Re: Urine test for welfare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ilw
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
...edited...
I can't agree with a mass blanketing of those benefits for those that obviously piss it away.
The problem is that people (mostly liberals) don't like holding people accountable for those folks own well being.
There are always the exceptions like the handicapped, mentally handicapped, and struggling mom trying to make ends meet.
Most of the exceptions have good enough excuses in my book.
One should feel almost too proud to ask for it. It should be considered a privilege, not a preordained hand-out.
So I look at illegals, and other's struggling by working and then look at the lazy fuck who has people with your mindset in their corner that don't give any incentive for him to work.
I agree in some ways:
a person working should never be worse off than someone on benefits
It should be set up to encourage people to only make it a temporary thing, except for those who have 'a good reason' (as you defined above) to stay on.
It shouldn't be a socially acceptable thing to be on benefits without a reason (i.e. pride/shame & cultural disapproval should play a role)
But we differ in the duration that someone should be supported for...
How do you feel about benefits for people with children? Is it no different (child suffers for parents errors), or do you pay benefits (unemployed people just have to have children...) or do you take the kids away (again kid suffers and potentially costs more)?
Unfortunately a mother with a kid can keep churning them out and the state will pay.
This is why i said mothers on welfare should be on the birth control shot if medically able to take it.
People cringe sometimes thinking that that's taking away reproductive rights.
I say no cuz the state has to pay for that reproduction.
The funny thing is this would mainly hit abusers of the system.
I knew many moms with 1 kid and already on welfare go to 2 to 3 more kids....while still on welfare.
That's a lot of fooking money and health care the state has to put out.
In that case clocker's questions about which would cost more is quite obvious.
Birth control shot vs. extra welfare money and health care for a child.
That's a no-brainer.
I say the birth control shot because it doesn't have to be constantly managed per mother. There's won't be any forgetting to take a pill or anything.
Re: Urine test for welfare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
In that case clocker's questions about which would cost more is quite obvious.
Birth control shot vs. extra welfare money and health care for a child.
Since you've completely changed the subject we were discussing, my question becomes irrelevant.
Re: Urine test for welfare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
In that case clocker's questions about which would cost more is quite obvious.
Birth control shot vs. extra welfare money and health care for a child.
Since you've completely changed the subject we were discussing, my question becomes
irrelevant.
It's a one-post segway so if you want to remain irrelevant, fine by me.
Re: Urine test for welfare?
Re: Urine test for welfare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clocker
Good one, clocker.:lol:
Re: Urine test for welfare?
Thank you and Merry Christmas.
Now, back on point...
You seem quite worked up about presumed abuse of the welfare system, both drugs and out of control reproduction.
Although I have no doubt that there are some high profile examples of both, have you any data to support the idea that abuse is so widespread that draconian measures like mandatory urine tests and enforced birth control are necessary?
If so, I'd like to see it.
Re: Urine test for welfare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clocker
Thank you and Merry Christmas.
Now, back on point...
You seem quite worked up about presumed abuse of the welfare system, both drugs and out of control reproduction.
Although I have no doubt that there are some high profile examples of both, have you any data to support the idea that abuse is so widespread that draconian measures like mandatory urine tests and enforced birth control are necessary?
If so, I'd like to see it.
No and not needed. I've seen it firsthand....a lot of it.
I've probably seen more of it than lets say, someone that lives in East Jablip west of Bubblefuck, because I work and live in a major metropolitan area.:idunno:
Re: Urine test for welfare?
what about families who already have kids? Do you still cut off the benefits after a set period?
Re: Urine test for welfare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clocker
Thank you and Merry Christmas.
Now, back on point...
You seem quite worked up about presumed abuse of the welfare system, both drugs and out of control reproduction.
Although I have no doubt that there are some high profile examples of both, have you any data to support the idea that abuse is so widespread that draconian measures like mandatory urine tests and enforced birth control are necessary?
If so, I'd like to see it.
No and not needed. I've seen it firsthand....a lot of it.
I've probably seen more of it than lets say, someone that lives in East Jablip west of Bubblefuck, because I work and live in a major metropolitan area.:idunno:
Actually yes, it is needed.
Despite your experience in the big, bad city (a city I spent about 15 years in, BTW), the number of abuses you can personally quantify amounts to a statistical blip (and that's being generous).
Furthermore, your personal experience only covers one city and a smaller one at that.
So, even if every single welfare recipient in your personal circle purchases drugs with benefit money and procreates like the proverbial bunny, that don't mean squat.
That's exactly like Bush saying the economy is doing great because everyone he knows is prospering.
Re: Urine test for welfare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
No and not needed. I've seen it firsthand....a lot of it.
I've probably seen more of it than lets say, someone that lives in East Jablip west of Bubblefuck, because I work and live in a major metropolitan area.:idunno:
Actually yes, it
is needed.
Despite your experience in the big, bad city (a city I spent about 15 years in, BTW), the number of abuses you can personally quantify amounts to a statistical blip (and that's being generous).
Furthermore, your personal experience only covers one city and a smaller one at that.
So, even if every single welfare recipient in your personal circle purchases drugs with benefit money and procreates like the proverbial bunny, that don't mean squat.
That's
exactly like Bush saying the economy is doing great because everyone
he knows is prospering.
Uh yeah it does mean squat. Abuse is abuse.
If you lived in this city for 15 years...what city was I talking about? What city do I live in?
I said major metropolitan area....not big, bad city (whatever that means:ermm:). Furthermore, I see the same up the road in another other metro area.
Now sure it's two metro areas I have the most knowledge and that's multiple cities that are included.
However, you haven't said what makes this measure Draconian or why my little cubby hole of America doesn't matter.
You just attack the measure cuz it's different.
