# Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients!



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://news.msn.com/us/georgia-governor ... recipients



> Georgia governor signs law to drug test some welfare recipients
> 
> ATLANTA (Reuters) - Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed legislation on Tuesday requiring some applicants for food stamps and welfare benefits to undergo a drug test.
> 
> ...


I hope that these bills start to pass.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

This is not a drug topic per se, but I wish these conservatives, in southern states AND North Dakota would stop trying to pass a lot of feel good but usually unconstitutional laws, and instead focus on BIRTH CONTROl access and encouragement for low income people. Because of the nature of my pre retirement profession, over and over I've see every hurdle thrown in the way of encouragement and supply of contraceptive devices to the very people who need it most. The ones we vilify on websites and silly viral emails we all get every day! 
I could give example after example of conservatives halting otherwise viable programs that would have worked, and have been very Cost effective. For example, programs introduces in several states over the years that would have PAID welfare and other single parents to employ birth control methods. Rewards given when only easily verified, and extremely cost effective. But NO! Virtually EvERY suggestion or introduced hill has died quick deaths at the hands of the called conservatives! Whether this is because of the up to now hard headed policy of the Catholic Church or simply because the Bible Belt conservative Protestants don't like to think or talk of in or out of wedlock screwing! I could go n and on....well meaning parents not wanting to properly educate kids about sexuality, and not wanting to offer them contraception because of wrong fears that this Gould encourage sex! HAH! Turn on the Boob tubes and watch the hundreds of sexual acts and innuendoes EVERY single night, people! Better still, turn them OFF! And turn off Rush, a good example of idiocy by sexually active college girls needing access able cheap contraception,whores! Thanks to idiots like Rush, instead of ending up being educated, these gals sometimes end up pregnant on welfare roles, or dropping out of school and the welfare cycle starts again! Over the years I've seen this more times than I can count, and this is only a mall segment of little old North Dakota! A guy like Rush could use his influence to do a lot of good, but instead takes the other more lucrative path of railing on and on with nonsense!
I'm extremely fiscally conservative when it comes to my own finances and govts taxes and money wasting, as we all should be! But we all should be extremely Liberal when it comes to education, encouragement, disseminating birth control, and encouraging and REWARDING responsible behavior when it comes to family planning. Much more important than the constant conservative whining about welfare recipients, ad nauseum, blah, blah........if for no other of the thousands of positive social reasons, from a taxpayers view, it sure saves us all money!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Habitat...

I agree with you on the birth control and family planning. But what is wrong with requiring drug testing for welfare recipients?? I understand they you can't have people who are not qualified to suggest who should get tested and who shouldn't. But make it random. Just like crossing the border or anything like that. 1 out of 100 get tested at random. If you number gets called it is your turn. I know it would cost us tax payers money to implement this program. But it might also help with welfare fraud, people abusing the system, etc. Which would even it out. Plus might help some people kick a drug habit.

This is the way I look at it. They are getting a pay check (welfare check). Employer's can do drug screening and drug testing. why can't the government when they hand out checks?? i mean government workers have drug testing. i know i am making it simplistic. But it is what is happening.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Everyone who receives any money from the government, be it state or federal should have to under go a mandatory drug test.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

So every college student that goes to a public university should be tested? Also, every kid on "free and reduced" lunches in K-12....should we just have the 1st graders get tested in the nurses office? How many farmers should get down from the combine to piss in a cup? Of course all veterans who go to the VA should pony up too.

Sounds reasonable.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I made a post then didn't submit. I'm getting oldtimers.

Simple, if they have enough money for drugs they have enough money for food and don't need welfare.

Birth control I don't think many are against. Abortion many of us are. My wife was reading something to me while I was driving today. I think it was in St. Louse this doctor did surgery on an unborn child. He was doing surgery for spinal bifida, and it was successful. Anyway, he did a C section to remove the uterus, then made a small incision in the uterus. A small, but fully developed hand reached out of the uterus and grasped his finger. I wonder if partial birth abortion run through that doctors head at that time? The doctor and staff said it was a very emotional moment.

I think one of the problems liberals have is they think education will solve everything. What they did starting in the early 1970's was teaching sex education to younger and younger people. Today children are not left alone to enjoy childhood. They have to endure some empty head teaching them to put a condom on a cucumber in third or fourth grade. They didn't reduce teen pregnancy as they predicted, but increased it. They simply made them aware and got them started younger. They added to the problem rather than solving it. Now their answer is to kill the unborn innocent for the stupidity of the parent.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Your last paragraph about sex education has all sorts of potential flawed logic. You blame the schools teaching safe sex at an early age for increasing sexual activity. You leave out many other factors such as lack of stable homes, both parents working, television, increase availability of social media/internet......

If you think about it, it really is the chicken and the egg type deal. I believe the schools are reacting to the increase in numbers of early sexual activity, rather than causing it.

Also, conservatives want it both ways........no sex ed for kids due to moral reasons but also, no to social welfare programs. One of the biggest factors in determining poverty is if you have a child out of wedlock. In short, safer sexual practices = less children being born out of wedlock = less need for social welfare programs.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Gooseguy10 said:


> So every college student that goes to a public university should be tested? Also, every kid on "free and reduced" lunches in K-12....should we just have the 1st graders get tested in the nurses office? How many farmers should get down from the combine to piss in a cup? Of course all veterans who go to the VA should pony up too.
> 
> Sounds reasonable.


How does going to a public university qualify me having to do a drug tests? I receive no money from them. Even if I did, have to take a drug test I would pass everyone time.

If you are using drugs, you do not need any government assistance, its as simple as that.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is a little monkey wrench thrown into this topic....

Lets say that drug testing is mandatory for people collecting welfare.... What do you do in Colorado?? Do you still cut off benefits for people who tested positive for marijuana???

My thoughts are yes. Just like if someone test positive for alcohol.

My reasoning is that the money shouldn't be going to "luxury" type things. It should be going towards the basics of life..... ie: food, water, shelter.

Here is a couple of examples that is why I am very soured on any "welfare" type programs. They are ones i have seen first hand.

example # 1: I work in real estate so i know many property managers. so i was with this one property manager one day as he was doing a maintenance call on an apartment. this apartment was paid for by the state and county for these people to live in. We walk in the door and the place is trashed. garbage everywhere, food left out, empty liquor bottles around the place, floor looked black with grim and filth. The tenant asked to fix a leak under the sink. We opened the cupboard and even worse. The manager was afraid to get down and fix it for the fear of catching something. I mean that is how dirty and disgusting it was. He told her that he will get his tool and parts he thinks is needed to fix it and will be back in the afternoon but asked her to clean it up. She ended up calling the county and they sent up a cleaning service to do it.....all paid on the county and state dime!!!! She was too lazy to clean it herself. A great way to spend tax payers money... Correct!!!

example # 2: There is a guy who is living out of his expedition and is "homeless". The city and county has offered to give him a rent free apartment and pay all of his bills. He said no he doesn't want it because it will cut into his welfare check and that will take away the money he uses to buy cigarettes and lotto tickets. Same guy was in front of me in line at a gas station check out. He was buying lotto tickets and cigarettes. When all of a sudden a lady came up and tapped him on the shoulder and said... I gave you $20 to buy gas and food not lotto tickets or cigarettes. He replied... it is my money now i can do whatever the F-bomb i want with it now. Again this guy is panhandling for money saying he needs gas money to get to CA. He has a blue tooth head set, an expedition, a generator on the back so he can run electronics in his car. This guy also when it gets cold in the winter calls into 911 saying he is having chest pains so he gets a couple nights stay at a hospital and in the summer when it is too hot....does the same so he can get into A/C.

So as you can see these two example are why I am bitter towards "welfare" programs and think they need to be adjusted to weed out people like this or give them motivation that they won't get a "free ride" with out putting in effort to not drain society.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gooseguy10 said:


> Your last paragraph about sex education has all sorts of potential flawed logic. You blame the schools teaching safe sex at an early age for increasing sexual activity. You leave out many other factors such as lack of stable homes, both parents working, television, increase availability of social media/internet......I agree many factors are left out. I also agree on the factors you listed. However, the schools started teaching sex ed at an early age when on TV they were still sleeping in separate beds on the Marry Tyler Moor show. My wife and I often compare todays TV to those old shows. Schools were first however. Teaching made them far more aware than when we (people my age) were kids.
> 
> If you think about it, it really is the chicken and the egg type deal. I believe the schools are reacting to the increase in numbers of early sexual activity, rather than causing it. This I don't agree with. I think the schools led the charge into the kids exposure.
> 
> Also, conservatives want it both ways........no sex ed for kids due to moral reasons but also, no to social welfare programs. One of the biggest factors in determining poverty is if you have a child out of wedlock. In short, safer sexual practices = less children being born out of wedlock = less need for social welfare programs.


Your not speaking for this conservative. However I do have mixed feelings. If women knew they would get no help many could keep their knees together. Some unfortunately look at kids out of wedlock as a financial windfall. Free kid care, free college, welfare checks etc. I know that is going on. Unfortunately some of those most innocent who get carried away one time are unlucky enough to get pregnant because they are unprepared. I do feel sorry for those. We had a neighbor girl who had five abortions. The last one doctors told her it would be unlikely that she could have children if she had another abortion. I don't know why. It doesn't make sense to me, but that's what her father said.

Edit:I might add that I think welfare has invited husbands out of the home. What I mean is that welfare is more financially lucrative than a husband making $15 an hour. Consider the expense to live for the husband, the wife, and lets say three children. There will no longer be a living expense for the husband and the government will pay the wife and pay for each of the three children. They will also pay childcare, pay education expenses, housing allowance, and food stamps. If the wife loves a nice house and money more than the husband she will throw him out. Every court in the land will give her the house, the car, and make him pay alimony on top of government welfare. It's about the biggest scam going on right now. It's also why the birthrate for unwed mothers is through the roof. If memory serves me it's 70% in the black community.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

question?

who do we trust with our children on a daily basis (5 days a week)? no mandatory or random drug testing for them. isn't that something to ponder also?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

6162rk said:


> question?
> 
> who do we trust with our children on a daily basis (5 days a week)? no mandatory or random drug testing for them. isn't that something to ponder also?


No kidding. Our grandson was whinny when he came home one day. My son and his wife took him to the doctor. He had a broken leg. The day care people had no idea how it could have happened. It probably happened when they were watching Oprah. If I could have convinced people social services would have been involved. Of course maybe they are only interested in kids who skin their knee at home.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> question?
> 
> who do we trust with our children on a daily basis (5 days a week)? no mandatory or random drug testing for them. isn't that something to ponder also?


Very true. But they are also licensed in most states and do have spot checks by the state to make sure they are doing things right. But sad thing is these spot checks are announced. Also with most things dealing with licensing... if you get caught with a felony you are unable to ever get licensed. But again it is a flawed system and you are 100% correct. But we can go on and on about safety or public safety and drug tests....ie licensed drivers.

But this topic was about people who are receiving welfare!! People receiving our hard earned $$$ (for those of us who pay taxes). So WE are giving them their checks.....not the government. The government is just the delivery boy. Because it is our money!!!


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Chuck Smith said:


> Here is a little monkey wrench thrown into this topic....
> 
> Lets say that drug testing is mandatory for people collecting welfare.... What do you do in Colorado?? Do you still cut off benefits for people who tested positive for marijuana???
> 
> ...


Smoking pot is a luxury item. If you can afford that, you can afford food, shelter, and you have the time to be at a job.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

6162rk said:


> question?
> 
> who do we trust with our children on a daily basis (5 days a week)? no mandatory or random drug testing for them. isn't that something to ponder also?


And to think, those teachers are receiving money from the government! Drug test them all. Right BL.

Public school teachers in MN are required to be licensed through the state. That happens every 5 years. If a felony is on your record, you might have an issue at re-license time (but not guaranteed!!!). As far as spot drug tests...never heard of one (in MN) and if they are the would have to be announced ahead of time (unions to thank for that one).

For argument sake, should we regulate what type of trucks farmers drive who receive government subsidies....if they can afford to drive a luxury truck that is worth $30-50 K, should they be eligible for government pay outs for crops? What about the college kid that goes to Spring Break in Mexico....more luxury behavior while receiving our hard earned money. See the slippery slope here.

And BL. If you go to a public university, the state pays roughly half of your tuition....and gives you a huge break on your interest rate of your student loans on the half that you do pay. In other words, the government gives you money!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> and gives you a huge break on your interest rate of your student loans on the half that you do pay. In other words, the government gives you money!


What??? Is it that way in North Dakota now? I paid it all back, and I paid 7% interest. It took me ten years to pay it back. I didn't own a rifle to hunt deer with the first 20 years that I was married, and we went to a movie maybe once a year. Restaurants maybe once a month. Spring break in Mexico???? Wow we are a spoiled nation. Anytime we had a break it was a chance to work and make some money. So your telling me I paid for my own education and now I am paying for an education for students who can afford to go to Mexico for a break? That's no pride and spoiled beyond belief. Little pr*&^%s. Now it' becoming clear how Obama got into office. Freeloaders vote.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

I went to college about 15 years ago and grad school about 5 years ago. My student loan interest is around 3% through the government and a private loan consolidation company (which is a huge mistake....if anyone on here is just getting out of college.....don't do it!). I know things have changed slightly but there is no way student loan rates have evened out to the average bank loan you or I could get today (for anything besides a house). I would guess student loans subsidized through Uncle Sam are about 50 to 60% the going rate in the private sector.

I have no idea how old you are (nor is it any of my business) but from reading over the years I have gathered that you are of retirement age...which puts you in college in the 1970's. (a guess) At that time, your 7% student loan rate looked like a dream compared to the 12-15% interest on home loans. So that is about 50-60% of the going private sector rate.....just like today.

Similar to your plan of repayment, everyone I know had to pay back their loans in full. Typical repayment periods for undergrad student loans is 10 years. (unless you make the mistake and consolidate through a private company....see minor rant above as reference). Some exceptions would be some loan forgiveness for teaching certain subjects, in certain types of schools.....under those type circumstances, some loan forgiveness happens.

And yes, by enlarge we have become a nation full of people that are very complacent and don't want to sacrifice anything to get what they want.

Also, I didn't go to Mexico on spring break....I went to California!


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Gooseguy10 said:


> 6162rk said:
> 
> 
> > question?
> ...


Seriously how can you jump from people getting welfare and drugs tests to regulating what type of vehicles a farmer drives? Do you really hate farmers that much?

So the state pays half of my tuition and the other half I pay up front. I would gladly take a drug test anytime to maintain me staying in college.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

i am glad some of you got my point. i am required to submit to mandatory random drug testing at work. i don't have a problem with that. some picked up on the daycare, some picked up on the educators (protected by the union), a couple more would be health care workers, law enforcement (oh yeah protected by the union). not even to mention doctors. my point is i don't disagree with testing those receiving public assistance but let's also mandatory random test these people in positions of our education, health and safety.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gooseguy10 your close. I went to college in the mid to late 1960's and retired seven years ago. I barrowed my money through the State Bank of North Dakota, and I think at that time 7% was about the going rate for a loan. Because I am not extreme right some tell me I grew up in the age of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. That may have been true in California, but not North Dakota. In North Dakota we still supported the Viet Nam vets when it wasn't cool and California spit on them. Good old Jane Fonda was just an average Californicator.

I read some medical things once in a while. They say the strength of the average male today is far below our ancestors. When compared to just the 1960's sperm count in males is down 60%. I can't help but ask myself is this chemical or lazy. I also can't help but ask does this have anything to do with what appears to me as in increase in gay men? I thought my parents and other people were really old when they talked about the good old days. I don't want to walk to an outhouse to go to the bathroom, but I would be happy if society gave up some things. I think those statements just turned my last brown hair grey.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

blhunter3 said:


> Gooseguy10 said:
> 
> 
> > 6162rk said:
> ...


BL. You're missing the point entirely.....on many levels here. 1. My overall point is that you can't lump all people into one broad category of "anyone who gets money from the gov....." A lot of people "get money" from the government...including you. You just don't call it "welfare" so you judge it differently. 2. As far as the link from welfare to farmers..... You made the argument that anyone who can afford a luxury item (drugs) should be able to pay for food, shelter etc. without government assistance. Isn't an expensive truck a luxury item? If you can afford an expensive truck, you should be able to pay for food, shelter etc without government assistance. Again, you can't apply one set of standards to one group, while not to another group when you say all people receiving money from the government should be drug tested.

Finally, for a group of people that hold onto their 2nd amendment rights so dearly/passionately, you sure are quick to give your 4th amendment rights pretty easily! Two questions fro you....Are you advocating drug testing to everyone to eliminate a few bad apples? If so, answer this question......are you advocating background checks on all gun owners in order to eliminate a few bad apples? Same principle, same bill of rights, but I bet there would be different answers to those two questions by many on here.

Also, I used farmers as an example b.c you farm. I have many friends that are farmers.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Goose...

Here is my issue or where you are muddying the waters.

So let me ask you this.... How are Farmers, Educators, Day Care Providers, Policemen, Etc. that you are saying recieveing government assistance (or pay checks) different from someone on jobless benefits welfare or the welfare that is discussed in the article i first posted??? Answer: THEY ALL HAVE JOBS!!!! They are being productive to society and many of them pay in some form of taxes!! That is the difference.

Now you keep bring up college students and state schools. Don't college students repay the loan??? YES! Do people on welfare pay back what they took???? NO! So again a big difference.

I understand what you are saying about it is a slippery slope. Because where do you stop with the drug testing. But again Pvt industry does it. Look at the NFL, NBA, MLB.... and I am not talking performance enhancing issues.... I am talking about weed! The union made it so you can't say what they are getting suspended for but it always leaks out. But also in college if you played a sport you got drug tested. I did and that was for baseball.

You are also correct that most drug tests are announced well in advance. Yet people still get caught. Because you can say that you will drug test some time with in 30 days. Yet many of the tests now can detect traces of drugs. So unless you do an expensive "cleanse" people will still get caught. Anyway this is way off topic but is out there.

Also FYI: in MN if you are licensed by the state and when you go for license renewal or to apply for a license (new: teachers, realtors, insurance salesmen, appraisers, etc.) and a felony shows up... your license isn't renewed or issued! I know because i hold 4 different licenses with the department of commerce and they talk about it at almost every continuing education class i go to. Also if you read the paper work on your renewal license it is written in there (on all of my renewals).


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

I agree with a lot of what you said. There is differences between SOME welfare recipients and educators, teachers etc. However, many use sweeping generalizations to lump groups of people into groups. In this case, BL said all people who get money from the government should be drug tested. I was simply pointing out that many of us "get money from the government" yet it doesn't have the stigma that "welfare" does.

So we should drug test for "non legitimate" groups who get money from the government. Who decides what is legitimate vs non legitimate? Food stamps? Social security benefits for widows? Free and reduced lunches for kids? Housing vouchers for low income? Heating assistance for low income? Daycare subsidies for low income? W.I.C? What groups do we focus on?

I also wonder how much all this drug testing will cost vs. what it would really accomplish? Do we do it just to make us feel better to say we are getting tough on free loaders? I also wonder by cutting these programs based on what a parent who abuses drugs does to the children who depend on those benefits to survive. The child has no affect on this but suffers huge....I see situations like this on a daily basis.

Going back to my argument I compared luxury items (pot and trucks).....that argument fails because pot is illegal (for the most part in 48 states) and owning a truck is not.

Also, college students only pay roughly half of what it actually costs for a public college education. The rest is paid for by the taxpayers. So yes you and I paid back our half that we owed, the other half of the cost was covered by Uncle Sam. That is why many private colleges are significantly more than public schools.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I also wonder how much all this drug testing will cost vs. what it would really accomplish? Do we do it just to make us feel better to say we are getting tough on free loaders? I also wonder by cutting these programs based on what a parent who abuses drugs does to the children who depend on those benefits to survive. The child has no affect on this but suffers huge....I see situations like this on a daily basis.


I agree with this as well. Need to weigh the cost vs accomplishment. But yet it could also make people become more responsible. Because that is what is missing in today's society. People want to always push the blame on others and our programs are set up so that they can keep doing this and be rewarded!! That is my huge issue.

Also with the children. You would have to set up safety nets or measures in place....ie foster care type things. Which again you have to weigh costs.



> Going back to my argument I compared luxury items (pot and trucks).....that argument fails because pot is illegal (for the most part in 48 states) and owning a truck is not.


My "luxury" argument was about how people are using government assistant checks for booze, chetto's, steak, etc. Our system lets them do these things. All because of "fair" or what is "fair and equal". Assistant programs are supposed to be there to help people in time of need. Not make their level of living even par with everyone else. It is supposed to help people get out until they can get out of that rut themselves. yet people are not doing they....they just what the check or free and do nothing!!! That is the issue. So like all things and programs need to be tweaked to keep up with changes.

With Pot... lets look at CO... if drug testing becomes mandatory to receive benefits.... do you include pot as a substance you "cut off" the payments too or not??? My answer is YES. Just like i think Alcohol should be included in the testing. Because those are "luxury" items. Just like prime rib. That is my point.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

My computer screwed up so couldn't post the past while.
From reading the above posts, I think the bottom line is the clamor to have a better gatekeeper to the welfare system. I doubt anyone is against this principle, but whether drug testing would help and it's administration might cost more than its worth is questionable. And as many pointed out, if you go after one group of govt. Subsidy users, you'd be opening up a huge can of worms for the majority of the population. 
For example, a friend of mine told me she had looked up some kind of farm subsidy thing, and surprisingly she said the number two recipient of farm subsidy payments in ND was Dalrymple Farms in the Red River Valley.. ( disclaimer- this is what attorneys would call " hearsay" and I have no clue what farm subsidy payments are included, etc.) but the point is that there are so many people of all shapes and sizes and descriptions receiving govt payments in one form or another that where do you start and where do you end!?! Checking welfare people with drug tests is only the tip of a huge iceberg. 
Better gatekeeper to the entire govt. subsidy system? A resounding YES from me, But I have no clue how to do it.

Back to the original question - you open up a huge can of worms- so Chuck, if you find a single mother of five who tests positive, then what are you going to do with those kids and deal with the situation? Let Em starve? Take Em away, then where to put them, how long, and the problems escalate from there. Have the mom rehabbed before she gets her kids back? Who pays for it? What about relapses that a rebound to occur? Then what? I just developed a horrible headache thinking about it! Be careful what you wish for........


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> For example, a friend of mine told me she had looked up some kind of farm subsidy thing, and surprisingly she said the number two recipient of farm subsidy payments in ND was Dalrymple Farms in the Red River Valley..


Farmers and drugs, ya that explains the guy I argue with on fishingbuddy. Test them all. :wink:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Back to the original question - you open up a huge can of worms- so Chuck, if you find a single mother of five who tests positive, then what are you going to do with those kids and deal with the situation? Let Em starve? Take Em away, then where to put them, how long, and the problems escalate from there. Have the mom rehabbed before she gets her kids back? Who pays for it? What about relapses that a rebound to occur? Then what? I just developed a horrible headache thinking about it! Be careful what you wish for........


To me this is a simple answer.... FOSTER CARE. Yes this will cost tax payers....but the same amount it already was minus one less....the user. Then the mother would either need to figure stuff out to get the kids or they are cut off.

Think about all the story's you read and hear about where mothers keep having kids so they can "reach and income" level from welfare. The term... WELFARE BABY comes to mind. So this could put a stop to this.

Welfare is meant to help people make ends meet when they are on down times. But now people think of welfare as a way of life. That is the huge issue i have right now.


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

If you get free public assistance, you should forfeit your right to vote until you repay the loan.

Otherwise, allowing welfare recipients to vote for who ever promises to give them the most free stuff is akin to allowing a student to grade themselves...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Sasha and Abby said:


> If you get free public assistance, you should forfeit your right to vote until you repay the loan.
> 
> Otherwise, allowing welfare recipients to vote for who ever promises to give them the most free stuff is akin to allowing a student to grade themselves...


Your absolutely right. I also think Chuck is right. It may cost some to pay for foster care, but it's cheaper than paying a mother for 18 years for each kid. There is a whole culture of have kids get welfare. Take away the incentive. Much like the problem with illegal aliens. Cut off the money.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Foster care of some kind might or might nor work. I dunno if it would work socially or be even remotely cost effective.
I loved Newt Gingrich's ideas on the single parent welfare mother, that there should be some kind of supervised public housing available for single parents on assistance. With good security, etc. The adults would go to work each day like Normal people, earn a decent salary, some of the mothers would stay home and look after the kids, give them a real bath a day, three square meals a day, pitch in under supervision by certified teachers to teach the kids the three R's, how to give these kids a little intellectual stimulation that they don't get now, etc. would not be compulsory to adults, only if they wanted to continue benefits . adults would have a choice of working or going to some kind of govt subsidized schooling so they could ultimately learn skills to allow them do it on their own. All would pitch in at home with cooking, laundry, clean up, community service, etc. intermittent unscheduled drug testing, drug treatment if needed, psychological and career counseling,etc. Most importantly, there would be no live in partners, though friggin in the riggin would be hard to control. If the conservatives allowed it, there could be encouragement and supply in the proper use and advantages of birth control methods, etc. 
That last one could be tough to get through the Bible belters, BUT it has been clearly shown in study after study that if you look at new single parents on welfare and carefully following them for two to three years, IF they do not get pregnant in the next two years, they do pretty well. If they stay un pregnant, most go on to responsible education or training,etc. however, if they get pregnant, once they have TWO kids, they rarely get off welfare and almost never become self sufficient, rarely get married.

So the bottom line IMHO Newt and I both stress 1) keeping them un pregnant. 2) give them an " out" with subsidized housing and EDUCATION, TRAINING, ADDICTION and PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT, CAREER COUNSELLING , and " look after their kids ....hopefully ...kid....while this is all going on!
BUT, even attempting something like this would be a horrendous social experiment and expensive proposition, and would create a whole new branch of govt services, arguably dumping some of the old services that don't work. It wouldn't be a Cinderella Story with all of Em, for sure, but it would be better ( and more expensive) than what we are doing now, which is pretty much zilch. Simply cutting off welfare on a dug test IMO would be dooming the kids and unborn babies and definitely result in a worse overall situation. I'm not against trying the cutting off welfare for positive drug tests as an experiment with a sunset clause if it was found to not work, but trying to encourage people to think outside the box! 
But when Newt suggested this some years back he was castigated by the left, AND as strongly from the right. His own party stalwarts charged that he was trying to " bring back the orphanages," suggestions like this have been blocked many times! 
Goes to show you can't win and nothing will ever change, except for the worse! 
Could we afford it? Excellent question. Eventually might be cost effective but would be an expensive experiment if it didn't! Would definitely cost way more to implement it at first!


----------

