Quote:
Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL
Right, but the cost v benefit that Richard was mentioning is what I'm talking about. One of the articles Richard posted suggested $20,000 per year per tested individual. Presumably many will pass the test. So you've paid for the test and then the benefits.
Some won't. But you've still paid at least 20k for that person. If you hadn't tested that person, and just given him benefits -- would it be less or more than the 20k?
|
I think that would be a gross exaggeration of the expenses involved. Of course, the government bureaucracy of administering a program adds significantly to even simple program costs.
Frankly, I would rather put people back on the track to responsible behavior, like being drug free, than to spend the money rewarding poor decisions and encouraging misconduct.
Judging from the misogynistic lyrics of popular hip-hop tunes, impregnating as many different women as possible and siring progeny across the community while abandoning those children and ducking any significant support or parenting is a laudable goal.
Fifty years ago, black and white families had roughly similar percentages of married couples, cohabitating was unheard of, and children out of wedlock were a humiliation, not a goal. Can anyone look at today's society and say that what we have is an improvement?
If I wanted to destroy a culture and their family units, and doom their children to an endless cycle of addiction, impoverishment, and incarceration, this would be a excellent plan to do so. And they are doing it to themselves, with the support of a few public figures and politicians.
Requiring recipients of public assistance to be drug free? What is next, making people further their education and get jobs?
TR