Drug testing welfare recipients
founder
supporter
Top
+3
-1
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 6 years ago
Amorette:

Did it occur to you, the only thing "proven" here is how many idiots there were in each State who were dirty, but agreed to be tested anyway?

Find the study that shows the statistics from a normalized database of applicant numbers. Did applications increase, decrease or stay the same after the law was passed? Post a link to that one.

(Hint. You won't find it on the thinkprogress.org website.)

Meaningful data lives somewhere else.
Top
+2
-4
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 6 years ago
The data shows that drug testing welfare recipients is a boondoogle designed to shame the poor while stuffing the pockets of drug testing companies. I know that you would prefer the poor die and decrease the surplus population but some of us are compassionate human beings and wish to help those in need.
Top
+3
-1
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 6 years ago
Oddjob is basically demanding data that proves welfare recipients are: deadbeats who don't work, drug fiends, and that they stay on the "dole" forever.

ThinkProgress isn't the only website to post and analyze the data that Amorette shared above. Additionally, this "smoking gun" of Welfare Lazy Bum Data that you and others are constantly insisting exists never seems to materialize... from ANY source (even the fringe). 2% deadbeats does not equal a failed social safety net.

YES, there are a few individuals who meet your hideous benchmarks.
YES, those few do abuse the system and SHOULD be reported.

2% jerk rate does not mean that the social safety net is a failing program.
~98% success rate for struggling families is the most successful and least-fraud program the government runs!

Exactly how many states have to LOSE MONEY before we accept that this pee-testing welfare recipients is a failed program? If we get to a halfway mark of 25 will our Legislatures quit wasting the money? At this point, it is embarrassing. Where is the study that proves these programs a "Success"?? And what part of "this program has been found Unconstitutional numerous times" is somehow unclear to you?

So not only are we wasting state tax dollars, we're violating people's rights. Awesome.

But I guess from a Legislature that tried to outlaw yoga pants, I shouldn't be surprised that silly things like Facts, Data, and Historical Performance mean absolutely nothing in drafting effective legislation.

Disclaimer:
75% of households that receive welfare benefits and SNAP contain children. Even if pee-testing welfare recipients broke even, or even garnered a wee bit of profit, I would STILL be against the program (aside from its Unconstitutionality): BECAUSE, I will not support a program that intentionally takes food out of the mouths of children, the elderly, or Veterans (even IF the "responsible" adult in that household is a drug user). I will not punish a child for the sins and poor choices of an adult. I will not punish the elderly person who depends on those benefits, nor the Veteran who needs assistance.

TL;DR:
The historical, real-world data supports NOT TESTING.
Our moral compass should also support NOT TESTING.
Our patriotic duty supports NOT TESTING.
Top
+3
-1
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1607) 6 years ago
The thing that's always bothered me the most is that if even if someone was totally abusing drugs, refused to "get a job", wouldn't salute the flag or genuflect before Barack Obama or Sarah Palin, I still would never stand by and watch that person starve to death or die from a medical situation that is preventable with care.

It's the same reason I can't explain why capital punishment makes sense as a punishment for taking a life, or why people who get so upset at someone beheading another can endorse the same thing for someone they choose.

You either care about life, or you don't. It shouldn't ever be about money.

FH
Top
+4
-1
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 6 years ago
“Every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.74 in economic impact in the community,” Kevin Concannon, under secretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, told The Gazette this week.


With USDA working to stop fraud and overpayments, SNAP is one of the federal government’s most efficient programs, Concannon said. Less than 2.8 percent of SNAP recipients are overpaid, and less than 1.3 percent of SNAP benefits are sold or used for non-food purchases.


Excerpted from today's Billings Gazette: http://billingsgazette.co...103eb.html
Top
+2
-1
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1284) 6 years ago
Damned if you do Damned if you don't. You could weed out some abusers of drugs but you will more than likely cause more harm than good. That's right Mr. conservative believes that this would only be another government debacle run amuck, without a doubt hurting people who need our help and feeding the government machine with more over paid under worked drug users.

Legalize it and tax the hell out of drugs....ALL DRUGS. In the long run not much will change, heroin is on the comeback because people are being cut off from the pain narcotics they have become addicted to. Where is the sense in that.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 6 years ago
Amorette Allison wrote:
The data shows that drug testing welfare recipients is a boondoogle designed to shame the poor while stuffing the pockets of drug testing companies. I know that you would prefer the poor die and decrease the surplus population but some of us are compassionate human beings and wish to help those in need.


The data you provided shows nothing other than what I stated. If there is a population sample being deterred from signing up because they are using drugs, there is no other way to measure how significant this number may or may not be, other than looking at the before and after trends. That wouldOne would expect that drug users would tend to avoid being tested because using drugs is ILLEGAL.

Your comment about what I would "prefer" is laughable but not entirely unexpected.

Just how "holier than thou" are you Amorette? After 10 years of lurking on MC.com, (and in Miles City) I just don't have a good enough feel for your compassionate humanity.... Perhaps I am missing something..??

Please....Don't hold back.......
Top
+2
-4
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 6 years ago
I think Ebenezer Scrooge was redeemed. You think he was ruined.
Top
+6
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 6 years ago
Amorette Allison wrote:
I think Ebenezer Scrooge was redeemed. You think he was ruined.


I think he was fiction.
Top
+2
Posted by A.T. Nelson (+24) 6 years ago
Edited

This isn't a utopia, everything given must have a consequence or stipulations for some reason.
It's making a lot of people scramble though.

[Edited by A.T. Nelson (3/6/2015 3:22:58 AM)]
Top