Urine test for welfare?

[clocker]

Certainly can't insist on one without the other.

Goose/gander, etc.

Sure you can. See post 38.

No, I can't.

Post #38 is not a proof of concept, it's an admission that you've failed to think this through.
So far in this entire exchange I've only asked two very basic questions- "How does the cost/benefit ratio of drug testing work?" and "Will mandatory birth control be applied equally to both sexes?"- and you've dismissed both as "adversarial".

For all you know, I agree with you and am only curious about the practical implementation.

[JunkBarMan]

"How does the cost/benefit ratio of drug testing work?"

The first logical conclusion to this would be that people on welfare wouldn't be on drugs, there fore companies hiring these people wouldn't need to waste money on drugs tests. One possible cost benefit.

"Will mandatory birth control be applied equally to both sexes?"

Is this even possible with the medicine available today?

Seems to me that both sexes hold the same responsibility when it comes to the child whether they like it or not, so, the control falls on both parties involved.

Birth control should be applied equally to both sexes, regardless of cost?

[Busyman™]

Sure you can. See post 38.

No, I can't.

Post #38 is not a proof of concept, it's an admission that you've failed to think this through.
So far in this entire exchange I've only asked two very basic questions- "How does the cost/benefit ratio of drug testing work?" and "Will mandatory birth control be applied equally to both sexes?"- and you've dismissed both as "adversarial".

For all you know, I agree with you and am only curious about the practical implementation.

What I know is that I've answered your questions and you can't accept them.

You also have a history problem. I have never dismissed both questions as being adversarial. I said you are being adversarial.

Hell you just asked the last question (with different wording) and I answered in post 38 (sighhh) so show me where the hell did I dismiss it?

You haven't answered any questions that I've posed but that's cool. I'm not surprised.

I tell you that I am speaking from personal experience and tell you if I don't know if something is safe and you call it dismissive. Fanfriggingtastic.

Hell you are starting to be downright nutty and I'm surprised, clocker.

I'm glad we had this exchange since it gives me a little more insight into you outside of hardware.

[Everose]

I would worry if mandatory 'one shot' birth controls were issued, we, as taxpayers, would be paying for it big time in the long haul since the side effects of these drugs have only started to be documented.

Did you know they are actually starting to test sewage in some areas to see what drug use is prevalent in the area?

[Busyman™]

I would worry if mandatory 'one shot' birth controls were issued, we, as taxpayers, would be paying for it big time in the long haul since the side effects of these drugs have only started to be documented.

With the amount of abuse I've seen, taxpayers would probably be ahead.

[clocker]

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.

This post#38 to which you keep referring me and gosh, I don't see a "yes" or "no" here.

Now that you've had even longer to "think about" it, is mandatory birth control applicable to both sexes?

You haven't answered any questions that I've posed but that's cool. I'm not surprised.

I can't find any questions that you've asked.
Where might they be?

I tell you that I am speaking from personal experience and tell you if I don't know if something is safe and you call it dismissive. Fanfriggingtastic.

Indeed.
Is every welfare recipient in your personal experience abusing the system then?
Half of 'em?
About how many?
How is it that you come into contact with all these people- from posts in the lounge about vacations and home theatres, you seem to be quite comfortably middle class.

The first logical conclusion to this would be that people on welfare wouldn't be on drugs, there fore companies hiring these people wouldn't need to waste money on drugs tests. One possible cost benefit.

A benefit to businesses, yes.
So you think it's a good idea for the public to pick up the tab for drug testing so that corporations don't have to.
Rather odd don't you think, given that the original complaint was that too much public money (in the form of taxes) was being squandered on freeloaders who spent their benefits on drugs?

Look guys, my point the entire time has been this...

I have no doubt that abuses occur.
Certainly, some people do buy drugs with benefit money.
Some women do get pregnant and feed off the trough irresponsibly.
The question is, are the costs of implementing mandatory drug testing and birth control lesser or greater than the amount being siphoned off by abusers?

Once you provide an answer to that relatively easy and neutral question we can move into the real minefield.

Busy, since you live in the DC area we'll use that as our test locus.
The population of DC is overwhelmingly black, therefore it's safe to assume that the majority of welfare recipients are also black.
Gee, I wonder how mandatory drug testing and enforced sterilization of a black subgroup by the Federal government is going to go over.
Care to venture a guess?

[Busyman™]

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.

This post#38 to which you keep referring me and gosh, I don't see a "yes" or "no" here.

Now that you've had even longer to "think about" it, is mandatory birth control applicable to both sexes?

Oh wow, you needed a yes or no from that post?

NO! DUE TO WHAT I SAID IN POST #38.

You haven't answered any questions that I've posed but that's cool. I'm not surprised.

I can't find any questions that you've asked.
Where might they be?


Why should I bother? There is obviously some type of reading comprehension problem going on. There are questions there though....with question marks and everything and even.

I tell you that I am speaking from personal experience and tell you if I don't know if something is safe and you call it dismissive. Fanfriggingtastic.

Indeed.
Is every welfare recipient in your personal experience abusing the system then?
Half of 'em?
About how many?
How is it that you come into contact with all these people- from posts in the lounge about vacations and home theatres, you seem to be quite comfortably middle class.

What does that have to do with who I come in contact with? Wow you are truly ignorant of folks on this area.

I also wasn't always where I am today (although I've never been on welfare).

Look guys, my point the entire time has been this...

I have no doubt that abuses occur.
Certainly, some people do buy drugs with benefit money.
Some women do get pregnant and feed off the trough irresponsibly.
The question is, are the costs of implementing mandatory drug testing and birth control lesser or greater than the amount being siphoned off by abusers?

Once you provide an answer to that relatively easy and neutral question we can move into the real minefield.

Cool beans. I never disputed that there would need to be a study of cost/benefit analysis before deciding on implementation but you seem intent erasing the thought of such a measure.

Busy, since you live in the DC area we'll use that as our test locus.
The population of DC is overwhelmingly black, therefore it's safe to assume that the majority of welfare recipients are also black.
Gee, I wonder how mandatory drug testing and enforced sterilization of a black subgroup by the Federal government is going to go over.
Care to venture a guess?

I don't care. Abuse is abuse. I look at it objectively.

I'm sure there was a cost in changing from food stamps to Independence Cards but that's done.

I look at what shouldn't happen.

Women having babies while on assistance is counter-productive to them getting off assistance in the first place.

Taxpayers already pay for the assistance. A newborn furthers taxpayer burden with less productivity from the woman (less working) and increased health care costs for the her and the newborn.

Hell, without looking at women that do it on purpose, we could go further and look at numbers of women that simply get pregnant while on assistance.

I'm sure that record is somewhere (I haven't the slightest idea where).

That number would make the abuse question moot since in either case, taxpayers foot the bill and it lessens the likelihood of the mother getting off assistance any sooner.

[clocker]

NO! DUE TO WHAT I SAID IN POST #38.

Finally.

What does that have to do with who I come in contact with? Wow you are truly ignorant of folks on this area.

You're the one who's basing his opinion on "personal experience" so why is it unreasonable to ask what that experience is?

Cool beans. I never disputed that there would need to be a study of cost/benefit analysis before deciding on implementation but you seem intent erasing the thought of such a measure.

What if the study were to show that it would cost more to drug test everybody than it costs to let a few abusers slide?
If "abuse is abuse" aren't you compelled to proceed anyway?

And where are all these welfare mothers who are getting pregnant obtaining the sperm?
Welfare fathers perhaps?
But wait, you're going to give them a pass (see the controversial post#38...) so the entire onus for this alleged abuse of the system falls on just half of the guilty parties.
Not too sexist, nosiree.

BTW, just FYI

Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families

Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family

The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate, 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children. Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon, 1997).

Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance

Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996).

Despite the ready availability of facts, myths about welfare continue to be widespread. The media contributes to this lack of information. The media helps shape public perceptions about welfare recipients. The way in which a topic is reported can turn a neutral reader into an opinionated reader and can greatly influence public opinion. Although in an analysis of articles published in 10 major newspapers from January 1997 to April 1997, the tone was generally sympathetic to the poor, actual research and facts to counter myths were generally lacking (Wyche & Mattern, 1997).

Source

[Busyman]

Finally.

Finally on something so obvious (and on the previous page). I can't help that you can't comprehend.

What does that have to do with who I come in contact with? Wow you are truly ignorant of folks on this area.

You're the one who's basing his opinion on "personal experience" so why is it unreasonable to ask what that experience is?

Captainobviously, it's folks that I've come into contact with. That's what personal experience means.

Cool beans. I never disputed that there would need to be a study of cost/benefit analysis before deciding on implementation but you seem intent erasing the thought of such a measure.

What if the study were to show that it would cost more to drug test everybody than it costs to let a few abusers slide?
If "abuse is abuse" aren't you compelled to proceed anyway?

It depends on how much more it'll cost. I reckon drug testing would probably be more but birth control wouldn't.

And where are all these welfare mothers who are getting pregnant obtaining the sperm?
Welfare fathers perhaps?
But wait, you're going to give them a pass (see the controversial post#38...) so the entire onus for this alleged abuse of the system falls on just half of the guilty parties.
Not too sexist, nosiree.

Lets do this then. Forget calling it abuse. The mother is the one that carries the baby. The child of the mother is the one that will draw taxpayer healthcare. The mother is the one that would be out of work. The mother, once going back to work, will need daycare for the child.

Whether she gets pregnant on purpose or not is now irrelevant. Pops would not be hobbled by pregnancy. Lastly, there is no viable way for pops to be on birth control that he cannot "deactivate" or forget to take.

Not sexist, nosiree.

BTW, just FYI

Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families

Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family

The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate, 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children. Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon, 1997).

Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance

Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996).

Despite the ready availability of facts, myths about welfare continue to be widespread. The media contributes to this lack of information. The media helps shape public perceptions about welfare recipients. The way in which a topic is reported can turn a neutral reader into an opinionated reader and can greatly influence public opinion. Although in an analysis of articles published in 10 major newspapers from January 1997 to April 1997, the tone was generally sympathetic to the poor, actual research and facts to counter myths were generally lacking (Wyche & Mattern, 1997).

Source

Soooo? So women on welfare get pregnant just like any women then.

Janeyus!

My measure is to further eliminate unnecessary taxpayer burden without harm to the welfare recipient.

[clocker]

What about the concerns raised by Rose (post #44)?

What do you plan on doing with those who fail your drug test...obviously they no longer qualify for benefits, so do you put them in a drug treatment facility?
Funded by whom?

What happens to the unfortunate spawn of the fertile welfare mother?
Doesn't denying benefits to this kid just reinforce the cycle of poverty and end up creating another future dependent/abuser?

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).

Busy, you seem willing to risk an awful lot to save a very little.