Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Newser)   Remember that controversial Florida law requiring welfare seekers to submit to drug tests? Turns out it didn't save taxpayers any money, didn't affect the number of applications, and didn't even ferret out very many drug users   (newser.com ) divider line
    More: Florida, Florida law, florida, drug tests, application software, welfare, invasion of privacy, welfare seekers  
•       •       •

9107 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Apr 2012 at 11:53 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



557 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-04-18 04:34:31 PM  
Splinshints: I'd argue the evidence so far suggests otherwise. Less than 3% of people were using drugs.

Actually, applications went down roughly 40% as soon as the law took effect. The 3% number is just those who applied anyway, and subsequently got caught.

BTW - In case you haven't read the thread, the fark headline is a complete falsehood, as has been pointed out several times, with referenced data.

Everyone just keeps repeating the same lie as the headline, and insisting they a right. Lol.
 
2012-04-18 04:34:31 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Bontesla: kiwimoogle84: Splinshints: kiwimoogle84: Fine. But the next time you have an opinion that differs from other people EVEN WHEN SOME PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU, I'll remember you said that.

I just don't understand what part of this isn't sinking in with you....

The problem here isn't that your opinion differs, the problem here is that the facts, readily available to you and everyone else here, differ from your opinion and you seem entirely dead set against altering your opinion to recognize that reality.

If you don't want people to mock you, don't try so hard to make reasons for them to mock you. The numbers are right there in the article. With 100% testing, they caught 2.6% of recipients abusing drugs. Whether you can do the math or not, does it not make some level of sense to you that "two point six percent" is a very, very small number of people and that it would be very, very difficult to effectively root them out with randomized tests?

Oh, and student loans aren't financial aid? Yea... I'm not even going to touch that one other than to yell FAFSA in your face and wander off chuckling to myself.

Fine. You've got me. No need to yell in my face. But there's a huge difference between student loans (which are paid back) and welfare ( which is not paid back). I also never touched a penny of it- it went directly to tuition.

If welfare is something that one pays in to, then do they not contribute to the program?

That is a good point, but they don't repay every penny of the assistance they received once they're off it, do they?


Well, you're asserting that they're taking your money and are not repaying it . . . So you telll me.

With citations.
 
2012-04-18 04:34:41 PM  

Bontesla: kiwimoogle84: Bontesla: kiwimoogle84: Splinshints: kiwimoogle84: I THINK

I'd argue the evidence so far suggests otherwise. Less than 3% of people were using drugs. What part of that makes you think the odds are going to work out better if you randomize it? Or are you just really, REALLY bad at probability?

You keep acting like your opinion can't be wrong when we have actual numbers. You're wrong. The odds on random checks paying off are so long that you'd have to be some sort of super moron to try it now that we know the real numbers because other super morons did something even dumber first. If you test more often than about 1 in 45 people you're almost guaranteed to lose money on the plan, but at 1 in 45, your odds of catching any individual druggy are not good and they rapidly worsen the less frequently you test.

You're just wrong. There's no way around it. You're wrong and the numbers are right there to prove it and yet you persist in being wrong and pretending otherwise by calling your wrongness an "opinion". I don't know where the stupid notion that an opinion can't be wrong came from, but it can be wrong, yours is wrong, and it's not unfair to think less of your intellectual capacity since you keep pushing it anyway.

Fine. But the next time you have an opinion that differs from other people EVEN WHEN SOME PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU, I'll remember you said that.

I just see no need for name calling.

I think you are sometimes mistaking facts for opinions.

The facts are there, yes. But I still have my opinions regarding the rest of the welfare system which have been previously stated. So yes. This project didn't work and is deemed unconstitutional. The end. You've berated me into a corner. Fine.

/random drug tests here all the time
//federal employee

Why are you attacking me?

I've been nothing but civil.


I've not once attacked your character. I was more saying that to everyone else. Apologies if I said anything to you personally that hurt your feelings in the course of attempting to defend myself.
 
2012-04-18 04:35:10 PM  

umad: jst3p: Stick to to your guns chica! It is your opinion that student loans aren't financial assistance, and opinions can't be wrong!

I didn't read all of her posts that closely, but she could be telling the truth in her situation. It is possible that she never filled out a FAFSA and only took out private student loans. Doubtful, but possible.


I will agree it is possible, but highly unlikely.
 
2012-04-18 04:36:28 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Splinshints: I'd argue the evidence so far suggests otherwise. Less than 3% of people were using drugs.

Actually, applications went down roughly 40% as soon as the law took effect. The 3% number is just those who applied anyway, and subsequently got caught.

BTW - In case you haven't read the thread, the fark headline is a complete falsehood, as has been pointed out several times, with referenced data.

Everyone just keeps repeating the same lie as the headline, and insisting they a right. Lol.


Correlation does not equal causation.
 
2012-04-18 04:36:53 PM  

kiwimoogle84: This project didn't work and is deemed unconstitutional. The end. You've berated me into a corner. Fine.

/random drug tests here all the time
//federal employee


Into a corner? What, now you feel "cornered" into accepting reality? You poor thing!

And whether or not a state/federal employee may be randomly drug tested depends on the nature of the position, so your little favorited! there at the end doesn't really mean anything.
 
2012-04-18 04:37:24 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Profedius: kiwimoogle84: Salt Lick Steady: kiwimoogle84: If pot were legalized, it wouldn't be a dirty test if you're positive.

And if my aunt were my uncle, you'd still be a dumbass.

That's not nice. Please use your grown up words.

I can't understand all the Hades you are taking for questioning a program that does nothing to improve the current condition or generate a means off of it for its benefactors. I also do not understand the overwhelming support for the welfare programs in their current state. If I found myself in a situation where I was in need of such a program I would want a program that offered me skill training or work where I could advance myself so I could earn more money. I have been through some rough times in my life but I never turned to welfare for help, I went to a temp service and took any job they gave me. I have collected unemployment in my time, but I have no problem with that system since it is limited and they do try and help get people working if you go to their offices and work with them.

I am not white knighting since it is me who is normally the one taking Hades, but I have been too busy at work today. Thanks for covering for me. lol

I truly just believe in treating a symptom rather than ignoring it or throwing money at it is all. And I've been busy too but luckily I can multitask rather well.


My kind of busy today has taken me away from my desk so it is not a matter of multi-tasking. I am of the same mind on treating a problem I prefer to improve people and not simply maintain them at their current level. I was sitting here wondering how much close contact the people supporting the system have had. I have been in close contact with people under the system and I can say that even then I didn't support the system as it was. I wasn't on the system, but I was working for a temp service for those that were on it and their lives were horrible. Thankfully I was single without kids, young and studying on my own to improve my situation.
 
2012-04-18 04:37:37 PM  

umad: jst3p: Stick to to your guns chica! It is your opinion that student loans aren't financial assistance, and opinions can't be wrong!

I didn't read all of her posts that closely, but she could be telling the truth in her situation. It is possible that she never filled out a FAFSA and only took out private student loans. Doubtful, but possible.


I did go through federal loans, yes. But I didn't get any bonds or grants, and welfare IS different than student loans. I never got money. It went directly to my college.


Ok I'm seriously done here. I don't have the time for this right now.
 
2012-04-18 04:37:54 PM  

OwnTheRide: Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions, libs.


I got the graph I posted above from there -- it's a good report, and only took about 30 seconds of web searching to find.

It's not like Florida is the only place this has happened. San Francisco changed its welfare from cash to slightly less drug-friendly housing (for homeless) and saw a similar huge drop in applicants.
 
2012-04-18 04:38:26 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Headso: kiwimoogle84: You will be attacked for your opinion in 3...2...1...

If you don't want people to respond to your opinions, especially if the are inflammatory maybe not post them on a forum where people can respond to your opinions. AM radio host is maybe more your speed...

Respond to my opinion, yes. "you are stupid" is not an intelligent response.


It is if you're stupid. And you are. So there's that.
 
2012-04-18 04:38:46 PM  

Splinshints: You keep acting like your opinion can't be wrong when we have actual numbers. You're wrong


hahahahaha. Read the thread. Look at the real numbers. :-)
 
2012-04-18 04:39:05 PM  

kiwimoogle84: umad: jst3p: Stick to to your guns chica! It is your opinion that student loans aren't financial assistance, and opinions can't be wrong!

I didn't read all of her posts that closely, but she could be telling the truth in her situation. It is possible that she never filled out a FAFSA and only took out private student loans. Doubtful, but possible.

I did go through federal loans, yes. But I didn't get any bonds or grants, and welfare IS different than student loans. I never got money. It went directly to my college.


Of course it is different, but it is still financial assistance.
 
2012-04-18 04:39:26 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Bontesla: kiwimoogle84: Bontesla: kiwimoogle84: Splinshints: kiwimoogle84: I THINK

I'd argue the evidence so far suggests otherwise. Less than 3% of people were using drugs. What part of that makes you think the odds are going to work out better if you randomize it? Or are you just really, REALLY bad at probability?

You keep acting like your opinion can't be wrong when we have actual numbers. You're wrong. The odds on random checks paying off are so long that you'd have to be some sort of super moron to try it now that we know the real numbers because other super morons did something even dumber first. If you test more often than about 1 in 45 people you're almost guaranteed to lose money on the plan, but at 1 in 45, your odds of catching any individual druggy are not good and they rapidly worsen the less frequently you test.

You're just wrong. There's no way around it. You're wrong and the numbers are right there to prove it and yet you persist in being wrong and pretending otherwise by calling your wrongness an "opinion". I don't know where the stupid notion that an opinion can't be wrong came from, but it can be wrong, yours is wrong, and it's not unfair to think less of your intellectual capacity since you keep pushing it anyway.

Fine. But the next time you have an opinion that differs from other people EVEN WHEN SOME PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU, I'll remember you said that.

I just see no need for name calling.

I think you are sometimes mistaking facts for opinions.

The facts are there, yes. But I still have my opinions regarding the rest of the welfare system which have been previously stated. So yes. This project didn't work and is deemed unconstitutional. The end. You've berated me into a corner. Fine.

/random drug tests here all the time
//federal employee

Why are you attacking me?

I've been nothing but civil.

I've not once attacked your character. I was more saying that to everyone else. Apologies if I said anything to you personally that hurt your feelings in the course of attempting to defend myself.


I would argue that accusing me of attacking you (more than once) is an attack on my character. You were not defending yourself against me. It was not warranted.

Let's move on.
 
2012-04-18 04:39:34 PM  

SpammityCalamity: Welfare is not an entitlement, it's a privilege. If you're using my goddamn money, that I earn working 32 hours a week on top of a full time course load, for drugs, fark you.

Sad that it didn't work out--unfortunately, alcohol has a short half life in urine, along with most amphetamines because they're not highly lipophillic (aka don't hang out in your fat stores like thc does). Standard urine tests miss occasional drug users.


Translation: when facts conflict with my stereotypical perception of the world, I would rather ignore the facts than let go of my precious stereotypes.

Seriously, what part of "Everyone who passed was reimbursed for the cost of the test-which totaled $118,140, or more than the state would have paid in benefits to those who failed, according to an ACLU director. That means the program actually cost the government $45,780." do you not understand? My guess is "all of it."
 
2012-04-18 04:40:28 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: demaL-demaL-yeH:
The people paying the taxes are barely putting food on the table. You want to take food from their children mouths to support drug user's drug habits.

That puts you in sociopath territory.


How does a program that helps poor families keep body and soul together take food from the mouths of other people's children?

/I should have been much more patient with kiwimoogle.
//Some suggested reading for you.
 
2012-04-18 04:41:39 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Actually, applications went down roughly 40% as soon as the law took effect.


Is there an actual citation of that?
 
2012-04-18 04:42:58 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Red_October: dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

If parasites are going to leech off of my labor, they at least can be tested to make sure they aren't spending it on crack.

I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?


I apologize for the slashies. I am guilty in this that instance of being just as judgmental as you, which was wrong of me.
 
2012-04-18 04:43:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: ThrobblefootSpectre: Actually, applications went down roughly 40% as soon as the law took effect.

Is there an actual citation of that?


Several in this thread already, from florida.gov. Scroll up.
Same as the last fark thread on this same subject, where the facts got ignored.
 
2012-04-18 04:46:28 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Mrtraveler01: ThrobblefootSpectre: Actually, applications went down roughly 40% as soon as the law took effect.

Is there an actual citation of that?

Several in this thread already, from florida.gov. Scroll up.
Same as the last fark thread on this same subject, where the facts got ignored.


Seriously. Correlation does not equal causation.

Do you know in areas where a similar laws were enacted - application drops were not satistically significant?

The main difference between the two types of drug testing laws revolves around the initial cost. I'm @ work so I have no citation but there's a lovely university study. I bet you could Google it.
 
2012-04-18 04:48:52 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Mrtraveler01: ThrobblefootSpectre: Actually, applications went down roughly 40% as soon as the law took effect.

Is there an actual citation of that?

Several in this thread already, from florida.gov. Scroll up.
Same as the last fark thread on this same subject, where the facts got ignored.


Can you post the link again, I don't feel like reading the whole thread to look for it.
 
2012-04-18 04:49:28 PM  

Bontesla: Seriously. Correlation does not equal causation.


Whatever you need to keep the lie alive.
 
2012-04-18 04:50:47 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Can you post the link again, I don't feel like reading the whole thread to look for it.


No reading required. Look for the pretty graphs from florida.gov. Can't miss 'em.
 
2012-04-18 04:52:15 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Bontesla: Seriously. Correlation does not equal causation.

Whatever you need to keep the lie alive.


Yes, that answer inspires absolute confidence and does not call into question any previous statements you've made.
 
2012-04-18 04:55:24 PM  

Bontesla: Yes, that answer inspires absolute confidence and does not call into question any previous statements you've made.


Chuckle. Yeah, other than facts and actual numbers agreeing with me.

And I suppose the people who keep repeating "3%!!!!" "it loses money!!1!!!" are more inspiring to you?
 
2012-04-18 04:56:12 PM  
www.floridafga.org

Was this the graph? The one that shows that food stamps and Medicaid programs went up after this policy was implimented.

I do see that TCA went down, but how do we know how much of that was a result of the policy and how much was a result of the improving economy?
 
2012-04-18 04:57:49 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Mrtraveler01: Can you post the link again, I don't feel like reading the whole thread to look for it.

No reading required. Look for the pretty graphs from florida.gov. Can't miss 'em.


heh, those are from "florida.org"

The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) believes personal liberty and private enterprise are key to our economic future. To advance our shared vision, we develop and promote free market public policies that achieve limited, constitutional government and a robust economy that will be an engine for job creation across the state.

how many GOP buzzwords can they fit in 1 paragraph about us section?
 
2012-04-18 05:00:58 PM  

Headso: ThrobblefootSpectre: Mrtraveler01: Can you post the link again, I don't feel like reading the whole thread to look for it.

No reading required. Look for the pretty graphs from florida.gov. Can't miss 'em.

heh, those are from "florida.org"

The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) believes personal liberty and private enterprise are key to our economic future. To advance our shared vision, we develop and promote free market public policies that achieve limited, constitutional government and a robust economy that will be an engine for job creation across the state.

how many GOP buzzwords can they fit in 1 paragraph about us section?


Well I'll be darned. And here I was thinking that this was straight from the State of Florida.

I guess they had to lie about the source of the graph (being from a right-wing think tank) in order for people to believe it I suppose.

Guess we can throw these charts out the window then.
 
2012-04-18 05:01:20 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Bontesla: Yes, that answer inspires absolute confidence and does not call into question any previous statements you've made.

Chuckle. Yeah, other than facts and actual numbers agreeing with me.

And I suppose the people who keep repeating "3%!!!!" "it loses money!!1!!!" are more inspiring to you?


So, just to clarify.

1. You asserted that these two trends are part of a causal relationship without any evidence.
2. I offer a researched and verifable explanation for those two values.
3. You respond saying I'm wrong but fail to provide a counterpoint.
4. I call you on it.
5. So you accuse me of asserting or feeling a certain way about a completely different argument.

Well done.
 
2012-04-18 05:01:56 PM  
If the money is given freely, it is charity.
If it has conditions or any other strings attached, it is a transaction.

States that test like FL and now GA have bought compliance. They are state employees.

All of you who are using dehumanizing language in reference to welfare recipients are damaging your karma.
 
2012-04-18 05:04:52 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Headso: ThrobblefootSpectre: Mrtraveler01: Can you post the link again, I don't feel like reading the whole thread to look for it.

No reading required. Look for the pretty graphs from florida.gov. Can't miss 'em.

heh, those are from "florida.org"

The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) believes personal liberty and private enterprise are key to our economic future. To advance our shared vision, we develop and promote free market public policies that achieve limited, constitutional government and a robust economy that will be an engine for job creation across the state.

how many GOP buzzwords can they fit in 1 paragraph about us section?

Well I'll be darned. And here I was thinking that this was straight from the State of Florida.

I guess they had to lie about the source of the graph (being from a right-wing think tank) in order for people to believe it I suppose.

Guess we can throw these charts out the window then.


yeah the founder of the "think" tank is a regular derper on the heritage foundation, townhall, all the usual suspects of filth.
 
2012-04-18 05:10:03 PM  

Bontesla: Do you know in areas where a similar laws were enacted - application drops were not satistically significant?


I thought Florida was the first and only state to have this law. (Georgia recently, as in days ago, passed something similar, but it isn't implemented yet.) So I'd be interested in a citation for this.
 
2012-04-18 05:11:15 PM  
I do give ThrobblefootSpectre credit for shamelessly suggesting that a graph and stats brought to us by a derper from a right wing think tank are accurate and can't be questioned.
 
2012-04-18 05:13:40 PM  

Headso: I do give ThrobblefootSpectre credit for shamelessly suggesting that a graph and stats brought to us by a derper from a right wing think tank are accurate and can't be questioned.


i'll just give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he really did think that graph came from the State of Florida.
 
2012-04-18 05:15:28 PM  

Bontesla: 1. You asserted that these two trends are part of a causal relationship without any evidence.



So I guess the fact that applications jumped back up by the largest increase in decades just after the court injunction against the law - that means nothing and is complete coincidence also.

Link
 
2012-04-18 05:15:30 PM  

rev. dave: If the money is given freely, it is charity.
If it has conditions or any other strings attached, it is a transaction.

States that test like FL and now GA have bought compliance. They are state employees.

All of you who are using dehumanizing language in reference to welfare recipients are damaging your karma.


Dear rev. dave,
Tzedakah is, biblically speaking, mandatory. It's not voluntary.
 
2012-04-18 05:16:01 PM  

ObeliskToucher: StoPPeRmobile: ObeliskToucher: Subby: Remember that controversial Florida law requiring welfare seekers to submit to drug tests? Turns out it didn't save taxpayers any money, didn't affect the number of applications, and didn't even ferret out very many drug users

According to the NY Times article that this one was based on, "save money" wasn't the objective, it did affect the number of applications (40 applicants cancelled the test before taking it), and it did ferret out some drug users (108 applicants). Since the stated objective of this law is to prevent giving welfare to drug users, it's a success from that point of view.

Also, they spent $46,000 over a period of 4 months to prevent payments to those 108 applicants. Since they each would probably have received more than $425 in benefits over that time period, the law probably did end up saving the state money.

Was the cost of testing included in the $46,000?

The $46,000 was the amount they spent re-imbursing the applicants who passed the drug test.


I wonder how much the pee lovers spent on soap.

/always pee all over the cup. They like pee. They get off on it.
 
2012-04-18 05:16:37 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Headso: I do give ThrobblefootSpectre credit for shamelessly suggesting that a graph and stats brought to us by a derper from a right wing think tank are accurate and can't be questioned.

i'll just give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he really did think that graph came from the State of Florida.


THIS seems reasonable.
 
2012-04-18 05:18:20 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Headso: I do give ThrobblefootSpectre credit for shamelessly suggesting that a graph and stats brought to us by a derper from a right wing think tank are accurate and can't be questioned.

i'll just give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he really did think that graph came from the State of Florida.


The first dude to post it has it even linking back to that "think" tank. You'd figure he'd click on it atleast once considering he was going on and on about it in a holier than thou way to everyone that suggested the article was accurate.
 
2012-04-18 05:18:30 PM  

Mrtraveler01: i'll just give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he really did think that graph came from the State of Florida.


More the numbers posted by the same guy, right after that. They are from the florida government.
 
2012-04-18 05:20:15 PM  

Mrtraveler01: ThrobblefootSpectre: Mrtraveler01: ThrobblefootSpectre: Actually, applications went down roughly 40% as soon as the law took effect.

Is there an actual citation of that?

Several in this thread already, from florida.gov. Scroll up.
Same as the last fark thread on this same subject, where the facts got ignored.

Can you post the link again, I don't feel like reading the whole thread to look for it.


I read it. It's so inconclusive, it's complete b/s.

The big "savings" didn't come from catching welfare cheats using their benefits for drugs, they came from people not applying for benefits once the law went into effect. The "average denial rate" of 19% is additionally complete b/s, because it comes from averaging all the counties "denial" rate due to testing. But those denial rates are all over the board and completely meaningless, because...

Liberty County had a 100% refusal rate! They refused one person out of one applicant.
Broward County had a 14% refusal rate! They refused 90 people from a total of 560 applicants.
Calhoun County had a 0% refusal rate! They refused zero people out of two applicants.

So overall,testing just over 7000 applicants (remember, this is already down 48% from last quarter) they "caught" about 1600 drug users. Also, there's this:

All but 32 of these denials were because the applicants did not get the required drug test at one of 350 drug testing sites across the state.

So the denials were not because of a hot drug test, but because the applicant didn't make it to one of the state-approved test labs. Which they had to pay for themselves, btw. If the test was negative, they got "reimbursed" for the cost.

There is no savings here, except illusory savings. 1598 of the denials might have been approved if the applicants had made it to the state labs.
 
2012-04-18 05:20:54 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Mrtraveler01: i'll just give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he really did think that graph came from the State of Florida.

More the numbers posted by the same guy, right after that. They are from the florida government.


Then why didn't he post it from the Florida Government website instead of a think tank that can manipulate the number to suit their agenda?

I've learned to never believe anything a think tank says.
 
2012-04-18 05:21:07 PM  

Headso: do give ThrobblefootSpectre credit for shamelessly suggesting that a graph and stats brought to us by a derper from a right wing think tank are accurate and can't be questioned.


Or, um, maybe the the graphic from the florida department of children and families.

I will give you guys credit though - you are amazing in your endless powers of denial.
 
2012-04-18 05:21:34 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Mrtraveler01: i'll just give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he really did think that graph came from the State of Florida.

More the numbers posted by the same guy, right after that. They are from the florida government.


nah, those numbers also link back to floridafga.org. If you go to the link you can see it in the derpers article.
 
2012-04-18 05:23:24 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Guess we can throw these charts out the window then.


They already were, by everyone who doesn't like them. :-)
 
2012-04-18 05:23:51 PM  

Bruce Campbell: So what this really says is 4% of the people that applied for welfare did so from a losing position. How many non-applicants were there or was there a drop in the number of applicants as a result.

Bad data give faulty conclusion.


From the more thorough New York Times article linked to in TFA:

"And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

"We saw no dampening effect on the caseload," the document said."
 
2012-04-18 05:26:21 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Headso: do give ThrobblefootSpectre credit for shamelessly suggesting that a graph and stats brought to us by a derper from a right wing think tank are accurate and can't be questioned.

Or, um, maybe the the graphic from the florida department of children and families.

I will give you guys credit though - you are amazing in your endless powers of denial.


What we need is some left wing pundit with a blog to make up some graphs showing the exact opposite and then you'd have to believe those, right?
 
2012-04-18 05:26:27 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Or, um, maybe the the graphic from the florida department of children and families.


You posted one from there?

All I saw was the ones posted from that derpy right-wing "think" tank.
 
2012-04-18 05:26:43 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Bontesla: Do you know in areas where a similar laws were enacted - application drops were not satistically significant?

I thought Florida was the first and only state to have this law. (Georgia recently, as in days ago, passed something similar, but it isn't implemented yet.) So I'd be interested in a citation for this.


Arizona Missouri, and Michigan have passed legislation for drug testing and public assistance. The Michigan law was struck down as unconstitutional.

I don't have access to the saved link (links to published PDF) from work. I suspect if you Google studies based on those state laws, you'd find it (there is probably more than one).
 
2012-04-18 05:31:23 PM  

stonicus: BeatrixK: I'm a fire-breathing commie liberal, but I have no problem asking people who want to use taxpayer money to support them to take a drug test.


Why just drugs though? If the guy spends $40 on a bag of weed, that's not good, but you're ok if he spends the $40 on an xbox game?


Yeah, because if it's only $40, it's probably not a new release. So I've had a chance to learn the maps and will pwn their welfare-lovin' asses as soon as they boot the game, increasing my K/D ratio and enabling me to unlock the coveted "Welfare PWNr" acheivement.
 
2012-04-18 05:33:36 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Bontesla: 1. You asserted that these two trends are part of a causal relationship without any evidence.


So I guess the fact that applications jumped back up by the largest increase in decades just after the court injunction against the law - that means nothing and is complete coincidence also.

Link


I didn't say meaningless. Statistically significant is not meaningless. If these drops/jumps are stastically significant then they hold meaning.

I am asserting that a trend does not equal causation. Since you're the one trying to establish the relationship, I am sure you have an independent source to help establish the argument you've put forth.

I can wait.
 
Displayed 50 of 557 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report