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: 6
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
To me it all boils down to economics:


However, a basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific. Cash allowance benefits for financial assistance will also be state regulated and allowances paid will also vary based on different criteria. However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.


Source

Drug testing these recipients? About $35.00 a pop:


Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state’s net loss? $45,780


Source

$45,780 to catch 108 offenders? That's about $424.00 each. As above, their welfare only averaged about $300.00 per individual.

Seems a bit like cutting off ones nose to spite the face to me.

IMO what we need to do is restructure the welfare system so that it encourages and enables people to get OFF of welfare. The system we have now does not.

~Heff




posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
*** REMINDER ***


No discussion of or mentioning of "personal use" of ANY kind.

Also, this isn't a discussion of how to beat a "test".

Posts will be removed.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 





This is my argument....that there are ample opportunities for a recipient of welfare to do something to benefit the hand that is feeding them. From garbage pickup on roadsides to something more sophisticated....there should be no such thing as a free ride to any person capable of producing.


I don't disagree with this, but sadly I think it would just be abused and create more problems.

Firstly, how much work does some one do for their money? Do they work a day or a week? Is it going to be set as an hourly rate so for example someone receives $100 welfare do they have to do 10 hours work?

Secondly, if a company or local government has these workers effectively for free (they are getting their welfare already, so making them work is free labour for someone) who's job will they be doing? How many are then going to lose their jobs because the company/government gets free labour?

What if someone is a single parent, who pays for the day care while they are working? The tax payer? yet another burden on already fragile budget? Of course some other welfare receiver may be given this task, but who vets them? Where will the minding the kids? Who pays for the safety checks and equipment? Who monitors them?

And what of those who already work countless hours in crap paying jobs but just cannot get buy on their wages alone, do you want them to work even more? What if they are already working 60 hours a week, do yo want them to do another 10 or 20?

What is needed is jobs, decent jobs, the governments should be investing in infrastructure, creating jobs, trickle down economics does not work, it never will, yo need to put the money at the bottom and let it work its way back to the top, it is people spending money in local businesses that drives an economy forward, money cannot not magically appear in peoples pockets, but it can magically disappear when fed in to banks and corporations. And that the problem, government does QE and the money just goes into teh banks never to be seen again, it needs to be put to use giving jobs, nothing else will work



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





IMO what we need to do is restructure the welfare system so that it encourages and enables people to get OFF of welfare.


I absolutely agree, years ago when your kids were in school full time, you had to be actively looking for work.

I see young healthy neighbors staying at home in our neighborhood, while my 62 year old husband limps off to work everyday as a carpenter, but then he has learned that work ethic, another thing that teaches that sort of discipline is the military, I think that should be required, at least two years.


edit on 073131p://bTuesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 


You made a lot of very valid points.




What is needed is jobs, decent jobs,


If everyone lost there welfare tomorrow, correct, the jobs are not there.

In our state low income mothers get their daycare paid for.

Back in the day the requirements for receiving welfare were more strict.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 


I think the infrastucture you mention is the key. We are missing out on improving a crumbling infrastructure.

I am not a fan of socialism....but the way FDR did it is something worthy of consideration.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 


About the crap jobs, I work a crap job, once upon a time people would rather work crap jobs then accept welfare, seriously, we are getting to the point, and I hate to use this word, where it is going to be unsustainable.

Then what? You better be willing to work a crap job.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


It is just a band-aid, but it is better than nothing, I live in a big government town, all the blue collar jobs are gone, there use to be three major factories, but they have been long gone.

Retail, and restaurants, and politicians.

There is nothing here.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 





Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed


There's a foolish law that should be done away with. Why should the applicants be reimbursed? If you want welfare then I think that would be a very small price to pay for the tax payers to support you.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Yes FDR did that and it worked, well to a point but a damn better than it is working now. Hitler also did the same from the absolute ruins of their economy where people were taking wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread to the mighty force they were (I am not supporting the Nazi agenda or ethos, just mention how it also work to improve Germany) It was why he was so popular, he literally saved the country before invading everywhere. Mussolini the same.

But governments just wont do it, just keep feeding the sharks on wall street, sometime (getting to be most of the time) I really believe they are doing it on purpose, the problems and the solutions are not hard to see, hell you could could replace everyone in government with just random people from this site and it would run smoother, so how can these politicians be so bad at it?



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide



Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state’s net loss? $45,780


Source

$45,780 to catch 108 offenders? That's about $424.00 each. As above, their welfare only averaged about $300.00 per individual.

Seems a bit like cutting off ones nose to spite the face to me.



Lets assume all the ones who failed were getting $200 a month in Welfare, the lowest number you cite. Lets further assume that half of the 40 that canceled tests, did so because they knew they would fail. 128 X $2,400 ($200X 12 Months) = $307,200 minus the $45,780 in test cost yields a net savings of $261,420. To me that seems worth it.

Please tell me where my math is wrong.... I am using the low ball estimate of what each person would get yearly in assistance.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 





so how can these politicians be so bad at it?


You answered your own question,
They are doing it on purpose.
edit on 073131p://bTuesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


I apologize... I made an error ( real life and ATS life sometimes get me frazzled when they mix ) - I used the wrong numbers... $45,780 was the net loss. The actual costs of the tests was $118,140.00.

I got my wires crossed for a minute.


The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening. The state’s net loss? $45,780


Source

~Heff



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   


I think the infrastucture you mention is the key. We are missing out on improving a crumbling infrastructure.



Infrastructure are local and state issues they always have been and are funded by that income tax called property taxes.

The current system as it is setup is just like that most fabulous topic called welfare where the states with the most population will always cost the most and take from everyone else leaving the little guys blowing in the wind.

When someone preaches infrastructure spending the first thought is what China has done for decades and all those ghost cities just sitting there empty.


Back to the US where taking money from New York to fund a road,bridge or airports to nowhere financed by those who will never see or use those.

What utter,nonsense.

Then all those construction jobs which will be union since no public construction project is without and reminds one of the boston's big dig that took decades to build,massive cost overruns and did not really do anything to pump money back in to the local economies for the simple reason not everyone is a construction worker, and then we can move on to the foreign construction vehicle makers that those union employees will be using to build all that "infrastructure".

Nah the answer is no infrastructure the best solution to welfare is a job and the largest creator of jobs in this country is small business that has been strangled to death because of lame political ideology.
edit on 14-8-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Nah the answer is no infrastructure the best solution to welfare is a job and the largest creator of jobs in this country is small business that has been strangled to death because of lame political ideology.
edit on 14-8-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


I'll agree with this - but at that big business is just as guilty... Kind of hard to open a mom and pop shop down the road from a Wal Mart. Avarice and bad policy are equally to blame in my eyes.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by neo96

Nah the answer is no infrastructure the best solution to welfare is a job and the largest creator of jobs in this country is small business that has been strangled to death because of lame political ideology.
edit on 14-8-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


I'll agree with this - but at that big business is just as guilty... Kind of hard to open a mom and pop shop down the road from a Wal Mart. Avarice and bad policy are equally to blame in my eyes.

~Heff


That is how Walmart started, that is how all the big ones started and the Walmart age has came and passed there is a huge market out there and need for Americans who want to buy American, and quality competition is king.

The more people competing to bring goods to market the lower the price and comes quality to set themselves apart from the rest.

Where the "Wal marts" are lacking is competition has been replaced by cheap Chinese labor and yes there are quite of few guilty of that as well as those policies by that political ideology that becomes laws/regulations/sanctions.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
It's a flawed argument. What about all the people who qualify for welfare but don't apply knowing they will fail the drug test in the first place? There's no way to know how many people who didn't apply for that very reason.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by DocHolidaze
 


Passing a drug test is actually quite difficult.......I know there is all these myths about all the different ways you can cheat the system but it isn't really true.

Regardless, it didn't work, and was a huge waste of money and did not affect the welfare applicant rate.


this post has a ton of stars and made me laugh. unless you are on some type of parole/probation where they have mirrors in the urinals(im a guy) then it is actually quite easy to fake a drug test. even if they are watching your every move it is possible to successfully pass a drug test with drugs in your urine



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Solution = random testing. That way, recipients won't go crazy after the initial test.

After OB took away requirements for looking for work, we are a total welfare state now....



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Well, like i said, i am no fan of any form of socialist program. But, if we are to throw money at a problem, lets reap a return to balance the ledger. Infrastructure allows for national stability and unity, as it provides a method of commerce and free travel. I see nothing wrong with taking as many welfare recipients as possible and putting them into something like this instead. Civil service is what I am saying. That is, if we are to have a money give away to begin with.

I would also posit that the monies given to prop up the unemployment benefits for people should have gone to at least part civil service return. I know how long it takes to look for a job....a 40 hour week isn't necessary to do that successfully. It is more like you spend a few hours a day submitting and following up.

We can cringe all we want while thinking about what China has done. Yet it still does nothing to address that the current system allows for free monies given to people with zero return on that investment.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join