9 Investigates: Welfare Drug Testing

[Truthseeker420]

Gotta pee in a jar for a lot of jobs that carry any responsibility.

But to be a moocher, it's beyond the pale....And since when did liberoidals become concerned about the cost effectiveness of any of their stupid programs?

we peed in a jar in the army too.....*shrugs*...

Sometimes I pee in a jar.




Nobody's testing it.....I just like to pee in jars

you ever pee in a half empty beer bottle and put it back in the fridge with the cap on?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is not news, these facts were known when a Federal appellate court ruled Michigan's drug testing scheme was un-Constitutional in 2003. Indeed, around the same time Florida investigated the feasibility of drug testing and rejected the idea as being too expensive and ineffective, just as it is now.

This is a telling example of blind adherence to rightist dogma gone wrong: drug test the lazy scumbag welfare recipients – the facts be damned.

For Governor Scott, a TPM extremist, the program was designed only to appease his base and discourage those in genuine need from applying for public assistance, at a time when they need it most.

And the proverbial kicker, of course, the fact the program will not only not save money, but cost tax payers, not to mention the un-Constitutional intrusion of the state into citizens’ private lives – so much for conservative ‘small government.’

 

[RadiomanATL]

I, for one, never cared about any cost savings. For me it's about the principle of it. If you can afford drugs then you can afford to take care of your family and don't need government assistance. Taxpayers should not be in the business of making drug addiction a comfortable lifestyle.

However, if you want to look at it from a purely cost saving point of view. 6 months of not paying those 2 people is all it takes to balance out testing 40 people, and any time past that is pure savings. If you only look at the immediate costs it doesn't seem worth it, but in a short half year the savings become very tangible. Now if we could just make government assistance a truly temporary program, the savings would be phenomenal.

Bingo.

Year over year comparisons with this sample group, and the program has saved the taxpayers money.

 

[hortysir]

we peed in a jar in the army too.....*shrugs*...

Sometimes I pee in a jar.




Nobody's testing it.....I just like to pee in jars

you ever pee in a half empty beer bottle and put it back in the fridge with the cap on?

Never put it in fridge but used to pee in bottles on long road trips to save time

 

[Modbert]

You didn't have to give your opinion...Your motivations are so transparent that it's not even challenging to guess anymore.

You're a one-trick pony, s0n.

You seem to be posting under the assumption that because I posted something, I automatically agree with it. Interesting.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Sometimes I pee in a jar.




Nobody's testing it.....I just like to pee in jars

you ever pee in a half empty beer bottle and put it back in the fridge with the cap on?

Never put it in fridge but used to pee in bottles on long road trips to save time

my football "buddies" are cruel. I agree... who can wait 70 miles to the next exit.

 

[Modbert]

However, if you want to look at it from a purely cost saving point of view. 6 months of not paying those 2 people is all it takes to balance out testing 40 people, and any time past that is pure savings. If you only look at the immediate costs it doesn't seem worth it, but in a short half year the savings become very tangible.

A fair point and we'll see if it pans out.

 

[shintao]

9 Investigates: Welfare Drug Testing - News Story - WFTV Orlando

9 Investigates' reporter George Spencer found very few applicants are testing positive for drugs.

The Department of Central Florida's (DCF) region tested 40 applicants and only two tested positive for drugs, officials said. One of the tests is being appealed.

Governor Rick Scott said the program would save money. Critics said it already looks like a boondoggle.

Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140.

Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.

9 Investigates first uncovered evidence in June that a similar program in Idaho also cost more than it saved.

Thoughts USMB?

"Absolutely," Scott responded. "Studies show that people on welfare are using drugs much higher than other people in the population."

Well, this is great news for florida and the DEA then, as with one welfare program they have just about eliminated drugs in the entire state. Imagine! A drug free society again.

The false sense of security is riding on the rightwing of idiots.

 

[shintao]

you ever pee in a half empty beer bottle and put it back in the fridge with the cap on?

Never put it in fridge but used to pee in bottles on long road trips to save time

my football "buddies" are cruel. I agree... who can wait 70 miles to the next exit.

Piss in the ash trays, fill up the back seat trays, and then ask to change places with the rider in the front seat to fill up the console. Don't worry, the next time you need to piss,.........

 

[Paulie]

That's why people are laughing at these tea party jokers who say they want less spending by the government.

Gotta laugh at welfare moochers and nanny state bureaucrats, who suddenly complain that something costs too much with dubious results.

Given my druthers, there's be no welfare handouts to apply for, hence no pee testing.

Deal?

That a good theory but Tea Party candidates are defending corporate welfare. And social welfare is not a handout they do work for the money.

What candidate is defending corporate welfare? As much as I hate to give Bachmann any credit, she voted against bailouts, and the Tea Party's platform is anti-bailout.

 

[Oddball]

You didn't have to give your opinion...Your motivations are so transparent that it's not even challenging to guess anymore.

You're a one-trick pony, s0n.

You seem to be posting under the assumption that because I posted something, I automatically agree with it. Interesting.

You're posting under the assumption that your track record is completely unknown.

Tell ya what...When you show yourself to be equally concerned with my civil liberty to dispose of my income the way I choose, and support or not support the charities I wish to, then I might give a shit about the complaints from the moocher class.

Of course, I ain't holding my breath.

 

[Oddball]

Gotta pee in a jar for a lot of jobs that carry any responsibility.

But to be a moocher, it's beyond the pale....And since when did liberoidals become concerned about the cost effectiveness of any of their stupid programs?

and move those goal posts!

I'm against welfare handouts, the stupid "war" on (some) drugs and peeing in a jar.

Be that as it is, I have zero sympathy for any welfare/nanny statist who wrings their hands because their precious civil liberties are being infringed upon, when they couldn't care less about my civil liberty to do with the fruits of my labor what I choose to do with them.

No goalposts moved there.

 

[Oddball]

and move those goal posts!

I'm against welfare handouts, the stupid "war" on (some) drugs and peeing in a jar.

Be that as it is, I have zero sympathy for any welfare/nanny statist who wrings their hands because their precious civil liberties are being infringed upon, when they couldn't care less about my civil liberty to do with the fruits of my labor what I choose to do with them.

No goalposts moved there.

good for you, most people are not.

feel free to list your liberties you have lost because of this "welfare" you want to blame it on. No go ahead this should be amusing.

The liberty to support or not support the charity organization of my choice.

That good enough for you?

 

[Missourian]

I, for one, never cared about any cost savings. For me it's about the principle of it. If you can afford drugs then you can afford to take care of your family and don't need government assistance. Taxpayers should not be in the business of making drug addiction a comfortable lifestyle.

However, if you want to look at it from a purely cost saving point of view. 6 months of not paying those 2 people is all it takes to balance out testing 40 people, and any time past that is pure savings. If you only look at the immediate costs it doesn't seem worth it, but in a short half year the savings become very tangible. Now if we could just make government assistance a truly temporary program, the savings would be phenomenal.

Stop with your common sense and accurate analysis.

 

[FA_Q2]

You didn't have to give your opinion...Your motivations are so transparent that it's not even challenging to guess anymore.

You're a one-trick pony, s0n.

You seem to be posting under the assumption that because I posted something, I automatically agree with it. Interesting.

You have made your views apparent on other threads with the same topic before. Stop dodging. If he is misrepresenting you then speak up about what your views on this topic are. Otherwise, go away.

 

[California Girl]

9 Investigates: Welfare Drug Testing - News Story - WFTV Orlando

9 Investigates' reporter George Spencer found very few applicants are testing positive for drugs.

The Department of Central Florida's (DCF) region tested 40 applicants and only two tested positive for drugs, officials said. One of the tests is being appealed.

Governor Rick Scott said the program would save money. Critics said it already looks like a boondoggle.

Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140.

Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.

9 Investigates first uncovered evidence in June that a similar program in Idaho also cost more than it saved.

Thoughts USMB?

My thought: I wonder why people start threads asking others for their 'thoughts' while conveniently not giving their own 'thoughts'.

 

[JoeB131]

Thoughts USMB?

You're right, man. We should just pay these dopers their welfare and stop whining about it. I mean, just because you work hard, pay your taxes, and do all the things decent people used to respect, doesn't mean you shouldn't ante up and pay for irresponsible people to be irresponsible.

I think the war on drugs is a stupid idea overall, but the notion that we should be subsidzing substance abusers, and leaving children in the home with them, is utterly stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

As an aside, I wonder how many dopers stopped applying for welfare when they realized they'd be tested? Are those cost savings being factored in?

 

[Article 15]

I'm against welfare handouts, the stupid "war" on (some) drugs and peeing in a jar.

Be that as it is, I have zero sympathy for any welfare/nanny statist who wrings their hands because their precious civil liberties are being infringed upon, when they couldn't care less about my civil liberty to do with the fruits of my labor what I choose to do with them.

No goalposts moved there.

good for you, most people are not.

feel free to list your liberties you have lost because of this "welfare" you want to blame it on. No go ahead this should be amusing.

The liberty to support or not support the charity organization of my choice.

That good enough for you?

Welfare has taken away your liberty to support or not support the charity organization of your choice?

 

[editec]

Given that the majority of people on WELFARE are minors, one wonders what happens when a mother is found to have taken drugs.

Do the children lose their benefits because mommy smoked a joint in the last 30 days?