Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Over 97% of welfare applicants don't take drugs.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
No_hite_pls



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:35 pm    Post subject: Over 97% of welfare applicants don't take drugs. Reply with quote

Quote:
From July through October in Florida the four months when testing took place 2.6 percent of the states cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

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.

The Neo-cons big plan doesn't work and actually costs the tax payer more money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0


Last edited by No_hite_pls on Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The real point of drug testing welfare applicants is not to save money. The real point of drug testing welfare applicants is so you can imply that they need to be drug tested to keep on the straight and narrow. It's a moral attack, not a serious economic measure; anyone with the slightest bit of common sense would have known that no serious money was going to be saved here, and if the government were actually worried about saving money, it would just end the war on drugs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm 50-50ish on this. On a macro-sense, the War on Drugs is a waste 10000X greater than any druggies on welfare and the whole program is another example of stupid moral legislation.

At the same time, I understand the desire that people have to not have their tax dollars go to fund drugs (or gambling or frivolous expenditures).

The logical solution is that rather than welfare, you should have commodity stamps, assisted housing, public transportation cards, clothing credits, health facilities, etc. rather than just getting a check.

Not to sound neo-conny, but I kinda agree with the personal welfare when it comes to livations. Steelrails may be many things, but he is no skinflint when it comes to sharing the booze and buying a sad sack a round at the bar.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:

At the same time, I understand the desire that people have to not have their tax dollars go to fund drugs (or gambling or frivolous expenditures).

The logical solution is that rather than welfare, you should have commodity stamps, assisted housing, public transportation cards, clothing credits, health facilities, etc. rather than just getting a check.


Money is fungible: provide all these things for people instead of "welfare" and you're still going to be indirectly funding any vices they might have, only at much greater administrative expense due to all the micromanaging. Let's be frank: these things aren't rational concerns, they're excuses that let people pretend they care about helping their fellow man while demurring from actually doing so. "Oh, I'd give that hobo money, but he'd just use it on drugs so I won't." Excuse, not reason.

I for one give the hobo the money, and if he wants to use it on a bit of alcohol-induced respite from his problems, that's up to him. Besides, is it really such a terrible thing if a bit of that welfare money gets used to grant a poor man a brief moments respite and enjoyment? I don't think so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Steelrails wrote:

At the same time, I understand the desire that people have to not have their tax dollars go to fund drugs (or gambling or frivolous expenditures).

The logical solution is that rather than welfare, you should have commodity stamps, assisted housing, public transportation cards, clothing credits, health facilities, etc. rather than just getting a check.


Money is fungible: provide all these things for people instead of "welfare" and you're still going to be indirectly funding any vices they might have, only at much greater administrative expense due to all the micromanaging. Let's be frank: these things aren't rational concerns, they're excuses that let people pretend they care about helping their fellow man while demurring from actually doing so. "Oh, I'd give that hobo money, but he'd just use it on drugs so I won't." Excuse, not reason.

I for one give the hobo the money, and if he wants to use it on a bit of alcohol-induced respite from his problems, that's up to him. Besides, is it really such a terrible thing if a bit of that welfare money gets used to grant a poor man a brief moments respite and enjoyment? I don't think so.


While I agree that food stamps would indirectly fund vice, I think the fact that they have a specified purpose (and possibly regulated use) is a key distinction.

I am personally not opposed to booze or weed stamps- every man or woman deserves to be able to come home to a cold beer. However, I can't begrudge someone not wanting to subsidize someone else's indulgences.

It's a fine line. Ultimately, it is about show, but I can understand some people who have very strong feelings about drug and alcohol consumption not wanting to support people's habits with their tax dollars in such a fashion. Both are indirect funding, but one is certainly a few steps closer than the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhQOOBsV714
Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Corea



Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This surprised me a little. I wonder how it compares to the State/National average.

It'd be funny if it was actually lower.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slothrop



Joined: 03 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

edit

Last edited by slothrop on Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

slothrop wrote:
i saw the episode. hilarious. senator claims anyone who wants taxpayer money should have to piss in a cup. he is then asked who pays his salary... answer;the taxpayer. then asked if he would mind pissing in a cup. he says he would if it was law. he is then asked if he would be willing to introduce a bill requiring congressmen to take drug tests. blank stare. no answer. contempt.

Drug testing for politicians sounds like a great idea. And as their employer, I expect nothing less.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Captain Corea wrote:
This surprised me a little. I wonder how it compares to the State/National average.

It'd be funny if it was actually lower.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/state_profile_-_florida.pdf

(^ Warning, above is .pdf)

FLORIDA DRUG CONTROL UPDATE wrote:
Approximately 8 percent of Florida residents reported past-month use of illicit drugs; the national average was 8 percent.

. . .

In the most recent Survey, 7.8 percent of Florida residents reported using illicit drugs in the past month. The national average was 8.02 percent. Additionally, 3.5 percent of Florida residents reported using an illicit drug other than marijuana in the past month (the national average was 3.58 percent).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Captain Corea



Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do the State average is WAY higher. That's pretty hilarious. I think I'm going to have to make a lame Facebook meme for that.

As to the thing about politicians taking drugs tests for taxpayer money, we could extend that to ALL gov paid jobs.

Not sure why, but I expect the police and armed forces to be a tad higher than the above.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slothrop



Joined: 03 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

edit

Last edited by slothrop on Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

slothrop wrote:
i wonder if at some point senior citizens will have to pass a drug test to recieve social security benefits? with my luck they'll pass that law the year i retire.LOL


Probably not. Drug tests are about implicit moral attacks, something poor people are susceptible to, but the elderly generally are not. The method for dismantling social security is privatization (read: transfer of forced savings to the financial industry).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International