• 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 Testing for Public Assistance

The amazing thing is that the welfare system for working age people is basically already what JHMD says he wants. Most benefits are in-kind - Medicaid, SNAP, housing. The cash grant program (TANF) has work requirements and a lifetime limit of only 5 years. The EITC phase-out always favors higher wage earnings.
 
jhmd, a philosophical question if you don't mind answering:

If one person can take advantage of a system, outside of its intended purpose, for his/her own benefit, does that make the entire system invalid?
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
jhmd, a philosophical question if you don't mind answering:

If one person can take advantage of a system, outside of its intended purpose, for his/her own benefit, does that make the entire system invalid?
Click to expand...

Of course not.
 
Help me understand something jh. You are very knowledgeable about the correlational connection between high school graduation/marriage/abstinence & poverty, why don't you believe in the equally correlational data showing that poverty (and all it's accompaniments) are discourages and barriers to high school graduation/abstinence/marriage?
 
The symptoms of poverty are difficult and unattractive, and not conducive to marraige (healthy relationships in general) or education.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Help me understand something jh. You are very knowledgeable about the correlational connection between high school graduation/marriage/abstinence & poverty, why don't you believe in the equally correlational data showing that poverty (and all it's accompaniments) are discourages and barriers to high school graduation/abstinence/marriage?
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that, in fact, the systemic failures that reinforce that effect are precisely my concern. We as a society don't write the rules and regs of "poverty" that have the impact, but we do write the rules and regs of our entitlement programs that do. Your benefits erode as your choices improve. That's madness.
 
My turn for a philosophical question: if there are no limits on lifetime benefits (Tuff can correct me if I'm wrong, here) on in-kind benefits like housing, and an able-bodied person spends their entire lifetime on that benefit, is that a successful outcome (taking all alternatives into account)?
 
jhmd2000 said:
My turn for a philosophical question: if there are no limits on lifetime benefits (Tuff can correct me if I'm wrong, here) on in-kind benefits like housing, and an able-bodied person spends their entire lifetime on that benefit, is that a successful outcome (taking all alternatives into account)?
Click to expand...

Most people who meet the eligibility criteria for housing assistance do not receive that assistance. So, it'd definitely be a success for that person, they've beaten the odds.
 
jhmd2000 said:
My turn for a philosophical question: if there are no limits on lifetime benefits (Tuff can correct me if I'm wrong, here) on in-kind benefits like housing, and an able-bodied person spends their entire lifetime on that benefit, is that a successful outcome (taking all alternatives into account)?
Click to expand...

It depends on what you perceive the intent of the program to be. I've mentioned more than once on here that you view these programs as rehabilitation, so if that's the lens through which you're examining all of these, then no. You are never going to see that as a success, because you think the program is supposed to make the person DO something rather than just providing for that person. On the other hand, if you see the programs as providing a basic level of decent living for a fellow human and that person maintained housing and didn't slip into homelessness, then the program did what it was intended to do.
 
Is it a successful outcome for the person, financially? No. Is it a successful outcome for the assistance that it kept a person from starving to death? Yes. I don't much believe in the rehabilitative effects of our safety net assistance programs.
 
JHMD, do you have any response to tiltdeac's very well-presented post above? You have a tendency to ignore responses like that.
If you're going to get all sad about people saying wrangor is a better conversationalist than you, that post is a brilliant opportunity to enter into reasonable discourse with someone who thinks differently than you.
 
lbE08 said:
JHMD, do you have any response to tiltdeac's very well-presented post above? You have a tendency to ignore responses like that.
If you're going to get all sad about people saying wrangor is a better conversationalist than you, that post is a brilliant opportunity to enter into reasonable discourse with someone who thinks differently than you.
Click to expand...

Leebs,

You may be reading a bit more into a message board post than is actually there, which is fine and not unusal. I'll be happy to respond to tiltdeac. Let me pay the rent first and I'll get to it later today.
 
People on habitual welfare know not to get married. It isn't as simple as they are having trouble. They are willfully choosing it because it is financially unfavorable. I don't blame them to be honest. Getting a marriage certificate doesn't significantly change anything other than giving away a large portion of your family sustenance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jhmd2000 said:
Leebs,

You may be reading a bit more into a message board post than is actually there, which is fine and not unusal. I'll be happy to respond to tiltdeac. Let me pay the rent first and I'll get to it later today.
Click to expand...

Sounds great! I look forward to reading your equally-considerate reply, in which you actually address and respond to the things he's saying and don't hone in on one random detail and try to distract him with some other absolutist statement.
 
Wrangor said:
People on habitual welfare know not to get married. It isn't as simple as they are having trouble. They are willfully choosing it because it is financially unfavorable. I don't blame them to be honest. Getting a marriage certificate doesn't significantly change anything other than giving away a large portion of your family sustenance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Financial hardship is the most common cause for divorce. The notion that people should get married to avoid poverty is ridiculous and naive. Poor people are already forced to participate in all the sharing practices of marraige just to survive.
 
lbE08 said:
Sounds great! I look forward to reading your equally-considerate reply, in which you actually address and respond to the things he's saying and don't hone in on one random detail and try to distract him with some other absolutist statement.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Aside from everything else, I'm interested in hearing arguments that marriage/no marriage is a cause to the effect of poverty (or lack thereof) rather than merely a correlative factor or the opposite (poverty, or lack thereof, has a causative relationship with an individual getting married, or not getting married).

I suspect that marriage and poverty are correlative with shared underlying issues rather than causative variables, but I'd be interested in seeing some sort of analysis of this issue - preferably a quantitative one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top