It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scott Walker Calls Food Stamp Drug Testing 'A Progressive Thing'

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

It is called using common sense and a little basic math. Without knowing how many test were conducted, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from the graphs as presented.

For example, if there are 100,000 welfare recipients and they only tested 100 people, but found 30 positive test what does that tell you? If you have an agenda, you say out of 100,000 people they only found 30 positive cases of drug use but then leave out the fact that only 100 people were tested. To the uninformed, it looks like 30 / 100,000 is the positive test rate when in fact it is 30 / 100.

To be fair, you could argue the 100 tested is representative of the 100,000 and claim the opposite of the OP graphs and say 30% of welfare recipients test positive for drugs.




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm not putting thoughts in anyone's heads.

All I'm saying is that to properly counter argue those graphs requires some evidence to do so. Otherwise those graphs that are put up by Krazyshot must be correct.


Straight from the link he pulled the graphs from "In 2014, 446 of the state’s 38,970 applicants were tested. Just 48 tested positive." That was for the first graph. So those large bars on the left of each graph are not the number of people tested. Did you read the source or just take the graphs at face value?



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm not putting thoughts in anyone's heads.

All I'm saying is that to properly counter argue those graphs requires some evidence to do so. Otherwise those graphs that are put up by Krazyshot must be correct.


Missouri tested 446 in 2014 ?

Maybe the graph IS a bit misleading eh?



palpitations.fibrillations



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

But that's my point...

There is no way they tested 140k people on a budget of just $500...

So to use those numbers is manipulative.


If they put number tested against number positive I wouldn't complain...

But it's easy to come to this conclusion, you may call it assumption, I call it common sense and understanding of how graphs are supposed to be done.


Now OK and Mississippi look better, with the budget of $350k for testing and low positive results.

But that leads to a logical fallacy that because Y (OK) is true that means X (Arizona) must be true as well.


I don't need to prove these graphs are not factual because they are not correctly presented in the first place.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Look, before I get everyone wanting to lynch me over this, all I'm saying is to back up your claims. If you can prove Krazyshot is providing false evidence then do it. Don't just say it's wrong and that's it. Make him defend what he provides as facts by providing your own to show him being wrong.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm saying provide the evidence to prove you are correct and not Krazyshot, that's all.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm not putting thoughts in anyone's heads.

All I'm saying is that to properly counter argue those graphs requires some evidence to do so. Otherwise those graphs that are put up by Krazyshot must be correct.


Missouri tested 446 in 2014 ?

Maybe the graph IS a bit misleading eh?



palpitations.fibrillations




446 tested on a 300k budget...

Big Government failure Xuenchen???




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Hello the graph says 38,970 welfare recipients of which only 48 failed. That would be .12%.
The real testing numbers were: 48 failed out of 446 tests. that is 10.76%.
Can you see what Krazyshot did posting that graph?



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

Does that mean you think they are lying about the numbers too???

Evidence to support that???


Go to the actual article, and read the "paragraph" between each of those states graphs.

Lot's more info there than this whole post.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
Look, before I get everyone wanting to lynch me over this, all I'm saying is to back up your claims. If you can prove Krazyshot is providing false evidence then do it. Don't just say it's wrong and that's it. Make him defend what he provides as facts by providing your own to show him being wrong.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm saying provide the evidence to prove you are correct and not Krazyshot, that's all.


How do we do that without properly presented graphs?

Proper graph;
Number tested, compared to positive results and budget shown...

Improper graph;
Every recipient, ignoring amount tested, compared to positive results and budget shown...


We have the latter.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
Look, before I get everyone wanting to lynch me over this, all I'm saying is to back up your claims. If you can prove Krazyshot is providing false evidence then do it. Don't just say it's wrong and that's it. Make him defend what he provides as facts by providing your own to show him being wrong.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm saying provide the evidence to prove you are correct and not Krazyshot, that's all.


I bet the article from "thinkprogress" altered the original graphs.

There seems to be room in the middle for a 3rd barchart.

I bet the missing bar shows the "applicants tested" data.



Big Failure !!



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Arizona....

140,000 recipients graphed....


Just 42 have been referred for a drug test over that time — of the 19 who completed the test, only three have ever tested positive.

Not graphed!

Now do you see friend?

It's not a lynching, just a misunderstanding of what we are trying to say.
edit on 14-9-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

How do we do that without properly presented graphs?


I don't know. I don't care either. I'm not saying they are correct or incorrect. All I'm saying is that when make a claim that they aren't correct, you should provide the reasoning why. Not just make that claim then say "I'll let you people figure it out for yourselves". Because nobody is going to do that. Plus that's not how it is supposed to work around here is it???

I thought we were big on evidence to support our arguments. You know, "video or it didn't happen" kind of thing.

I don't care one way or the other, but I'm not the one arguing for or against any of it either.

I'm just being "Big Brother" today that's all. Someone has to keep an eye on you rapscallions once and a while.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

For those bad at math, that is less than a 1% success rate. Are you starting to get a picture of how successful these programs are? Let's return to my OP article then.



^^^^^

.. and Walker is only trying to help pass a test so they don't get denied a job.


"We're trying to help people who are in need of our assistance to get jobs."




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

As has been pointed out to you by more than one of us, the information you seek is from the very same link as the graphs. Go read it.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: mOjOm
As has been pointed out to you by more than one of us, the information you seek is from the very same link as the graphs. Go read it.


Fine then show that as your proof then.

Look, I'm not asking for the information myself. I was just telling Charlie that rather than just making the claim that it wasn't correct, that he should show why it isn't correct, that's all. If it's as easy as taking the info from that link, fine, take it from the link then. But just show your reasoning for why, that's all I'm saying.

Do you see the difference???



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are right. He is nuts. A lot of people who receive SNAP already have a job. So, he is trying to help people to what?



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here is an answer Mr Walker. You hire those people, you let them live in your building, or your neighborhood. How about letting their hungry, diseased children go to school with you children. You say "NO" Mr Walker? But you want to inflict them on everyone else so you can give Mr and Mrs Rich Guy a tax break.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I did that in my first post addressed to you. Others have pointed out similar reasons why the graphs are misleading. If you refuse to read the information presented there is nothing more we can do.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

A lot of people who receive SNAP already have a job. So, he is trying to help people to what?



That explains why the failure rate looks low.

He's "helping" the people not working.




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=19811090]Krazysh0t[/post
Lets test them all, if I have to take a Drug test to earn my pay check, I think they should too. I believe I have a right to know where my tax money is going and I don't want it going to druggies.

But look on the bright side, he just created some jobs to make sure those don't do drugs and maybe we can clean up our state, I person at a time.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join