Tennessee getting ready to throw poor students under the bus.

[Cain]

It's putting people on welfare through a humiliating and potentially worthless set of tests, designed to see if they meet arbitrary standards of being the "moral poor".  I mean, what's the contention here?  That people addicted to drugs don't starve?  They're probably financing their habit through crime anyway, it's not like the welfare system pays enough to sustain a long-term drug habit.

And you know what?  If it was put in place it would almost certainly cost more to set up and run the entire drug testing system than would be saved by catching the few crackheads trying to cheat the system.  Who wins?  The labs doing the tests.  Not the taxpayer, not the people on welfare and not drug addicts.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Hmm, Ok, I can follow you with the feedback loop idea... I'm reading it as essentially, hunger=less productivity. This makes sense to me, and I can totally agree with you on this.

When you start on about the drug testing things, though, you totally lose me. How is this oppression against "the poor"? This seems more of "oppressing" drug addicts more than anything. Although I can rationalise that being poor could technically arise simply due to poor market conidtions (i.e. my parents live in dirt-poverty and debt literally because my father worked in a industry that collapsed with the housing market), which are totally uncontrollable by the individual, drug use is wholly voluntary.

I don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.

Because the amount of tax dollars spent on testing is greater than the amount of tax dollars saved by keeping welfare away from drug users.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/9-investigates-welfare-drug-testing/nFPB3/

DCF said it has been referring applicants to clinics where drug screenings cost between $30 and $35. The applicant pays for the test out of his or her own pocket and then the state reimburses him if they test comes back negative.

Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140.

Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.

It's a rationalization that is divorced from reality. The reality is that it punishes people for being in poverty, at essentially zero benefit to those not in poverty.

[Cain]

It does, however, reinforce the notion that all poor people are potential criminals.

[Cainad (dec.)]

It does, however, reinforce the notion that all poor people are potential criminals.

Damn right it does. What better way to alienate them from the portion of the population that's only one or two missed paychecks away from being in the same boat?

[Junkenstein]

Even better, it self re-inforces to those most in need that to get aid you must go and sit, wait, be in the presence of and possibly breathe the same air as a dirty aids infested junkie that is screwing the system for their next fix.

You're not one of them are you? So go try harder to get a job.

It will make welfare even shittier. You'll only know how shitty once you've danced like a russian bear for enough to eat then remember about the rent.

It will turn "potential criminals" into actual criminals. Just wait.

[Cainad (dec.)]

I seem to recall reading a book once, wherein the fear and mistrust of the impoverished class was a critical part of maintaining social control over the just-barely middle class citizens. Written by some Orwell schmuck, I think.

[The Johnny]

Maybe all the poor should be put under parole, you know, just in case. We cannot put a price on crime prevention.

[The Johnny]

I seem to recall reading a book once, wherein the fear and mistrust of the impoverished class was a critical part of maintaining social control over the just-barely middle class citizens. Written by some Orwell schmuck, I think.

Criminalize those that are vulnerable and cannot defend themselves, and that will set an example of "what you should and what you shouldn't do" to others, that if targeted, might actually be able to defend themselves.

[Junkenstein]

Maybe all the poor should be put under parole, you know, just in case. We cannot put a price on crime prevention.

Laugh it up, in 10 years the US will have parole officers for the unemployed.

[Pergamos]

I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?

Because that's a completely facetious connection, built on prejudice against the poor.

Because it can only lead to doing more damage to "productivity," by creating a positive feedback loop of undernourishment and poor academic performance. Despite the availability of cheap calories in America, it's extremely difficult for the poor to maintain a healthy diet.

Because it rests on the assumption that the best way to enforce good behavior in the populace is to hit them in their wallets (which is, of course, an act of communist oppression if you do the same thing to the wealthy).

Because it's goddamn evil.



Requiring drug tests in order to receive welfare is also based on prejudice against the poor, but at least it's only stupidly counterproductive and merely an act of typical corruption on the part of the firms the administer the drug tests. Threatening a child with hunger for underachieving and having parents who can't or won't get involved in their kid's education is actually evil.

Hmm, Ok, I can follow you with the feedback loop idea... I'm reading it as essentially, hunger=less productivity. This makes sense to me, and I can totally agree with you on this.

When you start on about the drug testing things, though, you totally lose me. How is this oppression against "the poor"? This seems more of "oppressing" drug addicts more than anything. Although I can rationalise that being poor could technically arise simply due to poor market conidtions (i.e. my parents live in dirt-poverty and debt literally because my father worked in a industry that collapsed with the housing market), which are totally uncontrollable by the individual, drug use is wholly voluntary.

I don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.

Having to pee in front of a stranger and being regarded with suspicion is oppression.

[Pergamos]

By making drug testing mandatory for aid, you are going to automatically going to ensure a certain percentage will never apply due to the stigma.

The majority will test clean (As the majority of the population is) and those who do not will 1- Get no aid 2-Now much more likely to enter the prison system.

Cost saved is negligible to the expense. The only possible winners are contractors and administrators.


The problem is covered in perfectly here:

I don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.

In one swoop, everyone involved in benefits claims is now a crackhead needing rehab. That's exactly the kind of stigma we need right now isn't it?

Actually more money is spent on drug tests than is saved, considerably more.  At least in Florida which is the only state that we have solid data on so far.

[Junkenstein]

Agreed, and it's universal in testing programs of this ilk.

Hence:

Cost saved is negligible to the expense. The only possible winners are contractors and administrators.

[von]

By making drug testing mandatory for aid, you are going to automatically going to ensure a certain percentage will never apply due to the stigma.

The majority will test clean (As the majority of the population is) and those who do not will 1- Get no aid 2-Now much more likely to enter the prison system.

Cost saved is negligible to the expense. The only possible winners are contractors and administrators.


The problem is covered in perfectly here:

I don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.

In one swoop, everyone involved in benefits claims is now a crackhead needing rehab. That's exactly the kind of stigma we need right now isn't it?

Actually more money is spent on drug tests than is saved, considerably more.  At least in Florida which is the only state that we have solid data on so far.

In this case, I'll be reneging my statement concerning not wishing to spend my meager earnings on "crackheads" and turn that directly into "I don't want to spend on anyone but myself".

[Junkenstein]

So you want any cash paid in tax to be used to directly enhance your life?

I hope you're damn fucking certain that you pay more in than you take out. I mean everything here, Roads, schools, everything.

Clue - When you are making similar statements to tax-evading wankers there's probably something you've missed.

[Salty]

By making drug testing mandatory for aid, you are going to automatically going to ensure a certain percentage will never apply due to the stigma.

The majority will test clean (As the majority of the population is) and those who do not will 1- Get no aid 2-Now much more likely to enter the prison system.

Cost saved is negligible to the expense. The only possible winners are contractors and administrators.


The problem is covered in perfectly here:

I don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.

In one swoop, everyone involved in benefits claims is now a crackhead needing rehab. That's exactly the kind of stigma we need right now isn't it?

Actually more money is spent on drug tests than is saved, considerably more.  At least in Florida which is the only state that we have solid data on so far.

In this case, I'll be reneging my statement concerning not wishing to spend my meager earnings on "crackheads" and turn that directly into "I don't want to spend on anyone but myself".

Who is John Galt?  Am I right, comrade?