Urine test for welfare?

[clocker]

For some reason I was under the impression you lived in D.C.
Certainly could be wrong.

Ultimately irrelevant though.
Your personal experience in whatever two major metropolitan areas is still not statistically significant.
After all, you're talking about imposing these restrictions on millions of people spread over the entire country and no matter how gregarious you are, you don't know that many people, much less that many abusers.

So, got anything besides your personal experience to go on?

[Busyman™]

For some reason I was under the impression you lived in D.C.
Certainly could be wrong.

Ultimately irrelevant though.
Your personal experience in whatever two major metropolitan areas is still not statistically significant.
After all, you're talking about imposing these restrictions on millions of people spread over the entire country and no matter how gregarious you are, you don't know that many people, much less that many abusers.

So, got anything besides your personal experience to go on?

No, just the inkling that if it's abused here it's abused elsewhere.

FYI - the Washington Metropolitan area (I did say I live in the metro area) has more than one city in it.

Btw, what do I want to restrict? How does my measure harm the average welfare recipient?

[Busyman™]

what about families who already have kids? Do you still cut off the benefits after a set period?

I missed your post.

No.

First off, I said nothing about whether a woman has kids already or not. That's irrelevant.

Second off, I said nothing about cutting off benefits after a set period. You said "still" as if that was one of my points.

The funny thing is this stuff could be easily circumvented. A woman could apply for welfare and already be pregnant....on purpose.

This is just one way of trying to close the holes without stepping on folks rights.

If you apply for state money, the state should have the right to say, "Hey don't have kids right now while you should be trying to get on you feet."

[clocker]

FYI - the Washington Metropolitan area (I did say I live in the metro area) has more than one city in it.
Did I mention I lived there for 15 years?
Tell me something I don't know.

Btw, what do I want to restrict? How does my measure harm the average welfare recipient?

I keep asking- and you keep ignoring the request- for any proof whatsoever that the measures you want to impose would save more money than they would cost to implement.

Since you live in the very heart of the Federal government, you are certainly aware of the tendency of bureaucracy to multiply and entrench regardless of merit or utility, yet you seem willing to feed the waste based on your personal experience.

C'mon Busy, quit telling me that I'm only arguing to be contrary and prove me wrong.

[Busyman™]

FYI - the Washington Metropolitan area (I did say I live in the metro area) has more than one city in it.
Did I mention I lived there for 15 years?
Tell me something I don't know.

Well...I did say the metro area and you assumed I meant city.

Either it's reading comprehension or something else.

Btw, what do I want to restrict? How does my measure harm the average welfare recipient?

I keep asking- and you keep ignoring the request- for any proof whatsoever that the measures you want to impose would save more money than they would cost to implement.

Since you live in the very heart of the Federal government, you are certainly aware of the tendency of bureaucracy to multiply and entrench regardless of merit or utility, yet you seem willing to feed the waste based on your personal experience.

C'mon Busy, quit telling me that I'm only arguing to be contrary and prove me wrong.

I ignored nothing. I told you I only have personal experience.

Why is it you say I ignored it when you acknowledged it was personal experience. Wtf?

Adversarial just for adversarial's sake?

I think the shot is a no-brainer since the cost of the shot vs. healthcare and extra payments for a newborn would outweigh....the shot.

Mind you, this could go on a state-by-state basis which makes the blanket assignment of such a measure moot.

[bigboab]

If the people who are in work in well paid jobs paid all the taxes that they should, then, maybe, they would be entitled to criticize the unemployed.

I once had a discussion about this with a schoolteacher. We(The shop steward and I) calculated what taxes she was claiming back for(She used an accountant to help her);

Having children at university,
housing grants,
Private pension(now there is/was a big claw back),
the list goes on.

It turned out that she was claiming back twice what an unemployed family of 4 had to live on.

This was a wee while ago. Don't know if it has changed. I doubt it, because these are the people the laws are made for.

[clocker]

I think the shot is a no-brainer since the cost of the shot vs. healthcare and extra payments for a newborn would outweigh....the shot.

Presumably this "shot" is also a requirement for males on welfare as well?

[Busyman™]

I think the shot is a no-brainer since the cost of the shot vs. healthcare and extra payments for a newborn would outweigh....the shot.

Presumably this "shot" is also a requirement for males on welfare as well?

Yeah I thought of that. I don't know if that's readily available and if so, how long it's been in use to be considered safe.

[clocker]

Certainly can't insist on one without the other.

Goose/gander, etc.

[Busyman™]

Certainly can't insist on one without the other.

Goose/gander, etc.

Sure you can. See post 38.