• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Drug Screening Required for Welfare

To many people on the left have this view that corporations are the enemy.

They are honestly the primary reason why we have the standard of living that we do.
 
InTheKnow said:
Then I disagree with the government's choice in how to support them (children). PH is right, the government has been doing a half assed job in this for generations.
Click to expand...

Any time republicans are to actually invest in our children instead of trying to do it on the cheap, I'm in.

Until then, we'll have welfare and education cuts because teachers and poor vote Dem and children will likely vote Dem when they turn 18.
 
PhDeac said:
So one kid out of all the kids who said they wanted to be an astronaut, basketball player, president, fireman, etc. in a very poor town convinced you that we've failed people on welfare?

Are you prepared to spend the money necessary to help people get out? No. And that's why we have welfare. Demonize it all you want to, but it's what we have because the government has been half-assing it for years.
Click to expand...

You asked me a question, and then you answered it. Difficult for me to beat that :). PH that is not an isolated incident. I am not blaming it on the poor people to be honest, I think a good portion of the blame deserves to be heaped on the system, and on the white communities in Mississippi that pulled out all the resources creating an economic hole.

I am somewhat prepared to spend the money, so that you for asking. This is why politically I have almost no allies. I am a conservative, bible believing Christian that also has a steep liberal streak in him. I don't believe that if the poor people would just pick themselves up by their bootstraps they would be ok. There is a massive unequal distribution of opportunity in this country. I personally believe that welfare system AS WE KNOW IT, perpetuates that gap. I am not sure how to change it, and i know we shouldn't just trash it, but we need to find ways to make it stronger for the people it is supposed to serve.
 
Wrangor, I think that your position about being "liberal" is actually what someone who truly beleives in The Bible would be.

What about putting a camel through the eye of needle?
Or taking care of the Earth?
Or giving to Rome what was Rome's?

It would seem that conservation. helping the poor and paying a fair share of taxes are beliefs those who say they believe in The Bible should do.
 
I think they would pick themselves up by their bootstraps.

They just don't have bootstraps.
 
I agree 100% PH. And this is why I think we need to start providing bootstraps (opportunities) for growth. Our current system is unsustainable because it does not incentify people to advance beyond the system. This could be in some part (as you say) because there are people who do not want the poor to advance out of their current life, that it would be too costly and complicated to do so. I am not one of those people. In my opinion, you judge a nation by looking at its poor. We have great people floundering on the fringes of society because we have failed them systematically. We also have people who are taking advantage of our failed system, when they are plenty capable to support themselves. Both scenarios are equally sad.
 
WakeandBake said:
I'm sure you can 84Deac, I'm sure you can. Thanks for the tip about the real world, I'll give it some consideration after I put in my 60 hours of work this week. And your anecdotal examples of how people game the system are fascinating, I've never heard them from a conservative poster on this here board. You just proved jhmd's theory right there - brilliant. That must be what the 'real world' looks like, eh?

Just for those of us who are too stoned to accept your declaration of "a large percentage" out of hand, can you provide some kind of proof for that or is it just your opinion? Because I think you have it wrong. I think that a large percentage are temporary, and a small percentage are perpetual gamers of the system. In fact, I recall living through the welfare reform of the 90s that Gingrich championed and claimed a lot of credit for. I gave him his props. The welfare rolls shrunk considerably, with a little help from low unemployment and lots of opportunity. Now 10 years later the economy is in a down-cycle and you now blame the poor and accuse "a large percentage" of them of gaming the system. What happened to the reforms the Contract With America put in place just a few years ago? Is it your position it was all bullshit, and the reforms couldn't withstand an economic downturn? Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too?

When you and jhmd pull the welfare benefits from these people, what happens then? You live in a fantasy world, not me. You are blatantly blaming the poor for being poor, and blaming the programs for keeping them poor. That absolves you and I guess the rest of us who aren't poor from any responsibility for the situation when we are all, at least indirectly, responsible for the fate and condition of the nation's economy. And the condition of that economy determines how many Americans live on the dole. When you favor policy that tilts the playing field toward the "have's" and away from the "have-nots" - you get larger welfare rolls.
Click to expand...

Haven't had time to respond to this lengthy, but uninformed post until now. Just poured myself a nice glass of wine and decided to take some time to rejoin this discussion.

I knew you or Ph would play the "antecdotal evidence" card at some point. So dismissive because my extensive experience in this area doesn't fit how you think the system works. My company has probably taken housing vouchers for more than 60 households in the last 4 years. Not one voucher holder in that time period has used that voucher as a temproary safety net for their family. Not one. Every single one of them is still on Section 8 housing, taking food stamps and having their utilities subsidized every month. They live in fully renovated houses that have hardwood floors, central heat/air and new plumbing and electrical. The only Section 8 tenants we have lost in that time period are the ones who had their Section 8 taken away because they didn't keep their power on despite their utilities subsidy every month.

And we do take our commitment as responsible landlords above and beyond what is required. On at least 5 occasions in the last 2 years my staff has intervened on behalf of a tenant when they were in danger of losing their children to DFCS for not having enough furniture or food in the house despite the food stamps they get every month and the vouchers that are available for furniture simply by filling out an application. So, you can trust me when I tell you that the system does create significant dependency in a large percentage of its beneficiaries, who have virtually no life skills. I notice that you haven't defined what you think the "right" is for people to have children that they are never going to be able to provide for without taxpayer assistance. Your fantasy world doesn't call for any accountability for bad decisions in these instances and gravely underestimates the number of families that are chronically dependent on government assistance.

Do I have all the answers? Nope. Wish I did, even though my business benefits from the current system. It's great to have long-term tenants whose rent is paid by electronic deposit every month! But I know it's not good for the country overall. The problem is that you are talking about decades/generations of dependency on the gov't for virtually all of their living expenses. You are going to change that mindset overnight. Maybe a limit on the number of kids that you can get a check for and/or a time limit for that support? Tougher requirements as far as the work/school obligation for Section 8 recipients? The online classes most of these girls take to meet their requirement are a joke and will never lead to meaningful employment for them. I think the Atlanta Housing Authority showed tremendous insight when they tore down all the old housing projects in an attempt to disperse throughout the city the people living in these concentrated areas of poverty. But as painful as it sounds, you are going to have to provide some sticks as along with the carrots when it comes to getting people off the government teat.
 
84Deac said:
Haven't had time to respond to this lengthy, but uninformed post until now. Just poured myself a nice glass of wine and decided to take some time to rejoin this discussion.

I knew you or Ph would play the "antecdotal evidence" card at some point. So dismissive because my extensive experience in this area doesn't fit how you think the system works. My company has probably taken housing vouchers for more than 60 households in the last 4 years. Not one voucher holder in that time period has used that voucher as a temproary safety net for their family. Not one. Every single one of them is still on Section 8 housing, taking food stamps and having their utilities subsidized every month. They live in fully renovated houses that have hardwood floors, central heat/air and new plumbing and electrical. The only Section 8 tenants we have lost in that time period are the ones who had their Section 8 taken away because they didn't keep their power on despite their utilities subsidy every month.

And we do take our commitment as responsible landlords above and beyond what is required. On at least 5 occasions in the last 2 years my staff has intervened on behalf of a tenant when they were in danger of losing their children to DFCS for not having enough furniture or food in the house despite the food stamps they get every month and the vouchers that are available for furniture simply by filling out an application. So, you can trust me when I tell you that the system does create significant dependency in a large percentage of its beneficiaries, who have virtually no life skills. I notice that you haven't defined what you think the "right" is for people to have children that they are never going to be able to provide for without taxpayer assistance. Your fantasy world doesn't call for any accountability for bad decisions in these instances and gravely underestimates the number of families that are chronically dependent on government assistance.

Do I have all the answers? Nope. Wish I did, even though my business benefits from the current system. It's great to have long-term tenants whose rent is paid by electronic deposit every month! But I know it's not good for the country overall. The problem is that you are talking about decades/generations of dependency on the gov't for virtually all of their living expenses. You are going to change that mindset overnight. Maybe a limit on the number of kids that you can get a check for and/or a time limit for that support? Tougher requirements as far as the work/school obligation for Section 8 recipients? The online classes most of these girls take to meet their requirement are a joke and will never lead to meaningful employment for them. I think the Atlanta Housing Authority showed tremendous insight when they tore down all the old housing projects in an attempt to disperse throughout the city the people living in these concentrated areas of poverty. But as painful as it sounds, you are going to have to provide some sticks as along with the carrots when it comes to getting people off the government teat.
Click to expand...

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and for bringing this thread back to reality.

You started your post saying my post was uninformed, and then proceeded to post very little I disagree with or have disagreed with on this thread. I agree, there is a class of people in America that is perpetually dependent on welfare.

The only thing we disagree on is why.

You blame the existence of the welfare system itself on perpetuating a class of Americans dependent on welfare. With that I disagree.

I blame the prevalent economic philosophy in modern America that shifts wealth disproportionately to the top. A system that rewards making money over hard work. A system where bankers and investors are given an abundance of opportunity to build tremendous wealth very quickly, and Americans who have no wealth from which to build are left making low wages that remain low, if they can find a wage at all. And if they do find a living wage, they find it almost impossible to build any wealth as their cost of living demands rise and rise, and they fall back under the poverty line.

It appears you advocate cutting their welfare to urge them, with that metaphorical stick, to become self-sufficient. That if they just tried harder and/or changed their lifestyle that they could do it - but the existence of free money de-incentivises that. I have heard this argument for many years and haven't seen any evidence it is accurate except when conditions are right. There has to be opportunity for them to grab onto for that to work. When there isn't any, I fail to comprehend what they can do.

there are more applicants than there are openings for jobs, that is a fact. Do they have the same opportunities you and I have enjoyed? Can they get a small-business loan to start an enterprise? do they have an uncle or parent that leaves them a few bucks from which to build off? No - I believe America has a poor class that will remain poor until our economy produces enough opportunity to lift them out. Then, and only then, will the "stick" approach bear fruit.

You can call my opinion 'fantasy,' but I believe the facts are in my favor.

So you and I share the same goal - get people off welfare as much as possible and allow welfare to exist as a temporary measure. I disagree that drug testing and cutting them off will achieve anything within the current environment. Americans who want to see the program reduced dramatically need to support a system that progressively shifts America's wealth, proportionally, to the middle and lower middle - creating the very opportunities needed for the program to serve its intended purpose.

I can't understand how anyone can argue the facts on the ground: as the banking/financial sector has gained an ever-increasing percentage of GDP, and real wealth has expanded at the top through tax breaks, and making money is rewarded over hard work...the poor class has expanded and in turn welfare rolls have expanded. We are experiencing the results of this disproportionate system as we speak. And while this fact is glaring- you're clamoring for a slash and burn approach that makes little sense. Americans haven't changed that much in the past 30 or 40 years, the financial environment has....

edit: and frankly, I wonder sometimes if the real power-players at the top have any problem with that at all. Why would they? They have become very very rich recently. Very rich
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
t's not about supporting the parent. It's about the kids not having done anything wrong in being born to them.
Click to expand...

The problem with the system is we support the kid by letting the parent (who too many times doesn't give a shit about the kid) decide what to do with someone else's money.

An has it ever occurred to anyone that the lower class is growing because it's the only one having that is growing through procreation? Most upper and middle class families have 2 kids or less.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top