Guess how many welfare recipients tested positive in Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s drug test?

a reply to: neutronflux

So what? That is only people looking for work or on unemployment.

Take a look at the chart of jobs by industry compared to unemployed

Then get back to me.

a reply to: luthier

So, there are no fields in the USA underemployed due to no interest in pursing them as a disciple?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Or only dumb people are on welfare?

I'm on SNAP, and I get disability while I go to college to try and change my place in life, and depending on how the employment market turns out I may get it after as well rather than a job. I don't think of myself as being very smart, but I don't think I'm in the bottom 10% in intelligence either. Not everyone who gets help is dumb.

a reply to: neutronflux


Did you look at the chart?

Thats only unemployment which if you understand economics does not mean those not working.

The jobs a poor person would be able to get without going to college to retrain are not existant as far as a statistic across the board.

Is it possible you haven't thought this through and are fighting a principle that doesn't reflect reality?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Aazadan

Police departments dont turn a profit, they don't work? In fact, what crimes to cops even prevent. So there is no need for criminal and fraud oversight?

Well, police departments these days are turning to asset forfeiture to try and turn a profit. In addition to that, you can pair the police with the prosecutors and look at legal fines collected as city revenue. Then of course, there's traffic tickets.

It's considered good policing these days to try and make the system budget neutral, but I don't think that's what you were getting at.

The best work police do is in preventing crime. Sitting people on the same busy streets day in, day out, in visible locations monitoring speed is great to keep people within the limits. Broken window programs are very good at reducing the crime in a neighborhood. Crime is lower on days when more police are on patrol. These are all ways the department reduces crime. It's better to prevent crime than to repair the damage from it.

The problem is that you're trying to prove a negative and it really only becomes apparent once you have data where that isn't happening. When you remove the police or make them less visible crime increases. When you cut off a persons access to food crime increases but you don't see that rise until you screw things up in the first place.

Fraud oversight is another matter, but when repairing the damage from fraud costs you more money than the fraud does... are you really benefiting anyone at all?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Aazadan

Police departments dont turn a profit, they don't work? In fact, what crimes to cops even prevent. So there is no need for criminal and fraud oversight?

Well, police departments these days are turning to asset forfeiture to try and turn a profit. In addition to that, you can pair the police with the prosecutors and look at legal fines collected as city revenue. Then of course, there's traffic tickets.

It's considered good policing these days to try and make the system budget neutral, but I don't think that's what you were getting at.

The best work police do is in preventing crime. Sitting people on the same busy streets day in, day out, in visible locations monitoring speed is great to keep people within the limits. Broken window programs are very good at reducing the crime in a neighborhood. Crime is lower on days when more police are on patrol. These are all ways the department reduces crime. It's better to prevent crime than to repair the damage from it.

The problem is that you're trying to prove a negative and it really only becomes apparent once you have data where that isn't happening. When you remove the police or make them less visible crime increases. When you cut off a persons access to food crime increases but you don't see that rise until you screw things up in the first place.

Fraud oversight is another matter, but when repairing the damage from fraud costs you more money than the fraud does... are you really benefiting anyone at all?

Did you ever hear Rand Paul's report from Ferguson ?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The job of a walfare person is to be employable and get off walfare.

So, to circle back to the OP.....drug testing these folks in michigan got them back to work how?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Or only dumb people are on welfare?

originally posted by: luthier
Did you ever hear Rand Paul's report from Ferguson ?

Maybe, but I don't remember it.

a reply to: Aazadan

Here is part of it.

www.cnn.com...

Basically though in a speech he said he found Ferguson was using tickets and fines to pay substancial potions of the budget. They boot and impound very quickly.

He explains so what happens is a guy or girl gets a ticket. They are already scraping by and they can't afford to get their car out of impound and the spiral happens. You miss work, you get fired on and on.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Orionx2
Sorry, basic income? Were will the money come from? The people that actually get off their ass and work will now be more taxed to pay people to do nothing? Why will people be motivated to work or improve themselves if they get free money?????

The vast majority of the money for it comes from cutting existing social programs and the related bureaucracy.

Also, many people are motivated to improve their circumstances. Let me ask you, what motivated you to get to your current place in life when you had food and shelter at a lower income, in a worse job? Nations like Norway have proven that people still work with a basic income, interestingly enough you get an even more market based system and better terms for employees because the employers have higher competition on attracting talent. Sounds like a healthy business atmosphere to me.

Ummmmmmm... Norway? Seriously? They have like 5 million people, mostly of the same religion/beliefs. The USA has 320+ MILLION people of multiple different religions and beliefs. There is no comparison there.
I had a daughter when I was 19. That was my main motivation. I learned how to weld and moved on from there. I always took a job even if it paid less than I would get on unemployment. Unfortunately there are many many people that do not have a work ethic in the USA. As someone that had to fire many dozens of people I know.
In a perfect world we would not need currency, in a better world we could have a basic income, but in reality the USA would implode.
Sorry bud but a basic income would only benefit the drug cartels and criminals.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Gee Rick, I guess you were just hating on the poor and disenfranchised..

Source

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R), who faced criticism earlier this year for his handling of the water crisis in Flint, could face more pushback after the apparent failure of his program requiring drug tests for welfare users.

The Guardian reported that none of the 303 people tested under the auspices of the Family Independence Program have tested positive for drugs as of the end of May.

The pilot program ends on Sept. 30 and received $300,000 in state funding, although a spokesperson for the state health department said only $300 had been spent thus far.

“The governor will wait until the pilot program has concluded and the report is delivered, as required by the legislation, to reach any conclusions,” said Anna Heaton, a spokesperson for Snyder’s office.

The program allows health department officials to require applicants to go through a drug test based on the results of the 50-question screening process. Refusal to do so disqualifies them from receiving financial assistance for six months. However, none of the applicants reportedly refused to go through the test.

And even other states, only found on average 11 out 2700 plus who tested positive.

What a waste of government time and resources as we as a waste of time for those tested.

~Tenth

No way this is accurate. Just randomly polling people from the general population would garner about a 30% hit rate for weed alone. I strongly suspect this number goes up in poorer areas. Still, is this a good idea? Nope. Is getting rid of welfare altogether? Probably.

Whete are the drug tests for the Congress, senators and governirs. Thh teat the fbi n services but not the government. IN UK EVERY TOILET TOP IN THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT TESTED POSITIVE FOR RESIDUE OF COCAINE. WE are all mugs who live for the # we go through and dnt stop the cattle run of slavery and pedophilia towards us. One day another cromwell wil b born. Until then nothin seems to b changin for good

a reply to: Orionx2

Well a lot of economists who have studied this disagree completely. We are talking libertarian and conservatives not some leftish plan to give some people benifits for votes but leave them unsatisfied so you can do it again next election cycle.

a reply to: GraemeDonnelly

IN UK EVERY TOILET TOP IN THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT TESTED POSITIVE FOR RESIDUE OF COCAINE.

Really?

originally posted by: luthier
He explains so what happens is a guy or girl gets a ticket. They are already scraping by and they can't afford to get their car out of impound and the spiral happens. You miss work, you get fired on and on.

I'm not surprised, like I said it's considered god policing these days because they're trying to run these government services like a business and turn cost centers into revenue centers. I don't think it's a good idea, what is profitable is not always good, and vice versa but that's the recent trend.

Our fines are all messed up too because they disproportionately effect the poor. For someone on the lower end of the income scale a simple traffic violation can equal a months income while for someone higher up they can afford to throw the money around and do things like have illegal tints on their windows because what's an extra $600 fine every year or two when they're called on it?

Some nations have made progress on that front scaling fines to your income but I don't think we're going to see that in the US any time soon.

originally posted by: Orionx2
Ummmmmmm... Norway? Seriously? They have like 5 million people, mostly of the same religion/beliefs. The USA has 320+ MILLION people of multiple different religions and beliefs. There is no comparison there.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that 5 million people are willing to work harder than 320 million? Are you suggesting that racial diversity leads to laziness?

I had a daughter when I was 19. That was my main motivation.

And do you think people at 19, or 23, or 25 aren't going to want to start families, have a decent income, and provide for them because they get a poverty level basic income?

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I would "bitch and complain" until the following items were addressed.

1. No spending the money on illegal activity.
2. No spending the money on luxuries.
3. No selling your "card" to others for cash to do #1 or #2.
4. The kids (if any) come first.
5. No illegals...go home.

Case workers.

An actual individual would be able to sniff out such BS. But they have no such thing, just a convoluted automatic system.

I couldn't agree with you more. Some people would say that it would cost too much to uphold the law and the rules. I say...BS...take the money from what is made available for welfare. That way, when people's benefits go down and they are informed that it is because we have to assign one person to one family to keep the dirtballs following the rules...they can be pissed at the dirtballs and maybe start turning them in. Then...we could have a functional system with checks and balances to assure the right people and the children get the attention and help they need.

a reply to: Aazadan

Don't know what state you are in, but here fines and dictated treatment costs to individuals are based on their income.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Getting drug tested is often part of the hiring process and background check. Part of the real world. If you want to improve a system and reduce corruption, 1) must implement oversight. 2) not tolerate bad behavior. 3) give clear rules. 4) consistently impose consequences for bad behavior. (As in treatment or fines). Just basic management. Does oversight cost money, yes. Dose a system improve without management and oversight, no

a reply to: neutronflux

No,

Your job does not have the right to control behaviour or decide what is good or bad behaviour. I have never been drug tested in my life. My wife who is a six figure research professor never tested.

My father in law is a pharmacist. He doesn't get tested. My father is a President of engineering at a manufacturing company never tested.

Most drug tests are lower level positions or specialized fields soley for liability of insurance claims.

Nobody should advocate that your employer has the right to control your personal life. If you actually have a probable cause like you have been reported by other employees. Of your work is bad you should be fired for any reason.

I would say the problem with our society is people believe success and living like a rock star is a right. Sacrificing to provide for a family is diminishing. I hate when people say there is more to life than working. I think providing for your family is the most important thing next to spending time with them. It maybe 20 years for you, but its a life time to your children. As in not putting partying in front of family time. As in, its worth it to stay clean for a good job. If that's not you, then good luck to you. Life is hard when you create your own obstacles.