- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Spend more money they don't have? The states are broke already.
That's their problem. Not mine.
Until they steal from you...
It's not a simple problem that exists in a vacuum.
Then perhaps they should cut funding from other programs that are not needed?
Edit: They could also raise taxes.
If they steal then they will go to jail and I'll get reimbursed. :shrug:
Like incarcerating people for marijuana possession, cultivation, and distribution?
If they steal then they will go to jail and I'll get reimbursed. :shrug:
So you don't mind paying for their food and shelter after they have committed a crime?
jail is lots more expensive than food stamps. its a net loss for everyone financially and socially.
At least they won't be on drugs.
Like I said...sometimes spending more is better than not spending and letting a problem continue.
Read more: RN-T.com - Deal OKs bill requiring drug testing for welfare recipients
Gonna be yet another giant waste of money. Nothing but a giant pointless waste of money
Thoughts?
Comments?
Response? [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
That's really what it boils down to, isn't it?That's their problem. Not mine.
I can see both sides pretty clearly.
Side One: Money is fungible. If someone is using money to buy drugs, they aren't using entitlement money for the purpose it was intended.
Side Two: If you don't let a mom collect welfare, she's going to use drugs anyway, so her kids are going to go hungry (hungrier).
Maybe in order to keep your kids you should have to test drug free. That's solve Side Two. It may be time to consider the rights of children instead of the rights of their drug addicted parents.
That's really what it boils down to, isn't it?
I think this is a fair question. But, it leads to further questions...Maybe in order to keep your kids you should have to test drug free. That's solve Side Two. It may be time to consider the rights of children instead of the rights of their drug addicted parents.
Like I said...sometimes spending more is better than not spending and letting a problem continue.
Hey, I might be more sympathetic in this thread if people didn't want to ban welfare recipients from buying certain kinds of food/drink just because they are welfare recipients.
it would make the problem worse though and be more expensive. if someone canter get a job and be a productive member of society, sending them to jail is more expensive than helping them before they get to that point. also a person who has trouble functioning in society with a criminal record on top has an even harder time becoming a productive member of society, thus they become even more expensive. in the end, everyone loses. the tax payers who have to pay more for this person amd the person who finds other harder to get a job and has no real alternatives in life. nobody is better off in this scenario.
the better approach is intervention before thar point is reached, but it has to very structured in a way that changes attitudes and gives a bit of fear in the person being helped so they are motivated to change if what is lacking is in their attitude or skillsets.
otherwise we are enabling bad behavior and nobody benefits from that either. the only goal if any successful program is to turn people into productive people who are a benefit to themselves and society. otherwise we run the risk of rising crime rates and a degeneration of the social order. its not about responsibility, morality, punishment, or revenge. in the end, the only thng that makes a difference is results.
Aren't welfare entitlements intended to get someone back on their feet, not be a lifetime free paycheck?
If someone is doing drugs they are being counter productive because they are taking possible employment off the table ( jobs that require someone to be drug free which are many).
As for the children ( I don't think people should be allowed to have children if they don't have the means to provide for them, but that's a topic for another day).
If a parent spends their entitlement money on drugs instead of taking care of their family then the children should be relocated to another family or foster care. The parent who does drugs is the one that causes this hardship for the children not the government. No one is forcing them to do drugs.
Should they be able to buy cigarettes?
Believe me, I know the problems associated with having a record. And I believe reform is needed in that department.
But again, ignoring a problem is just as worthless as spending less money.
I don't go for the drug testing thing because I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is (supposed to be) one of our core societal values. If we're not willing to live it ourselves in our daily lives, then it's all just mindless prattle. And no, even though a private business can get away with it, I don't approve of it there, either. (Barring narrowly-defined exceptions) So, if my standards are that regarding drug testing, I sure as hell don't approve of restricting otherwise legal purchases.Hey, I might be more sympathetic in this thread if people didn't want to ban welfare recipients from buying certain kinds of food/drink just because they are welfare recipients.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?