Have you seen the research where it’s been found that homeless alcoholics recover faster if they’re allowed to drink whatever they want while they’re in the shelter?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/31/us-alcoholics-homes-idUSTRE52U7GZ20090331
I think one must consider carefully the ACTUAL effects of plans beyond merely the moral outrage caused by counter-intuitive policies (like “allowing drinking leads to less drinking” here).
Michigan just passed legislation limiting welfare recipients to 48 months lifetime. I see a lot of crime in our future.
That is an awesome site. It will take me years to go through it all but a great link to the hundreds (thousands maybe?) of government assistance programs. It does suggest to me that those with time and experience are a lot more likely to get benefits from the government.
Hell, if you’re talking about Detroit, you see it now.
[sub]Not that Minneapolis has anything to brag about.[/sub]
If there was any true intent at saving the taxpayers money, you’ve just created another bureaucracy. So what percentage of your original savings goal are you now willing to give up to maintain this bureaucracy, and its nanny state attitude? How much political fallout are you willing to endure?
And neither should be the case. I personally do not think government at any level should be involved in welfare, but the federal government cannot legally be involved in welfare; there is no constitutional authority for it. If government welfare has to be, then it should be at the state / local level.
My father was able to successfully overcome addiction to heroin and cocaine at this world class recovery facility. The cost per day to attend this facility is $325. Again, that is per day. Successful addiction counseling is incredibly expensive and ultimately does not come with any kind of guarantee that it will actually work.
There is also the fact that there are many more addicts out there than qualified counselors. These brave and rare people already have their work cut out for them as is. They cannot transmute into welfare workers with a mandate to cut addicts from the system. This would be totally counter-intuitive to the expensive and time consuming work they do now. Thus, you’d have a bunch of bean-counters who don’t know the first thing about addictions deciding the fate of people they have an active mandate not to help. All of this goes on the government’s dime. And this won’t make things worse?
Not sure if you got the memo, but you lost this argument to the federalists centuries ago. If you don’t like it, start your own country.
I thought it wasn’t “welfare”?
Bottom line is this: “If they need it give it to them, if they are using it and are on drugs, take it away”
If they steal to feed that habit, they go to jail. Why would you advocate “helping them out” while they are deliberately making a choice to use the money for other than the intended purpose?
It isn’t a merit question.
Why did you think welfare isn’t welfare? What does being on drugs have to do with it? Who says they are using welfare money for drugs? Are you on drugs?
I quoted you because I was responding to you but your post was referencing another post by answering the “stealing” issue.
The welfare response was to DrDeth’s “You perhaps do not realize that the classic “welfare” hasn’t existed for a decade”
Because when you add up the costs of jail, emergency rooms, and compliance testing, it costs me as a taxpayer less to not care? I’d like you to respond to Post 21, in which I link to experimental evidence that not caring if alcoholics drink and spend their stipends on drinking in shelters leads to better outcomes–including massive cost reductions AND lower alcohol consumption on the part of the shelter-living addicts.
Why 25? Why not 18? If you’re old enough to serve in the military, old enough to vote, and old enough to be tried as an adult and given a death sentence then you’re old enough to take care of yourself.
The problem with welfare really is it’s not proactive. They make you wait till your in a hole to qualify, then once you’re there, it isn’t enough to help you climb back out of the hole.
I can see helping old people, and not just because I am one of them. Most have given a lifetime of contributions to society, but to those 18-25, they should be out on their own.
Irrelevant to illegal drugs, last I checked alcohol was legal. It does bring up an interesting sidebar to the original OP though. The question posed was (to paraphrase) what we do when the people steal to feed the addiction. To which I responded with “they go to jail”
The responsibility of the welfare recipient is indeed the heart of the heart burn (forgive me) for some folks, me included.
To answer your question bluntly, we could derive some fiscal sense in making drugs legal altogether, but how is that working out?
Do people between 25 and 65 still qualify for subsidized student loans?
You haven’t tied together the premise of your questions. Why should a person who tests positive for illegal drugs be denied welfare? I think you are assuming that welfare money is used to buy drugs, which would indicate you have no idea how welfare is distributed and how much drugs cost. I think you also think people who use drugs are somehow not worthy of receiving the benefits non-drug users. I think this is nonsense that is irrelevant and counters the main reason for having a welfare system, which is to keep the people who have been cut out of the benefits of the social contract from doing what is perfectly ethical and moral under that situation, namely stealing what the rest of us have.
Mostly that was who was on welfare before. The money still flows, it’s just hidden in different programs. I don’t see where we’ve eliminated long term welfare at all.
Maybe we should tax the labor of the poor directly. Link benefits to taxes paid in the form of direct labor. I know this has been done in my area for medical benefits. In order to qualify one had to work a number of hours for it.
It’s not a national policy but states like Utah are doing it. Warning, fox round table babble.
Elsewhere OP states his age as 20.
So what? What’s the goal here? MY goal is “spend less of my money on better outcomes for poor citizens”.
It is not in any way the civic responsibility of a shelter or a social worker to evaluate whether a given recipient is using any substance whatsoever or not, IMHO.
So in other words, you’d rather we as a nation pay more money to jail them and hospitalize them and bury them, than pay less money to house them and let them live a quiet life with some semblance of dignity.
That’s what it boils down to. Cutting welfare leads only two places–either you are letting people starve to death in the streets, since we KNOW private charity doesn’t cover everyone; or you are electing to pay MORE money for the benefit of increased suffering. Those are the only two options. People do not magically become responsible just because you cut off the food.
Why do I need to tie the two together. Is it not a logical step to take when considering where and how the money they do have goes?