What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

9 Investigates: Welfare Drug Testing

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
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?
 

Truthseeker420

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
10,374
Reaction score
1,010
Points
140
Location
Home of the 2013 BCS National Champion
Plus cost of appeals and court costs if they sue the state.
 

Lovebears65

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
6,713
Reaction score
2,138
Points
325
Location
Georgia
Well it could be that the ones who are on drugs just did not show up to take the test.
 
OP
Modbert

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
Well it could be that the ones who are on drugs just did not show up to take the test.

No evidence of that, especially since two people did test positive though one is appealing.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,415
Reaction score
48,355
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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?
 

Truthseeker420

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
10,374
Reaction score
1,010
Points
140
Location
Home of the 2013 BCS National Champion
That's why people are laughing at these tea party jokers who say they want less spending by the government.
 

hortysir

In Memorial of 47
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
20,518
Reaction score
4,259
Points
270
Location
Port Charlotte, FL
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?

As I mentioned in another thread, if we start to see that it's costing more than it's worth we can repeal it.

Only 40 have been tested in central Florida, though?

Pretty small sample group
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,415
Reaction score
48,355
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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?
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,415
Reaction score
48,355
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
As I mentioned in another thread, if we start to see that it's costing more than it's worth we can repeal it.
A shame we can't rid ourselves of Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, WIC, endless unemployment handouts, farm subsidies, the "war" on (some) drugs, on and on and on, using the same criteria.
 

Trajan

conscientia mille testes
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
29,048
Reaction score
5,458
Points
48
Location
The Bay Area Soviet
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*...
 
OP
Modbert

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
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?

All I did was simply post the article. Rick Scott is the one who said it's going to save money and he used that as a talking point for this program.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,415
Reaction score
48,355
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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?

All I did was simply post the article. Rick Scott is the one who said it's going to save money and he used that as a talking point for this program.
"All I did was simply....."

What you did was simply post your all-too-predictable "HYPOCRITE! HYPOCRITE! ALERT! ALERT!" bullshit.

Fact remains that having a leftist tool complain about lack of cost effectiveness of any nanny state program rings equally, if not more, hypocritical as any claim by any given righty, claiming that more bureaucracy is going to be a net savings.

You've met the enemy, pal, and he is ye.
 
Last edited:

Wacky Quacky

Gold Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
377
Points
130
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.
 
OP
Modbert

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
"All I did was simply....."

What you did was simply post your all-too-predictable "HYPOCRITE! HYPOCRITE! ALERT! ALERT!" bullshit.

Fact remains that having a leftist tool complain about lack of cost effectiveness of any nanny state program rings equally, if not more, hypocritical as any claim by any given righty, claiming that more bureaucracy is going to be a net savings.

You've met the enemy, pal, and he is ye.

I never gave my opinion about the program itself in this thread. I posted the article. Rick Scott is the one who said the program was going to save the state money, and it hasn't so far.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,415
Reaction score
48,355
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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.
 
Last edited:

hortysir

In Memorial of 47
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
20,518
Reaction score
4,259
Points
270
Location
Port Charlotte, FL
"All I did was simply....."

What you did was simply post your all-too-predictable "HYPOCRITE! HYPOCRITE! ALERT! ALERT!" bullshit.

Fact remains that having a leftist tool complain about lack of cost effectiveness of any nanny state program rings equally, if not more, hypocritical as any claim by any given righty, claiming that more bureaucracy is going to be a net savings.

You've met the enemy, pal, and he is ye.

I never gave my opinion about the program itself in this thread. I posted the article. Rick Scott is the one who said the program was going to save the state money, and it hasn't so far.


40 test subjects for a program that's 50 days old
 

Truthseeker420

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
10,374
Reaction score
1,010
Points
140
Location
Home of the 2013 BCS National Champion
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.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,415
Reaction score
48,355
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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.
Nobody said anything about corporate welfare, deflectopottamus....And I haven't encountered any Tea Party type who defends it in the first place.
 

hortysir

In Memorial of 47
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
20,518
Reaction score
4,259
Points
270
Location
Port Charlotte, FL
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

:eusa_shhh:
 

Againsheila

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
17,195
Reaction score
3,809
Points
245
Location
Federal Way WA
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?

That's just stupid. I'm all for fingerprinting welfare recipients to help avoid fraud. Heck if you work for the government you have to get fingerprinted. They're also fingerprinting volunteers for our schools and the special olympics.

Drug testing, however, is just plain dumb as these studies have shown.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top