Should government benefits be conditionally granted?

  • News
  • Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Government
In summary, the author is proposing that welfare recipients be required to abide by the law in order to receive government benefits, and that this requirement is not an important consideration. They also propose that the DEA be combined with ATF, and that there are no currently available assistance programs that end due to an individual being arrested or testing positive for drugs.
  • #1
WhoWee
219
0
Jimmy Snyder said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
That welfare spending increased during a recession but is predicted to go down when the economy recovers?
 
  • #4
Office_Shredder said:
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?
 
  • #5
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #6
ThomasT said:
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.
 
  • #7
WhoWee said:
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.?
 
  • #8
ThomasT said:
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?
 
  • #9
WhoWee said:
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?
 
  • #10
ThomasT said:
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.
 
  • #11
WhoWee said:
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?
 
  • #12
ThomasT said:
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?
 
  • #13
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #14
WhoWee said:
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?
 
  • #15
Jack21222 said:
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.
 
  • #16
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #17
WhoWee said:
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 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Jimmy: a prospective employer requires you to take a drug test before hiring you: voluntary or invasion of privacy?
 
  • #19
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #20
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
 
  • #21
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
 
  • #22
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.
 
  • #23
SixNein said:
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?
 
  • #24
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
 
  • #25
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #26
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.
 
  • #27
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #28
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
 
  • #29
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #30
Jimmy Snyder said:
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!
 
  • #31
WhoWee said:
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!

Hmm. I am pretty liberal, but I think it is pretty normal people can lose their job watching (normal) porn at work.
 
  • #32
MarcoD said:
Hmm. I am pretty liberal, but I think it is pretty normal people can lose their job watching (normal) porn at work.

Are we certain the federal employees lost their jobs last year when caught - what was effect on their pensions or benefits - maybe they owe compensation for the time they were paid to watch porn - does anyone know?

Here's a case we can follow.
http://www.ajc.com/news/federal-worker-held-on-1200439.html [Broken]

Here's the one I remember.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/04/eye_opener_porn_and_federal_wo.html

"Several of employees held senior positions, earning between $99,300 and $222,418 per year, the inspector general's summary said. Three of the incidents occurred this year, ten in 2009, 16 in 2008, two in 2007 and one each in 2006 and 2005.

In one instance, a regional office staff account admitted viewing pornography on his office computer and on his SEC-issued laptop while on official government travel. Another staff account received nearly 1,800 access denials for pornography Web sites in a two-week period and had more than 600 images saved on her laptop’s hard drive, the report said.

A senior attorney at SEC headquarters in Washington admitted he sometimes spent as much as eight hours viewing pornography from his office computer, according to the report. The attorney’s computer ran out of space for the downloaded images, so he started storing them on CDs and DVDs that he stored in his office. "


A quick follow up story.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Porn-Watching-Workers-Punished-117729298.html
"Federal employees in Chicago and six other cities are being reprimanded for watching porn on the job."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Yeah well. It's all a bit silly too somehow. I know lots of people, mostly young, who had sex on their work, often just for fun or for imagined kicks. And now people are contemplating what to do with men who masturbated at work. Normally, I guess one could just call that healthy behavior.

Watching porn for eight hours when you should be working is a bit over the top -the guy is ill,- and porn at work does offend women often, so I am not against banning it.

(I used to teach at an IT college. Then porn is a problem. But it would be a bigger problem if it wouldn't be a problem. Of course, nearly all the male students watch porn, what else?)

Uhm, before everybody thinks we're all depraved individuals in the Netherlands, it usually boils down to incidents. An indecent wallpaper or some students finding something 'hilarious' on the Internet and watching 'that' in the cantina to the dismay of others. Students...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
MarcoD said:
Yeah well. It's all a bit silly too somehow. I know lots of people, mostly young, who had sex on their work, often just for fun or for imagined kicks. And now people are contemplating what to do with men who masturbated at work. Normally, I guess one could just call that healthy behavior.

Watching porn for eight hours when you should be working is a bit over the top -the guy is ill,- and porn at work does offend women often, so I am not against banning it.

Some of these fellows worked at the Securities and Exchage Commission - the Wall St watchdog agency.
 
  • #35
WhoWee said:
Some of these fellows worked at the Securities and Exchage Commission - the Wall St watchdog agency.

Yeah well, we're all dumb, drunk, and horny. (Okay, occasionally.) I don't get upset about sex.

The SEC, huh? Guess they had it coming.
 
<h2>1. Should government benefits be conditionally granted?</h2><p>This is a complex question that has been debated by experts and policymakers for decades. Some argue that conditional benefits, such as work requirements or drug testing, are necessary to ensure that recipients are using the benefits responsibly and to incentivize them to become self-sufficient. Others argue that these conditions are unfair and can create additional barriers for those in need.</p><h2>2. What are the potential benefits of conditional government benefits?</h2><p>Proponents of conditional benefits argue that they can help reduce government spending and promote self-sufficiency among recipients. By requiring individuals to meet certain criteria, such as participating in job training programs or maintaining a drug-free lifestyle, it is believed that they will be more likely to find employment and become less reliant on government assistance.</p><h2>3. What are the potential drawbacks of conditional government benefits?</h2><p>Opponents of conditional benefits argue that they can create additional barriers for individuals in need, particularly those who may have difficulty meeting the conditions due to factors such as health issues or lack of access to resources. There are also concerns that these conditions may be discriminatory and disproportionately affect certain groups, such as people of color or individuals with disabilities.</p><h2>4. Are there any successful examples of conditional government benefits?</h2><p>Some countries, such as Denmark and Norway, have implemented conditional benefits programs with positive results. These programs often include a combination of support services, such as job training and childcare, along with conditions for receiving benefits. However, it is important to note that the success of these programs may not necessarily be replicable in other countries or contexts.</p><h2>5. How can we strike a balance between providing support and promoting self-sufficiency?</h2><p>Finding the right balance between providing support and promoting self-sufficiency is a complex and ongoing challenge. Some experts suggest that a combination of conditional and unconditional benefits may be the most effective approach, as it allows for both support and accountability. Additionally, investing in education, job training, and other resources can help individuals become self-sufficient and reduce the need for government assistance in the long term.</p>

1. Should government benefits be conditionally granted?

This is a complex question that has been debated by experts and policymakers for decades. Some argue that conditional benefits, such as work requirements or drug testing, are necessary to ensure that recipients are using the benefits responsibly and to incentivize them to become self-sufficient. Others argue that these conditions are unfair and can create additional barriers for those in need.

2. What are the potential benefits of conditional government benefits?

Proponents of conditional benefits argue that they can help reduce government spending and promote self-sufficiency among recipients. By requiring individuals to meet certain criteria, such as participating in job training programs or maintaining a drug-free lifestyle, it is believed that they will be more likely to find employment and become less reliant on government assistance.

3. What are the potential drawbacks of conditional government benefits?

Opponents of conditional benefits argue that they can create additional barriers for individuals in need, particularly those who may have difficulty meeting the conditions due to factors such as health issues or lack of access to resources. There are also concerns that these conditions may be discriminatory and disproportionately affect certain groups, such as people of color or individuals with disabilities.

4. Are there any successful examples of conditional government benefits?

Some countries, such as Denmark and Norway, have implemented conditional benefits programs with positive results. These programs often include a combination of support services, such as job training and childcare, along with conditions for receiving benefits. However, it is important to note that the success of these programs may not necessarily be replicable in other countries or contexts.

5. How can we strike a balance between providing support and promoting self-sufficiency?

Finding the right balance between providing support and promoting self-sufficiency is a complex and ongoing challenge. Some experts suggest that a combination of conditional and unconditional benefits may be the most effective approach, as it allows for both support and accountability. Additionally, investing in education, job training, and other resources can help individuals become self-sufficient and reduce the need for government assistance in the long term.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
3
Replies
103
Views
13K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
62
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
77
Views
14K
Back
Top