• 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

so you might consider a qualitative study as to whether marriage and poverty are correlative with shared underlying issues rather than causative variables, however this would be less preferable?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Marriage reduces poverty. It's cheaper per adult to shelter two in the same room (or even whole building) than one.
 
i would think poverty does have a causative relationship with marriage. typically marriage has some sort of celebratory get-together and if you live in poverty it is a unnecessary expenditure. you can live as a "married" couple without the nuptials.
 
TownieDeac said:
idk what this means

if two people are renting two apartments and then move in together, the shared cost benefits them whether they marry or not
Click to expand...

Yeah, but for the census you would respond as "single" - so then all of your stats end up filed under "single" rather than "2-person household." I think this is what he means?
 
By special request, here goes. I shall interlineate in Soviet Union red, so you can tell who is who:


tiltdeac said:
Petty sniping aside, this is the most important and fundamental area where we disagree (by "we" I mean me specifically), so I'll try to address it as best I can.

First, I believe not only is it okay that some members of society can get away with not doing their part, but that it is unavoidable and necessary that that be the case. I think that is the cost of a true safety net that lets no one fall through the cracks. No matter what poor decisions people make and for how long they make them, they should always be provided food, shelter, and health care. If you accept that premise (I recognize that you likely won't), then I believe you must also accept that some people will be able to game the system. Of course we would all prefer that people wouldn’t do that, but attempting to prevent that from happening would, imo (1) be incredibly difficult and costly and (2) result in at least some people losing benefits they truly need, which is completely unacceptable to me.

Disagree. If an able-bodied person actively chooses to never pay into the system and makes a demand by claim of entitlement, they are claiming the labor of others as their own property. That's a morally wrong thing to do in any other context, and the injustice isn't laundered by a government hand doing the re-shuffling. Further, that person is draining from the pool otherwise available to people who aren't able to contribute, making the lives of truly helpless people worse.

As to the unbolded part, I agree that a safety net is naturally going to have people who exploit it. It is no different than any other human endeavor, and that unpleasantness, is a reality and a cost of doing business. I do not advocate tanking the system because of the abusers. I ask that we take a clear-eyed look at the system itself, which is why I asked my philosophical question, "Is it a success when....?" I think it is not only a failure, but a moral failure, if we establish a system that will provide a way of life at the subsistence level for any human being, and throw our hands up and say "Hey look, he didn't starve!" That's not a win in my book. It cheats and dismisses that person and their God-given potential.

Instead, I believe the best way to minimize the number of people who rely on (or game) the social support systems is to focus all our efforts on providing a realistic path out of poverty for those already there, and preventing people from needing it in the first place. Obviously this is a hugely complex issue. And we can draw on those factors that you have posted about that we know are associated with poverty.

No one argues with this statement.

Young single mothers? Let’s not take away their benefits in an attempt to disincentivize a decision that has already happened. Let’s take care of them and focus on sex education and widespread, low-cost/free, highly effective contraception (IUDs).

Is there anything to learn from the geometric expansion of their numbers since the widespread implementation of these programs?

As to bold #2, you will find no dispute here. #notallPubs

Opoid addicts? Let’s not take away their benefits and threaten their freedom if they can’t pass a test. Let’s take care of them regardless of what the test says, take away their fear of criminal prosecution so they are more willing to seek out help, and pour the resources into treatment programs to allow them to get their life back on track.

If this toothpaste can be put back in the tube, I'm all for it. I am not as optimistic as you are. I am okay with legalizing marijuana because it does not pose the public safety risk of other drugs, but having an employee watch a sibling battle heroin, that is a whole other ball of wax. For message board brainstorming, I'd be willing to consider some form of amnesty-in-treatment. If you self-report to your health care provider, your statements, conduct and evidence turned it would be immunized provided you stay in treatment.

No jobs? Let’s not take away their benefits if they don’t meet some difficult/expensive to enforce and nebulous “attempt to work” requirements. Let’s take care of them and focus on job training and matching services. Coal jobs aren’t coming back, but coders are the new manufacturing jobs, and there are plenty of specialized jobs out there like the ones Wrangor needs that don’t require anything like the advanced degrees that litter this message board. Let’s figure out what those needs are and target people for job specific training. Sure there might be some people who would still choose to just sit on their ass and not work anyway. But I say that’s fine. Because I think for most people, if they are presented an option that gives them a chance at real upward mobility, they are going to take.

A lot here, so let me focus on the bold.

#1: I'm not convinced there is a sincere effort to enforce the existing work requirement. That's the Oxygen Mask Demo of our entitlements program. Rhetorical: does anybody really believe that ever gets enforced? How?

#2: Sure. Clean energy jobs would be win-win. I've heard of shovel-ready initiatives before, but my faith in our ability to do that at the national level dwindles each time we try it and it fails.

#3: Disagree. That's not fine.

#4: I want to believe that, too, but I also believe that if you have a system that provides for people's basic needs with no expectations, they are also tempted to take that route. What if the only long-term option our system presented was the one that has upward mobility? You could offer someone a wide range of foods to sustain themselves and their loved ones. In my view, inexhaustible, unconditional entitlements are junk food: cheap, convenient but really bad for you in the long run. Is it better than starvation? Sure, but not by much. I'd like for us to switch out some of the transfats for a few vegetables, in our entitlement menu.



I don’t believe it necessarily follows that without expectations from the system itself, hard times become a life sentence. I just think we need to do a better job of providing an outlet for the people who use it.

Right, and one way to do that is not to permit long-term abuse of an unconditional entitlement.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
lbE08 said:
Yeah, but for the census you would respond as "single" - so then all of your stats end up filed under "single" rather than "2-person household." I think this is what he means?
Click to expand...

Right, a cohabitator might comfort themselves saying they save money on housing, but anything based on IRS data won't reflect it.
 
jhmd2000 said:
By special request, here goes. I shall interlineate in Soviet Union red, so you can tell who is who:
Click to expand...

First, I believe not only is it okay that some members of society can get away with not doing their part, but that it is unavoidable and necessary that that be the case. I think that is the cost of a true safety net that lets no one fall through the cracks. No matter what poor decisions people make and for how long they make them, they should always be provided food, shelter, and health care. If you accept that premise (I recognize that you likely won't), then I believe you must also accept that some people will be able to game the system. Of course we would all prefer that people wouldn’t do that, but attempting to prevent that from happening would, imo (1) be incredibly difficult and costly and (2) result in at least some people losing benefits they truly need, which is completely unacceptable to me.

Disagee. If an able-bodied person actively chooses to never pay into the system and makes a demand by claim of entitlement, they are claiming the labor of others as their own property. That's a morally wrong thing to do in any other context, and the injustice isn't laundered by a government hand doing the re-shuffling. Further, that person is draining from the pool otherwise available to people who aren't able to contribute, making the lives of truly helpless people worse.




To me this is the crux of the philosophical argument. I guess the conservative viewpoint contends that all people are not only capable, but it is their duty, to 'try their best'. The opposing view I think is that there is just a certain section of the general population that is fatally flawed, so to speak; e.g. they have no inherent inner drive or capability to help themselves/thrive. So the response to that is either (1) let 'em starve, or (2) help them anyway as a 'cost of doing business'. I guess it just depends how Darwinian you are.
 
jhmd, that is legitimately one of the best non-gardening-related posts you've ever written. i still don't agree with a lot of what you're saying, but that type and level of response is how two-sided conversations work. it's too bad that in a thread you started -presumably to discuss these things?- it took 20 pages of back-and-forth asshattery (from both sides) and specific goading to get you to actually type all of that out without any snark or illogical tangentially-related statements.
 
lbE08 said:
jhmd, that is legitimately one of the best non-gardening-related posts you've ever written. i still don't agree with a lot of what you're saying, but that type and level of response is how two-sided conversations work. it's too bad that in a thread you started -presumably to discuss these things?- it took 20 pages of back-and-forth asshattery (from both sides) and specific goading to get you to actually type all of that out without any snark or illogical tangentially-related statements.
Click to expand...

I feel like you're undervaluing my work on the "___ looks like ____" thread.
 
they are claiming the labor of others as their own property. That's a morally wrong thing to do in any other context, and the injustice isn't laundered by a government hand doing the re-shuffling.
Click to expand...

Positively stirring reminder how the capitalist claims the product of the worker's labor.

"You do everything and he has everything; and some of you imagine that if it were not for him you would have no work. As a matter of fact, he does not employ you at all; you employ him to take from you what you produce, and he faithfully sticks to his task. If you can stand it, he can: and if you don't change this relation, I am sure he won't. You make the automobile, he rides in it. If it were not for you, he would walk; and if it were not for him, you would ride."
 
Capital vs Labor, a tale as old as time. It's all very convenient how capital is limitless when business needs created, but when tax season comes it's back to a zero sum game.
 
If anywhere in your plan there is a cutoff for assistance, you aren't dealing in reality. That's why repeated requests for "what then" aren't answered.

Tiltdeac nails it pretty much. There are going to be gamers. You do the best you can to minimize fraud and you feed, clothe, and house the poor. The twisted logic that pulling help from people is a show of respect and continuing help strips their dignity is a clever argument, but it is bullshit.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Positively stirring reminder how the capitalist claims the product of the worker's labor.

"You do everything and he has everything; and some of you imagine that if it were not for him you would have no work. As a matter of fact, he does not employ you at all; you employ him to take from you what you produce, and he faithfully sticks to his task. If you can stand it, he can: and if you don't change this relation, I am sure he won't. You make the automobile, he rides in it. If it were not for you, he would walk; and if it were not for him, you would ride."
Click to expand...

Debs couldn't have been more wrong.
 
What was he wrong about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top