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 558
    More: Florida, Florida law, florida, drug tests, application software, welfare, invasion of privacy, welfare seekers  
•       •       •

9090 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Apr 2012 at 11:53 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
2012-04-18 05:38:16 PM  

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


Interesting. Many pages of google show that although many states have suggested or tried to pass such legislation, only Florida has actually gone so far as to implement it in actual practice.

Arizona and Missouri seem to have a law the requires drug testing if there is reasonable suspicion of drug use. But not as any part of the welfare application process.
 
2012-04-18 05:40:40 PM  

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.


You mean the NYTimes article with the headline: "No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests"? The one with the lead sentence: "Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data."?

That article?

As to your assumption that the law "probably did end up saving the state money," the article that you thought said something it really didn't say also said:

"Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said. "
 
2012-04-18 05:45:23 PM  

Bontesla: 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.


Heh, the huge jump back up immediately after the injunction is enough for my common sense.

You can deny it all you want.
 
2012-04-18 05:52:45 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Bontesla: 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.

Heh, the huge jump back up immediately after the injunction is enough for my common sense.

You can deny it all you want.


Ya, 'cause a normal seasonal occurrence is a significant support for your position.

/What do you make of the sudden glut of strawberries in June?
//Common sense: You have it not.
 
2012-04-18 05:52:53 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Bontesla: 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.

Heh, the huge jump back up immediately after the injunction is enough for my common sense.

You can deny it all you want.


This guy begs to differ:

According to a DCF spokesman, though, other factors than the federal court ruling helped lead to the increase. There is usually a slight seasonal bump from November to December every year, and there was a general decline in applications throughout last year as the unemployment rate dropped.

"I think that probably was somewhat due to the drug-testing lawsuit, but I don't think it was the large factor," said DCF communications director Joe Follick.

About 2,000 of the 13,914-application increase in December came from people who were eligible for benefits but refused to take the drug test, Follick said.


Is the DCF in denial as well?

"It is important to ensure that people who receive TANF dollars use the cash assistance appropriately and not spend it on illegal drugs," Scott spokeswoman Jackie Schutz said.

And how many welfare users do they really think are on drugs? They make it sound like it's an epidemic or something.
 
2012-04-18 05:56:03 PM  
I will say one thing that gets glaringly overlooked when you guys bring up this repeat story. 96% who TOOK the test passed. Now, go look up the number who refused to take it.

I think its terrible you make these people pay for the test also. Hello? Go to a drug store. The farking thing costs $20.
 
2012-04-18 05:56:59 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Ya, 'cause a normal seasonal occurrence is a significant support for your position.


A "normal" seasonal occurrence that was the largest 1 month increase in decades. Okay.
 
2012-04-18 05:58:31 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: cryinoutloud: umad:
The social conservatives started it. Liberals are just throwing their argument back at them. Most of us would be happy if the fairy tales had never been mentioned in the first place, but no, the conservatives keep trying to shove it down our throats anyway.

What you said, but please, please, don't call them conservatives. It makes me mighty uncomfortable, and poor Ike* is spinnin' in his grave. (So are Abe. Who am I kidding? Even Tricky Dicky is spinning.)

They claim that their religious beliefs are based on mine, but act in ways that would shock, dismay, confound, and anger their putative founder.
They claim that their political beliefs are based on mine, but act in ways that would shock, dismay, confound, and anger the Founders.

*"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."

While jealously guarding the free institutions and preserving the principles upon which our Republic was founded and has flourished, the purpose of the Republican Party is to establish and maintain a peaceful world and build at home a dynamic prosperity in which every citizen fairly shares in opportunity, not other people's paychecks." (Emphasis added.)


FTFU.
 
2012-04-18 06:06:48 PM  

StanTheMan: the purpose of the Republican Party is to establish and maintain a peaceful world and build at home a dynamic prosperity in which every citizen fairly shares in opportunity


Really. That's strange. Everytime anyone tries to make the share in opportunity more fair, the retards whine about how it's socialism or something.

But that's ok, everyone knows the GOP is full of BS when it comes to wanting everyone to have a chance to be successful. No need to kid with us GOP.
 
2012-04-18 06:36:52 PM  

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.


So, why aren't we testing those politicians?

/No one is leeching off of your labor except the very rich.
 
2012-04-18 06:43:36 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Yes but why are the poor poor? I'm not self righteous. I have BEEN THERE. I worked myself out of it and if I can, anyone can. A lot of homeless people are homeless because they alienated everyone in their lives. I give money to homeless people as well as food. I do try to help people who need it. It's the people who don't need it and scam it or need it but waste it I have trouble with. I can barely afford to get all my bills paid every month but I don't go looking for handouts.


So. Your answer is: I got mine?

fark You.

Almost all homeless people are homeless because they are mentally ill.
 
2012-04-18 06:44:25 PM  

KWillets: [www.floridafga.org image 640x405]

TFA seems to have cherry-picked TANF which is not the only form of welfare.


It seems that the totally not biased "Florida Foundation for Government Accountability" also cherry-picked their dates, missing the following cataclysmic events that caused poor people to stop asking for cash handouts.

September 1, 2010: Apple, Inc. launches Ping.

December 17, 2010: Captain Beefheart dies.

Correlation, something, something, causation.
 
2012-04-18 06:53:08 PM  

Without Fail: kiwimoogle84: Yes but why are the poor poor? I'm not self righteous. I have BEEN THERE. I worked myself out of it and if I can, anyone can. A lot of homeless people are homeless because they alienated everyone in their lives. I give money to homeless people as well as food. I do try to help people who need it. It's the people who don't need it and scam it or need it but waste it I have trouble with. I can barely afford to get all my bills paid every month but I don't go looking for handouts.

So. Your answer is: I got mine?

fark You.

Almost all homeless people are homeless because they are mentally ill.


Almost all? Citation.

False.
 
2012-04-18 07:03:10 PM  

Without Fail: kiwimoogle84: Yes but why are the poor poor? I'm not self righteous. I have BEEN THERE. I worked myself out of it and if I can, anyone can. A lot of homeless people are homeless because they alienated everyone in their lives. I give money to homeless people as well as food. I do try to help people who need it. It's the people who don't need it and scam it or need it but waste it I have trouble with. I can barely afford to get all my bills paid every month but I don't go looking for handouts.

So. Your answer is: I got mine?

fark You.

Almost all homeless people are homeless because they are mentally ill.


States here that the percentage of mentally ill homeless people are categorized in "other".

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/why.html
 
2012-04-18 07:15:12 PM  

StanTheMan: demaL-demaL-yeH: cryinoutloud: umad:
in opportunity, not other people's paychecks." (Emphasis added.)
FTFU.


No, Stan - "FU: I've got mine." wasn't part of the Republican Party platform until 1979.
From the same Republican Party Platform:
We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs-expansion of social security-broadened coverage in unemployment insurance -improved housing-and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.

To these beliefs we commit ourselves as we present this record and declare our goals for the future.
 
2012-04-18 07:50:50 PM  

KWillets: [www.floridafga.org image 640x268]

Again, the stats show a major effect on Temporary Cash Assistance, even disregarding the drop in applications as this table does. TANF requires having a family, something most hardcore druggies don't have, so there's less impact on that program.

I hate cherry-picked statistics!


So I did a little searching on the "source" website and couldn't find anything on these other numbers. I did, however, find a press release that shows that the federally-funded Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) is the only program covered.

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/newsroom/pressreleases/20110701_TCAChanges . shtml

It also seems to use TCA and TANF interchangably. And the text of HB 353 only references TANF.

So, if you have some other source that backs up your numbers, let's see them. Cherry-picked statistics are indeed bad, but made-up statistics are worse.
 
2012-04-18 07:55:35 PM  
i651.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-18 07:59:54 PM  

Holodigm: Well, I'll be the brave one and admit it. I was highly in support of this and am quite disappointed It didn't work out. Oh well.


For some reason I can't get back into the article to check but I don't recall seeing whether applications for benefits were level before and after drug testing was require or whether they increased or decreased.

If they decreased, I would not be so quick to declare the program a failure.

/then again, I'm not the ACLU
 
2012-04-18 08:10:10 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.


That's all radical speaking and such. l need to study the Torah more, since I could not remember that very appropriate verse.
 
2012-04-18 08:17:15 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Rapmaster2000: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Give money to drug addicts and lazy illegal immigrants and completely discount real genuine hard work and true hardship. Welcome to my ignore list, you heartless communist.

If your reading comprehension wasn't so poor you would see that my motivation is based on the fact that there will always be a few bad apples but because there genuinely are some in need it is a cost of doing business if you want to help them.

But just for fun:

a student who was suddenly left with a 220k mortgage and all his debt. No life insurance.

Moved in with a man who broke my jaw and I couldn't talk or eat for two months. No health insurance

Yeah, you are a genuine hard luck story, no bad choices of your own lead you to your shiatty situation. Nope, none at all.

You've been ignored! Feel the burrrrrrrn!!!

I did enjoy the "my life is more screwed up than yours so I win" strategy. It's interesting.

Saw this through referenced comment. My god. Had you considered that my job didn't offer health insurance? You discounted the widowing. Yes, I chose this. Clearly. Oh, and a man beating a woman he's been dating for a year is ok too.

And rap master, my this only got escalated to prove a point. I understand hardship and still never took handouts. Don't want pity. Really I only wanted that guy to just acquiesce that I might have some perspective on the matter.


Fine I won't ignore it. With your poor decision making in men you picked one in poor health who died or had poor decision making skills himself and got himself killed. The one who beat you, obviously your poor decision skills. Your lack of health insurance show your poor decision making skills again. You obviously didn't further your education enough or didn't look for a proper job with health insurance. Hell, McDonald's offers health insurance.

I'm glad you didn't get assistance because you didn't deserve it, especially if you had your own "safety net" in family. I mean after all, my hard earned tax money shouldn't go to a person who has made nothing but horrible choices her entire life now should it? You would just end up wasting my money on more of your bad decisions. Unless there was some sort of test we could give you....
 
2012-04-18 08:23:10 PM  

reubendaley: Holodigm: Well, I'll be the brave one and admit it. I was highly in support of this and am quite disappointed It didn't work out. Oh well.

For some reason I can't get back into the article to check but I don't recall seeing whether applications for benefits were level before and after drug testing was require or whether they increased or decreased.

If they decreased, I would not be so quick to declare the program a failure.

/then again, I'm not the ACLU


The failure part of the program is that the majority of the "declined for drug-related reasons" were declined not for hot drug tests but because they didn't get their tests done either in a timely fashion or at the state-approved testing labs.

Aha! I hear you thinking, then that proves they must have been scared to go to the test labs and get tested, ergo, they were druggies! And you may be right...or it may be because the majority of counties have fewer than ten (10) approved labs. Enormous Dade county, which includes the city of Miami, has twelve (12) approved labs, meaning everyone who wants to get their drug test has to fit an appointment into one of those labs--and you can bet they're not open weekends, holidays, or before 8 or after 5. And don't think for a second that anyone who misses an appointment or is late gets to come back, either.

For the 7,028 welfare cash assistance applicants approved in the first quarter of the drug testing requirement, another 1,629 were denied for a drug-related reason. 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.

Thirty-two denials were for hot tests, so simple math shows that 1597 (one thousand five hundred ninety seven) were for failure to provide drug testing. There is no way of knowing which of these were because they were using and which were because they simply couldn't get to the labs.

You may have a different metric; I do not consider 32 actual refusals a successful program, regardless of any other benefits.

To answer your other question, applications for CASH benefits dropped 48% since the drug testing went into effect; but applications for Medicaid and food stamps (which are not cash) have not. Again, there is no way of knowing why the applications have dropped, or if they will rebound over time.

I'm getting all this from the "Foundation for Government Accountability" report, btw. Let their own words hang them. Link if you're interested
 
2012-04-18 08:29:35 PM  

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.


Then we should test all politicians for crack cocaine in their systems. Unless, of course, you think what they do is "work".
 
2012-04-18 08:35:27 PM  

Mrtraveler01: StanTheMan: the purpose of the Republican Party is to establish and maintain a peaceful world and build at home a dynamic prosperity in which every citizen fairly shares in opportunity

Really. That's strange. Everytime anyone tries to make the share in opportunity more fair, the retards whine about how it's socialism or something change the rules.

But that's ok, everyone knows the GOP is full of BS when it comes to wanting everyone to have a chance to be successful. No need to kid with us GOP.


FTFY.
 
2012-04-18 08:42:20 PM  
Just got to the thread, wondering if the people who are saying they support this because they don't want people on assistance spending the money they pay into taxes to be using it to get high have realized that they are paying more into taxes for this program than they would be for some welfare recipient to get high?

Or has this been a calm and rational discussion?
 
2012-04-18 08:47:24 PM  

Slothfart: Fine I won't ignore it. With your poor decision making in men you picked one in poor health who died or had poor decision making skills himself and got himself killed. The one who beat you, obviously your poor decision skills. Your lack of health insurance show your poor decision making skills again. You obviously didn't further your education enough or didn't look for a proper job with health insurance. Hell, McDonald's offers health insurance.

I'm glad you didn't get assistance because you didn't deserve it, especially if you had your own "safety net" in family. I mean after all, my hard earned tax money shouldn't go to a person who has made nothing but horrible choices her entire life now should it? You would just end up wasting my money on more of your bad decisions. Unless there was some sort of test we could give you....


I'm not going to read the rest of the thread because you just won it.
 
2012-04-18 08:49:19 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro:
So I did a little searching on the "source" website and couldn't find anything on these other numbers. I did, however, find a press release that shows that the federally-funded Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) is the only program covered.

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/newsroom/pressreleases/20110701_TCAChanges . shtml

It also seems to use TCA and TANF interchangably. And the text of HB 353 only references TANF.

So, if you have some other source that backs up your numbers, let's see them. Cherry-picked statistics are indeed bad, but made-up statistics are worse.


I believe I was mistaken about TANF and TCA being different, but I remain perplexed about why TFA doesn't report any effect.

The best source I can find so far is http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/reports/openclose.xls (the "MONTH" tab), which shows a strong decline (from 3473 to 1839) in new cases from July 11 through September. November shows the largest month-to-month increase (to 6069) on the chart , which covers 13 years. The numbers are very close to the chart I posted above.
 
2012-04-18 09:00:24 PM  

Slothfart: kiwimoogle84: Rapmaster2000: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Give money to drug addicts and lazy illegal immigrants and completely discount real genuine hard work and true hardship. Welcome to my ignore list, you heartless communist.

If your reading comprehension wasn't so poor you would see that my motivation is based on the fact that there will always be a few bad apples but because there genuinely are some in need it is a cost of doing business if you want to help them.

But just for fun:

a student who was suddenly left with a 220k mortgage and all his debt. No life insurance.

Moved in with a man who broke my jaw and I couldn't talk or eat for two months. No health insurance

Yeah, you are a genuine hard luck story, no bad choices of your own lead you to your shiatty situation. Nope, none at all.

You've been ignored! Feel the burrrrrrrn!!!

I did enjoy the "my life is more screwed up than yours so I win" strategy. It's interesting.

Saw this through referenced comment. My god. Had you considered that my job didn't offer health insurance? You discounted the widowing. Yes, I chose this. Clearly. Oh, and a man beating a woman he's been dating for a year is ok too.

And rap master, my this only got escalated to prove a point. I understand hardship and still never took handouts. Don't want pity. Really I only wanted that guy to just acquiesce that I might have some perspective on the matter.

Fine I won't ignore it. With your poor decision making in men you picked one in poor health who died or had poor decision making skills himself and got himself killed. The one who beat you, obviously your poor decision skills. Your lack of health insurance show your poor decision making skills again. You obviously didn't further your education enough or didn't look for a proper job with health insurance. Hell, McDonald's offers health insurance.

I'm glad you didn't get assistance because you didn't deserve it, especially if you had your own "safety net" in family. I mean after all, m ...


You are obviously trying to troll me and god forbid you ever have a hardship in your life. Because if you ever do have a tragedy of epic proportions people will judge you and say it was all your fault bad things happened to you. And even better, when you try to share a somewhat uplifting and heartening story about how you overcame it and you're ok, the response is "you never deserved help"? I'm appalled.

I really love how it's easy to look at someone ( who only posted all this trying to share some perspective, mind you) and decide something as absurd as "oh, you got raped? Maybe not wear a skirt next time, it's your own fault, clearly."

/my disbelief in humanity is certainly coming to a middle
 
2012-04-18 09:07:06 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Mrtraveler01: StanTheMan: the purpose of the Republican Party is to establish and maintain a peaceful world and build at home a dynamic prosperity in which every citizen fairly shares in opportunity

Really. That's strange. Everytime anyone tries to make the share in opportunity more fair, the retards whine about how it's socialism or something change the rules.

But that's ok, everyone knows the GOP is full of BS when it comes to wanting everyone to have a chance to be successful. No need to kid with us GOP.

FTFY.


They didn't say "in opportunity" - the platform was "a dynamic prosperity in which every citizen fairly shares."
Asshat appended absurdities in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance involved in acknowledging that the Republican Party was not always run by made up of selfish sociopaths.
Eisenhower even pointed out that the current "base" of the party consisted of stupid people. (Google "Eisenhower" "letter" "oil" "businessmen" and "they are stupid" if you're curious.)
 
2012-04-18 09:13:49 PM  

msrbley: Substitue "government benefit" for "taxpayer money" and "unreasonable search and seizure" for "drug test", think about it for a minute, consider whether its reasonable for all US citizens to subject themselves to an search and seizure for any government benefit (i.e. police protection, the right to vote, drive on public roads, etc) and slowly realize why this law was offensive to anyone who respects and appreciates the US Constitution.

/Not suprisingly, pro-legalization here.
// Suprisingly, not on welfare or drugs.


The best post in the thread, before I quit a couple hundred posts in. Not surprised that no one could find a fault in it and ignored it instead. (Or maybe you just weren't offensive enough to take attention away from the trolls.)
 
2012-04-18 09:19:04 PM  

foxyshadis: msrbley: Substitue "government benefit" for "taxpayer money" and "unreasonable search and seizure" for "drug test", think about it for a minute, consider whether its reasonable for all US citizens to subject themselves to an search and seizure for any government benefit (i.e. police protection, the right to vote, drive on public roads, etc) and slowly realize why this law was offensive to anyone who respects and appreciates the US Constitution.

/Not suprisingly, pro-legalization here.
// Suprisingly, not on welfare or drugs.

The best post in the thread, before I quit a couple hundred posts in. Not surprised that no one could find a fault in it and ignored it instead. (Or maybe you just weren't offensive enough to take attention away from the trolls.)


I missed that one but I agree, it is the best point made in this entire thread.
 
2012-04-18 09:31:36 PM  
Hint: if you're on f*cking welfare, there probably isn't a lot of dope money in the budget.
 
2012-04-18 09:40:49 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Slothfart: kiwimoogle84: Rapmaster2000: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Give money to drug addicts and lazy illegal immigrants and completely discount real genuine hard work and true hardship. Welcome to my ignore list, you heartless communist.

If your reading comprehension wasn't so poor you would see that my motivation is based on the fact that there will always be a few bad apples but because there genuinely are some in need it is a cost of doing business if you want to help them.

But just for fun:

a student who was suddenly left with a 220k mortgage and all his debt. No life insurance.

Moved in with a man who broke my jaw and I couldn't talk or eat for two months. No health insurance

Yeah, you are a genuine hard luck story, no bad choices of your own lead you to your shiatty situation. Nope, none at all.

You've been ignored! Feel the burrrrrrrn!!!

I did enjoy the "my life is more screwed up than yours so I win" strategy. It's interesting.

Saw this through referenced comment. My god. Had you considered that my job didn't offer health insurance? You discounted the widowing. Yes, I chose this. Clearly. Oh, and a man beating a woman he's been dating for a year is ok too.

And rap master, my this only got escalated to prove a point. I understand hardship and still never took handouts. Don't want pity. Really I only wanted that guy to just acquiesce that I might have some perspective on the matter.

Fine I won't ignore it. With your poor decision making in men you picked one in poor health who died or had poor decision making skills himself and got himself killed. The one who beat you, obviously your poor decision skills. Your lack of health insurance show your poor decision making skills again. You obviously didn't further your education enough or didn't look for a proper job with health insurance. Hell, McDonald's offers health insurance.

I'm glad you didn't get assistance because you didn't deserve it, especially if you had your own "safety net" in family. I mean a ...


See you even said people have told you that you've made poor decisions. You proved my point.

Your sob story means nothing, especially to the millions of people in America who have/had it a billion times worse than you. And your ignorant argument about how you made crappy decision after crappy decision in life and were flat out lucky to have family too mooch off of instead of going on assistance so everyone else should too is just that...flat out ignorant.

Please re-read ALL of your comments again in this thread and re-read your last post. If you do not see the extreme amount of hypocrisy there can only be two conclusions.

1. You've been trolling.
2. With no exaggeration, you truly are the worst person to comment in this thread and just might be one of the most mentally challenged posters on FARK. Just as angry as you are at people on welfare taking drugs I am just as angry that people with your damaged line of thinking are allowed to vote. THAT is where a citizen should have to pass a test before they are allowed to participate in a government activity.
 
2012-04-18 10:27:53 PM  

KWillets: Mitch Taylor's Bro:
So I did a little searching on the "source" website and couldn't find anything on these other numbers. I did, however, find a press release that shows that the federally-funded Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) is the only program covered.

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/newsroom/pressreleases/20110701_TCAChanges . shtml

It also seems to use TCA and TANF interchangably. And the text of HB 353 only references TANF.

So, if you have some other source that backs up your numbers, let's see them. Cherry-picked statistics are indeed bad, but made-up statistics are worse.

I believe I was mistaken about TANF and TCA being different, but I remain perplexed about why TFA doesn't report any effect.

The best source I can find so far is http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/reports/openclose.xls (the "MONTH" tab), which shows a strong decline (from 3473 to 1839) in new cases from July 11 through September. November shows the largest month-to-month increase (to 6069) on the chart , which covers 13 years. The numbers are very close to the chart I posted above.


Maybe because they can't measure the effect of something they don't know?

The spreadsheet you posted is really interesting, though.

Here's the breakdown of that increase:
2136 = First Time
671 = Returned After Closed for Earnings
1660 = Returned After Closed for Sanction
31 = Returned After Closed due to Time Limit
1540 = Returned After Closed for Other Reason
31 = Transfer In

In October 2011, they were:
751 = First Time
276 = Returned After Closed for Earnings
630 = Returned After Closed for Sanction
10 = Returned After Closed due to Time Limit
543 = Returned After Closed for Other Reason
29 = Transfer In

It looks like numbers were up across the board between October and November, but the biggest jump is first-time recipients. I would like to know what "Returned after closed for sanction" and "Returned after closed for other reason" mean. Those are also pretty big jumps.

It also shows that the total number of people receiving assistance drops during those months. I don't have time to go over more data, but we could spin the question around and ask, "why don't the supporters of the bill come out and tell us why we (or more importantly, Floridians) need to continue this invasion of privacy? If they can prove that drug users are the cause and that keeping them off TANF would save money, why wouldn't they? It certainly looks that way, but are TANF recipients really smart enough to just stay away for all that time (four months seems like a long time if you're living on handouts) knowing that the courts would put a halt to the program?

Maybe I'll dig into it more later :-)
 
2012-04-18 10:39:07 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: 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.


You are simply a dick. Of course, that's just my opinion.

/My opinion is correct, dick.
 
2012-04-18 10:39:40 PM  
Listen up, you revisionist history farkwits:
Scott sold his drug-testing plan as a way to help save the state $77 million annually in welfare costs.
(Page 13 of this PowerPoint.)
As usual, it was really about punishing poor, needy, desperate people for being poor, needy and desperate.*
Because being poor, needy, and desperate in Florida isn't punishment enough.

/While lining his own pockets.
 
2012-04-18 10:45:10 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: If they can prove that drug users are the cause and that keeping them off TANF would save money, why wouldn't they?


From what i can see, the Florida legislature has been saying all along that the program saved a lot of money even in just a 4 month period. I don't think they can help it if the only thing the popular media picks up on is the irrelevant 3% number and falsehood about the program "cost more money than it saves". It's not like they can force bloggers to blog about the real numbers.

Additional irony - Any any real source that has already printed the real numbers, and made convenient graphs of them, gets dismissed as "untrustworthy". Lol.
 
2012-04-18 11:14:17 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: any real source


Think tanks aren't "real sources"
 
2012-04-18 11:16:58 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Listen up, you revisionist history farkwits:
Scott sold his drug-testing plan as a way to help save the state $77 million annually in welfare costs.


That's funny, because he said this as well: Link

The governor's office said they haven't reviewed the statistics, but added that the main point of the policy is to make sure TANF benefits go to fill the basic needs of families, not to cut state spending.

It's like Rick Scott lied to us or something.
 
2012-04-18 11:29:28 PM  

Mrtraveler01: ThrobblefootSpectre: any real source

Think tanks aren't "real sources"


Heh. The news link at the very top of this thread (think boobies), quoted the 1.8 million in savings. This was, of course, considered "lies".
 
2012-04-18 11:33:10 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Mrtraveler01: ThrobblefootSpectre: any real source

Think tanks aren't "real sources"

Heh. The news link at the very top of this thread (think boobies), quoted the 1.8 million in savings. This was, of course, considered "lies".


Maybe because it wasn't proven expect by a bunch of derpy right-wing think tanks?
 
2012-04-18 11:38:54 PM  

Vodka Zombie: kiwimoogle84: If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

I don't think I'd borrow money from someone who doesn't know the difference between borrow and loan. You're in America! Speak the language or go back to whatever country you came from!


Tis neither loan nor borrow, moran. It's a total freebie every first of the month. No Link/EBT card recipients in IL are statutorily required to pay it back. It's kinda like a mugging, cept it's totally legal, see the applicable tax codes.
 
2012-04-18 11:45:02 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Maybe because it wasn't proven expect by a bunch of derpy right-wing think tanks?



Lol. I guess so. As long as anything that disagrees with your predecided opinion is "derpy" and "right wing". Can't argue with that.
 
2012-04-19 12:10:22 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: As long as anything that disagrees with your predecided opinion is "derpy" and "right wing".


Because the source was a derpy right-wing think-tank?

Did you see the source of these graphs? It's not the State of Florida.
 
2012-04-19 12:20:02 AM  
Of course it didn't work. Rick Scott is a scumbag.
 
2012-04-19 12:23:07 AM  

duffblue: Since it's Florida, wouldn't it be more efficient to assume everybody is on drugs?


No, it wouldn't. This isn't Arkansas.
 
2012-04-19 01:21:58 AM  

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?


As long as you agree that spending more of your money than they otherwise would, to give you the feeling that they aren't spending the rest of "your" money on drugs, then I guess you're okay.

"Hey man, can you spare $5.00 for me and my kids?"
"No, but I'll give you $5.20 if you spend $0.20 to pee in a bottle for me."
 
2012-04-19 01:56:35 AM  

The Homer Tax: Look, the important thing is not whether a program is actually effective or not...

The important thing is how much taxpayer money we can funnel directly into the Governor's pockets while simultaneously giving people the notion of "sticking it to over-privileged poor people."

Stupid Lib.


This!
 
2012-04-19 02:14:24 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Mitch Taylor's Bro: If they can prove that drug users are the cause and that keeping them off TANF would save money, why wouldn't they?

From what i can see, the Florida legislature has been saying all along that the program saved a lot of money even in just a 4 month period. I don't think they can help it if the only thing the popular media picks up on is the irrelevant 3% number and falsehood about the program "cost more money than it saves". It's not like they can force bloggers to blog about the real numbers.

Additional irony - Any any real source that has already printed the real numbers, and made convenient graphs of them, gets dismissed as "untrustworthy". Lol.


First of all, the NYT is a blog now?

Second, as Mrtraveler01 alluded to, organizations like Florida Foundation for Government Accountability aren't very credible when the numbers they provide don't match up with any other numbers. What's more, they claim that their data was collected from two public records requests. Why isn't Gov. Scott going public with this information instead of backpedaling? Simply by asking, this 10-month-old non-profit foundation was able to obtain data naming how many people were denied due to drug-related causes. Even more interesting, "not providing results" counts toward that number, BTW, regardless of the possibility that maybe people who need cash handouts can't come up with $30 for a drug test at the drop of a hat).

FWIW, I was checking out some applicant data:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/application s /cy2011_application_tanf.xls

Long story short, applications received went up in June, down in July, up again in August and went back down again in Sept., Oct. and Nov. Denials pretty much mirrored it, but approvals stayed pretty flat. Then stuff went all screwy in December. Applications fell slightly, denials fell dramatically and approvals went way up. Except for August and December, everything looks pretty much as you'd expect if the law never went into effect: lots of people apply and most get denied in a pretty straightforward ratio. If the law did deter druggies from applying, wouldn't the December applications show a bump instead of a dip? I'd think there would be a lot of pent-up demand, what with them not having any cash handouts for four months.
 
2012-04-19 02:24:39 AM  

Mrtraveler01: ThrobblefootSpectre: As long as anything that disagrees with your predecided opinion is "derpy" and "right wing".

Because the source was a derpy right-wing think-tank?

Did you see the source of these graphs? It's not the State of Florida.


Give 'em a break. They're not even a year old. You were probably pretty derpy at that age, too :-)

http://www.floridafga.org/thank-you-to-our-supporters-during-our-firs t -year-2011/
 
Displayed 50 of 558 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report