Lepage's new budget lowers taxes, ... (section 8, to buy, college)

[MainerWannabe]

One thing I have noticed is that we are forgetting that we just (barely) came out of the WORST recession this country has ever seen, second ONLY to the Great Depression. A whole lot of people really needed to go on welfare, and for a longer period of time. It seems to me that we are painting all welfare recipients with an immense shame brush. Not everybody is milking the system and/or just sitting at home doing dope. Not in Maine or in any other state of the union. Jobs just aren't there! Perhaps politicians really should start getting around to fix that, and stop just pandering to their bases and blaming it all on the weakest and the poorest. It's their fault. THEY put us in this situation.
For the record I thought that there were good points in this law, and a change is indeed needed. But let's put the blame where the blame lies.

[mainebrokerman]

Originally Posted by MainerWannabe

One thing I have noticed is that we are forgetting that we just (barely) came out of the WORST recession this country has ever seen, second ONLY to the Great Depression. A whole lot of people really needed to go on welfare, and for a longer period of time. It seems to me that we are painting all welfare recipients with an immense shame brush. Not everybody is milking the system and/or just sitting at home doing dope. Not in Maine or in any other state of the union. Jobs just aren't there! Perhaps politicians really should start getting around to fix that, and stop just pandering to their bases and blaming it all on the weakest and the poorest. It's their fault. THEY put us in this situation.
For the record I thought that there were good points in this law, and a change is indeed needed. But let's put the blame where the blame lies.

my problem with the welfare system, is that the people that really need, get less, because of the other folks milking the system, and fraud

Because its a government program, the administrators, have little motive to remove the fraud, if less folks were on welfare, the administrator welfare budgets would be lower

again, welfare has a purpose, a helping hand, i've just seen it being abused, and when i reported it, to the state, I get a "who the heck do you think you are attitude"


many have seen the abuse, it's just too bad, some have to work so hard, for the folks that do milk the system

[RHB]

This budget put in a 5 year cap on welfare, so I think we are heading in the right direction to solving the problem.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by MainerWannabe

One thing I have noticed is that we are forgetting that we just (barely) came out of the WORST recession this country has ever seen, second ONLY to the Great Depression. A whole lot of people really needed to go on welfare, and for a longer period of time. It seems to me that we are painting all welfare recipients with an immense shame brush. Not everybody is milking the system and/or just sitting at home doing dope. Not in Maine or in any other state of the union.

This 'recession' was / is bad.

Many people do need assistance.

However it has been long ingrained in me that being on the dole is bad. I should not judge, I do not want to judge, but I admit that sometimes I still do. If I have offended anyone with my anti-welfare attitude I do apologize.

... Jobs just aren't there! Perhaps politicians really should start getting around to fix that, and stop just pandering to their bases and blaming it all on the weakest and the poorest. It's their fault. THEY put us in this situation. For the record I thought that there were good points in this law, and a change is indeed needed. But let's put the blame where the blame lies.

FDR did 'create' a lot of jobs. The Hoover Dam is huge and required a lot of workers. The interstate freeways are huge. The aqueduct system in California [my home state] runs approx 701.5 miles. The public-funded education system is massive. FDR had the Federal government hire a lot of people. However FDR also created a lot of socialism here, and he raised taxes a great deal.

Is it truly the Federal government's job to hire people?

Is it any level of government [state or county] purpose to employ the masses?

It seems to me that when the government gets into being employer, they do make big 'projects' which are also big messes.

The aqueduct did allow for many prosperous farms, but local zoning converted most of that farm land into cities. People consume more water than farms do, and now they have a water shortage.

Is the public-funded school system truly what we want? Is it social engineering at it's finest, and it is failing. Two of my grandparents were teachers before public-funding and before the Federal government got it's hands into the process. From my understanding the government has only messed it up.

Social Security? oh, yes what a perfect system. not.



As a general rule-of-thumb: politicians cause more harm, more often, then any good that they may do. I think that any long-term 'good' they do is purely accidental.

[MainerWannabe]

Originally Posted by RHB

This budget put in a 5 year cap on welfare, so I think we are heading in the right direction to solving the problem.

I agree. It certainly has got to have a cap at some point.

[MainerWannabe]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

FDR did 'create' a lot of jobs. The Hoover Dam is huge and required a lot of workers. The interstate freeways are huge. The aqueduct system in California [my home state] runs approx 701.5 miles. The public-funded education system is massive. FDR had the Federal government hire a lot of people. However FDR also created a lot of socialism here, and he raised taxes a great deal.

Is it truly the Federal government's job to hire people?

Is it any level of government [state or county] purpose to employ the masses?

It seems to me that when the government gets into being employer, they do make big 'projects' which are also big messes.

The aqueduct did allow for many prosperous farms, but local zoning converted most of that farm land into cities. People consume more water than farms do, and now they have a water shortage.

As a general rule-of-thumb: politicians cause more harm, more often, then any good that they may do. I think that any long-term 'good' they do is purely accidental.

CA is my home state also. And Lord, it's in a BAD shape!
Forest, we do need government. And policies. And management of some sort. Otherwise it would be, well...Anarchy! But perhaps we digress.

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by Zymer

Public agencies (PD, etc.) argue that it is for 'safety' reasons. I don't like that either, nor do I like it that truck drivers and others are subjected to it.

I've ranted about certain people on the welfare system before, and no, I don't think it's a 'right'. However, I believe in 'due process', 'probable cause' and 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. No matter how many scumbags I think there might be sucking off the system while they sit home and smoke dope (or whatever), I still don't want to see a situation where the gov't starts requiring members of the general population to submit to drug testing. It's a bad idea and one more bit of erosion of our rights. <snip>

I agree. However, when one considers the police departments, fire departments, truck drivers, fireworks handlers, etc., at least there is a modicum of public safety justifying some minimal amount of concern over whether these people are strung out on psychedelic drugs.

The only reason I can see to force a person to submit to a drug test in order to receive some kind of welfare assistance is to punish that person for needing a handout.

In addition to Zymer's comment about these things, when done by a government agency, seem to violate a person's 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, also violate a person's 4th amendment right against illegal search (which is what a drug test is) and seizure.

If there is "probable cause" to believe a person is violating a law, a judge will sign a search order and "due process" will ensue. If the government can't get a judge to sign a search order (indicating that they have a REASON for such a 'search'), any drug test they do should be thrown out of court.

We should try to have a little compassion for people who need to ask for help.

[MainerWannabe]

And certainly we should think about where to draw the line. How about nicotine? I see no reason why it could not be decided at some point that one could not buy cigarettes with welfare money... Would that be fair?

[mainegrl2011]

Originally Posted by mensaguy

I agree. However, when one considers the police departments, fire departments, truck drivers, fireworks handlers, etc., at least there is a modicum of public safety justifying some minimal amount of concern over whether these people are strung out on psychedelic drugs.

The only reason I can see to force a person to submit to a drug test in order to receive some kind of welfare assistance is to punish that person for needing a handout.

In addition to Zymer's comment about these things, when done by a government agency, seem to violate a person's 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, also violate a person's 4th amendment right against illegal search (which is what a drug test is) and seizure.

If there is "probable cause" to believe a person is violating a law, a judge will sign a search order and "due process" will ensue. If the government can't get a judge to sign a search order (indicating that they have a REASON for such a 'search'), any drug test they do should be thrown out of court.

We should try to have a little compassion for people who need to ask for help.

This isn't about a lack of compassion for those having tough times who truly need financial assistance. At the risk of sounding repetitive....If people who are applying for a job--government or private sector--can be required to submit to and pass a drug test (can throw fingerprinting in as well if you like) as a condition of hiring and continued employment then why should it be any different for someone on the dole as forest beekeeper called it.

Why should anyone be "punished" for applying for a job by being subjected to a drug test? If you want to give your tax dollars to people who may be using drugs, that is your choice. Personally, I prefer not to do so. I realize not everyone who applies for or receives welfare is using illegal drugs and I did not mean to imply otherwise.

btw, I think forest beekeeper did a great job of explaining about urine tests.

I heard on the radio a few minutes ago that there are jobs in Texas if anyone is interested.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by Zymer

Same answer as above, "give 'em inch, they'll take a mile." The gov't has a history of taking, do you really want to open that door any wider? How about requiring periodic, random drug testing if you get a CC permit? How about the same if you get a driver's license, or a hunting license?

Those are not the same thing. I'm not taking from other people so that I may sit at home and not pay my own way. With a license, I am paying for that, performing for them to show I know what I'm doing and passing tests to get those licenses.

I take money from no one. Welfare is sorely abused in this country, as you well know, and I view it as stealing, to be honest with you, when someone is sitting on their hind quarters acting like they can't work. First of all, before you go taking money from someone, prove it to me that you need it and prove it to me that you will use it for its intended purpose which is to keep a roof over head and eat food. I am not here to provide for someone's drug habit. I don't see it as taking away a right or infringing on a right.

If you don't want to take a drug test for welfare, you do not have to receive welfare. It's your choice just as it would be if you didn't want to take a drug test for a potential employer..you choose another employer.