The first steps to welfare reform...

Originally posted by ventian
reply to post by DogsDogsDogs

 

I agree to an extent with the addicts part. I actually sympathize with them sometimes on the overcoming part and how hard it is (I smoke cigarettes), but at the same time, they have to have some sort of sobriety every once in awhile to notice what they are doing. Drug dealers on the other hand, (crack, meth, coc aine types especially) disgust me to no end.

So you are an addict whose habit costs more than all the other addictions combined and you have the gall to complain about others?

I say we outlaw tobacco and jail the users and bring the full weight of the drug war down on their smug self-righteous heads. Too bad if you can't quit, you chose to start smoking and continue to choose to endanger children and others with second-hand smoke.

Now I understand some of your nicotine-deprived rants, not having the stuff every few minutes makes you edgy and irritable.

I've no love of coke, crack, and have an utter and absolute hatred of meth, but more drug testing isn't the answer.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

reply to post by apacheman


Costs more than all other drugs? Cigarettes are expensive but they don't interfere with my living expenses. I am approached all the time by crackheads though, that have absolutely no money and ask for mine. I also regret to inform you that I don't expose children to second hand smoke. I smoke outside when I am around them.

So your whole post was unnecessary and you never presented an idea for welfare reform. You went off on a rant about my habit that is paid for by me and doesn't effect others.

To quote you.

Pot meet kettle

@Endisnighe

You are correct stating we should end all social programs. It would be great where I live (rural area). The cities would all go to s**t though. Heh, I guess it wouldn't bring too much change then.

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

Originally posted by ventian

First step in reform is drug testing. I work, and pay taxes that they live on. I also submit to random drug tests to keep on doing the first two. They should have to submit to random screenings as well. If they fail, take away their kids and program benefits. Then tie them off where they can't breed anymore.

Here is the problem with your "idea," or rant as I see it.

So, are you going to pay for all of this drug testing? Being that people who are in a financial crisis enough to be on food stamps are not going to. Can you imagine the cost to tax payers for this drug testing?

Are you willing to have tax payers be responsible for sterilizations proceedures, given the cost?

Yes, the program needs an overhaul, but your ideas would cost us more!

A baby costs hundreds of dollars a month for us to support. A good chance that the baby will also grow up to be a welfare adult doing the same thing. A drug test is 40 bucks. Sterilization would end up saving us much money in the end and probably wouldn't happen as much as you think it would. Again sterilization is not something I like but would be necessary if they have past x amount of children like I said. No one would sterilize them unless they are continually breeding. I didn't just go off on a rant I promise. This post was completely well thought out. As I said, if we want to keep these programs, there has to be some reform. It sounds harsh I realize but it isn't that bad, as stated, I live by the same rules daily.

reply to post by ventian


The lab part a drug test may cost, $40.00. If they are randomly done, then that means somebody would have to be hired to go around and collect these tests randomly.

As for the sterilization part, who determines who is having too many babies? No offense, but, there are a lot of men who go out and spread the seed amongst these welfare Momma's. Who exactly would you propose be steralized? The one giving birth to all these babies, alone? It takes 2 to tango!

What does a pack of cigarettes cost a smoker, the smoker's family, and society? This longitudinal study on the private and social costs of smoking calculates that the cost of smoking to a 24-year-old woman smoker is $86,000 over a lifetime; for a 24-year-old male smoker the cost is $183,000. The total social cost of smoking over a lifetime—including both private costs to the smoker and costs imposed on others (including second-hand smoke and costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security)—comes to $106,000 for a woman and $220,00 for a man. The cost per pack over a lifetime of smoking: almost $40.00. The first study to quantify the cost of smoking in this way, or in such depth, this accessible book not only adds a weapon to the arsenal of antismoking messages but also provides a framework for assessment that can be applied to other health behaviors. The findings on the effects of smoking on Medicare and Medicaid will be surprising and perhaps controversial, for the authors estimate the costs to be much lower than the damage awards being paid to 46 states as a result of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement.

reply to post by ventian


mitpress.mit.edu...

News roundup

Social costs of smoking are triple those of illicit drugs

Christopher Zinn Sydney

The financial impact of tobacco and alcohol far outweigh the impact of illicit drugs, with smoking costing the community almost three times as much as any other category of drug, according to a study on the social costs of drug use in Australia.

The report, produced for the federal government’s national drug strategy, estimates that tobacco accounted for 61.2% of the costs to society of drugs, or $A21bn (£7.6bn; $12.4bn; €11.5bn). For the first time the cost calculations included an estimate of the impact of passive smoking and newly available data to assess the effect on the Australian population of absenteeism, drugs, ambulances, fires, crime, and even litter.

Alcohol accounted for 22% of total costs ($A7.5bn) and illegal drugs for 17% ($A6.0bn). The calculations for the survey period, 1998-9, included both tangible and intangible costs to individuals, companies, and governments.

www.bmj.com...

State can no longer afford costly, deadly addiction to tobacco

To the citizen's of Woonsocket:

There is a silent killer living among us. This killer doesn't live in a cave across the world or on a battlefield but on every street corner ready to strike its prey - you. This killer doesn't strike alone but in packs and goes by many names like Camel, Marlboro, and Newport. Cigarettes remain the culprits behind the number one cause of preventable death in the world. The latest death records for Woonsocket indicate that 914 deaths are caused by tobacco annually. And, it's likely 532 additional deaths are linked to tobacco. This is an average of 30 deaths a week!

Despite being widely known for life threatening effects, people still smoke. But it's not just anyone. Data from community surveillance in Rhode Island has found tobacco advertising and prevalence for smoking higher in low-income minority communities.

The community survey also suggests that advertising is one of the strongest ways of driving people and youth to smoke. In addition, low-income neighborhoods may also experience greater levels of poverty and racism due to social and cultural factors, which in turn influences their tobacco use.

Woonsocket's youth smoking rate is 18.7 percent, which is higher than the state average. As mentioned earlier, tobacco advertising may be linked to kids experimenting with smoking and becoming hooked to tobacco. Tobacco ads entice youth with colorful displays, beautiful "healthy" people, and cigarettes that come in fruity flavors. Easy access through illegal sales also contributes to youth smoking.

Besides losing irreplaceable lives we lose money treating illnesses caused by tobacco, many of which are difficult to overcome and costly to treat. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the average R.I. household spends $727 on health care costs brought on by tobacco use.

Now more than ever we cannot afford deadly and costly addictions like tobacco. It's time to put cigarettes on an island far away where no one will ever become another victim of a tobacco illness or death.

www.valleybreeze.com...

The effects of your addiction are subsidized by the taxpayers to a greater extant than you seem to think.

As for welfare reform, I say end all forms of corporate welfare first, since they cost much, much more than welfare for citizens. I don't see every person on welfare as a lazy cheat. I see people who would work if there was reliablework that wasn't offered at an insultingly low wage, that didn't endanger their families through instability, or didn't tie them up unnecessarily, requiring them to be "on call" without a retainer.

A lot of what conservatives (actually reactionaries) call "welfare" is actually paid insurance withdrawn from checks before the earner ever sees it. When it is time to make a claim on that insurance, conservatives get all upset.

I've met far more lazy, useless, corporate welfare queens than I ever did individual ones. Wages for workers have been stagnant for decades while the top 5% or so have creamed off all the productivity gains delivered by the rest of us. Look there for your reform: shake loose some of what those have taken without earning it and there will be enough to get huge numbers off welfare.

Some of the posters here sound like they would like to live in nazi Germany or communist China. While I may agree with drug testing some welfare recipients but only ones who have a criminal record that is substance abuse related and I think that before withdrawing their welfare benefits you'd have to offer them effective drug rehabilitation. Same would be true for the mentally disabled and all this would cost more than conservatives are willing to spend.

Think about this too: Who do you considered mentally disabled? All those who receive federal government disability? If so wouldn't that include a lot of people with PTSD, seizure disorders or bipolar - people who with therapy and treatment could become valuable contributors to society. These people deserve to live in dignity. Do you seriously want to force sterilize them? Throw them away?

Also, I agree about the costs to society of legal drugs - tobacco and alcohol. We all pay big time for these habits.

Rather than "punish" welfare recipients for having kids, why not just reward them for being clean or having birth control implants. I hate to sound arrogant or generalize, but the welfare population is quite impulsive when it comes to money. Many of them would not give much thought to taking a sum of money to get a birth control implant or a vasectomy.

The harder sell would be a clean drug test program. Under such a program, the participants would have to subject themselves to random unannounced drug tests for a period of time like one year. If the participants do not fail any drug tests after the period of time, they will get a sum of money.

The drug program is a hard sell because impulsive people will give into the immediate gratification a dose of drugs can offer, rather than the long term award participation in the program can offer. I hate to sound rotten, but I would suspect that many of those people that would take the money for sterilization or a vasectomy will turn around and spend the money on something frivolous.

reply to post by ChrisCrikey


I would say that it includes people with serious intellectual disability, people who are not able to raise a child. Surely not people with some not so serious mental conditions. Also, birth control pills are an option, too, not just outright sterilisation.

Altough I have many objections to current situation in China, I consider their one-child policy a succes. Similar population control systems should be adopted all over the world, IMHO.

reply to post by Maslo


Birth control pills are not a good option. Birth control pills must be taken every day to be effective. I know this is a mean generalization, but many of the people who are on welfare cannot be trusted with the responsibility of taking a pill once a day.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by hotpinkurinalmint]

they need to STOP ADVERTISING that these government functions are available.

IF someone needs help bad enough - they'll go looking for it.

Too many lazy ass people collect welfare in all its horrendous forms these days, and welfare is one of the largest deficits in our budget.

Stop making me pay for someone else to set on their ass.

reply to post by Snarf


There is no doubt that there is plenty of waste and abuse in welfare programs, but welfare is not the biggest drain on the federal budget. If you really want to get serious about cutting the federal budget, you would cut the waste and abuse in the military, social security, and medicare.

For every crack-addict with 8 kids taking a $25K a year from the government to sit and home and do nothing, there is some goofball defense contractor who gets paid $100K a year to sit around and do nothing. Both people are bad. Our society would be better off if we got both these people to get off their butts and do real work. Except it in some regards the crack-addict on welfare is cheaper because she does not cost as much as the defense contractor.

Who knew there were so many eugenicists and Nazis on ATS?

When you lose your job, get sick or become a "useless eater" don't ask for sympathy from me...by your rules you are a criminal substance abuser until proven innocent by passing a drug test.

Why should you be allowed to pro-create? How many of you paid the full costs of your childrens' births? If you are currently unemployed or unemployable prove to us you will produce strong, mentally competent offspring and laborers...would you submit to genetic testing before the government allows you to procreate?

Your thinking is a slippery slope...there's been a lot written in the history books about eugenicists with similar views.

reply to post by ChrisCrikey


I am no nazi. As for the eugenicist, I am one. If you use non-violent means, eugenics is all right in my book. But the primary reason I am advocating population control is for economic and social reasons, and for the children themselves.

reply to post by apacheman


Thank you for that post. I tend to agree with the things you stated but I have no real solution for corporate welfare. It seems that that would be left up to the companies themselves to handle such tasks. I am also aware of the costs of all social programs and wouldn't care one bit if they were ended today...I will most likely never see the benefits from them anyway. I would definitely like to see reform at the very least for the programs. I wanted to put my thoughts up for welfare reform only in this thread and if you have any ideas I would love to hear them.

As for the smoking part. That is kind of tricky. Every pack I buy I spend .80 alone in taxes for the SCHIP program (8.00 a week average for that one tax) among many other local and state taxes.

Good informative post though.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Rather than "punish" welfare recipients for having kids, why not just reward them for being clean or having birth control implants. I hate to sound arrogant or generalize, but the welfare population is quite impulsive when it comes to money. Many of them would not give much thought to taking a sum of money to get a birth control implant or a vasectomy.

The harder sell would be a clean drug test program. Under such a program, the participants would have to subject themselves to random unannounced drug tests for a period of time like one year. If the participants do not fail any drug tests after the period of time, they will get a sum of money.

The drug program is a hard sell because impulsive people will give into the immediate gratification a dose of drugs can offer, rather than the long term award participation in the program can offer. I hate to sound rotten, but I would suspect that many of those people that would take the money for sterilization or a vasectomy will turn around and spend the money on something frivolous.

I actually like this idea. Combined with some of the punishments from my OP then you would have a very effective, productive population.

Social security would be bankrupt without smokers.

Every smoker that kills themselves before 62 saves money for those that do not smoke.

Even those that survive living after 62 they will never collect as much Social security money as non smokers.

So what do you really have against smokers.



[edit on 11-5-2010 by ANNED]