Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 26th, 2017, 12:38 AM   #21
Suspended until September 19th, 2018
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: N/A
Posts: 1,374

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
I dont see in principle a problem with welfare being conditional on following certain rules

Think about it.. If you use drugs at work, your probabiliy to get fired is very high. (and that's not the only rule you must follow at work, there are plenty)

If you are being paid welfare (in effect you get a salary) there is no reason why you should not also abide by certain rules , including no drug use...

Conversely a habit of welfare being paid no matter what, creates a culture of "I am owed" which is negative for both the recipient and society at large
Being conservative you wouldn't have a problem with social paternalism at all either. The issue with welfare is that there is a real and serious disparity between what the media portrays as the average person on welfare (crack addict/social deviant) vs the reality (most people on some sort of welfare are trying just to get through until they can work again).

The conservative ideology that these people sit on their asses collecting cheques (yes that's how you spell it in the rest of the world) is also a complete and utter misnomer. The majority of people in this world just want to work and get on with the rest of their lives being mundane and pseudo-anonymous. The majority of these people paid taxes in the first place to get their welfare so they don't owe you a dime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon View Post
What drugs are they testing for? I have the feeling most of the positives will be for marijuana which if alcohol is legal so should marijuana and cutting benefits completely does leave the dependents adrift.

Most welfare systems are designed to benefit children because they are innocents and the idea that giving the children some support and a chance at a better life will cost taxpayers less down the road if a higher percentage of those children become productive citizens though it is widely understood a relatively high percentage will follow their parents path.
I continue to be discouraged by people in modern society. My alumni school is filled with people who are first time university students in their family, mostly from disadvantaged families in society. There has been a real social effort being made by my university to get these people to go through school including a range of preparation programs (at no cost to the potential student) and in providing ongoing student support services to keep these students engaged. The reality (par for the course of university drop out rates) is that these students do go through and complete their higher education degrees.

So to speak, if we spend enough money on people their will be a sizable percentage that actually make it through a university degree and go on to be productive (tax paying) members of society. You cannot help everyone equally, but you can get an equitable response from social services given people a chance to actually get through. Equality starts from the bottom, not the top and this is my beef with this nonsense that is the pseudo-science of the trickle down economy you will not find in any textbook.

The real sham is giving enough welfare to the 1% club in society and not expecting them to pocket the tax breaks without employing another person in their business... This is the definition of FUBAR (Fouled Up Beyond all Reason).

https://fee.org/articles/there-is-no...own-economics/

Last edited by orestes; December 26th, 2017 at 12:59 AM.
orestes is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 26th, 2017, 12:59 AM   #22

Belgarion's Avatar
Cynical Optimist
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Australia
Posts: 6,182

I tend to say no to this. While there are those wastes of space who should have all their welfare benefits removed, the majority of people are victims of circumstance rather than drug addled welfare cheats.
I am reminded of when compulsory drug testing was introduced in Customs and Border Security (for sculptingmans benefit, people in law enforcement and other emergency services are routinely tested for drugs, at least in Australia) I stated I was quite willing to be tested, as long as the CEO, the public service executives and the Attorney General (our boss) were also tested. funny but I was never given a routine test....
Which leads me to.... by all means test welfare recipients, but also test every MP before they enter the parliament to decide what's best for the rest of us.
Belgarion is offline  
Old December 26th, 2017, 01:02 AM   #23
Suspended until September 19th, 2018
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: N/A
Posts: 1,374

Something above I think we can both actually agree upon Belgarion. Who tests the testers?
orestes is offline  
Old December 26th, 2017, 01:42 AM   #24

Belgarion's Avatar
Cynical Optimist
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Australia
Posts: 6,182

Quote:
Originally Posted by orestes View Post
Something above I think we can both actually agree upon Belgarion. Who tests the testers?
We agree on something!
Belgarion is offline  
Old December 26th, 2017, 07:42 AM   #25
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: USA
Posts: 2,069

Define welfare recipient; are we talking people using a safety net to get through hard times, or wealthy CEOs and shareholders in companies that lobby and receive subsidies to keep their business afloat? This is a serious question, as welfare can take a variety of forms for a variety of reasons, though I'd argue pushing drug tests on the former are counterproductive since that kind of behavior would normally put them at the wrong end of the law to begin with. Unless, of course, we were talking about abuse of medication which is technically legal.
ameteurhistorian is online now  
Old December 26th, 2017, 12:44 PM   #26

Ichon's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: .
Posts: 3,285

Quote:
Originally Posted by orestes
The conservative ideology that these people sit on their asses collecting cheques (yes that's how you spell it in the rest of the world) is also a complete and utter misnomer. The majority of people in this world just want to work and get on with the rest of their lives being mundane and pseudo-anonymous. The majority of these people paid taxes in the first place to get their welfare so they don't owe you a dime.

So to speak, if we spend enough money on people their will be a sizable percentage that actually make it through a university degree and go on to be productive (tax paying) members of society. You cannot help everyone equally, but you can get an equitable response from social services given people a chance to actually get through. Equality starts from the bottom, not the top and this is my beef with this nonsense that is the pseudo-science of the trickle down economy you will not find in any textbook.
Reagan in the 80s attacked welfare recipients and Clinton seemed to agree with him when reforming welfare in the 90s. Since then despite many changes, and the facts even at the time not matching the rhetoric it seems an accepted part of the conservative ideology that individuals getting government support are weak willed lazy beggars while corporations getting guaranteed monopolies, subsidies, or direct support are necessary pillars of the economy rather than the inefficient use of resources true bareknuckled capitalism shows them to be.

Most business conservatives agree with big government liberals that government funding can be redistributed in beneficial ways- they just disagree who should receive the redistributed funds. The main reason the national debt never goes down even when conservatives are in power is their claims to fiscal conservatism are just lip service to satisfy the libertarians and some of their voters stuck in the rhetoric of the 60s and 70s.

Vast majority of welfare recipients in the U.S. are working adults and their dependents. Entitlement programs constitute much more than welfare where social security is by far the largest costing program though medicare and medicaid are growing rapidly yet few working people view social security as an entitlement since they had paid into it most of their working lives though in reality since most people will claim more than they paid in it is actually an entitlement.

Since the budget is so large and complex people tune out the details and only hear what benefits them individually where both major parties make promises they never intend to keep it seems during the last 2 decades the Republican party has not just fallen short of promises but proactively deceived and lied to their benefit in elections so if anything with that behaviour rewarded by their voters it makes perfect sense why the lying and hypocrisy has escalated.

Anyway with the new Trump weakening of ACA and removal of housing tax deductions a large pool of Trump voters will see their after-tax income vs expenses change drastically for the worst. It remains to be seen how many will blame current policies or believe Trump that Obama or China is somehow to blame.

Getting a larger portion of a given tax paying population to have marketable skills is actually a supply side argument and also should make sense to the xenophobes and anti-immigrants where increasing the supply of skilled labor should mean more new businesses and jobs while also fewer immigrants brought in to fill positions companies claim there is a lack of skilled native-born citizens available.

Really little of modern political stances make intellectual or logical sense unless you accept the short-term interests of individuals involved in politics take precedence over absolutely everything else.
Ichon is offline  
Old December 26th, 2017, 02:38 PM   #27
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Vatican occupied America
Posts: 811
Blog Entries: 1

A beyond stupid idea. You've just thrown a drug user who is already associating with criminals to get drugs. You've rendered them completely desperate and completely unemployable. You're hoping they're going to "die and decrease the surplus population"; but what will happen is that you've just forced them to become professional criminals and not all of those are going to be statutory criminals like drug dealers. You've just greatly increased the number of: armed robbers; hit men; burglars; muggers; shop lifters; prostitutes - so smart. Who ever created this idea needs to be placed in a corner with a dunce hat as their crown.

This also is going to punish plenty of people who are non-drug users. Plenty of them will have their drinks or food spiked. Real example my father hated my grandfather's Christianity and so got hypos and spiked all my grandfather's oranges with vodka. Getting drunk is a mortal sin to Christians. My grandfather said those were really good oranges and my father laughed at that for many years. Plenty of malicious people will just set up others under this law.
Disciple of Sophia is offline  
Old December 26th, 2017, 05:17 PM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 9,151

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulun View Post
it doesn't worth it (expensive) plus you may screw up with the dependents of the drug users too who live in the same household if you take away the support. Would have more sense to give the support in special cards to controll more the movement of the money, and you can spend it only on specific things from it (food, cloth, bills, rent, medicine, school, transportation related expenses etc). Yes there will be always abusers of the system who can find their way, but well, you can never have 100% efficiency.
If the point is to somehow curb drug use, I suspect that the vast majority of money spent on illegal drugs is spent by people with money. Test them and see how they like it.
royal744 is online now  
Old December 26th, 2017, 11:52 PM   #29

bodhi's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Charlottengrad
Posts: 763

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eye of Woland View Post
How do you feel about drug testing for people on benefits? Australia will give it a trial run, while a few states in the USA are already doing it.

Some people believe it deters the unemployed from frittering away their benefits on drugs & promotes discipline & good behaviour to improve employability. Detractors believe it further marginalises the unemployed & stigmatise the poor.

I don't know how degrading or humiliating it is (some people find being on benefits humiliating enough as is) but I think it's unnecessary. For starters there are plenty of ways people fritter their time away, time which could be spent looking for a job (alcohol, social media, posting on Internet forums e.t.c.). If it's a case of cracking down on illegal drug use there's plenty of employed people on drugs.

If someone knows they've got a test coming up they'll revise hard & make sure they pass it. Randomised testing can guard against that, but I highly doubt welfare recipients will have to fill out a form saying where they'll be every day of the year.

While there isn't a huge amount of data available, I'd imagine the amount of people getting caught wouldn't be enough to justify the cost of drug testing thousands of people.

I know the welfare system is flawed & there'll always be people taking advantage of it, I also know there are vulnerable people out there struggling with substance abuse. I just don't think drug testing people on benefits will kill either of those two birds.
Well, this touches IMO two bigger questions:
A) Why welfare and who should get it?
B) Why are drugs illegal?

Like somebody else already mentioned a universal basic income would render the first question mute. However, I'd prefer a negative income tax to an actual ubi.

IMO no drug should be illegal or if some drugs are illegal, all should be. Drugs inflict mostly self harm. If people decide this is something they want to do they should be able to. Also, the illegality of drugs does more harm to society than drugs ever could.

So, I don't think the above should even exist.
bodhi is offline  
Old December 27th, 2017, 03:21 AM   #30

Rodger's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: US
Posts: 4,432

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
If the point is to somehow curb drug use, I suspect that the vast majority of money spent on illegal drugs is spent by people with money. Test them and see how they like it.
It probably depends on the drug. Heroin/Fentanyl and cocaine are so addictive that people tend to lose their job, blow through their savings, then resort to criminal activity - like dealing or stealing. I had this happen to a family member. Spent time in jail for crimes, multiple times. She lost everything, including her child for awhile. The neighbor down the road - A vet who did a few tours in Afghanistan, the same thing. He just got out of jail and is in a V.A. hospital for rehab. In my job, I work with those who are on probation. Many of them are on probation because they committed crimes to support their habit. Hard drugs are a real drag on society.
Rodger is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
drug, recipients, tests, welfare



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
University Religious Tests betgo European History 0 August 27th, 2012 06:22 PM
The relevance of Intelligence tests? Zeno Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 4 August 25th, 2011 05:09 PM
Welfare and the Bourgeoisie philosopher Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 December 4th, 2010 08:40 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.