President Trump Signs Executive Order To Reduce Poverty and Reform The Welfare System.

We literally have generations of hood rats on welfare. Daughters, mamas, and grandmothers...

And the rearing of the children are then passed on to the older generation. e.g. Grandmother raises the children and then the 14 year old that got pregnant and saddled 'Grandma' w/the child(ren) gets to raise Her progenies children.

Many of the males have been systematically incarcerated by 'The Drug War™' where they are legally represented by a Public Defender that has 11x the caseload of a Private attorney. Sure, You might get a Pro Bono case or in an attempt to steal more Federal dollars, an overzealous police department 'may have' overstepped their boundaries and dropped the case.

This means more $$$ that these TURD politicians steal from taxpayers in their schemes to claim even more of a pie that has way too many pieces to be split up.


************************ Problem Solved *********************************

In lieu of political™ Triple Speak out of Herr Dump's lisping, sniveling, slurping 'pie hole' how about the Evangelical ProLifers GIVE just as much "service" AFTER the 'miracles' arrive? When the Mother is pregnant all is GLORY; As soon as the 'miracle' arrives: GET A JOB Deadbeat!!!

Oh and the Drug Tests? Make sure Your State's Governor (who signed it in) doesn't undersell the hospitals for the profits of said drug tests. Here in FLORI-DUH, they made Welfare recipients PAY for their Drug Tests. At Gov Scott's PRIVATE business the tests cost $34.00 At Fl. hospitals the tests averaged $150.00

First Test results: 3.2% test 'positive' for drugs. "That is too low" cries average FLORIDUH resident (R). Re-Test Result: 2.7% positive.

a reply to: JimNasium

First Test results: 3.2% test 'positive' for drugs. "That is too low" cries average FLORIDUH resident (R). Re-Test Result: 2.7% positive


^^^^^ That is a useless set of stats. Many factors are left unknown.....let me explain.

How many recipients were showing up before the drug testing? And those numbers would be available measurable stats based off of applications and recipients, yes? This is logical so far, and should be readily available.

Then we have a law shift that states you will be required to take a drug test to receive benefits.

From there we get these numbers posted that 3.2% tested positive. Well that doesnt tell us much. Apparently, it was redone, to actually come back lower for positive results. Which in my opinion is exactly as it should be....and here is why.

How many recipients applied AFTER the law changed? Did that number go down? Why wasnt it mentioned? On either side, prior to implementation and as a part of the resulting low percentages? Has the inflow of applicants slowed, ceased, or gone the other direction entirely?

If you are unwilling to correlate this data, how can you make false claims about expenditures for the testing and the savings that would be had by having fewer people on the benefits list? (Not you personally, the author of the survey)

Instead of looking at it as an expense, look at it as a deterrent. Thats the difference.

The glaringly obvious question that noone ever asks around this, is what person who is knowingly going to fail a drug test, show up in the first place? It is a self-policing policy. They just arent showing up to receive the benefits if they know they arent eligible, which keeps moochers off the handouts, and hopefully reduces the liability overall, or at least allows room for the truly needy to get on it. The 3.2% & 2.7% are the idiots who didnt know about the policy, or who thought they could beat it.

At least thats the logical train of events and makes more sense than a percentage being spouted that has no basis or context. Which is how you can tell its a manipulation tool.......it lacks substance and plays on emotions and a dumbed down populace.

a reply to: carewemust

Sure. If you have money for drugs then you don't need welfare.

Oh, by the way... Boehner wants you to use marijuana so he can take your guns away.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: carewemust

I rarely comment on another countries internal politics. Foreign affairs and international actions are a different matter. That list reads sufficiently ambiguous that in reality there will be no real change to anything, just lip service really.

It's a directive. The relevant organisations will now work up plans to meet the objectives. Is that too hard to understand???
Jeez.

originally posted by: phishfriar47
a reply to: JimNasium

First Test results: 3.2% test 'positive' for drugs. "That is too low" cries average FLORIDUH resident (R). Re-Test Result: 2.7% positive


^^^^^ That is a useless set of stats. Many factors are left unknown.....let me explain.

How many recipients were showing up before the drug testing? And those numbers would be available measurable stats based off of applications and recipients, yes? This is logical so far, and should be readily available.

Then we have a law shift that states you will be required to take a drug test to receive benefits.

From there we get these numbers posted that 3.2% tested positive. Well that doesnt tell us much. Apparently, it was redone, to actually come back lower for positive results. Which in my opinion is exactly as it should be....and here is why.

How many recipients applied AFTER the law changed? Did that number go down? Why wasnt it mentioned? On either side, prior to implementation and as a part of the resulting low percentages? Has the inflow of applicants slowed, ceased, or gone the other direction entirely?

If you are unwilling to correlate this data, how can you make false claims about expenditures for the testing and the savings that would be had by having fewer people on the benefits list? (Not you personally, the author of the survey)

Instead of looking at it as an expense, look at it as a deterrent. Thats the difference.

The glaringly obvious question that noone ever asks around this, is what person who is knowingly going to fail a drug test, show up in the first place? It is a self-policing policy. They just arent showing up to receive the benefits if they know they arent eligible, which keeps moochers off the handouts, and hopefully reduces the liability overall, or at least allows room for the truly needy to get on it. The 3.2% & 2.7% are the idiots who didnt know about the policy, or who thought they could beat it.

At least thats the logical train of events and makes more sense than a percentage being spouted that has no basis or context. Which is how you can tell its a manipulation tool.......it lacks substance and plays on emotions and a dumbed down populace.

The other thing that is left out is that they didn't test all applicants, just a sample. For example, in Missouri, they only tested 446 applicants and had 48 positive test. However, there were 38,970 people on welfare. So what the dishonest left does is say that 48 / 38,970 tested positive or .0013% and then concluded hardly anyone on welfare uses drugs. The right way to do it is 48 / 446 sampled or 11% actually tested positive. HUGE difference in results and conclusions.

Here is an article in ThinkProgress claiming the testing didn't work, yet anyone with even rudimentary understanding of statistics can clearly see through their manipulation of the data.

What States Discovered Testing Welfare Applicants

Dishonest data manipulation like this is why I always try to see what the methodology was used and data set when I see leftist talking about numbers...

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: carewemust

I rarely comment on another countries internal politics. Foreign affairs and international actions are a different matter. That list reads sufficiently ambiguous that in reality there will be no real change to anything, just lip service really.

It's a directive. The relevant organisations will now work up plans to meet the objectives. Is that too hard to understand???
Jeez.

Apparently that person come from a country where they do not have executive orders. He has no concept of what one is all about. So his comments are understandable.

a reply to: phishfriar47



Actually the point I was trying to make is:

Our Governor is a ¢rook and signed into Law something He could make a ton of $$$ in.

And did.

Lol..good luck. Aint gonna work. Another bankrupt idea from a morally bankrupt m..

a reply to: carewemust

What does this quaint little phrase 'Reform" mean? does it mean to reduce the welfare system even further or to increase it and make it more responsive to the needs of those in poverty and the unemployed?

Interesting word. All politicians use it bu none of them ever spell out what the effects of the 'reform' will be when the 'reforms' are implemented. funny that.