U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should people be required to submit to a drug screen before receiving unemployment benefits or welfa
Yes 118 65.19%
No 63 34.81%
Voters: 181. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-15-2012, 07:15 AM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,517,160 times
Reputation: 14846

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post

From that last article - "Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows."
I'll again refer you to the graphs and data I posted a page or two back.

The last articel from Tampa Bay only cites the 108 people that failed the test, you can;t fail a test if you refuse to take it or never apply for assistance to begin with because of the test.

Last edited by thecoalman; 09-15-2012 at 07:24 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-15-2012, 07:30 AM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,708,580 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Yes,why is it you think these drug addicts steal meat? They aren't stealing it to eat.
There is fraud with any govt program, however the vast majority don't fraud the system.
What does using a snap card have to do with stealing?
Even drug addicts eat. Sorry but this is just more spend 5 dollars to save one.
Also your graph isn't showing other cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2012, 07:44 AM
 
14,509 posts, read 16,425,983 times
Reputation: 12964
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
90% of private employers, drug test their applicants and make them take a physical each year, for their insurance requirements.

Governments don't do this.
90%. Show this statistic. Make people get physicals each year? I think you got your stats wrong. what insurance, workers comp or health insurance for the employee?

I have seem some companies allow employees lower rates on their health insurance premium if employee CHOOSES to get an annual physical. I doubt 90% of companies even offer this choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2012, 07:46 AM
 
14,509 posts, read 16,425,983 times
Reputation: 12964
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
I'll again refer you to the graphs and data I posted a page or two back.

The last articel from Tampa Bay only cites the 108 people that failed the test, you can;t fail a test if you refuse to take it or never apply for assistance to begin with because of the test.
Read the quote that you commented on. The findings where that the testing failed to curb the number of prospective applicants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2012, 07:55 AM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,517,160 times
Reputation: 14846
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
What does using a snap card have to do with stealing?
You asked if they could use it to buy drugs, you go buy meat and then sell it for much less than what it cost or trade it for drugs. This is common practice amongst addicts, the stealing part comes in because they will also steal the meat if they have no card.


Quote:
Also your graph isn't showing other cost.
It also doesn't show the escalating savings over an extended period of time. This is only a three month period, if we were to assume the people that refused the test were going to collect benefits for one year and can no longer do so because they refused the test it goes up to $120 per dollar spent.

It also doesn't show how many people never applied to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2012, 07:55 AM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,708,580 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod View Post
Read the quote that you commented on. The findings where that the testing failed to curb the number of prospective applicants.
If they want real savings why not just kill the program entirely? Why single out those select few thought unworthy?
Just kick em in the street, tell em to just say NO and go get a job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2012, 08:03 AM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,708,580 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
You asked if they could use it to buy drugs, you go buy meat and then sell it for much less than what it cost or trade it for drugs. This is common practice amongst addicts, the stealing part comes in because they will also steal the meat if they have no card.




It also doesn't show the escalating savings over an extended period of time. This is only a three month period, if we were to assume the people that refused the test were going to collect benefits for one year and can no longer do so because they refused the test it goes up to $120 per dollar spent.

It also doesn't show how many people never applied to begin with.
Ok please show some real data backing this and a correlation to the snap program. Also again we are talking about addicts. A drug issue does not equal drug addict. I know more people with legal drug issues then illegal ones. This program does nothing to address that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2012, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Miami, FL
58,628 posts, read 32,096,873 times
Reputation: 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by sindey View Post
[MOD CUT]

This would cost alot more money to do as well, are you prepared to pay for it with a possible tax increase?
We experimented with this in Florida, and the experiment failed. It ended up costing the tax payers more, not less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2012, 08:22 AM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,517,160 times
Reputation: 14846
Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod View Post
Read the quote that you commented on. The findings where that the testing failed to curb the number of prospective applicants.
That's not a number that is easily pinned down because there could be other reasons for applications going up and down, having said that the periods between March and June when they weren't testing seem be fairly stable with a slight increase over that time period. In June there was 3,741 approvals before the law went into effect. In September when the law was in effect there was 1,927 approvals and 1,055 denials which gives us total of 2,982.

When we subtract the 2.982 from 3,741 we get 759 less applications in September compared to June.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2012, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Murfreesboro (nearer Smyrna), TN
694 posts, read 627,652 times
Reputation: 345
Welfare - YES; Unemployment - NO. Unemployment is money that is meant to tide people over while they find another job. You can be on some forms of welfare and still be working.

Charles Sands
37129
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top