Who are the welfare bums that the Republicans fear so much?

[The Backlash Cometh]

I thought that heavy limitations were applied to welfare payments during the Clinton era. Isn't the day of the welfare queen over? If so, why haven't the Republicans adjusted their perceptions? They keep spouting off the same criticism and no one points out to them the changes that have taken effect over the last ten years.

All I hear is, "I don't want to pay taxes for people who don't work." but what I see is people who have worked for decades now trying to collect on unemployment checks because there aren't any jobs.

Certainly, they can't mean THESE people?

[ret5hd]

1. If you can't decipher the code, I'll help you out...

it rhymes with pack.

[Shiver]

57. OH MY GOD!

They're persecuting yaks now? Is there no depth to which they will not sink?!

[midnight]

2. I don't know, but I would ask if they are confused with the corporate

welfare kings who want you to pay for their taxes that they aren't paying for?

[FreakinDJ]

3. They are still out there

I know I'll be flamed for this

But I have seen so many of these gals take in some small time Drug Addict / Dealer - I don't have any argument against the Drug Testing bills being considered

You have to think of the Children

They are being raised in an environment of drugs and crime

[Lyric]

4. OFFS.

Yes we have to consider the "children". So the perfect way to protect them is to TAKE AWAY THEIR FOOD, SHELTER, AND WARMTH.

Brilliant logic there. And nice broadbrush smearing to boot.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bengalherder]

6. I know her too.

There is one in every town. She is an exception, not the rule. You will hurt far many more reasonable adult people just to punish the one.

[FreakinDJ]

8. But even if 1 child is saved / protected then it is worth it

but I am sure the numbers are much more significant then you suspect

[WingDinger]

29. How many of those using med marijuana do you intend on starving?

[FreakinDJ]

36. How many of those children do you plan on incarcerating

once they grow up and follow the examples set for them

[Lyric]

58. So now you're advocating taking kids away from people who "set bad examples"?

Dear god. Can't wait to see the plans for the big-ass, fifty-million-child orphanage you're gonna build.

:crazy:

[MedicalAdmin]

50. Hey - isn't the the justification for carpet bombing brown folks in the mideast?

If we can save just one child *wipes single tear from eye* then it will all be *sob* worth it...

[FreakinDJ]

52. Great line but you need to run your spell checker

[MedicalAdmin]

53. Curses - foiled again. *twirls mustache*

[EstimatedProphet]

59. That was the rationale behind My Lai

[Heidi]

60. How about if we apply the same standard, for example, to teaching math?

"If we teach just one child math..."

"If we teach just one child to swim..."

One child? That's the standard you use to measure the value of public policy? Do you not see the truckload of fail represented by that standard?

[Lyric]

9. And their children. Let's not forget them.

The only able-bodies adults who get welfare are adults who are caring for children. The welfare is meant for the KIDS. Those bills would take away the Food Stamps, Medicaid, and the small amount of cash that those families get to provide shelter and heat.

I think the whole notion of stripping welfare help away from children because Mommy or Daddy failed a drug test...and then claiming that you're only trying to "protect the children"...is just ridiculous. Drug addicts need MEDICAL treatment. Try offering free medical treatment for addiction and you'll actually help children. Just taking away the welfare money, Medicaid, and Food Stamps doesn't help children at all. You just end up with starving, cold, sick children.

And that doesn't even address the other issues--namely, the illegal search involved in government-enforced drug tests, and the possibility for false positives. If you fail a drug test for a private employer because of a false positive, it sucks, but there are other jobs out there. If you fail a drug test for WELFARE because of a false positive, you are well and truly fucked, because there's no other alternative. You can't just go apply for another welfare program; there ARE no other welfare programs.

[FreakinDJ]

11. Serious - Lets not forget the children

I rather see these children raised in Foster Care then to be subjected to a daily ritual of Drugs and Crime

Failure of a Drug Test doesn't have to mean automatic suspension of benefits. Mom can simply be required to attend a substance abuse program.

Admitting you have a DRUG PROBLEM is the first step - take it

[Lyric]

16. Oh my Jesus God. You're really serious, aren't you?

1. You're seriously suggesting that taking kids away from their parents for a FAILED DRUG TEST is good public policy?! Okay. Then make it universal. Line the fuck up along with everyone else in America--you fail a piss test, your kids are GONE. And you better pray to GOD that you didn't eat a poppy seed muffin, take an NSAID (Advil, Aleve) or take a Sudafed before your test, because you might test falsely positive for opiates, THC, or amphetamines. EVERYONE gets "public assistance" to some extent. If you've ever gotten a tax credit, if you've ever purchased MEAT in a grocery store, or cheap flour, or taken advantage of a public park, or received help from FEMA...it's ALL public assistance. So line up, America. FreakinDJ wants your urine.

2. Which state, precisely, are you talking about? Do you actually KNOW anything about this issue? You're making the claim that the drug-testing-for-welfare bills all give the parents (not just MOM) the option of attending a substance abuse program. Even if we ignore the civil rights nightmare of a false positive basically forcing people into government-mandated counseling that they DON'T NEED...can you actually prove your claim? Go ahead. I'll wait right here. And don't just give me one summation of one bill--we're not talking about ONE bill, we're talking about ALL of them.

3. Are you suggesting that I have a drug problem? First, that's a big no-no with the rules here. Aren't you one of the "rule nazis"? Second, your comment is slander and libel against me. You do realize that people have been successfully sued for comments like yours, made in forums just like this one? I'd back the fuck off if I were you.

[Wait Wut]

18. I wish to whatever God there is that I was taken away...

But, my parents were upper-middle class abusive alcoholics. If they had been on Welfare maybe someone would have noticed or listened. Give the parents a chance, if they care enough they'll make the changes necessary to take care of their children. If not...take them away. Forever. Abuse is not a good trade for food.

[Lyric]

25. Then apply that to ALL people.

Why single out poor people? We ALL receive public assistance to some extent--even the "upper-middle class alcoholics". If getting public help is reason enough to force drug tests on parents and take away their kids, then advocate it for EVERYONE. Don't single out poor people.

I'm sick to death of the bigotry and bullshit "We give you a pittance for food so WE FUCKING OWN YOU" attitude on display in this thread. Drug addiction hurts the kids of the wealthy as much as the kids of the poor. So advocate for what you REALLY believe, which is that all caretakers/parents/guardians of minor children should be forcibly piss-testing for drugs and alcohol, PERIOD. You said it yourself--you wish someone had taken you away. Why exempt the well-off?

Otherwise it's nothing but hypocritical, paternalistic BIGOTRY against the poor.

[Wait Wut]

37. Good luck with that.

The reality is, poor children already have the cards stacked against them and adding the benefit of a drug addicted parent will be a damned near guarantee of a ruined life. Additional reality on the subject is that there are more drug/alcohol addicted parents among poor households than others.

I apologize if I seem callous when I say that I don't give a shit about any parent that chooses addiction over their children. An adult has way more options than a child. You wanna piss test the rich? Get the petition going and I'll sign it. I would prefer a law that requires parenting classes for all.

You can defend the addicted parents all you want. That's your right. I'll stick with protecting the meager rights of the children stuck in the hell of abuse. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, I don't give a damn. Until this world starts protecting kids as much as they protect their tweeker or alcoholic parents I'll be glad to embrace the word.

[Lyric]

38. You are misrepresenting my argument.

I'm not defending "addicted parents". I'm defending their children, and poor people in general. They have Constitutional rights, too. Tell me, what Constitutional grounds would you argue exist for drug-testing parents who receive welfare, but NOT parents who don't? The bigotry and inconsistency is what I have a problem with. I am offended by arguments that poor people on welfare should be singled out for punishment, JUST because they receive public assistance. As I've said before, we ALL receive public assistance--and the wealthy receive a hell of a lot more than the poor do. Last year, how many corporations and millionaires got tax money from the government without paying a dime of taxes themselves?

I oppose a government search of a poor person's body without probable cause. Tell me--is receiving welfare "probable cause" for drug use?

We don't live in a dictatorship where we get to make up the rules as we go along. This is not Calvinball. We have laws and rights, and those laws and rights should be applied EQUALLY.

Please explain to me how defending fairness, equality, and Constitutional rights equates to "defending drug addicts".

[FreakinDJ]

42. Is applying for a Job Probable Cause

These so called "Rights of the Poor" as you claim to be defending have been long gone for quite some time now.

Try thinking of the Children for once before you lambaste some one for stating the obvious

[Lyric]

45. I'm sorry--was there a violent revolution that overthrew the Rule of Law while I was asleep?

If you think we're living in a society without Constitutional rights, then I honestly don't know what else to say. I thought I was arguing with someone who was just aggressively misinformed. But if you don't even recognize something as basic as the fact that we have a Constitution and that yes, indeed, it IS still in force, well...I guess there's not much more I can say, other than "Good luck to ya". In your Constitutionless America, you're gonna need it.

:shrug:

[FreakinDJ]

51. You would think ending Poverty and Addiction a Progressive Value

As I've said numerous times in this thread - On the Constitutionality of Drug Testing recipients I'm opposed to it for the same reasons you are.

Having volunteered at "Homeless Shelters" I can tell you unequivocally programs like this are needed.

[Lyric]

56. Why do you think that stripping away welfare from poor children would "end poverty"?

You really make no sense at all. None.

[themadstork]

61. Is this what modern liberalism looks like?

Throwing the poor under a fucking bus? These posters have absorbed the Repub perception of the poor. I'm as bewildered as you by this.

[Lyric]

46. Oh--and the 4th Amendment doesn't protect you from private employers.

It protects you from the GOVERNMENT. Welfare is a government program--that's why drug tests for welfare are unconstitutional, but drug tests for a job are not.

Kinda like how Skinner can forbid right-wing speech here without violating anyone's 1st amendment rights, but a government agency CANNOT forbid ideological speech without violating someone's 1st amendment rights.

Constitution 101: http://bruteforcestudyguide.com/Constitution101.html

:hi:

[FreakinDJ]

39. Very Well Said

You can defend the addicted parents all you want. That's your right. I'll stick with protecting the meager rights of the children stuck in the hell of abuse. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, I don't give a damn. Until this world starts protecting kids as much as they protect their tweeker or alcoholic parents I'll be glad to embrace the word

From a constitutional stand I am fairly opposed to random testing - but those "Rights" are Long Gone as of late.

[Lyric]

44. What rights are long gone?

Please explain your statement. It's completely contradictory. Drug tests mandated by the government are a "search" as defined by the Fourth Amendment, and at least one Federal Court has ALREADY ruled that requiring drug tests for public benefits is unconstitutional.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/law/publicbenefi/marchwinskiv/

So tell me...does the fact that these kinds of laws are blatantly unconstitutional (and have been ruled as such by a court with the authority to make that determination) mean anything to you?

You reframe my position as the strawman of "defending drug addicts". I could be just as negative and say that you're promoting the violation of the Constitutional rights of poor people. The difference, of course, is that I'm actually *correct*.

[Wait Wut]

47. A hypothetical for you...

A single mom with 3 kids under the age of 10. She's been convicted several times for possession of methamphetamines. A welfare check on her house finds that there is no electricity, no running water, no food in the fridge and the kids are dirty and listless, despite receiving food and financial assistance. Her youngest child, a 3 year old girl, shows signs of sexual abuse.

What would you propose? Leave the kids there because we don't want to violate her "Constitutional rights" or drug test her so that the kids could possibly have a chance at a better life?

There is no easy answer. Do you protect the rights of the parent or the life of the child?

[Lyric]

49. I'd propose arresting her for child abuse and neglect.

She doesn't have a Constitutional right to neglect/abuse her children. You don't need a drug test to see the crimes of child abuse and neglect, and when there's direct evidence of a crime (PROBABLE CAUSE) it becomes legal to do a "search" for drugs...including a search of her blood/urine.

Any other "hypotheticals" you wanna toss out that DON'T prove my point?

:shrug:

[Saphire]

66. how about this one...

Let's say Mom smokes a little pot with friends over the weekend. Other than that, she's a good mother that just can't make it without some kind of help...food stamps or WIC, are we to take her kids? Are YOU a foster home? Where should we put them?

Maybe we only test for certain drugs? Which ones? Which ones are acceptable and which are not?

[FreakinDJ]

48. On the Constitutionality - I agree with you

I'm not in favor of any intrusions on our constitutional rights

You have 2 people in this thread "In Favor" of Drug testing because of EXPERIENCE working with drug addicted Mothers and Fathers or by the EXPERIENCE being raised by Alcohol/Drug Addicted parents, or both.

Do Minorities and Poor disproportionately fall into the categories of Alcohol and Drug Dependent - you already know the answer to that question. So I ask you - why wouldn't it be a "Progressive Position" to attempt to break the cycle of poverty and addiction.

[Lyric]

55. Oh, let's see...

I'm not in favor of any intrusions on our constitutional rights

Oh good! So we're on the same page. Glad to hear it.

You have 2 people in this thread "In Favor" of Drug testing because of EXPERIENCE working with drug addicted Mothers and Fathers or by the EXPERIENCE being raised by Alcohol/Drug Addicted parents, or both.

Oh dear. You're claiming that your "experience" gives you some kind of authority to speak on the subject. First--that's a fallacious argument. Why is it fallacious? Because you're not the only person here with extensive EXPERIENCE dealing with poverty, welfare, and drug/alcohol addicted parents. I have extensive EXPERIENCE in these matters too, and my experience and bona-fides might even be superior to yours. Do a search of my username and the words "poverty", "welfare", and "poor people". I've been an activist for poor people for YEARS. Don't assume that you're the only one arguing from experience and first-hand knowledge. If you need proof of my experience, look at my posts--both here and http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/06/899478/-A-National-Disaster:-Examining-a-Welfare-System-Broken-by-Reform">on other websites. Then, if you'd be so kind, you can present YOUR credentials on this subject.

Do Minorities and Poor disproportionately fall into the categories of Alcohol and Drug Dependent - you already know the answer to that question. So I ask you - why wouldn't it be a "Progressive Position" to attempt to break the cycle of poverty and addiction.

Several logical fallacies here. Firstly, you assume that the only possible "progressive position" is YOUR position. Tell me--how is it more "progressive" to:

--Treat drug addiction like a personal moral failure--something that people should be "punished" for.
--To support violating the constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure
--To propose stripping CHILDREN of their food, shelter, and warmth in order to punish their parents
--To assume that all drug-and-alcohol-using parents are viciously abusive/neglectful of their children
--To assume that poverty and the need for welfare is "probable cause" to violate someone's civil rights
--To assume that drug use causes poverty (and not the other way around), and that "breaking the cycle" means trying to cure the symptom (substance abuse) by implementing a policy that WORSENS the disease (poverty).
--To assume that drug-testing welfare recipients will make welfare recipients stop using drugs.

That last one is particularly ridiculous. Think about it--does making abortion illegal stop people from having abortions? NO. It just puts women in danger of dying from backalley butcher abortions. Similarly, making drug tests a requirement to get welfare won't stop poor people from using drugs. It will just stop poor people (and their CHILDREN) from receiving welfare. And you seem to think that's a FANTASTIC idea.

Here's an alternative, TRULY progressive position:

--Recognizing that drug addiction is a MEDICAL problem and cannot be solved with "punishment".
--Recognizing that the innocent children of poor drug addicts need food and shelter too.
--Recognizing that taking away a drug-user's Medicaid makes it nearly impossible for them to seek affordable rehab help.
--Recognizing that the Constitution applies even to those people that we don't like, and that we must respect that, even when we hate it.
--Recognizing that drug tests for welfare WILL NOT stop drug use; it will just stop poor children from receiving welfare help.
--Recognizing that poverty ITSELF is often the root cause of drug and alcohol use, and that increasing poverty by taking away welfare will only make things WORSE for the children in those situations.

At this point, I honestly think you're only still arguing because you're embarrassed at being proven so very, very wrong. It sucks when that happens. I've been there. But you ARE wrong. Being stubborn about it and flailing around for any little fallacious argument that you can concoct on the fly isn't going to change the fact that you are simply WRONG here. You cannot win this argument. All you can do is to continue trying to defend a position that's already been destroyed, both logically and legally.

:shrug:

[FreakinDJ]

26. You are Absolutely Correct

I have seen way too many children whose parent(s) would not have made the changes vital for their children's emotional welfare

[themadstork]

65. Here's a radical idea. Instead of trying to "solve" the problem by taking their kids,

what if we enact policy meant to counteract the forces behind why poor people (and potential parents) fall into endless cycles of drug abuse? Or make it easier for those that are addicted to get the treatment they need? Or work to de-stigmatize addiction, so that the afflicted don't bury themselves in isolation instead of seeking help?

[KamaAina]

28. Why don't you go whole hog and drug test the kids themselves?

That way you could take Noelle Bush away from Jeb!

:sarcasm:

[WingDinger]

31. Hey, test for soda and hohoes. Think of the children.

[MedicalAdmin]

54. And false positives are actually pretty common...

depending on the test, and how closely to protocol it is run. I've seen studies with estimates as high as 1 in 5. Yikes.

[themadstork]

62. Why is everyone talking about failing a single drug test?

One failed drug test does not indicate addiction. I know we're in a hurry to violate the constitutional rights of those scary poor people and all, but maybe we should at least pretend to be acting rationally.

[Wait Wut]

17. I'm nor sure anyone is calling for "punishment"...

...but something needs to be done. Once a parent chooses any substance, be it alcohol or drugs, over a child they have (imo) forfeited their rights as parents. At that point, the parent should be required to enroll in an extensive rehab and parenting program. During this period, their Welfare benefits should be tracked closely. How? I have no clue. Maybe requiree them to keep receipts, enforce laws that require grocery stores to check ID, something. These kids aren't benefitting from the aid. Their parents feed them enough to keep them alive.

Yes, it is a minority of people abusing the system, but that minority includes a lot of abused children. I'm sick of these people and would take all their children away from them if I had the opportunity to provide them with loving homes.

[FreakinDJ]

27. Oh - your about to get flamed your making "Way Too Much Sense"

Of course you are absolutely correct in what you are saying. I don't think they need to track the benefits nor curtail them in anyway. Just monitor the parents progress in treatment.

Not to mention many of these people can eventually climb their way out of poverty once their drug addiction/alcoholism has been addressed.

[themadstork]

63. What the fuck? So ANY parent with a drug or alcohol problem loses their kid?

Up next: any parent diagnosed with psychiatric illness loses their kid. Oh, you're a chronic depressive? Sorry, you've forfeited your rights. Enduring auditory hallucinations? Nope, no kids! Too bad!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. No, wait, let me guess. They drive Cadillacs and have abortions on demand.

Also, they are illegal immigrants that take American jobs. Right?

[FreakinDJ]

12. Let me guess - you drive a Benz and never "Mingle" with the lower class

Up in the Hills of Marin County perhaps ?

Try going down to the Canal district

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. OF COURSE!

I also want gays to recruit your children! And outlaw Christianity!

[FreakinDJ]

30. Ever work with the Street Kids there in Brazil

By Brazilian standards your Wealthy Elite - Home computer, stable internet connection (that you can afford) and the time during the working hours to frequent this forum.

I doubt you have time in your buzy day frequenting American political forums to so much as

"Give a Shit" about the plight of Poor Opressed Drug Addicted Street Children in your Home Town

On a warm, humid morning in December, children playing in a waste dump near Rio de Janeiro stumbled onto two battered and abandoned bodies. Both were girls; one had been raped and mutilated before being shot in the head; the other had been beaten and then shot repeatedly. And the girls were still children -- kids who lived on Rio's tough and dangerous streets.

http://www.stephenbrookes.com/international/2006/4/18/the-murder-of-rios-street-kids.html

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. Of course, since I'm posting here, I can't do anything else in my life.

:rofl:

I'm not going anywhere. Get over it.

[CreekDog]

35. Tell me more about the new rule: nobody outside the USA can talk about issues here

i didn't catch that in the text of the rules, but there are a lot of new ones, perhaps you can quote me that section as I've been careless and have overlooked it.

:hi:

[Lyric]

41. They've been making it up as they go along.

Apparently the Rule of Law has been replaced with a political version of Calvinball.

:eyes:

[ret5hd]

13. the proper term is "recreational abortions".

[Wait Wut]

14. No flame here, DJ

We have a huge meth problem here and it's the kids that suffer the most. All types of abuse from not only "boyfriends" and "girlfriends" but their own parents. In the past 2 weeks the local paper has posted the mugs and stories of 2 groups of drug dealers that were caught selling/trading food stamp cards. One of the women (23 yo) has 4 children and pregnant. Apparently, she was selling her benefits for drugs. I've also seen others first-hand through some musician friends and clients.

Sadly, there isn't much you can do for the kids. Taking them away and putting them in foster care is tough and not necessarily healthy, but leaving them in the situation they're in is even more dangerous. Offering free birth control would be my first choice, but they wouldn't use it.

Would love to hear a good solution to this. How can we guarantee that the aid these people are getting are going towards taking care of the kids?

[FreakinDJ]

34. Teachers are now trained how to spot Children from Drug addicted parents

I was pretty alarmed as my sister (who is a teacher) was telling me about it.

Of all the indignation being presented me at the mere thought I don't have any argument against the Drug Testing, none of the most vocal protesters has contributed any form of solution. Yet they claim they are acting in the children's best interest - Truly Amazing

I believe all the mechanisms for rehabilitation are already in place and have a significant proven record of positive results. Refocusing on the outcome of the children's upbring would be more productive then throwing $100s of $1000 of dollars at the problem once they grow up and are incarcerated

Glad to see you made it to the other side

I know exactly what you are talking about more then both of us would like to admitt

[Wait Wut]

43. I have several friends that are teachers...

...they don't hesitate to report any signs of abuse. Even I was the subject of an investigation because my son (he was 7 at the time) got mad at me and told his teacher the bruises on his head and legs were from abuse (it was because he had crashed his dirt bike...sigh). When the social worker showed up at the house my son immediately told her the truth. She apologized and I let her know that I was in no way upset. My son? He never did it again and I took him out for ice cream and a talk.

I've seen the parents come through treatment and counseling with amazing results. And you are so correct about the future of these kids. So many end up in prison or worse. It's a cycle that we need to break. If it means inconveniencing a few parents, like myself, I don't care. A few minutes of anyone's life is worth the lifetime of a child.

[LanternWaste]

22. I've seen many things...

I've seen many things too. But being merely human, I can only infer rather than state as absolute fact.

I imagine there are people though who pretend to know what a thing is without having full knowledge of said thing as it better validates their preconceived opinions...

[Zanzoobar]

5. Bankers

[madamesilverspurs]

19. They're here. . .

-

[Wounded Bear]

20. It's just the boogeyman du jour for them...

Wait a few weeks, we'll be terrified of someone/thing else.

[My Good Babushka]

21. It's about the standard of living

If people saw that working gave them a better standard of living and better security that selling drugs or being on welfare, they would work. Too bad working doesn't, in almost every case if you are an uneducated worker, give you security or a better standard of living. In most cases, you will still need some sort of welfare subsidy with its humiliating hoops and inspections to endure, on top of getting paid lousy wages with no benefits.

[jtown1123]

23. Blacks and Latinos. I'm not kidding.

[damntexdem]

24. Those who are not megacorporations on the U.S. contracting dole.

Corporate welfare bums don't want any competition, especially from those who actually work for their livings.

[unblock]

32. tax rates proposed by democrats are "socialism" and tax rates proposed by republicans are fair.

nevermind what the actual numbers are. reagan's first tax cuts are still hailed and cheered by republicans, yet he cut the top tax rate to a level (50%) that nowadays republicans insist is socialistic, simply because it's north of where top rates are now.

they'll NEVER be satisfied until the irs is abolished, and they'll NEVER be satisfied if anyone besides themselves gets a dime of government support.


actually, i take it back. they'll never be satisfied regardless.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Well, it certainly isn't the MIC or the banks. They embrace them.

[themadstork]

64. It's a socially permissible way of hating the poor. nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

67. Bingo.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. This is the correct answer. -nt