Drug tests for welfare recipients?

[Guest adamoxtwo]

No.

Did you read what I said?

Yes I did read what you said and I think you are talking like a cop searching a car. Probable cause does not come into play when you are asking someone to prove they are not breaking a law in order to get government assistance. So I ask you why is it wrong then? Are they not taking government money without contributing? And if the drugs they were taking were legal it wouldn't be a problem. If they are smoking pot or whatever they are breaking the law and why should the government contribute to them breaking the law?

I think that if you want to collect unemployment money you should have to contribute to society. Asking the pee in a cup to test for drug use is never a bad thing when they are taking from a pot that is empty. I have a brother in law who is a drain on society and continually uses his welfare money to buy drugs and alcohol. He doesn't go a look for a job because he will loose his state assistance and will be forced to take a drug test (well for a decent job anyways). You can man that with people receiving welfare as a temporary service. and give the less fortunate or down on their luck people with a chance to have a little dignity and let them work for their paycheck.

[DaveTN]

Yes I did read what you said and I think you are talking like a cop searching a car. Probable cause does not come into play when you are asking someone to prove they are not breaking a law in order to get government assistance. So I ask you why is it wrong then? Are they not taking government money without contributing? And if the drugs they were taking were legal it wouldn't be a problem. If they are smoking pot or whatever they are breaking the law and why should the government contribute to them breaking the law?

I think that if you want to collect unemployment money you should have to contribute to society. Asking the pee in a cup to test for drug use is never a bad thing when they are taking from a pot that is empty. I have a brother in law who is a drain on society and continually uses his welfare money to buy drugs and alcohol. He doesn't go a look for a job because he will loose his state assistance and will be forced to take a drug test (well for a decent job anyways). You can man that with people receiving welfare as a temporary service. and give the less fortunate or down on their luck people with a chance to have a little dignity and let them work for their paycheck.

They won’t be asking anything; they will be telling. It’s called duress. If you refuse the test you don’t get money for you or your kids to eat. If you give me permission to search your car I won’t arrest you for DUI. That’s illegal; how’s it any different.

I don’t care if they drug test welfare recipients and I don’t care if they come up with some plan to make them work. I’m just pointing out something that most of you would be screaming from the rooftops about if it wasn’t being done to poor people that have no ability to hire quality legal representation.

Not only are they going to violate their rights; but they are going to make them pay for it. You can’t seriously believe this will get through the courts?

It’s being done by politicians that think they will get your vote because you see this as something positive.

What’s next drug testing for Social Security recipients? Or how about this for those of you that are making the argument that welfare is not a right…. Driving is not a right; it is a privilege. Therefore we have decided that the 4th amendment does not apply to vehicles being operated on state and federal roads. You can have a driver’s license, but you will have to sign a paper giving the government the freedom to stop and search your vehicle at random. Because after all…. Drugs and drunk drivers are a huge cost to tax payers.

Probable cause does not come into play when you are asking someone to prove they are not breaking a law in order to get government assistance.

Really??

What about this….

Probable cause does not come into play when you are asking someone to prove they are not breaking a law.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

I am pretty sure that it will be a good long while, if ever before the first drop ever hits the first cup. Someone will have this before the courts within weeks if not days and it may well end up at SCOTUS before it is decided.

Personally I dont really know what to think about it. It has always been said that if it seems too good to be true that it probably isnt, this idea seems to fall right in line with that logic.

On the surface it may seem like a good idea to some including myself but I also see it as being unconstitutional so I find it hard to support. It seems that everyday we tear away another piece of the document that built and made this country strong.

People living in the "projects" are supposed to be poor but any drive through them and one will find some of the most expensive vehicles on the market parked there. Some of them decked out with a set of rims or a stereo system that cost more than some cars that I have owned. Those folks can not be legally affording these things and still be legally receiving the Govt. help.

So on one hand we know that a lot of drug activity goes on in the projects and testing those folks so that we can get them out of there and off of the free ride seems at first like a good idea.

But then where will they go?....Most likely to all that they know which will be out to commit even more crime to support their habits and get a roof over their heads.

Another thing is the idea of making the people pay to be tested, while the whole idea may clean up the neighborhoods and make them safer for those elderly and deserving of the Govt. help how are those people going to find the money to pay for this when some of them are barely keeping food on their plates as it is? I cant say it for certain but I would like to believe that there are still some who use the welfare programs as they were intended to be used and move on to a better life for themselves after a period of help. Paying for these tests is just another burden on them due to the actions of others.

And then what happens to the kids involved if their parents test positive and are kicked out? Do we automatically put them into the state system, which in turn transfers more cost to the state to take care of these kids?

There is a lot of talk these days about redistributing the wealth, yet in a situation like that all we have done is shift the cost of taking care of these kids. If the Govt. is going to go all Super Nanny then could they justify leaving the kids in the care of the drug users?

So which is worse, leaving the users alone and with their kids or kicking them to the street and either letting the innocent kids suffer because of it or taking the kids into state custody so that the tax payers can pay for them another way?

I swear I really dont know the answer to that.

I wont even begin to address the issue of the whole War on Drugs thing which has cost us billions and is failing, this idea just seems another front in that war with far more questions than answers so far.

Of course then we still have the issue of all the non welfare recipients, hard working honest good people who are required to be drug tested every day.

Along with all the private companies that require drug testing we have our military personnel. Those folks volunteer to risk their lives for this country but they are still randomly tested. Again it seems that if it is good enough for our military volunteers then it should be good enough for someone asking for Govt. help.

And again I can see the benefit of the testing, but I also still dont see how it passes constitutional muster. It is no longer innocent until proven guilty, it has now become simply prove your innocence. Where and when do we draw the line?

I am baffled by this one and the only thing I do know for sure is that I dont have a clue as to what is the RIGHT thing to do.

This has been an interesting thread and will certainly be an interesting case to keep watch on. I sure dont know what to think as I am torn both ways and I do expect we will be watching this one for a good while.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

They won’t be asking anything; they will be telling.

It's call metting the criteria to receive AID.

If welfare was a constitutional right I could see your point, but it is not. There is not one American entitled to receive government assistance by in accordance to the constitution. No rights are being violated. This is no differrence from them having to pass a drug test then a State or Federal Worker. They can choose not to get a pay check and sit at home and do drugs. And the people asking for AID have the same choice.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

I agree with a lot of what you said. Yes the children will suffer the most out of this and it's a shame, but at what point do the parents have to be held accountable? At what point do these children learn that if you do drugs and break the law the givernment won't stand by and support your habits. With the money we save you can reinvest that into Rehab centers and better social programs designed to assist people. I look at this as more of a positive thing then negative because of what it teaches the youth. Sometimes you need to punish people in order for the message to sink in. There are places children can go and programs that exist already.

On the surface it may seem like a good idea to some including myself but I also see it as being unconstitutional so I find it hard to support. It seems that everyday we tear away another piece of the document that built and made this country strong. It is not a constitutional right to receive AID from the government.

I wont even begin to address the issue of the whole War on Drugs thing which has cost us billions and is failing, this idea just seems another front in that war with far more questions than answers so far. This is just another way to combat this. Not the perfect way and there will be ways around it, but another layer none the less.

And again I can see the benefit of the testing, but I also still dont see how it passes constitutional muster. It is no longer innocent until proven guilty, it has now become simply prove your innocence. Where and when do we draw the line? If we look at this as more of meeting the criteria to qualify for AID rather then proving your innocence I think I could have worded that a little better.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It's call metting the criteria to receive AID.

If welfare was a constitutional right I could see your point, but it is not. There is not one American entitled to receive government assistance by in accordance to the constitution. No rights are being violated. This is no differrence from them having to pass a drug test then a State or Federal Worker. They can choose not to get a pay check and sit at home and do drugs. And the people asking for AID have the same choice.

Do employees usually have to pay for their own P tests?

Dunno about constitutional issues. Some things which I consider unconstitutional the supreme court is fine with, and vice-versa. Their opinion is the one that counts.

I could go both ways on it, but the test is demeaning of people already on the bottom.

Some folks on the bottom got there by unwise life choices.

Others on the bottom are just the least-competitive among us. In a competitive society, then SOMEBODY has to end up on the bottom of the stack even if everybody is competing at 100 percent. In a foot race, some guy is always last across the finish line regardless of how hard that last dude is trying.

That is in normal circumstances with unemployment around 5 percent. When unemployment is within the lower normal bounds, about the only people unemployed are the truly unemployable. Some are simply not smart enough or disabled or mentally ill. Some have unemployable personality charactistics. Then there are the lazy loser screw-ups that inevitably end up down at the bottom.

But the current situation when you play the game of employment musical chairs and pull 8.5 million chairs out of the game-- The slowest players end up without a seat regardless of whether they use drugs. Even the excellent fast players can get stuck without a seat. Maybe there is no such thing as luck, but random chance and Murphy's law are definitely real.

It is not the time to kick em while they are down.

On the other hand, if po folk receiving gov benefits deserve a P test, then I'm fine with it if middle class and rich folk receiving gov benefits also have to take the P test.

The argument is the same as with the po folks-- If you don't want to take the P test, then don't claim the benefit. If you don't want the P test, then don't claim the home mortgage interest deduction. If you don't want to take the P test then don't run for president. If you don't want to take the P test then don't be a Federal judge. If you don't want to take the P test then don't try to sell planes or weapons to the military.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Do employees usually have to pay for their own P tests?

Dunno about constitutional issues. Some things which I consider unconstitutional the supreme court is fine with, and vice-versa. Their opinion is the one that counts.

I could go both ways on it, but the test is demeaning of people already on the bottom.

Some folks on the bottom got there by unwise life choices.

Others on the bottom are just the least-competitive among us. In a competitive society, then SOMEBODY has to end up on the bottom of the stack even if everybody is competing at 100 percent. In a foot race, some guy is always last across the finish line regardless of how hard that last dude is trying.

That is in normal circumstances with unemployment around 5 percent. When unemployment is within the lower normal bounds, about the only people unemployed are the truly unemployable. Some are simply not smart enough or disabled or mentally ill. Some have unemployable personality charactistics. Then there are the lazy loser screw-ups that inevitably end up down at the bottom.

But the current situation when you play the game of employment musical chairs and pull 8.5 million chairs out of the game-- The slowest players end up without a seat regardless of whether they use drugs. Even the excellent fast players can get stuck without a seat. Maybe there is no such thing as luck, but random chance and Murphy's law are definitely real.

It is not the time to kick em while they are down.

On the other hand, if po folk receiving gov benefits deserve a P test, then I'm fine with it if middle class and rich folk receiving gov benefits also have to take the P test.

The argument is the same as with the po folks-- If you don't want to take the P test, then don't claim the benefit. If you don't want the P test, then don't claim the home mortgage interest deduction. If you don't want to take the P test then don't run for president. If you don't want to take the P test then don't be a Federal judge. If you don't want to take the P test then don't try to sell planes or weapons to the military.

I don't think that they should pay for their own P Test but I think it's an oppurtunity for people on the welfare system to gain employment by giving the tests and shipping them to labs. I'm sure there are some people qualified to administer the test getting benifits.

It's not a perfect system either way, and most people getting aid will not have an issue with it. I don't consider it kicking people when they are down I consider it making people do the right thing for their "Free Money".

As for Tax deductions they are not giving people money they are taking less of their taxes. I disagree with that as well I support a flat tax on compensation but I am willing to Pee in a cup to get a tax break hell yeah in a second. and if they vote on that I'll go along with it because if they are rewarding people for not breaking the law I don't see how that's not a bad thing, but that is a completely different subject.

I'm not saying that I am Right and anyone else is wrong in refference to the newly passed law. I'm just stating that welfare is not governed by the constitution and does not violate expectation of Privacy any more then people who work for the givernment weather it be military or non military. Welfare is a Voluntary program the people are not forces to participate in and if people want it they should be willing to meet the criteria. Will some find loopholes? Sure they will, but that's the way it goes. The real question is will our COUNTRY benifit from it. If the answer is no than I'm fine with that.

[Glock30]

Another :

Tennessee (and most Southern states too) is a right-to-work state. You can be fired for any reason. You can quit for any reason. No explanation necessary. Tennessee allows employers to drug test at will, and if you fail your test, it is used as a reason to deny unemployment benefits. Why, you ask? The government isn't going to require a private employer to fund a plague that has infested this country, so why should it turn around and fund that same bad habit in the employer's place? It isn't, thus the unemployment benefit laws being written the way they are. I believe that the same logic and thesis should apply to all government benefits. Those funds are supposed to support basic human needs - food, water, housing, etc. - and if the beneficiary is frugal and thoughtful enough, they can have enjoyment with what's left.

What many people have failed to recall is that unemployment benefits are supposed to help fill the gap between stints of gainful employment. The current economy is dually noted - this is why the unemployment benefits keep being extended. What unemployment benefits were not supposed to do was finance the old lifestyle on the newer, smaller income level. When the harvest is smaller, you're supposed to tighten the belt and do without the nice extras that we Americans think we're entitled to. Social Security wasn't designed to be a retirement plan. It was designed to be a supplement to your retirement income/savings. By the way, the Social Security Trust Fund does not pay out current benefits. It represents the SURPLUS of taxes over and above paid benefits since the first check was issued in 1940.

That all being said, I think Florida is doing a good thing to do testing. My only difference with them is that the folks being tested shouldn't be paying for tests.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It is wealth redistribution any time my dollar goes somewhere else, being forced by a government,

to benefit someone else. Period. if a welfare type program is so good then why aren't those people

contributing to it, also? Welfare is slavery. It only aids in dependency on another when that person

could be out being productive in society by having a job.

"But, it's for the children". Uh huh. Whose children? Are they mine, now? Did I adopt them, too?

If some other parents had them, why do I have to pay for their everything? Those parents weren't

responsible, or they were plain old freeloaders. That's not my problem. It's theirs. Those people have

grow up. I don't have a problem with the drug testing, but I don't see the "need" for the welfare

type programs. They are programs that stifle productivity while making a few altruists happy. Even if

it cost a generation of welfare recipients, society would be closer to a just one in the end.

I am not my brother's keeper. A "welfare entitlement" is an oxymoron, or some such word.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It is wealth redistribution any time my dollar goes somewhere else, being forced by a government,

to benefit someone else. Period. if a welfare type program is so good then why aren't those people

contributing to it, also? Welfare is slavery. It only aids in dependency on another when that person

could be out being productive in society by having a job.

"But, it's for the children". Uh huh. Whose children? Are they mine, now? Did I adopt them, too?

If some other parents had them, why do I have to pay for their everything? Those parents weren't

responsible, or they were plain old freeloaders. That's not my problem. It's theirs. Those people have

grow up. I don't have a problem with the drug testing, but I don't see the "need" for the welfare

type programs. They are programs that stifle productivity while making a few altruists happy. Even if

it cost a generation of welfare recipients, society would be closer to a just one in the end.

I am not my brother's keeper. A "welfare entitlement" is an oxymoron, or some such word.

Hi 6.8 AR

There are lazy folk on welfare. Some are just naturally that-a-way and some were raised that way. Theoretically it would be something which education or counseling could cure, but from my experience that seems doubtful.

I did various social work many years ago but quit because the job doesn't pay good and is incredibly depressing.

There ARE a lot of folks who are truly incapable of making it without various assistance. It isn't a matter of being lazy or immoral. The population represents a bell curve of capabilities, and the folk down on the lower end of the bell curve just can't make it without help.

Standard deviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because of the nature of the gaussian distribution, it gets very serious about two standard deviations below the middle peak. Folk below one standard deviation often function pretty well, but are more likely to run into difficulties and need occasional help.

The gaussian distribution tends to model many kinds of measurements on large numbers of individuals. You can expect about 2.3 percent of the population to fall below two standard deviations and about 15.9 percent to reside below 1 standard deviation.

On IQ, I can about guarantee you that 2.1 percent of the population is simply not smart enough to make their own independent way in the world. And quite a few between 1 and 2 standard deviations may make it on their own, but are likely to need occasional assistance.

Given the USA population of 300 million, that means we have somewhere in the ballpark of 6.9 million people that are not smart enough to make it, and up to 48 million who will need occasional assistance.

There are various ways to deal with this. You can say that family should take care of their own, and sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. You can say that it is none of the gov's biz and only churches or private charities should handle it. Or one could take a darwinist approach and just let em starve if their family won't do the right thing.

I'm not saying what is the best way to deal with it, but that is a whole lot of people regardless of how you want to handle it.

Then there is another bell curve on sanity-- A few percentage of people are smart enough to take care of themselves but they are too crazy to take care of themselves.

Then there is the bell curve on health and disability-- A few percentage of people are smart enough and sane enough, but too sick or busted up.

Then there is the bell curve on personality. This one is difficult to explain but I'm sure you have met em-- Some folk seem to have enough sense and they are not criminals or lazy or crazy, but they just keep getting fired off jobs because they are just to dang weird and apparently have no control over it.

Those various bell curves overlap to some extent, so the numbers are not additive. For instance it is common for severely mentally disabled people to also be physically disabled.

I don't advocate rewarding lazy folk or criminals. But even if we can weed out every individual who does not need assistance and ought to either work or starve-- Even after you eliminate the malingerers, criminals and bums, there are millions who need some kind of assistance. Either that or just let em starve on the streets. I don't have any bright ideas about the best way to deal with it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hi 6.8 AR

There are lazy folk on welfare. Some are just naturally that-a-way and some were raised that way. Theoretically it would be something which education or counseling could cure, but from my experience that seems doubtful.

I did various social work many years ago but quit because the job doesn't pay good and is incredibly depressing.

There ARE a lot of folks who are truly incapable of making it without various assistance. It isn't a matter of being lazy or immoral. The population represents a bell curve of capabilities, and the folk down on the lower end of the bell curve just can't make it without help.

Standard deviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because of the nature of the gaussian distribution, it gets very serious about two standard deviations below the middle peak. Folk below one standard deviation often function pretty well, but are more likely to run into difficulties and need occasional help.

The gaussian distribution tends to model many kinds of measurements on large numbers of individuals. You can expect about 2.3 percent of the population to fall below two standard deviations and about 15.9 percent to reside below 1 standard deviation.

On IQ, I can about guarantee you that 2.1 percent of the population is simply not smart enough to make their own independent way in the world. And quite a few between 1 and 2 standard deviations may make it on their own, but are likely to need occasional assistance.

Given the USA population of 300 million, that means we have somewhere in the ballpark of 6.9 million people that are not smart enough to make it, and up to 48 million who will need occasional assistance.

There are various ways to deal with this. You can say that family should take care of their own, and sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. You can say that it is none of the gov's biz and only churches or private charities should handle it. Or one could take a darwinist approach and just let em starve if their family won't do the right thing.

I'm not saying what is the best way to deal with it, but that is a whole lot of people regardless of how you want to handle it.

Then there is another bell curve on sanity-- A few percentage of people are smart enough to take care of themselves but they are too crazy to take care of themselves.

Then there is the bell curve on health and disability-- A few percentage of people are smart enough and sane enough, but too sick or busted up.

Then there is the bell curve on personality. This one is difficult to explain but I'm sure you have met em-- Some folk seem to have enough sense and they are not criminals or lazy or crazy, but they just keep getting fired off jobs because they are just to dang weird and apparently have no control over it.

Those various bell curves overlap to some extent, so the numbers are not additive. For instance it is common for severely mentally disabled people to also be physically disabled.

I don't advocate rewarding lazy folk or criminals. But even if we can weed out every individual who does not need assistance and ought to either work or starve-- Even after you eliminate the malingerers, criminals and bums, there are millions who need some kind of assistance. Either that or just let em starve on the streets. I don't have any bright ideas about the best way to deal with it.

Lester,

I remember you mentioning a while back about your counseling somewhere back in the threads.

You most undoubtedly have experience on this subject that I don't, and I always enjoy reading

your posts. They are full of insightful information, and i usually learn something from them, like this

one. Honestly, I didn't know any of those percentages. It is interesting to sort through the types,

like that and can be very useful.

The question I have and I think a lot of folks have with any governmental programs that espouse

to help folks in those categories, is what are our responsibilities to these people, and where do we

see any benefit? Are we reducing crime, increasing it? Are the people receiving benefits actually

improving their lives and can they get to a point of self sustaining? I don't have a problem with helping

someone. I just have problems when it is mandated like our system is, and enforced by our famous IRS.

I sure don't have any solutions to issues like those, but I question a system that is broke and mandatory

and useful people are rendered slaves to a meager check from the government. I am more of a compassionate

individual than my posts may sound sometimes, but our system has nothing to do with compassion from

what I understand. I think you and I are in that same boat. I don't know what would work, either.

I agree, there are good people in bad situations. There are those that can't do for themselves. I don't wish

to see them swept under the rug, but there are charitable organizations around. also.

I remember when I was growing up, my parents had a maid who lived in a house that had cardboard stapled

on the walls for insulation. I don't remember how it was heated, but the house was not fit to live in. I

imagine she died alone in that house. I don't know, but she never asked for anything. She was a fiercely

proud old black woman, probably in her seventies or eighties. She would not accept any form of charity. She

walked everywhere. We did give her things for her house and food, usually forcing her to take it as a gift.

That was in the early sixties.

She is the kind of person I would give the shirt off my back to. The trouble is I don't see people like this,

anymore. What has happened to society nowadays? Has welfare actually improved anyone? It wasn't around

back then. Hell, my parents weren't wealthy, except in character.

The problem is someone, a politician somewhere removed from the problem thinks throwing money at something

will fix it. I think it just breaks it down and takes any dignity away from the recipient when they become dependent

on the aid.

I know I probably rambled, sorry.

[Raoul]

Good posts Lester and 6.8.

[bajabuc]

Does anyone here remember the bogus testing lab?...the one that sent every test back positive...including the dog urine? which is how they got caught.

[bajabuc]

It's call metting the criteria to receive AID.

If welfare was a constitutional right I could see your point, but it is not. There is not one American entitled to receive government assistance by in accordance to the constitution. No rights are being violated. This is no differrence from them having to pass a drug test then a State or Federal Worker. They can choose not to get a pay check and sit at home and do drugs. And the people asking for AID have the same choice.

Sit at what home?...the one they lost because they couldn't pay for it?...or the bed at the homeless shelter? If America had kept her industry, kept her mines, kept her fingers out of a religious war...there might be jobs for the people.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Sit at what home?...the one they lost because they couldn't pay for it?...or the bed at the homeless shelter? If America had kept her industry, kept her mines, kept her fingers out of a religious war...there might be jobs for the people.

Yes but that would be their choice. Yes there are things that are out of people's control, but when Americans have then of thousands in credit card debt and owe people money becasue they choose to live outside of their means and then they loose their job who's responsible to support them? and pay their debt? There are people who (and yes not all) chose not to get a job because it is not the job they want. Because if working at McDonald's is the only thing available they will pass and wait for something better to come along. That is a choice.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sit at what home?...the one they lost because they couldn't pay for it?...or the bed at the homeless shelter? If America had kept her industry, kept her mines, kept her fingers out of a religious war...there might be jobs for the people.

You know what? Sometimes life really sucks. You gotta do what you gotta do, though. That means figuring

out what to do and doing it when your situation changes. Been there, done that. Never collected a dime of

support from anyone in my life. Went out on a limb and borrowed money from a relative. Wrote it up, paid

interest and principle back in full. And I was proud as heck to make that last payment.

You can whine all you want about the downtrodden, but all that whining doesn't affect this deluded idiot,

ditto head. You want a dollar? Come ask for it, and have a legitimate reason. It's always someone else's

fault, isn't it?

Who owes anyone anything? Someone who traded someone else something of value and extended credit.

That whiny crap has no value.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

Has welfare actually improved anyone?

Yes from my experience it has. I know a nice lady in WV that at one time was living off of assistance from the state in order to take care of herself and her young daughter. The child was the result of a rape and she had chosen to keep and raise the child anyway. I thought quite a lot of her just because of that.

She was attending Marshall University full time and because of that she could only work part time and needed help just to keep food in the house.

Today she is a lawyer and works for the state of WV. In her case the welfare was the difference in allowing her to obtain the education that she needed in order to succeed in this world.

I know of another individual in FL who at one time was a heavy drug user and alcoholic. He also was getting some help from the state, had this testing been done back then he would have never qualified for any help. Today he owns his own roofing company and is quite successful. He is also a person who "remembers" and after Katrina he sent a crew to NO that was repairing roofs for for free. I dont know just how he picked which ones to do but he kept that crew in NO for about 6 months at his own expense.

So while I do know that it can work, I think back to all the folks that I have known who have at some point received welfare and those are the only two that I know for sure that made the system work the way it was designed. That sure does not mean they are the only ones but just the only ones that I know of for certain.

I found myself homeless at one time and the Huntington City Mission allowed me to have a roof over my head until I could work my way out of the situation. How I ended up that way is a long story but can be shortened well by just saying that I trusted someone who ended up stealing every penny that I had to my name at the time. I spent 6 days without a bite to eat and I still remember the very BEST;) hotdogs that I have ever eaten which I was given by that mission.

I stayed at the homeless mission while working days at a Wendys and nights at a Burger King until I saved enough to get my own apartment, finally found work in construction again and was then able to leave that period of my life behind me. Thankfully all that happened while I was between marriages so I had only myself to worry about.

So while I do know the programs can work the question remains of just how often that they do.

Sadly I think that too many folks allow themselves to remain in these situations because it is much easier than to walk to a job like Wendys or Burger King. Since neither job payed very well it took both of them for me to get back on my feet, and boy did my feet do some walking back then.

But I feel that experience only made me stronger, more appreciative of what things I have now and gave me more understanding of some of the folks that one may find in a place like that. Like Lester said, some were simply not capable of taking care of themselves, many more than I would have ever thought.

There were many times that I wondered if I would ever survive my own situation and I dont think that I would have without the help from that homeless mission. They are now my favorite charity and I try to send them something twice a year and have done so for many years. No matter what the $$ amount I send I dont feel like I can ever pay them back for what they did for me, especially those hotdogs.

And dude, dont ever worry about rambling....I dont think I can be outdone:D

It is not a constitutional right to receive AID from the government.

I can fully agree with that my friend and as I already stated I have no idea of what the proper answer is to this question. Several others in this thread have said the same thing and that sure dont happen often around here.

I guess we will all find out by watching what happens in FL but I still think that it will be in the courts a long time before it is ever enforced.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The question I have and I think a lot of folks have with any governmental programs that espouse

to help folks in those categories, is what are our responsibilities to these people, and where do we

see any benefit? Are we reducing crime, increasing it? Are the people receiving benefits actually

improving their lives and can they get to a point of self sustaining? I don't have a problem with helping

someone. I just have problems when it is mandated like our system is, and enforced by our famous IRS.

Hi 6.8 AR

Disclaimer, I'm no expert and this is ignorant opinion only.

There are many different kinds of gov programs. At different levels of gov-- Fed, state, and local. There is also a dizzying variety of private programs. Perhaps some programs are cost-effective and perhaps some are not.

A lot of "fairly capable" people up close to the middle of the bell curve receive various subsidies which can be quibbled. However the ones most likely to really need help are way down at the tail end of the bell curve. Am not talkin about the stereotypical obese person buying a cart full of steaks with food stamps.

Am talkin about people either incapable or barely capable of simple speech. Who get lost if they wander out of the yard-- Assuming they can walk well enough to get that far. Or burned-out schizophrenics who can't get it together to take a shower, much less tie their own shoes or button their own shirts.

For the folks at the lowest end of the bell curve, it is not a matter of whether our money will substantially benefit society or reduce crime. Unless there are future technological miracles, these folks at best will stay the same and most likely get worse over time. No improvements are to be expected from the money spent. It is simply our choice whether to help them live out their lives under something approaching humane conditions, or to let them starve in filth.

Given the nature of the bell curve, am guestimating we may have in the ballpark of 10 to 20 million folks in that situation. Aint sayin the gov should definitely be involved, but if the gov is gonna help anybody at all, then those would seem the highest priority cases.

Thinking about it, I'm surprised there are so few of the terribly disabled who are totally on the gov dole. Families take care of their own in many cases. When they are capable of it. Sometimes that is impossible because of finances or when it is just too big a job for the family. Many private charities also do great work.

It isn't unknown for a disabled 50-something person to first enter the "system" only when the parents die or get too old to take care of the kid any more.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And I know both you and Sgt Joe are right. The problem with this is those who really could use

and utilize the funds for basic survival and other basic needs aren't the ones receiving it. If most

of the money went to those people, I doubt we would be spending nearly as much, but I could

be wrong, not knowing the true numbers but suspecting them.

I imagine there are many good people on some kind of support that we never hear of. The trouble

is there are plenty of lazy bums and criminals on it, also. We get those off and let them fend for

themselves and I will possibly change my mind, although I doubt it. Being the most charitable

group of people on the planet, there are other ways to deal with the problem.