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.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6044
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
They are not included in the article you cited, here is what you cited:
This article is not factual because it's not accounting for the 1600. Correct?
absolutly correct that they didnt take the test, but as I already stated, those who refused the test were denied benefits. And the state still put on its bottom line a net loss.
You put forth a pivot, you didnt change the argument or disprove the original point that the state lost money trying to drug test people.
even if you assume a hire success rate, the state still loses money. Florida's test cost substantially more than the 10 dollars I guesstimated.
Quote:
Uh huh, 1600 refused the test based on principle. LOL
We can agree to disagree about the percentage of those who were taking drugs, but lets not pretend that there are not people who will refuse to do something based on principle.
Part of the article is about a single father who is an Navy vet who refused to take the test and took it to court.
absolutly correct that they didnt take the test, but as I already stated, those who refused the test were denied benefits. And the state still put on its bottom line a net loss.
No, no, no..... The beneifits those people would have received are not included in anything that shows a loss to Florida. I defy you to show otherwise.
Remove regulations on oil drilling? Hell no. Forget about it. That's ridiculous. That's the last industry that i want to see burrowing into the ground with minimal regulations. There are important things below this ground...foremost of which is WATER!
Right now, the oilfields are dragging ass, but a gallon of gas is cheap. If getting the oilfield booming again means three and four dollar gas, forget it. I don't want it.
Stop it.
What does George W. Bush know about an oil boom? If he knows so much, why was he a failed oilman himself? Please. Bush couldn't find oil if he drilled into a bottle of Mobil One.
You could have easily said, I didn't know that!!
Blame Bush for Low Gas Prices | Op Ed | US News
During George W. Bush’s presidency, there was no end to the number of problems for which one man was considered responsible. Bush was blamed for the so-called struggling economy of the early 2000s (which compared to today looks like the “roaring” 1920s) and the stock market crash in October of 2008 (even though Democrats had controlled Congress since 2007). He was even blamed for the alleged global warming that caused Hurricane Katrina (even though manmade global warming is likely an elaborate fiction). If something went wrong from 2001 to 2008, Bush was to blame.
Now that President Barack Obama has made the White House his home for nearly six years, it’s hard to imagine that anyone could claim Bush is the cause of anything going on today, but that’s precisely the assertion I’m making here: Bush’s administration deserves the blame for the current reduction in oil prices.
Despite claims from some Democrats that Obama deserves the credit for the oil boom, his administration has done nothing to earn such praise. In fact, Obama’s policies are stunting oil production and preventing billions of dollars of development and the creation of millions of jobs from occurring in order to appease his leftist base.
It was Bush — not Obama — who enacted policies that encouraged the development of lands in North Dakota, South Dakota and elsewhere. It was Bush who allowed companies to attain vital permits to drill offshore and onshore, creating countless jobs and generating billions of dollars of revenue. It was Bush that prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing unreasonable and burdensome regulations on drillers while he was in office.
So the next time you head to your local service station and overhear other customers happily discussing plummeting gas prices, be a well-informed and responsible American and audibly, succinctly, and intelligently: Blame Bush.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
No, no, no..... The beneifits those people would have received are not included in anything that shows a loss to Florida. I defy you to show otherwise.
You can do simple math.
divide the number of people who passed the test by the number cost in the link. Multiple that by 1600. You still have a net loss even when including those people.... who by the way could re apply in 6 months after passing a drug treatment program.
Again, the 4,036 number is only a small sample of the 92,000 who would have been tested if the program had continued. And even those who failed would have been allowed to give their benefits to someone else who could pass.
As I said before , they do collect, They simply name a beneficiary.
that 8,160,000 is still spent. All this comes down to is who pays for the drug test.
That is only if they have kids and that person will have to subject themselves to a drug test. It appears that it would not apply to those that refused the test.
Quote:
3) If a parent is deemed ineligible for TANF benefits as a result of failing a drug test conducted under this
section:
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
That is only if they have kids and that person will have to subject themselves to a drug test. It appears that it would not apply to those that refused the test.
Refusing a test is not failing it.
I dont see refusal addressed period other than the news articles, not the law itself. Its safe to assume that the same rule applies.
Perhaps not..... drastic decline in the caseload when the testing went into affect. The other number that is not being calculated is those that simply never applied.
Looks to be caseload average of about 93 to 94K in the months when testing was not in affect. It's a full 10K+ less in November which was last month it was in affect.
Last edited by thecoalman; 01-24-2017 at 11:15 PM..
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.
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.
