Where our Tax money goes

i agree completely makes me sick

 

I don't mind randomized drug tests for aid recipients, let both parties agree it's non-admissible evidence and bring it on.

"Privacy" in this case is pretty shallow considering the dole they're getting is voluntary and should be conditional for good standing and moral character.

I can agree with Conservatives that there are some deeply embedded entitlement attitudes coming from welfare recipients who have no ambition and won't start from the bottom up.

I disagree with their solutions of throwing the baby out of the bathwater as it also effects people who genuinely need the money and are living week by week with horrible finances, but serious discussions about this on the other side is lacking as well.

 

That does piss me off. There are a lot of people who actually need it, and guys like this are just mooching of the system.

 

What about students and food stamps? This is something that never sat right with me when people in my cohort would go and get food stamps but still spend their weekends at bars. Not saying that they were spending the stamps on alcohol/partying but if you've got the coin to blow at a bar why do you need the food stamps? Seemed like an abuse of the program.


Look at me, don't I sound like the little republican!

 

Any abuse of the system is definitely wrong, and should be improved.

 

i do not understand the logic behind adding costs to a program that we want to cut waste from. you want to make aid recipients spend the first $35 of aid they get on something that doesn't help anyone but drug testing companies.

look at the states that have implemented drug testing for welfare. it has been a colossal waste of time and money. it's a TERRIBLE idea.

 

Drug testing seems to be a huge waste of money.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html

The biggest cost savings would be reducing the benefits for each family by 25-50%. Poor people around the world are skinny and not obese.

Only in America can obesity and gluttony represent the poor and starving. When they get high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes and heart attacks, we pay for their medical care, too. Does that make any sense?

Honestly, how do welfare recipients afford the food to become 100 lbs overweight? They can't. Tax payers are paying twice for their benefits by paying for the food and the medical expenses.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=food-stamps-obesity

 

Most of the data comes from Florida since courts in other states have struck down the policy over concerns of Constitutionality. I wouldn't mind drug testing legislators too.

I agree that the failures of Florida could hint that it's a horrible idea elsewhere, but there's room to operate on the assumption that it can be improved.

I'm pretty ambivalent on mar1juana. I know it makes me lazy. It could be that for others "all it does" is release stress.

I'd rather recipients not drink either. Life sucks when you're poor, yeah yeah, but there are avenues to improve yourself after one or two shifts that doesn't involve drinking.

If it sounds like the conservative mantra, it should. I don't believe that poor people should be punished for their situation, but "punishment" shouldn't include not having the "freedom" to escape reality with drugs that affect your mental and/or physical capacity.

So maybe drug tests are wrong headed or counterproductive. My main concern is whether welfare recipients are in it to improve themselves or consider welfare payments as the end all of their contribution to society. I've been unemployed for more than a year before. I know the creeping and eroding self confidence it comes with, and the self-rationalization to just "live with it".

What about incentivising payoffs with aptitude tests that have randomized answers? After a certain gradient is reached, they're given employment opportunities that fit their competence and allow them to build up their experience. It would work with programs like the EITC to build people up rather then cement their status as the entitlement class.

 

Healthy foods cost money. If you're poor and rely on processed foods to get calories, you're more likely to get fat.

 

Anyone remember the Texas Card, that for whatever reasons didn't work out? I totally forgot the abuses and failures in that system.

I think it's totally possible to use a plastic food stamp system, where foods that aren't taxed (the most basic acceptance criteria) can be subsidized on the user's total balance. Like if a food qualifies for the produce categorization, then the user's balance is only deducted 50% of the veggie's price. Perishable foods seem to qualify for healthy, but as the system becomes more sophisticated, that fear about people buying lobsters and fillet mignon "every day" can be curtailed too.

Modernization and data collection (and anonymization) could do wonders here.

 

not really. You can make a healthy meal for cheap if you don't mind actually cooking the meal. If you stick to the outside of the aisles and the produce area, you can feed a family fairly cheap compared to the process foods aisle. It may costs $12 to make a pot roast ($8 for the meat, $4 for the veggies), but it will feed a family of 4 for 2-3 meals. Thats $4-$6 a meal. McDonalds costs more than that.

 

Agreed whole-heartily. This is why I think Affirmative Action needs to be updated to a class-based system instead of race. It was great for a while, but now it mostly helps middle-class minorities and minority small business owners who no longer really need it. If you change it to class based, it could help much more people. Check out Tony Brown's books. Especially this one..


It sets out a great case for class-based affirmative actions, and the changes that we should help the poor make in order to improve their lives. He was a product of segregation and gave his first speeches on the matter when he was in middle school. Very good read with some interesting ideas.

 

Until we cut spending on shiny new toys for the Pentagon, I don't want to see one dime less spent on the poor and disadvantaged in this country.

 

You really think a family of 4 on an $8.00 pot roast 2-3 meals?

 

Rule to live by: Never make any judgments based on something you saw on daytime TV.