Texas advances bill to require drug screening for welfare

I'm sorry to say, that sounds like a ton of excuses. The impoverished turn to drugs to escape their misery? What misery?! How is it that in the United States we have the most ridiculously obese welfare class on the planet, complete with clean running water, big screen TVs, and Xbox 360s?

Take away the mod cons and you could be talking about ancient rome, royalist and repulican france, imperial china or victorian britain.

The cycle of poverty will never end as long as we keep providing excuses, must less accepting them.

The cycle of poverty didn't end with poor laws deportations or imprisonment either, all the "get tough" measures on the "****less wastrels" have made no impact at all over the centuries.
What you are suggesting is a re-run of useless approach which has failed hundreds or thousands of times already and has never shown even the slightest hint of working.
Makes for good populist headlines though doesn't it.

edit to add. silly ******** filter doesn't understand english, the word is **** not ****

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Take away the mod cons and you could be talking about ancient rome, royalist and repulican france, imperial china or victorian britain.


The cycle of poverty didn't end with poor laws deportations or imprisonment either, all the "get tough" measures on the "****less wastrels" have made no impact at all over the centuries.
What you are suggesting is a re-run of useless approach which has failed hundreds or thousands of times already and has never shown even the slightest hint of working.
Makes for good populist headlines though doesn't it.

edit to add. silly ******** filter doesn't understand english, the word is **** not ****

I'm not disagreeing with you that any approach which is designed merely to restrict the impact upon the taxpayer is likely to fail as well.

My point is simple: when we take the misery out of poverty, we remove the primary motivation for self-sufficiency.

Now I'm not suggesting letting people starve in the streets. What I *AM* suggesting is that we do everything we can in service of assuring that the recipients of the state's largesse are both the truly needy AND as equipped as possible to get out of the system. I don't mind the price tag - I would think we can agree that the goal is to help people help themselves.

As for the rest, Haplo seems to be doing fine.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - you bring up a really good point - and one that I think leads to a discussion of real reforms for those who are on welfare.

I don't know of anyone that wants people to stay poor. I sure don't. But again, identifying those with drug problems so they can get help - helps them. Evil thing that. Then again, when it comes to "real" reforms - I am all for ACTIVE work requirement for welfare. Sure, I get some people can't find a job - McDonalds and the like can only absorb so many people. But there are a lot of charities and community groups that would love to have people resources for say.... 16 hours a week.

Habitat for Humanity is an example. 2 full WORK days a week - and the welfare recipient could be learning an "on the job" trade by helping to build a house for someone else in need. Soup Kitchens always need helpers - both in and out of the kitchen. I could probably list 100 groups that could use the people resources to help the community. Just 2 days a week....

But of course - that would never get off the ground. Too much backlash for expecting people to be part of their own solution. And on the McDonalds note - it amazes me when welfare recipients say they wouldn't take a job at a fast food place because they won't make enough. Welfare would still pay them if they worked unless they made too much - and if they actually DID work - and did a good job - they would have an increased earning potential. But instead many choose to sit with their hand out - and then get mad when their "right" to welfare gets looked at.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Aramike - you bring up a really good point - and one that I think leads to a discussion of real reforms for those who are on welfare.

I don't know of anyone that wants people to stay poor. I sure don't. But again, identifying those with drug problems so they can get help - helps them. Evil thing that. Then again, when it comes to "real" reforms - I am all for ACTIVE work requirement for welfare. Sure, I get some people can't find a job - McDonalds and the like can only absorb so many people. But there are a lot of charities and community groups that would love to have people resources for say.... 16 hours a week.

Habitat for Humanity is an example. 2 full WORK days a week - and the welfare recipient could be learning an "on the job" trade by helping to build a house for someone else in need. Soup Kitchens always need helpers - both in and out of the kitchen. I could probably list 100 groups that could use the people resources to help the community. Just 2 days a week....

But of course - that would never get off the ground. Too much backlash for expecting people to be part of their own solution. And on the McDonalds note - it amazes me when welfare recipients say they wouldn't take a job at a fast food place because they won't make enough. Welfare would still pay them if they worked unless they made too much - and if they actually DID work - and did a good job - they would have an increased earning potential. But instead many choose to sit with their hand out - and then get mad when their "right" to welfare gets looked at.

I agree with you 100%. Part of the problem is the excuse crowd - there are people out there who don't believe that any of the poor are responsible for their fiscal state. As soon as you start requiring them to work to receive benefits, you'll hear the lines about who's going to watch the kids, etc.

It is a sad state of affairs when, through our own rhetoric, we paint ourselves into a corner where a person on welfare is compelled to remain on welfare because that person is not able to do anything BUT be on welfare.

Haplo raises a point which leads to how populist knee jerk "get tough" on welfare ideas can soon run into self defeating problems.
Cameron in Britain has this workfare thing, it basicly means big business can get free labour instead of employing workers, people who do voluntary or charity work find themselves classed as employed and will lose their benefits unless they give up the charity work and instead become an unpaid shelf stacker at Walmart.
It is a good example of measures managing to target the people it is not aimed at and missing the people it is aimed at. With a "bonus" result of actually reducing the availability of jobs the lazy could be introduced to

What I *AM* suggesting is that we do everything we can in service of assuring that the recipients of the state's largesse are both the truly needy AND as equipped as possible to get out of the system. I don't mind the price tag - I would think we can agree that the goal is to help people help themselves.

I know, but the usual result is that it hits the needy not the lazy and runs up an ever increasing price tag for ever diminishing returns.
A repeating problem which comes up all the time is that introducing more stringent criteria tends to hit genuine claimants of welfare harder as the welfare fiddlers know how to work round the system.
There must be a workable solution out there somewhere, but what it is I havn't a clue.
However what I do know is that repeating the latest incarnation of the already failed "get tough" measures is pretty much guaranteed to fail.