On August 28 2011 17:45 Quagmire wrote: isnt welfare a right? who cares what ppl do with the welfare they get?
Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
I want those seeking welfare to possess not the smallest luxury, nor do I want them to partake in any recreational activity.
I'm not saying that they should have no luxuries at all, but they certainly shouldn't be spending government money to get high -.-
(Unless your sarcasm was completely literal... its hard to read expressions in words) -.-
But yeah I don't think this is in the best interests of the treasury
I would love to see something like this implimented in canada. Even if 4% of the people on welfare use it to support a drug habit then those 4% should be cut off.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
...for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
40,800 < 178,000,000
The drug testing program doesn't cost that. Welfare programs are what costs the 178 million. The point they were trying to make is that the money saved by this program will be only pennies compared to the total welfare budget. A fair point, but the fact remains that it may save money from the state budget.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400
Read the next couple dozen words immediately after that statement.
...for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
40,800 < 178,000,000
The drug testing program doesn't cost that. Welfare programs are what costs the 178 million. The point they were trying to make is that the money saved by this program will be only pennies compared to the total welfare budget. A fair point, but the fact remains that it may save money from the state budget.
Those "savings" you mention do not include to cost of implementing the drug testing program. As there are a few lines later that state "The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings".
As it is as of yet uncalculated, it is impossible to deduct from the savings. Do you think that this program will cost less than 90k a year?
On August 28 2011 18:19 BlackJack wrote: The drug testing program doesn't cost that. Welfare programs are what costs the 178 million. The point they were trying to make is that the money saved by this program will be only pennies compared to the total welfare budget. A fair point, but the fact remains that it may save money from the state budget.
You're right. But they calculated the numbers using only the cost of the drug test, not the cost of distribution or administration. They'd have to staff with less than six people paid minumum wage, which is not going to happen.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
The US government doesn't really have a great track record with their finances...but anyways on topic. The government should not care even if this is costing them $1mil a month. The point is it will weed out the leeches and THAT is a good thing. When everybody stops abusing the system, gets off their arses and gets employment and can actually start contributing to society then the benefits will be realised. You gotta take away a bit to gain ground.
On August 28 2011 17:45 Quagmire wrote: isnt welfare a right? who cares what ppl do with the welfare they get?
Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
I want those seeking welfare to possess not the smallest luxury, nor do I want them to partake in any recreational activity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of welfare to help unfortunate people back on their feet in times of need? It's not a fallback to keep getting by and not try to improve your life. It certainly wasn't created so those people that have ruined their lives through addiction can keep scoring, at the cost of their health and taxpayers money. Even a minimum wage job will afford you the basic necessities to live reasonably.
On August 28 2011 18:29 exShikari wrote: The US government doesn't really have a great track record with their finances...but anyways on topic. The government should not care even if this is costing them $1mil a month. The point is it will weed out the leeches and THAT is a good thing. When everybody stops abusing the system, gets off their arses and gets employment and can actually start contributing to society then the benefits will be realised. You gotta take away a bit to gain ground.
I know this is difficult to understand, but YOU would be throwing away MY tax dollars if the cost was higher than the revenue. Unless you have proof that your theory is true, your statement is outright malicious to people who pay money to the government.
On August 28 2011 18:29 exShikari wrote: Even a minimum wage job will afford you the basic necessities to live reasonably.
This is simply untrue in the United States. Minimum Wage in Washington State(highest minimum wage in USA) is about $18033.60 per year. This is not enough to live reasonably in most areas.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400
Read the next couple dozen words immediately after that statement.
...for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
40,800 < 178,000,000
The drug testing program doesn't cost that. Welfare programs are what costs the 178 million. The point they were trying to make is that the money saved by this program will be only pennies compared to the total welfare budget. A fair point, but the fact remains that it may save money from the state budget.
Those "savings" you mention do not include to cost of implementing the drug testing program. As there are a few lines later that state "The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings".
As it is as of yet uncalculated, it is impossible to deduct from the savings. Do you think that this program will cost less than 90k a year?
Shrug, I can't speculate on that but I'd rather have money going to the DCF than to drug addicts
On August 28 2011 18:36 BlackJack wrote: Shrug, I can't speculate on that but I'd rather have money going to the DCF than to drug addicts
Because those are clearly the only two options where money can go. Spending the cash on cancer research or celiac's disease or something else productive seems like a better idea than throwing the cash down a hole.
On August 28 2011 18:29 exShikari wrote: Even a minimum wage job will afford you the basic necessities to live reasonably.
This is simply untrue in the United States. Minimum Wage in Washington State(highest minimum wage in USA) is about $18033.60 per year. This is not enough to live reasonably in most areas.
Ok I knew it was low compared to Australia, but not that low. Here it's ~$30k annually which is doable. I agree under $20k is not.
On August 28 2011 18:29 exShikari wrote: The US government doesn't really have a great track record with their finances...but anyways on topic. The government should not care even if this is costing them $1mil a month. The point is it will weed out the leeches and THAT is a good thing. When everybody stops abusing the system, gets off their arses and gets employment and can actually start contributing to society then the benefits will be realised. You gotta take away a bit to gain ground.
I know this is difficult to understand, but YOU would be throwing away MY tax dollars if the cost was higher than the revenue. Unless you have proof that your theory is true, your statement is outright malicious to people who pay money to the government.
You're missing my point entirely. I'm not being malicious to taxpayers, quite the opposite. The govt. can't just give money to whoever asks for it, that is how they will end up worse off.
This may be difficult for YOU to understand, seeing as you want to make this personal, but it doesn't matter if you lose money for even the next ten years, if it stops the current cycle then that's a good thing. In twenty years the country and its citizens will be far better off and isn't that the whole point of a welfare system?
On August 28 2011 18:46 exShikari wrote: You're missing my point entirely. I'm not being malicious to taxpayers, quite the opposite. The govt. can't just give money to whoever asks for it, that is how they will end up worse off.
This may be difficult for YOU to understand, seeing as you want to make this personal, but it doesn't matter if you lose money for even the next ten years, if it stops the current cycle then that's a good thing. In twenty years the country and its citizens will be far better off and isn't that the whole point of a welfare system?
Do you have any proof that it would stop the drug cycle for even six weeks...and that the drug cycle would stay stopped without further policing? We've been trying for a century, have you come up with a miraculous solution supported by evidence?
If not then yes, you are being malicious to taxpayers. Your first sentence even sounds suspiciously like ideology, not cost savings.
There certainly are ways to reduce drug usage in a given population, but the vast majority of attempts target the next generation: children. It's relatively cheap, easy to do, and you can make it mandatory. Much more difficult and expensive to do on adults for obvious reasons.
On August 28 2011 18:46 exShikari wrote: You're missing my point entirely. I'm not being malicious to taxpayers, quite the opposite. The govt. can't just give money to whoever asks for it, that is how they will end up worse off.
This may be difficult for YOU to understand, seeing as you want to make this personal, but it doesn't matter if you lose money for even the next ten years, if it stops the current cycle then that's a good thing. In twenty years the country and its citizens will be far better off and isn't that the whole point of a welfare system?
Do you have any proof that it would stop the drug cycle for even six weeks...and that the drug cycle would stay stopped without further policing? We've been trying for a century, have you come up with a miraculous solution supported by evidence?
If not then yes, you are being malicious to taxpayers. Your first sentence even sounds suspiciously like ideology, not cost savings.
There certainly are ways to reduce drug usage in a given population, but the vast majority of attempts target the next generation: children. It's relatively cheap, easy to do, and you can make it mandatory.
Ideology lolwut, it seems you're reading into it too much. No I don't have a miracle cure, but this has to start somewhere. By not doing anything you're pretty much saying it's ok for these people to carry on as they are, which it isn't. Cut them off from their money and they can't get their drugs.
I agree that the best way to reduce drug use is to target the next gen, but that doesn't mean something still can't be done about the current generation. For what it's worth I absolutely believe drugs are ok, and weed should at least be decriminalised. It's just the people with low self-control that take a ride on the downward spiral.
And the employees required to submit to a drug test before receiving the job, what's that? Work for pay, and you gotta submit to one, don't work, and it's overstepping the bounds? Didn't see that on the IRS form, where I put down if I received my wages after having consented to a drug test. Didn't see the check box under it when I decide if the taxed income goes to clean welfare recipients or drug users.
Yet if anybody can screw this one up, it's government-administered drug tests. And this would be just a baby step in the broader view of welfare reform.
On August 28 2011 18:36 BlackJack wrote: Shrug, I can't speculate on that but I'd rather have money going to the DCF than to drug addicts
Because those are clearly the only two options where money can go. Spending the cash on cancer research or celiac's disease or something else productive seems like a better idea than throwing the cash down a hole.
Or even simply not spending the money.
Still hasn't even been proven that this will be costing money
On August 28 2011 19:04 exShikari wrote: Ideology lolwut, it seems you're reading into it too much. No I don't have a miracle cure, but this has to start somewhere. By not doing anything you're pretty much saying it's ok for these people to carry on as they are, which it isn't. Cut them off from their money and they can't get their drugs.
Or, since the cost to the taxpayer is almost certainly higher than the savings, the money could be used elsewhere to benefit, not loss.
You haven't posted any evidence to the contrary, that the long term will break a century-old cycle of drug use and generate savings. It's just as correct for me to say that the drug junkies cut off from welfare will turn to crime instead, destroying private property and murdering innocents to fuel their drug addiction. That is to say, it's completely unproven until evidence is presented.
Still hasn't even been proven that this will be costing money
You want to believe administration and distribution will cost less than 90k in wages and man-hours for the entire state of Florida, go ahead. I warn you though, wages paid to an average Macdonalds' staff would break that budget
How is drug testing people to receive a public service constitutional? Imagine if they did that for driving on the highway, to get your child tax credit, or collect Social Security.
On August 28 2011 19:04 exShikari wrote: Ideology lolwut, it seems you're reading into it too much. No I don't have a miracle cure, but this has to start somewhere. By not doing anything you're pretty much saying it's ok for these people to carry on as they are, which it isn't. Cut them off from their money and they can't get their drugs.
Or, since the cost to the taxpayer is almost certainly higher than the savings, the money could be used elsewhere to benefit, not loss.
You haven't posted any evidence to the contrary, that the long term will break a century-old cycle of drug use and generate savings. It's just as correct for me to say that the drug junkies cut off from welfare will turn to crime instead, destroying private property and murdering innocents to fuel their drug addiction. That is to say, it's completely unproven until evidence is presented.
On August 28 2011 19:04 exShikari wrote: I agree that the best way to reduce drug use is to target the next gen, but that doesn't mean something still can't be done about the current generation. For what it's worth I absolutely believe drugs are ok, and weed should at least be decriminalised. It's just the people with low self-control that take a ride on the downward spiral.
This is a clear example of how the money could be better spent; on economics 101 classes across Florida so people understand what an opportunity cost is.
Of course I haven't posted any evidence because no-one has the balls to actually take a chance and put faith in the system. Who gives a fuck if they turn to crime, I'm pretty sure that's what law enforcement is for. If a junkie chooses to steal to support their habit, rather than finding a job then that's their fuckup and no-one else is to blame. Common sense > economics.
EPT
