Should welfare recipients have work requirements and be drug tested?

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:13:57 -0400

I'm ineligible for welfare or public assistance. However, it angers me that as a taxpayer, I'm essentially paying the recipients of welfare or public assistance to be lazy. Most states don't have a work requirement in order to receive welfare which I think is wrong. How is it fair that I don't qualify for assistance and I work for my money, but a lot of welfare/public assistance recipients don't work and get assistance anyway. Also, why shouldn't recipients of welfare/public assistance be drug tested? It's not racist to check and see if someone is on drugs when they are using the assistance of welfare. Again, I don't qualify for welfare or public assistance, but I work hard and most jobs out there require a drug test before you're hired and some require drug tests while you work in certain positions. Why do people that work for their money have to be drug tested, but the people who don't work for the help they're receiving don't?

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2017 4:17 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:17:09 -0400

It's not unreasonable I think it should be fair.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Oct 26 at 2017 4:17 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:17:18 -0400

Yes on both parts of the question.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Oct 26 at 2017 5:31 PM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:31:10 -0400

Yes on both counts and I can understand your frustration. Welfare has become a "trap" to keep people in poverty while turning away those genuinely in need of assistance.

I remember when I was a young kid trying to make it on his own. I was working 3 jobs to keep a roof over my head and pay my way through school. I was barely making ends meet. So like any person looking for a change, I picked up the local realtor book to see if I could find a cheaper apartment.

Found a livable complex within walking distance of my school and the rent was 50% of what I was currently paying. So I jumped at the opportunity. Saved up for the usual First/Last/Security deposit. Filled out the application.

Got denied immediately.

You make too much money. This is for low income housing only. I was literally spending 75% of my current income on rent and the rest on school and food. But apparently I make too much money to be allowed to live in a place that would have helped me get back on my feet and better my financial situation.

Now flip the perspective to the people actually living in the complex. Why should any of them even attempt to try and move up in the world knowing that they could lose their rent controlled apartment for making a single dollar more.

Response by SGT Anna Kleinschmidt made Oct 26 at 2017 7:45 PM

SGT Anna Kleinschmidt — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:45:27 -0400

Almost all stats with the exception of Mississippi and Missouri who are very liberal and allow 24 months require immediate or within a month for a work requirement. This can include job training, education, active job search and of course an actual job. This is for non-disabled individuals. As far as drug testing, they will all most likely pass. Most of them will be seeing a doctor for some kind of pain control or anxiety and will have a running prescription for their drug of choice. I'm not saying that people should not be allowed to milk the system and honestly most people dont. The life they live is horrible and most struggle just for something most of us take for granted. It is really not worth the cost to go after everyone when a the numbers are not as high as you would actually think. There is a legitimate need for welfare, there are people that are not capable of caring for themselves and we should help.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2017 8:31 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:31:26 -0400

I think we had something in the 1930's called the Civilian Conservation Corps or something like that, where they learned skills, earned a wage, and worked for the government cleaning up cities, building roads, etc. Bring that back, or something similar. If we don't have available trade skill positions in your area you can clean parks, roads, streets, get rid of graffiti, make the community look nice. If you're going to get paid, you should work. The only exception being those lacking the physical capability, in which case they can be mandatory poll workers every election.

Response by SGT Matthew S. made Oct 26 at 2017 9:32 PM

SGT Matthew S. — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:32:04 -0400

My feeling is that I have to pass a drug test before starting & then periodic and random tests to keep the job where my wages are taxed to pay for that welfare money... so, yes.

Work requirements would certainly be a step in the right direction as well. Welfare is meant to be a helping hand when someone is down on their luck, not a career.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2017 9:50 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:50:22 -0400

It's a question the asking of which is absurd in and of itself. It should be mandated nationwide immediately, as in yesterday.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Oct 26 at 2017 10:18 PM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:18:56 -0400

Yes to both

Response by 1SG Alex Larson made Oct 26 at 2017 11:37 PM

1SG Alex Larson — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 23:37:28 -0400

Narrow the requirements for public assistance. It's assistance, therefore it should augment an existing effort. My point: if you aren't putting up the effort, you get no assistance. Freeloaders can starve for all I care.

Response by SSG James Behnke made Oct 27 at 2017 3:38 AM

SSG James Behnke — Fri, 27 Oct 2017 03:38:01 -0400

Absolutely, unequivocally, YES. If you need to be drug tested to hold a good paying job you should DEFINITELY be drug tested to receive money for free...

Response by SGT David T. made Oct 27 at 2017 8:10 AM

SGT David T. — Fri, 27 Oct 2017 08:10:26 -0400

I think the whole system should be overhauled. I think there needs to be some sort of education or job training and placement programs available to help get people off of that system. The basic idea is give them a hand up not a hand out. The current system punishes working. If you have a crappy job, you don't qualify for benefits but don't have enough to live on. So the logical course of action is to not work in that instance. I don't think it is a question of laziness most of the time. Sure there are some. I will concede that the cost up front would be high, but on the back end if people are self sufficient and able to contribute to society the cost would be recouped. For those unable to work then as a society we should take care of them. I am talking legitimately unable to work not because of some made up reason.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Oct 20 at 2018 9:51 AM

LTC John Wilson — Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:51:45 -0400

I believe any government payment for welfare should have its participants tested monthly. If positive the person's money should be cut off until the person is able to be drug free. There has to be consequences for misbehavior.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Oct 21 at 2018 8:22 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Sun, 21 Oct 2018 20:22:39 -0400

I think if the government or any employee has to (yes - has to - by law) drug test for any positions then those that receive any government funding should be drug tested also.
LIKEWISE (And I think drug-testing should happen) BUT,
If they are not drug-tested then no one should be drug-tested.

Response by LTC Stephan Porter made Oct 21 at 2018 8:27 PM

LTC Stephan Porter — Sun, 21 Oct 2018 20:27:55 -0400

Yes...if able to work!

Response by CW2 Michael Bodnar made Oct 22 at 2018 1:13 PM

CW2 Michael Bodnar — Mon, 22 Oct 2018 13:13:48 -0400

Yes and yes. I think it's stupid on the left's part not to jump on board with this - then again it goes against their narrative. I think if you take money from the state or federal programs, you have to work for it and it's only temporary. I also think that if you have taken money that once you find a job, a very small percentage (1-3%) should go back into the very system that helped you out. Everyone falls on hard times but I think we as a society need to start repaying the system that's helped you in the past.