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.

 

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

page: 9
59
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
If someone is on welfare, don't you think they'll do anything to keep it?

www.google.com...

Pladuim




posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert




I can only speak for myself.

Okay.
You don't seem to be opposed to spending other people's money to support the results of poor decision-making by people that should be paying taxes to begin with.


I don't know the specifics of the Michigan pilot but can speak on the one tried in Florida.
The test would be given to those that applied for cash assistance (TANF), this is separate request from food assistance.

Here's how it worked...Bob applies for cash assistance and is told he needs to take a drug test and is referred to a provider. And no, Bob didn't have to go to Solantic (the one that Rick Scott had significant share of and moved to his wife's trust before he took office). Bob must pay the $40 or so dollars for the test.

But here's the kicker, if Bob is clean, the state would reimburse him the cost of the test. And since it has already been proven in other states that the number of positive results is minimal, this is just corporate welfare.

See what they did here, they took $40 of your taxes and laundered it through Bob to give to for-profit businesses.

Michigan should be glad it only wasted $300k. Florida lost over $1.5 M after all the dust settled.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

And it seems that "Corporate Welfare" gets the pass?? Look at the HUGE Corporations and the handouts they receive and their CEOs salaries and bonuses are never reduced, ever.. And The People sat silently....

This would be found under "Welfare Ranchers" where the names like Walton, Simplott and the like use taxpayer $$$ to buy up the small Western ranches and farms for the water rights..



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Long term testing? Literally every state this has been implemented in as shown it be a huge waste of money. This OP is just another in a long line of failures.

What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients
5 reasons drug testing welfare recipients is profoundly stupid
Why Testing Welfare Recipients for Drugs Isn’t Helping America
Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Is A Popular New Policy That Cost States Millions. Here Are The Results.

How's that for widespread testing?

Oh yeah. I even wrote a thread on this topic before:
thread

Feel free to go through that information, then give me some evidence on why we should continue wasting tax payer money on this.

PS: Testing positive for drugs doesn't necessarily mean you need help kicking them.
edit on 24-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok, whether or not you agree that jobs should test or not is irrelevant to the fact that these people get money from us right? And if they fall a test because they are or drugs, then the circle continues... On assitance? No drugs or alcohol... I am with you on the effects of alcohol vs some drugs, but they should not be able to buy that either. And taking into consideration of one test, of 303 people netting 0 results and then basing an argument on that for an entire nation is ludicrous, no matter what the study is for.

But is testing the answer? maybe not. Something still needs done. Paying people to do nothing is unacceptable. Did testing is invasion of privacy so maybe that is an incentive to get off welfare?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

Are you not understanding how less than 1% of all people testing on welfare ever test positive? So few people test positive that it is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money. You can pitch all the emotional appeals and logic you want about helping drug addicts or not letting people use taxpayer money for drugs (which would be a lot easier to do if drugs were legal, seeing as how you can't buy alcohol and tobacco with food stamps), but at the end of the day we are wasting MORE money minding other people's business that doesn't produce the results to justify the costs.
edit on 24-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Dont you find it stange there is always money for drugs and alcohol but never for breaking the addiction cycle. I didn't know preventitive programs to stop crime and fraud should creste a monetary profit. Name a police district that creates a surplus of money instead of having to be supplemented by taxes. In 2012, walfare corruption cost Florida one billion. And you are worried about a 2 million preventitive program?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
How much does meth lab cleanup cost homeowners and taxe payers? How much is spent on treating meth addiction? Waste of money?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

These tests are spending $10 in taxpayer money for every $1 in fraud they're finding. They're not worth it.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Now if this is true, I see as a reasonable dispute towards testing. But how much effort has been done to either make it more affordable or simply just find ways to crack down on the fraud and forget testing.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk


What are you talking about?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Respectfully, I just find it hard to believe. Stats like piss tests are easy to fake and manipulate. I understand where you are coming from though.

Then let's agree to disagree... What if there is a halt on testing to put money towards finding more efficient ways to test. Nothing found? Ok, put the money towards helping people get off the dole.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Respectfully, I just find it hard to believe. Stats like piss tests are easy to fake and manipulate. I understand where you are coming from though.


Respectfully then you need to come up with some statistics that prove it is worth it. Otherwise you are just arguing with reality. Something you are free to do, but ultimately reality always wins those battles.


Then let's agree to disagree... What if there is a halt on testing to put money towards finding more efficient ways to test. Nothing found? Ok, put the money towards helping people get off the dole.


I will never be for drug testing. In any of its incarnations. I believe drug testing is a HUGE invasion of privacy and should be 100% unconstitutional. I don't care who you are or for what reason, drug testing is wrong!
edit on 24-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

To dovetail with this, there also needs to be jobs for people to get. Or, and this is a big sore spot for me, we should teach people entrepreneurial skills.

Not everyone can open a 30k line of credit....but a guy i work with who makes little cash but kept an amazing credit record purchases $30k i palette goods from China, then flips them at twice/three times the cost on his Amazon/ebay/Bonanza/etc store. Does it about 2 times a year for "extra cash". Even managed his own SEO to rank on page 1 of most of his outlets. That's entrepreneurialism. From a guy I pay an hourly wage to. But obviously, not for long.

The point is: jobs are few and far between in many regions. Short of regulatory changes that inspire wealth holders to create business, the only other option is a return to American entrepreneurialism. Its likely not going to be a choice as work becomes more and more automated and efficient.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

Let's do some math.

6.8 million jobs open in the us. A large portion of which are min wage.

8.3 -30 million jobless.

109 million on welfare


Obviously something is very off in the job market..

If every body had every job available about 100 million people would still be on welfare

2.5 -23 million wouldn't even have the possibility of having a job.

So maybe your attacking the wrong group of people.

Try going after the federal and state gov who over taxed, pushed regulations to fast, created in even tarifs, created a system where it's better to keep money out of the us, and move jobs out.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: Aazadan

Now if this is true, I see as a reasonable dispute towards testing. But how much effort has been done to either make it more affordable or simply just find ways to crack down on the fraud and forget testing.


You can't really make it more affordable. If your goal is to drug test everyone and the tests cost $x, you simply can't get it much cheaper than $x*everyone. They were already including cost saving measures like getting the tests in bulk and making those who were found to have drugs in their system pay for the test themselves.

Also, you have to remember that this is the first wave of testing and it's already so cost ineffective. Every additional year it's in use it gets worse. After the first wave and you find the majority of drug users, there's far fewer people to find when it comes to next years test, and the year after that, and so on.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's just "extra cash" though. How much of a credit line would he need to run that as an actual full time business?

Most business startups fail, and they fail because they're underfunded. They're underfunded because no one actually borrows the amount a business safely needs. If you ask a bank for that amount they're liable to laugh you out of the office even. Every class or seminar I've been to on the subject suggests having enough capital on hand when you start a business that you can fully fund it for 5 years without bringing in a single dollar in revenue. A $30k bankroll wouldn't even get you one year.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

There is also a big difference from running a job to creating a bussiness you can sell without you needing to be involved.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I hate how this sounds. I see your point. I am all about lower taxes etc to make us more attractive to set up shop again. Flat tax etc could possibly help this?

I think we can agree of the person is dumb enough to be visibly high, with an official we could test them then. Last thing we want is people just living off the dole right?

But you are right, we should start with making more jobs first, though I was just participating in the OP



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well then I will leave this conversation with this: I hope you are consistent with your views on privacy because I commend you if you do.




new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join