23.5% of Welfare Rec. in NC Test Positive for Drugs

[Meathead]

Well, life is hard and sometimes people do drugs to make it a little easier. Maybe if you raised the minimum wage or fought to get more of the profit going to the workers. Well, maybe there'd be a lot less people on it.

Ya think? An abstract theory to be sure, but income does not seem to dictate levels of drug abuse. In fact, simple economics would mean an increase in abuse if anything. It is true that the rich have more treatment options given that they are able to pay for it.

The question is if taxpayers should subsidize drug abuse.

The answer depends on what you see welfare and support by the state as accomplishing. If the goal is to elevate these people so they can take care of themselves and become productive members of society, then no, what should happen is they should be put into rehab and tested continuously while on support.

If the actual goal of the welfare state is to keep the poor docile, dependent on government, and ignorant, then let them blaze em up.

That's kinda the point. The theory of helping people elevate themselves falls apart for the nearly 25% that are using the funds to get drugs.

 

[Meathead]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

hey, dumbass, you left out the part of your link that says:

"From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened."

again, moron. that;s less than 0.3% of the total number.

clearly either your reading skills are woefully inadequate or you're just a garden variety wing nut liar.

Seriously? I left that out? US public education, right?

when i said "left it out", your o/p is intentionally misleading.

i saw it included. you clearly ignored it, moron.

Sure Jilly.

How did Americans get so dumbed down. You're a Hillary supporter eh?

so tell the class why you constructed an intentionally misleading thread, liar boy.

you are aware that hillary supporters are a lot more intelligent and educated than the wingers who like trump or cruz, right, moron?

No. I was aware that dingbats were the ones who support Hillary. Even young white women, or Julias as you may call them, are fleeing in droves.

 

[guno]

Of 7,600 applicants and recipients, about 2 percent were referred for drug testing. The 21 positive tests represent less than 0.3 percent of the people screened.

Work First is the state welfare program that offers short-term cash benefits, training and support services to families. In about 62 percent of Work First cases, only children get benefits — and no adults fall under the test requirement.

NC begins drug tests for welfare applicants

 

[Meathead]

Of 7,600 applicants and recipients, about 2 percent were referred for drug testing. The 21 positive tests represent less than 0.3 percent of the people screened.

Work First is the state welfare program that offers short-term cash benefits, training and support services to families. In about 62 percent of Work First cases, only children get benefits — and no adults fall under the test requirement.

NC begins drug tests for welfare applicants

23.5% of those tested failed the drug test.

 

[guno]

Total households in NC: 3,731,358
White households receiving benefits: 1,559,889
Black households receiving benefits: 393,372

Who Gets Food Stamps? White People, Mostly

Who Gets Food Stamps? White People, Mostly

 

[NYcarbineer]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

Your thread title is a lie. Why lie?

 

[OnePercenter]

If there were living wages paid in the US, we'd not have welfare.

 

[OnePercenter]

While we're writing of the Carolina's, why is South Carolina ripping off tax payers by taking 7.87:1 paid in federal taxes? 68% of the population is white. I thought welfare is a black problem.

 

[easyt65]

If you can afford to buy drugs you don't need Food Stamps, Welfare, or an Obamaphone.

Every state should make drug tests mandatory to receive government subsidies / hand-outs.

 

[SwimExpert]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

Congratulations, your title is a lie.

 

[easyt65]

While we're writing of the Carolina's, why is South Carolina ripping off tax payers by taking 7.87:1 paid in federal taxes? 68% of the population is white. I thought welfare is a black problem.

That's your problem - you thought welfare is a black problem (although I really think you were intentionally being sarcastic). Welfare is one of the 'economic slavery' tools used by politicians to make citizens dependent upon the govt. It is 'sold' as a program to help people, but if the govt really wanted to help people they would create programs specifically designed to get people OFF of welfare, Food Stamps, etc...

They would work to create training opportunities, bring back jobs, and work with businesses to do things like create 'apprenticeships' where businesses agree to hire people (even without college educations) and teach them everything they know about a job/career while they work and in turn the employee would agree to stay with the company for 'X' number of years - the pay might be a little less than normal but the workers would be taught a trade in a hands-on job.

Dependency on the govt = votes, as those receiving benefits do not want them to go away. It's not rocket science, but it is by design.

 

[depotoo]

Maybe if they quit spending on drugs...

Well, life is hard and sometimes people do drugs to make it a little easier. Maybe if you raised the minimum wage or fought to get more of the profit going to the workers. Well, maybe there'd be a lot less people on it.

 

[SwimExpert]

you mean that 0.3% of a limited sample?

A selective, limited sample at that. Let's start testing welfare recipients for high cholesterol. We'll screen nearly 8000 people, and from them I'll hand pick a few dozen for blood work, based on my initial interview. I'm pretty sure it will be easy for me to pick out some fantastic candidates. We'll prove that welfare gives you high cholesterol, no matter if it's true or not!

 

[easyt65]

Maybe if they quit spending on drugs...

Well, life is hard and sometimes people do drugs to make it a little easier. Maybe if you raised the minimum wage or fought to get more of the profit going to the workers. Well, maybe there'd be a lot less people on it.

"Life is hard and sometimes people do drugs to make it a little easier"

That's an excuse. If life is hard there are plenty of people / agencies willing to help. Tell that excuse to a single mother working two jobs to make sure her kid is raised right and has a good education, opportunities. Tell that to a vet sleeping on the street because he came home after serving his country to find the government didn't live up to its promises, there were no jobs, etc...
Doing drugs is a choice....one that eventually just makes things harder even though it makes things feel easier at the time you're doing them.

 

[depotoo]

So, a quarter of those tested is miniscule, in your eyes?

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

hey, dumbass, you left out the part of your link that says:

"From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened."

again, moron. that;s less than 0.3% of the total number.

clearly either your reading skills are woefully inadequate or you're just a garden variety wing nut liar.

Seriously? I left that out? US public education, right?

when i said "left it out", your o/p is intentionally misleading.

i saw it included. you clearly ignored it, moron.

Here's the thing. I personally know multiple men who would never gotten away with being the losers they are. My parents would have micromanaged us into being productive citizens. The gov just gives help to anyone who can show they don't make x amount of $. They don't look into why. They all have enough for weed cigarettes and poker. What about all these men?

Then there's all the baby mamas on foodstamps

as pointed out, the numbers are miniscule. it is intended only to humiliate poor people. that's the real message to take from the article, not the meathead;s (as in dead from the neck up) misleading o/p title.

as for "baby mama's" aside from the insulting nature of the term, i'm all for reproductive choice and education and contraception.

the people who write o/p's like this one aren't.

 

[HappyJoy]

So, a quarter of those tested is miniscule, in your eyes?

89 people were tested out of over 7k and the ones tested were screened because they were convicted of using drugs within the past year and out of this very small sample of high probability candidates only 23% tested positive.

The OP is a lie, there is no other conclusion to make based on what was provided. Him continuing to state that liberals are too stupid to understand the link he provided is icing on the cake.

 

[sealybobo]

The thing about drug use is the poor use the pusher and the well to do the doctor. Funny thing is if America were to measure drug use that included prescription opioids, SSRIs, etc etc, drug usage would be fifty percent. Look at that hypocrite Limbaugh for example. I know very few women who do not use something or another to get through it. Many men too. Here's the thing, Mathew in his post above has a point, insecurity plays into drug use and it does so at all levels. Living in a society that worships the wrong things and then having a political party that plays on fears helps nada. Anyway stability in life, a fair wage, a just support system all would help. But unless you are truly naive, humans are humans and so it goes. I wonder how bad drug use is in say Sweden or Finland?

No one is arguing that drugs are bad. The question is if drug use should be subsidized by the taxpayer.

In all fairness neither should walmart.

 

[sealybobo]

So, a quarter of those tested is miniscule, in your eyes?

hey, dumbass, you left out the part of your link that says:

"From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened."

again, moron. that;s less than 0.3% of the total number.

clearly either your reading skills are woefully inadequate or you're just a garden variety wing nut liar.

Seriously? I left that out? US public education, right?

when i said "left it out", your o/p is intentionally misleading.

i saw it included. you clearly ignored it, moron.

Here's the thing. I personally know multiple men who would never gotten away with being the losers they are. My parents would have micromanaged us into being productive citizens. The gov just gives help to anyone who can show they don't make x amount of $. They don't look into why. They all have enough for weed cigarettes and poker. What about all these men?

Then there's all the baby mamas on foodstamps

as pointed out, the numbers are miniscule. it is intended only to humiliate poor people. that's the real message to take from the article, not the meathead;s (as in dead from the neck up) misleading o/p title.

as for "baby mama's" aside from the insulting nature of the term, i'm all for reproductive choice and education and contraception.

the people who write o/p's like this one aren't.

I don't object to testing the ones who are suspect. And helping/encouraging the ones who can to get off. If I smell cigarette smoke on you that means you can afford $6 a day to smoke.

 

[OnePercenter]

If you can afford to buy drugs you don't need Food Stamps, Welfare, or an Obamaphone.

Every state should make drug tests mandatory to receive government subsidies / hand-outs.

That's a Reagan phone.

Legislate a living wage and we'll not have to worry about welfare.

 

[LoneLaugher]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

Look at you! So loose with your stats.......upset at others.

The article states the facts. There is a protocol for determining who gets tested. This is probably due to the fact that tests are expensive and random testing in other states has not supported the nutbag contention that most welfare recipients are drug addled. You think you can extrapolate the numbers to the entire population because you are a nutbag hack who doesn't understand how life works.

Great thread, dummy.