Drug testing for Welfare payments

[inactive]

Im hearing that they had a 10% failure rate thus far. 10% of 1,782,281(yes I looked this up and this is 2008 numbers, no doubt its higher today) is 178,228 that were turned down. Those checks that are not being sent out could easily add up to $356,000,000 (guestimated 2,000 dollars a month per leach for welfare and food stamps) You can do a lot with savings like that.

Even Fox News is reporting the 2ish percent figure:

I hope the OK law isn't modeled after the FL law because that one is costing taxpayers money, NOT saving money.

http://www.wftv.com/news/28908436/detail.html

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/welfare-drug-tests-2-percent-test-positive-08242011

Please don't assume a TANF recipient receives a sum of $2000. That's insane:

from: http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/docs/tcafactsheet.pdf

You also forgot to include the cost to reimburse all applicants that pass the test, as 30-35 dollars each, as well as other administration costs, not forgetting the legal defense of this law.

 

[OSU]

My view on welfare has always been this:
If someone is truly not able to work, i don't mind helping them. If someone is only able to work in limited capacity, I don't mind helping them. But for those who are able to work, and are not willing, i have no sympathy. I have no sympathy for people who cower behind disability and other such laws like something is owed to them.

On a side note: Many proponents of the welfare system try to blindly mock the christian doctrines, saying it is hypocritical to believe the bible and not try to help your fellow man. But this was discussed in Thessalonians:

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

As far as infringing on rights. It is not a right granted by the constitution to put whatever you want in your own body, nor should it be. If drug abuse had no societal impact then I would agree that you should be able to do drugs if you want. But, when your rights infringe upon my rights, that is where I have a problem. When a crackhead steals a purse in a parking lot of afford a fix, that's a problem. When a parent who has lost his way with drugs abandons their family leaving them to fend for themselves, that is a problem. Drugs cause social problems that is why it is not a right to put whatever you want in your body.

If you are abusing drugs while on welfare, are you looking for a job, are you looking to get off government assistance, are you trying to better your life? No! I have no problem with NOT helping you.

As far a bureaucracy goes, that is a very moot point. I would AGREE, that government regulation seldom increases efficiency an in most cases is inefficient. In fact what this country needs is less regulation. However, you are regulating an inefficiency. Ask any economist, welfare is one the most inefficient practices done by the government. If there is a way to decrease the economic impact of this inefficiency (welfare) by regulating and weeding out those who intend to abuse it, then I would argue that the regulation is increasing efficiency by decreasing a inefficiency

 

[tschwarz]

Just a quick question to understand your position... Would you be as opposed to another layer of bureaucracy if the welfare was contingient upon government subsidized training or college instead of drug testing?

My belief / opinion is that we will never solve these problems by adding additional layers of complexity to the many that already exist. The fabric of society is tearing at an increasing rate. We have families that have lived on the dole for multiple generations now. You can't fix that sort of entitlement mentality simply by adding an additional hurdle or requirement. People like this literally have nothing better to do than sit around and figure out ways to scam the system and devise methods to circumvent any safeguard you can dream up. I've known people using EBT cards while students in college that could easily have worked a job but chose not to; or, they did have a job and used the money they earned for partying. I know someone who has admitted to me personally that he faked symptoms in order to be diagnosed bipolar and is now receiving disability benefits. I've heard of others that use migraine headaches as a means of qualifying for disability. Some people have truly devolved into disgusting parasites.

I realize that there are a great many people currently on these programs that are not trying to scam them, rather they have actually paid into these programs by working most of their lives and are victims of the current economy. I'm personally not opposed to your idea of subsidized training in principle; however, why don't they just use the existing federal student loan programs? Perhaps more relevant at the present time is the question of what you would even train these people to do? Do we continue the stupidity of the past few years and train them into the artificial, government created 'green' sector? Every other day some .gov planner hack comes up with the latest idea for how .gov can end human misery if they only had a few more dollars and another program / agency. 'The more the planners plan, the more the plans fail.' It's blatant idiocy at this point.

We are always trying to solve the symptoms of the problem (rampant food stamps, the need for section 8 housing, generational welfare, the approaching insolvency of social security, the increasing costs of health care, etc.) instead of dealing with the actual problem(s) itself. The biggest problem, by far, is the constant .gov intervention in all matters under the sun, and the result is an environment in which creating jobs here is unattractive compared to other options. When President Taft first proposed the idea that later became the 16th Amendment, he outlined his vision of a plan that would create a 2% excise tax on all corporations and a 1-7% income tax that would ONLY apply to the top few % of the wealthiest earners, which, btw, is the only reason 2/3 of the states were ignorant enough to ratify it. It was ratified in 1913 and by 1917 the rate on the highest bracket went from 7% to 67% and then up to 77% a year later - talk about getting royally screwed in the ass. The stats for corporate tax rates are not quite as crazy, but the general pattern was the same. We currently have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world (Japan = 39.5, US = 39.2). This, however, is not anywhere near the biggest issue. The damn U.S. Code of Federal Regulations was over 80,000 pages in 2010! It was estimated that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP. As a comparison, in the same year, corporate pre-tax profits for all businesses totaled about $ 1.46 trillion. I won't even go into the topic of modern day unions. People (mostly liberals and fools) usually dismiss these things with the argument that taxes were higher and unions more prevalent in the 1950's and 60's and we enjoyed more economic prosperity than ever witnessed throughout history. The correlation between that economic prosperity, high tax rates and ever increasing regulation during that period is complete ********. The prosperity was a result of the simple and unavoidable fact that the rest of the industrialized world and their respective manufacturing capabilities had been effectively bombed back into the middle ages during WWII, thus leaving us in the incredibly fortunate position of having to pick up much of that slack. As nations rebuilt and retooled their economies, our economic situation correspondingly declined. The exceptions to that decline have occurred from time to time as we were in a position to pioneer certain revolutionary movements - silicon chips, computers, and the internet are a few good examples. The simple fact is that, though those exceptions have prolonged the inevitable, the present circumstances we find ourselves in were not exactly unpredictable. The problems have gotten increasingly worse as technology has eliminated a great number of traditional jobs that used to exist. It has also resulted in giant leaps in worker productivity, thus fewer people are needed to accomplish the same work.

Sorry for the long rant but the context is vital in understanding the actual problems we face and being able to identify steps towards real solutions. You will not fix welfare, high debt, social security / medicare insolvency, stagnant wages or any of the many other problems until you reform the tax policies and regulations that have made this country a real pain in the ass in which to do business. When good jobs are available, a great many of the other problems we are dealing with in society will generally take care of themselves, or at least will not present themselves as such a major thorn in everyone's side.

[/rant]

 

[OSU]

Cards, that Tanf does not include food stamps, government housing, utilities. I know an accountant who manages the financials of a government housing complex in southwest kansas. These are low income apartments. He said based on income and other factors tenants pay between 36 and 600 hundred a month for rent and utilities. $36 dollars for rent and utilities. plus the tanf payment, plus food stamps. One can get by pretty easily.

 

[J.P.]

As far as infringing on rights. It is not a right granted by the constitution to put whatever you want in your own body, nor should it be. If drug abuse had no societal impact then I would agree that you should be able to do drugs if you want. But, when your rights infringe upon my rights, that is where I have a problem. When a crackhead steals a purse in a parking lot of afford a fix, that's a problem. When a parent who has lost his way with drugs abandons their family leaving them to fend for themselves, that is a problem. Drugs cause social problems that is why it is not a right to put whatever you want in your body.

If firearms had no societal impact......

 

[inactive]

Cards, that Tanf does not include food stamps, government housing, utilities. I know an accountant who manages the financials of a government housing complex in southwest kansas. These are low income apartments. He said based on income and other factors tenants pay between 36 and 600 hundred a month for rent and utilities. $36 dollars for rent and utilities. plus the tanf payment, plus food stamps. One can get by pretty easily.

Agreed, but as others had repeatedly argued to me, this drug testing program only affects TANF, the cash benefit. So that was the number I researched. They are in favor of drug tests for a measly 62 bucks per child. It's entirely asinine.

 

[tschwarz]

My belief / opinion is that we will never solve these problems by adding additional layers of complexity to the many that already exist. The fabric of society is tearing at an increasing rate. We have families that have lived on the dole for multiple generations now. You can't fix that sort of entitlement mentality simply by adding an additional hurdle or requirement. People like this literally have nothing better to do than sit around and figure out ways to scam the system and devise methods to circumvent any safeguard you can dream up. I've known people using EBT cards while students in college that could easily have worked a job but chose not to; or, they did have a job and used the money they earned for partying. I know someone who has admitted to me personally that he faked symptoms in order to be diagnosed bipolar and is now receiving disability benefits. I've heard of others that use migraine headaches as a means of qualifying for disability. Some people have truly devolved into disgusting parasites.

I realize that there are a great many people currently on these programs that are not trying to scam them, rather they have actually paid into these programs by working most of their lives and are victims of the current economy. I'm personally not opposed to your idea of subsidized training in principle; however, why don't they just use the existing federal student loan programs? Perhaps more relevant at the present time is the question of what you would even train these people to do? Do we continue the stupidity of the past few years and train them into the artificial, government created 'green' sector? Every other day some .gov planner hack comes up with the latest idea for how .gov can end human misery if they only had a few more dollars and another program / agency. 'The more the planners plan, the more the plans fail.' It's blatant idiocy at this point.

We are always trying to solve the symptoms of the problem (rampant food stamps, the need for section 8 housing, generational welfare, the approaching insolvency of social security, the increasing costs of health care, etc.) instead of dealing with the actual problem(s) itself. The biggest problem, by far, is the constant .gov intervention in all matters under the sun, and the result is an environment in which creating jobs here is unattractive compared to other options. When President Taft first proposed the idea that later became the 16th Amendment, he outlined his vision of a plan that would create a 2% excise tax on all corporations and a 1-7% income tax that would ONLY apply to the top few % of the wealthiest earners, which, btw, is the only reason 2/3 of the states were ignorant enough to ratify it. It was ratified in 1913 and by 1917 the rate on the highest bracket went from 7% to 67% and then up to 77% a year later - talk about getting royally screwed in the ass. The stats for corporate tax rates are not quite as crazy, but the general pattern was the same. We currently have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world (Japan = 39.5, US = 39.2). This, however, is not anywhere near the biggest issue. The damn U.S. Code of Federal Regulations was over 80,000 pages in 2010!

It was estimated that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP.

As a comparison, in the same year, corporate pre-tax profits for all businesses totaled about $ 1.46 trillion. I won't even go into the topic of modern day unions. People (mostly liberals and fools) usually dismiss these things with the argument that taxes were higher and unions more prevalent in the 1950's and 60's and we enjoyed more economic prosperity than ever witnessed throughout history. The correlation between that economic prosperity, high tax rates and ever increasing regulation during that period is complete ********. The prosperity was a result of the simple and unavoidable fact that the rest of the industrialized world and their respective manufacturing capabilities had been effectively bombed back into the middle ages during WWII, thus leaving us in the incredibly fortunate position of having to pick up much of that slack. As nations rebuilt and retooled their economies, our economic situation correspondingly declined. The exceptions to that decline have occurred from time to time as we were in a position to pioneer certain revolutionary movements - silicon chips, computers, and the internet are a few good examples. The simple fact is that, though those exceptions have prolonged the inevitable, the present circumstances we find ourselves in were not exactly unpredictable. The problems have gotten increasingly worse as technology has eliminated a great number of traditional jobs that used to exist. It has also resulted in giant leaps in worker productivity, thus fewer people are needed to accomplish the same work.

Sorry for the long rant but the context is vital in understanding the actual problems we face and being able to identify steps towards real solutions. You will not fix welfare, high debt, social security / medicare insolvency, stagnant wages or any of the many other problems until you reform the tax policies and regulations that have made this country a real pain in the ass in which to do business. When good jobs are available, a great many of the other problems we are dealing with in society will generally take care of themselves, or at least will not present themselves as such a major thorn in everyone's side.

[/rant]

One last thing (I hope)... the bold quote above is astounding. 12% of GDP - think about that. We are growing the economy at about 1% a year (really ******). Imagine adding 12% to that. China grew at only 8.7% in 2009. With 12-13% GDP growth, we wouldn't really have a deficit problem. 12% of GDP ($1.75 trillion) is greater than the entire GDP of Canada. In fact, it's greater than the entire GDP of every country in the world except China, Germany, Japan, France, UK, Brazil and Italy.

 

[OSU]

I believe that GUNS have little societal impact. I believe that guns should be legal for both protection and sport. I don't believe guns cause crimes. I think it is the person who is holding the firearm committing the crime.

 

[Bullseye11]

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

[inactive]

My belief / opinion is that we will never solve these problems by adding additional layers of complexity to the many that already exist. The fabric of society is tearing at an increasing rate. We have families that have lived on the dole for multiple generations now. You can't fix that sort of entitlement mentality simply by adding an additional hurdle or requirement...

We are always trying to solve the symptoms of the problem (rampant food stamps, the need for section 8 housing, generational welfare, the approaching insolvency of social security, the increasing costs of health care, etc.) instead of dealing with the actual problem(s) itself...

Sorry for the long rant...

[/rant]

No need to apologize. Welcome to OSA!