Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yo, if they have money for Drugs? They have money for food!!! Need to reduce the waste in Government, this is a good start!!!
"GTP"
Follow The Money!
View attachment 71262
Cuts both ways. If we've got money to drug-test millions of people, we obviously have the money to feed them.
And now North Carolina has even more money to feed the deserving
Tough shit to all you whiny liberals, the American people increasingly want drug testing for welfare. Deal with it. That's just the bottom line here.
I doubt it. The cost of screening and drug testing uses that up.
No, it doesn't. You have a skewed sense of how much drug testing costs. It used to cost us $10/per head when I was doing them. That was 20 years ago. So if it's even 2x that much, people aren't being tested every day or every week...if they are booted off foodstamps and are even tested every month (which will never happen) you save $184 per month per head.
Sounds good to me.
Its roughly $30 per test. And it costs far more than it saves.
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.
As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0
So given that your assumptions have been actively disproven.....why would I accept your assumptions as having any predictive value? Remember.....your only source is yourself. And you're clearly inadequate to carry your argument.
61% of those selected either failed the test or failed to show up while 39% showed up and passed. This has to go national!
By testing all of them odds are we can get nearly half of those moochers into programs and if they don't stop drug use, cut them off welfare benefits. Responsible people and taxpayer will win and the losers will lose!
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.
As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0
Cuts both ways. If we've got money to drug-test millions of people, we obviously have the money to feed them.
And now North Carolina has even more money to feed the deserving
Tough shit to all you whiny liberals, the American people increasingly want drug testing for welfare. Deal with it. That's just the bottom line here.
I doubt it. The cost of screening and drug testing uses that up.
No, it doesn't. You have a skewed sense of how much drug testing costs. It used to cost us $10/per head when I was doing them. That was 20 years ago. So if it's even 2x that much, people aren't being tested every day or every week...if they are booted off foodstamps and are even tested every month (which will never happen) you save $184 per month per head.
Sounds good to me.
Its roughly $30 per test. And it costs far more than it saves.
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.
As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0
So given that your assumptions have been actively disproven.....why would I accept your assumptions as having any predictive value? Remember.....your only source is yourself. And you're clearly inadequate to carry your argument.
So they cost $30 per, instead of $20.
And do they test every person every day? No?
And the florida reimbursement nonsense is ridiculous. But has nothing to do with the cost of drug testing itself. Natch the state is going to ratchet up the cost as much as it can. Who cares? Not me. Get rid of foodstamps and welfare. Problem solved.
Total hogwash.The state of Tennessee found that the cost of screening and testing worked out of just over $23,000 for every welfare recipient who was found to be using drugs and saw their $165.00 benefits cancelled. This means that in 11 1/2 year, the state will recover the costs of testing done this year.
Of course, if that person takes up a life of crime to survive and is arrested, those savings will be lost and the cost will continue to rise.
As bizarre as it is disingenuous. 61% of those to be tested either failed to show up or failed the drug test which means 93 moochers out of 152. That's a huge percentage and why this needs to go national.61% of those selected either failed the test or failed to show up while 39% showed up and passed. This has to go national!
Of 7600. Making a failure rate of less than 0.3%. Which is the information that's going to go national.
See, you're not going to be able to withhold that information when sharing the story. And your narrative falls apart when your audience is informed.
By testing all of them odds are we can get nearly half of those moochers into programs and if they don't stop drug use, cut them off welfare benefits. Responsible people and taxpayer will win and the losers will lose!
Save of course that the 89 weren't randomly sampled. But instead, picked specifically because they were suspected of being on drugs. Of the 7600 screened.....only 21 were found to be on drugs.
As for 'testing them all'....they did that in Florida. It was a disaster.
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.
As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0
It didn't save the state a penny. But cost the state 10s of thousands of dollars. With only 108 of 4080 candidates being on drugs.
Sorry Meat.....but your narrative relies on the ignorance of your audience. Which is probably why it plays so well among fringe conservatives.
And now North Carolina has even more money to feed the deserving
Tough shit to all you whiny liberals, the American people increasingly want drug testing for welfare. Deal with it. That's just the bottom line here.
I doubt it. The cost of screening and drug testing uses that up.
No, it doesn't. You have a skewed sense of how much drug testing costs. It used to cost us $10/per head when I was doing them. That was 20 years ago. So if it's even 2x that much, people aren't being tested every day or every week...if they are booted off foodstamps and are even tested every month (which will never happen) you save $184 per month per head.
Sounds good to me.
Its roughly $30 per test. And it costs far more than it saves.
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.
As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0
So given that your assumptions have been actively disproven.....why would I accept your assumptions as having any predictive value? Remember.....your only source is yourself. And you're clearly inadequate to carry your argument.
So they cost $30 per, instead of $20.
And do they test every person every day? No?
And the florida reimbursement nonsense is ridiculous. But has nothing to do with the cost of drug testing itself. Natch the state is going to ratchet up the cost as much as it can. Who cares? Not me. Get rid of foodstamps and welfare. Problem solved.
And who says the cost is 'racheted up'? You citing you again. And you've already demonstrated yourself to be a uselessly uninformed, unreliable source on this topic.
As bizarre as it is disingenuous. 61% of those to be tested either failed to show up or failed the drug test which means 93 moochers out of 152. That's a huge percentage and why this needs to go national.61% of those selected either failed the test or failed to show up while 39% showed up and passed. This has to go national!
Of 7600. Making a failure rate of less than 0.3%. Which is the information that's going to go national.
See, you're not going to be able to withhold that information when sharing the story. And your narrative falls apart when your audience is informed.
By testing all of them odds are we can get nearly half of those moochers into programs and if they don't stop drug use, cut them off welfare benefits. Responsible people and taxpayer will win and the losers will lose!
Save of course that the 89 weren't randomly sampled. But instead, picked specifically because they were suspected of being on drugs. Of the 7600 screened.....only 21 were found to be on drugs.
As for 'testing them all'....they did that in Florida. It was a disaster.
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.
As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0
It didn't save the state a penny. But cost the state 10s of thousands of dollars. With only 108 of 4080 candidates being on drugs.
Sorry Meat.....but your narrative relies on the ignorance of your audience. Which is probably why it plays so well among fringe conservatives.
Of 7,600 applicants and recipients, about 2 percent were referred for drug testing. The 21 positive tests represent less than 0.3 percent of the people screened.
North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms
I doubt it. The cost of screening and drug testing uses that up.
No, it doesn't. You have a skewed sense of how much drug testing costs. It used to cost us $10/per head when I was doing them. That was 20 years ago. So if it's even 2x that much, people aren't being tested every day or every week...if they are booted off foodstamps and are even tested every month (which will never happen) you save $184 per month per head.
Sounds good to me.
Its roughly $30 per test. And it costs far more than it saves.
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.
As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0
So given that your assumptions have been actively disproven.....why would I accept your assumptions as having any predictive value? Remember.....your only source is yourself. And you're clearly inadequate to carry your argument.
So they cost $30 per, instead of $20.
And do they test every person every day? No?
And the florida reimbursement nonsense is ridiculous. But has nothing to do with the cost of drug testing itself. Natch the state is going to ratchet up the cost as much as it can. Who cares? Not me. Get rid of foodstamps and welfare. Problem solved.
And who says the cost is 'racheted up'? You citing you again. And you've already demonstrated yourself to be a uselessly uninformed, unreliable source on this topic.
I know it's ratcheted up. The states quotes high numbers in order to demand more money from the tax payers. And they also charge more for simple services than anybody in the private market does.
You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.
People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.
Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.
Yo, if they have money for Drugs? They have money for food!!! Need to reduce the waste in Government, this is a good start!!!
"GTP"
Follow The Money!
View attachment 71262
Cuts both ways. If we've got money to drug-test millions of people, we obviously have the money to feed them.
And now North Carolina has even more money to feed the deserving
Tough shit to all you whiny liberals, the American people increasingly want drug testing for welfare. Deal with it. That's just the bottom line here.
You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.
People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.
Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.
Yo, if they have money for Drugs? They have money for food!!! Need to reduce the waste in Government, this is a good start!!!
"GTP"
Follow The Money!
View attachment 71262
Cuts both ways. If we've got money to drug-test millions of people, we obviously have the money to feed them.
And now North Carolina has even more money to feed the deserving
Tough shit to all you whiny liberals, the American people increasingly want drug testing for welfare. Deal with it. That's just the bottom line here.
No, the bottom line is that you idiots are spending millions of dollars to save thousands because you'd rather give taxpayer money to rich people than poor people.
The government has no business subsidizing corporations, farms or loan money.
Drug test or not, we don't need to waste the taxpayers money.
Agreed. But two wrongs don't make a right.
What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?
Making people get help from their destructive lives?
Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.
You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.
No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.
According to who? What law?
The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.
Agreed. But two wrongs don't make a right.
What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?
Making people get help from their destructive lives?
Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.
You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.
No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.
According to who? What law?
The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.
You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.
I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?
Not everyone is a moron. If you don't take a test you can't pass or fail it.21/89 = 24%That's 21 out of 7600.
That's a failure rate of about 0.25%
From the source article:
7,600 people screened from August through December21 of 89 people who were ordered to take tests came back positive
North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms
That's a failure rate of 0.25% or so.
The 89 is not a random sampling. They screen people to determine who is likely on drugs.
The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto.
North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms
Then they order testing to confirm if they are actually on drugs.
Of the 7600 people screened.....21 people were found to have been on drugs.
That's about 1/4 of 1 percent.
Why are you deliberately trying to mislead about the figures?
21 of 89 people tested failed the drug test True or false?
What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?
Making people get help from their destructive lives?
Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.
You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.
No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.
According to who? What law?
The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.
You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.
I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?
For one thing, the latter has nothing to do with whether you're qualified for assistance or not. The rest of that stuff ALL does.
Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.
You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.
No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.
According to who? What law?
The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.
You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.
I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?
For one thing, the latter has nothing to do with whether you're qualified for assistance or not. The rest of that stuff ALL does.
It's all an invasion of privacy.
If the law was, if you test positive on a drug test you are disqualified from assistance. They can make the qualifying factors whatever they want.
Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.
You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.
No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.
According to who? What law?
The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.
You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.
I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?
For one thing, the latter has nothing to do with whether you're qualified for assistance or not. The rest of that stuff ALL does.
It's all an invasion of privacy.
If the law was, if you test positive on a drug test you are disqualified from assistance. They can make the qualifying factors whatever they want.
You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.
No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.
According to who? What law?
The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.
You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.
I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?
For one thing, the latter has nothing to do with whether you're qualified for assistance or not. The rest of that stuff ALL does.
It's all an invasion of privacy.
If the law was, if you test positive on a drug test you are disqualified from assistance. They can make the qualifying factors whatever they want.
The courts in Florida ruled against 'suspicionless' drug testing.
