I actually had this discussion with one of my siblings who just happens to be a FL Republican like the folks who drafted and passed this bill. She honestly doesn't care (and said as much) that it's going to cost her a quarter or a dollar to make sure some good-for-nothing addict doesn't get his/her paws on her nickle.
( just quoting you to make a point, not aiming my argument at you
I wonder if these people ever stop to think how silly that argument is when they vote for, financially donate to and endorse presidents, vice presidents, cabinet members, city council members, judges, mayors and such who have been or currently ARE doing drugs themselves?
George W Bush. Admitted coke head.
Oh but wait! he doesnt count.
Oh wait again.. he doesnt count..
I could list dozens. But that is too much thinking for some people who just really wanna put it to the people they can publicly judge, demonize and hate freely with no consequence. The drug user.
drug users are the scum of the earth according to them and all that is wrong with this supposed system.No matter how much so called funding is tossed out the window for other things, money that is 'lost' or used for bullshit purposes. No. Lets point the finger at the drug addict and make THEM the sole problem for a failing system as if a scattered few can really be responsible for billions of dollars. Funny, the people some of those who vote and support to remove assistance from families fall into that drug user category, but blinders are applied for those.
And just for the record, im simply playing devils advocate here. I dont endorse drug users getting public money to directly
pay for their habit... but i do not stand by the idea of possibly depriving their family members based on public personal judgment either. Just because one person thinks those who do drugs are ****, does not mean that their kids or other dependents should be denied help. Doing drugs is an idiot thing to do and really messes up your body, destroys families and is just..well.. STUPID. But, in a free country, we have the right and freedom to do just that to ourselves, learn from our consequences or die from the action. Its a freedom. Just like it is a freedom to head down to the bar and have a beer....or two...or ten. Alcohol IS the number one used drug in this country by the way and most people who want to argue that drug users should be denied help, removed from society and otherwise black-labeled, sit down to beer , wine and hard liquor themselves. Lovely how we choose to judge others huh.
I think we need more intensive interview processes for TANF instead of just a hand written, one meeting decision. And if it is determined there is a really bad drug problem, abuse issue, neglect or what have you, THEN appoint a benefactor for that money so that the household that addict is representing
GETS the help it needs. There are ways of bypassing just handing out cash to people with out investigating what they are doing first.
But...that still brings out the question of ' Do you really WANT the government to be able to decide if you get help or not, when the help is right there'.. ? meaning, you can get cash help because there are programs for it, but if you really need it, your ability to get it is left up to ...government? to tell you if you are worthy of it?? ...Ehhhhh...
The decision is always based on a HUMANS decision. What if that person isnt religious, but knows you are and just decides to say no to be a dick to you? What if that person denies the wrong family because they messed up the files? Dont say that doesnt happen, that people dont do bad things just because they want to. Arent we not discussing the free choice of doing drugs here? People DO crap just because they want to. It will always be that way. We can play the what if game here forEVER on either side. But do you really want GOVERNMENT to decide what YOU may need for your family ? To deem your family worthy of food? Or money? or any assistance they openly offer?
My answer to that is a hell no
But I also realize that I have to apply for help and that application can be denied...so..yeah..government does decide. Bah. No winning there.
.....but to simply, completely
deny them based on drug use, to ASSUME all are guilty just because they are applying and demand they prove themselves otherwise and snub nose people based on that alone is just wrong.
This is a free country, a country where we are all supposed to be equal , funny how that idea is tossed out the window when we think someone 'less than ' may be getting help from us in a really round about way huh.
A more extensive interview process will HELP to ensure that the consequences of drug use, sexual abuse, neglect and other issues are not impeding the family from getting what they need. We also need to start paying attention to the foster family system too for example.
Most people do not know that fostering a child brings in MUCH more money to a family then a simple one time TANF benefit does. And that foster families have a statistically higher abuse and neglect rate when it comes to the specific people ' just in it for the money'. ( no. not all families are in it for the money, im pointing out the very specific ones who are, just like pointing out the drug users in TANF) Drugs are not always the issue there, so the same question will not apply, but the concept of and ability to abuse the system is just as prominent.
bella dea made a good point to me about 5 seconds ago.
Where is the test for laziness?
Lazy people make up a higher percentage of those on welfare then we care to admit. Laziness is a choice and something NO ONE should support. You want to really plug the financial drain ? Test for that.
THERE is the bigger answer.