this does not justify ignoring a legitimate issue. Rather all areas of wasteful spending should be addressed and this conversation happens to be about a proposal regarding welfare reform.

If two crimes are committed and one is greater than the other, the lesser crime still deserves investigation.
got tonkaed wrote:Furthermore if we are going to pursue such a policy line, why not tie any and all government funding to drug tests? Recieving government grants? Take a drug test. Financial aid from the government? Take a drug test. Medicare recipent? Take a drug test. It does become a liberty issue if you are deciding that it in this space you are going to require a drug test when you are not going to require a drug test in other spaces.
There may actually be merrit in what you are saying here, but it is worth noting that in all of the examples you have provided, it is likely that the recipient will someday contribute back to society as a result of recieving those kinds of funds.

Regardless, this is a different conversation.

got tonkaed wrote:And also if we can mandate how people can or cannot spend their money now, why not mandate health insurance? Now one thing all of the sudden becomes an infringment on your right to spend your money as youd like, but the other isnt.
From what I've been reading this is quite litteraly Obama's universal healthcare plan, that is to say he wants to force people to buy health insurance and is calling that universal healthcare :mrgreen:

Once again this is another conversation.
got tonkaed wrote:Just and liberty are not so easy concepts to unpack, and should not so easily be thrown around.
Does that mean we should not discuss them? I actually think this is a pretty good dialouge as we are adressing a specific issue and rationalizing our arguments with principles.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by PLAYER57832 »

GabonX wrote:Drugs are available everywhere. I grew up in Lancaster County, heart of the Amish, and I can tell you that there was marijuanna, mushrooms, ecstacy, PCP, cocaine, LSD and virtually anything else which would interest a user there. As near as I can tell this is the norm in both small towns and major cities through out the United States.
A side note... apparently some Amish leaders see growing marijuana for sale as OK, little differant from growing tobacco. It may be due to misunderstanding. Usually the Amish go out of their way to obey the law when it is not in direct conflict with their beliefs.
GabonX wrote:
got tonkaed wrote: It would be one thing if it was part of a seemingly national movement, but it doesnt really appear to be so.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but much of welfare is distributed by the States and not the Federal Government.
Food stamps, Aid for families with dependent children (the basic welfare nowadays), etc. all are state-offered and who is eligible is largely determined by the states, however there are some federal funds involved.

School lunch programs, WIC are a combination.
GabonX wrote:
got tonkaed wrote:The interesting thing is i believe in the argument from Blair, is that seemingly his position is at ends with the traditional conservative stance of needing to protect liberties. Typically you wouldnt think of republicans as demanding to extend a precedent for further invasions of privacy.

It would actually be very interesting to see how this would change the recently posted Freedom in the 50 states poll as this seems highly invasive in terms of freedom, though it certainly can be argued to serve a particluar aim.

I find it somewhat ironic to see someone at the ACLU arguing that an invasion of liberties is a good stance to take...who hired that guy?
What you have said is based on the assertion that this somehow infringes on personal liberties. It does not because everyone would have the choice not to recieve benefits. This is not obligatory.
The problem is that most welfare programs are heavily oriented toward children. In most states now, few single adults are eligible. In many, even single parents have to be working at least part-time and/or heading for a fulltime job. (in certain training programs, etc.).

People sometimes confuse disabled and senior benefits with "welfare". They are not the same.

That said, I think changes to the entire system are warranted, including implementing drug test programs. However, they needed to be closely tied to overall welfare of children involved. That is, its not enough to just deny welfare, because the kids will still go hungry and ultimately not be the sort of healthy citizens we need. There has to be some sort of additional intervention.
User avatar
Nobunaga
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by Nobunaga »

got tonkaed wrote:Lots of interesting things in the article in my opinion.

One - the West Va seems to be an odd one considering the relative poverty in the state. You also dont tend to think of people in the Appalachia area as being overly drug ridden, but of course i dont know the area nearly as well as the legislators. The interesting thing is i believe in the argument from Blair, is that seemingly his position is at ends with the traditional conservative stance of needing to protect liberties. Typically you wouldnt think of republicans as demanding to extend a precedent for further invasions of privacy.
... Tonka's absolutely right, but he confuses Conservatives with Republicans. The connection between the two is not nearly so close at it once was.

...
User avatar
Gerazan
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:25 pm

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by Gerazan »

How about we run random drug tests on all members of congress and all {Bankers :evil: } too and all members of the White House staff. :o
dis a rray
joecoolfrog
Posts: 661
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:29 pm
Gender: Male
Location: London ponds

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by joecoolfrog »

Night Strike wrote:Drug testing to use welfare money sounds good to me. Those individuals who wish to receive government aid for college have to be clean from drugs, so it would be consistent. This could be a step forward to true welfare reform: stop giving money to the people who just want to buy drugs.
You make a fair point but seriously why only drugs, why not also target those who squander welfare payments on fast food, alcohol, tobacco, cell phones, jewellery,guns,church contributions etc etc ?
User avatar
MeDeFe
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by MeDeFe »

Gerazan wrote:How about we run random drug tests on all members of congress and all {Bankers :evil: } too and all members of the White House staff. :o
I support the motion.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
pimpdave
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:15 am
Gender: Male
Location: Anti Tea Party Death Squad Task Force Headquarters
Contact:

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by pimpdave »

MeDeFe wrote:
Gerazan wrote:How about we run random drug tests on all members of congress and all {Bankers :evil: } too and all members of the White House staff. :o
I support the motion.
I fully support it as well. If I have to be subjected to random drug tests because of my job, and the fuckers in Washington are employed by my tax dollars, it's only fair.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
User avatar
got tonkaed
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Post by got tonkaed »

Sorry for the delay...Im often drunk/hungover for a few days, making it a bit tough to respond. Granted, sometimes i respond anyway, but this wasnt one of those times.
Once again, people have a choice as to whether or not they want to recieve funding, they are by no means obligated to, and frankly should be discouraged from, taking funds from the government. Changing the terms of a social service that the recipient does no labor to recieve is not and should not be viewed as a violation of that person's rights. If a person essentially wants something for nothing they are not entitled to have a hand in creating the terms of the agreement.
I believe this is where you and i may be in a bit of a philosophical disagreement about how to fund welfare programs. You seem to be looking at benefits and programs from the perspective of the recipient, ie are they qualified to recieve money, which i am sure by extension comes out of the taxpayer, eventually your pocket. Theres nothing wrong with this as it were, but i feel like its a short sighted approach to social policy. IF we are to view programs from the recipient scope, surely no program will ever really be worth the money as there are far too few saints in this world who are willing to part with their hard earned dollar. While charity is an honorable endeavor, it is seemingly outside of the scope of what we discuss here. I believe this is a fundamental weakness of the foundation of your argument. Recipent level qualification thinking as your starting point makes the entire process unviable, and without a very careful understanding of an alternative, we lose any of the potential capability increasing output (something you ideologically support) wefare programs allow for.

Allow as an alternative to your recipient level approach...we should rather be focused on analysis of program level approaches and if they are capability or even well being advancers. Now you are perhaps more likely to prefer capability, returning to the lack of saints who are willing to pay out of their pocket point, but this by no means equates to an end all be all stance. Philosophically, if we take the stance that we are in governance in order to form a more perfect union and to provide for liberty and justice, this can presuppose we are in the business of enhancing well being as much as possible.

Now this of course doesnt mean we just start throwing money at people because we can our perhaps ought, any basic level economist or welfare economist can tell you thats probably a fruitless venture. Massively Pareto ineffecient programs likely should be reanalyzed and perhaps scrapped if need be. However, with that being said, we should adopt this program specific, instead of recipent specific approach because of the potential for capability enhancement, which is the goal seemingly of all welfare. Dont we want more people to be working, and less people to be recieving aid? But of course we do. By putting in programs which narrowly define the space of what is and is not acceptable in order to recieve aid that can enhance capability you are ultimately going to limit the success of any such program. Why weaken an already troubled welfare system more?
As for people who are already recieving benifites being coerced into taking a drug test, it is worth noting that welfare is not supposed to be a permanent arrangement. Instituting drug tests for people who take drugs and already recieve other people's money would act as a motivator for the person to either quit doing drugs, or provide for themselves. Once again, they are in no way being forced by the government to continue taking welfare.
Again i believe some of this is likely answered above but to reiteriate and add a few points. Welfare is indeed not supposed to be a permanent arrangement. Nor is it supposed to be one that in the long run is a negative on the economy and government as we assume the individuals recieving welfare will likely have a more positive output on the economy someday as a result. There is certainly no guarantee that your proposed effect of these programs is at all the one that will end up taking place. It is possible that it will in fact negatively affect the individuals who were not previously on welfare, were drug users, and now are unable to take welfare benefits because of a moralistic law.

This ends up not only wasting the amount of money that we have given in order to make people more productive to our economy while they work and to ideally further enhance their capabilities, but it also makes them less productive to our economy while they remain out of work. This ends up making our programs themselves far less effective as we are now no longer made them viable options for many individuals (depending on what drugs are exactly being tested of course) and ends up having a greater negative impact on the economy as a whole. In terms of a coherent theoretical stance as to why we do welfare in modern government in order to provide a positive outcome to our economy and to the capability increasing possiblities of our workforce, this plan is intellectually a bit of a disaster.
You are correct that there are other, and perhaps even greater, areas of wasteful spending, however this does not justify ignoring a legitimate issue. Rather all areas of wasteful spending should be addressed and this conversation happens to be about a proposal regarding welfare reform.
The point i was attempting to make is that if we are attempting to make welfare a viable and productive part of revitalizing our economy, not just in economic downturns like the present but as a part of a continuous long term program, we need not make poor welfare reforms that ultimately undercut and curb the potential usefulness of the programs. As a point of comparison it was perhaps a bit tangential but if we are trying to put the wolf in sheeps clothes in order to get attention to misguided reform, we might as well undress the sheep and show the wolf for what it really is.
If two crimes are committed and one is greater than the other, the lesser crime still deserves investigation.
Again much of this theoretical approach is set foundationally in what i believe is, poor premise and an upside down look at how to create effective public policy.

Regardless, this is a different conversation.
It is in a way why your approach was upside down and poorly crafted in my view. Much of your argument is hinged in something of a stance that by providing funding for people who are not working we are in some way inconviencing the taxpayer and by extension yourself. You hide this in a narrowly crafted conception of equality of capability when this is certainly by no means the only scope in which you can craft equality nor is it necessarily the most useful in terms of organizing an economy.

Furthermore, even by your own theorectical conception it is rather easily pointed out (above) that the current program actually works counterintuitively to the approach your coming from. Its a bit of intellectual bankruptcy to try and trumpet out the proposal you had started from and then say that it is all of the sudden a different conversation, when a simple analogy is drawn.

Instead of what you said earlier, what i would counter...if there are two identical situations can be seen from one perspective and called two different things without appropriate justification why, perhaps that is the crime, which should be investigated accordingly.

From what I've been reading this is quite litteraly Obama's universal healthcare plan, that is to say he wants to force people to buy health insurance and is calling that universal healthcare :mrgreen:

Once again this is another conversation.
Dealt with above. As a simple talking point though, if you took my offered approach and looked at this from the perspective of the program level instead of the level of the individual, it could perhaps be quite possible to debate the flaws of it, and show why it may not be a good program to implement.

Does that mean we should not discuss them? I actually think this is a pretty good dialouge as we are adressing a specific issue and rationalizing our arguments with principles.
I believe it means we need to be more careful in how we define the space in which we are aruging, otherwise we end up posing ideas that end up being counterintuitive to what we are trying to do - which creates bad governance.

Edit i also apologize if this post was somewhat mean, i was a bit cranky for some reason about something unrelated. Feel free to fire back if youd like.
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”