Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Pretty convoluted stuff. As I understand it, you're saying that these drug users budget so as to make sure their expenses for the purchase of drugs do not come from the tax payer?Stupid is not doing so. Because the percentage of drug users is lower than the percentage of drug users as welfare recipients is hardly an argument. People who use their own money to purchase drugs is something we have little control over. People who use tax dollars to do the same is something we can definitely discourage.They tried that in Florida. The percentage of participants that failed their drug tests is lower that the overall percentage of drug users in Florida. The program wasted millions of dollars.
And now Oklahoma wants to do it, knowing that it's a failure?
What a stupid state.
I suspect stupidity here, but not that of the states.
It IS a stupid point. And it proves absolutely nothing even on a positive result with the tests - other than they found someone else who uses. To say that government funds are being used to buy drugs is a stretch at best. People also fake back spasms - but what do you think the real percentage is, and how much could you save the system when you factor in the cost of filtering?
You're barking up the wrong tree and trying to fix one of the things that would have the least impact on the system as a whole.
I think we MUST scale back on welfare for abled adults. There's no way we can afford to give everyone welfare as it's economically impossible and will lead to lower living standards. Yep, double edge sword as we can't have a strong economy with everyone feeding off of it.
We need to only give such to people that lost their jobs or for a short term thing. If we're going to do anything we need to improve our educational system.
Lot's of folks think the answer is in scaling back or slicing off services. But have you even thought of the waste that goes on in our government? Obama was able to trim $716 Billion out of the Medicare system without impacting services or payments. Kind of makes me wonder how much more cash is bleeding out...
You make a good point...I think the president should get a group of men together to go over the federal budget looking for waste. This waste should be minimized to help cut the federal debt.
Pretty convoluted stuff. As I understand it, you're saying that these drug users budget so as to make sure their expenses for the purchase of drugs do not come from the tax payer?Stupid is not doing so. Because the percentage of drug users is lower than the percentage of drug users as welfare recipients is hardly an argument. People who use their own money to purchase drugs is something we have little control over. People who use tax dollars to do the same is something we can definitely discourage.
I suspect stupidity here, but not that of the states.
It IS a stupid point. And it proves absolutely nothing even on a positive result with the tests - other than they found someone else who uses. To say that government funds are being used to buy drugs is a stretch at best. People also fake back spasms - but what do you think the real percentage is, and how much could you save the system when you factor in the cost of filtering?
You're barking up the wrong tree and trying to fix one of the things that would have the least impact on the system as a whole.
Given your lack of cohesion, I can only assume you're worried about your next welfare check for this very reason.
I can easily imagine that crack heads might not bother applying for welfare if they know they'll be tested. That would be preemption. Look, if you like you are free to give charitably to your local crack heads. I am sure they would be grateful for fueling their addictions and I'm sure would staunch the bleeding of your heart. Just don't ask the rest of to the same.So they can spend millions on drug tests to save tens of thousands in welfare payments. Fooking geniuses.
I suppose it's a bit like saying a crack whore doesn't spend taxpayers money on drugs. She prostitutes herself to support her habit, perhaps without a cash transaction, and the welfare money goes for food and support of however many children she may have. Is that what you're saying now?Pretty convoluted stuff. As I understand it, you're saying that these drug users budget so as to make sure their expenses for the purchase of drugs do not come from the tax payer?It IS a stupid point. And it proves absolutely nothing even on a positive result with the tests - other than they found someone else who uses. To say that government funds are being used to buy drugs is a stretch at best. People also fake back spasms - but what do you think the real percentage is, and how much could you save the system when you factor in the cost of filtering?
You're barking up the wrong tree and trying to fix one of the things that would have the least impact on the system as a whole.
Given your lack of cohesion, I can only assume you're worried about your next welfare check for this very reason.
MY lack of cohesion?
Have you even considered that there may another source for drugs? I used to have friends that would drop by to turn me on all the time, which means that even if I hadn't been spending my PAYCHECK, a whiz quiz would have turned up positive. Simply using drugs can't be logically used to infer the source of those drug's funding.
Typical 1 dimensional thinking though - like that of assuming that I'm also a recipient.
I suppose it's a bit like saying a crack whore doesn't spend taxpayers money on drugs. She prostitutes herself to support her habit, perhaps without a cash transaction, and the welfare money goes for food and support of however many children she may have. Is that what you're saying now?Pretty convoluted stuff. As I understand it, you're saying that these drug users budget so as to make sure their expenses for the purchase of drugs do not come from the tax payer?
Given your lack of cohesion, I can only assume you're worried about your next welfare check for this very reason.
MY lack of cohesion?
Have you even considered that there may another source for drugs? I used to have friends that would drop by to turn me on all the time, which means that even if I hadn't been spending my PAYCHECK, a whiz quiz would have turned up positive. Simply using drugs can't be logically used to infer the source of those drug's funding.
Typical 1 dimensional thinking though - like that of assuming that I'm also a recipient.
What I'm talking about?! Hell, I'm trying to figure out your garbled nonsense. You make it sound like all welfare recipients have access to free drugs if they like. And in a way you might be right, though probably not as you intended. But hell, your argument is anyone's guess.I suppose it's a bit like saying a crack whore doesn't spend taxpayers money on drugs. She prostitutes herself to support her habit, perhaps without a cash transaction, and the welfare money goes for food and support of however many children she may have. Is that what you're saying now?MY lack of cohesion?
Have you even considered that there may another source for drugs? I used to have friends that would drop by to turn me on all the time, which means that even if I hadn't been spending my PAYCHECK, a whiz quiz would have turned up positive. Simply using drugs can't be logically used to infer the source of those drug's funding.
Typical 1 dimensional thinking though - like that of assuming that I'm also a recipient.
Now you're just being a dick. You have no clue about what you're talking about.
Here's one way to start.
Welfare Drug Testing Bill Passed by Oklahoma House | Testing It Up
HB 2388 will call for drug testing of applicants for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and withhold payments to those who will test positive for illegal drug use. The bill passed by the House, however, has already undergone changes in the Senate. While the original version of the bill called for testing for everyone applying for aid, the Senate modified it such that not everyone will be subjected to testing.
The Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) currently continues to provide assistance to recipients who test positive for illegal drug while undergoing treatment, according to Sen. David Holt, Senate author of the bill. HB 2388 will halt payments while still providing treatment.
I think we MUST scale back on welfare for abled adults. There's no way we can afford to give everyone welfare as it's economically impossible and will lead to lower living standards. Yep, double edge sword as we can't have a strong economy with everyone feeding off of it.
We need to only give such to people that lost their jobs or for a short term thing. If we're going to do anything we need to improve our educational system.
There are arguments and there are arguments:
Florida's policy of requiring drug testing for welfare applicants, for example, appears to have reduced new welfare enrollments by as much as 48 percent. Potential applicants who use illegal drugs simply chose not to enter the welfare system. Of course, they could sign up for welfare in the future, but first would have to refrain from taking the illegal drugs. The choice was theirs.
Finally, welfare programs should be designed to promote self-sufficiency among able-bodied adults and to discourage long-term dependence on government. Scientific evaluation of Florida's drug-testing requirement showed that welfare recipients who used illegal drugs had earnings that were 30 percent lower than those who did not. Quite simply, drug use was linked to lower levels of work.
Welfare Programs Should Promote Self-sufficiency | Debate Club | US News Opinion
And of course there are studies and there are studies:
Drug users seeking taxpayer-funded cash assistance find it cheaper and easier to skip the drug test and forgo that benefit rather than submit positive results, Bragdon said in a statement. If an applicant knows he will test positive for drug use, and knows he will be denied benefits for up to a year, a drug test is a waste of time and money. But that drug users loss is the taxpayers gain.
Bragdons study found the state saved almost $923,000 by not providing assistance to the 574 applicants who did not pass drug tests. As the state spent less than $162,000 on reimbursing applicants who took tests that found no drugs in their systems, Florida had a net savings of more than $761,000. Bragdon insisted that, if this pattern holds, the state will save more than $9 million in the first year of the law.
Bragdon took aim at critics of the law who maintained that it produced no significant savings. With 9.6 percent of applicants ineligible for welfare due to drug tests, the report found the program would save the state money as long as more than 1.87 percent of applicants were denied assistance. If the results from Florida are reflected in other states, taxpayers across the nation would save more than $173 million annually.
Given the significant taxpayer savings and other positive initial results of this drug testing requirement for new applicants, policymakers would be wise to expand this requirement to include all current recipients of welfare cash assistance, Bragdon said.
Drug News You Can Use | Welfare Drug Test Saves Taxpayer Money, Study Finds | Psychemedics
Oh please. Some people honestly believe their shit doesn't stink as "in my study is as incontestable as my opinion". While I can believe this works well on these kinds of sites, you have to accept that not everyone is a drone like yourself.There are arguments and there are arguments:
Florida's policy of requiring drug testing for welfare applicants, for example, appears to have reduced new welfare enrollments by as much as 48 percent. Potential applicants who use illegal drugs simply chose not to enter the welfare system. Of course, they could sign up for welfare in the future, but first would have to refrain from taking the illegal drugs. The choice was theirs.
Finally, welfare programs should be designed to promote self-sufficiency among able-bodied adults and to discourage long-term dependence on government. Scientific evaluation of Florida's drug-testing requirement showed that welfare recipients who used illegal drugs had earnings that were 30 percent lower than those who did not. Quite simply, drug use was linked to lower levels of work.
Welfare Programs Should Promote Self-sufficiency | Debate Club | US News Opinion
And of course there are studies and there are studies:
“Drug users seeking taxpayer-funded cash assistance find it cheaper and easier to skip the drug test and forgo that benefit rather than submit positive results,” Bragdon said in a statement. “If an applicant knows he will test positive for drug use, and knows he will be denied benefits for up to a year, a drug test is a waste of time and money. But that drug user’s loss is the taxpayers’ gain.”
Bragdon’s study found the state saved almost $923,000 by not providing assistance to the 574 applicants who did not pass drug tests. As the state spent less than $162,000 on reimbursing applicants who took tests that found no drugs in their systems, Florida had a net savings of more than $761,000. Bragdon insisted that, if this pattern holds, the state will save more than $9 million in the first year of the law.
Bragdon took aim at critics of the law who maintained that it produced no significant savings. With 9.6 percent of applicants ineligible for welfare due to drug tests, the report found the program would save the state money as long as more than 1.87 percent of applicants were denied assistance. If the results from Florida are reflected in other states, taxpayers across the nation would save more than $173 million annually.
“Given the significant taxpayer savings and other positive initial results of this drug testing requirement for new applicants, policymakers would be wise to expand this requirement to include all current recipients of welfare cash assistance,” Bragdon said.
Drug News You Can Use | Welfare Drug Test Saves Taxpayer Money, Study Finds | Psychemedics
There is bullshit, and then there is more bullshit.
In the first article, it only took a few paragraphs to spot the bullshit.
Oh please. Some people honestly believe their shit doesn't stink as "in my study is as incontestable as my opinion". While I can believe this works well on these kinds of sites, you have to accept that not everyone is a drone like yourself.There are arguments and there are arguments:
Florida's policy of requiring drug testing for welfare applicants, for example, appears to have reduced new welfare enrollments by as much as 48 percent. Potential applicants who use illegal drugs simply chose not to enter the welfare system. Of course, they could sign up for welfare in the future, but first would have to refrain from taking the illegal drugs. The choice was theirs.
Finally, welfare programs should be designed to promote self-sufficiency among able-bodied adults and to discourage long-term dependence on government. Scientific evaluation of Florida's drug-testing requirement showed that welfare recipients who used illegal drugs had earnings that were 30 percent lower than those who did not. Quite simply, drug use was linked to lower levels of work.
Welfare Programs Should Promote Self-sufficiency | Debate Club | US News Opinion
And of course there are studies and there are studies:
Drug users seeking taxpayer-funded cash assistance find it cheaper and easier to skip the drug test and forgo that benefit rather than submit positive results, Bragdon said in a statement. If an applicant knows he will test positive for drug use, and knows he will be denied benefits for up to a year, a drug test is a waste of time and money. But that drug users loss is the taxpayers gain.
Bragdons study found the state saved almost $923,000 by not providing assistance to the 574 applicants who did not pass drug tests. As the state spent less than $162,000 on reimbursing applicants who took tests that found no drugs in their systems, Florida had a net savings of more than $761,000. Bragdon insisted that, if this pattern holds, the state will save more than $9 million in the first year of the law.
Bragdon took aim at critics of the law who maintained that it produced no significant savings. With 9.6 percent of applicants ineligible for welfare due to drug tests, the report found the program would save the state money as long as more than 1.87 percent of applicants were denied assistance. If the results from Florida are reflected in other states, taxpayers across the nation would save more than $173 million annually.
Given the significant taxpayer savings and other positive initial results of this drug testing requirement for new applicants, policymakers would be wise to expand this requirement to include all current recipients of welfare cash assistance, Bragdon said.
Drug News You Can Use | Welfare Drug Test Saves Taxpayer Money, Study Finds | Psychemedics
There is bullshit, and then there is more bullshit.
In the first article, it only took a few paragraphs to spot the bullshit.
I think we MUST scale back on welfare for abled adults. There's no way we can afford to give everyone welfare as it's economically impossible and will lead to lower living standards. Yep, double edge sword as we can't have a strong economy with everyone feeding off of it.
We need to only give such to people that lost their jobs or for a short term thing. If we're going to do anything we need to improve our educational system.
What I'm talking about?! Hell, I'm trying to figure out your garbled nonsense. You make it sound like all welfare recipients have access to free drugs if they like. And in a way you might be right, though probably not as you intended. But hell, your argument is anyone's guess.I suppose it's a bit like saying a crack whore doesn't spend taxpayers money on drugs. She prostitutes herself to support her habit, perhaps without a cash transaction, and the welfare money goes for food and support of however many children she may have. Is that what you're saying now?
Now you're just being a dick. You have no clue about what you're talking about.
I think we MUST scale back on welfare for abled adults. There's no way we can afford to give everyone welfare as it's economically impossible and will lead to lower living standards. Yep, double edge sword as we can't have a strong economy with everyone feeding off of it.
We need to only give such to people that lost their jobs or for a short term thing. If we're going to do anything we need to improve our educational system.
