Welfare Dependency

In either case I was just being facetious

 

I have been broke twice in my life. Neither time did I ask for assistance from my government. I was able bodied with no children. I have been homeless. And I have lived in the worst parts of town more than once. It was the most motivational experiences of my life to end the conditions as quickly as possible. Was it rough? Fucking A right it was. That is your motivation to end it.

Everyone around me was on assistance. They drove nicer cars than me, and had more money than I did as they seemed to party almost always and had expensive new tattoos. I turned down daily multiple attempts to sell me drugs. Not only did I not have the money for them, any trace of drugs could possibly keep me from getting a job if they drug tested as a condition of employment.

I ended up working for next to nothing, for an Indian hotel owner to rebuild his small run down hotel. He allowed me to stay in a room as part of my pay. Back breaking work for long hours with next to nothing pay (paid in cash). I never bitched about the work, the conditions, or the nasty old room I had to live in. It was better than living in my van. 5 months later, his hotel was done and my purpose for him had been served. I left there with $1500 in my pocket and 3 cases of Ramen Noodles in my van. I will be forever grateful to that cheap bastard. He gave me a break, took advantage of my situation, and allowed me to make my situation better. He did not have to do any of it.

I hope to never be broke again. But we never know what moment may happen to change it all. If if I am, I'd manage to find a way out as quickly as possible.

However I do take note and agree with makihiko's input: "I did not have enough money to wash my clothes or afford a phone. Finding a job was difficult when I couldn't afford a razor to shave with, or receive a call from an employer."

Sometimes simple things that can't be abused, like providing vouchers to use at laundry's, or a phone provided on credit, to be paid back upon employment, can be a huge boost in times of need. Once in the hole of poverty, if you don't have the skills that others do, there is little chance anyone will come looking for you, to help you out. Providing assistance for visibility and access to resources, rather than free room and board, I'd pay taxes for. In my experience, twice now, if they can adjust to free crappy housing, and free crappy food, and they can survive, they decide that that's good enough to do it forever. Those people lived there before I came there, and were still there when I left those conditions. BOTH TIMES.

I never wanted to GET USED TO living like that. EVER. We WILL NOT solve it by raising their standard of living to make it less harsh on them.

 

I imagine this keeps a large amount of people from seeking employment.

 

Yep. They subsidize their subsidies by selling drugs. Kind of hard to convince someone to not sell drugs when they can make $1000+ a week doing so. With little if any concern that they are going to actually see jail.

 

Someone that I met on this forum came to stay with me several years ago.

After a month, I sent them packing because they were asking to borrow money from me.

They "needed" to buy weed but they couldn't find employment because they couldn't pass a drug test.

I don't need that kind of problem around me.

 

I'll add that this person had food stamp benefits that they wanted to trade me for the cash but I still sent that problem packing.

 

Nothing quite like real, tangible, valuable, paper. No, sarcasm aside I do get what you're saying. It's not your job to take care of someone else especially if they won't even try to take care of themselves

 

Right.

If weed, as harmless as it is supposed to be, cripples you to that degree then there is a problem.

The government knows that there is a drug problem associated with the welfare problem.

They have attempted to work on it. I know there are places that make you drug test in order to receive assistance.

 

Nor does the rest of the country!

You can't convince anyone on the left that revamping the social programs will do any good. They will spit out statistics to tell you that its only 1% that are a problem and that its been tried at a cost of YUGE amounts of money to be found to be worthless.

No matter what the actual real world shows you or I or anyone that knows better.

They will argue that the only reason people are on welfare is because of the effed up Republican priorities that make more people poor.

 

This will be argued to be discriminatory profiling and racist. Therefore it will be shut down. Like 85% of the rest of the issues that the country tries to talk about. If any of the problems happen to include a certain group of people as part of its content, we are screwed trying to solve it.

 

More people would work at something if jobs would stop drug testing...Yeah, stop drug testing for jobs and get people off welfare...Nah, that's hardly fair to employers.

 

That is of no concern to the left.

 

I think the problem is the 4 necessities of life are hard to come by in our society. Food and clothing are cheap, but rent and healthcare are really expensive. Rent for example can be 60% of a person's income. In a truly civilized society all 4 necessities should be easy to obtain. Then more people could achieve self reliance more easily.

 

You know what. I can agree in large part to this concept. It is a national disgrace that you have to have money to be sick here.

Housing is a matter of view. If people can't afford housing because of their pay, they need to either move or find a better job.

The only way the price of housing goes up, is if people can pay for it. Supply and demand dictate housing prices. If nobody can afford to pay the lowest rent housing prices, they will be vacant. If people leave because they can't afford it, the prices will adjust down. I absolutely know I can't afford to live in Silicon Valley or Manhattan. I don't live there.

 

as I pointed out in another thread, among the states that have already implemented this the percentage of positive drug users was less than 1% in all states but one

Thats a pretty tiny percentage

 

I don't even understand 1%. Stop the drugs or stop the assistance. What 1% was dumb enough to think they'd slip past?

 

That's pretty honest jk!

 

You show no understanding of the concept of a medium of exchange. Money is a wonderful mechanism when treated with respect. Whether it is little pieces of paper, pretty shells, or stones meeting certain criteria is immaterial. Some medium of exchange is necessary for commerce beyond a bartering system.

I don’t know what you mean by “worth in society”, and it strikes me as a largely useless concept, as it lacks specific meaning. Is a financier “worth more in society” than a musician? The answer to that question is very dependent on the specifics of a situation, but the musician will need the services (directly or indirectly) of the financier.

 

What? Distribution charges are very serious and real. Not sure where you get the idea people on welfare do not face punishment for dealing.

"Judge I know my client had a kilo of coke. But you see he is seeking work and just trying to feed his kids"
"Ok community service"

Not happening.

 

Drug testing is a form of power grab. It violates Americans by requiring people to submit to personal humiliation to demonstrate the control an employer has over their lives. It's an unreasonable search through a person's bodily chemistry. Oh sure, some will say "well, you don't HAVE to work there". But consider how that net has been growing since the 1980s.

Just try to find a career-level occupation that doesn't lay this "choice" at your feet. Think about what else can be determined from this "sample". Your DNA is in there as well. Employers will soon enough know if you carry certain traits they might not want. The War on Drugs has been a power grab all along. Look at all of the states that cancel the rights of anyone convicted of a felony, for life. Lately it has largely been the voting rights that get airplay on this issue, but what about the 4th and 5th amendments?

If you have a felony record, forget ever winning a court case again. Your life will be a marathon on eggshells until the day you die. You'll literally become one of "the usual suspects". Another aspect of drug testing is the impact it has on health insurance. Imagine being denied a medical claim because you have pot in your system. It's already happening.

While I lament libertarians for supporting legalized heroin, I do see their point on allowing the government to dictate what we can and cannot ingest in the privacy of our own dwellings. Drug testing takes this away from us. However, there is a class of American citizenry who I do think should subjected to drug testing and often; government employees, anyone running for election and anyone who wins election (or appointment).

They serve us, they don't rule us. We rule.

(4th) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(5th) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.