Nothing in the constitution about that, but considering that Obama could have me abducted, tortured and then shot, I wouldn't be overly concerned about that worthless piece of paper. Considering also that the vast majority of Americans would nod their heads and go along with it, WTFC
Michelle asked: Do you all honestly believe that the majority of welfare recipients are drug-addicted and cheaters? Do you really think it's okay to do to welfare recipients what Obama and his ilk have done to bankers?
I can't speak for all welfare recipients, not having met all of them, but of those I have met (scores and scores), they were all without exception using recreational drugs. Not to mention getting tatoos, attending numerous social events weekly and having copious amounts of sex. None of which I can afford or find the time for in my busy schedule:-)
So my beef with welfare recipients, or at least all of them I have known, is SHEER ENVY, . Sorry about that.
When bankers start sporting neck tatoos, having hordes of illegitimate children, and stop paying income taxes we can worry about them.
To answer Mr. Emrich's question about "why" please see Beth's quote: For a man who can command another man's labor and self-denial for the support of his own existence is a privileged person of the highest species conceivable on earth....
My house is heated to 52 degrees. My family's entertainment budget is $45 per annum. Our clothing budget is $150 a year - for three people. These straitened circumstances are exacerbated by the predations of the Welfare State. I'll be d***ed if I'll willingly pay for my underlings to be my overlords - as they take their ease in a 72* government subsidized house while getting stoned and contemplating their next sexual conquest - on MY nickel. Testing would slash the welfare rolls dramatically. Start now.
I had a friend over in Standish, Maine, a retired farmer, now passed. When Lyndon Johnson
started "THE WAR ON POVERTY" he made a comment regarding welfare that
has remained embellished in my brain since the Sixties.
"If you keep barn cats to police the mice and rats you can't have the Mrs. bringing a fresh
Haddock dinner out to the barn every few hours. The cats will be waiting for the Haddock
and the Rodents will have free reign".
In the old days most Towns and Cities had poor farms. The people who needed help went to
the poor farm and raised their own subsistance. If you don't believe me, the next time you are
on the Turnpike just South of the Jetport exit (7B I think), take a look at the restored farm
building where the Turnpike keeps equipment. That is THE CROSBY FARM, at one time the poor
farm for the City of Portland. They also raised all the food for the City Hospital, now known as
The Barron Center.
The cats' now have a plastic card so they don't have wait for the Mrs. to deliver the Haddock.
I don't want to hear anymore sobb stories about welfare. I've stood in all to many lines in every
size store, from the Big Hannaford on Marginal Way in Portland to a Mom and Pop and in rural Maine.
The only saving grace is the larger stores don't sell scratch tickets at the register. I'm sick of watching
my pennies when folks ahead and behind me in line whip out The Pine Tree Card or some type of
a voucher from the welfare office and leave with a full cart of merchandise. Cash always on hand for
Lottery tickets, Butts and Booze.
Chris Coose: I apologize to you for maligning your sobriety. Congratulations on remaining clean for so many years.
what ever happened to family helping family? What ever happened to the church helping the needy. There plenty of private organization out there where one can get help.
If government-run welfare is redundant, why are we discussing drug-testing for welfare recipients? Eliminate welfare. Problem solved!
I am appalled by the lynch mob mentality which I am reading here. And I am also bewildered by the fact that no one can answer Bob Emrich's question or explain what the root of the problem is.
Good point, Michelle. I'm tempted to holler BINGO!
Mel? You've suggested that - somehow - drug-testing of welfare recipients will mitigate the persistence of inter-generational welfare dependence, but you haven't explained how or why.
Thrasybulus, your post makes a great deal of sense, but how does it relate to the issue of drug-testing? Are you fer or agin?
Random drug testing for welfare...what a stupid idea..imagine the cost of the program, the cost for appeals and hearings, and the "randomness" of it..This will never get of the ground. But here's what needs to be done to reform welfare in Maine.
1. Ensure that if you're in subsidized housing, all occupants are known and part of the approval process. No more freeloader boyfriends living with you.
2. Set caps on maximum assistance you can receive from all sources, federal, state, local and independent social service agencies, food banks, etc.
3. Further restrict what can be purchased with food stamp assistance, its too liberal.
4. Make earned income credits refundable to the state - its an addition to your income, thus it should be added into any calculation for assistance. Same with ANY tax refund including credits for dependents - you're not paying for their existence, we are.
5. Make all health providers accept a % of their panel as Mainecare eligibile - no blackballing to avoid lower reimbursement - everyone share the cost. The rules to do so are too easy to get around.
6. Limit TANF to 5 years, no more papers in DHHS offices which clearly show how you can get more than 5 years if you meet the criteria of the program.
Anyone else got any thoughts?
When the foundation is rotted, would we "fix" it, or tear it up and put in a new one? The system is structurally unsound.
Earlier in this thread, I mentioned removing the program from the state and feds and giving that responsibility back to the communities where it has traditionally been, but judging from the mail I got calling me a liberal and a marxist, I guess that didn't go over well.
LOL. Right. I'm a liberal.
Remanding welfare to the local level (particularly in a state such as Maine) is the best idea put forth on this thread. I can remember when it was done this way in NH. The selectmen ruled, and they were accountable to the voters. There was no resentment of those who received aid.
As a member of society there is a minimum obligation we have for each other and that is food, shelter and the aleviation of pain. Everone should contribute to the cost of providing this minimal service because if you cannot, someone else is obligated to provide it for you. If there are those who believe the minimum is not enough, they can contribute whatever they feel is surplus to their needs and distribute it as they see fit and put qualifications on the recipients. They cannot however force those not willing to contribute. In every society, the assets available are limited. We have determined that the distribution of these assets should go to those who have earned them, either by birth or by personal effort. The individual or their government should have no power to take away what is not voluntarily given.
I agree with Michelle, put it back in the control of the local govt.
I'll vouch for you, Michelle. You're neither a liberal nor a Marxist.
I agree that the best solution is to start over. I like the idea of one single program to administer welfare, although I'd incline toward something like Milton Friedman's negative income tax.
Currently we've got separate programs to provide the poor with (1) food, (2) medical care, (3) housing, (4) day care, (5) transportation and - I almost forgot - (6) cash. Sometimes more than one program for each category, all with different eligibility standards and adminstrative costs. Adding an additional eligibility requirement - i.e. random drug testing - strikes me as just another contribution to the accumulated craziness.
It costs government $1120.12 in expenditure for each $1.00 of direct assistance received by a poor person. OK, I made that up, but I bet I'm not off by a large magnitude.
Thrasybulus, you need a home with a wood stove.
On thread what Emike and Michelle said.
From Bigshooter's other thread:
Is Anyone Else As Sick Of Welfare Abuse As I Am?
Last week I watched a kid, maybe 13 or 14 in line at a local convenience store as he piled candy, chips, gum, soda, etc high on the counter. When he handed over his purdy little blue EBT card (we can't call it food stamps because people would have to "feel guilty" again). I was already irritated enough but when he picked up a white baseball cap with a huge bill (the kind the inner-city youtes wear sideways) he stated "I wish I could buy this too." The wonderful lady behind the counter said, to my surprise; "Not with a food stamp card, you can't" I couldn't decide weather to be madder or just thankful that this clerk finally said it like it was.
This AM I was in line to get a bottle of water and an Uncle Henry's with cash and I had to wait for a young lady with 3 kids from 5 to 8 or so. They were scampering all over the store, grabbing candy, soda and chips and piling them high in front of her like they just won a free shopping spree. She kept telling them to "Come on now, grab what you want so Mommy can checkout" and they ignored her, making trip after trip. When they finally gathered their booty, she whipped out her food stamp card and off they went.
I am so sick and tired of this crap it makes me want to puke. If anything happend under this administration and congress I hope it is a complete choking off of the food stamp abuse. I can't even decide if I am in favor of them anymore under any circumstances if people are not elderly, disabled or vets. When people "CAN'T" take care of themself I am glad to help, but when people "WON'T" take care of themself, and so blatantly spend MY money on so much crap, with no shame, it makes me sick.
I hope we cut up all the little blue cards and look closely into the LIHEAP, WIC, town fuel assistance, etc and let the people who CAN work, do just that. I have a sneaking feeling that as soon as their belly growles a few times or the 11 kids are hungry, that job that so many view as "beneath them" will look pretty darn good.
Sorry to sound so cold, but my pockets are empty and I can't count high enough the number of hands picking my pockets legally and not even saying "Thanks."
Anyone else get as sick of this abuse as I do?
A more accurate figure would be 70 Cents on every dollar. Welfare, the industry
of the left.
Yes; I'm as sick of it as you are, Big. If you have any suggestions on ways to curb abuse of the money we're all paying to hand over as chip/soda/gum purchases, please send it to the LePage Transition Team.
You can also relay thoughts and suggestions to the Governor's office.
Don't forget our U.S. Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen because those in Augusta will tell us they have no control over such things...it is the USDA in Washington D.C. that controls this area. I am referring to the abuse of food and beverage items.
An open question:
If a parent of a family that is eligible for food stamps allows children to spend a portion of the grant on less-nutritious foods, why is that welfare abuse?
I wonder if part of the problem of the wasteful, inefficient welfare system in the United States is the impulse to micromanage the improvident and unworthy poor.
Changing the subject:
I've posted this before, but I think it contains a good graphic that illustrates the bad incentives built into the welfare system.
The bottom line: If you are poor, the government is inadvertently ensuring that you have little incentive to try to improve your condition.
Many of you forget about Tribute and if some are cut off, they will turn to breaking into our homes. To house a prisoner in Maine costs about 40k per person, so it is just not that simple.
Many of these people are unemployable, meaning no small business person would hire them, (that is why government employs them, so to speak) many of you also forget about our nations present unemployment rate. Our present unemployed, were employable and lost their jobs, that is why they are counted, where does that put the unemployable?
Cost savings as posted by Emike is the way to attack some of the costs involved in welfare and then the question arises when we cut the government employees, who are employable, where do they go?
Then we could discuss the value of cutting our military budget and get cost savings there, but when we return the military personel to the states, where are the jobs for these employable people?
These problems have been known to our government critters for decades, but they have just decided to kick the can down the road and borrow more money and devalue our currency to help pay for it for the short term, their legislative term or their employment term, whichever applies.
We as citizens of this country should have also had some understanding of what was occuring during our lifetime, but chose to ignore it. When the cash is coming in, just like the Baldacci administration and those before it, what me worry? Or some of us would say we knew it was coming but there was no way to change DC, the deck was stacked.
And thus we have have reached this point, where Obama and the Congress kowtow to our debtors.
Liquidation Sale, everything must go, no reasonable offer will be refused in order to pay our debtors. :)
I am with you Big!
Kind of ironic, arguing the constitutionality of random drug testing in a program that is unconstitutional in itself.
I like the use of the word "grant" Economike. Makes welfare sound classy.
That's an interesting chart Emike, and I believe that it is accurate from just an anecdotal understanding, if you aren't making more than 40k as a family, the incentive to get on welfare and the government cash cow is too great.
If your comment was directed at me, I was not refering to whether drug testing was proper for welfare recips but that the next step was to drug test all of us, as government always does with a precedence.
I work at least a dozen jobs at any given time. If one market or area is slow I focus on others. Few are enough to "get by" on alone, thus the "Jack of all trades, master of none" philosophy my Grandfather drilled into me. If I can do it by working hard, being honest, giving the people who use my services a good value for their dollar, I think most people can. I have several job opportunities because I am always looking for projects and not standing in my doorway with my hand out, wondering why it doesn't fill up on its own. You have to be aggressive and creative but it's not rocket science.
That said, I don't think it is the Governments job to provide for those who won't provide for themself. If they can't, like I stated above I don't mind. To go a step further, I think it is the burdon of family, friends, church, community, etc. Why do you think every farm has an old "Town Farm Road" somewhere? When people needed help they worked "on the farm" doing something for the community and received help back. Today there is very little temporary help, community help, family assistance, etc because it is too easy for a politician I never met to pass a law to take money away from my family to give away to other people I may never meet, to essentiallt do whatever they want with. If I get irritated about it I am chastised for being"mean." Well, I think telling someone they can't take care of themself, even the most basic food and shelter by putting them on a program is pretty "mean."
I hear there are no jobs from the newspaper and television, and the next story is about people hiring illegals to work for them because they can't find people to work for startup jobs. That's how you get somewhere, is by starting at the bottom. Today too many people feel that starter jobs are "beneath them" but somehow have the gonads to take free money and blow it without that being "beneath them." I really think it is because it is too easy, doesn't feel bad, and there is little reason to get off the dole if you have no ethical problems with it. The latter is dwindling more and more every day.
When I hear people say they won't take a job because they will lose THEIR benefits, food stamps, welfare, heat assistance, "free" medical coverage, etc it is frustrating. I am willing to bet that if they woke up one day and all the "free" money was gone, many of the jobs would no longer be beneath them, and they would start their climb up the same ladder many of us started in and right after school.
There is no incentive like making it necessary.
Just my .02.
I can't speak for all welfare recipients, not having met all of them, but of those I have met (scores and scores), they were all without exception using recreational drugs. Not to mention getting tatoos, attending numerous social events weekly and having copious amounts of sex.
I completely agree Thrasybulus ...I see scores of them as well....I recommend Michelle and others who don't believe what's going on to get a job at Walmart cashiering for a couple of months then we'll talk...Especially when they come in and cash their 3,000 dollar EIC tax refund or bonus as I call it and blow it on big screen TVs and other electronics after paying for food with the card...I get to pay the IRS 800 bucks this year and got no bonus.....
It makes me sick as well Bigshooter...
So when you go to the core of the problem, its’ people in elected office who vote to fund the
welfare programs or turn their legislative authority or responsibility over to administrative agencies.
In the Military that is classified as dereliction of duty!
Here's question for those who would keep programs like Food Stamps for the "truly needy" but clamp down to stop "abuses" by freeloaders:
Do you also believe politicians who promise to make programs like Medicare work with less funding by clamping down on "waste and fraud?"
I'm still waiting for someone to take on this one -
If a parent of a family that is eligible for food stamps allows children to spend a portion of the grant on less-nutritious foods, why is that welfare abuse? How could this form of abuse be defined and prevented?
And if anyone answered Bob Emrich's question, I missed it.
What would we be trying to accomplish with drug testing of welfare recipients?
I recommend Michelle and others who don't believe what's going on ...
Maybe I'm not being clear about my position. I have never been told by anyone that I have ever been unclear, but perhaps that's the problem.
Please point me to where you're getting that so I can fix it. I await your explanation.
The only way to truely reform the EBT (food stamp) program is to handle it the way the WIC program is...they tell you what is allowed for purchase. You won't find chips, gum, or soda on their list.
Correct, PM. And, if WIC can do so (and has done so, for many decades) then why can't TANF and SNAP?
To me, the "abuse" is allowing the waste of foodstamp money being spent on nutritionally worthless products like soda and gum.
What are you talking about? Where do you read me even implying don't believe what's going on.
Michelle , perhaps I misunderstood but this is the quote I was refering to..
Are you honestly going to try to deny anyone and everyone who has a drug record? Really?
This is such a disturbing thread, I am having trouble believing that people I know in real life have piled on to an entire class of people, decided that they aren't entitled to dignity at all, and I can't even tell you what this discussion reminds me of because it would violate Godwin's Law. But it is, at the very least, Animal Farmish.
If the bottom fell out of YOUR world unexpectedly, are you telling me that you would refuse to take advantage of the programs you have been paying into for all these years -- to save your home from foreclosure, to get the medical care you need, to feed your family --until you get back on your feet."
And I never said ALL welfare people were druggies just ALOT of them and I have no problem with a hand up just the handouts to the layabouts......A little clearer now ???