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

Scott Walker Calls for Drug Testing if you want too collect government handouts

I thinking he's on the right track, but first we start with those that were given trillions in the banker/wallstreet bailouts & in Corporate Welfare , then we go after the low-hanging fruit.

Scott Walker Defends Corporate Welfare for NBA

If they legalized weed I would be for testing. Also a way to make it more efficient. I don't think it is to much to ask to not be doing drugs on welfare.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

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.

Great. But I was talking specifically to Charlie. I tried to explain that but you're still not getting it so forget it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
If they legalized weed I would be for testing. Also a way to make it more efficient. I don't think it is to much to ask to not be doing drugs on welfare.

Pot stays in your system 30 days. You can't get food benefits, probably already have a job (the income threshold for SNAP goes up every year) and have a couple hits of pot in a month? I am not sure where that logic comes from.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

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?

The main point is clear, though. Lots of money was thrown away on the testing and almost nothing was found.

Those graphs are bs. They only tested a very small percentage of the total population. Also if you you did not show for test that does not count as postitive. But the low info crowd loves stealing your money so much they'll likely spend all day on the internet pumping this garbage.

originally posted by: reldra
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?

It's all just pandering to his base. It's perpetuating the stereotype that people on public benefits are lazy, drug addicts, criminals, frauds, etc. So they do programs like this to show their base that they're serious about addressing & ending the stereotype, which is believed to be the problem.

originally posted by: Mikeymike66
Those graphs are bs. They only tested a very small percentage of the total population. Also if you you did not show for test that does not count as postitive. But the low info crowd loves stealing your money so much they'll likely spend all day on the internet pumping this garbage.

They weren't testing the entire population. They were testing a cross section of recipients to see if there was a problem that needed further investigating. Apparently, there was not.

a reply to: reldra

My point was that if they didn't care about weed I would be ok with it...

Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong but do you have issue with my thought process?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
If they legalized weed I would be for testing. Also a way to make it more efficient. I don't think it is to much to ask to not be doing drugs on welfare.

Agreed. The problem folks have is they ASSUME all recipients of any public assistance are being targeted. Not true. States are adding simple questionnaires and other means to seek out those who are at risk. Mainly, from the OP's source, those receiving TANF are targeted. That is the program where folks can get real cash off their cards.

I have been retired for 11 years now, and am still subject to drug testing to receive my pain medication. If I test positive for illegal substances, or caught with none of my meds in my sysytem, (implying I'm selling them) I lose my pain meds, and my Dr. will dump me. No problem with those getting my tax dollars having to prove they are on the up and up.

originally posted by: reldra
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?

Yes, they do at ChinaM.... Uh, er..... Walmart™ and after 10 years they work up to either 'Minimum Wage' or they get a full 30 hrs. per week.. Does this Turd receive $$$ from BigBusiness? I bet He also calls for lower taxes for those who employ others. Like the NFL, whose owners haven't paid taxes since 1954 yet they keep ALL the $$$ that the Stadiums, that You paid for, generate, sound about right?

originally posted by: reldra

The main point is clear, though. Lots of money was thrown away on the testing and almost nothing was found.

What would be an acceptable level of "positives" necessary to take some government social help actions?

a reply to: reldra

First, let me say that I do not believe we should be drug testing anyone unless they cause an accident or fail to perform at their job. Even then, it should be up the employer to pursue and pay for it if they so choose.

Second, I wouldn't call the total from those graphs a lot of money. $837,320 if I added all 7 of them correctly. Compared to an amount spent on, let's look at Walker's own state for a fine example, the new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks which is estimated to cost taxpayers of that state about $250 million ( espn.go.com... )

Third, to say they found nothing depends on what percentage is considered nothing to you (I will round to the nearest tenth of a percent):

Missouri found 10.8%
Oklahoma found 10.0%
Utah found 3.5%
Kansas found 20.8% (I removed the 12 who did not show up for the test...)
Mississippi found 5.3%
Tennessee found 12.3%
Arizona found 15.8%


Again, I do not support this testing, but let's at least consider the facts presented by the article, even if nicely glossed over by their presentation.

I took "statistics and analysis" in college.......you can manipulate any type of number you want, simply by changing testing data that will enhance your particular position, and disparage your challengers position.....

example:
the wealthy always say that they pay the bulk of the federal taxes...which they do....however, as a PERCENTAGE of their income, most pay the least....IF they paid the same percentage of their income, as middle class working people do, the federal tax coffers would be flush with money.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Sremmos80
If they legalized weed I would be for testing. Also a way to make it more efficient. I don't think it is to much to ask to not be doing drugs on welfare.

Pot stays in your system 30 days. You can't get food benefits, probably already have a job (the income threshold for SNAP goes up every year) and have a couple hits of pot in a month? I am not sure where that logic comes from.

You have to look at it from their base's point of view to get it. They think a lot of the people on welfare & social services are frauds that spend that money to live a lavish life. Remember the whole "welfare queen" stereotype? So they believe drug dealers & drug users are spending their own money on drugs & a criminal lifestyle, while receiving government funds (taxpayer money) for normal expenses.

That's why they pass weird legislation like preventing SNAP recipients from spending it in casinos or on fish. The point in programs like these (and drug testing welfare recipients) is to show the taxpayers that they're clamping down on "welfare queens" and financing "rich" poor people. That may sound like an oxymoron, but think about the rappers & other stereotypes who live in poor areas but say they have money. The conservative base seems to think those fictitious entertainers represent real life in the ghettos & projects, as well as the real lives of welfare recipients.

That's also why that base doesn't seem to think it's hypocritical to attack social programs while they've actually been on them. They believe they've "earned" them while the others haven't.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

You do know that depending on how the sample is taken that a sample size of 1600 people could be WAY more telling of the entire population than a poorly sampled sample size of 1 million people right? That's basic statistics there. So if you are going to dismiss the sample size, you first need to prove the sample was taken poorly. That's why I said you have a weak rebuttal.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I get it now. Small samples don't skew the results and they are WAY more telling. I like BIG samples myself. Thank you statistician magician for setting us straight.

On Topic. I think to get bennies you should be up for random drug tests like the rest of the government workers. If I'm paying you to do something I probably do better, there better be a reason why you do it and not I.

Scott Walker has been on all 4 sides of every 2 sided issue

originally posted by: xuenchen
In 2011, Missouri adopted a law to require screening and testing for all TANF applicants, and the testing began in March 2013. In 2014, 446 of the state’s 38,970 applicants were tested. Just 48 tested positive.

Hyperbole Deluxe !!

You bring up another point. That's a $750 drug test per person for a 10% success rate. How frequently should people be tested? Once to get on the program? Once per year? Twice per year?

Lets say we test once per year, using the numbers provided here that's $750 per person, so at 38,970 recipients that's 38970*750 or $29,227,500 in order to drug test everyone.

We see in the numbers of who were tested that 10% of people fail so that's 38970*.1 or 3897 people who are getting benefits that probably shouldn't be.

So the next question is how much they're getting per year. I can say from experience, or from just looking at the charts that the average is $150 per month for someone getting the full value, in reality it's closer to $100 per month when you consider earned income reducing it but for the sake of argument I'll use the higher number. So $150 per month is $1800 per year.

If 3897 people are fraudulently getting $1800 each that comes to 3897*1800 or $4,676,000 spent by the state each year that we could cut.

So if this is the route we're going to go the state is spending just over 29 million in order to recoup just over 4.5 million in wasted money. That doesn't sound to me like a cost cutting measure or a reasonable use of funds. To me that looks like the state is wasting about $25 million per year that could be spent elsewhere.

Eliminating fraud is great, but if you're spending more than the fraud is costing in the first place you aren't eliminating it, you're amplifying it.
The cost of this very easily spirals out of control, just think if we start testing twice per year, now we're spending $50 million to save $4 million.

Me #2) Hey Numbnuts it might help to add something to back up Your claim...

Me #1) Yeah okay...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I also should mention I earlier typed 2.9% it is actually 2.6%.

I also think if "They" want to test they should accept 'hards' or #2s in manila envelopes..

Also to the member who typed that they should take a test if receiving welfare and You added "like other government workers..." I worked in law enforcement at both the Federal and State levels and spending 4 years in "Special Investigations" Narcotics and Vice (the fun ones, almost as fun as riding Motors..) and I NEVER had a pee test or drug test, EVER..