The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

Quit projecting your stereotypes. I sure don't know many poor people who are buying homes.

 

I was referring to the bills that pop up somewhat regularly test drug test welfare, food stamp, housing assistance etc. recipients, not your novel proposal to drug test every American.

[Jenksismyhero]

There's actually a pretty clear standard for those drug tests. They need to be "safety-sensitive" positions, which cops, firefighters etc. fall under.

 

 

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct96/niaaa-23.htm

"Proportions of welfare recipients using, abusing, or dependent on alcohol or illicit drugs are consistent with proportions of both the adult U.S. population and adults who do not receive welfare, report National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism researchers in the November American Journal of Public Health."

 

BTW you forgot to answer my question re: your mortgage tax deductions. When can you be expected at the clinic for the testing?

 

So we can come up with some random exception and call it "safety-sensitive" positions, but we can't create another for this purpose?

 

Yeah, that study gets at use, not drug activity, which includes selling or dealing. It is also limited by this:

 

Although the NLAES design does not account for homeless persons, those under 18 years, persons residing in institutions, multiple welfare recipients in a single household, and multiple program payments to a single individual during the prior year, the survey produced estimates of the number of adults covered under each welfare program that are similar to those from the 1992 Current Population Survey and program statistics of the administering Federal agencies.

 

I'll trust what my cop friends who work in these areas of Chicago tell me - the percentage is very high and most of their work is at the various public housing projects.

 

Re the deduction, I think there's a big difference between giving someone something for nothing (you're poor, here's a house and some money for food...no expectations to work for it or pay it back or contribute at all to society) and giving someone a break for things like having a kid (a positive for society), purchasing a home (a positive for society), getting a college education (a positive for society), etc. Or is this not a significant distinction for you?

[StrangeSox]

So we can come up with some random exception and call it "safety-sensitive" positions, but we can't create another for this purpose?

 

Not sure that "safety-sensitive" is a "random exception"

 

Yeah, that study gets at use, not drug activity, which includes selling or dealing. It is also limited by this:

 

I'll trust what my cop friends who work in these areas of Chicago tell me - the percentage is very high and most of their work is at the various public housing projects.

 

Hmm, anecdotes from police. Wonder if there's any sort of sample bias, confirmation bias or "lack of rigorous, nation-wide" data there? It's not just poor urban blacks that get welfare btw.

 

Re the deduction, I think there's a big difference between giving someone something for nothing (you're poor, here's a house and some money for food...no expectations to work for it or pay it back or contribute at all to society) and giving someone a break for things like having a kid (a positive for society), purchasing a home (a positive for society), getting a college education (a positive for society), etc. Or is this not a significant distinction for you?

 

Thank you for falling into the trap even after I explicitly explained it and admitting that you stereotype welfare recipients based on what some police friends of yours in Chicago tell you.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Hmm, anecdotes from police. Wonder if there's any sort of sample bias, confirmation bias or "lack of rigorous, nation-wide" data there?

 

True, but I also doubt that people in interviews are going to be 100% honest about their illegal drug use, especially if they think it might affect their public assistance.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

True, but I also doubt that people in interviews are going to be 100% honest about their illegal drug use, especially if they think it might affect their public assistance.

 

Possibly, but police generally deal with criminals or high-crime areas. Even if their anecdotes formed a representative sample of all the people in CHA housing, it still forms a terribly skewed data set.

 

But the sampling is the same for welfare and non-welfare, so I'm not sure how much more likely a middle-class family is going to be to admit drug use. They risk their job, family, etc.

[Jenksismyhero]

Not sure that "safety-sensitive" is a "random exception"

 

"Safety-sensitive" is a constructed exception to a constitutional right. Society has determined that it's important to make sure that police officers and others in "safety sensitive" positions are drug-free, constitutional rights be damned, and suspicions or evidence of actual drug use be damned. That's somehow ok, but ZOMG don't stereotype people in public housing!!

 

Thank you for falling into the trap even after I explicitly explained it and admitting that you stereotype welfare recipients based on what some police friends of yours in Chicago tell you.

 

Who said anything about minorities here? I'm not saying ONLY poor black kids need to be tested. It's everyone. It's based on a system that requires ZERO effort other than meeting a financial criteria to receive tax payer money. I've pointed out that other credits and deductions require things like buying a house, getting an education, starting a family. Are those not beneficial to society? Be smarmy all you want, but why not address the distinction I've made?

 

Hmm, anecdotes from police. Wonder if there's any sort of sample bias, confirmation bias or "lack of rigorous, nation-wide" data there? It's not just poor urban blacks that get welfare btw.

 

And yeah, I'm gonna trust my cop friends who see this stuff day in day out over someone who's conducted a survey over the phone asking people if they partake in illegal activity or if they consider themselves "dependent" on drugs/alcohol. I'm SURE those results are 100% accurate. GMAFB.

[StrangeSox]

"Safety-sensitive" is a constructed exception to a constitutional right. Society has determined that it's important to make sure that police officers and others in "safety sensitive" positions are drug-free, constitutional rights be damned, and suspicions or evidence of actual drug use be damned. That's somehow ok, but ZOMG don't stereotype people in public housing!!

 

Yes, maybe you should figure out why they're "safety-sensitive" positions and why drug abuse in those positions could have a serious impact on the welfare of others. Compare to the risks of someone on WIC or the clerk at the DMV smoking pot.

 

 

 

Who said anything about minorities here? I'm not saying ONLY poor black kids need to be tested. It's everyone. It's based on a system that requires ZERO effort other than meeting a financial criteria to receive tax payer money. I've pointed out that other credits and deductions require things like buying a house, getting an education, starting a family. Are those not beneficial to society? Be smarmy all you want, but why not address the distinction I've made?

 

Minorities are disproportionately represented in welfare pools. So anything that targets welfare targets them disproportionately. You also keep referring to inner-city Chicago anecdotes from police to justify your stereotypes. I'd say that providing people with some basic sustenance instead of letting them die (or having them turn to crime to feed their family!) is beneficial to society, so I don't see your distinction as anything but cognitive dissonance.

 

Also lol 'small government' libertarian/conservative arguing against having to piss into a cup while other should based on "benefit to society"

 

 

And yeah, I'm gonna trust my cop friends who see this stuff day in day out over someone who's conducted a survey over the phone asking people if they partake in illegal activity or if they consider themselves "dependent" on drugs/alcohol. I'm SURE those results are 100% accurate. GMAFB.

 

You've never taken a statistics or data sampling class, have you? Do you at least recognize that the experience of your police buddies in the worst parts of Chicago probably don't extrapolate to the population at large? That what they tell you isn't going to be a representative sampling of all CHA residents or even everyone they interact with but with the ones that stand out? That it provides zero information regarding drug use anywhere else? That the plural of anecdote is not data?

 

That you're just hand-waving away an actual study because it doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions of welfare recipients and the poor in general that are based on some anecdotes from police at best? That it falls hand-in-hand with your previous stereotyping of the poor as lazy, unmotivated drug addicts who make bad decisions and just don't work/try hard enough to get ahead?

 

[StrangeSox]

Also wanted to address this from before:

Yeah, that study gets at use, not drug activity, which includes selling or dealing.

Doesn't matter, since we're talking about drug testing.

 

And yeah, I'm gonna trust my cop friends who see this stuff day in day out over someone who's conducted a survey over the phone asking people if they partake in illegal activity or if they consider themselves "dependent" on drugs/alcohol. I'm SURE those results are 100% accurate. GMAFB.

 

The sampling is the same across the board. Do you have reason to believe those on welfare would under-report more than those who aren't? What do you base your perceptions of non-welfare drug use levels on?

[southsider2k5]

Yes, maybe you should figure out why they're "safety-sensitive" positions and why drug abuse in those positions could have a serious impact on the welfare of others. Compare to the risks of someone on WIC or the clerk at the DMV smoking pot.

 

 

 

 

 

Minorities are disproportionately represented in welfare pools. So anything that targets welfare targets them disproportionately. You also keep referring to inner-city Chicago anecdotes from police to justify your stereotypes. I'd say that providing people with some basic sustenance instead of letting them die (or having them turn to crime to feed their family!) is beneficial to society, so I don't see your distinction as anything but cognitive dissonance.

 

Also lol 'small government' libertarian/conservative arguing against having to piss into a cup while other should based on "benefit to society"

 

 

 

 

You've never taken a statistics or data sampling class, have you? Do you at least recognize that the experience of your police buddies in the worst parts of Chicago probably don't extrapolate to the population at large? That what they tell you isn't going to be a representative sampling of all CHA residents or even everyone they interact with but with the ones that stand out? That it provides zero information regarding drug use anywhere else? That the plural of anecdote is not data?

 

That you're just hand-waving away an actual study because it doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions of welfare recipients and the poor in general that are based on some anecdotes from police at best? That it falls hand-in-hand with your previous stereotyping of the poor as lazy, unmotivated drug addicts who make bad decisions and just don't work/try hard enough to get ahead?

 

Speaking of stereotyping... There are more white people on welfare than any other race.

 

[Balta1701]

Speaking of stereotyping... There are more white people on welfare than any other race.

As of the late 90's this wasn't true, African Americans were in fact a larger group on AFDC and TANF (when it was created) than whites. I'm trying to find more up to date data.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, maybe you should figure out why they're "safety-sensitive" positions and why drug abuse in those positions could have a serious impact on the welfare of others. Compare to the risks of someone on WIC or the clerk at the DMV smoking pot.

 

Well, as i've said before, pot wouldn't be included. And i'm not discounting the fact that it's important to have that safety position exception. I'm just pointing out that we've made exceptions to that constitutional right before, so it's not some right that is never excluded in favor of a societal goal or policy.

 

 

Minorities are disproportionately represented in welfare pools. So anything that targets welfare targets them disproportionately. You also keep referring to inner-city Chicago anecdotes from police to justify your stereotypes. I'd say that providing people with some basic sustenance instead of letting them die (or having them turn to crime to feed their family!) is beneficial to society, so I don't see your distinction as anything but cognitive dissonance.

 

Also lol 'small government' libertarian/conservative arguing against having to piss into a cup while other should based on "benefit to society"

 

Ideally I'd limit the amount of time someone can be in public housing and limit the scope of public aid altogether. But seeing as we've already broken that rule, I gotta work with what exists already. IMO this is a pretty small move that could potentially save billions over the years and more importantly save the lives of people that might get hooked on drugs and ruin their life.

 

You've never taken a statistics or data sampling class, have you? Do you at least recognize that the experience of your police buddies in the worst parts of Chicago probably don't extrapolate to the population at large? That what they tell you isn't going to be a representative sampling of all CHA residents or even everyone they interact with but with the ones that stand out? That it provides zero information regarding drug use anywhere else? That the plural of anecdote is not data?

 

Ah, there's my favorite SS response. "You're not as smart as I am, are you?" Look, i'm not suggesting that what my friends experience is what happens all over the country. But even if it's 5% of the public housing population, well, that's 5% that could be changed if you give them an ultimatum of homelessness over drugs. Some will still choose homelessness and commit more crime. But even if a small % decide it's not worth it, well, that's potentially a whole life of public aid off the books.

 

That you're just hand-waving away an actual study because it doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions of welfare recipients and the poor in general that are based on some anecdotes from police at best? That it falls hand-in-hand with your previous stereotyping of the poor as lazy, unmotivated drug addicts who make bad decisions and just don't work/try hard enough to get ahead?

 

Ah, so you can NEVER question any study that SS deems 100% accurate, lest you be giving in to your extreme biases. I get it. I'll try to remember that response next time someone provides you a study or report that goes against what you think and you respond by questioning the source or methodology.

 

[southsider2k5]

As of the late 90's this wasn't true, African Americans were in fact a larger group on AFDC and TANF (when it was created) than whites. I'm trying to find more up to date data.

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=welfare+rec...on&vss=true

[Balta1701]

The idea that somehow we are saving money without testing is just silly. If they are addicts, or turn into them eventually, who do you think is paying for treatment and prison anyway? The quicker you stop a problem, or even prevent it, the better. If you stop even one percent of people from starting to use because they are afraid of losing their incomes, much like employees who won't use, or quit using, because they fear the drug test, you have won in the long run. It doesn't matter what class of people we are talking about. I don't care how rich or poor you are, if you are abusing, you really shouldn't be qualified to get a handout.

In this case, 2k5 is fully right...actually providing testing and treatment would be much cheaper than dealing with the long term consequences of abuse.

 

Problem is...there's a big assumption here...that a positive test provokes treatment and not jail time. SS is right that if you have people fearing that they'll get caught and go to prison, they'll be even less likely to get assistance.

 

Can anyone argue to me successfully that this country would rather take the people who test positive while qualifying for a program like this and offer them treatment rather than punishment?

[Balta1701]

http://www.google.com/search?q=welfare+rec...on&vss=true

I'm several google searches ahead of that. Your data is from 1994, probably covering FY 1992. By 1996 the African American rate had climbed higher, and 1996 was when TANF replaced AFDC.

 

Like I said, i'm trying to find more up to date data.

[Jenksismyhero]

In this case, 2k5 is fully right...actually providing testing and treatment would be much cheaper than dealing with the long term consequences of abuse.

 

Problem is...there's a big assumption here...that a positive test provokes treatment and not jail time. SS is right that if you have people fearing that they'll get caught and go to prison, they'll be even less likely to get assistance.

 

Can anyone argue to me successfully that this country would rather take the people who test positive while qualifying for a program like this and offer them treatment rather than punishment?

 

This happens already at least here in Cook County. Most first time drug offenses sends you to a treatment facility, not jail. And since 70% of Illinois prison inmates are in jail for drugs, and the newly elected Cook County president recently came out and said drugs are a healthcare problem, not a criminal one, I think we're moving that way.

 

Edit: Sorry! Sorry, that's just Cook County, so it doesn't apply to other areas of the country, and it doesn't speak for a general trend in policy or thinking. My bad! My bad.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

This happens already at least here in Cook County. Most first time drug offenses sends you to a treatment facility, not jail. And since 70% of Illinois prison inmates are in jail for drugs, and the newly elected Cook County president recently came out and said drugs are a healthcare problem, not a criminal one, I think we're moving that way.

 

Edit: Sorry! Sorry, that's just Cook County, so it doesn't apply to other areas of the country, and it doesn't speak for a general trend in policy or thinking. My bad! My bad.

I'd love to actually believe it's a general trend in policy or thinking...problem is, the undermining data is in your first statement...70% of illinois prison inmates are in jail for drugs or drug related cases.

[Balta1701]

http://www.google.com/search?q=welfare+rec...on&vss=true

There has been little change in the racial composition of TANF families since FY 2002.

African-American families comprised 38 percent of TANF families, white families comprised 32

percent, 25 percent were Hispanic, 2.0 percent were Asian, and 1.5 percent were Native

American. Of all closed-case families, 33 percent were African-American, 37 percent were

white, and 24 percent were Hispanic.

From the HHS 2006 report to Congress on the TANF program.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'd love to actually believe it's a general trend in policy or thinking...problem is, the undermining data is in your first statement...70% of illinois prison inmates are in jail for drugs or drug related cases.

 

Sure, but I think recent budget concerns will really push this further.

[Balta1701]

Other topic...I'd like to happily join in with anyone else in this thread B****ing about the performance here.

Nearly nine months after its formation, a $30 billion government fund to foster small-business lending has yet to pay out a single dime, even as the nation struggles with traumatic levels of unemployment.

[southsider2k5]

From the HHS 2006 report to Congress on the TANF program.

 

The next logical question is how much of that change equates to the change in the racial make up of this country over the same period of time?

[Balta1701]

The next logical question is how much of that change equates to the change in the racial make up of this country over the same period of time?

In either case, whether 1992 or 2006, the majority of the U.S. population was caucasian. In both 1992 and 2006, African Americans made up a much larger portion of the welfare recipients than their share of the population.

 

Your specific statement was that Caucasians were the largest group of welfare recipients. In 1992 that appears to have been correct, but yes, population systematics have changed since 1992, as has the makeup of welfare recipients. But that doesn't really matter...you never tried to allege anything about changes in the fraction of each ethnic group appearing on welfare, only that Caucasians were the largest group...which is disagreed with by the 2006 HHS report.

[southsider2k5]

In either case, whether 1992 or 2006, the majority of the U.S. population was caucasian. In both 1992 and 2006, African Americans made up a much larger portion of the welfare recipients than their share of the population.

 

Your specific statement was that Caucasians were the largest group of welfare recipients. In 1992 that appears to have been correct, but yes, population systematics have changed since 1992, as has the makeup of welfare recipients. But that doesn't really matter...you never tried to allege anything about changes in the fraction of each ethnic group appearing on welfare, only that Caucasians were the largest group...which is disagreed with by the 2006 HHS report.

 

If the shift is do to population shift, then the change is meaningless. There really hasn't been any real change in the mix of recipients due to a fixable reason.

[Balta1701]

If the shift is do to population shift, then the change is meaningless. There really hasn't been any real change in the mix of recipients due to a fixable reason.

How does that have any impact on the veracity of this statement? No where here have I tried to argue that things have become worse for African Americans or that a larger share of their population is now on welfare, I'm simply arguing that this statement is not supported by current data.

Speaking of stereotyping... There are more white people on welfare than any other race.

[southsider2k5]

How does that have any impact on the veracity of this statement? No where here have I tried to argue that things have become worse for African Americans or that a larger share of their population is now on welfare, I'm simply arguing that this statement is not supported by current data.

 

The data that I found supported it. The newer data doesn't. If the changes are due to population shifts, it doesn't change anything meaningful.

 

Hopefully I typed that slow enough.

[Balta1701]

The data that I found supported it. The newer data doesn't. If the changes are due to population shifts, it doesn't change anything meaningful.

So let me get this straight.

 

African Americans are overrepresented on welfare rolls in 1992.

 

African Americans are overrepresented on welfare rolls in 2006.

 

The population of African Americans has increased relative to Caucasians between 1992 and 2006.

 

The population increase has been enough that there are more African Americans on TANF in 2006 than Caucasian.

 

In 2006, Caucasians did not outnumber African Americans on welfare.

 

Therefore, 2k5's statement there are more Caucasians on TANF than African Americans is true.