Moar States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare

[musclemom]

what I dont get is the continuity of welfare, I dont get how people live off welfare, they should really get damn jobs, even if it's minimum wage, but having welfare, EBT, etc the whole 9 yards for over a couple of months or a year seems wrong, it's one thing to need help but it's another to fully support a person who can work, THAT is what maked me mad, woman and men who are able to work and they just sit and collect welfare, unemployment, etc I loved unemployment back in the day when you went to an office and had to explain to a person what you have done and where you have gone to get employed, it's easier to lie to a computer/online than to have that psychological pressure of a person...

I'm only going to talk about "assumed" honest people, the bad case scenarios:

Young children create a problem regarding work. If you don't have a skill set that enables you to be employed and making sufficient money for day care, and you don't have family who are capable of watching your kids, depending on the age of the kids you could be stuck on welfare for quite a while (and don't assume child support is covering that. If you're uneducated/unskilled, odds are the people you have relationships with are, as well. Child support is based on the income of both parents).

For others it can be a physical/mental health issues. My stepdaughter cannot find work after being unemployed for more than a year. Nobody wants to hire her, she can't even get an interview. She has a terrible work record (5 jobs in less than 2 years). Combine that with the fact the economy really hasn't rebounded very much in this region, there are tons of people looking for work. Why even bother bringing her with her shitty work record in when there's people out there who have good, solid work histories. When she does interview her Asperger's doesn't exactly do her any favors. To strangers she does not read as cheerful, enthusiastic or even engaged.

Finally, there is a certain age group (generally, 50 and over) who are fighting a losing battle. Frankly, people coming out of high school and college are willing and capable of doing their jobs relatively competently for substantially lower pay. Companies do not like to hire someone to do a job they have done previously but pay them a reduced rate. They know it probably will generate anger and resentment on the part of the employee. Much easier to take the green 20-something who thinks $25k a year with no benes is awesome instead of the experienced 50-something who used to do the same job for another company, but at the time got $45k, full benes and 4 weeks paid.

 

[nangiggles]

See MM those examples you mentioned I completely understand, what I hate are those who mooch off the system so they dont even have to try...

 

[TK777]

I think its perfectly fair. Us hard-working individuals have to pass a drug test to EARN money. I think it's only fair for them to take a drug test to TAKE our money.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[mrplunkey]

I'm only going to talk about "assumed" honest people, the bad case scenarios:

Young children create a problem regarding work. If you don't have a skill set that enables you to be employed and making sufficient money for day care, and you don't have family who are capable of watching your kids, depending on the age of the kids you could be stuck on welfare for quite a while (and don't assume child support is covering that. If you're uneducated/unskilled, odds are the people you have relationships with are, as well. Child support is based on the income of both parents).

For others it can be a physical/mental health issues. My stepdaughter cannot find work after being unemployed for more than a year. Nobody wants to hire her, she can't even get an interview. She has a terrible work record (5 jobs in less than 2 years). Combine that with the fact the economy really hasn't rebounded very much in this region, there are tons of people looking for work. Why even bother bringing her with her shitty work record in when there's people out there who have good, solid work histories. When she does interview her Asperger's doesn't exactly do her any favors. To strangers she does not read as cheerful, enthusiastic or even engaged.

Finally, there is a certain age group (generally, 50 and over) who are fighting a losing battle. Frankly, people coming out of high school and college are willing and capable of doing their jobs relatively competently for substantially lower pay. Companies do not like to hire someone to do a job they have done previously but pay them a reduced rate. They know it probably will generate anger and resentment on the part of the employee. Much easier to take the green 20-something who thinks $25k a year with no benes is awesome instead of the experienced 50-something who used to do the same job for another company, but at the time got $45k, full benes and 4 weeks paid.

Interesting examples. Let's focus on the first one. Someone has a child but can't get a good enough job to clear the child care cost.

Now let's ignore the willing sources of help (charities, family, friends, churches, community, etc. etc.). Let's just focus on non-voluntary sources of support -- money that is taken, not given.

1) How much of a working person's labor should go to the person who doesn't work? I'm curious... is it 2% of their labor efforts... 15%.... 50%? I'm curious to see where you see the line.

2) What about subsequent bad decisions? What if they have two more kids? What if they decide to abuse alcohol or drugs? Does the public's obligation increase?

3) What about lifestyle choices? If the person is 150 lbs over ideal body weight, does that increase the public's obligation?

 

[-SD-]

Interesting examples. Let's focus on the first one. Someone has a child but can't get a good enough job to clear the child care cost.

Now let's ignore the willing sources of help (charities, family, friends, churches, community, etc. etc.). Let's just focus on non-voluntary sources of support -- money that is taken, not given.

1) How much of a working person's labor should go to the person who doesn't work? I'm curious... is it 2% of their labor efforts... 15%.... 50%? I'm curious to see where you see the line.

2) What about subsequent bad decisions? What if they have two more kids? What if they decide to abuse alcohol or drugs? Does the public's obligation increase?

3) What about lifestyle choices? If the person is 150 lbs over ideal body weight, does that increase the public's obligation?

Meanie conservative irregardless of moar entitlement spending

 

[mrplunkey]

Meanie conservative irregardless of moar entitlement spending

troo.

Generational dependency FTMFW!

 

[musclemom]

Interesting examples. Let's focus on the first one. Someone has a child but can't get a good enough job to clear the child care cost.

Now let's ignore the willing sources of help (charities, family, friends, churches, community, etc. etc.). Let's just focus on non-voluntary sources of support -- money that is taken, not given.

Why do you assume that people all over the place are just dying to watch your infant/toddler for free? When I was home with my son my husband and I had moved to an area where I knew nobody and my friends, our parents and his siblings all worked full time anyway. Church? HUH? There is no free daycare charities that I had ever heard of nor in any church (and I didn't belong to a church, anyway, you can't even send your kid to catholic school if you don't belong to that religion, whether you're able to pay the tuition or not).

1) How much of a working person's labor should go to the person who doesn't work? I'm curious... is it 2% of their labor efforts... 15%.... 50%? I'm curious to see where you see the line.

I've never thought about it, I don't think that way since I have no say in how it gets spent currently. I pay my taxes because it's the law. If they go up or down, I just adjust my budget accordingly, I don't really know, or want to think about, where things go.

2) What about subsequent bad decisions? What if they have two more kids? What if they decide to abuse alcohol or drugs? Does the public's obligation increase?

Again, all I was doing was providing potential scenarios where a person could be on welfare and not be a purposeful leach on the system, just a decent person who happened to be in a bind. People like you who don't believe there is ever a reason to go on welfare can't see that there could be cases where people need a hand to get over a bad stretch. For example, if my 57 year old husband were to get laid off from his job, the odds of him ever finding a job where he's makng what he makes now is practically zero. In fact, we happen to be very good friends with a couple that the husband is the foreman/supervisor for a company that does exactly the type of work my husband does, and he offered my husband a job (remember, very, very good friends and they're about 50 miles from us so it's the same basic geographic area). He offered the top rate his company permits him to pay, it would have been a $15k cut in wages and loss of three weeks paid vacation. When I first got pregnant with my son I had to quit my job (it was just a BS job in a mall). I kept fainting, never fainted before or since but I nearly hit the floor on three separate occasions. My husband and I were living with his mother, he had a job, but no benefits. I had to go on medical assistance to be able to see an OB doc.

3) What about lifestyle choices? If the person is 150 lbs over ideal body weight, does that increase the public's obligation?

Little FYI, just because someone is morbidly obese doesn't mean they wouldn't like to be otherwise. I have another friend who is morbidly obese, she'd love to lose the weight, and is willing to cut the calories and exercise. Little problem, she has only one kneecap and blew out a tendon in the other leg (she was only released from six weeks of near total bed rest in an immobilizer last week) the only way she can exercise at all is in a pool in a highly limited fashion. She can only go and down steps one at a time and has to restrict that as much as possible. Additionally, she's on several antipsychotic medications which have completely destroyed her metabolism. In the beginning of this year she went on a liquid diet in anticipation of gastric bypass. After three months on less than 1000 calories a day she had lost the equivalent of less than 1/2 pound a week and the restricted calories were causing severe problems with her meds. I know for a fact there are several drugs used for BPD or epilepsy that people start taking and weight just piles on and they can't lose it. Considering the GI tract is lined with neural tissue, it makes sense, but that doesn't make it any easier to live with.

Just because life is black and white and straightforward for you doesn't mean it is for everyone else.

 

[-SD-]

I get depressed as fuck everytime MM posts

 

[jjtt]

In Ontario, Canada, you can collect disability benefits if you are a drug addict or alcoholic. They are considered disabilities. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that it would be discriminatory not to provide these people with benefits according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms CanLII - 2010 ONCA 593 (CanLII)


From Section 15 of the Charter:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

 

[-SD-]

In Ontario, Canada, you can collect disability benefits if you are a drug addict or alcoholic. They are considered disabilities. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that it would be discriminatory not to provide these people with benefits according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms CanLII - 2010 ONCA 593 (CanLII)


From Section 15 of the Charter:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Holy fuck I gotta move to canada so i can fogg out and get paid by the government