NationStates Jolt Archive

In San Diego welfare recipients will now be getting their houses searched. The case was refused to be heard again by the Federal Court in San Francisco. So you can bet that stuff like this will began popping up all over the country.
Here is a link to article (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071607I.shtml)

Full Constitutional Protection for Some, but No Privacy for the Poor
By Adam Liptak
The New York Times

Monday 16 July 2007

In San Diego, poor people who want public benefits must give up their privacy. Investigators from the district attorney's office there make unannounced visits to the homes of people applying for welfare, poking around in garbage cans, medicine chests and laundry baskets.

Applicants are not required to let the investigators in. But they get no money if they refuse.

Lawyers who have sued on behalf of the applicants say that being poor should not mean having to give up the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable government searches. So far, the courts have disagreed, saying that rooting out welfare fraud justifies the searches, but not without drawing some fierce dissents.

"This situation is shameful," seven dissenting judges wrote when the full federal appeals court in San Francisco refused to rehear the case a few months ago. "This case is nothing less than an attack on the poor."

Luis Aragon, a deputy district attorney in San Diego, said the county had struck a sensible balance.

"Whenever one goes into a home," Mr. Aragon said, "of course you have to be concerned. The dilemma San Diego faced was, either you say yes to everybody or you have some verification.

"As for intrusiveness," he continued, "you probably went to college. You probably said you were a pretty good student. And they said, 'Yeah, but we want to see a transcript.' Doesn't the government have the right to some level of verification?"

I don't recall any admissions officers going through my sock drawer, but it was a long time ago and I was a distracted teenager.

The main problem, Mr. Aragon said, is the "alleged absent parent." Applicants sometimes claim to be single mothers when there is a man around the house, and investigators are on the lookout for that man.

"They're looking for boxer shorts in a drawer," said Jordan C. Budd, a law professor who represented the plaintiffs when he was legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego. "They're looking for medicine in a man's name."

But the investigators do not limit their inquiries to potential welfare fraud. If they come across evidence of other crimes, like drug use or child abuse, they pass it along to the police and prosecutors.

The program apparently did reduce welfare fraud, or at least save money. According to the county's statistics, the denial rate for welfare applications rose to 48 percent from 41 percent over five years, and there was 4 to 5 percent increase in withdrawn applications.

The San Diego program is the most aggressive one in California and perhaps in the nation, but the recent decisions have probably given governments around the country all kinds of ideas. An earlier home-visit program, instituted in New York in 1995 by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, was largely dismantled as part of the settlement of a lawsuit in 1997.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in San Diego said the money the county saved was not worth the price in privacy and dignity.

"The poor are presumed guilty, presumed lazy and presumed to be trying to gain something they don't deserve," said Professor Budd, who now teaches at the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H. "It's a general poverty exception to the Fourth Amendment."

The majority in a divided three-judge panel decision last year upholding the program made two basic points. The first was that people are free to opt out - by giving up their welfare benefits.

The dissenting judge called that a false choice for an applicant desperate to feed her children.

The majority also relied on a 1971 Supreme Court decision, Wyman v. James, which upheld a New York program involving scheduled visits from social workers, not surprise searches by investigators from a prosecutor's office. The Supreme Court said the main purpose of the New York visits was "rehabilitation."

At his deposition in the case, Mr. Aragon said his office's investigators were not in the rehabilitation business.

"I'm trying to imagine what rehabilitation would be," he testified. "Get off the couch. Get a job. I don't know."

The plaintiffs have until next month to decide whether to ask the Supreme Court to hear their case. They say they have not made a final decision, which is a little surprising given the importance of the issue and the volume and vehemence of the dissents. But they may have reason to fear what the current Supreme Court would say.

One of the dissenting judges, Harry Pregerson, writing for himself and six colleagues in April, suggested one sort of argument that might be promising. He said there was a double standard at work.

"The government does not search through the closets and medicine cabinets of farmers receiving subsidies," Judge Pregerson wrote. "They do not dig through the laundry baskets and garbage pails of real estate developers or radio broadcasters."

Only the poor, he said, must "give up their rights of privacy in exchange for essential public assistance."

I do think we should investigate what they're doing with the money, but searching their house? No.

I can see how being on the public dole can reasonably lower someone's expectation of privacy vis a vis the requirements and regulations for getting the free money.

The only comment I can think of right now is a string of obscenities.

Heh, it's the means test!

Prepare for extra bitterness from the working class to everyone else and all that comes with it, because that's what happened in the UK in the 1930s.

In San Diego welfare recipients will now be getting their houses searched. The case was refused to be heard again by the Federal Court in San Francisco. So you can bet that stuff like this will began popping up all over the country.
Here is a link to article (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071607I.shtml)

This is total bullshit.

Going to the Supreme Court would be a waste of time and money, even if the ACLU is doing it pro-bono. The hardcore conservatives are controlling the Supreme Court and hardcore conservatives == "poor people are poor because they are lazy."

If it was a fair court, this would be an obviously violation of the 4th Amendment Rights against illegal search and seizure. Surprise searching for anything that could disqualify them from receiving needed benefits is blatantly illegal, especially when they are turning over findings about other possible crimes to the police. Gee, thanks for your free illegal search information.

Let's all kneel down and say a prayer for Ronald Reagan and thank him for the hate he instilled in the US of commies and poor people.

Going to the Supreme Court would be a waste of time and money, even if the ACLU is doing it pro-bono. The hardcore conservatives are controlling the Supreme Court and hardcore conservatives == "poor people are poor because they are lazy prostitutes on crack."

corrected and reposted.

corrected and reposted.

You forgot "Communist" somewhere in there, as well as "Heathenous bastards".

You forgot "Communist" somewhere in there, as well as "Heathenous bastards".

Oops. My bad.

Being poor ain't a crime, but it might as well be.

I kind of wonder how much money is being spent on police to search.

Rooting through trash is fine, it's abandoned and fair game, but searching houses crosses the line.

if agreement to these searches is one of the requirements for recieving welfare benefits then what is the problem? welfare fraud is rampant and this is one way to ensure money is not being misspent. if you have illegal drugs in your possession and your only means of income come from welfare you're obviously using public money improperly. welfare isn't some entitlement or right. it's the taking of money from people who have it (which is wrong both morally and constitutionally) and giving it to people who don't. it's an exchanging of wealth with the perception that the rich don't need it and the poor need it most.

call it an investment if you will. i'd be perfectly content with not paying any taxes for anyone to receive benefits from to avoid the issue altogether but so long as MY money is going to any government program i'd like oversight and assurance that my money isn't not being wasted, even if i don't agree with my money being taken away in the first place.

again, i'm sure it is part of the application process to agree to such searches up front prior to getting these hand outs. if they don't want to be searched, then don't apply for welfare.

welfare is not a a right, it's a privelege. and it shouldn't come from me. if you want money ask for it. don't get the government to commmit legal theft to give to you. i can already hear about how i'm a neo conservative and heartless but what right does anyone have, especially the govt., to take money from me without my consent, for any reason?

if i give you money, i want to know where it's being spent.

this is no crusade against the poor. if it were they'd be searching all poor people. they are, though, ensuring proper usage of my money by welfare recepients, granted they are all poor.

but if you want to see a real crime here it is

the top 5% of income earners pya 57% of federal income taxes while the bottom 50% pay just 3.3%

this info is can be found at www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Just remember kids: Being On Welfare Is Evil, and everyone on welfare is Defrauding The Taxpayer and Living Better Off Than Everybody Else.

I mean really.:rolleyes:

I think that while a search of the home is an inherent violation of one's right to privacy, unless there is a warrant to search the home in relation to criminal activity, those on welfare should be accountable for the money they receive. They should be required keep their receipts and bank statements and be able to show that they are using the money for its intended purposes. They should have a budget that they can show the government to prove they are using the money properly and it's not being used for luxuries when necessities need to be bought.

This is not illegal search and seizure. People have the right to deny access to their residence. If they want free money, having someone verify your suitability for that free money is not unreasonable.

If you want a loan from a bank, you have to be able to verify that you have the means to qualify for that loan. If you want to just be given money, you need to be able to verify that you qualify for getting a free gift from taxpayers.

I bet 'people suspected of harboring illegal immigrants' is next. The public isn't ready to sawllow Muslims yet.

This is not illegal search and seizure. People have the right to deny access to their residence. If they want free money, having someone verify your suitability for that free money is not unreasonable.

If you want a loan from a bank, you have to be able to verify that you have the means to qualify for that loan. If you want to just be given money, you need to be able to verify that you qualify for getting a free gift from taxpayers.

IT'S NOT A FREE GIFT!!! For fuck's sake, there are so many strings attached to federal and state money, there's no way on god's green earth it's free. Frex: My hysband just spent an hour filling out paperwork to provide state-sponsored respite care for his nephew. For five dollars an hour. If he wants to be considered 'highly qualified,' and get nine dollars an hour and referrals to families outside his own, there's another set of paperwork, an interview, a criminal background check, and he needs to get CPR and first aid certification. If it's that difficult to get on the rolls to work for state money, can you imagine how hard it is to get on the rolls for 'free' money?

My best friend, who has a mildy autistic son, had his Social Security/disability cancelled. She needs this money to do nonessential things like buy food for this kid. Why? Because the rep claimed she told him Nate 'doesn't need' the support anymore. In order to get these checks again, she had to fill out over thirty pages of paperwork. To get 'free money'.

Anyone who's ever had to live on the dole will tell you that the toll it takes on your dignity and self-reliance is incalcuable. But sometimes the only way you can keep your apartment and food in the fridge is to do it.

I think that while a search of the home is an inherent violation of one's right to privacy, unless there is a warrant to search the home in relation to criminal activity, those on welfare should be accountable for the money they receive. They should be required keep their receipts and bank statements and be able to show that they are using the money for its intended purposes. They should have a budget that they can show the government to prove they are using the money properly and it's not being used for luxuries when necessities need to be bought.

First things first. The recipients of aid, much like the recipients of jobs, need to prove that they are entitled to that aid to begin with. A job applicant can offer references and so should a aid applicant. Then those references should be checked. If that means a visit to the applicants home, the that should be done.

And it should be clearly stated on the application that all information presented is believed to be true and by signing the application authorization is given to check credit accounts, references, and make periodic visits to the applicants home to verify the information.

First things first. The recipients of aid, much like the recipients of jobs, need to prove that they are entitled to that aid to begin with. A job applicant can offer references and so should a aid applicant. Then those references should be checked. If that means a visit to the applicants home, the that should be done.

Har. Except you know, job references don't tend to search your fucking house. Why not? They should. Job applicants should have to prove they're not guilty too.

I applied for a job, and they searched my credit report, and my criminal background, and my husband's credit report and criminal background, and everyone else in my family's criminal background....I didn't get hired because my aunt has a felony charge.

Yeah that sucks. But they didn't invade your residence, your property. And, they weren't the State. This is what makes this a constitutional matter, not one of simple unfairness.

Har. Except you know, job references don't tend to search your fucking house. Why not? They should. Job applicants should have to prove they're not guilty too.

I applied for a job, and they searched my credit report, and my criminal background, and my husband's credit report and criminal background, and everyone else in my family's criminal background....I didn't get hired because my aunt has a felony charge.

Har. Except you know, job references don't tend to search your fucking house. Why not? They should. Job applicants should have to prove they're not guilty too.
Guilty of what? Fraud? Let's stick to the topic, or at least tell me why your comment is relevant.

If the government is going to forcibly take possession of my money in order to give it freely to the indolent, the very least they could do is take minor steps in verifying that the money is not being used to finance reckless and/or criminal behavior, such as the purchasing of illicit substances. I would further suggest that all those who receive this free money be equipped with a GPS sensor to ensure that the money is being spent fruitfully. The government should monitor where they are going (ie, if they are seeking jobs or lying on their sofa, watching a TV [paid for by me and other tax-payers]).

Har. Except you know, job references don't tend to search your fucking house. Why not? They should. Job applicants should have to prove they're not guilty too.

Doesn't look like you understood his post, so I'll explain it for you.

If a job applicant has to lower his expectation of privacy a bit to demonstrate that he qualifies for a job, it isn't far-fetched to imagine that a welfare applicant has to lower his expectation of privacy a bit to demonstrate that he qualifies for welfare.

In the first case, that means providing and verifying job references, evidence of a degree or of skills, things like that.

In the second, it means proving that you meet whatever criteria are set up for whichever welfare program you're applying for.

The first case doesn't have the same requirements as the second, so objecting that the first case doesn't search the same things as the second is trivial.

Saying "BUH BUH BUH BUH DE job doesnt search your house" doesn't demonstrate comprehension of what you read, which didn't involve potential employers searching your house.

I think this has less to do with the "poor people are criminals" argument, and more to do with the fact that the state is going broke and needs to save money wherever it can. Although this is a particularly heartless way to do so.

This is what we can expect to see when the government is starved of funds by politicans busily posturing against "big government" and cutting taxes left and right.

The increasing level of outsourcing (exporting jobs overseas) doesn't help. Because of this, there aren't enough jobs being created each year merely to cope with the number of high school graduates coming along and hoping to find work - hence the unemployment rate is only going to increase.

Also, you shouldn't pay any attention to the official unemployment statistics, because they don't account for the significant (and increasing) number of people who have given up looking for work. Neither do they take into account the number of people who are only marginally employed - part time or short term workers who earn so little that they still qualify for some benefits, such as food stamps.

The federal government returned to a state of deficit only a year after Dubya took charge, and that deficit has been getting bigger ever since. But while the federal government can remain in denial and put off the day of reckoning by borrowing money, most states can't. Individual states are usually prohibited by law from borrowing to cover deficits.

Hence both the states and the feds are cutting spending wherever they can - this is just the latest ruse. The "welfare scammers" scenario is just a useful smoke screen. I'm not saying that there aren't any welfare cheats out there - just that the problem is being made to seem a lot worse than it really is.

If the government is going to forcibly take possession of my money in order to give it freely to the indolent, the very least they could do is take minor steps in verifying that the money is not being used to finance reckless and/or criminal behavior, such as the purchasing of illicit substances. I would further suggest that all those who receive this free money be equipped with a GPS sensor to ensure that the money is being spent fruitfully. The government should monitor where they are going (ie, if they are seeking jobs or lying on their sofa, watching a TV [paid for by me and other tax-payers]).

I think that we should take it another step… why not implant mind-controlling chips into their brains, so that instead of monitoring them as they go about their business, the government can control their business! Then we can all rest assured that they will be actively seeking jobs, because they have no conscious choice! The mind-slaves will also be useful in war-time.




:rolleyes:

I applied for a job, and they searched my credit report, and my criminal background, and my husband's credit report and criminal background, and everyone else in my family's criminal background....I didn't get hired because my aunt has a felony charge.

Where were you applying?

This is not illegal search and seizure. People have the right to deny access to their residence. If they want free money, having someone verify your suitability for that free money is not unreasonable.

If you want a loan from a bank, you have to be able to verify that you have the means to qualify for that loan. If you want to just be given money, you need to be able to verify that you qualify for getting a free gift from taxpayers.

Does the bank violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? No. I agree with accountability -- much like the income tax idea, where you must have receipts to show what you spent and where/when you take a deduction, why not have a monthly receipt audit of anyone receiving funds? At the very least, the "visits", if truly necessary, cannot be unannounced or warrantless. It's simply against the law of the land, no matter what your opinion of someone on the dole happens to be.

First things first. The recipients of aid, much like the recipients of jobs, need to prove that they are entitled to that aid to begin with. A job applicant can offer references and so should a aid applicant. Then those references should be checked. If that means a visit to the applicants home, the that should be done.

And it should be clearly stated on the application that all information presented is believed to be true and by signing the application authorization is given to check credit accounts, references, and make periodic visits to the applicants home to verify the information.

What aid applicant references would you be willing to accept? What kind of references are you going to get from someone indigent and without a family support system? Again, monthly budget audits per recipient, and the visits cannot be random and unannounced without a warrant. Period. Jeez, man, you served in the armed forces, swearing to DEFEND the Constitution! I know you're not a fan of Welfare per se, but the Fourth Amendment was part of that oath.

If the government is going to forcibly take possession of my money in order to give it freely to the indolent, the very least they could do is take minor steps in verifying that the money is not being used to finance reckless and/or criminal behavior, such as the purchasing of illicit substances. I would further suggest that all those who receive this free money be equipped with a GPS sensor to ensure that the money is being spent fruitfully. The government should monitor where they are going (ie, if they are seeking jobs or lying on their sofa, watching a TV [paid for by me and other tax-payers]).

If the government is going to forcibly take possession of my money in order to give it to the military-industrial complex and start a war, the very least they could do is take minor steps to ensure that the war is justified, legal, and not based on falsehoods. I would further suggest that all those who signed off to use this money be equipped with a GPS monitor and a polygraph to ensure that the money is being spent fruitfully (like on body armor for every soldier...). The press should monitor where they are going (i.e. if they are truly detaining prisoners or just stacking them in naked human pyramids, givin' a hearty "thumbs up" for the camera, while $9 billion in cash [paid for by me and other taxpayers...you could buy a shitload of TVs with that...] disappears).

:rolleyes:

Where were you applying?

with the US govt.

with the US govt.

You're a silly bean, why would you want to work for them?

You're a silly bean, why would you want to work for them?

well, at the time, I didn't have a job, and they had one I qualified for, and it payed more than the job I had just lost, and came with health insurance and such.

well this is sure to save money! and not waste peoples and the governments time in the slightest! :rolleyes:

I foresee some bitter clerk telling you that you can't have food this week because you've had chocolate and where sitting down when they searched your house/shes had a bad day

edit: I pissed myself when it talked about having men in the house

I think that we should take it another step… why not implant mind-controlling chips into their brains, so that instead of monitoring them as they go about their business, the government can control their business! Then we can all rest assured that they will be actively seeking jobs, because they have no conscious choice! The mind-slaves will also be useful in war-time.

That would be impractical, as we lack the resources necessary to embark upon such a program at this time. However, the possibility cannot be ruled out at some indeterminate point in the future, if it ever becomes economically and technologically feasible.

That would be impractical, as we lack the resources necessary to embark upon such a program at this time.

:eek: even FAG wouldn't do this

weird how you grasp the concept of money whilst government seems to struggle so much :p

"Do poor people deserve privacy?"

Fuck no.

The only comment I can think of right now is a string of obscenities.

I'm with you on that.

Hey no worries, right? It's just welfare bums! Who cares about their rights. Oooh, you know what else? We should be searching the houses of anyone who is receiving any sort of settlement, privately or publicly for an injury, work related or not...you know, to root out insurance fraud. Ditto for anyone with a health care plan. To make sure they aren't faking illnesses and getting unecessary care.

This is not illegal search and seizure. People have the right to deny access to their residence. If they want free money, having someone verify your suitability for that free money is not unreasonable.

If you want a loan from a bank, you have to be able to verify that you have the means to qualify for that loan. If you want to just be given money, you need to be able to verify that you qualify for getting a free gift from taxpayers.

These are PUBLIC funds. The government does not get to impose the same sort of restrictions on those public funds as private lending institutions. Why? A little something to do with the Constitution being binding on the government.

What aid applicant references would you be willing to accept? What kind of references are you going to get from someone indigent and without a family support system? Again, monthly budget audits per recipient, and the visits cannot be random and unannounced without a warrant. Period. Jeez, man, you served in the armed forces, swearing to DEFEND the Constitution! I know you're not a fan of Welfare per se, but the Fourth Amendment was part of that oath.

I've never filled out a welfare application. Even during graduate school, my wife and I managed to pay the rent and keep our kids fed. I would expect that a welfare applicant would want to give some proof that they were needy -- tax returns, credit reports, references such as landlords and creditors...In fact, I suggested earlier that applicants for aid waive their rights regarding searches and allow them as a condition of receiving aid. Their choice -- privacy or public assistance. It's the public part that I think makes it acceptable to ask for this waiver.

And doesn't the 5th Amendment apply to us wage earners, too? Don't we have the right to keep our property? Certainly the seizure of our property by the state must be justifiable.

Only claiming to be needy doesn't make it so.

These are PUBLIC funds. The government does not get to impose the same sort of restrictions on those public funds as private lending institutions. Why? A little something to do with the Constitution being binding on the government.
You are right. These are public funds. That simple fact means that the government can use force to acquire these funds. Because of that power of coercion, the government must be a far superior steward of its money than any private institution. The standards for receiving these funds should be even higher -- not in the credit/debit column, but in the veracity of the claim. We cannot allow public funds to be obtained with fraudulent claims of poverty.

I'm with you on that.

Hey no worries, right? It's just welfare bums! Who cares about their rights. Oooh, you know what else? We should be searching the houses of anyone who is receiving any sort of settlement, privately or publicly for an injury, work related or not...you know, to root out insurance fraud. Ditto for anyone with a health care plan. To make sure they aren't faking illnesses and getting unecessary care.

Also, SWAT teams should raid the hospital rooms of trauma patients.

That would be impractical, as we lack the resources necessary to embark upon such a program at this time. However, the possibility cannot be ruled out at some indeterminate point in the future, if it ever becomes economically and technologically feasible.

:D

I can't gauge that with my sarcasm meter, because after I posted the first time it exploded.

I've never filled out a welfare application. Even during graduate school, my wife and I managed to pay the rent and keep our kids fed. I would expect that a welfare applicant would want to give some proof that they were needy -- tax returns, credit reports, references such as landlords and creditors...In fact, I suggested earlier that applicants for aid waive their rights regarding searches and allow them as a condition of receiving aid. Their choice -- privacy or public assistance. It's the public part that I think makes it acceptable to ask for this waiver.

Which is exactly what my posts here have been saying. Documentation for monthly expenditures and for qualification? Absolutely.

But sorry, unwarranted entry is never legal, and the government should not be allowed to get into the habit of forcing people to sign their rights away who have neither broken any laws nor engendered probable cause.

And doesn't the 5th Amendment apply to us wage earners, too? Don't we have the right to keep our property? Certainly the seizure of our property by the state must be justifiable.

Uh...I was talking about the Fourth, but hey, the Fifth applies to to everyone, too. And using terms like "seizure" to describe the legal and representative-approved taxation is both pejorative and disingenuous and you know it. Like FAG said about dissent: "complain to your congressmen" (see how hollow that sounds?).

Only claiming to be needy doesn't make it so.

I couldn't agree more. But you don't need unwarranted random searches to prove someone's claim, and again, you know it.

You are right. These are public funds. That simple fact means that the government can use force to acquire these funds. Because of that power of coercion, the government must be a far superior steward of its money than any private institution. The standards for receiving these funds should be even higher -- not in the credit/debit column, but in the veracity of the claim. We cannot allow public funds to be obtained with fraudulent claims of poverty.

Again (aside from the paranoid ramblings about government force), I agree. I'm just saying it shouldn't, and by law, CAN'T, extend to unwarranted searches and seizures without probable cause.

I couldn't agree more. But you don't need unwarranted random searches to prove someone's claim, and again, you know it.

The searches wouldn't be random. They would be cold, callous, and systematic, to lend yet another terror to poverty. :eek:

Edit: Systematic seizures sound good too. We would call this branch of the police the "Anti-Beggar Squad", and they would crack down on anyone who earns less than $200,000 a year.

I keep misreading that as do poor people deserve piracy. Which is awesome, although the answer is no, as they have very little to steal anyways, thus the poorness.

In answer to the actual question, according to the Constitution, yes. As long as they aren't communists.

I keep misreading that as do poor people deserve piracy. Which is awesome, although the answer is no, as they have very little to steal anyways, thus the poorness.

You actually double misread it. What you meant to misread was "Do poor people deserve a life of piracy". :p

Do poor people deserve privacy?

They probably do.

Can they afford it ?

Probably not.

This is just the usual continuation of the "Poor people are little animals to be beat up" attitude because they don't seem to matter.

Psssh!

Privacy is *so* 20th century.

While there is not an expressed constitutional right to privacy, the courts generally recognize such a right.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

However there is no right to public monies.

Seeing as the individuals can refuse, their rights have not been violated.

However, there is this:

But the investigators do not limit their inquiries to potential welfare fraud. If they come across evidence of other crimes, like drug use or child abuse, they pass it along to the police and prosecutors.

This would constitute an illegal invasion of privacy.

Also, SWAT teams should raid the hospital rooms of trauma patients.

Make sure they're nice and traumatized. *nod*

Make sure they're nice and traumatized. *nod*

*loads stun gun*

You're a silly bean, why would you want to work for them?

US government generally pays well.

They probably do.

Can they afford it ?

Probably not.

QFT.

Don't have to look far to see the results of that.

The only comment I can think of right now is a string of obscenities.

lol...you get a cookie.

all the justice and now it seems privacy you can afford.
must be nice to be rich.

I changed my mind. It's perfectly fine to search their houses.

If they want our help, we need to make sure they're not going to spend it on video games and drugs. Give them drug tests as well. The money we give them is for needs only. No wants.

What are poor people?

Says the man from Connecticut.

I changed my mind. It's perfectly fine to search their houses.

If they want our help, we need to make sure they're not going to spend it on video games and drugs. Give them drug tests as well. The money we give them is for needs only. No wants.
Well, it only costs like, 200 bucks for a family to eat for a week. Does that mean you should only get that much off welfare?
Well, maybe they should.
In either case, you can't limit welfare to just what you need to eat. What about a car to get to work? You need to first buy one, then pay for gas and maintenance. And past that, what about differing rent rates for apartments, or payment rates for houses? You could customize this per person, I guess...
And either way, can't you just track their spending? Do you really need to search their houses for this?

Guilty of what? Fraud?

Sure.

Or, terrorism.

What-have-you.

Let's stick to the topic, or at least tell me why your comment is relevant.

Well perhaps you could first tell me why *your* comment was relevant. You brought up job references, not I.

Sure.

Or, terrorism.

What-have-you.



Well perhaps you could first tell me why *your* comment was relevant. You brought up job references, not I.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12887189&postcount=24


Already explained to you above.

I changed my mind. It's perfectly fine to search their houses.

If they want our help, we need to make sure they're not going to spend it on video games and drugs. Give them drug tests as well. The money we give them is for needs only. No wants.

You don't need an illegal search/seizure to do that. You give the money in the form of a debit card, as many states do. Tracking the purchases is a cinch. You punish those who spend the money where they're not supposed to by curtailing or canceling their benefits. They get one warning, plus an appeals process (should the card be stolen or used without permission).

You can have accountability without subverting the Bill of Rights.

Did I just read "They're looking for boxers in drawers" as proof of a man living in the house?

Hmm, here in Aus, girls wear boxers too. Must just be an Australian thing.

Did I just read "They're looking for boxers in drawers" as proof of a man living in the house?

Hmm, here in Aus, girls wear boxers too. Must just be an Australian thing.

Nope, my friend, what you have described is a sexy thing. Hell yeah.

It's bullshit.

I'm opposed to the way the welfare state is run, I'm opposed to people being allowed to basically live off welfare (mainly because I don't think that's living, but that's another story).

But if you decide to give people money, then that money is theirs and they can spend it however they damn well feel like.

It's bullshit.

I'm opposed to the way the welfare state is run, I'm opposed to people being allowed to basically live off welfare (mainly because I don't think that's living, but that's another story).

But if you decide to give people money, then that money is theirs and they can spend it however they damn well feel like.

I disagree. If you're giving someone money, it's not just so they can lay about all day (unless they're disabled and on SSI). I think some accountability is due from the recipients of taxpayer funds.

I disagree. If you're giving someone money, it's not just so they can lay about all day (unless they're disabled and on SSI). I think some accountability is due from the recipients of taxpayer funds.
If you want accountability, let them do something and then give them the money. Tie money to behaviour, not the other way around.

If you hand out welfare money, that is obviously because you don't think people should starve to death in the streets. But it's part of being a free market supporter (which you may not be, in which case my argument won't ring as many bells) to assume that people are quite capable of taking care of themselves, regardless of where their budget comes from.

My opinion on welfare is that it's for those people who, for whatever reason, do not have a job nor the means to support themselves until they do find a job.

I may be naive but I think that's how most people use welfare, it's a safety net. I'm not so naive to think that people don't abuse it but I don't think the actions of a few should disadvantage the many, although that's often the case.

Given this, I don't think the state should have any say at all in how welfare money is spent - as a poor analogy, I am working for the government to find a job - therefore the money would be mine to spend as I see fit.

In this case, I think that, as per usual, the welfare agency would need to show reasonable cause to believe that I am not looking for a job or that I have the means to support myself. I would not particularly mind if a special court was set up to handle these issues.

Yet to blanket allow a government agency to inspect a house without warrant seems an enormous abuse of privacy. I can't accept it as a good thing, nor do I see the treatment of the unemployed as second class citizens as a good thing.

Against.

What happened to the quote "give me your homeless,your huddled masses"??
There is no such thing as Democracy, Not in the USA,South America,Africa or most of europe. Poor ppl everywhere are discriminated against no matter the reasons for their circumstances

Going to the Supreme Court would be a waste of time and money, even if the ACLU is doing it pro-bono. The hardcore conservatives are controlling the Supreme Court and hardcore conservatives == "poor people are poor because they are lazy."

If it was a fair court, this would be an obviously violation of the 4th Amendment Rights against illegal search and seizure. Surprise searching for anything that could disqualify them from receiving needed benefits is blatantly illegal, especially when they are turning over findings about other possible crimes to the police. Gee, thanks for your free illegal search information.

Let's all kneel down and say a prayer for Ronald Reagan and thank him for the hate he instilled in the US of commies and poor people.

Actually, the hate of Commies was instilled long, long before Reagan.

Sure you read a history book?

That shouldn't even be a question. Of course poor people deserve privacy; just like everyone else.

EDIT:

And I have to (arrrgh) agree with Remote Observer, the US has hated Communists and other Left-radicals since at least 1890. The eradication of the organised labour movement in the 1910-30 period through the use of the National Guard, Army, and the Pinkertons - among others - spelt the death knell for the Left as a major force in US politics. Which is a shame, as the US has a great radical tradition.

If the government is going to forcibly take possession of my money in order to give it to the military-industrial complex and start a war, the very least they could do is take minor steps to ensure that the war is justified, legal, and not based on falsehoods.


No, no, see, that's not welfare. Welfare is for for the useless poor. The wealthy, however, earned their positions through virtue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron), honesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen), and, as the historical record shows, superior innovation (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Slaveshipposter.jpg).

Capitalism, of course, is the opposite of welfare. Rich special interests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex) don't get the government's help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare) and don't need the government's help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression). They have gotten along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying), and will get along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel), totally (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01) without (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03) government. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07)

Anyone who says otherwise is a god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class) damned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_lower_class).


...


Fnord. So when the hell do we start searching corporate offices and CEO's homes to ensure that corporate welfare is being spent properly? Never?

"Making sure welfare recipients act responsibly." Bullshit. It's called using the state to keep the poor (that is, the masses) in their place. It's called class warfare, people, and the masses didn't start it either. If it wasn't for wage slavery, being non-upper class would just be a "shoot on sight" sort of thing.

Nope, my friend, what you have described is a sexy thing. Hell yeah.

Yeah, it was quite hot back in high school. One phrase I remember from a hot classmate was "My boxers are falling down". It was a sweet mental image.

No, no, see, that's not welfare. Welfare is for for the useless poor. The wealthy, however, earned their positions through virtue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron), honesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen), and, as the historical record shows, superior innovation (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Slaveshipposter.jpg).

Capitalism, of course, is the opposite of welfare. Rich special interests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex) don't get the government's help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare) and don't need the government's help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression). They have gotten along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying), and will get along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel), totally (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01) without (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03) government. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07)

Anyone who says otherwise is a god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class) damned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_lower_class).


...


Fnord. So when the hell do we start searching corporate offices and CEO's homes to ensure that corporate welfare is being spent properly? Never?

"Making sure welfare recipients act responsibly." Bullshit. It's called using the state to keep the poor (that is, the masses) in their place. It's called class warfare, people, and the masses didn't start it either. If it wasn't for wage slavery, being non-upper class would just be a "shoot on sight" sort of thing.

Couldn't have said it better myself! :)

While there is not an expressed constitutional right to privacy, the courts generally recognize such a right.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

However there is no right to public monies.

Seeing as the individuals can refuse, their rights have not been violated.



One could argue that this would be a false choice. For a single white childless male getting back on his feet, he can just decide to not be on welfare. However many people are not able to do so. A single mother with a disabled child would have to choose between having enough privacy to have a boyfriend or having an income.

If accountability is the real goal, make welfare dependent on attending courses that teach marketable skills and provide state sponsored day care for the children. Then we know what they're up to all day, and they can live their own lives at night.

No, no, see, that's not welfare. Welfare is for for the useless poor. The wealthy, however, earned their positions through virtue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron), honesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen), and, as the historical record shows, superior innovation (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Slaveshipposter.jpg).

Capitalism, of course, is the opposite of welfare. Rich special interests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex) don't get the government's help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare) and don't need the government's help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression). They have gotten along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying), and will get along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel), totally (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01) without (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03) government. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07)

Anyone who says otherwise is a god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class) damned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_lower_class).



That was sweet.

No privacy for uni students, either

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2087306.ece

It's bullshit.

I'm opposed to the way the welfare state is run, I'm opposed to people being allowed to basically live off welfare (mainly because I don't think that's living, but that's another story).

But if you decide to give people money, then that money is theirs and they can spend it however they damn well feel like.

If it were simply a matter of giving away money I'd agree. But, at least in the cases I'm familiar with, public welfare monies are specifically directed.

No, no, see, that's not welfare. Welfare is for for the useless poor. The wealthy, however, earned their positions through virtue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron), honesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen), and, as the historical record shows, superior innovation (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Slaveshipposter.jpg).

Capitalism, of course, is the opposite of welfare. Rich special interests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex) don't get the government's help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare) and don't need the government's help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression). They have gotten along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying), and will get along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel), totally (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01) without (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03) government. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07)

Anyone who says otherwise is a god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class) damned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_lower_class).


...


Fnord. So when the hell do we start searching corporate offices and CEO's homes to ensure that corporate welfare is being spent properly? Never?

"Making sure welfare recipients act responsibly." Bullshit. It's called using the state to keep the poor (that is, the masses) in their place. It's called class warfare, people, and the masses didn't start it either. If it wasn't for wage slavery, being non-upper class would just be a "shoot on sight" sort of thing.

LOL However, for all your Maxism, you do bring up the excellent point of corporate welfare, the other bane of the welfare state. And the more dangerous one. The rich voting themselves the largess is a suicidal recipe...

One could argue that this would be a false choice. For a single white childless male getting back on his feet, he can just decide to not be on welfare. However many people are not able to do so. A single mother with a disabled child would have to choose between having enough privacy to have a boyfriend or having an income.

An income at public expense is not a right. Period.

If accountability is the real goal, make welfare dependent on attending courses that teach marketable skills and provide state sponsored day care for the children.

While I am fundamentally opposed to the welfare state, I am pragmatic and agree wholeheartedly with this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12887189&postcount=24


Already explained to you above.

Unwarranted searches of home and property are not "lowering privacy a bit." Comparing it with a job reference is thus disingenuous unless one takes the same casual attitude, "oh a credit check, a search of my house, it's all the same!"

Your "explanation" leaves a lot to be desired, like a fundamental understanding of reality. But I'm coming to expect that lack from you, NG.

An income at public expense is not a right. Period.

While I am fundamentally opposed to the welfare state, I am pragmatic and agree wholeheartedly with this.

I don't think it matters if an income at public expense is is a right or not.

What matters is that a person's rights can be suspended due to a government policy rather than a crime. What if they had suggested that a person who uses any sort of government subsidies cannot legally own a firearm? Or were barred from going to protests? Or could be arbitrarily detained without charge?

Government provides alot of services that are not rights. Driver's licences, hunting permits, roads, urban infrastructure, etc.

I think it would be very undemocratic if the government were to make these services available to the public only if the public were willing to waive their rights.

And I'm a pragmatic leftist. Pragmatism is usually the only -ism that works.

What if they had suggested that a person who uses any sort of government subsidies cannot legally own a firearm?

Here in the US, if you live in subsidized housing, or live in government housing, you may NEVER own a firearm.

Not under legal restriction - it's just that if you want them to provide housing, they have the right to make sure you NEVER have a firearm.

You're free to move out if you don't like it.

That's been in place, and complained about, for years. Funny, the mainstream media never picked up on that. It wasn't until the government used the same logic to deprive people of further freedoms that someone squealed.

Of course, given the precedence of several decades, it's too late to bitch now.

You don't need an illegal search/seizure to do that. You give the money in the form of a debit card, as many states do. Tracking the purchases is a cinch. You punish those who spend the money where they're not supposed to by curtailing or canceling their benefits. They get one warning, plus an appeals process (should the card be stolen or used without permission).

You can have accountability without subverting the Bill of Rights.
Okay, accountability is one thing, eligibility is another. How does the government guarantee eligibility without checking on credit references, without visiting the home to check on marital status and number of children? And why shouldn't those checks be made in such a manner that the applicant can't prepare ahead of time?

Those are reasonable things to ask before committing public money to a cause.

Here in the US, if you live in subsidized housing, or live in government housing, you may NEVER own a firearm.

Not under legal restriction - it's just that if you want them to provide housing, they have the right to make sure you NEVER have a firearm.

You're free to move out if you don't like it.

That's been in place, and complained about, for years. Funny, the mainstream media never picked up on that. It wasn't until the government used the same logic to deprive people of further freedoms that someone squealed.

Of course, given the precedence of several decades, it's too late to bitch now.

It should have been protested, quite loudly.

To be honest, gun ownership was the first comparison that popped through my mind. Gun owners should not have to suffer government agents searching their house to ensure compliance with government policy, and neither should poor people. The comparison fails, however, because gun ownership is a right while welfare is not, as Daistallia 2104 pointed out.

Your example is better because it ties government subsidies with a right. And it creates the same environment. A person living in subsidised housing could then expect the government arbitrarily searching their house for firearms, even if they never wanted to own one.

Like I said before, being poor isn't a crime, but it might as well be.

I don't think it matters if an income at public expense is is a right or not.

What matters is that a person's rights can be suspended due to a government policy rather than a crime. What if they had suggested that a person who uses any sort of government subsidies cannot legally own a firearm? Or were barred from going to protests? Or could be arbitrarily detained without charge?

The difference here is that individuals have a clear right to bear arms, assemble peacebly, habeas corpus, and privacy. Individuals do not have a right to publc welfare monies.

Government provides alot of services that are not rights. Driver's licences, hunting permits, roads, urban infrastructure, etc.

Exactly so. A drivers license, for example, is granted on the expectation that a certain degree of rights are given up, is it not? One could hardly be expected to ask permission to drive wiuthout submiting to medical tests (eye exam being the usual one) that invade one's privacy.

If I don't want anybody questioning my eyesight, I can't expect to get a driver's license, neh?

I think it would be very undemocratic if the government were to make these services available to the public only if the public were willing to waive their rights.

This is already the case (at least as it's supposed to work*). Rights are not bound by any sort of tests while privlages are.

And I'm a pragmatic leftist. Pragmatism is usually the only -ism that works.

I'll drink to that! :D

*Just because things don't work how they're supposed to doesn't mean they're broken. Nor does that mean they shouldn't be fixed.

The difference here is that individuals have a clear right to bear arms, assemble peacebly, habeas corpus, and privacy. Individuals do not have a right to publc welfare monies.

Exactly so. A drivers license, for example, is granted on the expectation that a certain degree of rights are given up, is it not? One could hardly be expected to ask permission to drive wiuthout submiting to medical tests (eye exam being the usual one) that invade one's privacy.

If I don't want anybody questioning my eyesight, I can't expect to get a driver's license, neh?

This is already the case (at least as it's supposed to work*). Rights are not bound by any sort of tests while privlages are.

I'll drink to that! :D

*Just because things don't work how they're supposed to doesn't mean they're broken. Nor does that mean they shouldn't be fixed.

You are correct. I don't want you driving if you can't prove to the government that you can see well enough to do so. So then it becomes a question of how much intrusion into the individual's life can be considered warranted under the circumstances. To me it becomes a question of potential harm.

Your reckless driving while blind can potentially cause you and the rest of us more harm than the harm caused by invading your privacy enough to conduct an eye test. I would think that the harm to a person's life caused by a lack of privacy would be more than the harm caused by such a person if he or she was abusing welfare.

EDIT: If you want to see me elaborate a bit on my pragmatic solution to welfare, go here:
http://unmoderatedparadise.forumsplace.com/message-124-0-asc-30.html

I don't like the Idea of searching someones home just because they have applied for welfare, but I hate the idea of people defrauding my taxes even more.
Before you begin the hate let me say there are a lot of people who need the help welfare provides but there are a lot of people defrauding the system and if a program can help stop this fraud I am for it. My property taxes have gone up 41% in the last two years because of welfare and food stamps. The government has to become more efficient in these programs or they will tax and spend a lot of people out of this area ( Up state New York).
It is our moral responsibility to help the people who need it but it should not be a free ride. If they have to give up some privacy so be it. Technically the searches are voluntary, If you don't want your house to be searched do not apply.

No, no, see, that's not welfare. Welfare is for for the useless poor. The wealthy, however, earned their positions through virtue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron), honesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen), and, as the historical record shows, superior innovation (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Slaveshipposter.jpg).

Capitalism, of course, is the opposite of welfare. Rich special interests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex) don't get the government's help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare) and don't need the government's help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression). They have gotten along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying), and will get along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel), totally (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01) without (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03) government. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07)

Anyone who says otherwise is a god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class) damned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_lower_class).


...


Fnord. So when the hell do we start searching corporate offices and CEO's homes to ensure that corporate welfare is being spent properly? Never?

"Making sure welfare recipients act responsibly." Bullshit. It's called using the state to keep the poor (that is, the masses) in their place. It's called class warfare, people, and the masses didn't start it either. If it wasn't for wage slavery, being non-upper class would just be a "shoot on sight" sort of thing.

This is a brilliant post. If I had an award to give, you would win it.

Have a cookie instead!

*Gives LoyOp a yummy, giant, soft, chewy molasses cookie with crystalline sugar on top.*

Okay, accountability is one thing, eligibility is another. How does the government guarantee eligibility without checking on credit references, without visiting the home to check on marital status and number of children? And why shouldn't those checks be made in such a manner that the applicant can't prepare ahead of time?

Those are reasonable things to ask before committing public money to a cause.

Marital status can be checked via public records, as can birth records. Those checks can't be falsified without further breaking the law (altering public records is, as far as I know, next to impossible). Neither of them require an unwarranted search.

You are correct. I don't want you driving if you can't prove to the government that you can see well enough to do so. So then it becomes a question of how much intrusion into the individual's life can be considered warranted under the circumstances. To me it becomes a question of potential harm.

Your reckless driving while blind can potentially cause you and the rest of us more harm than the harm caused by invading your privacy enough to conduct an eye test. I would think that the harm to a person's life caused by a lack of privacy would be more than the harm caused by such a person if he or she was abusing welfare.


Okay, we're in agreement that driving isn't a right, but couldn't that logic be used to force the American people into buying cars that get better gas mileage right away as opposed to begging the auto industry to do it (or we "might" pass a law that slaps the hand that feeds us lobbyist money)? Not only is driving a privilege and not a right, but breathing clean air and not having to fight wars for resources is certainly part and parcel of life, liberty and the pursuit of not being sent off to fight on false pretenses...isn't it?

I don't want you driving if it's in a truck or SUV you don't really need. See where this is going?

Marital status can be checked via public records, as can birth records. Those checks can't be falsified without further breaking the law (altering public records is, as far as I know, next to impossible). Neither of them require an unwarranted search.

Ever hear of common law marriage? I'm sure there are a dozen different things that can be lied about on an application, but easily verified by a home visit.

No, no, see, that's not welfare. Welfare is for for the useless poor. The wealthy, however, earned their positions through virtue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron), honesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen), and, as the historical record shows, superior innovation (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Slaveshipposter.jpg).

Capitalism, of course, is the opposite of welfare. Rich special interests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex) don't get the government's help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare) and don't need the government's help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression). They have gotten along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying), and will get along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel), totally (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01) without (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03) government. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07)

Anyone who says otherwise is a god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class) damned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_lower_class).


...


Fnord. So when the hell do we start searching corporate offices and CEO's homes to ensure that corporate welfare is being spent properly? Never?

"Making sure welfare recipients act responsibly." Bullshit. It's called using the state to keep the poor (that is, the masses) in their place. It's called class warfare, people, and the masses didn't start it either. If it wasn't for wage slavery, being non-upper class would just be a "shoot on sight" sort of thing.

http://www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/seal.jpg

But the investigators do not limit their inquiries to potential welfare fraud. If they come across evidence of other crimes, like drug use or child abuse, they pass it along to the police and prosecutors.


I think that this qualifies the whole thing as a full-fledged searching of an house. It should require a searching order (or whatever it's called) issued by a judge AND a proper accusation of a specific crime. You have to have well-grounded suspects of a crime being enacted to justify breaking one's right to privacy.

Exactly so. A drivers license, for example, is granted on the expectation that a certain degree of rights are given up, is it not? One could hardly be expected to ask permission to drive wiuthout submiting to medical tests (eye exam being the usual one) that invade one's privacy.



That's because a driver's license, for example, implies that this person will be allowed to own and use a device that is potentially dangerous and directly life-threatening to other people if misused or used by a person that doesn't meet some physiological requirements (imagine lamented Ray Charles driving a Ferrari).

Being given public welfare money doesn't pose a direct threat to other people's life. If this money was given as result of an appliant's false statement, then this misdemeanor/felony should be prosecuted. Requesting that the appliant subjects himself to a full-fledged home searching, however, is like giving the burden of proof on the defence, and not on the accusation's side. This means that there is the assumption of guilt, instead of the assumption of innocence, and this is clearly against the philosophy of right of all western countries.

I don't like the Idea of searching someones home just because they have applied for welfare, but I hate the idea of people defrauding my taxes even more.
Before you begin the hate let me say there are a lot of people who need the help welfare provides but there are a lot of people defrauding the system and if a program can help stop this fraud I am for it.
And you think it is free to rally up a police force and raid peoples' houses who request welfare?


My property taxes have gone up 41% in the last two years because of welfare and food stamps.
Oh yes, food stamps and welfare are the logical explanation. There couldn't possibly be any other reason for your property taxes going up. None at all. Like not new schools or school renovations, or road projects, or other government projects they sap from your property taxes. It is definitely because of welfare and food stamps.

The government has to become more efficient in these programs or they will tax and spend a lot of people out of this area ( Up state New York).
Down with taxes, everything must be free!

Technically the searches are voluntary,
If you consider blackmail voluntary.

If you don't want your house to be searched do not apply.
If you don't want you house to be searched, and anything suspicious handed over to the police, don't apply to school, don't register for a firearm, don't apply for a license to drive a car, don't go on disability. I could go on.

That's because a driver's license, for example, implies that this person will be allowed to own and use a device that is potentially dangerous and directly life-threatening to other people if misused or used by a person that doesn't meet some physiological requirements (imagine lamented Ray Charles driving a Ferrari).
Yet if anyone suggests we implement this nationwide for firearms, pro-gun advocates get their panties in a bunch and the NRA starts paying its lobbyists overtime.

Ok let me answer your points Pantless Hero
1)Yes I know the searches will not be free but if in the long run they can save money then they can be worth it.
2)Our school taxes are seperate in New York and they did NOT go up 41%. when the tax hike in 2006 happened the major reason given by our Mayor was the rising cost of Government support programs.
3)I have never said everything must be free. I do not mind paying my fair share and helping the people who truly need it. The people I have a problem with are the ones who abuse the system.
4) Yes is a way it is blackmail, but should not people taking the Governments money be held accountable.
5) The Government can and will look into your records and invade your privacy for a host of things. Let me give an true example. One home owner in my City refused to let the property tax assessor on to his property to figure the value of his home for tax year 2006. The assessor raised his assessment from $112,000 to $175,000 ( the actual sale value of the house was about $145,000) Seeing the man was trying to sell the property the new assessment killed any hope of selling the house. (One I was looking to buy at the time.)

Let me be honest I do not like the Idea of going into peoples homes for any reason. However something has to be done to lower welfare costs and get the people who can work and contribute to society back in the work force.

3)I have never said everything must be free. I do not mind paying my fair share and helping the people who truly need it.
Obviously you do because you are doing an excellent job of implying "poor people are poor because they are lazy."

4) Yes is a way it is blackmail, but should not people taking the Governments money be held accountable.
Then they should be doing background checks, not raiding their homes.

5) The Government can and will look into your records and invade your privacy for a host of things.
I don't remember some one raiding my sock drawer when I applied for my driver's license.

One home owner in my City refused to let the property tax assessor on to his property
Too stupid of a comparison for words. (Words sayable without a mode intervention anyway)

Let me be honest I do not like the Idea of going into peoples homes for any reason.
Yet you sit there and support it wholeheartedly for poor people trying to get welfare to support their families.

However something has to be done to lower welfare costs
Oh please, you think your property taxes are going up because of welfare and food stamps. You live in some selfish, US fantasy world where all the poor people are out to get you and harass you in the street to steal the money from your wallet to buy booze.

Pantless I have never even implied all the poor are lazy drunks trying to take my money. Most people in the US welfare system need the help for what ever reason. However their are people who abuse the system and out right cheat it. These are the people that this program is going after.
I work in a grocery store (No I am not rich by any means) and I see a lot of people going through the line that use and need food stamps. I also see a fair number of people who use food stamps buying steaks, shrimp, and even lobster. These seem to be the same people who are driving newer cars and have the higher end cell phones.
I do not want to see anyone go after the person trying to feed their three kids and driving a car as old as they are.
We do have to do something to at least curb the abuse.

Pantless I have never even implied all the poor are lazy drunks trying to take my money
Yet you have.

Most people in the US welfare system need the help for what ever reason. However their are people who abuse the system and out right cheat it. These are the people that this program is going after.
Right. So because some black people commit crimes, all black people commit crimes and should therefore be locked up. I think we did this once with the Japanese Americans...

I do not want to see anyone go after the person trying to feed their three kids and driving a car as old as they are.
And yet you have no problem with it

We do have to do something to at least curb the abuse.
Then let them do background checks. Why should people who apply for welfare have their houses raided to get welfare? Why can't background checks substitute?

Yet you have.


Right. So because some black people commit crimes, all black people commit crimes and should therefore be locked up. I think we did this once with the Japanese Americans...
Are you trying to imply I am racist? Sorry that will not fly with me.


And yet you have no problem with it
I have a huge problem with the poor all over the world not just in this country. I have clearly stated that I have no problem helping the people who need it.


Then let them do background checks. Why should people who apply for welfare have their houses raided to get welfare? Why can't background checks substitute?

Because the back round checks they do are not working. Please if you have a better Idea lets hear it.

Because the back round checks they do are not working.
Do you even know that they are performing background checks?

Please if you have a better Idea lets hear it.
Better idea than home invasion? I could have better ideas than that while in a coma.

Do you even know that they are performing background checks?

Because I know several people on welfare and Food stamps and New York State did backround checks on ALL of them. I helped them fill out the forms that is how I know.

Because I know several people on welfare and Food stamps and New York State did backround checks on ALL of them. I helped them fill out the forms that is how I know.
Ok, did DK make a new name or what?

Then the system should be changed slightly to hamper fraud. And if the caseworker or state is fucking up payments, you can't not expect an American to take advantage of it.

Yet if anyone suggests we implement this nationwide for firearms, pro-gun advocates get their panties in a bunch and the NRA starts paying its lobbyists overtime.

You're exactly right and the reason is way beyond your ability to comprehend.

Hint: Think of the difference between natural rights and privileges.

Yet if anyone suggests we implement this nationwide for firearms, pro-gun advocates get their panties in a bunch and the NRA starts paying its lobbyists overtime.

You know, this merely shows that the US firearm lobby is more powerful than the US car lobby.

You're exactly right and the reason is way beyond your ability to comprehend.

Hint: Think of the difference between natural rights and privileges.

Ehm... once it's been established by law, getting welfare money isn't a privilege, it's a right.

Also, the "natural" rights... well, maybe you'd better call them "constitutional" rights for the sake of clearer understanding; they're given by the Constitution, like the right to bear arms.

"Natural" rights, well, that's maybe for the rights established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the US signed that, too). Btw, I'm quite sure that you could find a lots of things therein that suggest that it is a right of the poor people to receive some kind of welfare support.

Maybe the people should demand that their government should not be able to classify infomation and allow their premises to be searched as a precondition to receipt of taxes.

We don't want them fighting no false wars, embezzleing money or anything like like

Ever hear of common law marriage? I'm sure there are a dozen different things that can be lied about on an application, but easily verified by a home visit.

Good point, but if you suspect from evidence or reports that someone has a common-law spouse, that's probable cause. Get a warrant.

Ok let me answer your points Pantless Hero
1)Yes I know the searches will not be free but if in the long run they can save money then they can be worth it.
2)Our school taxes are seperate in New York and they did NOT go up 41%. when the tax hike in 2006 happened the major reason given by our Mayor was the rising cost of Government support programs.
3)I have never said everything must be free. I do not mind paying my fair share and helping the people who truly need it. The people I have a problem with are the ones who abuse the system.
4) Yes is a way it is blackmail, but should not people taking the Governments money be held accountable.
5) The Government can and will look into your records and invade your privacy for a host of things. Let me give an true example. One home owner in my City refused to let the property tax assessor on to his property to figure the value of his home for tax year 2006. The assessor raised his assessment from $112,000 to $175,000 ( the actual sale value of the house was about $145,000) Seeing the man was trying to sell the property the new assessment killed any hope of selling the house. (One I was looking to buy at the time.)

Let me be honest I do not like the Idea of going into peoples homes for any reason. However something has to be done to lower welfare costs and get the people who can work and contribute to society back in the work force.

Please. He got off light.

Ehm... once it's been established by law, getting welfare money isn't a privilege, it's a right.
okay, where's my welfare money?

also, my 4 year old would like her driver's license now, and my 5 year old would also like her teaching certificate.

and my 5 year old would also like her teaching certificate.
Might as well. Teaching is a joke major, more than most. You should have to major in the subject you plan to teach then take maybe a couple classes that teach you the stuff you the bureaucratic stuff you have to know.

Might as well. Teaching is a joke major, more than most. You should have to major in the subject you plan to teach then take maybe a couple classes that teach you the stuff you the bureaucratic stuff you have to know.

Psychology: Intro/Survey
Psychology: Growth and the Learner (infants to adolescence)
Psychology: Adolescent Psychology

Education: Intro/Survey/History
Education: Current Methods/Materials
Education: Reading in the Content Field
Education: Multiculturalism
Education: Education Issues and Law
Education: Practicum (Observation)
Education: Practicum II (Student Teaching)

Special Education: Intro/History
Special Education: Exceptionalities

Maintain a 3.0 gpa or above.

SUBJECT (In my case, music. "Methods" = learning to teach an instrument whether or not you play it.)

Music: Intro/Survey
Music: Music History (full year)
Music: Music Theory (two years)
Music: Counterpoint
Music: Percussion Methods
Music: Low Brass Methods
Music: High Brass Methods
Music: Low Strings Methods
Music: High Strings Methods
Music: Single Reed Methods
Music: Double Reed & Flute Methods
Music: General Music Class Methods (Elementary Music Ed.)
Music: Choral Methods (Secondary)
Music: Instrumental (Band) Methods (Secondary)
Music: Conducting I
Music: Conducting II
Music: Vocal Pedagogy
Music: Diction

You could also choose EITHER instrumental OR choral, but that meant adding a minor and related education courses because at the time I was an undergrad, you needed two state endorsements to earn a certificate.

Oh, and all that was in addition to my lessons (voice, for me), and the juries you needed to pass in order to get to a minimum performance level (the 3rd level of four, which meant a jury consisting of two pieces sing for the jury taken from a list of 12, all of which must be memorized and in four languages besides English)

Oh, yeah, you had to be in a performance ensemble all four years and two of those years had to be in an auditioned ensemble if you wanted the education degree.

Did I mention that the standard liberal arts "basic and breadth" courses were also included? Y'know, college algebra or stats, two lab sciences, two social sciences, two history, stuff like that?

Maintain a 3.2 gpa or above.

Pal, I had well over 135 credits (quarter system) by the time I was done. The requirements changed twice in my time at university, neither time did they lessen save for removing "reading in the content field" (which we successfully lobbied to have removed because that's what we do in our ensembles) AFTER I'd taken it.

So you can take that "joke major" crap and blow it out your ass, junior.

I apologize for the tone, but people who don't know what they're talking about trying to talk shit about my major really angers me.

It should have been protested, quite loudly.

To be honest, gun ownership was the first comparison that popped through my mind. Gun owners should not have to suffer government agents searching their house to ensure compliance with government policy, and neither should poor people. The comparison fails, however, because gun ownership is a right while welfare is not, as Daistallia 2104 pointed out.

Your example is better because it ties government subsidies with a right. And it creates the same environment. A person living in subsidised housing could then expect the government arbitrarily searching their house for firearms, even if they never wanted to own one.

Like I said before, being poor isn't a crime, but it might as well be.

This I agree with wholeheartedly.

You are correct. I don't want you driving if you can't prove to the government that you can see well enough to do so. So then it becomes a question of how much intrusion into the individual's life can be considered warranted under the circumstances. To me it becomes a question of potential harm.

Your reckless driving while blind can potentially cause you and the rest of us more harm than the harm caused by invading your privacy enough to conduct an eye test. I would think that the harm to a person's life caused by a lack of privacy would be more than the harm caused by such a person if he or she was abusing welfare.

EDIT: If you want to see me elaborate a bit on my pragmatic solution to welfare, go here:
http://unmoderatedparadise.forumsplace.com/message-124-0-asc-30.html

Education is a big one. Ending the HUGE government subsidies to corporations, which is a vacuum of the poor and middle classes taxes and direct deposirt into the corpo-facists pockets is another.

That's because a driver's license, for example, implies that this person will be allowed to own and use a device that is potentially dangerous and directly life-threatening to other people if misused or used by a person that doesn't meet some physiological requirements (imagine lamented Ray Charles driving a Ferrari).

Being given public welfare money doesn't pose a direct threat to other people's life. If this money was given as result of an appliant's false statement, then this misdemeanor/felony should be prosecuted. Requesting that the appliant subjects himself to a full-fledged home searching, however, is like giving the burden of proof on the defence, and not on the accusation's side. This means that there is the assumption of guilt, instead of the assumption of innocence, and this is clearly against the philosophy of right of all western countries.

The argument of an illegal search does apply in the case that mentioned in my I original reply - if they are turning over evidence to the police. And, in this particular case, having dug a bit deeper, it seems that agent's of the DA's office were being used instead of social workers. In which case, I withdraw any support I gave before.

Also, at this point, I'll point out that the following portion of the dissenting opinion, which can be summarised as "it's not fair because we don't require other welfare recivers to undergo such searches, to be the most compelling argument against this.

This is especially atrocious in light of the fact that we do not require similar intrusions into the homes and lives of others who receive
government entitlements. The government does not search
through the closets and medicine cabinets of farmers receiving
subsidies. They do not dig through the laundry baskets
and garbage pails of real estate developers or radio broadcasters.
The overwhelming majority of recipients of government
benefits are not the poor, and yet this is the group we require
to sacrifice their dignity and their right to privacy. This situation
is shameful.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D478EC5766E7EE71882572BF00579B90/$file/0455122o.pdf?openelement

Heh. I agree. Subject ALL welfare recipiants to an audit of their spending. We can start with Hallburton....

In San Diego welfare recipients will now be getting their houses searched. The case was refused to be heard again by the Federal Court in San Francisco. So you can bet that stuff like this will began popping up all over the country.
Here is a link to article (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071607I.shtml)


Why do they think this is necessary? Is it a crime now to be poor? They are going to cause alot of problems for themselves if they pursue this.

This I agree with wholeheartedly.



Education is a big one. Ending the HUGE government subsidies to corporations, which is a vacuum of the poor and middle classes taxes and direct deposirt into the corpo-facists pockets is another.



The argument of an illegal search does apply in the case that mentioned in my I original reply - if they are turning over evidence to the police. And, in this particular case, having dug a bit deeper, it seems that agent's of the DA's office were being used instead of social workers. In which case, I withdraw any support I gave before.

Also, at this point, I'll point out that the following portion of the dissenting opinion, which can be summarised as "it's not fair because we don't require other welfare recivers to undergo such searches, to be the most compelling argument against this.


http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D478EC5766E7EE71882572BF00579B90/$file/0455122o.pdf?openelement

Heh. I agree. Subject ALL welfare recipiants to an audit of their spending. We can start with Hallburton ....


Now you are talking sense, then continue with an audit of Bush.

Now you are talking sense, then continue with an audit of Bush.

If one pays attention, I usually do. I usually have rather subtlely worded and quite tightwire walking positions, and that makes for fun when people approach them with the standard NSG Hammer of Unsubtlety.

For example here: Searches are OK, but not police searches.

Originally Posted by Risottia
Ehm... once it's been established by law, getting welfare money isn't a privilege, it's a right.


Being Rich is a priviledge not getting welfare.

If one pays attention, I usually do. I usually have rather subtlely worded and quite tightwire walking positions, and that makes for fun when people approach them with the standard NSG Hammer of Unsubtlety.

For example here: Searches are OK, but not police searches.

Police searches are ok with a warrent .... problem is when the Police don't want to bother with a warrent they try to scare you into agreeing to a search without one by asking you what you have to hide.

Originally Posted by Risottia
Ehm... once it's been established by law, getting welfare money isn't a privilege, it's a right.


Being Rich is a priviledge not getting welfare.


I think the question should be changed to ....


Do rich people deserve privacy?

I think the question should be changed to ....


Do rich people deserve privacy?


I mean their the ones that started all the secret clubs and organizations. Makes me wonder what they are trying to hide from the rest of the world?

I think this is perfectly reasonable. I think that if the American Middle Class's right not to have their money taken away to pay for these people is taken away, then these people should have their right to privacy revoked so that the American Middle Class can be sure that their hard earned cash is at least spent arightly.

*snip*
Congratulations, you took alot of music classes.

Show me a math teacher that has a BS in math or an English teacher with their English BA and I will show you some people who didn't plan to be teachers.

I think this is perfectly reasonable. I think that if the American Middle Class's right not to have their money taken away to pay for these people is taken away, then these people should have their right to privacy revoked so that the American Middle Class can be sure that their hard earned cash is at least spent arightly.


I am middle class and I know for a fact that privacy is a right to " ALL " american citizens, including the poor!

I'd argue that it's more akin to being audited by the IRS, than to a common police search.

I think the question should be changed to ....


Do rich people deserve privacy?

It's called being audited.

I am middle class and I know for a fact that privacy is a right to " ALL " american citizens, including the poor!

Why should I be forced to pay for the poor with absolutely no expectations of being able to ensure that that money is at least used aright?

Why should I be forced to pay for the poor with absolutely no expectations of being able to ensure that that money is at least used aright?
I don't know, how's your faith in the education funding system?

I don't know, how's your faith in the education funding system?

Depends on whether the place in question is a union area or not. I have no love for unions.

Depends on whether the place in question is a union area or not. I have no love for unions.
So you are just a neocon touting party line for the sake of it? Long as we cleared that up...

To those FOR the illegal searches and seizures of the poor:

you know, it's interesting that the social programs that YOU pay for that also benefit you are not even being touched upon in this forum, because you take them for granted

but the social programs that help the poor that DOESN'T affect you, well you're up in arms about how it's YOUR money being spent on lazy so and so's


what about the fire department? should the government search EVERYONE'S houses to make sure people aren't putting handtowels on stoves, or leaving fires unattended in their fireplaces? after all, if we're all paying for a FIRE PROGRAM, don't we want to make sure everyone is doing everything they can to avoid a fire? we wouldn't want people to abuse the PRIVILEGE of having a publicly funded (that means YOUR tax dollars, the same that are spent on welfare) fire station down the road by not taking measures to avoid fires now would we?


or wait, you DO view the fire department as a right, and you DON'T think that your house should be searched to make sure you comply with all the city and state fire codes

well how do you like that


but hell, you're not poor, so who the hell cares, right? I mean, we can't disenfranchise EVERYONE, but we can disenfranchise a select margin of society, so why not the poor? Hell, we've been able to do everything else to them, dissolve their unions, take away their firearms, lessen their ability to take constitutional issues to court by forcing them to cough up money in order to file a suit, the list goes on

tis the american way


sleep well firefighters, sleep well

what about the fire department? should the government search EVERYONE'S houses to make sure people aren't putting handtowels on stoves, or leaving fires unattended in their fireplaces? after all, if we're all paying for a FIRE PROGRAM, don't we want to make sure everyone is doing everything they can to avoid a fire? we wouldn't want people to abuse the PRIVILEGE of having a publicly funded (that means YOUR tax dollars, the same that are spent on welfare) fire station down the road by not taking measures to avoid fires now would we? No, they have enough incentive in most cases not to do that, not only that but even if they were doing that, the fire would still have to be put out. The fire department cannot effectively not put out a fire as it will also quickly end up impacting the citizens that are not involved no matter what the virtue of these people happen to be, the current situation isn't related.


or wait, you DO view the fire department as a right, and you DON'T think that your house should be searched to make sure you comply with all the city and state fire codes

well how do you like that

No, the fire department isn't a right, it is a matter of pragmatics. If we didn't have it then half the town would burn down killing all sorts of people. If there weren't these matters of externalities then we could simply see this as a matter to be insured for. Not only that but most people DON'T WANT their houses to burn down, meaning that investigations of corruption are only necessary if the matter is suspicious, and these investigations do happen at those times.

In all honesty, I don't care much for entire debate, but I don't like people comparing apples to oranges to call out about some injustice.

No, they have enough incentive in most cases not to do that, not only that but even if they were doing that, the fire would still have to be put out. The fire department cannot effectively not put out a fire as it will also quickly end up impacting the citizens that are not involved no matter what the virtue of these people happen to be, the current situation isn't related.


do you really think that one poor person who cannot afford to feed their family is not a spill over affect? Do you really think that we are not connected enough that just as a fire would spread and affect a town, so would a homeless person?



No, the fire department isn't a right, it is a matter of pragmatics. If we didn't have it then half the town would burn down killing all sorts of people.

doesn't matter, it's still not something that's afforded to us in the constitution. the fire department could just as easily be PRIVATIZED, meaning you would have to pay them UP FRONT for their services. but it's not, it's a socialized government program that EVERYONE pays for through taxes

I mean their the ones that started all the secret clubs and organizations. Makes me wonder what they are trying to hide from the rest of the world?

You mean besides wearing clothes made from the skins of orphans, wink-wink prostitution and indentured servitude, and the hideous effects of chronic inbreeding?

Congratulations, you took alot of music classes.

Despite your dismissive ignorance, I'll inform you. I didn't "take" those classes. Each one was required. I planned to be a teacher and became one.

Show me a math teacher that has a BS in math or an English teacher with their English BA and I will show you some people who didn't plan to be teachers.

You're right, they didn't plan. Because most states won't allow you to teach with just a BS/BA in a subject. You're thinking of emergency certification, which is a year-to-year thing subject to completing the educational sequence at an accredited university.

I'd argue that it's more akin to being audited by the IRS, than to a common police search.

You would? Well, that's fine, but do you know? If they're truly searching drawers for boxers as evidence of a live-in man, well, I've never heard of an IRS auditor doing that.

Depends on whether the place in question is a union area or not. I have no love for unions.

What's that got to do with the quality of education in any given area?

Y'know what, skip it. You can't answer it without tap-dancing, and you haven't got the shoes.

Welfare is not a 'right' - it is nothing more than state funded and directed charity. The government is well within its rights to demand whatever provisions to prevent fraud or to target that spending as it sees fit. Much like donating to a charity - I have every right to demand that my money be spent on specific things and that there is sufficient transparency for me to see exactly where the money is going.

In both cases, welfare recipients or charities, if you do not want to subject yourself to the required oversight and restrictions, do not take the money.

I don't know, how's your faith in the education funding system?

Government education budgets are public documents, board of education meetings are public, and elected officials oversee the school system. There is both transparency and a means of changing the system with occasional elections.

Make welfare recipients have an itemized budget available to everyone, and a political process to withdraw that funding if the voting public disagrees with those spending decisions, and then I will accept a comparison to the public school system.

Welfare is not a 'right' - it is nothing more than state funded and directed charity. The government is well within its rights to demand whatever provisions to prevent fraud or to target that spending as it sees fit. Much like donating to a charity - I have every right to demand that my money be spent on specific things and that there is sufficient transparency for me to see exactly where the money is going.

In both cases, welfare recipients or charities, if you do not want to subject yourself to the required oversight and restrictions, do not take the money.

Nobody has the right to violate the Fourth Amendment. Get a warrant, get probable cause, or get stuffed.

You would? Well, that's fine, but do you know? If they're truly searching drawers for boxers as evidence of a live-in man, well, I've never heard of an IRS auditor doing that.




Fraud is fraud is fraud, some forms merely require different methods of detection than others.

Now, I would say that the method that is being used is not the appropriate way to handle it. Social workers should be used to audit welfare recipients, not the police, and they should do it slightly less directly. Instead welfare recipients should work directly with a social worker who is there to help them improve their lives, and the social worker ought to be obligated to guarantee that fraud is not currently be carried out.

What's that got to do with the quality of education in any given area?

Y'know what, skip it. You can't answer it without tap-dancing, and you haven't got the shoes.

In Union areas, they tend to waste a lot of money. For example, I hear that, in certain places, janitors get paid out their ass, and they don't even have to do their jobs.

In Union areas, they tend to waste a lot of money. For example, I hear that, in certain places, janitors get paid out their ass, and they don't even have to do their jobs.

You "hear" that, do you? Any sources? I mean legitimate sources at ALL?

do you really think that one poor person who cannot afford to feed their family is not a spill over affect? Do you really think that we are not connected enough that just as a fire would spread and affect a town, so would a homeless person?
Nope. Yep. We are individuals who exist in our own communities that often can be so separate that many of us will never know about this person and many never care. Really though, given that the argument isn't against removing insurance, I don't see what the issue is, if he is so poor then he would accept the invasion as a fair deal.(note: I do not mean he will love us for doing this, but the conditions will be accepted by him)


doesn't matter, it's still not something that's afforded to us in the constitution. the fire department could just as easily be PRIVATIZED, meaning you would have to pay them UP FRONT for their services. but it's not, it's a socialized government program that EVERYONE pays for through taxes
No, it really couldn't be. That just results in problems. As stated, there are significant externalities involving a fire, the major one being that the fire will spread. I know it can be paid up front, but there is still a major externality as fire spreads. If it were simple to privatize I would privatize it, but it is not something that I can see a good privatization solution to. Perhaps you know economics better than I do and can explain the privatizability of fire departments to me, but really, the externalities involved are somewhat major. Frankly, pragmatics matter a lot, any disproof of this statement requires a lot better argumentation. In all honesty, most people put pragmatism as a value in government whether on the left or the right, although some put other values higher, but they are somewhat rare.

Nobody has the right to violate the Fourth Amendment. Get a warrant, get probable cause, or get stuffed.

It is not a 4th amendment violation if they consent to the search.
They give that consent when they agree to the terms and conditions of receiving money from the government. So long as they consent, it is perfectly legal to conduct a search without a warrant, as you have permission of the resident.

Just to get you people off the firefighter garbage - welfare and firefighting is not comparable.

If you want to force the comparison, then you have to look at the full process.

When a house is built, it has to pass inspection to ensure that it conforms to building codes - thus avoiding fires from improperly wired housing and such (thus the initial screening for eligibility to receive welfare). Additionally, when there is a fire (when the welfare recipient receives money), the fire department always investigates the cause of the fire. Sometimes this is truly accidental, sometimes not - if not, it is a criminal offense. To make the comparison, you must agree that every welfare case should be investigated thoroughly to determine that the individual is not defrauding the government.

It is not a 4th amendment violation if they consent to the search.
They give that consent when they agree to the terms and conditions of receiving money from the government. So long as they consent, it is perfectly legal to conduct a search without a warrant, as you have permission of the resident.

Oh, ok. It's not illegal if one has no choice but to agree to an illegal search. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. :rolleyes:

I'd argue that it's more akin to being audited by the IRS, than to a common police search.

The searches in this case were being carried out by investagators from DA's office, ie police. Furthermore, evidence of crime was being used against the parties searched.

If it were simply an audit, it would have been carried out by social workers from the welfare department.

In all honesty, I don't care much for entire debate, but I don't like people comparing apples to oranges to call out about some injustice.

Much of this discussion has been buried under false analogies and strawmen.

Welfare is not a 'right' - it is nothing more than state funded and directed charity.

Agreed. Note that this includes corporate and middle class welfare as well.

The government is well within its rights to demand whatever provisions to prevent fraud or to target that spending as it sees fit. Much like donating to a charity - I have every right to demand that my money be spent on specific things and that there is sufficient transparency for me to see exactly where the money is going.

In both cases, welfare recipients or charities, if you do not want to subject yourself to the required oversight and restrictions, do not take the money.

Indeed. This does not however warrent warrentless searches by the police. A search ny the welfare agency is certainly in order, but not one by those with police powers who are passing on evidence regarding unrelated matters.

Now, I would say that the method that is being used is not the appropriate way to handle it. Social workers should be used to audit welfare recipients, not the police, and they should do it slightly less directly. Instead welfare recipients should work directly with a social worker who is there to help them improve their lives, and the social worker ought to be obligated to guarantee that fraud is not currently be carried out.

Bingo.

It is not a 4th amendment violation if they consent to the search.
They give that consent when they agree to the terms and conditions of receiving money from the government. So long as they consent, it is perfectly legal to conduct a search without a warrant, as you have permission of the resident.

A police search requires probable cause. Applying for welfare is not probable cause to assume fraud.