The Goat Pen

I don't want government employees spending my money on booze or cigarettes either.

Pebble in the pond questions about holding welfare for a +drug screen:

So, a welfare recipient who is a single mom with three kids and tests positive for something. We cut off the money. Then what? Take the kids? Where do they go? The welfare mom with the + screen still has the same problem that got her on welfare, she just doesn't have any money (and is more desperate) and her kids will likely have to be taken from her or go without food/shelter. So this ex-welfare recipient is now penniless and/or homeless. Where do they go? Do we take her kids automatically with the +screen, or do we wait for them to go hungry? Along with the cost of the child placement issues, what is the potential cost of doing millions of on-going Federally mandated drug screens? Would we hire and train a TSA-like drug screening force for this extra testing? False positives do happen. If you get your check stopped and your kids taken from you on a false +drug screen, can you sue? If we do take kids of a welfare recipient because of a positive screen, should we extend that to non-welfare parents who test positive? Do we test for alcohol? Sure, that's legal, but say the welfare recipient is an alcoholic with a bac of .30? They're wasting their (my!) money on booze and, as we all know, alcohol is the true gateway drug. Take their kids, too?

according to IB all drugs=death so she's gone in a week anyway. so your questions are moot. IRL if she's kicked off the dole she goes and gets a damn job flipping burgers or picking up dead animals off the street.

Well, I certainly understand the outrage at people squandering (my!) money on the government dole, and it seems easy to say, "we should make a law!" but the logistics are difficult and the ripples may reach some unintended shores. Do not cast your pebbles caprisously, Grasshopper.

AlabamAlum wrote:Well, I certainly understand the outrage at people squandering (my!) money on the government dole, and it seems easy to say, "we should make a law!" but the logistics are difficult and the ripples may reach some unintended shores. Do not cast your pebbles caprisously, Grasshopper.

Yep. That's why I've said Norplant or depo shots should be a req for accepting welfare. You can't do anything about kids thy already have, but you sure as hell try and prevent any more while on welfare.

It just makes good sense. Simple, easy, reversible birth control if on welfare: here is your shot or Norplant now here is your check off the sweat of another. Go make a better life.

LOL. Norplant is not available in the United States anymore.

puterbac wrote:

AlabamAlum wrote:Well, I certainly understand the outrage at people squandering (my!) money on the government dole, and it seems easy to say, "we should make a law!" but the logistics are difficult and the ripples may reach some unintended shores. Do not cast your pebbles caprisously, Grasshopper.

Yep. That's why I've said Norplant or depo shots should be a req for accepting welfare. You can't do anything about kids thy already have, but you sure as hell try and prevent any more while on welfare.

It just makes good sense. Simple, easy, reversible birth control if on welfare: here is your shot or Norplant now here is your check off the sweat of another. Go make a better life.

Yikes. Don't like that idea at all.

Few questions/comments:

1. So, we make women on welfare have an implanted birth control device, but what requirement for the men? There would be a huge issue for making women do something and no similar requirement for men.

2. Norplant is not without side effects and risks. There are some cancers that may be increased with its use, and women have died from its removal (I suppose that's why they took it off the market). Would we make women who had objections because of health concerns have them? What if their own physician said it was contraindicated?

3. What about people whose religion forbids its use (eg.
Catholics)? Tell them to chose their religion or their check?

4. Teenage pregnancy is a huge issue and most of these young ladies are using government resources (schools, for example), how would you feel about making Norplant mandatory for them?

Like I said, if they get a check from the gubment for doing nothing, just for existing, then yes drug test them.

If farmers get those then include them.

Gubment employees that actually hold a job are drug tested as a condition of employment and are subject to random drug tests as well as drug tests if there is ever an accident/work comp claim. It would just be silly to give them a seprate test.

As for the positive tests, yep cut them off. You would need a set of rules, such as one positive test means you get another one and if that one confirms it's positive then you are cut off all gubment assistance such as housing, welfare whatever. The system could be "you have 3 months to be self sufficient" or you get the chance to go for 3 months after the first positive test and be retested, positive kicked off, negative stay on but be on probation with multiple tests for the next year. Whatever.

The kids would have to go to relatives, a foster home, whatever.

Hard line but it's needed and they kids deserve better than that anyway.

Don't want to be drug tested, then don't go on the gubment dole.

For that matter I would be OK with excluding WIC because they only get food from that period. So I wouln't mind them not being drug tested.

How many of us 1) are not on the government "dole" 2) still get drug tested as a condition of our employment?

That's right boys and girls...all I do now is pay taxes.

Big Orange Junky wrote:Like I said, if they get a check from the gubment for doing nothing, just for existing, then yes drug test them.

If farmers get those then include them.

Gubment employees that actually hold a job are drug tested as a condition of employment and are subject to random drug tests as well as drug tests if there is ever an accident/work comp claim. It would just be silly to give them a seprate test.

As for the positive tests, yep cut them off. You would need a set of rules, such as one positive test means you get another one and if that one confirms it's positive then you are cut off all gubment assistance such as housing, welfare whatever. The system could be "you have 3 months to be self sufficient" or you get the chance to go for 3 months after the first positive test and be retested, positive kicked off, negative stay on but be on probation with multiple tests for the next year. Whatever.

The kids would have to go to relatives, a foster home, whatever.

Hard line but it's needed and they kids deserve better than that anyway.

Don't want to be drug tested, then don't go on the gubment dole.

I think that is a horrible idea, and would cause way more problems and cost more money that the current system. It's no wonder that no president, Republican or Democrat, has ever inacted such foolishness.

AA keep in mind we dont want them on welfare in the first place. it should be difficult to get government money.

Well, one thing is sure: you will never change anyone's mind on things like this. It is, therefore, silly to discuss. With that in mind, I will bow out, find some place where my curmudgeonly world view is more appreciated, and let you gentlemen have at it here.

[youtube]cRBcP6MmE8g[/youtube]

AA,

First off don't go away cause you think no one will be persuaded. If new info or ways to present are made of course it can.

Example I'd didn't know Norplant was off the market.

1. there are few men on welfare aren't there? Hence wic being women infants and children? Maybe it has changed from where you had to be a single mom to qualify? If so, if there is a male pill type contraceptive considers safe...fine by me.

The whole point is you require those who want assistance to not have more kids they can afford. I'm open to suggestion, but voluntary measures don't seem to work. Hence the idea of here is a check and here is some form of monthly or quarterly birth control that you can't just forget to take.

I don't see where anything else will work to stop people from having kids they can't afford. I can see a mistake and a kid is born , but over and over? C'mon.

puterbac wrote:AA,

First off don't go away cause you think no one will be persuaded. If new info or ways to present are made of course it can.

Example I'd didn't know Norplant was off the market.

1. there are few men on welfare aren't there? Hence wic being women infants and children? Maybe it has changed from where you had to be a single mom to qualify? If so, if there is a male pill type contraceptive considers safe...fine by me.

The whole point is you require those who want assistance to not have more kids they can afford. I'm open to suggestion, but voluntary measures don't seem to work. Hence the idea of here is a check and here is some form of monthly or quarterly birth control that you can't just forget to take.

I don't see where anything else will work to stop people from having kids they can't afford. I can see a mistake and a kid is born , but over and over? C'mon.

1. Yes, the majority on Welfare are women. Not all, however. Would you be okay with forced vasectomy for the men?

2. I understand what the idea is behind it, but -again- there are religious and health reasons for not being on BC. Would you be okay with telling someone, "Give up on Catholicism and we'll give you the money to feed your family" or "We know your doctor says that this may be bad for you, but you want to listen to your doctor or you want the money"?

3. What about giving Norplant and vasectomies to people who file bankruptcy or have their houses foreclosed or their carts repossessed?

4. Would you be okay mandating this as a solution for the horrors of teen pregnancy? It would certainly cut down on the life-shattering issues that many teens and their families face. You have a daughter, correct? Would you be okay with giving her OBC (forget the more invasive Norplant)?

In the end, it's a system with issues, but I would strongly oppose forced Norplant (even if it hadn't been pulled from US pharmacies). If we're wanting to remove secondary gain for having babies from Welfare assistance, just max the benefit at the number of children in the household when the person goes on welfare. That, too, has issues, but it's better than the alternative suggested (or the drug testing boondoggle).

I guess we could simply not increase payment for children. "here's your 1k/mo. have as many kids as you want, you're not getting an extra dime."

Would you be okay with forced vasectomy for the men?


as long as it's reversible, then sure.

AugustWest wrote:Would you be okay with forced vasectomy for the men?


as long as it's reversible, then sure.

Okay dokey, then. And people who file bankruptcy, too. Those folks don't need to be having kids. Can't (or won't) pay their bills and having kids? Those sum-bitches need to get their finances straight first. Ditto people with arrest records and people with disabilities. Don't need no deadbeats, fuckin' retards, or criminals having kids. Forced sterilization for them all is the answer.

Hello, I would also like to see forced BC required for Auburn fans. Those bastards breed like crazy.

10% of TANF are men, significant enough for it to play a role in equal protection

37% of TANF families have no adult members