• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Drug Screening Required for Welfare

ABCDeac said:
I think someone posted above that something like 4% of recipients failed drug tests, but maybe I'm wrong. That's 96% clean. And this is the best idea conservatives in FLA have come up with to tackle the budget?
Click to expand...

That was me referencing a study cited by Ph.

I agree with you that if this is the best idea anyone can come up with to tackle the budget, that is pathetic. However, that does not make it a bad idea. It makes it one of the many baby steps that are necessary in terms of self-accountability-based entitlement programs.[/QUOTE]

Yes it is a bad idea if 24 out of every 25 people tested pass. Those 96% do not have te money to pay for the tests. Every dollar you have them spend on testing denies their families something they critically need.

If the government pays for the tests, it is a waste of the government's money if 96% pass.

This is a totally nonsensical, knee jerk reaction to a non-problem.
 
RJ - I agree with you that if it is proven that this will yield a net cost to the government, it should not be done.

I disagree with the notion that it will yield a net cost. Thus, if it is not inherently unfair (which I do not think it is), and yields a net positive to the budget (which I think it will), it should be implemented. If it is implemented and proven to either be unfair or a net cost, it should be repealed.
 
It's not just the cost of the test. It's also the cost of HR time, benefits, etc., of government employees reading the ttests, ensuring the tests are done, having retests, writing reports, time to do what they are taking time away from and then oversight of the program.

Even if the government only pays $25/test to the labs, the other costs are much higher. Even if the other costs are only $25, if the govenrment is paying for all those tests to save ONE person out of 25 it would cost $1250. There are no people getting $1250/month from welfare.

This also doesn't include the costs of court challenges to the tests. Nor does it stop peoepl from failing a test once and then getting back on welfare and all the new paperwork and testing that would be necessary.

This is a typical RW concept. It sounds really good until you actually think about it.
 
True - it doesn't account for some of those things, just as you don't account for other inherent positives, such as a person getting clean, then getting a job, then going off welfare for the rest of their life, raising their kids on a non-welfare platform, thereby increasing the likelihood that their kids and their kids' kids won't need welfare, etc. Even if that happens to 10% of the 4% who would test positive, what would be the overall impact in 50 years?

I don't know, and neither do you. I tend to believe the benefits will outweigh the costs you project. And, if it is a net equal in dollar terms, but you do change the fortunes of 10% of the 4%, it ultimately becomes worth doing.
 
I don't get it. The government doesn't give out welfare to be good. The government gives out welfare because it's in the best interest of the state not to have an indigent class. Not sure how weeding out those can't pass a drug test makes things better for everybody.

Ideology trumping pragmatism FTL.
 
ABCDeac said:
True - it doesn't account for some of those things, just as you don't account for other inherent positives, such as a person getting clean, then getting a job, then going off welfare for the rest of their life, raising their kids on a non-welfare platform, thereby increasing the likelihood that their kids and their kids' kids won't need welfare, etc. Even if that happens to 10% of the 4% who would test positive, what would be the overall impact in 50 years?

I don't know, and neither do you. I tend to believe the benefits will outweigh the costs you project. And, if it is a net equal in dollar terms, but you do change the fortunes of 10% of the 4%, it ultimately becomes worth doing.
Click to expand...

If they fail the test and are thrown off what's the upside?

Most likely they will have to commit crimes to be able to have a place to live.

If they fail they aren't given rehab. If they were THEN it would be a good idea.

They aren't going to get clean just because they failed a test.
 
It's the first thing I think I've actually agreed with Rick Scott on. Personally, I think he's a joke although I voted for him just to vote against Obama.

Granted I'm also for legalizing drugs and gambling.
 
You mean his plan to enrich companies he had invested in by doing this?

Rick Scott is doing his best to give Obama FL.
 
Rubio needs to sit this one out and not take the temptation to be the VP slot in a losing campaign in 2012.
 
I've got a baby step for ya - turn those beady eyes of suspicion towards your precious "contributing to society" assholes on Wall Street who took a humongous dump on the United States to make a personal profit. They're responsible for more of your tax dollars going to "people who don't contribute" than a poor woman taking a few bucks a month to feed her kids and burning a J with her friend once in a while.
 
WakeandBake said:
I've got a baby step for ya - turn those beady eyes of suspicion towards your precious "contributing to society" assholes on Wall Street who took a humongous dump on the United States to make a personal profit. They're responsible for more of your tax dollars going to "people who don't contribute" than a poor woman taking a few bucks a month to feed her kids and burning a J with her friend once in a while.
Click to expand...

Why not address both?
 
bigdoublezero said:
I don't get it. The government doesn't give out welfare to be good. The government gives out welfare because it's in the best interest of the state not to have an indigent class. Not sure how weeding out those can't pass a drug test makes things better for everybody.

Ideology trumping pragmatism FTL.
Click to expand...

Beautifully put.
 
WakeandBake said:
I've got a baby step for ya - turn those beady eyes of suspicion towards your precious "contributing to society" assholes on Wall Street who took a humongous dump on the United States to make a personal profit. They're responsible for more of your tax dollars going to "people who don't contribute" than a poor woman taking a few bucks a month to feed her kids and burning a J with her friend once in a while.
Click to expand...

You're really doubling down on this evil Wall Street thing aren't you?
 
DirkTheDeac said:
You're really doubling down on this evil Wall Street thing aren't you?
Click to expand...

well, I mean, damn - these guys are picking on a few drug users who are on the dole while at the same time resisting reform on Wall Street and tax reform.

It's so fucking blatant.

We don't need to invent villains - the real ones are right in front of us. But hey, it works on you guys. The poor will always be a scapegoat I suppose
 
Last edited:
What is wrong with doubling down on Wall Street and at the same time trying to prevent people from being addicted to drugs? I am confused on why we can't do both. Bake is pulling a bait and switch. RJ does it all the time as well. Distract and change the subject. Lets not address the fact that drug dependence is bad, that drug dependence increases the likelihood that we will continue to support not only the recipients welfare status, but also the recipients children who grow up in a world surrounded by drugs and government checks.

Instead lets point out another bad thing in our current nation (Wall Street's dishonesty and greed) because that is worse and should be addressed first. Lets address both issues. Both need fixing, both require change from the status quo. We don't have to choose WHICH system we need to reform, just how to reform both systems. Liberals don't want to touch entitlements, psycho conservatives don't want to touch anything regarding tax reform or financial oversight - in reality we need to attack both problems and stop yelling at each other from our own respective corners while claiming some sort of moral superiority.

Both sides are at fault, and both sides are a part of a broken system. Instead of yelling at each other about how the other half caused their half to break, why not try to fix it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top