|
On August 29 2011 07:18 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 06:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 29 2011 06:35 zeppelin wrote:On August 29 2011 06:29 Yergidy wrote:
I don't see what the big fuss is about.. If you are getting government money for free the least you can do is take a drug test, and if you are doing drugs you apparently don't need the money because you are spending the money on drugs and aren't starving. Ok, let's drug-test every federal student loan, medicaid, medicare, and social security recipient then as well. I don't see the necessity the way I do in this case concerning welfare. Care to explain this reasoning? In the case of welfare it has to do with saving money. Somebody else pulled the figures a few pages back. Drug tests for welfare recipients cuts significant expenses over 12 month periods. The government is forced to reimburse those who passed their drug tests for the cost of the testing. So far, enough people are passing the drug tests that the cost of reimbursing all of the people who passed is greater than the amount of money that is saved by forcing the people who failed to forfeit their benefits. Therefore, this program costs the government more money than if the program had never been implemented. Here is an investigative report about it http://www.wftv.com/news/28908436/detail.html. If the program is a net loss of taxpayer money, and the stated purpose of the program is to save taxpayers money, then the program should either be terminated or the stated purpose of the program is not accurate.
Hmm, that seems to contradict what I read here:
On August 28 2011 18:12 acker wrote:This is what math is for. http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/Show nested quote +Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.
Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year. That said, math itself is based on axioms that are unfalsifiable, like a=a or a+a=2a. So it's really still a matter of faith.
Now...
On August 29 2011 06:49 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 06:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 29 2011 06:35 zeppelin wrote:On August 29 2011 06:29 Yergidy wrote:
I don't see what the big fuss is about.. If you are getting government money for free the least you can do is take a drug test, and if you are doing drugs you apparently don't need the money because you are spending the money on drugs and aren't starving. Ok, let's drug-test every federal student loan, medicaid, medicare, and social security recipient then as well. I don't see the necessity the way I do in this case concerning welfare. Care to explain this reasoning? In the case of welfare it has to do with saving money. Somebody else pulled the figures a few pages back. Drug tests for welfare recipients cuts significant expenses over 12 month periods. With the exception of student loans, all those programs are basic welfare programs. If you're for testing poor people because you don't want to risk subsidizing drug use, why not old people? If you want to save money (which Florida's program isn't doing), testing the elderly is just as effective or ineffective. I actually think Zeppelin raised a pretty interesting question. What is confusing about this to you?
What is confusing about this to me? The fact that student loans, medicare, and medicaid don't cut you a blank check that can be cashed for whatever you want - for example, drugs. SS, perhaps, but including student loans, medicare, and medicaid is illogical for comparison's sake. What is confusing about that to you?
|
On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits.
You aren't entitled to Welfare, it is a benefit should you meet specific criteria. That simple fact renders your entire argument against this law invalid. Learn the definitions of Entitlement and Benefit before posting stupid ill informed arguments.
|
On August 29 2011 07:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:
What is confusing about this to me? The fact that student loans, medicare, and medicaid don't cut you a blank check that can be cashed for whatever you want - for example, drugs. SS, perhaps, but including student loans, medicare, and medicaid is illogical for comparison's sake. What is confusing about that to you?
If someone on medicaid who undergoes a $100 medical procedure at the taxpayer's expense and then turns around and spend $100 on drugs, they were able to offset their consumption of drugs with money that was given to them to spend on an expense they were already committed to. Just because some compensation isn't as transferable as direct cash payments doesn't mean it isn't as good as cash if that compensation is going to be used to offset what would have otherwise been cash spending.
|
On June 10 2011 04:42 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 04:31 RoosterSamurai wrote:On June 10 2011 04:29 Babyfactory wrote:
Unfortunately, as I'm completely against social programs to begin with, this is completely counter intuitive to the very nature of them. I'd prefer that we'd subsidize work ethic rather than poverty, but with the current system it's a terrible idea to put this type of a restriction on.
It's the role of society to take care of the individuals who needs the help, turning your back on them only gives them a chance to stick a knife in it. And enabling them to buy drugs without ever having to work or do anything productive is NOT helping them... And if they're not on drugs, then good! We can know that we're helping someone get back on their feet. I give homeless people booze because a full stomach doesn't make your living situation seem quite that bad. Would you want to be consciously aware that you were homeless? You have to give them an incentive to work, not to sit and collect. That's my problem with the current welfare system. Any money they spend will be spent "incorrectly", they're in poverty and on welfare for a reason. I'd rather audit people abusing the welfare system then improperly spending the money. The core issue here is that you can't tell someone how to spend their money, be it for the consumption and use of illicit substances or food for their family.. I don't care if they want to spend their money on drugs, booze, or prostitutes, it's their money once we give it to them. You can't tell someone how they can or can't spend their own money, regardless of how they obtained it. It's a slippery slope to say you have to go through a drug screening, the implications of this are huge and are met with the same shallow minded thinking of the people who use them. It's like putting a bandage on wound that's causing internal bleeding. It's not going to solve the problem. The implications of this are enormous and I'd argue serve to only either increase crime or exacerbate the poverty problem in Florida.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course the government/distributor of money should be able to determine what the money is used on. These programs are in place to help people in specific situations, not to just arbitrarily hand out money to anyone. The purpose is to help the poor with living expenses. Drugs are not included in living expenses, and tax payers should not have to support unhealthy and destructive habits like that. If anything, the government should issue cards instead of money, and track every purchase made with that money (because it was given to the people for a purpose by the government). Once you have said to society that you are incapable of taking care of yourself, you don't have the luxury of demanding privacy when it comes to what you're going to spend everyone else's EARNED money on.
Get a clue.
|
On August 29 2011 08:06 LuCiD37 wrote:
If anything, the government should issue cards instead of money, and track every purchase made with that money (because it was given to the people for a purpose by the government).
Get a clue.
Your proposal of creating an entire new government bureaucracy dedicated to telling poor people what they're allowed to buy shows that this was never about saving taxpayer money so much as it was about punishing poor people.
|
On August 29 2011 08:21 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 08:06 LuCiD37 wrote:
If anything, the government should issue cards instead of money, and track every purchase made with that money (because it was given to the people for a purpose by the government).
Get a clue. Your proposal of creating an entire new government bureaucracy dedicated to telling poor people what they're allowed to buy shows that this was never about saving taxpayer money so much as it was about punishing poor people.
It doesn't create a new bureaucracy. Also, requiring people who want a free handout from the government to take the same test as every single person who has a job had to take to get that job is punishing poor people?
That has to be the single most clueless and idiotic argument I have ever heard.
|
On August 29 2011 08:41 Dekoth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 08:21 zeppelin wrote:On August 29 2011 08:06 LuCiD37 wrote:
If anything, the government should issue cards instead of money, and track every purchase made with that money (because it was given to the people for a purpose by the government).
Get a clue. Your proposal of creating an entire new government bureaucracy dedicated to telling poor people what they're allowed to buy shows that this was never about saving taxpayer money so much as it was about punishing poor people. It doesn't create a new bureaucracy. Also, requiring people who want a free handout from the government to take the same test as every single person who has a job had to take to get that job is punishing poor people? That has to be the single most clueless and idiotic argument I have ever heard.
Oh, so all of the people who set up the infrastructure for issuing cards and tracking every purchase made by someone on welfare along with the people who will set up the IT, run the helpdesk, and manage these people, will work for free. Because it's not creating a new bureaucracy. That's a relief.
I don't think you're allowed to criticize other people for being clueless if you think an entire system for tracking and monitoring how millions of people spend their money doesn't require a substantial organizational investment.
|
On August 29 2011 06:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
It'll undoubtebly cost more money than it will save, but drug users will be more inclined to try and stop using drugs so they can get their welfare money, which is a good thing. If I give them money, I don't want them to use it on drugs, but instead only use it on necessities. I can see a lot of good coming from this, motivating people to stop using drugs might make it easier for them to get jobs and to stop living off of welfare altogether, it's a pretty good regulation.
Here in the Netherlands we have extremely generous welfare, you get 75% of your previous wage a month (if you earned minimum wage that's about €1000 or $1500 a month, but it can easily go up higher) from the government, which is plenty to continue living normally, but it is also very restricted. You have to have worked prior to receiving welfare, you have to constantly go to job interviews and get rejected for a reasonable reason (not "he showed up naked" but "he was not qualified") in order to continue receiving welfare. Welfare is not meant as a permanent source of income, it is meant as a temporary substitute in hard times. People without serious disabilities that prevent them from working should not be on welfare all their life, or even the majority of their life.
That is unemployment insurance, not welfare, they are two entirely different things (in Canada at least, we have both).
|
i am really surprised that this drug testing nonsense ever actually went through. this seems needlessly cruel, and perpetuates a stereotype about the poor. seriously, what is wrong with the us and florida in particular that would bring them to do this.
|
On August 29 2011 08:44 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 08:41 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 08:21 zeppelin wrote:On August 29 2011 08:06 LuCiD37 wrote:
If anything, the government should issue cards instead of money, and track every purchase made with that money (because it was given to the people for a purpose by the government).
Get a clue. Your proposal of creating an entire new government bureaucracy dedicated to telling poor people what they're allowed to buy shows that this was never about saving taxpayer money so much as it was about punishing poor people. It doesn't create a new bureaucracy. Also, requiring people who want a free handout from the government to take the same test as every single person who has a job had to take to get that job is punishing poor people? That has to be the single most clueless and idiotic argument I have ever heard. Oh, so all of the people who set up the infrastructure for issuing cards and tracking every purchase made by someone on welfare along with the people who will set up the IT, run the helpdesk, and manage these people, will work for free. Because it's not creating a new bureaucracy. That's a relief. I don't think you're allowed to criticize other people for being clueless if you think an entire system for tracking and monitoring how millions of people spend their money doesn't require a substantial organizational investment.
I have spent a time of my life years ago on government assistance unfortunately. I speak from experience when I state that infrastructure is already in place. This change required little to no reorganization to what they had.
So once again, your argument is both clueless and uninformed. Find a different soapbox on something you perhaps know something about.
|
Being a fiend was already 100x harder than any job I've ever worked, and now it's even worse. My heart goes out to all those affected.
|
I think this law is too idealistic. Sure, it's a good idea in theory that the government shouldn't be supporting people using drugs, but in practice it does not work because of the nature of drug addiction and the fact that we criminalize drug addicts, making it more difficult for them to actually gain employment if they get on the straight and narrow and depriving them of options for them to enter treatment. It's also a very invasive procedure for the government to actually collect your bodily fluid before giving you any sort of assistance. Ironic for a party who is dedicated to making the government a smaller part of your lives, but it is what it is I guess.
It completely ignores the reality of drug problems in urban areas and this will lead to more homelessness/crime and worsen the skid rows of many of Florida's rougher areas (as well as cause further splits between addicts and non addicts who do not want to run the risk of failing a drug test). It's not a solution to the problems plaguing the poor, and by ignoring it and washing their hands of it, the government is not doing anyone any favors.
|
Are the people who think this is a good thing, the same people who talk about "small government" all day? Freedom for everyone, except for the poor.
|
certain job require a drug screening to get hired. Both receiving social financial assistance and seeking employment should have the same characteristics. Creating a drug free society should alleviate a bigger problem such as freeing up time for police to catch murderers for example. I'm all for this initiative. I myself am very productive and also use drugs recreationally, so I don't see the connection to using drug tests and receiving social assistance, but it will help overall.
|
Politifact did a pretty good write-up on this subject, specifically related to a Rhode Island Rep who's apparently advocating a Florida-style system in her state.
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/aug/26/doreen-costa/rep-costa-says-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-wil/
Some highlights for those attention span-challenged:
"The short answer for Rhode Island is that, under the current system, no state money would be saved because "100 percent of the cash given to TANF recipients is federal money," said Fred Sneesby, spokesman for the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training.
Under current law, the federal government doesn't allow Rhode Island to keep any money it saves by denying benefits to people who test positive for drugs, Sneesby said.
Nor will the federal government pay for such testing."
"So what about the studies that, Costa claimed, showed costs savings in other states?
When we asked her to pinpoint them, she couldn't cite any. She said she had done her research by going on Ask.com and Google.com and posing the question, 'Will drug-testing welfare recipients save money?'"
"To sum up: Costa, when asked about her proposal to test welfare recipients for drugs, didn't predict specific savings for Rhode Island, only that "The studies have shown us that it will be saving us money."
But she was unable to produce any studies to back up that claim.
The ones we found showed that the costs to the state exceed any savings.
And Rhode Island can't save money by kicking people off the welfare rolls because federal funds finance the payments, and the federal government does not allow states to keep money saved through mandatory drug testing.
We rate her statement False."
|
On August 29 2011 09:38 dreamlogistics wrote: Creating a drug free society should alleviate a bigger problem such as freeing up time for police to catch murderers for example.
The War On Drugs - creating a drug free society since 1971.
Now, will somebody pass me the vodka?
If you want to free police time to catch murderers, legalisation would probably be your best bet.
|
On August 29 2011 06:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
It'll undoubtebly cost more money than it will save, but drug users will be more inclined to try and stop using drugs so they can get their welfare money, which is a good thing. If I give them money, I don't want them to use it on drugs, but instead only use it on necessities. I can see a lot of good coming from this, motivating people to stop using drugs might make it easier for them to get jobs and to stop living off of welfare altogether, it's a pretty good regulation.
Here in the Netherlands we have extremely generous welfare, you get 75% of your previous wage a month (if you earned minimum wage that's about €1000 or $1500 a month, but it can easily go up higher) from the government, which is plenty to continue living normally, but it is also very restricted. You have to have worked prior to receiving welfare, you have to constantly go to job interviews and get rejected for a reasonable reason (not "he showed up naked" but "he was not qualified") in order to continue receiving welfare. Welfare is not meant as a permanent source of income, it is meant as a temporary substitute in hard times. People without serious disabilities that prevent them from working should not be on welfare all their life, or even the majority of their life.
That's the problem with the US. The people on welfare see it as a permanent source of income.
On my Wife's side of the family, she has a cousin. This dirtbag cousin and the dirtbag boyfriend of hers are on welfare. Neither of them work, or even try to work. Actually, the guy gets a job and gets fired from it, so he can continue to collect without having to work. They have six (6) children, with plenty more on the way I am sure.
Oh, and the cousins parents are on welfare as well. They also own a brand new truck. I know it's new, because they have called me asking for a $550 dollar payment because they can't pay that month for whatever reason.
This is how the US views welfare. Because this is all it is.
|
Also there is a gross assumption that bny taking people out of welfare you area ctually goign to save money.
In uk it has been shown tiem and tiem again that the reason for welfare is that it SAVES money in the long run.
UIts a shit ton cheaper for welfare than prison. But then in the states it looks like they want about 50% of the population behind bars by 2050
|
This is brilliant.
No rights are being violated, in order to receive assistance that you have no inherent right to, you must first pass a test. Unlike voting, for example.
This is similar to the way certain federal government grants work, in order to receive funding for infrastructure, states must require alcoholic purchasers to be 21.
|
On August 29 2011 21:50 MrTortoise wrote:
Also there is a gross assumption that bny taking people out of welfare you area ctually goign to save money.
In uk it has been shown tiem and tiem again that the reason for welfare is that it SAVES money in the long run.
UIts a shit ton cheaper for welfare than prison. But then in the states it looks like they want about 50% of the population behind bars by 2050
That research relies on the fact that the taxpayers who would otherwise keep their money wouldn't spend it themselves. Even if taxes werent cut as a result of removing welfare, the working populace would receive more benefit from well-run programs that supported them as opposed to bums. In the US especially, welfare and food stamp programs are abused to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
