Shaming the bottom-feeders.

[Perfection]

Are you now going to argue that addiction is a good thing?

Purely anecdotal. The DSM V still lists Marijuana addiction as a diagnosable issue.

It also lists Alcoholism as a disorder too, should we make sure that those on assistance never drink a Bud Lite?

Not in the least. Even non-addictive illegal drug use isn't something these people should be spending taxpayer dollars on. That is not what the aid is for.

Of course not, but just because someone spends some money on drugs, doesn't mean they'd spend the government assistance money on it.

There already exists a significant black market for food stamps themselves where people sell entire books of food stamps for illicit substances. Anything you suggest along these lines is going to be exponentially more invasive than a simple drug test done to enter the program.

We've already made significant progress towards reducing this, Mobby. For example there aren't people who sell entire books of food stamps anymore, because SNAP program benefits are distributed using EBT (electronic benefit transfers) much like a credit card. Certainly there are avenues for fraud with this system too, but one can't simply trade stamps away and we have a much better account of who spent what where.

It's going to make people choose from being responsible and getting their lives on track as opposed to continue leeching off the public in irresponsible ways.

I doubt losing these benefits is going to be what's going to break any cycle of addiction. Sounds like a fairy tale to me.

I don't mind giving aid to someone deserving of it; but I don't want to pay for someone's drug habit be it addictive or not. The least we can get as taxpayers is reciprocal behavior from those asking for aid to not spend that aid on drugs. It's a win/win scenario either way.

I am completely for not having them spend aid on drugs. However, aid is typically not the sole source of income for people. I am all for actions that encourage accountability of that specific money, but making 50 million Americans piss in a cup is not the right thing to do.

 

[MobBoss]

It also lists Alcoholism as a disorder too, should we make sure that those on assistance never drink a Bud Lite?

Alcohol is still a legal substance...the drugs i'm referring to are not.

Of course not, but just because someone spends some money on drugs, doesn't mean they'd spend the government assistance money on it.

Now you're just being purposefully naïve. Once you co-mingle those monies your point is simply moot.

We've already made significant progress towards reducing this, Mobby. For example there aren't people who sell entire books of food stamps anymore, because SNAP program benefits are distributed using EBT (electronic benefit transfers) much like a credit card. Certainly there are avenues for fraud with this system too, but one can't simply trade stamps away and we have a much better account of who spent what where.

And we could make it better still by drug testing.

I am completely for not having them spend aid on drugs. However, aid is typically not the sole source of income for people. I am all for actions that encourage accountability of that specific money, but making 50 million Americans piss in a cup is not the right thing to do.

Of course it is. People receiving aid need to have some measure of reciprocity back to those paying for it. This is an excellent way of providing that.

 

[Bamspeedy]

What is included in 'welfare'?

When the right talks welfare they are most often referring to the monthly payments one can receive for having very low income ( or no income at all), but not unemployment, usually. They are not talking of all the other things that might be counted as welfare if you go by the strict definition (or expanded definition) that counts all social programs or benefits.

Food stamps?
Heating assistance?
Housing assistance?
Free or reduced school lunches?
Unemployment?
Tax credits for low income?
Lower tax rates for low income?
Home mortgage interest tax deduction?
Tax break for educational expenses?
Low interest for student loans?
GI Bill?
Medicare/Medicaid?
Disability?
Stimulus checks?
Tax incentives?
Government loans?
Bailouts?
Anything the government spends money on? (Someone, somewhere is benefitting)

Some of those I would say is 'welfare', some I would not for various reasons. CEOs of companies seeking bailouts should pee in a cup.

 

[Visorslash]

What I enjoyed from the OP was that he assumes that everyone here is American. There is a whole other world out there.

 

[DinoDoc]

Great idea. Let's make the welfare system even more degrading and humiliating to its victims than it already is.

I would feel better if there actually were a sense of shame attached to receiving these benefits:

[YOUTUBE-OLD]tpAOwJvTOio[/YOUTUBE-OLD]

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't know whether this happens in the US or not. I presume so, since apparently 48% (?) of US citizens receive some kind of benefit.

What sort of benefit would that be? There are 4.3 million people on welfare, or 1.3% of the population.

I would feel better if there actually were a sense of shame attached to receiving these benefits...

Based on your posts in this forum, I had no doubt of that even before you responded. Fortunately, it is not going to happen.

 

[DinoDoc]

Fortunately, it is not going to happen.

Why fortunately?

 

[Old Hippy]

I would feel better if there actually were a sense of shame attached to receiving these benefits:

so you know where all the jobs are kept hidden then?...

 

[DinoDoc]

There's about 11 million jobs all over the country.

 

[Old Hippy]

There's about 11 million jobs all over the country.

so it would make sense to train people to be able to fill them, and people would earn enough to not need any welfare...

now we just have to do something with the other 89 million and everything will be OK...

http://rt.com/usa/million-us-residents-welfare-268/

 

[DinoDoc]

so it would make sense to train people to be able to fill them, and people would earn enough to not need any welfare...

You largely don't need training to do the work illegals do. This conversation has nothing to do with the proposition that leaching off society should have a sense of shame attached to it. I would be happy if people did find accepting welfare as humiliating and degrading as Forma claims but they largely don't.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I'm just going to leave this here, from a rough time last month:

(8:31:15 PM) Me: Oh
(8:31:15 PM) Me: oh
(8:31:16 PM) Me: OH
(8:31:19 PM) Me: I FOUND A LOLLIPOP!
(8:31:24 PM) My Friend: wooo
(8:31:36 PM) Me: It was in my drawer
(8:32:06 PM) Me: Well anyways I hope I can make it last a couple hours.
(8:32:12 PM) Me: Might be able to trick my stomach into thinking it's a full-course meal.
(8:32:16 PM) Me: I wish.


Humiliation isn't really such a powerful motive at this point.

 

[DinoDoc]

Shame isn't really such a powerful motive at this point.

Internet using first world citizen pretending to be poor.

Edit: Posting on a game forum no less.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Actually, last month there were a few days I went without eating, simply because we didn't have anything other than half a box of Shake 'n Bake (which, I'll warn you, is pretty much inedible on its own).

 

[Old Hippy]

You largely don't need training to do the work illegals do. .

I would just point out that the work 'illegals do' are not actually job vacancies and that their are only 3.9 milllion jobs going around... and many of thoes still require welfare to actually live on

http://www.bls.gov/

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I'd rather have a database that has a function to calculate a credit score kinda thing that's based on every aptitude test you've taken in your life. A certain allotment of tax money will be collected annually, and then being spread to the population according to the relative size of the individual's score to the citizen with the highest score.

Oh, and anyone can search for your number.

 

[MobBoss]

Actually, last month there were a few days I went without eating, simply because we didn't have anything other than half a box of Shake 'n Bake (which, I'll warn you, is pretty much inedible on its own).

If you don't have food in the house, how do you justify still paying for the internet?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Because it was already paid for.

 

[MobBoss]

Because it was already paid for.

So you can pay for internet at the start of the month, but run out of money for food later on in the month.

I'd take a webinar how on to make a budget and keep to it.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I don't handle the budget, my mother does. I havent bought many luxuries in the last few months. Two cheap games on Steam, three used books, and some pencil lead refills. I also put away a few dollars per month in the savings account. I was going to buy a software with it but my computer chair is broken and I need to replace it soon (the piece that's broken cannot replace) so I guess I'll do that first.