Should government benefits be conditionally granted?

[WhoWee]

I don't think you know the ACLU very well then. The ACLU doesn't care about whether the welfare is helping people, they just care whether there's any possibility of the government infringing on somebody's rights.

Oh come now - are you certain?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Let me clarify. The people in the organization of the ACLU probably do care about whether welfare is helping people, but the objective of the ACLU as an organization is not to improve the welfare system, but to defend against government encroachments of rights.

 

[ThomasT]

Best to assume for who?

Best to assume because it's the most reasonable assumption. Or, you can assume that the fact that Mr.X is a broke homeless person is entirely due to circumstances beyond his control. Well, I don't buy that ... unless Mr. X is intellectually and/or emotionally challenged and/or has some sort of addiction, like drugs or alcohol or whatever. And if drugs and/or alcohol is his problem, then requiring him to pass drug tests to get money to live on can only help him, not hurt him.

 

[MarcoD]

IMO, it's a system which will be too easily exploited to warrant implementation.

 

[Jasongreat]

I would think the ACLU would support a social contract that helps people during a time of need and empowers the individual to take responsibility for their actions?

You keep mentioning the social contract, in the US I would argue that the social contract is the constitution, since it was in that document that we the people put limits on the federal government and which we agreed to live by. We as a people agree that we will live by the rules, imposed by congress, as long as they are resricted to the delegated powers listed in that document. Once the government goes beyond those, they have broken the contract and it is null and void.

There is no valid argument, IMO, that since government has gone above and beyond their delegated powers, ie; welfare, that those receiving welfare should then lose rights, because of the supposed social contract.

Welfare for the minority is the job of states, if in your state you feel you should take rights in order to 'better' serve the citizens, that is fine, if people agree they stay, if not they leave. General welfare is the job of the federal government, that is of most citizens, and I would argue that only describes the states, our federal government is supposed to do the things the states couldn't do, states are to do everything else, like welfare. One of the biggest problems today, one that wouldn't exist, if the south would have won the war of northern agression, states would not be allowed to vote to take funds from another state to fund their problems. California couldn't make a welfare state that wyoming has to fund, or if we go further iowa wouldn't be able to make california pay for their farm subsisdies, which would keep the US, a to each their own community. I think plenty of programs in states would disappear if they had to rely on the citizenry to fund it, a national government run by majority votes makes that distinction disapear. Pennsylvania, gets to keep 100% of its land, while voting to take 80% of utahs,nevada, wyomings land away.

To Moonbear, that is one of the most well thought out, superiorly expressed opinions I have seen in the political forums, you give us all something to live up to. Thank you.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That is the expectation...

(Quote shortened) This is a fantastic response. I've stayed out of this thread but the first thing I thought is how much is regular drug testing of everyone on benefits going to cost purely in terms of the test let alone anything else. Great points about the constitution and civil rights too

 

[WhoWee]

You keep mentioning the social contract, in the US I would argue that the social contract is the constitution, since it was in that document that we the people put limits on the federal government and which we agreed to live by.

Sorry for the confusion - I was suggesting it's possible to conditionally grant benefits if we had a contract with beneficiaries requiring them to obey the law or risk losing their assistance. This would be a specific social contract that estimates the value of their benefits. I don't think beneficiaries realize how much their assistance (food, housing, medical, utilities, cash, transportation, communications, etc.) actually costs the taxpayer.

 

[BobG]

Sorry for the confusion - I was suggesting it's possible to conditionally grant benefits if we had a contract with beneficiaries requiring them to obey the law or risk losing their assistance. This would be a specific social contract that estimates the value of their benefits. I don't think beneficiaries realize how much their assistance (food, housing, medical, utilities, cash, transportation, communications, etc.) actually costs the taxpayer.

Except in this instance you're requiring innocent people to sell their inalienable rights in return for the government benefits they receive.

Your plan is only reasonable if you only test welfare recipients that will fail and how will you know which will fail before you've conducted the testing?

 

[WhoWee]

Except in this instance you're requiring innocent people to sell their inalienable rights in return for the government benefits they receive.

Your plan is only reasonable if you only test welfare recipients that will fail and how will you know which will fail before you've conducted the testing?

Who has the right to engage in unlawful activity?

 

[Evo]

This topic has been beaten to death.