6 Free Financial Modeling Lessons...and More.

Enter your e-mail below to get our new Free Modeling Tutorials ($200+ Value).

< previous | next >

Welfare
 

bfin's picture
CF
(Neanderthal, 2,772
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 9:51am

Should people be required to submit to random drug screenings when receiving government assistance?

Discuss.

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee WSO is not your personal search function.
Tags:
TheKing's picture

Apparently, the cost of doing

O
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 10:32am

Apparently, the cost of doing the drug screenings outweigh the benefit (which is virtually non-existent despite what certain right wing figures would have you believe.) I think Florida just found this out first-hand.

In all seriousness, this is such a non-problem. Do I want drug users living on the gov't dole? No, of course not. But, it's miniscule compared to all the other shit we have to deal with.

For instance: Should we continue allow and subsidize the existence of Too Big To Fail banks?

Or, should we continue to fight in Afghanistan and spend nearly a trillion dollars on defense spending each year?

Check out my WSO Blog

TonyPerkis's picture

yes they should..no

AM
(King Kong, 1,576
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 10:43am

yes they should..no question...idc about costs, it should be done

I eat success for breakfast...with skim milk

SirBarney's picture

They should be required to

O
(Gorilla, 505
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 11:00am

They should be required to subject to a physical, body fat %, weight, etc...

seabird's picture

TheKing: Apparently, the cost

PE
(King Kong, 1,493
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 11:30am
TheKing:

Apparently, the cost of doing the drug screenings outweigh the benefit (which is virtually non-existent despite what certain right wing figures would have you believe.) I think Florida just found this out first-hand.

Costs for these things are unimportant. The point would be to make an impression and deal with the sense of entitlement of people collecting. This is why we use "uneconomical force" in wars (or at least did) - so we could make an impression and not have to do BS like 10 year occupations.

In all seriousness, this is such a non-problem.

This is a serious possibility but I personally would be willing to pay a bit more to punish the wicked.

“...all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

- Schopenhauer

rls's picture

Getting rid of the program

HF
(Orangutan, 367
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 11:47am

Getting rid of the program entirely would be the best cost-saving mechanism. If that is not an option, politically or otherwise, as TheKing says, the U.S. spends much more subsidizing industries (banking, oil, healthcare, etc.) to prioritize this over the other programs. There is enough money going down the welfare rat hole, now you're suggesting adding another layer of bureaucracy to administer and track the results (not to mention the appeals process which will invariably arise). Ignoring the fact that this just grows an increasingly encroaching government, think about it- what happens if a person fails a drug test and the follow-up test? The test itself suggest you'll take some action based on the test results. Say you deny them benefits for 6 months or a year. They are going to try and get whatever services they previously received for free from another source. They could commit crimes or show up in a hospital demanding free services, including food. It's already a mess, let's not antagonize the system further or encourage any more growth. I don't believe there is a contradiction between the first sentence and my estimations for what denied former recipients would do- ask me if you want me to clarify further.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

eskimo941's picture

It depends on how the results

O
(Monkey, 48
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 11:50am

It depends on how the results of the drug tests are used. If they're used to identify drug users and offer them treatment options with the hope of ultimately helping them become better citizens more capable of contributing to society, etc. then fine.

However, if the intent is to identify drug users/addicts and subsequently take away their benefits, then I don't think so. If you think addiction is a biologically based disease (as it is), then you would effectively be discriminating against a subset of these folks based on a medical condition.

Philosophically, I think incentivizing the behavior you want is more effective than disincentivizing the behavior you don't.

All of this being said, I agree with TheKing: we have more important shit to deal with.

TheKing's picture

Not a single person involved

O
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 12:24pm

Not a single person involved in the financial crisis was even prosecuted (or even arrested)...but let's worry about some poor person smoking a joint from time to time.

::blows brains out::

Check out my WSO Blog

blastoise's picture

TheKing: Not a single person

O
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 12:43pm
TheKing:

Not a single person involved in the financial crisis was even prosecuted (or even arrested)...but let's worry about some poor person smoking a joint from time to time.

::blows brains out::

NAME THREE PEOPLE YOU THINK SHOULD BE IN JAIL BECUASE OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

TheKing's picture

There was rampant fraud at

O
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 12:47pm

There was rampant fraud at the sub-prime lenders. The Ratings Agencies were well aware that they were rating dog shit (to win business.) Some at the banks (i.e. the Fabulous Fab and those involved in CDOs like Timberwolf).

"But, not everyone was breaking laws, getting money isn't illegal."

Right, fine, then bring back effective laws and regulation to stop that shit from ever happening again. We had laws that worked pretty damn well for 70+ years. We got rid of them and the Earth blew up within 8 years. Bring back the laws.

Then, we can talk about drug testing welfare recipients. Until then, you're fiddling while Rome burns.

Check out my WSO Blog

rls's picture

blastoise: TheKing: Not a

HF
(Orangutan, 367
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 1:09pm
blastoise:
TheKing:

Not a single person involved in the financial crisis was even prosecuted (or even arrested)...but let's worry about some poor person smoking a joint from time to time.

::blows brains out::

NAME THREE PEOPLE YOU THINK SHOULD BE IN JAIL BECUASE OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

I'm more in the all-or-none camp with respect to this issue. If we do seek to punish people for the mess of the financial crisis, I would suggest we go from the top (IBs, credit-rating agencies, the Fed) all the way to the man/woman who applied for a no-document stated income loan that lied. If we aren't going to do that, which we aren't, the best solution is to let all these people fail- personal bankruptcy and corporate bankruptcy.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

txjustin's picture

I'm for short term safety

O
(Neanderthal, 2,447
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 1:10pm

I'm for short term safety nets. What we have now is exactly the opposite. Let Darwinism take it's course...

TNA's picture

I thought we were talking

O
(Human, 13,531
 
Points)
 on 7/6/12 at 1:29pm

I thought we were talking about welfare here. Why is the financial crisis being brought up?

MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter

6 Free Financial Modeling Lessons...Straight to Your Inbox.

Confirm your name and e-mail below to get our best tips

Monkey Stats
Account information
We respect your Name and E-mail privacy. By joining you accept our terms of service.