- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Drug testing welfare recipients shows the vast majority are clean
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:32 am to roadGator
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:32 am to roadGator
quote:
Spend on a more accurate test. If that leads to saving more than you spent, I'm good with that.
If not, go random with pee tests.
No one on drugs should get welfare.
I agree with the idea behind it, but wasteful government spending is not something fiscal conservatives should support. Drug testing welfare recipients is a waste of time, money, and resources.
1
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:33 am to rbWarEagle
Is there data about welfare recipients and the more expensive hair tests? I may agree with you.
If the more expensive test catches more and saves more that's being fiscally conservative.
If the more expensive test catches more and saves more that's being fiscally conservative.
This post was edited on 2/19/16 at 11:36 am
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:35 am to notiger1997
quote:
And yes, those that work have to get drug tested bubba and there is a reason for that generally. It's so you don't hurt someone at the jobsite or that the employer knows they have a good employee.
Let me get this straight. I have to be drug tested to get a job and make a living. My taxes go towards paying for welfare programs. If I had to be tested to earn that money then why can't they be tested to receive it? I would much rather a work for welfare requirement but not sure that will ever happen on a grand scale.
This post was edited on 2/19/16 at 11:38 am
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:35 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
The state launched the program in August, and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services recently revealed to Vox that 0.3 percent of the approximate 7,600 applicants and recipients screened for drug abuse tested positive for drug use. Other states have seen similar results. A mere 0.17 percent of the 39,121 applicants tested in Tennessee were found to be using illicit drugs, according to the Tennessean. In Arizona, more than 87,000 welfare recipients went through drug testing and only one person tested positive, USA Today reports.
How many of those tests were random and how many knew ahead of time they were to be tested?
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:37 am to roadGator
Hair tests are more expensive than urinalysis, for one. Further, THC stays in the hair follicle for an inordinate amount of time, relative to the purpose of testing in the first place. It is easy to imagine a scenario in which someone smokes weed, stops for an extended amount of time, goes on welfare and then fails a test (despite not ingesting in the past several months).
Also, no drug tests at all are more fiscally conservative than moderately priced testing.
Also, no drug tests at all are more fiscally conservative than moderately priced testing.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:37 am to iamAG
quote:
literally know a lady on disability for karpaltunnel. She hasn't worked for 8 years as she had been fighting in court for it. S
Disability IS the new welfare. It's tragic Bc there are plenty who really need it. There was a good long story on disability a couple years ago, I forget where. Maybe a Google search will find it. It described a town in the south where something like 80% of adults were on disability. They treated it as an unemployment/retirement/welfare program.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:40 am to DCtiger1
quote:
I would much rather a work for welfare requirement but not sure that will ever happen on a grand scale.
like Maine?
quote:
The fastest growing category in the fast growing Food Stamp program – now the second most expensive welfare program of the feds – is able-bodied adults without dependents (ABWDs). These are people fully capable of supporting themselves, but who choose to (and are allowed to) force others to pay for some or all of their food.
quote:
In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults without dependents plummeted by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in Dec. 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.
#Boom
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:41 am to rbWarEagle
Spending more to save more is prudent all day every day.
Don't care about druggies as long as they don't get free shite.
I also believe welfare food stores or welfare aisles should be opened/created. No delmonico steaks if you are on welfare. No crab meat. No name brand orange drink. No soda period actually. Subsistence items only. Give an incentive to get off welfare.
Don't care about druggies as long as they don't get free shite.
I also believe welfare food stores or welfare aisles should be opened/created. No delmonico steaks if you are on welfare. No crab meat. No name brand orange drink. No soda period actually. Subsistence items only. Give an incentive to get off welfare.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:42 am to biglego
quote:
Disability IS the new welfare.
One of the biggest frauds is SSI for kids with "emotional" or "developmental" disabilities. Basically kids are told to act up in school so the family can qualify for this subsidy (which averages around $615 per month per child). Ask any social worker.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:42 am to roadGator
There should be the ability to drug test effectively whenever they want. That being said, auditing everyone and testing everyone would just add a layer of expensive bureaucracy. If welfare is to be used, giving them the cash and expecting some % of fraud and misuse is still more cost efficient than running down every bad apple. It has to be a balance of cost effective/judgmental controls to deter bad behavior and acceptable failure rate.
It sucks but that is the reality.
It sucks but that is the reality.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:44 am to Bard
quote:
One of the biggest frauds is SSI for kids with "emotional" or "developmental" disabilities. Basically kids are told to act up in school so the family can qualify for this subsidy (which averages around $615 per month per child). Ask any social worker.
Yup. "Crazy checks" for the whole family. It's sickening how many able bodied young people I see on disability. People still lambast "welfare" but they don't realize how fricked up disability program is now.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:44 am to Cypdog
How about incentivize desirable behavior instead of rewarding bad behavior.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:46 am to roadGator
quote:
Spending more to save more is prudent all day every day.
Then the burden of proof (that spending more IS, in fact, saving more) falls upon you.
quote:
I also believe welfare food stores or welfare aisles should be opened/created. No delmonico steaks if you are on welfare. No crab meat. No name brand orange drink. No soda period actually. Subsistence items only. Give an incentive to get off welfare.
I totally agree with this. I actually thought it would be a great idea to have farmer's co-op's supported by state/local governments to provide healthy options to those receiving government assistance. Help the farmers, improve the health of the public. Kill two birds.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:51 am to WallsAllAroundMe
Some people take the bus to work bro
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:52 am to rbWarEagle
quote:
Then the burden of proof (that spending more IS, in fact, saving more) falls upon you.
I ain't bouta prove shite.
Let some bean counter do the math. They love move beans from one side to the other and counting them.
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:54 am to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
7600
That's a pretty good sample size.
That wasn't the sample size. That was the number of screened applicants (asked about drug use). 150 were selected for testing. 70 failed to show for testing. The positive tests came from the remaining 80.
This post was edited on 2/19/16 at 11:55 am
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:54 am to LSUTANGERINE
This study sounds similar to obama's we only have 5% unemployed in this country. You wanna know what the cool thing is about stats? I can make them say whatever the frick I want them to.
This post was edited on 2/19/16 at 11:56 am
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:54 am to roadGator
I feel ya. I'm just not going to support something that promotes wasteful spending by our incredibly wasteful government until it is proven effective. As it stands now, it seems to a half-assed policy be driven by right-wingers.Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:57 am to Evolved Simian
quote:
That wasn't the sample size. That was the number of screened applicants (asked about drug use). 150 were selected for testing. 70 failed to show for testing. The positive tests came from the remaining 80.
So then my assumption would be 70 out of the 150 prob couldn't pass the drug test. Your 0.13 % sounds closer to 50%.
This post was edited on 2/19/16 at 11:58 am
Posted on 2/19/16 at 11:58 am to LSUTANGERINE
Florida also tried and they gave up after ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts.
LINK
FYI
LINK
FYI
quote:
The 11th Circuit found that only about 2.6 percent of Florida welfare applicants failed the drug test during the four months the law was in effect, almost half for marijuana use.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News