Idea for Welfare, Unemployment & Child Support

[NotNow]

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. 

[Sigma]

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.

[Sportmotor]

That would be a No he doesnt.

[Sportmotor]

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 ^_^

[NotNow]

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.

[NotNow]

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?   

[Sigma]

but 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.

The 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.

[NotNow]

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.

[NotNow]

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

[NotNow]

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!.

[NotNow]

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.

[Sportmotor]

This, hmm well is a site to behold

[NotNow]

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.

[uptowngirl]

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....

[ChriswUfGator]

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?