Discussion on Welfare and other Social Programs

[oxymoron]

Why not just put harsher regulations? Things like drug tests and putting private investigators to watch people like they do for workers comp.

[marurun]

Why not just put harsher regulations? Things like drug tests and putting private investigators to watch people like they do for workers comp.

Well, for one, the fraud rates are low enough that in most areas that would be far more expensive that the money it would save. Further, then all you're doing is leaving a drug addict without any way to get food. If we're going to do drug tests, than we need, in turn, to offer services to help them get off drugs, and find a way to sustain them while they do it. It's not like they have any money to reimburse the system.

Besides, how much trouble do you think a hungry, desperate drug abuser with no support and no way out will cause for society, including monetary costs?

[oxymoron]

Why not just put harsher regulations? Things like drug tests and putting private investigators to watch people like they do for workers comp.

Well, for one, the fraud rates are low enough that in most areas that would be far more expensive that the money it would save. Further, then all you're doing is leaving a drug addict without any way to get food. If we're going to do drug tests, than we need, in turn, to offer services to help them get off drugs, and find a way to sustain them while they do it. It's not like they have any money to reimburse the system.

Besides, how much trouble do you think a hungry, desperate drug abuser with no support and no way out will cause for society, including monetary costs?

That may be so in some parts of the country but like burningdoom said, here in CA the fraud is much higher. Also, do you really want to support the drug underworld with our money? But that's a whole different discussion.

[Forlorn Drifter]

I've heard some questionable rumors about some drug dealers finding ways to take food stamp cards to get their money from them, but I doubt they go through that effort. I don't think drug users are that big of an issue when it comes to food stamp users really, as they are really people who need help, besides in the monetary department.

[BurningDoom]

So I have to be drug-tested to get a job, but you guys shouldn't have to be drug-tested to receive free money? Pffft.

Free money? What's next? Complaining about the poor having access "free education", "free lawyers" and "free protection from beatings and natural disasters"?

Of course, given how many Americans think poor people shouldn't have access to healthcare. It's easy to ignore welfare when you don't need it.

Was I complaining about free money? No. I was saying it's ridiculous that welfare recipients are claiming it's unfair for them to be drug-tested. I have to be drug-tested in order to get a job to work for my money.

And no, I have absolutely no sympathy for those that are UNWILLING to work. Like I said in the part of my post you conveniently cut out of that quote, the welfare system is great for those that take advantage of it in the right way. But far too many people abuse it.

Unfortunately far too many people abuse the system.

As has been mentioned before, there is no data out there to support this assertion. All research into the matter has pegged fraud and abuse of the system fairly low, making up a miniscule portion of all benefits that are paid out. If you intend to stand by that assertion I'm going to have to ask you to back it up with something concrete.

Like I said, in my state more people are on welfare than are employed. If that isn't proof enough, I don't know what is.



In my state's case, a lot of it is illegal immigrants that are somehow eligible for benefits, despite not being citizens.

[oxymoron]

^ I can't understand why the state is going to give illegals divers licences either. I mean isn't the goal to catch them? If so, I don't see why were giving them a invitation to stay.

[AppleQueso]

Like I said, in my state more people are on welfare than are employed. If that isn't proof enough, I don't know what is.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme ... le-welfar/

According to April 4, 2012, data from Health and Human Services, children accounted for 74 percent of TANF recipients in 2011. Averages for the calendar year showed 4.6 million recipients, of whom 3.4 million were children.

With that in mind, we pulled 2011 state-by-state counts of adult TANF recipients and charted them alongside the employment data. Nowhere in any of the 50 states did the TANF adults equal more than 3 percent of the employed workers. The highest percentage was in Maine, where 13,821 adults on TANF equaled 2.1 percent of the 643,000 employed workers.

In most states, the group of TANF adults was equal to less than 1 percent of the number of people with jobs.

In other words what you're claiming is false.

[Erik_Twice]

No. I was saying it's ridiculous that welfare recipients are claiming it's unfair for them to be drug-tested. I have to be drug-tested in order to get a job to work for my money.

I don't know why you have to tolerate such a draconian measure but I that you have to endure it doesn't mean others have.

You seem to think most welfare recipients are drug addicts or that drug addicts don't deserve to be fed.

And no, I have absolutely no sympathy for those that are UNWILLING to work.

You mean welfare recipients? Or drug addicts? Who is this group that is "unwilling to work"?

Like I said in the part of my post you conveniently cut out of that quote, the welfare system is great for those that take advantage of it in the right way. But far too many people abuse it.

The same empty logic again, this is like saying "Oh, the justice system should be used by rape victims but there are too many fake rape victims around". Where are you going with this?

Like I said, in my state more people are on welfare than are employed. If that isn't proof enough, I don't know what is.

Proof of what? Of Californians being lazy thieves?


Really dude, you seem to think people who are on welfare are thirving drug addicts that don't want to work and hence they shouldn't have any kind of welfare.

[Luke]

Since this thread has my name as the OP, I suggest we rename this "The silly argument thread where people argue for no reason and provide no solutions to their own arguments" thread.

[BurningDoom]

Like I said, in my state more people are on welfare than are employed. If that isn't proof enough, I don't know what is.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme ... le-welfar/

According to April 4, 2012, data from Health and Human Services, children accounted for 74 percent of TANF recipients in 2011. Averages for the calendar year showed 4.6 million recipients, of whom 3.4 million were children.

With that in mind, we pulled 2011 state-by-state counts of adult TANF recipients and charted them alongside the employment data. Nowhere in any of the 50 states did the TANF adults equal more than 3 percent of the employed workers. The highest percentage was in Maine, where 13,821 adults on TANF equaled 2.1 percent of the 643,000 employed workers.

In most states, the group of TANF adults was equal to less than 1 percent of the number of people with jobs.

In other words what you're claiming is false.

I just saw this on ABC News last night. I don't think they have a habit of reporting false news. I just happened to be watching it, when I normally don't, because I got rid of cable and was watching the local channel last night.