Biweekly drug testing.
You fail, you are banned in your lifetime from receiving either.
Also increase the min you can receive. As people will fail leaving the difference enough to increase.
any takers? ;D
Add in bans for lotteries, casinos, etc like they have in Singapore
Na just breaking the law will be fine.
I don't think you can get a job if you have to take a piss test and they find drugs in your system. Much less further yourself past living off Tax Payer money in anything legal...short of starting a business yourself.
I buy it!
... and for taking any tax deductions, including homestead ... after all, those are subsidies paid by people who don't have kids (child exemption), mortgages, or own a home.
Or is it only OK when it can only effect "those people"?
I dont think my topic was about that Charles ^^
Legally, child support is provided for the benefit of the child (yes, I know, sometimes the child doesn't benefit as much as it should). Therefore, cutting off child support because a parent failed a drug test would never fly.
If welfare parent is unable to work because they cannot pass a drug test this seems to point to their lack of fitness to be a parent. Perhaps those rights should be terminated.
^^ And how about neutering?
Quote from: Sportmotor on February 22, 2010, 08:38:34 PM
Biweekly drug testing.
You fail, you are banned in your lifetime from receiving either.
Also increase the min you can receive. As people will fail leaving the difference enough to increase.
any takers? ;D
Why is unemployment on the list? Most people on welfare are women, most that benefit from child support are women. Thesw are 3 different situatuons. Where does foodstamps fall in? Could you clarify the agenda here?
Quote from: Miss Fixit on February 23, 2010, 08:40:17 AM
Legally, child support is provided for the benefit of the child (yes, I know, sometimes the child doesn't benefit as much as it should). Therefore, cutting off child support because a parent failed a drug test would never fly.
I thought CS was a garnished wage....
(http://www.warresisters.org/pages/images/pieFY09.gif)
2009
Human Resources
$789 billion:
• Health/Human Services
• Soc. Sec. Administration
• Education Dept.
• Food/Nutrition programs
• Housing & Urban Dev.
• Labor Dept.
• other human resources.
Are we really fusing that the government spends less than 1/3rd of it's budget on our country's citizens?
Quote from: stephendare on February 23, 2010, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 23, 2010, 08:54:20 AM
If welfare parent is unable to work because they cannot pass a drug test this seems to point to their lack of fitness to be a parent. Perhaps those rights should be terminated.
It seems more like that employers shouldnt be allowed to demand a citizens pee or blood to determine what they do in their private time.
I think those 'rights' should be pretty much terminated.
Not the right to be poor and have children.
Ooops! Another intellectual hernia for Stephen.
BTW, before I am attacked for my previous post - jk
QuoteIt seems more like that employers shouldnt be allowed to demand a citizens pee or blood to determine what they do in their private time.
I think those 'rights' should be pretty much terminated.
Not the right to be poor and have children.
I have nothing against being poor and having children... many of us began that way. Builds character IMHO. I am talking about the strings that may be attached for recieving government assistance. All that is being asked is that if you want government assistance you abide by a few simple rules. Forgoing drug use during "private time" (with the kids?)being one of them.
The "Fair Tax" is the best solution for poverty. The argument that the poor don't pay taxes is only true of Income tax. They still get hit with SS/Medicaid taxes of 7.65%, the employer match 7.65%, and if you consider the poor are spending 100% of their income (no tax free savings), they are hit with embedded taxes on the price of the goods they buy of 23%. Our government is taxing it's poorest citizens at over a 38% rate, the problem is it is not transparent. Out of sight out of mind.
Thanks JagsFan.
Over 40 years of liberal ideology and the "war on poverty" has done nothing but keep the poorest of the poor dependent on the government. Katrina anyone? Now we have several generations of poor who know nothing but the federal government to provide for them. They don't think about "how" the government does this. They don't care that the government forces other citizens to do without in order to provide for them.
And yes, Stephen, if you are involved in illegal activities, it is the employers business.
QuoteWhere would you draw the line, BT?
Illegal drugs. :)
Quote from: Miss Fixit on February 23, 2010, 08:40:17 AM
Legally, child support is provided for the benefit of the child (yes, I know, sometimes the child doesn't benefit as much as it should). Therefore, cutting off child support because a parent failed a drug test would never fly.
It would show you are an unfit parent and unless you have a medical perception the children would be taken and placed else where from child services.
Quote from: Coolyfett on February 23, 2010, 09:09:09 AM
Why is unemployment on the list? Most people on welfare are women, most that benefit from child support are women. Thesw are 3 different situatuons. Where does foodstamps fall in? Could you clarify the agenda here?
Can you get a job if you fail a pee test?
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 23, 2010, 09:18:34 AM
(http://www.warresisters.org/pages/images/pieFY09.gif)
2009
Human Resources
$789 billion:
• Health/Human Services
• Soc. Sec. Administration
• Education Dept.
• Food/Nutrition programs
• Housing & Urban Dev.
• Labor Dept.
• other human resources.
Are we really fusing that the government spends less than 1/3rd of it's budget on our country's citizens?
I have no problem having our military get 1/3 of the Nation's budget. I will introduce you to some combat vets to tell them yourself you think that the government is spending to much money on them if you would like tho ;D
Again, this was off topic I dont care if you dont like the US Budget, start a US Budget thread, this is a differnt one.
yes it is ^^, and so is Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff. Just your attempt at a straw man. It's ok, we're used to it.
QuoteThe cheater, the liar, the scammer, the confidence trickster is a pretty universal presence in all levels of our society.
And you had already answered your own question before you asked it.
Quote from: stephendare on February 23, 2010, 09:59:25 AM
Well Sportsmotor. What if one of the parents is gay or lesbian? Many people refuse to hire gay or lesbian employees. Since they are doing something that an employer would disagree with, should their children be taken from them?
Are the parents doing any Illegal drugs? Yes then they need to be taken away from the household.
Are the parents gay? Yes, who cares the kids will most likely be better dressed then the other kids anyway. No, then who cares.
As far as what private company's do, if they have a public face and have to appeal to a specific audience then yes I can see why they would be firing a gay guy or gal. I don't like it, but I understand it.
If you have a product aiming for hardcore-right-wing-bible-thumping-republican-monstertruck watching-KKK members, they yes having a flaming gay spokesmen will probley not help sell your product.
What people do in their private time is there own business, Yes I agree; BUT if tax payer money is going to help you on your feet, or not sink as fast and you are pulling unemployment it becomes the government's business when you are Knowingly breaking the law doing drugs which will prevent you from bettering your situation.
I wouldn't hire someone who does weed(and Iv done it!) because I don't want my company's name tarnished or a drug raid or any problems relating.
Quote from: stephendare on February 23, 2010, 10:04:00 AM
Well I have a huge problem with the military getting this much of a budget.
Its not off topic incidentally.
Then we can send you overseas with a thin skinned(couldnt stop a peltgun) Humvee and no body armor?
Quote from: stephendare on February 23, 2010, 10:10:49 AM
so gay people on welfare shouldnt have kids?
I see where you going with this btw
Are you thrown in jail for being gay?
QuoteWhat people do in their private time is there own business, Yes I agree; BUT if tax payer money is going to help you on your feet, or not sink as fast and you are pulling unemployment it becomes the government's business when you are Knowingly breaking the law doing drugs which will prevent you from bettering your situation.
And this is the crux of the conversation... or should be.
If you have time to go find drugs, or make it yourself. You have time to be finding a new job, taking care of your kids, or doing something productive.
That was 82' I am talking about laws...now here in 2010 over 25 years later.
Quote from: stephendare on February 23, 2010, 10:19:03 AM
What a silly statement.
Do you have kids?
Do you do drugs?
Kids are a full time job, finding a job on tax payer money needs to be a full time job. If you can walk to your local dealer go home and fuck yourself up for a couple hours, you arnt watching your children, or making an effort to find a job.
Again the "Fair Tax" is part of the solution.
Welfare cheats who work under the table will be taxed each time they purchase something therefore contributing. The prebate prevents the poor from being taxed on the basic necessities of life up to the poverty level. All taxes will be transparent, nothing hidden.
I think you are on "something" now, as you can't stay focused on the thread topic.
Quote from: Sigma on February 23, 2010, 10:28:25 AM
I think you are on "something" now, as you can't stay focused on the thread topic.
Thats why I logged off. :D
Quote from: stephendare on February 23, 2010, 10:29:31 AM
So in other words, you aren't really certain about what you are talking about, just posting something that sounds vaguely moral?
ok.
Sports. This is just bad policy based on what would sound like a good simple idea.
Neglect is a reason to take kids away, not the occasional toke of pot.
Fraud is a reason to cancel benefits for a parent and in the process punish the kids. Not that they bought five dollar pain pills to feel good for a few hours.
how can you still be gettin my name wrong after all this time? ::) kinda shows what attention to detail you pay.
you cant exclude one illegal drug just because you like it or don't, you have one you have to lump them all together and your only argument on this whole thing is child related, Obviously it isn't a perfect plan but it would be a fantastic start to weeding(HA!) out people who abuse the system and are on it just because they are to lazy and don't want to be a productive member of society.
Or, people who depend on taxpayers for their income:
a) should not have children which they can not afford
b) should not expect someone else to pay for their children
c) should not use the federal government to take money from others so that they can buy illegal narcotics
d) should not be using narcotics while caring for a child (unless you are Stephen's mom, then we can all understand)
Quote from: stephendare on February 23, 2010, 04:01:32 PM
your only argument seems to be that you think people who dont pass a drug test should watch their children starve as a punishment.
Its a stupid idea, and only possible for someone that has never taken care of kids themselves.
THERE IT IS! lol
FSU was right and that makes me shudder.
when did I say I have never taken care of kids myself?
My main concern is pro debtors and lazy people using drugs on taxpayer money that are illegal, you have attempted to turn the major focus on children, and neglected the other 2 aspecs.
Sigma I love you BTW lol
lol grown up land huh? Doesnt sound like that you have that stamp on your passport yet.
Loving this btw 8)
Quote from: Sportmotor on February 23, 2010, 09:56:39 AM
Quote from: Coolyfett on February 23, 2010, 09:09:09 AM
Why is unemployment on the list? Most people on welfare are women, most that benefit from child support are women. Thesw are 3 different situatuons. Where does foodstamps fall in? Could you clarify the agenda here?
Can you get a job if you fail a pee test?
Im not sure I have never failed or tested positive for drugs....It sounds to me like you want these government expenses ended....I think Welfare, Foodstamps and any other lame ass hand outs should end. Unemployment should not...if someone is laid off or termed for something they should be able to file. I didnt realize this one of the many StephanDare baiting Threads....Discussing politics I am not a big fan of, so I will just watch.
boy...this thread is quite a sight to behold...going back to where the wallflowers hang out now, 'cuz I'm not much of a dancer anyway.
Shouldn't we have same policy for politicians,CEO's,celebrities etc that take out hard earned money while doing drugs,breaking laws,stealing,mistreatign their children and families and of course lying to us???
Or how about military spending that uses general public money for invasions and wars that benefit above wealthy??
I find it amazing that some do not see the difference between Federal employment and Federal support programs. Some even can not see the difference between private employment and those same Federal support programs. And of course the usual complaints about other Federal spending, of which only defense spending is identified as wasteful by the same complaintants.
Those that serve in the military have EARNED their salaries and RETIREMENT benefits. Military members are subject to and submit to drug testing on a regular basis. Silly statements about spending more on underwear in the military than on welfare programs are not only factually false, but irresponsible. I won't rehash the same old argument here with the same people as always, for they will not change their views and I will not change mine. But there is a difference between opinion and fact. If you can not discern that, then perhaps you should reexamine your thought process. This thread is about the responsibilities of those that for whatever reason partake of public support programs. Should anything be asked in return? Should volunteer time or proof of participation in employment programs or health education be required? Should recipients be required to remain free of illegal drugs? I am in favor of requiring some responsibility from the recipients of taxpayer largess. Those that are really in need and are trying to improve their situation will not begrudge and will, in fact, welcome participation in employment and health programs. I do not oppose using drug testing to vet those that fail to participate or fail to meet other basic guidelines.
OK, now, try to stay on topic and keep the anti military rhetoric within some kind of reality.
Ignorant and inexperienced on this whole issue here so don't jump on me if I ask a dumb question.
Would it be possible/helpful if people receiving public benefits (not pensions) were required to do some hours of work each week? Picking up trash in the parks and school grounds, cleaning public restrooms, landscaping on public property, cleaning the beach, working in a public day care center, maintainence in public housing?
I can see logistical issues but also possible benefits from work habit development to contact with social workers at a centralized location.
Its a great thought DW. Model something like the Ready4Work program for felons, but for able-bodied welfare recipients?
I also think that welfare recipients should be subject to drug testing. I believe everyone has missed one main point of that sentiment for me, and I do not see how it is arguable.
Drugs are expensive.
If you are a welfare recipient, or on food stamps, etc.. you are receiving a portion of every working American's tax dollars because you are poor. In fact, you are so poor that our nation has deemed it a moral crisis to not give you some help with your poverty. Whatever my feelings on welfare reform, etc. my main complaint and concern about drug users on welfare is this: If we are giving people money so that they can stay afloat because their economic situation is so dire, why/how are they spending $60 for a sack of weed every few days? Why/how are they spending $20 for a couple crack rocks as frequently as they possibly can?
How much bread could be bought for that sack of weed? How many haircuts and clean clothes to go out looking for a job? How many crack rocks does it take for a person to scrape together enough to buy an old car so they can search for jobs or make it to a place of employment otherwise out of reach?
This is the problem I have with it. I think marijuana, and marijuana only, should be legal. I do not have any objection to a person smoking a joint when they get home at night. To me, it is the same thing as having a couple glasses of wine or a scotch on the rocks after a hard day. But if we all are paying money to someone because they are so poor that they can barely hang on, I have a sincere issue with them turning around and spending that money on marijuana because it is a total misuse of why they got the money in the first place, and an expensive one at that.
Quote from: Dog Walker on February 24, 2010, 08:28:16 AM
Ignorant and inexperienced on this whole issue here so don't jump on me if I ask a dumb question.
Would it be possible/helpful if people receiving public benefits (not pensions) were required to do some hours of work each week? Picking up trash in the parks and school grounds, cleaning public restrooms, landscaping on public property, cleaning the beach, working in a public day care center, maintainence in public housing?
I can see logistical issues but also possible benefits from work habit development to contact with social workers at a centralized location.
Yes, it is a great idea. One problem is that many welfare recipients are single parents who need to find childcare in order to go to work. A solution would be to create childcare facilities and require that each welfare recipient work there (in a capacity they were qualified for, not necessarily as a childcare provider) in exchange for childcare.
Like some of the earlier posters, I struggle with the fact that individuals who cannot or will not provide for their children continue to have them and then receive government benefits. I'm not comfortable flatly denying benefits, however, because these children must be provided for somehow.
Ignorance again. I am not familiar with the Ready4Work program.
Years ago in France (and maybe other countries) special jobs were created for soldiers disabled in their wars (mutile' de guerre). Some were fare takers on buses, railroad crossing guards, restroom attendants, museum guards, ticket takers, etc. Whatever the work, they were paid a living wage and didn't just vegetate in a room somewhere. A lot of human dignity comes from work, no matter what the work is.
Ready4Work is part of the Operation New Hope non-profit. Basically, its a job training/skills program to help ex-felons return to society with practical job skills. I think the main program is in the carpentry trades. THere may be other training, but I'm not aware.
I've got a pretty good idea where the disconnect is.
Do you have any facts to back up these ridiculous assumptions? I could be easily persuaded with some facts.
I got to agree that those numbers are pretty wild. Also, to equate any public infrastructure investments with public assistance is a pretty wild stretch. Just like public employee benefits, this is a completely different subject with completely different sets of laws and regulations.
I don't completely agree with testing of public assistance recipients, but as I posted earlier, I don't oppose the use of such testing on individuals who do not participate in the services provided that are designed to remove them from the rolls. By your own statements, this is a very small number in relation to the total. There are complications, as pointed out in the post discussing children. But it is a start in validating the system to those who pay for it. Including those who currently collect but are struggling to become independent again. They deserve to be assured that all are playing by the same rules as well.
yes, playing by the same rules is important. working taxpayers are subject to certain conditions in order to work for and represent a company - small or large
its not a lot to demand from those who are benefitting from the taxpayers the same certain conditions to abide by. This is a generous country. most taxpayers do not mind helping those in need and do so on a regular basis through their church or non-profits. they are also paying through taxes. some requirement by those on the receiving end is not much to ask.
I would even be for a some extra assistance to those on welfare who participate in work projects or job training. i believe that some of this happens now, but I'm not sure.
That would be a No he doesnt.
Quote from: stephendare on February 24, 2010, 08:00:43 PM
Considering that most of your posts have so far been completely fact free, backed up with nothing other than your fairly uninformed opinion, why don't you pave the way Sportsy and explain (with some actual results and facts) why anyone should take your original post seriously.
Pretty sure my original post was an idea thrown up in the air. :3
but please as manners go, you were asked first so avoidance shouldn't be needed as I am sure you do have your numbers and facts, please enlighten ^_^
Well, that was Sigma's post. But while I would like to know more about your allegation of one hundred million tax dollars being spent to increase the property values of a community of 5k and that a beltway was built for "a few developers", I would reiterate that infrastructure spending can not be compared to public assistance spending in any logical manner. Each should be argued for or against based on the facts that apply to that subject. To link the two is a fallacy.
Again, attempting to link the two subjects is just dishonest, as they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. With that said, I would take issue with your figure of one hundred million dollars. Even counting the huge investments in DT (which is a favorite of most here, including you), I'm not sure you would reach $100 M. I also don't agree that the street improvements were to increase property values, but were normal city improvements. To suggest that the Outer Beltway was built to increase property values is just wrong. And I believe that the money used in this project is state money and not COJ funds. The outer beltway is a state project and is being built based on transportation needs. While an effect may be higher property values, that has nothing to do with the project itself. And there is no guarantee that property values will actually rise in the long run. So even though these projects have nothing to do with the subject of the thread and can not be used in comparison, your assumptions are wrong IMHO anyway.
With an estimate of 3000 homeless in the county, how many do you think are DT? What is the current annual outlay by the COJ for this population segment? By the State of Florida? By the USG? How much is spent by the COJ and JSO in clean up and security costs? How much do DT businesses spend on this problem? How much are private charities and churches spending on the homeless? And many (you included) are asking for more services including a day care center for the homeless. How much is enough?
Quotebut we do have a problem with the money going to feed people for a couple of years and make sure that they arent living on the streets.
QuoteThe Pattern of Dependence: Length of Time on Welfare
The public is often told that the current welfare system does not promote long-term dependence. According to this picture, AFDC generally provides temporary aid, and very few recipients receive welfare for extended periods. This picture is inaccurate.
Of the 4.7 million families currently receiving AFDC, most will be dependent on welfare for very long periods of time. As Chart 1 shows, families receiving AFDC at the present time have already spent, on average, six-and-a-half years enrolled in AFDC.1 When past receipt and estimated future receipt of AFDC are combined, the estimated average length of stay on AFDC among those families currently receiving AFDC benefits is an astounding 13 years.2 Moreover, these figures actually underestimate the length of welfare dependence, since such families are very likely to receive other welfare benefits (such as food stamps, SSI, Medicaid, and housing) even after they leave the AFDC caseload.
http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1063.cfm
this stat is a little outdated. but its not 1982, and it actually pertains to the subject, unlike gays getting arrested for sodomy.
Your argument is wrong. Infrastructure is not a benefit program. The outer beltway is a state project. You have not accounted for either of these facts. I am fully aware of the public funding system in the city, and "sit in" on more meetings than I care to. ONE MORE TIME, where are you getting these numbers? And over what period of time?
If you can not see the difference between benefit programs and capital expenditures, then I am wasting my time and yours.
And the original post was not "fairly stupid". It is "fairly stupid" to characterize others ideas in those terms. The poster was simply expressing an opinion that recipients of public assistance should show some responsibility while accepting those benefits. An opinion that is quite common. And as in any discussion of public policy, each is entitled to their own opinion.
For real numbers, I refer you to the adopted 2010 budget:
http://www.coj.net/NR/rdonlyres/e3zftc3xgy2dcfy55kue62et7xwnzodsy7vhzc65rgidweiqvmdi7nf47hrcq6n4w5lc3s4t3bb7tvbt5xgapp5c7ic/budget+in+brief+2010_10-20-09.pdf
The Better Jacksonville Plan? Really? This is a ten year old program, but OK, let's look at it. Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Jacksonville_Plan
See if you can come up with $1B in spending in the downtown area. You will find it difficult since the largest chunck of money went to road improvements. And the largest expenditure in downtown, the courthouse, has not even been built yet. Facts are important. Have a good night, StephenDare!.
Well, the Better Jacksonville plan called for about $450 M per the reference I provided. But now you want to include every other public project over the last twenty or thirty years to justify public benefits spending? Really? This has gotten silly. Get some sleep.
This, hmm well is a site to behold
Yes, it has. You are completely off thread and discussing the Better Jacksonville Plan, a ten year project from the Delany administration. You are the one who threw out $100 M and then $1 B. Again, completely off the subject. Then you throw in the red herring of public assistance recipients relatives paying taxes or the recipients themselves paying taxes at some time in the past. All of which has NOTHING to do with the subject of the thread, which is "should illicit drug testing be required of public assistance recipients". Can you focus for a few? I suppose your tendency to throw out fallacious arguments and/or insulting/name calling other posters. I understand your opinion. I believe it to be not only wrong but immoral. I am sure you feel the same about my opinion. Now, you can have the last word.
Great News! The JSO officer (at least one of them) working at Winn Dixie DT is telling the guys out front "selling groceries" by offering to use "their" EBT cards and you pay them cash, NO MORE!
YAY! These are so obviosuly NOT their EBT cards....
Oh yes the "taxpayers overwhelmingly support this policy" that's why Scott has the lowest approval rating of any sitting governor. Where does he get this stuff? Make it up out of thin air?
Yes, yes he does.
BTW, that picture is really creepy. As if he doesn't look weird enough in person.