It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by RealSpoke
The intent is not to demonize the poor but to make sure that we are not paying folks to be on welfare while possibly spending the money on drugs...it's that simple...and the idea to drug test people on failure was a flop...that's great too...perhaps they can nix it before we spend more money on it....there are plenty of good intentioned ideas that are a bust..bottom line this is what it all comes down to...who's right and who's wrong this time...you perpertuate this momentum of division...I don't like Obama but I don't want to see him fail...if he fails we fail..
Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by artfuldodger
Where was your post ten-twenty years ago when Orange County in Ca. started firing Police and Firemen if they smoked...even in their homes. After all, the "state" was paying their medical benifits. WHERE were your complaints then???
I can only conclude that you need to get a job......
Originally posted by zeeon
Also of note is the fact that the program only ran for 4 months. That's a very small sample size.
According to the New York Times in 2008 87,632 people were on welfare and 1,694,649 people were using food stamps. Mind you, this data was taken right before or duing the 2008 Housing Crisis, so you can BE SURE that number has risen, probably dramatically.
According to the OP's source, only 4,086 people were tested. If we go with the smaller figure of 87,632 that represents only 4.663% of the total welfare base. Adding to that, this article states that 1600 people of the original sources 4,086 declined to even participate. We can infer then that the majority of those would have tested positive (I don't know many people willing to starve for their ideals.)
Hmmm. If we can safely assume that those 1600 who opted out (and decided to starve for their ideals) would have tested positive, then that puts the numbers closer to 1708 positive, 5686 negative which results in 30% of welfare applicants and/or users weeded out, not 2%.
Lets go even further and look at the real world results of this based on the NYT obviously biased interpretation of the data.
4,086 - 40 (those who cancelled the test) people = 4,046 - 108 who failed = 3938 x 30 bucks for testing = 118,140
My hypothesized data:
5686 - 40 = 5646 - 1708 positives = 3938 x 30 bucks = 118,140 bucks. Isn't that interesting!?!
So in reality, because the drug testing was implemented, it actually SAVED the state 45,000 dollars.
Hmmmmmm...isn't it interesting that the NYT failed to mention the 1600 plus people declined to undergo the drug testing, and presents all these conclusions on how the program "doesn't work" based on a sampling size of only 4.63% of the total amount of welfare recipients (from 2008 mind you!!)
Also as a reminder, the law went into effect July 2012, and the NYT article in the OP was written in April of 2012.
Four months was the window between these two articles that Florida was actually allowed to conduct testing before a judge stopped it.
Note two* If you read carefully apparently the source references "the cash assistance program" which is only a part of the welfare system (which includes cash assistance, EBT / food stamps etc).
Interesting that they would choose just a subset of those numbers.