A Great Idea

[daBaroness]

My MentalPause sister sent this to me today and I have to say I'd be all for this - alas, I doubt the government is this smart.

Urine test
Like a lot of folks in this state I have a job. I work, they pay
me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it
sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a
random urine test, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to
people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to
pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass
one to earn it for them??

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back
on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping
someone sitting on their ass. Could you imagine how much money the
state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a
public assistance check?????



Hey - is this what they mean by "piss poor"?

[Phoenix McHeit]

See that's where I am. I'm all for helping people get back on their feet. But when those feet turn into a crutch, - *that's* what I have a problem with.

Yes, I was on assistance for almost a year - when I had 4 children under 8 yrs old, single-parenting, and was on bed-rest for a bad back. I used it... but I didn't *abuse* it. When I could go back to work, I did - with a hearty "thank you, you've been wonderful, but I'm done now" and off I went.

Love the urine-test Idea. We have to pass one to have the privilege of working - why shouldn't they have to pass one to have the privilege of reaping the assistance? I know I'd have passed. No biggie.

[moiradochartaigh]

But..... but..... wouldn't that be an invasion of privacy??? :roll:

I have nothing but admiration for those who avail themselves of the system to get their lives back in order -- heck, that's what it was originally designed for. It's when people abuse it ("hey, it's my RIGHT to have as many babies as I want and have everyone else pay for it!") that my insides get tangled up in knots. Its aggravating to be in the grocery store checkout behind the person using WIC coupons buying a cartful of snack foods and lobster, when I had to raid the change tray in my car to get a gallon of milk.

Pass a test before getting a check? I'm all for it. Will we see it anytime soon? Doubt it.....

[LdyJhawk]

It's when people abuse it ("hey, it's my RIGHT to have as many babies as I want and have everyone else pay for it!") that my insides get tangled up in knots.

When did you meet my brother? His is actually, "I WORKED and now I'm using my tax dollars and people can fuck off. We'll have as many fucking kids as we want"

Granted, he got fired from his uh..4th job this year because he showed up half an hour late while he was on probation (new employee)..he just couldn't wake up on time. Why? He was out Sunday getting high. Monday he was just too tired.

Yeah..I've given up hope. Every time I believe he's turned around he shoots that idea out of the water

[aspen]

Sorry, I gotta disagree. I think it's a terrible idea.

Urinalysis is a ripoff. It's expensive and inaccurate. It's also, in my opinion, an assault on human dignity. The urine can be use to test for things other than drug use. I haven't yet been required to have one as a condition of employment, and I won't take a job that requires one unless I have no other options.

Not all irresponsible people do drugs, and not all people who do drugs are irresponsible. Find another means test.

Urinalysis is a relic of the "war on drugs" (which we've lost) and we need to get rid of it as a routine thing. The only people who benefit are the companies that make the test kits.

Aspen

[Adriana Rose]

Ya know I work at a health food store and there is this stuff that you can drink that makes a UA come up clean. I see a surge of sales at least once a month. So if people can get that they most likely will use it to pass the UA for the assistance.

Since I found out I was pregant I got on to WIC cuz I have lost work because of being really sick , so I get the WIC stuff along with the stuff that WIC will not cover like fruit and meat. I hate the fact that I have to get this help but it has been a life saver.

[Pathos]

I also will not work at a place that requires urine tests. Read whatever you want into that.

And yes...it is an invasion of privacy.

[daBaroness]

Well as a working single mother who's never gotten child support or public assistance - I'm all for anything that makes those who use welfare as a lifestyle and an excuse for having more babies and not working, more accountable.

I'm sick to death of standing in a check-out line behind some welfare bitch with six ill-behaved children wearing a fur coat and buying steak with her swipe card that my taxes paid for, when I'm buying 69-cent ground turkey. Yes, I know welfare didn't buy the woman's fur coat - illegal activity did, fraud did. But it's my hard-earned tax dollar that's making it possible for her to live a lifestyle she didn't earn.

There's no incentive to better yourself when you're on the government dole generation after generation. The less you exert yourself - the more the government takes care of you. It's when you try to educate yourself and do better that the government pulls the rug out from under you.

And the government pays people to go to school ... but not to do something with that education. I've heard with my own ears women taking classes to become CNAs or other jobs in health care where they could actually make OK money say, "I'm only takin' this stupid class so they won't cut off my money ... I ain't tryin' to get no damned job or work."

As for privacy issues - I have 'em too, but I'm also of the opinion that people who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. It's the dishonest and the criminal among us who are getting away with defrauding the rest of us.

Course if I ruled the world - it would be a dictatorship and women who have children just to get more money would be instantly sterilized!

It could be a really ruthless world! mwhahahahaha

[Pathos]

As for privacy issues - I have 'em too, but I'm also of the opinion that people who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
Well then I'm sure you won't mind if the police come over every day and search your house. If you have nothing to hide then it shouldn't be a problem right?

8-)

[moiradochartaigh]

Well then I'm sure you won't mind if the police come over every day and search your house. If you have nothing to hide then it shouldn't be a problem right?

8-)

I say let 'em come over..... I have a thing for guys in uniform. :wink:

In all seriousness, though -- I do have a problem with the fact that while most of us have to bust our butts day in and day out to earn a decent living, there are some (the frauds and the cheats) out there getting lots of money for nothing and are accountable to nobody. Not just any money -- our money.

Why should I have to work while they don't? Wait a minute, I know..... I have self-respect. And pride. And I can appreciate the satisfaction of that "good kind of tired" at the end of a work day.

There are plenty of people out there who need the assistance and legitimately deserve it, but it's the ones who are perfectly healthy and capable of holding a job that frankly disgust me. Do we really want to keep subsidizing them?

[Pathos]

Good points to be sure.

But the point of this thread is that urine tests will bring an end to all that. I'm saying that's not only wrong...it's misguided.

Mandatory urine tests suggest the presumption of guilt. "You're guilty of being a drug addict until you take this test." That's not the way it's supposed to work.

We work on the presumption of innocence in this country. It's not until someone exhibits signs of a problem that you have the right to subject them to personal tests.

Making the test a condition of employment is borderline offensive.

[Gemdrite]

Good points to be sure.

But the point of this thread is that urine tests will bring an end to all that. I'm saying that's not only wrong...it's misguided.
I don't see anyone saying that it will bring an end to anything. I do see a lot of people disgruntled because in order to work, they must pass a test, but in order to receive a check that they don't earn, other people don't, and that money is based off the blood and sweat of the people in the first group. Are urine tests an invasion of privacy? Sure. Are they going to stop every person on welfare that shouldn't be on it? No. But is it fair to make hardworking people pass a urine test to be able to earn money that is going to another group of people who may or may not be hardworking, honest people? Not remotely. Abolish urine tests completely or make them mandatory for all, but right now, it is much too easy to be on and stay on welfare. *Something* needs to be done, and while urine tests are not the end all and be all of solutions, it's a step.

[Bean]

In my opinion the only way that people will be forced off welfare is to lower the maximum amount they receive to less that what would be earned at a full time, minimum wage job. Lets see how many people would actually go out and get a job then.

[aspen]

Getting and keeping that full-time minimum-wage job requires a lot more than just a will to work.

You have to have childcare and elder care.
You have to have reliable transportation.
You have to have absolutely no health issues.
You have to have a safe, steady place to live.
You have to have a place to buy groceries that won't rip you off.
You have to have no mental illness issues, such as depression (poverty is depressing).
You have to have a competent high school education and job skills.
You have to live in an area that has affordable housing AND steady jobs.
You have to have a stable home situation (reliable spouse/lover, roommates, etc.).
You have to have enough money to afford the fees and minimum balances for a bank account.
You have to have a clean police record.
You have to be physically attractive, as in, your teeth aren't rotting out of your head.

Being poor is incredibly hard, as many of us know. Being poor while disabled/raising a special needs child/taking care of other family members/uneducated/lacking transportation/lacking job opportunities/homeless/your only "bank" is Payday Loans/a convicted felon/depressed is nearly impossible.

Seriously, what is the proportion of people on welfare who are there to get over a bad patch, and never return? What is the proportion on welfare who are there permanently? What percentage of those are disabled, or dealing with disabled family members? How many people run into more financial difficulty after leaving welfare than on it? What is the real percentage of "welfare queens"?

While I sympathise with your frustration, screw the right-wing rhetoric, I want facts.

Aspen

[Margaret]

OK - some facts. Not as in a national or state percentages, but in a company percentage.

The company I work for helps people with disabilities find and maintain work. "Disability" meaning any type of mental or physical issue as qualified by the state of Michigan. Folks with developmental disabilities, physical disabilities, mental and emotional disabilities. We also partnered with a program called Ticket to Work - a state run program where we were contracted to help individuals who were on state assistance find and maintain a job.

The individuals had help from my company to do things like help with job searches, education on how to job search, interview, build resumes, dress etc. They had the help of the Department of Labor and Economic Growth to locate and pay for transportation, child care and other issues, they had the resources of the Ticket to Work organization. A ton of support and help and safety nets.

Last year I worked with 10 people from Ticket to Work. 3 I did not place due to them re-entering the hospital or their mental illness kicking in. These people have a legit reason for going back on assistance. 2 people did find and keep their jobs. We track their progress for 90 days after their first day of work, so I don't know if they are still at their jobs.

The other 5? They would blow off appointments and interviews. Tell me that they were too sick to go to work and I'd see them not a half hour later at the grocery store looking all fine and healthy. Some couldn't get up on time. One person told me straight out that he did not want to work because it was a waste of his time and he made more money from the government. I thanked him for his honesty and closed his case. These people have no excuse other than being lazy and not being taught the work ethics needed. They had all this help and support and it was just easier for them to stay home.

I don't think the big gripe is about people who honestly need assistance - people with physical and mental disabilities and people like Phee, who used it when she needed it and then got off. The bitch is about people who have access to transportation, child care, appropriate clothing, good housing and still claim they need a handout.

[Bean]

As a side note, you do not have to worry about banks and accounts. You can cash a check at the bank it is drawn on without an account. And I would say that about 90% of banks offer some kind of free checking account.

Yes, I have no issue with those who honestly need the assistance. It's the abusers that I take issue with. I was recently in California for work. A couple of times during my stay, people came in and asked for a business card, but didn't look at the product or even stay in the store longer than it took to walk from the front door to the cash wrap and then back out. I found out a few days later that the local "requirement" for people on assistance to prove they were job hunting was to present a business card. No proof of applying, no proof of an interview, just a business card. How screwed up is that?

[erinrai]

My niece, I hate to say it is an abuser of the system. Up until the state took her 5 children away (and as soon as it is born her 6th) she was recieving more in TANF and foodstamps benefits a month than my husband makes as a manager. And I see parents that trully need some assistance, who are trying to get on their feet and their own get turned down for just childcare assistance. The whole welfare system is messed up. I hate to say my great nephews and great niece should have been taken from their mom long ago, but the state kept giving her chance after chance to clean up, get off drugs and get her collective shite together. I don't know that mandatory drug screenings are the answer but something needs to be fixed, the system is broke and no one seems to care. The caseworkers/social workers get burnt out too easy. I babysit the kids of a socialworker and she is quiting her job because she hates seeing people come in that obviously have money to spare and yet on paper they qualify for all types of assistance. She says she is tired of it, tired of knowing that there are people out there that could truly use the help, but make too much, or for some other reason don't qualify while there are those that have a free ride so to speak.

[Ysobelle]

I think I fall somewhere in the middle. I don't believe there should be a mandatory drug test for everyone on assistance. But if you ever get arrested for drug charges, THEN you have to pee in a cup regularly.

A few bad apples really do spoil it for those who need it.

[daBaroness]

Well, if I had the power to revamp the welfare system I would do the opposite of what most states do today. Most states cut you off the moment you get a raise or even a minimum-wage job - which no one can live on, muchless support a family on.

I would do what some places have instituted calling it workfare - recipients of assistance would have to do something towards bettering their lot in life and getting off the dole to receive funds. Depending on the cost of living, they would receive the difference between what they make at a full-time job and a liveable wage - perhaps in the form of less expensive housing, food stamps, transportation subsidies, child and elder care assistance, etc. Or they would make a liveable wage while learning a trade or career that would allow them to get off assistance when their education was completed. And to prevent fraud, there would be a mandatory timeframe to complete education/training.

Choosing not to work or get education wouldn't be an option. But having worked at a social service agency some years ago - I would like to see a solid infrastructure built of government, education and private sector partnerships that would support these families in doing the right thing. Decent childcare could be part of public education - and it would offer education and employment opportunities to the very people it would serve.

That's just one example. And although a lot of naysayers would be quick to remind me institutionalizing that kind of social change would be very expensive - I'd rather my tax dollars go to making people successful and self-sufficient than throwing it into a big crapper of waste and corruption.

I know a lot of it is kind of pie-in-the-sky wishfulness, but hey - in my world, I can wish for anything I want. And my wish would be that everyone would live a purposeful, productive life and that every child would be born wanted, loved and nurtured.

[Bean]

Once again, daBaroness for President!!!!

[Lady Laurel]

I was talking to my sister about this who is a social worker and did start out in the welfare system. She says yes there are huge numbers of poeple who do abuse the system and alot of them are drug addicts. If we drug test them and take there food stamps away there is a child at home that is going hungry because the state just penalized that child for the mother being a drug abuser. You have to understand there are children that fall between the cracks no one wants to think about it admit it but it does happen and these are the children that need those welfare and food stamp checks.

So if you penalize the mother you must look at the whole picture because lets face it most of the women have several childrens and those that abuse the system have several children that need this money to eat on. After she explained this to me I did not feel so bad for giving out my taxes to these people. Again I do not like it when people abuse the system but there is a wider view that most people do not look at.

We have a cousin in the family who has three children and has had them taken away from her numerous times, gets cleaned up from drugs gets the kids back, goes on a binder again. Its a terribly terribly thing and the family has tried to help by they move all over the country. The youngest is in second grade, she climbes up on cabnets since she was alot younger makes breakfast for her self and for her older brother and then makes sandwiches for thier lunches. This baby learned that she had to take care of herself that young and her mother spends her welfare on food for them. If she was penalized where would these babies be. It is just something to think about.

[daBaroness]

I understand that children are the victims no matter how the welfare system is run. I'm not sure I know what the answer is - since the government can't dictate nor mandate the reproductive lives of its citizens - at least in this country. Over the years my views have changed and always I come back to what's best for the children.

What would truly be best is that people who shouldn't reproduce ... didn't. But while I'm wishing for miracles ...

The question is what to do with those poor souls who have no voice who are already here ...

At this point in my life I would say use the greatest minds in child development, psychology and health and develop modern-day institutions - orphanages, if you will - where there would be consistency, compassion, love, protection - in a setting monitored to keep horrible things from happening to children and to keep them from being shuffled from one bad situation to another. Boys Town has a pretty good model to begin with - they have trained couples as house parents and children live in individual "homes" within a therapeutic community that serves as a surrogate to a family.

Yes, the ideal situation would be for a child to be in a "real" family - but the foster system has been a failure and most states have a mandate of family preservation that puts children back together with their biological parent in oftentimes less than good circumstances - only to have the parent cycle again into being unable to care for the child and it starts all over again.

At least in a therapeutic community - children wouldn't be shuffled all over, parental rights could be severed easier - to the benefit of the children and prospective adoptive families and they could get the professional help they needed, onsite and develop healthy relationships with caregivers and other residents without the trauma of constantly moving them around, subjecting them to household after household, possible abuse or worse.

Part of the problem older children who've been in system for years have with being adopted is the continual trauma they experience from being in the system including being moved from foster placement to foster placement, being returned unsuccessfully to their parent and being abused by people who maneuver their way through the cracks of the bureaucracy and become foster parents for the money or for more heinous ends.

Our laws protect our rights - including those of bearing children so well that it's the children who suffer. I really wish people who neglect, abuse and have children for all the wrong reasons and have them taken away would have an extremely difficult time of getting them back and that there was a legal way to require their sterilization to prevent them from bringing more children into the world only to lose them to the system.

To me - that kind of behavior is truly criminal and immoral - we spend so many resources on busting prostitutes or gambling or whatever - when those resources are so sorely needed to care for children who didn't asked to be born into such hideous situations. It's no wonder we have so many sick adults running around when we can't provide protection, love and care to them as children so they can grow into decent adults.