Should government benefits be conditionally granted?

[WhoWee]

Does the fact that an action is voluntary in and of itself negate the protection against searches?

IMO -it would be reasonable and very easy to make benefits conditional to abiding by the law - wouldn't it?

Perhaps we can break this discussion of Government benefits being conditional of abiding by the law into a new thread - as discussion has gone beyond the scope of the Romney thread?

OP continued from - https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3759836&postcount=465

 

[WhoWee]

Let's call this info IMO - but it shows a trend that should be acknowledged.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_chart_40.html

 

[Office_Shredder]

That welfare spending increased during a recession but is predicted to go down when the economy recovers?

 

[WhoWee]

That welfare spending increased during a recession but is predicted to go down when the economy recovers?

Hasn't our total workforce shrunk by 4-5% - what if welfare spending levels off as it has in the past - how does Government police the system?

 

[ThomasT]

IMO -it would be reasonable and very easy to make benefits conditional to abiding by the law - wouldn't it?

It already is for the most part. Isn't it? If you're referring to drug testing for potential recipients of temporary cash benefits, then it seems that the numbers from the Florida experiment have shown this to be an unimportant consideration.

We already have several unnecessary, imo, federal bureaucracies. One of which is the DEA.

 

[WhoWee]

It already is for the most part. Isn't it? If you're referring to drug testing for potential recipients of temporary cash benefits, then it seems that the numbers from the Florida experiment have shown this to be an unimportant consideration.

We already have several unnecessary, imo, federal bureaucracies. One of which is the DEA.

I think the DEA could be combined with ATF - they often work together and seem a good fit.

 

[ThomasT]

I think the DEA could be combined with ATF - they often work together and seem a good fit.

I'd like to see the DEA just abolished. (But of course this could only be done in conjunction with some other big changes/actions that aren't currently too popular.)

Back to your OP. What programs, specifically, are you proposing additional conditions for? And what might those additional conditions entail in terms of increased bureauocracy, increased or decreased government expenditures, etc.?

 

[WhoWee]

I'd like to see the DEA just abolished. (But of course this could only be done in conjunction with some other big changes/actions that aren't currently too popular.)

Back to your OP. What programs, specifically, are you proposing additional conditions for? And what might those additional conditions entail in terms of increased bureauocracy, increased or decreased government expenditures, etc.?

I think personal responsibility is important. If someone needs assistance from the Government with housing, medical, food, education, transportation, utilities, communications, and cash in their pocket - shouldn't they be expected not to break the law?

 

[ThomasT]

I think personal responsibility is important. If someone needs assistance from the Government with housing, medical, food, education, transportation, utilities, communications, and cash in their pocket - shouldn't they be expected not to break the law?

Yes, of course I agree with you. My question is: doesn't the government already require that welfare recipients be law-abiding citizens? And if you think that additional conditions should apply, then what conditions and wrt what aid programs?

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, of course I agree with you. My question is: doesn't the government already require that welfare recipients be law-abiding citizens? And if you think that additional conditions should apply, then what conditions and wrt what aid programs?

I don't know of any assistance programs that end because someone is arrested or tests positive for drugs (outside of the FL program) - do you?

Even when sentenced to jail - members of a household can still collect. We even have hiring incentives for ex-convicts.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't know of any assistance programs that end because someone is arrested or tests positive for drugs (outside of the FL program) - do you?

Even when sentenced to jail - members of a household can still collect. We even have hiring incentives for ex-convicts.

I'm not sure what the rules are. You started the thread.

My current opinion is that it's not an important consideration. Like foreign aid, it's negligible wrt the national budget. So what if a small percentage of cash welfare recipients spend that money on drugs?

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure what the rules are. You started the thread.

My current opinion is that it's not an important consideration. Like foreign aid, it's negligible wrt the national budget. So what if a small percentage of cash welfare recipients spend that money on drugs?

Let's label this IMO. I don't know if anyone else has experience in this area? I've personally loaned money to people promising they'll buy food for their families - then spent it on drugs or gambling. Some people are beyond help until they hit rock bottom. Unfortunately, the welfare system prevents that from happening - instead, it allows them to continue.

Another problem with welfare is idle time. Productive people have less time to get into trouble. Perhaps another element should be some type of a mandatory job training program in exchange for the benefits?

 

[Jack21222]

I don't know of any assistance programs that end because someone is arrested or tests positive for drugs (outside of the FL program) - do you?

Even when sentenced to jail - members of a household can still collect. We even have hiring incentives for ex-convicts.

Most assistance programs I'm aware of are directed towards children. I don't think I can advocate taking money away from children based on their parents misdeeds.

 

[SixNein]

IMO -it would be reasonable and very easy to make benefits conditional to abiding by the law - wouldn't it?

Perhaps we can break this discussion of Government benefits being conditional of abiding by the law into a new thread - as discussion has gone beyond the scope of the Romney thread?

OP continued from - https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3759836&postcount=465

Aren't they already required to abide by the law? At any rate, would corporations also be subject to this requirement?

 

[SixNein]

Most assistance programs I'm aware of are directed towards children. I don't think I can advocate taking money away from children based on their parents misdeeds.

Well, single mothers with children make up a great deal of our welfare assistance programs. Personally, I think it would be better to find ways to elevate those people instead of trying to increase the bureaucracy that they have to go through.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This twists my words into an amazing contortion. I asked whether the fact that an action was voluntary could be considered the sole reason to negate a person's protection against searches by the government and somehow my question has been married to the question in the title of this thread.

As for this thread, are we talking about all government benefits, or just welfare? Are we talking about enforcing all laws, or just drug laws? Are we talking about searches with a warrant or without? If you deny someone welfare benefits because they had a poppy seed bagel in the morning before a random drug test, you could save thousands of dollars. But if you did a thorough examination of the financial records of the executives who get bailouts and found out that they forgot to report a poppy seed bagel in their tax return you could save trillions. Which do you propose?

 

[BobG]

Another problem with welfare is idle time. Productive people have less time to get into trouble. Perhaps another element should be some type of a mandatory job training program in exchange for the benefits?

I agree 100%! I would support a bill like that and would even call it the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 .

For the actual law (instead of a summary): http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/law-reg/law_index.html

 

[russ_watters]

Jimmy: a prospective employer requires you to take a drug test before hiring you: voluntary or invasion of privacy?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jimmy: a prospective employer requires you to take a drug test before hiring you: voluntary or invasion of privacy?

That's the other thread. This thread is different. However, a private company is different from the govt. You made that distinction yourself in that other thread.

 

[WhoWee]

This twists my words into an amazing contortion. I asked whether the fact that an action was voluntary could be considered the sole reason to negate a person's protection against searches by the government and somehow my question has been married to the question in the title of this thread.

As for this thread, are we talking about all government benefits, or just welfare? Are we talking about enforcing all laws, or just drug laws? Are we talking about searches with a warrant or without? If you deny someone welfare benefits because they had a poppy seed bagel in the morning before a random drug test, you could save thousands of dollars. But if you did a thorough examination of the financial records of the executives who get bailouts and found out that they forgot to report a poppy seed bagel in their tax return you could save trillions. Which do you propose?

I don't think we're talking about second hand smoke or a random poppy seed - and 3 strikes is probably the end compromise in the real world.

 

[SixNein]

That's the other thread. This thread is different. However, a private company is different from the govt. You made that distinction yourself in that other thread.

I think there is also a bias here since he is targeting a very specific group.

I don't hear him moaning about how CEO's got bailouts; therefore, they should piss in a cup.

 

[Galteeth]

I think so much of this depends on the circumstances. There are some pretty broad things being discussed here.
I think part of the issue has to do with the reason for the government assistance. Is it because someone is out of work? Or is it more of a disability thing? I think there should be different standards based on the circumstances.
Also, when you say law-abiding, what do you really mean? There's hardly anyone who is completely law abiding (and this is due to the insane number of laws.)
This has probably been mentioned, by the florida testing program actually lost money for the state.
I also think it's relevant what drugs they're testing for and how the test is done. Specifically, as many of you know, marijuana can remain in your system for months after you've smoked. Now someone who is applying for welfare benefits, just because they may have smoked marijuana in the past three months I don't think is a good reason to disqualify them.

EDIT: And of course in my perfect world, i wouldn't have government benefits at all, but considering the total budgetary impact of welfare, it's not high on my list of priorities. I mean I recognize there are negative consequences to the system, but I think there's a lot of bad stuff to get rid of first.

 

[WhoWee]

I think there is also a bias here since he is targeting a very specific group.

I don't hear him moaning about how CEO's got bailouts; therefore, they should piss in a cup.

Did CEO's get bailouts - personally - can you name them please? Perhaps you'd like all of the shareholders of the public companies and their union employees to "P" in a cup?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Why the employees? That's like drug testing the guy at seven eleven because someone spent welfare money there. But all the share holders? Still no, the minority holders didn't actually get a say in the bailout, so it doesn't apply. But the people who asked the government for money and received it are certainly valid targets under your proposed scenario

 

[daveb]

I don't know of any assistance programs that end because someone is arrested or tests positive for drugs (outside of the FL program) - do you?

Yes - federal subsidized and unsubsidized loans for college. You can't get any (well at least you couldn't several years ago when I was in college and needed the loans) if you've been convicted of drug possession.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO - if a system doesn't have checks and balances - that is accountability - it will be abused more than if the controls were in place.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Did CEO's get bailouts - personally - can you name them please? Perhaps you'd like all of the shareholders of the public companies and their union employees to "P" in a cup?

No. If the company gets govt. money, then let's see the books. I don't want tax cheating companies to get the money.

 

[WhoWee]

No. If the company gets govt. money, then let's see the books. I don't want tax cheating companies to get the money.

I don't want any corporate welfare.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't want any corporate welfare.

And your first line of attack is social welfare? I'm not talking about corporate welfare. The govt also signs contracts with these companies. I want to know that there is no child porn on company computers. I want a thorough investigation to see that all laws are being obeyed and I don't want to be troubled getting a warrant.

 

[WhoWee]

And your first line of attack is social welfare? I'm not talking about corporate welfare. The govt also signs contracts with these companies. I want to know that there is no child porn on company computers. I want a thorough investigation to see that all laws are being obeyed and I don't want to be troubled getting a warrant.

Are we certain there's no child porn on Government computers - would a federal (union) employee lose their job and/or pension over child porn? I'm for accountability at EVERY level!