If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tampa Bay Online)   Remember how Governor Rick Scott claimed drug testing welfare applicants would save millions? So far, only 2% have tested positive, saving $60,000 each year at total cost of $178-million annually   (www2.tbo.com) divider line 249
    More: Florida, Governor Rick Scott, state Department of Children, drug testing, total cost, mental health services, welfare, drug control, welfare applicants  
•       •       •

9452 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Aug 2011 at 7:06 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



249 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-08-24 07:18:22 PM

Marine1: Eh, let it run it's course before dropping it. I'm not against testing people who receive state funds for drugs.


The only people I know of who "receive state funds for drugs" are the elderly on medicare. So now you want to test THEM, too?
 
2011-08-24 07:19:09 PM
When I no longer am subject to drug-testing in order to keep my job, I might consider feeling sorry for someone who is subject to drug-testing in order to receive their assistance check.
 
2011-08-24 07:19:55 PM
Wait, cutting off benefits to 2% of the people on welfare saves $60,000 out of a total welfare budget of $178,000,000?

So assuming that that 2% had been receiving average benefits, only $3,000,000 of the welfare budget actually goes to paying benefits? Where's the other 98.3% of the welfare budget going?
 
2011-08-24 07:20:05 PM
How many people will not take the test and not apply for welfare?
Until the state can see how many people applied this year vs. last year will they be able to say anything at all about the success rate of this program.

/I think it'll fail, but this story is slanted and worst, and premature at best.
 
2011-08-24 07:20:21 PM

Felgraf: Marine1: Eh, let it run it's course before dropping it. I'm not against testing people who receive state funds for drugs.

I'm only for this if this includes, you know, elected officials who draw a salary, all police officers, all judges, all prosecutors....


Sure. Works for me.

/no snark
//completely and calmly serious
 
2011-08-24 07:20:22 PM

Corvus: King Something: SnakeLee: mysticcat: So far only 1000 people have taken the drug tests. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is not a random sample.

The testing will cost $360,000 to $540,000 per year, not $178,000,000.

Keep on with the wharrgarbl, though.

The testing is random (new window). The program will at best break even, probably not even that, and for what? To keep 2% of people off welfare? To humiliate tens of thousands of people a year so a company that may or may not have ties to the person who championed can make hundreds of thousands of dollars? There is no positive aspect to this, unless you hate poor people just for being poor.

Nail, head, etc.

Republicans have this belief that if you punish poor people, they will become rich people. They think all poor people just go around saying "I love being poor because I get everything I ever want!!!" and rich people all work 100% of the day and are just taxed for all their money.

I don't think the actually know many actual poor people or very rich people.


Only about 1-5% of the population actually benefits from voting Republican. The other folks voting that way are just masochists or operating under the delusion that they will be billionaires one day.
 
2011-08-24 07:20:39 PM
you are all missing the point, people on welfare might be spending money on teh drugs
/and drugs are evil
//teh gubmint told us so
///just say no to teh drugs
////unless they're pharmaceuticals
//then buy a LOT
 
2011-08-24 07:21:42 PM

SnakeLee: The testing is random (new window). The program will at best break even, probably not even that, and for what? To keep 2% of people off welfare? To humiliate tens of thousands of people a year so a company that may or may not have ties to the person who championed can make hundreds of thousands of dollars? There is no positive aspect to this, unless you hate poor people just for being poor.


No, the random version didn't pass.

SnakeLee: That's what you save over the course of a year from one month's worth of positive tests. If you assume you will get the same rate every month, then it's $720,000 per year. The total cost of the screens seems to be around $550,000, then there are also secondary costs like what you put. So there are going to be ER costs, foster care costs, crime related costs, etc. They are going to cost more than $200,000 a year easy. This isn't saving anybody any money.


Actually, we don't know if it will save money or not. We don't know the savings until we know how many addicts know it's hopeless and don't try.
 
2011-08-24 07:21:46 PM
Wait a minute! 2%! i was lead to believe that all welfare recipient were drug addled, flat screen watching, cell phone using societal cancers that were living posh lives on the American dole!!!


Aarontology: I still say every single elected and appointed official in all levels of government should be drug test as well.


^^^^^
THIS
 
2011-08-24 07:22:13 PM

"The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reimbursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year."


That's hilarious. So they think that a drug addict would want to be on welfare so badly that he would take a drug test he not only knows he's going to fail but then will never get back the money he spent on it in the first place that he probably would have rather spent on scoring some drugs. I think it's more logical that someone not doing drugs will have no problem taking a drug test.


I work at a place where they do drug testing and a criminal background check after you're hired. In the years I've been with the company there's been only one person I know of who had to be fired because they failed one of those test.

 
2011-08-24 07:22:30 PM
Is this the point where the Libertarians chime in about not wanting to be taxed for social services because it's their money?

www.celebrate.org
linky so hotty
 
2011-08-24 07:22:59 PM

quickdraw: So I guess the kids of drug addicts are just completely screwed. "Tough break kid. You're dad's a meth freak so no food for you."


We interrupt your wharrgarbl to inject a tiny bit of information: food stamps are a federal program through Department of Agriculture; cash is a state program and has to be paid back. It's not like kids will not be fed.

This drug-testing debacle is the most ridiculous effort put forth from Florida - ever, especially given that the Solantic Clinics are co-owned by (wait for it) Mrs Rick Scott. I know, we're all stunned.
 
2011-08-24 07:23:00 PM
Republicans were the glue-sniffing retarded kids that couldn't figure out how to play cold/warm during Easter egg hunts.

"HURR IS THE PROBLEM/EGG NEAR HERE?"

*facepalm*
 
2011-08-24 07:23:17 PM
Don't be naive. It's not about saving money. It's about control and power. Oh, and the personal financial gain of a small number of people.
 
2011-08-24 07:24:20 PM
Why stop there? What about random drug testing for people who claim deductions on their tax returns? They're getting state funding (through the reduction granted for the circumstances involved in the various deductions).
 
2011-08-24 07:24:24 PM
Obvious tag still recovering from the earthquake?
 
2011-08-24 07:26:50 PM
Kicking some welfare mom off the roles for smoking a little weed makes republicans feel tough and manly.
 
2011-08-24 07:26:55 PM

farknozzle: Only about 1-5% of the population actually benefits from voting Republican. The other folks voting that way are just masochists or operating under the delusion that they will be billionaires one day.


2 words.

Religion
 
2011-08-24 07:28:01 PM
So stupid. People hooked on drugs are the ones that need welfare. Not on drugs? Get a farking job!
 
2011-08-24 07:28:03 PM
Everyone on welfare should be humiliated. Get a job human scum.
 
2011-08-24 07:28:11 PM

Rindred: Is this the point where the Libertarians chime in about not wanting to be taxed for social services because it's their money?



I'm sorry. Whose money is it?
 
2011-08-24 07:30:23 PM

jtown: Don't be naive. It's not about saving money. It's about control and power. Oh, and the personal financial gain of a small number of people.


It's about making voters feel superior to fictional welfare queens.

It's going to be wildly successful on that front regardless of how useless it is at doing anything else.
 
2011-08-24 07:30:30 PM

JesseL: Wait, cutting off benefits to 2% of the people on welfare saves $60,000 out of a total welfare budget of $178,000,000?

So assuming that that 2% had been receiving average benefits, only $3,000,000 of the welfare budget actually goes to paying benefits? Where's the other 98.3% of the welfare budget going?


I was thinking along the same lines.

But it really doesn't matter where the money goes, as long as it's not to the poor.
 
2011-08-24 07:30:32 PM

DiamondDave: I'm sorry. Whose money is it?


The public's money. Or are you not familiar with how a democracy works?
 
2011-08-24 07:30:57 PM

tillerman35: Why stop there? What about random drug testing for people who claim deductions on their tax returns? They're getting state funding (through the reduction granted for the circumstances involved in the various deductions).


You want to drug test every single taxpayer?
 
2011-08-24 07:31:37 PM
On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits

uh... you guys only pay your welfare recipients $134 a f*cking MONTH?

Yeah, you bootstrappy Floridians can shut your fookin' c*ntholes about the poor as soon as I see YOU live on that much.

Jesus. Even if you were living in a shelter for FREE that would be a rough go.
 
2011-08-24 07:31:45 PM

Mavent: It was never about saving money for Republicans. It was about expressing their hate and contempt for anyone in need.


TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
 
2011-08-24 07:33:41 PM
Conservatives hate drugs! That's why they drink and smoke.
 
2011-08-24 07:34:40 PM

JesseL: Wait, cutting off benefits to 2% of the people on welfare saves $60,000 out of a total welfare budget of $178,000,000?

So assuming that that 2% had been receiving average benefits, only $3,000,000 of the welfare budget actually goes to paying benefits? Where's the other 98.3% of the welfare budget going?


I would also like an answer to this question
 
2011-08-24 07:34:49 PM

Huggermugger: Mavent: It was never about saving money for Republicans. It was about expressing their hate and contempt for anyone in need.


Let's test this ...

mc_madness: Everyone on welfare should be humiliated. Get a job human scum.


Oooh.
 
2011-08-24 07:36:35 PM

mysticcat: So far only 1000 people have taken the drug tests. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is not a random sample.

The testing will cost $360,000 to $540,000 per year, not $178,000,000.

Keep on with the wharrgarbl, though.


Math is hard when you think welfare abuse is okay. Also it makes you not notice that the article notes other applicants stopped the application process before getting the drug test. Maybe they have better things to do than spend 30$ on a test they'll fail.

quickdraw: So I guess the kids of drug addicts are just completely screwed. "Tough break kid. You're dad's a meth freak so no food for you."


Because meth heads would be good parents if they had an extra 200$ a month. Heaven forbid the child get out of the abusive environment.
 
2011-08-24 07:38:35 PM
Corvus [TotalFark] 2011-08-24 07:16:54 PM

Republicans have this belief that if you punish poor people, they will become rich people. They think all poor people just go around saying "I love being poor because I get everything I ever want!!!" and rich people all work 100% of the day and are just taxed for all their money.

I don't think the actually know many actual poor people or very rich people.

>>>>


And don't forget slavery was actually beneficial to African-Americans!
 
2011-08-24 07:39:20 PM
Having been on welfare for the last 6 months.. my observations when going down to the office on welfare check day is that a majority of the people I saw were spending their money on booze, tobacco and drugs. It was quite common to overhear conversations people were having over their cellphones with dealers.. But I don't know what percentage of the welfare recipients went to the office for their checks instead of direct deposit or getting them mailed to their address.. I can assume that people who held bank accounts or a stable fixed address probably led more productive lives and were more responsible with their checks.

/just got a job.
//Apprentice brewmaster at a local brew pub.. !
 
2011-08-24 07:40:10 PM

badhatharry: So stupid. People hooked on drugs are the ones that need welfare. Not on drugs? Get a farking job!


/not sure if serious
 
2011-08-24 07:40:28 PM

GAT_00: quickdraw: So I guess the kids of drug addicts are just completely screwed. "Tough break kid. You're dad's a meth freak so no food for you."

Like Republican give a shiat about that.


Sounds like just cause to put the kids in foster care.

/now to make foster care not suck...
 
2011-08-24 07:40:52 PM

DiamondDave: Rindred: Is this the point where the Libertarians chime in about not wanting to be taxed for social services because it's their money?

I'm sorry. Whose money is it?


It's theirs. And they chose of their own free will to live in a city/state/country where taxes are levied to pay for various things. So it was all theirs and they spent some on taxes, the same as one would spend it on a cell phone bill or a mortgage.

Freedom includes not blaming others for your own personal choices.
 
2011-08-24 07:43:55 PM
2%.

2% were those Scumsucking Motherfarking Asshole Leeches of Society... that were on Florida TANF and tested positive for drugs.

/Its no wonder at all this motherfarker made his money in the business world -- He's just as shady & underhanded & makes all the same dumbass moves as the rest of his business buddies.
 
2011-08-24 07:44:05 PM
I'm guessing the people on welfare who are actively using drugs will try to put off being tested for as long as possible. I'm not surprised one bit that testing at the beginning of this policy is having so few positives.

As for people who don't want to be drug tested. No one is forcing you to take welfare.
 
2011-08-24 07:47:13 PM

lennavan: But at least Republicans can rest easier at night knowing that somewhere there is someone who does not deserve help that is not getting it.

I mean, if we're not going to spend our time and money on making sure we don't help people who do not deserve it, what are we going to spend it on?


Gold plated personal jets for billionaires of course.
 
2011-08-24 07:47:22 PM

Mrbogey: Math is hard when you think welfare abuse is okay. Also it makes you not notice that the article notes other applicants stopped the application process before getting the drug test. Maybe they have better things to do than spend 30$ on a test they'll fail.

Because meth heads would be good parents if they had an extra 200$ a month. Heaven forbid the child get out of the abusive environment.


You mean the extra 2% that aren't included for unspecified reasons? Even if you count all of that second 2% as positives, which probably isn't the case, then you are getting a combined total of 4% of the welfare population testing positive for drugs. That is less than the rate of the general population and it's less than the rate for false positives. It doesn't save money. It robs people of their dignity. All it seems to do is give you an e-boner about yourself for hating poor people. Your only case is that you like to assume all poor people are doing drugs even when you are faced with clear evidence to the contrary. That's literally your entire point of posting. Why even bother?
 
2011-08-24 07:48:52 PM

OgreMagi: No one is forcing you to take welfare.


No, but the biological need for humans to have food and shelter from the elements is.
 
2011-08-24 07:50:06 PM
I don't see how drug testing has anything to do with welfare. Why not actually setup a process such as actively looking for work / training for jobs and providing day care to move as many people off of welfare as fast as you can? If they do not participate in the state ran "programs" to help train and place people then they lose their welfare. Also, set a max time limit someone can be on welfare with exceptions for the small handful of people that are incapable of working due to things like disabilities.

A system like this would have two benefits:

1) It would remove "Welfare bums"
2) It would train up laborers to meet the needs of specific job segments and as a side-effect would reduce unemployment overall.
 
2011-08-24 07:50:15 PM

SnakeLee: Your only case is that you like to assume all poor people are doing drugs even when you are faced with clear evidence to the contrary. That's literally your entire point of posting. Why even bother?


poor people are scary.

so vote Republican.
 
2011-08-24 07:50:47 PM

ginandbacon: Gosh. I seem to recall that addiction is a disease and one that qualifies you for Medicaid. I guess sick people don't deserve to eat though?


What about tobacco smokers?
 
2011-08-24 07:52:40 PM

SumoJeb: Having been on welfare for the last 6 months.. my observations when going down to the office on welfare check day is that a majority of the people I saw were spending their money on booze, tobacco and drugs. It was quite common to overhear conversations people were having over their cellphones with dealers.. But I don't know what percentage of the welfare recipients went to the office for their checks instead of direct deposit or getting them mailed to their address.. I can assume that people who held bank accounts or a stable fixed address probably led more productive lives and were more responsible with their checks.

/just got a job.
//Apprentice brewmaster at a local brew pub.. !


So why weren't you having your check mailed/deposited?
 
2011-08-24 07:53:19 PM

Mrbogey: Because meth heads would be good parents if they had an extra 200$ a month. Heaven forbid the child get out of the abusive environment.


I know you're trying, but we're just feelin' you. You seem a bit tired. Maybe take a nap and try again later.
 
2011-08-24 07:54:32 PM

Kazrath: 2) It would train up laborers to meet the needs of specific job segments and as a side-effect would reduce unemployment overall.


dont you think that would increase unemployment numbers? i mean, there would be more out of work people competing for the declining number of available jobs. we should be teaching them to speak Chinese and shipping them over there in boxes at the expense of the companies that send jobs over there.
 
2011-08-24 07:54:42 PM
The incredible lack of reading comprehension being demonstrated in this thread is epic. I mean, the article isn't very well written but it isn't *that* hard to figure out and so far not a single person in this thread seems to have actually understood it. I guess for most people in this thread subby's moronic headline fit in with their preconceived notions about the program, so they didn't even bother to check if the math made any sense.

/Hint 1: It doesn't
//Hint 2: The $60,000 figure is the estimated savings above and beyond the costs
///Hint 3: The testing program doesn't cost $178 Million annually, and you'd have to be both illiterate and innumerate to reach that conclusion from the article
 
2011-08-24 07:54:51 PM
The only bigger fail than the headline is that they don't test 100 percent of recipients. Yes the children too.
 
2011-08-24 07:55:20 PM

Loren: No, the random version didn't pass..

Actually, we don't know if it will save money or not. We don't know the savings until we know how many addicts know it's hopeless and don't try.


I can't find any proof that the random version didn't pass, but let's say that it didn't. I really doubt they are just cherry picking the people that are least likely to test positive considering the background on this. In any case, it not being random either helps my case or makes no difference.
 
Displayed 50 of 249 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report