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.

 

No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

page: 11
49
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

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..


Drug tests at such a massive level are just warrantless searches. Why not drug test everyone who is eligible for tax refund from the IRS? Why not drug test everyone who has a driver's license? Drug test everyone who walks down a sidewalk paid for by the city or state. Drug test anyone who gets interest payments off a US Treasury bill or bond. If you don't pass, then government keeps the interest and cancels its indebtedness to you. Eventually the drug test could be used to deprive everyone of liberty and property if the user has any remote relationship to government. Are your brokerage accounts guaranteed by the SIPC. Not anymore if you can't pass the drug test.




posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
This is nothing. Wait for the genetics tests to acquire access to health care.

The fact that this testing policy doesn't work will probably fall by the wayside, unless the forces in the NWO that want to legalize marijuana in order to directly dope the population end up winning that internal debate.

There used to be a Bill of Rights in America.

thevicarslamp.blogspot.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by BobNoxious
 


Now that must be a post from someone not living in the US. The monies spent on welfare in the US, federally alone, is in the multiple of trillions even before this current spending outrage began.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
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......



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


In actuality the number, this year, is more like four hunded fifty one billion.

But let's make it more abstract and use visual tools - as they are much simpler to work with:



If I'm going to get outraged or curious - then I want to know what that 15% big red X is. And I'd love to see due diligence about that "Pentagon" section... they do have a history with handling money poorly.

Heck, even "administration" outweighs social programs.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Currently, Alaska Airlines do a hair drug test on any applicant desiring to work for them. If there is ANY nicotine in the hair dating six months past, that person is refused employment. Not coke, '___', pot on and on, Nicotine. Where's the outrage to that ["civil right's" violation?

Of course drug testing welfare recipients is of little long term worth worth. It is, however, the direction society overall is going, so spare the indignation re welfare tests. No different than anyone else's.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


I totally agree with your statement... about twenty years ago I applied for work at a local farmers market ( Actually a very high end supermarket marketed as a farmers market ) and upon being hired was told that I had to take a smoking cessation program, at my own cost, and that they'd fire me if they found out that I'd even smoked in my own home... Now I'm talking cigarettes here - not the funny stuff.

Needless to say I declined their offer and worked elsewhere.

This entire subject ( our OT interaction here and the main topic ) all seem to fall into the category of control to me... one group of people trying to "lord it" over others and force their will to be done.

It's all rather sad.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


This is Florida.


Not that I'm going to generalize, but I don't imagine Florida as an area with high drug use among welfare collectors.


Now try it in New York City, then you'll see savings.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


In theory, Social programs should only be for 10% of funding as that's the range you want to make an upper limit on for dependencies.

That military funding should go to NASA, not social programs. Social programs don't tend to create scientists. Landing a car-sized probe on Mars by jet pack does because it's freaking cool.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   

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......



Ten years ago, I didn't even know ATS existed. I have always been against the WOD, war on drugs. You must have me confused with someone else.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Actually investing in education creates scientists. This country has wealth of people that are just looking for their opportunity to excel, we just need to figure out how exactly to help them find it.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


In my experience the only difference between a cheap college and Harvard is the name. Get good teachers, have good knowledge. You don't even have to increase funding. Just do it right.

You have to get people interested to become scientists, otherwise they end up just being sophomore art students more interested in putting their semen and menstrual blood on display. You make them interested in science by DOING science.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I'll totally agree with you if you wish to meet somewhat in the middle... Let's up that 10%, restructure the entitlement system to mandate education or community service ( as possible - based upon individual situations ) as a requisite for receiving benefits - then lowering the percentage back down to 10% once the economy stabilizes.

Then we could use that massive "defense" and "?" chunk of the pie to help pay down debt and put NASA back into the dream fulfillment business.

Fair enough?

~Heff
edit on 8/16/12 by Hefficide because: clarity

edit on 8/16/12 by Hefficide because: and typos



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Oh by all means put more money in NASA. I have always been supportive of the Space Program, and you are correct doing science encourages people. But the reality of it is that without investing in education your only fueling half the engine. The other reality is that there are plenty of people that won't get the opportunity to go to even a cheap college because they can't afford it. We have a shortage of students in the sciences so I have to question why are we not offering incentive's with grants and low interest loans to students that take them up? There are so many different ways out of the mess this nation is in, but it isn't going to happen overnight and it certainly will not happen without any kind of compromise.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Sounds fair mostly. It is a depression. But I'd be more in favor of putting people into infrastructure jobs so at least when the depression ends they have skills.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


In my experience, colleges in many cases are as corrupt as the government. Even worse when they're working together on research projects.

You can get through cheap colleges on just a few thousand dollars, and that can be covered through hiring them on infrastructure projects like railways and cargo-only roads and rails.
edit on 16-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


wishful thinking



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Welfare in itself is a form of drug in my book,its good for the short term but in the long term it kills you inside, it takes your dignity. Just a thought.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   

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.

Original 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.





Excellent post and full of FACTUAL INFORMATION on the TRUTH BEHIND THE INITALL OP STATISTICS.

When one chooses to look INTO THE FACTS it CLEARLY shows that

1. The number of tested is very small and the time that it was in effect very small to be REALISTICALLY or BE HONEST in its overall effectiveness.

2. As zeeon has done when one looks at ALL THE INFORMATION even THIS USUALLY SMALL SAMPLE shows GREAT PROMISE AND EFFECTIVENESS. You can read above (if you choose to be honest with yourself) how much even THIS SMALL SAMPLE SAVED.
Now if one were to continue the program for say 1 year (and that would not be totally fair but a good start) if the numbers even stay the same in ratio YOU ARE SAVING THE TAXPAYER A BOATLOAD OF MONEY.

Funny how the devil in the details is no friend to welfare supporters and the OP

But hey don't let a little thing like FACTS get in the way of your FEELINGS



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by scrounger
 


So your saying expand the testing program to more for a longer period. How about random drug testing like they do in sports? Maybe set up cameras in the homes of those on welfare so we can keep an eye on them, just to make sure.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join