You know what reading this thread makes me really glad that I dont live in a country where if I got seriously ill and needed to exist on the tiny stripend that is welfare, I wouldnt just be thrown to the dogs as some of you seem to suggest america should do.

Have some compassion people, not everyone on welfare is some worthless leeching bum. Capitalism is one evil system to make some of you think like you do.

Originally posted by sufusci
People should get welfare inversely related to their IQ and mental stability. Those who have great talents and choose not to do anything about it should have to fend for themselves. Those closer to the retarded spectrum should receive all the help and care we can give them. Care for the weak, kick up the ass of the strong.

Agree with the drug tests though, but logistically it would be expensive.

Let me tell you about talents. I have been struggling to offer my graphics talents for over two years now. I was laid off in Feb 2006, and have been unable to find any reliable income since.

I have applied for these two + years to 100 - 150 jobs a week, many not even graphics jobs, both online and in RL, to no avail.

I gave up on the Welfare system. The hoops they wanted to have me jump through were impossible on some points. So I sent my beloved Buddha, my daughter now five years old, to live 3000 miles away with my sister - because I ran out of money and was homeless.

Yeah, drug test me while you're at it. Add insult to injury.

Drug testing costs money, is often wrong, can be circumvented, and is an added indignity for those who really are trying to make their life work.

I can't tell you how many times I've had this discussion with people, even here on this very board. So I'm going to just stick with the facts.

First:

We spend less than 1% of the federal US budget on welfare and an average of 2% of state budgets.

Second:

Most people are on assistance for a short time.

56 percent of ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years.

Third:

Children, not women, are the largest number of people on welfare. And more white women than black are on assistance.

Fourth:

Most families on assistance have only 1 or 2 children. 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children.

And think about this:

Welfare pays what, about $90 per child a month or $1080 a year? Compare that to the income tax deduction of $2,450 per child, and it is clear that the middle class families have more government- supplied incentive to have kids than the poor do.

wow, what a thread!

so hypothetically speaking, if i was unemployed (im not) and i went to a party where a mate was sharing around some mary jane, and i partake, then i should instantly be barred from drawing on social security when they test my hair for past use (as suggested by one user) because my friend "raged me out" ??

well then i guess we should make sure nobody buys beers or alky-hole either.
cigarettes, nar you dont need them either.
disposable diapers? hey your unemployed, you got plenty of time to wash the damn things.
holiday? how dare you! its not like youve worked hard and need one to de-stress yourself.
internet? you dont need no stinkin internet to live. or your boat, or your dirt bike.

we suggest you do keep + make use of that fishing pole though, your family will depend on it.

well then, maybe they should all be rounded up and given zero in cash, but instead be given govt housing for free, with free electricity and gas (limited supply)

meal tickets, your bi-weekly (fortnightly) food stamps are here.
go to the food dispensary and collect 4 tin of bake beans or spaghetti, 1x 6pk of instant noodles, 1/4 kg beef or lamb, 1kg cheap sausages, 3 loaf bread, one pack of "deb, instant mash potato"
you have a tap, you can drink water and rehydrate the instant mash potato.

what?? you think we should let you actually get some enjoyment from your life while unemployed?

/end sarcasm

you see, what might seem important to *you* might not be to the dude who makes the law to take away that liberty.

i am not saying people should be allowed to be come couch potato junkies, but far out. some of you act like having one joint at a party should be cause to get cut off welfare altogether because you fail a test.

this is the problem with all these scenarios, everyone has a beer or rents DVDs or go's to the cinemas etc once in a while. so what if someone smokes a j or something now n then, as long as everyone is a consenting adult and not harming anyone else except themselves voluntarily who the frig is anyone else to say what you can or cant do?

its a simple luxury in life, to actually enjoy it (life) how *YOU* see fit as long as its not consuming your life or affecting others.

again, if joe citizen enjoys a joint on friday night after a hard week at work, why the hell should he be dismissed from his job? (unless its some position of authority like a judge or cop etc where it'd be wrong to bust a druggie one day but be one yourself, the next)

leave your work life at work. leave your home life at home.

as long as you dont do it at work, you shouldnt get fired.
and you shouldnt get fired for whatever you do in the privacy of your own home (unless, see above example)

last time i checked i only get paid while AT work, working.. so who the frig are they to tell me what i cant do at home OUTSIDE work hours!!

work to live
not live to work


or maybe you just love to be under some kind of authoritarian rule during every minute of *YOUR* entire life and live it the way everyone else tells you to?


you know what would happen though? everyone you just got kicked off welfare will now resort to petty crime like bag snatching and break in/theft style crime to pay for the day to day living expenses.


[edit on 20/8/08 by Obliv_au]

Originally posted by asmeone2
I'd like to pass along a thought.

Many jobs require random drug screens for their employees--if they do not pass, they lose the job. Most require them before hire, too.

Why can't our government require drug screens of people at the time that they apply for welfare, and at random intervals after they are accepted into the program?

I think if you are going to ask for "help getting on your feet," you should be willing to make the comittment, and part number one of that is staying off of drugs.

Do you really think the democrats are going to make requirements that prevent their constituents from receiving entitlements? I agree that frequent, and possibly unscheduled, tests for both drugs and alcohol should be required but it's not going to happen.

It really is all about the votes. Most entitlements are just vote baiting. Give something to certain people to encourage that demographic to always vote for you while pushing the point that you are the only one who will and you've got a loyal voter base.

Although I'm *NOT* for taking away anyones freedom, I do feel very abused by all the "freebie" programs our government gives to lower class. I'm middle class, me and my wife pull in slightly over 100k a year. We work really hard for our money. For example today I'm working a 12 hour day. Although I'm slacking off on the internet right now, the majority of my day is pretty busy. Considering how hard we both work, it really "grinds my gears" to live in a neighborhood full of low-lives who all seem to be unemployed, on welfare, food stamps, section 8, government sponcered energy, oil, heat, gas. Almost everything is free or dirt cheep for these people.

So I know a lot of my neighbors, they are very open with their drug habbits, and they brag when they buy dope that uncle sam indirectly payed for. The real kicker here is that a lot of these people work under-the-table. Which means they have plenty of cash to spend.

So should we invade the privacy of these people by inforcing drug tests to apply for welfare? I'm not sure, I'd say no. I think we should get rid of the programs all together.

Because drug tests can be faked VERY VERY easily. Drug testing especially at the start of employment is the biggest waste of time and money.
Why do they not drug test police officers when they get into accidents in CA? Drugs are not the problem, the laws are. Making people criminals so they can never work again and have to resort to crime because of a disease is sick and twisted, especially when the government has been caught shipping in the drugs for us to use and our military is guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan but I guess it is just dumb luck that production of the plant is at an ALL TIME high.
We create the problem and then offer a solution, it is a win win for the corporations and government involved.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
How would you feel about denying someone benefits merely because they ate a poppy seed bagel?

The unemployed shouldn't be eating bagels. Their benefits should only cover the necessaries like bread and water not treats

So you tell me why ANYONE should be drug tested.

Drugs are bad mm'kay

[edit on 8-20-2008 by groingrinder]

mopusvindictus every post you make refutes your statement that you are a conservative. No conservative advocates for an unregulated welfare system where everyone without any self control gets a ride on the government gravy train.

Originally posted by St Udio

so...just what drug causes laziness?

ALL OF THEM! Pretty much except for methamphetamine and cocaine. Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by Scorched Earth
My suggestions for reforming welfare:

Mandatory drug tests.

Mandatory birth control.

Removing the right to vote until recipient is off welfare.

Removing any children from the home of recipient until they are off the public dime.

Welfare is unconstitutional. That is fact.

since people willingly overlook that, drastic steps must be taken to keep the fewest number of people on it.

At least stop the increases for additional children.

I don't think they should go as far as to remove them, though--unethical number one, and far more costly to the taxpayer to house them.