Should those on social assistance be subject to drug tests?

[Lucid]

And yet, people abuse it.

I worked at a grocery store some time ago as loss prevention. The store was in a bad neighborhood and had been robbed at gunpoint twice. They wanted a security guard just on site. I was armed (carrying a gun, taser, mace, baton, wearing body armor). My main goal was as a deterrent from people attempting to rob the place. Did manage to do just that, but story for another time.

I'm standing near the checkout one night at about three in the morning. A man near my age was attempting to use a mix of food stamps and EBT to pay for his food, though, sadly, the EBT wouldn't allow him to purchase the fruit he'd chosen. So he went back to pick something else, but that was rejected. He did this two or three times more before giving up.

As I sat and watched him I felt my wallet burning. I wanted to just say, "Fuck it, I could buy it for him." But for some reason, I held back. I nodded a goodbye at him as he left. I sauntered after him, going for a smoke break. And I watched him get to his car.

His car, a brand new Dodge Charger, cherry red, racing stripe, custom rims, and I definitely caught a glimpse of a leather interior. Parked in handicapped parking, with no sign or plate for it.

Here I was, working 70+ hours a week to get by, doing random armed gigs, bodyguard work, bond work, and I was driving, at the time, a vehicle that broke down constantly, had nearly 240,000 miles on it, and was starting college.

Another time, working that same store (I was there for a week), I watched a family get out of a van, at least five people. Each of them grabbed a cart and started shopping. Their carts were overflowing with items when they lined up, at different registers, and paid, all of them using food stamps and EBT. They then left and got back into their van and left. It was a husband and wife, one adult kid, an uncle, and one grandmother. (or at least that was what I could understand.)

Yeah, just because a guy in a fancy truck tried to buy fruit with an EBT isn't evidence that the system is broken or abused. He could of recently been laid off, or making a store run for a family member, anyone can use those cards as long as you have the pin. I've shopped for my mom in the past when she couldn't go. I know food is expensive and it's frustrating, but that's just not a fair assumption.

Anytime you see people doing huge shopping trips with food stamps, they probably have several minors living with them. If you have kids, you get more money. If your on food stamps for a while you have too keep reapplying for it, they keep track of your income, who lives with you, their ages, what they make, if they're on any form of government funded assistance or disabled, etc. Once your kids aren't minors anymore, they'll cut what they give you. It's not all that easy to cheat, and you can't just go out and get them if you just aren't working and not looking for a job ever, there's a lot of involved.

 

[BlazingCobaltX]

Yes, but not because I want people to be controlled unnecessarily, but because I feel that it would help people 'get out' of welfare by staying on the path with the least amount of issues.

But then come the questions: is alcohol consumption allowed? What constitutes as drug use? Are we allowed to rob people from things that make them feel happy/better? Why do we want to control those who just require help?

Ideally, no one should have to be in welfare. That shit makes you mad depressed. In case someone is receiving social assistance because of homelessness or some other difficulty, they should definitely be monitored so they don't spiral into addiction and making their situation worse eventually. However, I think this is not a thing that can be done without the consent of the person receiving the assistance/welfare, and if the people providing assistance suspect excessive drug use they should at least open up a conversation about it first.

 

[Trev]

Most of what I'm saying is that the status quo is fine, but that I support screening as a measure to prevent abuse. As you said, the status quo already enforces most of what I think is the right way to handle things.

Ah, I see. The only comment I have is that abuse isn't a big enough problem for there to be a need for extensive screening, especially as it relates to drug abuse.

When I say it's not designed to "support their lifestyle," I mean it's not designed to allow them to buy unnecessary luxuries or indulge in costly vices.

I feel like this argument comes up a lot. As stated above, poor people are allowed to have luxuries. They shouldn't have to be miserable 24/7 as punishment for being in a situation that likely occurred due to forces out of their control.

But to narrow in on this, I'd like to know specifically what kind of luxuries you consider both affordable and unnecessary for families on welfare.

I don't believe I ever suggested they shouldn't receive medical benefits, nor would I since I think they should (as long as those benefits are contingent on enrolling in a program to treat their addiction and working on getting a job).

I would argue that medical benefits shouldn't be contingent on a person's ability to find a job. If a person needs medical benefits and is unable to work because of a condition that they have, it's needlessly restrictive to force them to search for a job if their condition will ultimately inhibit their ability to work.

As for treating addiction, I agree, but it's far more complicated than just taking away their medical benefits if they don't. It should really be on an individual basis, because I feel like sweeping rules for all applicants will ignore individual complications.

 

[Lucid]

Back to the main topic, addiction isn't a crime, it doesn't make you a criminal. It's not really a vice either when you brake it down, a vice in a bad habit that you know is morally unacceptable but you do it anyway. Addiction is neurological, it effects your body chemistry. If you are addicted to certain things, by which I mean physically dependent, the come down after stopping them is going to make you physically ill, cause l seizures, can spiral you into a depression and have some harsh consequences on your over all well being. Fear of withdrawals will almost always overpower the desire to get clean. If someone genuinely wants help, it's not fair to cut them off from those resources. It's not like if your a broke addict they're going to send you to a 5 star spa to dry out, medical coverage on welfare is bare bones.

I had a friend a few years back with a xantax addiction with no insurance. He ODed, they sent him to a hospital to detox and when he got out was pretty adamant on cleaning up. After he was discharged they sent him to a government run outpatient program that would continue his treatment but only if he attended a weird sort of day camp like set of classes from 9 to 2 every day for 6 weeks. He couldn't keep doing it without quitting his job so he didn't keep up with it and fell off the wagon after about 10 days.

It's just ugly that people think that about 95% of people out there are just leaching off the system. We're trying to have a society here, and if you constantly have a "you shouldn't have yours unless I have mine" mind set, you aren't improving anything. And addicts are always going to fall off the wagon but that shouldn't condemn them to disease, homelessness or starvation. Punishing someone or their family isn't going to cure addiction or improve the lives of others.

 

[Phantom1]

I'm going to ask you to stop with your anecdotes. They do not apply across the board and you're generalizing an entire group of people based on the actions of a few people you've met. You have no idea WHEN that person got that car, so you have no right to say that he was abusing his payments. You have no idea what that family's financial situation is, so stop acting like they're cheating the system just because they're trying to feed themselves. Your anecdotes are entirely subjective and don't reflect the reality of how much abuse actually exists.

Using a site like quora is hardly a reference. It's about as useful as using yahoo answers.

True, they might have been in many scenarios. I acknowledge that. But you have to realize, I was on welfare. I grew up on it. My mom was a single mother divorcing an abusive husband. When I grew up i was kicked out of my parents' place because I came out., I was on medical assistance from the state while I was homeless and living in my car while working an 11 dollar an hour security gig downtown and trying to go to college (which was MY luxury. I still have that car, the poor thing, doesn't run anymore. Bit of a memento.) I had to drop out of college because I decided a roof over my head was more important than school and I spent my school money on rent while I got back on my feet. Never went back.

When you're in the system you see all the flaws in it. Those were a few examples, and there were examples of the other issues of welfare in them. IE; how easy it is to cheat the system, or the lack of support of good, healthy foods that are covered, etc.

And do you know how big of a business cheating welfare is? Selling food stamps, or SNAP as it's actually called, is a pretty commonplace and lucrative business. My own mother cheated the system with baby formula. See, it only covered a certain amount of formula per time period, I don't remember which, seeing as I was the baby in this story. As I grew older I outgrew the covered formula, which was a blue label one, I remember my mom telling me this story. So what she'd do is she had a contact in Wisconsin, where they cover the ORANGE labeled ones. That contact in Wisconsin would sell food stamp purchased orange labeled formula to trade for MN SNAP tickets in order to purchase more items to cross state borders.

My biological father, note one of the many reasons she divorced him, would sell the her stamps without telling her for cigs, booze/marijuana.

The system is broken. In most places gangs and low lives have some control of the system using it as a way to trade and abuse the people that actually use it for legitimate reasons. They make the program lose money, and that's what it's all about right? So unless the program has money, it can't supply coverage for the items many families need. Like the guy trying three different types of fruit before giving up.

Introducing a drug screen requirement would help stem this issue, not solve it, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

So yeah, I use anecdotes. Because I only use knowledge from what I've experienced. Not just google.

And if you say cheating the system isn't easy, you haven't talked to the right people.

 

[Trev]

Using a site like quora is hardly a reference. It's about as useful as using yahoo answers.

The specific answer I cited has a citation for a Wikipedia page that contains citations of actual government documents. Maybe read the whole thing :v

True, they might have been in many scenarios. I acknowledge that. But you have to realize, I was on welfare. I grew up on it. My mom was a single mother divorcing an abusive husband. When I grew up i was kicked out of my parents' place because I came out., I was on medical assistance from the state while I was homeless and living in my car while working an 11 dollar an hour security gig downtown and trying to go to college (which was MY luxury. I still have that car, the poor thing, doesn't run anymore. Bit of a memento.) I had to drop out of college because I decided a roof over my head was more important than school and I spent my school money on rent while I got back on my feet. Never went back.

Okay? But none of that information is relevant to this discussion. That is your situation and no one else's. I'm sorry that you went through hard times, but that does not give you the authority to definitively say that a person using food stamps in X way or a person using food stamps while they have X thing is fraud.

When you're in the system you see all the flaws in it. Those were a few examples, and there were examples of the other issues of welfare in them. IE; how easy it is to cheat the system, or the lack of support of good, healthy foods that are covered, etc.

Must not be that easy if the amount of welfare fraud can't even break a double-digit percentage.

And do you know how big of a business cheating welfare is? Selling food stamps, or SNAP as it's actually called, is a pretty commonplace and lucrative business. My own mother cheated the system with baby formula. See, it only covered a certain amount of formula per time period, I don't remember which, seeing as I was the baby in this story. As I grew older I outgrew the covered formula, which was a blue label one, I remember my mom telling me this story. So what she'd do is she had a contact in Wisconsin, where they cover the ORANGE labeled ones. That contact in Wisconsin would sell food stamp purchased orange labeled formula to trade for MN SNAP tickets in order to purchase more items to cross state borders.

Maybe... don't admit that your mother (potentially) committed an illegal activity like that in public? Just saying that because it's, uh, not exactly something you want to reveal to people? Also, again, just because your mother did something like that doesn't mean that every welfare applicant is going to do the same. This is why I have repeatedly asked you to stop sharing your own experiences as a hard truth, because they only apply to you and your family.

My biological father, note one of the many reasons she divorced him, would sell the her stamps without telling her for cigs, booze/marijuana.

That seems like a him problem, not a welfare recipient problem...

The system is broken. In most places gangs and low lives have some control of the system using it as a way to trade and abuse the people that actually use it for legitimate reasons. They make the program lose money, and that's what it's all about right? So unless the program has money, it can't supply coverage for the items many families need. Like the guy trying three different types of fruit before giving up.

You're gonna have to actually explain this, preferably without using more anecdotes. From what I'm aware of, most of the budget cuts to social services comes from the governmental budget cuts because people with attitudes like yours are so afraid of fraud that they don't realize how small and insignificant the issue actually is.

Introducing a drug screen requirement would help stem this issue, not solve it, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

It already has been implemented in several states and hasn't show any significant results. Arizona's drug testing only found 3 real cases of drugs during tests (read the whole article) and 7 states spent a combined total of $837,819 to find 427 actual drug users out of 216,744 applicants. The Department of Corrections estimated that drug use in TANF applicants was around 1.56%. Main drug tested 15 suspicious applicants and only 1 actually used drugs. Mississipi had two positives and Michigan had none.

So, clearly, introducing a drug screening requirement hasn't killed the issue. Mostly because the issue is so small that killing it is like trying to kill a wasp with 25 heavy artillery tanks.

So yeah, I use anecdotes. Because I only use knowledge from what I've experienced. Not just google.

But your experience is just that: your experience. It doesn't apply to everyone. Also, your "experiences" seem to be you judging people when they buy something, so I don't place much value on your experiences in regards to this issue.

I pull articles and information because that's what you do when you form an argument. I would rather back up my argument with verifiable facts and not just my subjective opinion.

And if you say cheating the system isn't easy, you haven't talked to the right people.

Again, if it was truly as easy as you seem to think it is, we'd have upwards of 60% - 80% of welfare fraud. But we don't. So it's really not that easy :v

 

[twocows]

I feel like this argument comes up a lot. As stated above, poor people are allowed to have luxuries. They shouldn't have to be miserable 24/7 as punishment for being in a situation that likely occurred due to forces out of their control.

Sure, but their luxuries shouldn't be paid for with other peoples' money.

But to narrow in on this, I'd like to know specifically what kind of luxuries you consider both affordable and unnecessary for families on welfare.

Luxuries are anything other than the essentials to survive and get a job. And like I said, they should be allowed to buy luxuries, but with their own money, not with other peoples'.

I would argue that medical benefits shouldn't be contingent on a person's ability to find a job. If a person needs medical benefits and is unable to work because of a condition that they have, it's needlessly restrictive to force them to search for a job if their condition will ultimately inhibit their ability to work.

Disability's another issue entirely and I don't have a problem with disability benefits. It's a bit different if you're physically unable to work.

As for treating addiction, I agree, but it's far more complicated than just taking away their medical benefits if they don't. It should really be on an individual basis, because I feel like sweeping rules for all applicants will ignore individual complications.

If they actually want help, sure; managing it on a case-by-case basis is fine. But there are people out there who just have no desire to get help with their problem and I don't think we should subsidize those peoples' way of life. It's unfortunate that they chose a self-destructive path, but if they're going to go that route, I don't think they should expect other people to pay for it.

 

[Trev]

Sure, but their luxuries shouldn't be paid for with other peoples' money.

Do you have a method for legally and ethically ensuring the people who receive benefits won't spend it on luxuries? Because if not, that's a battle that can't be won without violating Constitutional rigjts.

You should also be aware that a fair amount of your paycheck already goes to various social services that benefit other people, so everyone who works is already paying for everyone in the country, regardless of where that money goes. That's inescapable.

Luxuries are anything other than the essentials to survive and get a job. And like I said, they should be allowed to buy luxuries, but with their own money, not with other peoples'.

I want to know specifically what you deem a "luxury."

If they actually want help, sure; managing it on a case-by-case basis is fine. But there are people out there who just have no desire to get help with their problem and I don't think we should subsidize those peoples' way of life. It's unfortunate that they chose a self-destructive path, but if they're going to go that route, I don't think they should expect other people to pay for it.

Remove this "addicted people want to be addicted" narrative from your mind. No one wants to be addicted. That makes absolutely zero sense. I have already explained how addiction affects the brain and how it affects behavior. It's painful and miserable and it leads to serious health problems that no sane person would want. The narrative you're quoting is nearly identical to Phantom's hospital anecdote. and it's so antiquated and subjectively interpretive that I can't take it seriously.

Secondly, as has already been stated, we do not create social services with the intent to pay for drugs for people who are addicted. I am frustrated that we feel the need to keep coming back to this concept. There is not enough evidence to support that welfare fraud to continue drug abuse is a widespread problem that needs to be dealt with. It is marginal at best. This whole "we shouldn't pay for drug habits" attitude is objectively wrong, because we really aren't.

 

[Fenneking]

One thing rarely considered about social welfare spending it stimulates the economy. Food stamps are perhaps the purest form of social welfare in that tax money (which is disproportionately collected from the highest income earners) is granted to low-income individuals. These individuals then have more disposable income of which is to be spent on businesses. Without food stamps, healthcare, and other forms of income-supplementing assistance, those "losing" in the income game (including middle-class people) have more income to spend on products and thus sustain the demand for manufacturers to supply (which is necessary for those "winning" to actual sell their products for a profit). Moreover we need to consider that corporate welfare (which I do not support) is pervasive, yet no one calls into question drug testing high-income earners who receive greater amounts of welfare or consider that high-income earners have greater access to prescription pharmaceuticals.

Moreover, as stated by others, drug testing for welfare is not an economical use of resources. The justification for the tests is also weak, and basically appears to an "individual rights" argument rather than accessing the public impacts of the policy and how those impact individuals collectively.

 

[twocows]

Do you have a method for legally and ethically ensuring the people who receive benefits won't spend it on luxuries? Because if not, that's a battle that can't be won without violating Constitutional rigjts.

Food stamps already work that way. Similar systems could work for other things.

You should also be aware that a fair amount of your paycheck already goes to various social services that benefit other people, so everyone who works is already paying for everyone in the country, regardless of where that money goes. That's inescapable.

If you're talking about roads, education, etc, that's natural; those are services that benefit everyone. I don't think it's particularly unusual to expect tax money that's going to individual people to be used on what it was intended to be used on to begin with. That's how the system is intended to work to begin with, these kinds of things would just go toward reinforcing that.

I want to know specifically what you deem a "luxury."

I already defined it as best I'm able; it's anything other than what is essential to survive (food, water, some form of shelter, maybe a few other things) and get a job (library card? public transportation money? not 100% certain what this one might entail). I'm not enough of an expert on this to really give a more clear answer than that; I say leave it to the states and the people involved with these programs to decide what is a luxury. I'm perfectly fine with starting there; it's not like the definitions of these things are set in stone.

Remove this "addicted people want to be addicted" narrative from your mind. No one wants to be addicted.

I don't think anyone wants to be addicted, but there are people who don't want to get help with addiction, which is what I said. You can't force people to do what's right for them and some don't want help.

It's painful and miserable and it leads to serious health problems that no sane person would want.

Many addicts weren't mentally stable to begin with. Even among those who are mentally stable, some are in denial about their condition, some don't care no matter how much it hurts them, and some are just stubborn and prideful and don't want help from others. Talk to a social worker sometime and see if it's as easy to get people in as you seem to be making it out to be.

The point here is that even with addiction programs available, some people have no intention of actually fixing their problems and will still actively try to abuse the system. The system should be set up so that if they're going to do that kind of thing, we're not going to end up paying for when they end up in the hospital because of it. I disagree with your suggestion that people like that don't exist because I know for a fact that they do. And if that's the kind of lifestyle they choose to live, then they should expect to reap the consequences of their actions.

Secondly, as has already been stated, we do not create social services with the intent to pay for drugs for people who are addicted. I am frustrated that we feel the need to keep coming back to this concept. There is not enough evidence to support that welfare fraud to continue drug abuse is a widespread problem that needs to be dealt with. It is marginal at best. This whole "we shouldn't pay for drug habits" attitude is objectively wrong, because we really aren't.

I don't think I suggested that? The whole point I made was that even if the intent of social programs is to help people, what matters is the reality and the reality is that there are people who will take advantage of the system in any way they can. I think taking steps to deter that kind of behavior go a long way toward preventing it, even if the steps aren't 100% effective and even if they end up not being immediately cost-effective. And in the cases where it isn't deterred, the abuse of the system will at least be less significant.

 

[Trev]

Food stamps already work that way. Similar systems could work for other things.

Please be more specific. What changes should we make to what program to prevent spending on luxuries? I want to know what methods you think will be effective in achieving this goal.

If you're talking about roads, education, etc, that's natural; those are services that benefit everyone. I don't think it's particularly unusual to expect tax money that's going to individual people to be used on what it was intended to be used on to begin with. That's how the system is intended to work to begin with, these kinds of things would just go toward reinforcing that.

I am talking about all public services, welfare included. Welfare can benefit everyone by being available when there is need.

It is actually very unusual to believe that we should be regulating an individual's life choices, regardless of what they are. What funds are intended to be used on are the following: what they need to be used on for a person to make it through a particular period in their life.

I already defined it as best I'm able; it's anything other than what is essential to survive (food, water, some form of shelter, maybe a few other things) and get a job (library card? public transportation money? not 100% certain what this one might entail). I'm not enough of an expert on this to really give a more clear answer than that; I say leave it to the states and the people involved with these programs to decide what is a luxury. I'm perfectly fine with starting there; it's not like the definitions of these things are set in stone.

The problem I have with leaving it to the states is that the states don't always have the best interest of their welfare recipients in mind, and since many states have governments with the same anti-welfare attitudes that are getting expressed throughout this thread, I would not be comfortable allowing them to decide the fate of an impoverished person's life.

I don't think anyone wants to be addicted, but there are people who don't want to get help with addiction, which is what I said. You can't force people to do what's right for them and some don't want help.

What you're saying is basically the same thing. I'm not gonna beat this dead horse any longer because I've already said that addiction affects a person's behavior to the point where they need the drug to live and that it alters their behavior in ways that are different from non-addicted people. You can't interpret a person's need for a drug to live as them not wanting to get help. It doesn't work that way.

Sure you can't force people, but I think that a person whose ability to live a functional will be much higher if they have the money they need to live is more likely to get clean than someone who lacks any resources at all to even start getting back on their feet.

Many addicts weren't mentally stable to begin with. Even among those who are mentally stable, some are in denial about their condition, some don't care no matter how much it hurts them, and some are just stubborn and prideful and don't want help from others. Talk to a social worker sometime and see if it's as easy to get people in as you seem to be making it out to be.

I never said it was easy nor am I making it out to be an easy process at all. What I'm saying is that we can't just give up on people who are addicted, because then they'll definitely stay addicted. When they have nothing to support them, they're going to continue the behavior that people deem destructive or bad, because what the hell else are they going to do? If they don't have the money to afford treatment, they can't get treatment.

Denial is a common part of a person attempting to understand that they aren't healthy. Saying they "don't care" is almost universally false, because I've pointed out already that their body gets to a point where they need the drug to survive, so they'll have to get it just to not suffer withdrawal. Stubbornness and pride are common human emotions that many people experience, and yes, admitting that you are addicted to a drug is really fucking hard and stubbornness and pride can make it even more difficult, just like it can with admitting you're an alcoholic or a chain smoker. None of these are any grounds to prevent the means that a person could use to recover from their addiction.

The point here is that even with addiction programs available, some people have no intention of actually fixing their problems and will still actively try to abuse the system. The system should be set up so that if they're going to do that kind of thing, we're not going to end up paying for when they end up in the hospital because of it. I disagree with your suggestion that people like that don't exist because I know for a fact that they do. And if that's the kind of lifestyle they choose to live, then they should expect to reap the consequences of their actions.

I never said they don't exist. I said they don't exist on a scale that is even worthy of mentioning. And as I've pointed out several times over, the amount of abuse in the system is extremely low, so you're fighting a problem that doesn't even need to be fought. And regardless of whether or not these people exist, their actions are not grounds to restrict the availability of resources to the people who do want to get help.

I don't think I suggested that? The whole point I made was that even if the intent of social programs is to help people, what matters is the reality and the reality is that there are people who will take advantage of the system in any way they can. I think taking steps to deter that kind of behavior go a long way toward preventing it, even if the steps aren't 100% effective and even if they end up not being immediately cost-effective. And in the cases where it isn't deterred, the abuse of the system will at least be less significant.

The reality is that the amount of abuse is ridiculously low and we're wasting time/money and hurting people who need help out of fear of a situation that barely even occurs. The steps aren't even close to 10% or 5% effective, so they're not worth the effort. The abuse in the system is already less significant than you seem to think it is. I don't know how many times I need to state how low abuse of welfare programs actually is, and I hope that I don't have to keep saying it. The point is that we shouldn't be making these resources so painstakingly difficult to get that people who need them are getting shafted in the process.

 

[Phantom1]

The specific answer I cited has a citation for a Wikipedia page that contains citations of actual government documents. Maybe read the whole thing :v

I did. And wikipedia, really? You're going to go with wikipedia as a credible source?

How about a credible source? A verified IAmA from a fraud investigator, who says on the matter of the SNAP system, "Its bloated, burdensome to taxpayers, and ripe with fraud and abuse. Time to start things off with a clean slate. I think we should slowly phase the government out of the business of providing welfare and allow private charities to fill the void."

Or:

Q:How prevalent is public assistance fraud? What are some of the things people get caught on the most?
A: The more prevalent cases are 1. People who are working but don't report jobs 2. Unreported spouses with income 3. People receiving benefits in more than 1 state 4. People using false IDs, such as people in dead or in ail
Q:How often do you think these are cases where people really didn't know they were defrauding these services?
A:If I had a dime for every case where people were getting unemployment or child support and didn't think they had to report it I could quit my job today.

Q: How rampat is the fraud?
How easy is it to catch?
A: The day fraud doesn't occur is the day pigs fly
Catching it is in entirely different matter. There are so many federal policies which tell processors to look the other way that it is much harder than it needs to be... Thanks to "Simplified Reportings" We currenty take the client's word for their rent, electric bill, child care costs, and everything else expense related.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1g6zwf/i_am_a_public_assistance_food_stamps_medicaid/
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1c7h00/i_am_a_public_assistance_food/

Fuck people sell SNAP on facebook for fucks sake.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/what-snap-fraud
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-food-stamp-trafficking-0821-biz-20160819-story.html
https://www.wgal.com/article/welfare-fraud-346-guilty-in-first-six-months-of-2016/6243363
https://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/auditor_suzanne_bump_identifie.html
https://www.wcsh6.com/money/17m-in-welfare-fraud-reported-by-dhhs/395798933
https://bakersfieldnow.com/news/inv...contained-evidence-of-fraud-from-january-june

As for everything else, I'm using my own experiences to base my judgement on.

As for how low it is, it's only low because we haven't starting catching people, really catching people, until the last few years when it really became something within the radar. You're looking at confirmed reports. Not under the radar. I know people that have been in this scam for YEARS. Ain't illegal or recorded on internet blogs if you're not caught. And those people that were were only caught because they got their hands too wet.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/04/02/good-question-how-common-is-welfare-fraud/


So, what I've been trying to say, is that more hoops to go through to get them, is a good thing. So yeah, add a drug test. Add photo identification. It already is a long process for a lot of welfare, so add more to prevent this shit from happening and making the legit people look like shit. Remember the main topic wasn't just food stamp fraud. It was people on social assistance. Medical, housing, food. Yeah, can pissing in a cup before getting benefits really hurt them that much? It's one more step. That's all.

I mean, fuck, I wish they required drug testing. I live in government run housing. One of my neighbors just got arrested for selling drugs like two days ago. He's been a pain the ass since he moved in, shitting on all the other tenants. Assaulted the woman above me, I stopped him. Breaking into people's apartments, turning off our electricity, knocking on people's doors and looking into their windows all hours of the day and night. Maybe forcing him to take regular piss tests would have gotten him kicked out sooner. Except he was a mental health patient that they didn't want to pay for, giving him housing was cheaper, and we were stuck with him for over a year and a half.

 

[Trev]

I did. And wikipedia, really? You're going to go with wikipedia as a credible source?

How about a credible source? A verified IAmA from a fraud investigator, who says on the matter of the SNAP system, "Its bloated, burdensome to taxpayers, and ripe with fraud and abuse. Time to start things off with a clean slate. I think we should slowly phase the government out of the business of providing welfare and allow private charities to fill the void."

Or:

Q:How prevalent is public assistance fraud? What are some of the things people get caught on the most?
A: The more prevalent cases are 1. People who are working but don't report jobs 2. Unreported spouses with income 3. People receiving benefits in more than 1 state 4. People using false IDs, such as people in dead or in ail
Q:How often do you think these are cases where people really didn't know they were defrauding these services?
A:If I had a dime for every case where people were getting unemployment or child support and didn't think they had to report it I could quit my job today.

Q: How rampat is the fraud?
How easy is it to catch?
A: The day fraud doesn't occur is the day pigs fly
Catching it is in entirely different matter. There are so many federal policies which tell processors to look the other way that it is much harder than it needs to be... Thanks to "Simplified Reportings" We currenty take the client's word for their rent, electric bill, child care costs, and everything else expense related.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1g6zwf/i_am_a_public_assistance_food_stamps_medicaid/
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1c7h00/i_am_a_public_assistance_food/

Fuck people sell SNAP on facebook for fucks sake.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/what-snap-fraud
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-food-stamp-trafficking-0821-biz-20160819-story.html
https://www.wgal.com/article/welfare-fraud-346-guilty-in-first-six-months-of-2016/6243363
https://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/auditor_suzanne_bump_identifie.html
https://www.wcsh6.com/money/17m-in-welfare-fraud-reported-by-dhhs/395798933
https://bakersfieldnow.com/news/inv...contained-evidence-of-fraud-from-january-june

As for everything else, I'm using my own experiences to base my judgement on.

As for how low it is, it's only low because we haven't starting catching people, really catching people, until the last few years when it really became something within the radar. You're looking at confirmed reports. Not under the radar. I know people that have been in this scam for YEARS. Ain't illegal or recorded on internet blogs if you're not caught. And those people that were were only caught because they got their hands too wet.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/04/02/good-question-how-common-is-welfare-fraud/


So, what I've been trying to say, is that more hoops to go through to get them, is a good thing. So yeah, add a drug test. Add photo identification. It already is a long process for a lot of welfare, so add more to prevent this shit from happening and making the legit people look like shit. Remember the main topic wasn't just food stamp fraud. It was people on social assistance. Medical, housing, food. Yeah, can pissing in a cup before getting benefits really hurt them that much? It's one more step. That's all.

I mean, fuck, I wish they required drug testing. I live in government run housing. One of my neighbors just got arrested for selling drugs like two days ago. He's been a pain the ass since he moved in, shitting on all the other tenants. Assaulted the woman above me, I stopped him. Breaking into people's apartments, turning off our electricity, knocking on people's doors and looking into their windows all hours of the day and night. Maybe forcing him to take regular piss tests would have gotten him kicked out sooner. Except he was a mental health patient that they didn't want to pay for, giving him housing was cheaper, and we were stuck with him for over a year and a half.

I had a full response written for this, and then I accidentally stored my tab and it erased all of it. So if this response feels unsubstantial, that's why.

First of all, if you read the Wikipedia article, you'd realize that the information provided in the answer was sourced by government documents. If you're not willing to fully read sources like I am doing for you and everyone else, stop responding, because all you're going to do is misinterpret my arguments and we're going to be here for ages.

Secondly, a person's opinion =/= fact (which you seem to struggle with understanding). A fraud investigator is obviously going to believe that there's a lot of fraud because all they do is investigate fraud and they're surrounded by it, so it's going to feel bigger than it actually is. The fact is that the number say that it's significantly lower than people believe it is. That's indisputable. How we handle the fraud we do have is a different case, and the subject of this topic is discussing whether or not drug testing is an effective means to prevent fraud, which it has been proven to not be.

Let's work on the IAmA:

• He said "most prevalent cases" because those are the types of fraud that are most common. That doesn't mean that fraud itself is more prevalent.
• If people aren't aware of what they need to report, a.) it should be made clearer during the application process, and b.) processors should be aware that people are probably going to be oblivious, as people are, and not report things they don't realize should be reported, whether they do so accidentally or purposefully.
• No one has denied that fraud occurs. I never did. I simply said it occurs on a smaller scale than people think.
• Simplified Reporting requires reporting at specific intervals, which, for ABAWDS, is every three months. In addition, houses who receives cash benefits have to report earning increases by $100, unearned income increases by $50, starting/stopping a job, moving houses that brings changes in rent/mortgages/utilities, change in number of people living with the beneficiary, or a change in the legal obligation of child support. Not sending back the report results in termination of SNAP benefits, as it should. Also, the following:

• IMPORTANT: Even though you are not required to report most changes until your Interim reporting period, you must report to DTA if:
  
  - Your gross income exceeds the gross income limit for your household. The gross income limit should be listed on your approval notice. See Gross Income Chart in Appendix B.
  
  - Someone moves into your household and has income that, in combination with other income, exceeds the gross income limit for your household. 106 C.M.R. ? 366.110(C)(3).
  
  Example: Selina is a single mom with one child. She is certified for SNAP for 1 year and must report changes in January and July. She starts a second part time job in March earning $200/week. Her total monthly gross income from both jobs is $1,700 per month, below 200% FPL ($2,706) for her family size. Selina does not need to report the second job until her next Interim Report or Recertification.

• I'd like to see these federal policies that tell processors to look the other way, because I would be in shock if they actually existed.

Now, the urls:

• "The trafficking rate in SNAP has dropped dramatically. Due to increased oversight and improvements to program management by USDA, the trafficking rate has fallen significantly over the last two decades, from about 4 cents on the dollar in 1993 to about 1 cent in 2006-08 (most recent data available)."
• This article clearly says that the large majority of SNAP benefits are being used for their intended purpose. The man at the end also offers great suggestions for fighting fraud, which happens to not include drug testing.
• Okay? I never said there wasn't fraud. It occurs. Do you think that all of those cases would have been prevented by drug testing? Do you know for a fact that all those people were drug users?
• This article clearly states that their investigation methods are reporting more fraud. They're tracking fraud after people are already receiving benefits, not before they receive it. You can't investigate fraud that hasn't occurred.
• Same as above. Were all those people drug users? Would drug testing have prevented every single case?

• ?I would say that we have probably about 240,000 cases that we're serving, and 1,700 truly is a small percentage of that number,? she said.
  
  Based on the data provided, the vast majority of welfare recipients in Kern County are in real need of the assistance and use the money for purposes for which it is intended.
  
  Furthermore, Holiwell noted that cases like Bronson?s are the exception, not the norm. The typical welfare fraud case is measured in hundreds of dollars, not thousands.

The reason I'm telling you to stop using your experiences is because a.) your experiences don't apply to everyone and b.) your experiences are just you judging people, which is subjective, an opinion, and not a fact.

Stop this tripe that we aren't catching people. We are, for one, and you can't just say "well the numbers are low because we haven't caught people" and make assumptions that people are just doing it freely in large numbers just because it hasn't been reported. It's like saying that everyone is a Republican if they don't say they're a Democrat - it's not true unless everyone says it is.

Drug testing doesn't do anything, though. Here's some reasons[url] [url=https://acluva.org/393/drug-testing-in-the-workplace-a-bad-idea-and-a-bad-investment/]why. If drug testing was actually effective and was producing results, I might be for it, but because it's so bad at actually turning out results, I can't imagine that it's going to be much benefit. Photo IDs are a different story.

Again, stop with your anecdotes. I'm frankly sick of having to read them. Sure, that individual guy was an asshole, but if he wasn't kicked out for abusing a tenant and for being invasively disruptive to other tenants, then I think there's a bigger problem with that housing bloc than just him using drugs. This is why you need to stop bringing your personal life into these arguments: your experiences aren't the experiences shared by everyone, and you tend to only look at one specific facet (his drug use) to support your argument while ignoring the fact that a man who was being extremely disruptive to other tenants wasn't kicked out for that behavior, which is a major problem.

 

[twocows]

Please be more specific. What changes should we make to what program to prevent spending on luxuries? I want to know what methods you think will be effective in achieving this goal.

I'm not going to be more specific. I'm speaking generally about things because I'm not an expert on the subject, nor do I claim to be. I'm not pushing for any specific policy changes in regards to this, I'm just saying I support having oversight with how we spend our money. If you bring up something specific, I can respond to that, but I can't come up with some sort of comprehensive plan for how things should work; I don't work in that field, I don't have experience with it, and I can only comment on general ideas and principles as a member of the public concerned about how my tax money is being used.

As I said earlier, I think the status quo is fine in a lot of regards; this thread was specifically about random drug tests and I said that's a measure that I think would help. I like programs like the food stamp program because they're designed to be used for specific items and I think that's generally how social assistance programs should work. That's the extent of what I'll say about it.

It is actually very unusual to believe that we should be regulating an individual's life choices, regardless of what they are.

I never suggested regulating peoples' life choices. I said social assistance should be contingent on following the basic rules of the program. If they don't wish to participate, they're free to live how they want, but they shouldn't expect to have a safety net if they're not willing to do the bare minimum most programs require them to do. That's how the system works and it's how it should work. Again, the status quo is generally fine from where I'm standing.

What funds are intended to be used on are the following: what they need to be used on for a person to make it through a particular period in their life.

That's essentially what I said, although it's a bit more vague.

The problem I have with leaving it to the states is that the states don't always have the best interest of their welfare recipients in mind, and since many states have governments with the same anti-welfare attitudes that are getting expressed throughout this thread, I would not be comfortable allowing them to decide the fate of an impoverished person's life.

Why do you trust the federal government any more with this than state governments? If anything, having stuff like this be determined by the federal government means that if anti-welfare Republicans want to pass anti-welfare legislation, they only need to do it in one place instead of 50. At least when it's in the state government, when the problem gets bad, concerned citizens can petition the state government to deal with the problem. With the federal government, individual citizens have less of a voice and it's much harder for ordinary citizens to bring their concerns forward.

I never said it was easy nor am I making it out to be an easy process at all. What I'm saying is that we can't just give up on people who are addicted, because then they'll definitely stay addicted. When they have nothing to support them, they're going to continue the behavior that people deem destructive or bad, because what the hell else are they going to do? If they don't have the money to afford treatment, they can't get treatment.

If drug addiction programs aren't already subsidized, they should be. That's one thing I support the government spending money on because like you said, it leads to fewer addicts in the end and that benefits everyone.

 

[Phantom1]

Trev if you're tired of reading them, then put me on the ignore list. Then you don't have to. I said my piece, and that's it. Otherwise, don't tell other people how they can share their opinions.

 

[Corrin]

But Trev has a point, your experiences aren't everyone's. It's not good to bring personal stuff to a debate/discussion.

A few cases of welfare abuse doesn't equal everyone does, btw. There's many people struggling and they deserve a good life too.

 

[tokyodrift]

You can easily make a Facebook post asking if anyone is selling SNAP/Food Stamps and I'm more than positive that you'll get dozens of responses. Drug testing will only be effective if it's randomed and done immediately. It's not that hard to grab a child's urine and use that to pass in order to keep your benefits.

the amount of bitterness here is appalling.

 

[Phantom1]

But Trev has a point, your experiences aren't everyone's. It's not good to bring personal stuff to a debate/discussion.

A few cases of welfare abuse doesn't equal everyone does, btw. There's many people struggling and they deserve a good life too.

I understand that. I never denied that. I was just sharing my experiences in the system and said that more 'hoops' or steps can't hurt anyone who isn't abusing the system or legitimately needs it. Being told to basically 'shut up' is basically just crude 'debate' tactics. I'm just using my own experiences to explain my perspective. MY perspective and why I believe the way I do. I'm not trying to change everyone's mind, or saying that all people are 'x'. I was just sharing my experiences and putting in my two cents. If you don't want to hear them - well, read them - then block me or don't read it. Not that freaking hard.

 

[Corrin]

I understand that. I never denied that. I was just sharing my experiences in the system and said that more 'hoops' or steps can't hurt anyone who isn't abusing the system or legitimately needs it. Being told to basically 'shut up' is basically just crude 'debate' tactics. I'm just using my own experiences to explain my perspective. MY perspective and why I believe the way I do. I'm not trying to change everyone's mind, or saying that all people are 'x'. I was just sharing my experiences and putting in my two cents. If you don't want to hear them - well, read them - then block me or don't read it. Not that freaking hard.

I won't because I think that differing opinions makes for a stronger discussion! But if you feel someone told you to shut up like that maybe PM gimmepie about it?