What if we go back in time, back to the basic principles (core values some would say) that began what we now know America to be. From the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Seems pretty straightforward if you ask me. The definition of pursuit: an effort to secure or attain. Nothing in there about guarantees or hand outs.
While I am writing this blog 2 other things are happening. 1. I am attempting to secure a future in my job field by learning a ridiculous language (Arabic) and 2. having a debate with a liberal on facebook about this particular topic. There is so much to say I don't even know where to begin!
Her side of the debate... Let me make this a direct quote. Facebook Sam says "...denying aid based on the use of crack, cocaine, heroine, etc (let's not forget that a lot of people abuse prescriptions too), just punishes someone already in need for needing greater help." Then she goes on to say "By making drug tests mandatory to get aid, you are agreeing that the poor should be punished for being down on their luck, while the wealthy who use the same drugs don't need to file a drug test"
Just so you can get the gist of the debate I will throw in my responses as well... I say in response to this " ... The ONLY point I am going to make Sam, is that Those "wealthy" people work to earn that money that gets taxed and given to the 'poor and down-trodden" and YET, they get subjected to drug test... why should I be tested to earn my money and keep my job, when those that make a decision to abuse drugs get to live off my (and every tax payers) dime? I have no sympathy AT ALL for drug users/abusers. If they have a problem they can seek help. But MOST of them don't. You can argue with me all day about that, but the pure and simple fact is that... MOST OF THEM DON'T seek and/or want help. I am not a fan of handouts to people that have done NOTHING to earn them except simply existing." Is my view a little harsh? ممكن moomkin (transliterated Arabic for 'its possible').
Sam continues with "...the debate: does existence warrant continued existence. In the case of murderers and rapists I say no, but people who have made terrible decisions? Probably deserve to stay alive." And now my favorite part from Facebook Sam "I feel good about sustaining whatever sort of life a drug addict who has the presence of mind to file for state assistance has. If you want them to get cut off and die, that's why we have a democracy" WHOA killer, when did I say I want them to die!?
So naturally I don't leave it there... This is my final response to Facebook Sam, "... you know, I gave you credit for appearing educated with your ideal and responses and I was working on a proper and diplomatic response until I read that I "want them to get cut off and die". That is lunacy and that is the problem... You think you know how I feel because I disagree with you and that I want people to die. That makes you sound very ignorant. I want them to want to live. I want them to better themselves. And if they decide to ween off drugs because they won't be able to afford living if they fail a drug test then I have done them more good than if I gave them a handout to support a habit."
Phew! Now that that's all said, in a very basic form, this is my argument. BTW, one more thing, Facebook Sam by her argument is implying that poor = drug addicted. I happen to disagree heavily with this. Talk about stereotyping! I can give you numbers all day about "who" these people are based on stats... But that is not what this is about. Its about doing what is in the best interest of the people. The American Citizen regardless of identifying (discriminating) factors.
If I am going to provide the money to help you survive I should get a say in how it is done, and I believe Welfare should be handled the same way any employer handles their employees. Reference checks and Social Security Number investigations performed. As well as proof you have earned the pay. Show me the companies you have spoken with and applied at, give me a number to call and verify. Undergo random drug testing to maintain benefit eligibility. I'm a fan of the 3 strikes policies myself. Once again, a little harsh? I'd like to think of it as tough love. Or better yet incentivized redirection.
Jacques Delors "This desire for equity must not lead to an excess of welfare, where nobody is responsible for anything."
1 comment:
in my experience with the CalWORKS program in particular, i was required to turn in a log of "quality time" spent searching for a job. applications submitted, contacts, all kinds of annoying details.
that's what welfare was for us. details. annoying ones. every month to get a mere $100 in cash, we had to submit copies of every pay stub, confirmation from professors that we were attending class, employer-signed work logs, and mileage reports. it was less work to just find a fucking job. it was much less invasive as well. but in the meantime, we had to because we had to find a way to balance all of our less-than-wise credit and auto obligations/commitments and still feed our daughter.
when i got laid off, we had already stopped receiving cash aid. i chose not to reinstate our case because i didn't want to do the work to get it. so i think what sam was saying about drug users being of sound enough mind to apply for GA/Cash Aid was referring to the level of work involved in getting a very small amount of money, which is only more work if you ARE employed or pursuing higher education. Getting a welfare check is a lot of fucking work. It may not be the hardest or most honest work, and you've got to put up a lot of bureaucratic fronts, but it definitely requires a certain level of organizational capabilities and a real need to get that damn money.
that being said, i think people who are abusing drugs don't need cash aid. i think they need rehabilitative services. that is something our society lacks. we are all about retributive justice and very little about restorative justice. if we're gonna be all nationalistic, we should use our social welfare programs to make our people better, not destroy or hide away/exploit their labor if they have, in fact, made a terrible decision in their lifetime. Rather than filling up prisons with lost souls waiting to die, the offenders committing less terrible crimes should be helped to return to a productive state (talk about the definition of capitalism...) through restorative measures. Spend the money to get them off the drugs, problem solved. Criminals don't have a choice to go to prison; court-ordered rehab. NO, not everyone is going to benefit from rehab, but many will. Stuffing them in prison is just going to drive them to another vice... often times Jesus. Gross.
Anyway. I'm sleepy and pissed off at the world. Just wanted to give you some comment love and a hard time. ;-)
Post a Comment