Shaming the bottom-feeders.

[History_Buff]

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.

So what you're saying is you didn't spend all your money on keeping yourself at a subsistence level of living, and instead wasted it on frivolous luxuries? Bring on the drug tests!

 

[Perfection]

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

Point remains, habitual illegal drug (not to mention occasional drug use) doesn't in all cases make someone incapable of wisely using benfit monies.

Now you're just being purposefully naïve.

I'm not arguing in bad faith.

Once you co-mingle those monies your point is simply moot.

I don't see it that way. While I think it's important that benefit monies are spent wisely, I don't think it's fair to demand that every bit of other income is used for purposes that we desire. That's an affront to human dignity.

And we could make it better still by drug testing.

No because it tells us nothing about actual constructive use of monies received and busts people from doing what giant portion of Americans do from time to time. I mean come on, everybody has smoked pot. To take away benefits because of it is freakin' dumb.

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.

Making me pay for a piss test in addition to the benefits doesn't reciprocally benefit me. It's a waste of perfectly good government dollars that could be spent on tax cuts or bombing the crap out of some brown people.

 

[Borachio]

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

Look, if you pay less tax than you receive benefit from government spending aren't you in receipt of welfare, whether it's nominally welfare or not?

And isn't the figure 48%? I thought it was. Nearly half of all Americans do not pay federal income tax. Are you saying that no federal government spending benefits them?

http://www.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm

 

[MobBoss]

Point remains, habitual illegal drug (not to mention occasional drug use) doesn't in all cases make someone incapable of wisely using benfit monies.

And my counter remains as well...that is, they shouldn't be spending money on illegal drugs if they are receiving taxpayer aid. It simply doesn't matter if you think they are spending taxpayer money 'wisely' or not (albeit how wise can their spending be if any percentage of it is going to illegal drug use?), what matters is they are using other peoples money to subsidize their illegal drug habit....and that's not right.

I don't see it that way. While I think it's important that benefit monies are spent wisely, I don't think it's fair to demand that every bit of other income is used for purposes that we desire. That's an affront to human dignity.

Once monies are co-mingled you cant separate it from other sources of income. In essence they are still using taxpayer monies to subsidize their illegal drug use - whether its actually the taxpayer money or whether its from another source is moot.

It doesn't matter how you see it, that's just legally how things work.

No because it tells us nothing about actual constructive use of monies received and busts people from doing what giant portion of Americans do from time to time. I mean come on, everybody has smoked pot.

I've never smoked pot. Still haven't even though i'm now out of the military and its even legal by state law to do so here in Washington state.

So your premise fails immediately there. Also, there are a lot of other illegal drugs in use out there, meth, cocaine, heroin, etc. etc. You cant just say 'pot' and wave away all the other terrible addictive drugs out there.

If the states (or the feds) want to legalize pot, then by all means take it off the drug test; but still test for all those horribly addictive drugs that will certainly remain controlled substances no matter what.

To take away benefits because of it is freakin' dumb.

Why? Because you think it is?

Making me pay for a piss test in addition to the benefits doesn't reciprocally benefit me.

Of course it does. It helps ensure that whatever monies the government uses on this type of aid actually gets used in the manner in which it is intended. And that's a good thing.

If you don't care if someone spends your tax money on black tar heroin that's fine. I think most people would however.

It's a waste of perfectly good government dollars that could be spent on tax cuts or bombing the crap out of some brown people.

I don't think it a waste at all. The results from Florida certainly don't seem to point to it being a waste.

 

[Bamspeedy]

So if one person in a household gets welfare should everyone in the house pee in a cup?

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/...lican-report-110-million-americans-on-welfare

This study counted everyone in the house as getting aid if one person in the house got it.

I remember the thread that basically said "welfare is more than you think" and it was to try to show the right that they use more welfare than they think, now this article is saying the right is exaggerating the numbers and the left is now saying "the numbers aren't that big"

 

[Cutlass]

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

And twice that number of people looking to fill them.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

And what evidence do you have for that? The fact is that we currently make welfare as degrading as possible already. But people like you refuse to allow these people to work. So they really have no optiosn.

 

[El_Machinae]

Drug tests, eh? Targeted at a people who might not be able to afford a positive hit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I can't even afford a bottle of Tylenol for my headaches.

 

[Muhammed]

I can't even afford a bottle of Tylenol for my headaches.

Care to tell us more about your familiys situation? Might serve as a good example..

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Well lots of crappy stuff happened and essentially the money went in the bank late, and most of the bills are paid automatic withdrawal so they bounced and the bank put big fees on it for bouncing and the bill-people put late fees on it for not being paid on time and essentially, in the middle of the month we ran out of money because the price of stuff for groceries and necessities went up. (Those few luxuries I mentioned were bought before we realized the part about the price of groceries, and seeing as just the very basics can cost like $30, I don't think the $17.60 in my savings account will really head off starvation.) Oh, also the cost of my mother's cigarettes went up a few dollars and she's a pack-a-day smoker who refuses to quit, so you can imagine how well that's going.

 

[Borachio]

Ah well. Smoking certainly won't help at all.

In my experience, the less money you have the more important it is to have a small float of money, to tide you over the times when payments come in late.

So, basically the less money you have the more important it is to save.

Also, having bills paid by direct debit is a mistake in my opinion. It's just too easy to overlook how much they are.

The only way, I have found, to maintain a budget is to watch every single payment - in and out - like a hawk.

This isn't easy. Despite what people who have a moderate to large income might tell you. The same people who never bother budgeting, by the way.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Of course, having a small float of money doesn't work too great when you can't afford to maintain that money.
I also forgot to mention my mother's car kept breaking down and since we need it to go around that had to be repaired and that's more money. It wouldn't be an issue if there was good public transportation but the town won't put in a bus or anything and walking really isn't much an option for me, except for very short distances in good weather.

 

[Borachio]

I don't think you can afford NOT to have some savings.

Without it you're at the mercy of every slight set-back.

It takes time (effort and skill) to build one up, but costs nothing to maintain one. In fact, it can (in better times than these) earn you some interest.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Right, but when you're trying to put together some savings, where will that money come from? Especially when you're just barely scraping by?

 

[Borachio]

It comes from watching everything you spend like a hawk.

You have to record every single penny cent, in a big book. Shop around for the cheapest food. Wear coats indoors in cold weather. Go to bed early. And live on porridge for a month. Or whatever.

Does it sound hard?

It is.

(That smoking has to go.)

 

[Formaldehyde]

Look, if you pay less tax than you receive benefit from government spending aren't you in receipt of welfare, whether it's nominally welfare or not?

And isn't the figure 48%? I thought it was. Nearly half of all Americans do not pay federal income tax. Are you saying that no federal government spending benefits them?

http://www.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm

That is so completely absurd.

First of all you are ludicrously conflating not paying any federal taxes for not playing any state income tax, FICA, sales tax, or taxes on property where you live either directly or indirectly.

It also completely overlooks that the only reason why so many now do not pay any federal income tax is because it is supposed to be helping the economy to recover from the latest recession. It is ostensibly only temporary.

What utter nonsense!

It comes from watching everything you spend like a hawk.

You have to record every single penny cent, in a big book. Shop around for the cheapest food. Wear coats indoors in cold weather. Go to bed early. And live on porridge for a month. Or whatever.

Does it sound hard?

It is.

(That smoking has to go.)

And yet you have the temerity to preach at others how to live their own lives while having an Oxfam donation URL in your sig...

 

[Borachio]

Whatever.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Freedom of speech FTW yet again.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Even if I could do such a thing (I mean the porridge thing) without my health deteriorating my mother would never agree. At the rate I'm at now I'm spending a lot of time in bed just to save energy.