PDA

View Full Version : Judge blocks Florida welfare drug testing.



germanyt
10-25-2011, 07:24 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/25/judge-blocks-floridas-new-welfare-drug-testing-law/#comment

I didn't actually find the story itself that interesting but the comments at Fox News were too stupid for me to not post. I'm glad the law was blocked and unfortunately it had to be blocked for the wrong reasons. While unreasonable search and seizure may keep this law dead the real reason for its demise is simply because drugs aren't the only things people waste their money on. Conservatives hate drugs so much that they agree with this law just for that reason. Now that a person has been deemed not a pothead or cokehead what's to stop then from buying beer or expensive clothes or even fast food? It seems they don't really care that people on welfare are wasteful, just don't so drugs. This will put a huge strain on Floridas budget to be drug testing all those people too.

Conservatives
'Cut spending, less government, stay outta my personal life. But please, please government, waste money by digging too far into the personal lives of those nasty welfare recipients.'

r0gue6
10-25-2011, 07:26 AM
Finally, why you would spend money on such a stupid program is beyond me.

Faux conservatives gonna be faux.

JB05
10-25-2011, 07:31 AM
While I hate government waste and subsidized bad behavior that is often supported by government funding, this was a stupid law.

It simply wasn't practical. Fraud and abuse hurt us all, but it doesn't make sense to spend $100 tracking down $15 of fraud. If there were actually more people being denied benefits due to drug use, or the tests were cheaper, then I'd be all for it. As it is right now, like most things done by government, it doesn't make economic sense.

lee4
10-25-2011, 08:43 AM
this law may have had potential for substantial political backing upon inception, but after results came back destroying everyone's belief that people on welfare are just phuked up drug addicts (what was it, 2% postitive???) it's useless on all fronts except for propaganda.

themadgreek187
10-25-2011, 09:39 AM
so its ok for me to get up and go to work everyday and be subjected to drug tests but welfare recipients are not??? i say BS drug test them

ZenBowman
10-25-2011, 09:48 AM
so its ok for me to get up and go to work everyday and be subjected to drug tests but welfare recipients are not??? i say BS drug test them

Once again you are displaying sheer ignorance, there is no logic in what you posted. It is your employer who is subjecting you to drug tests, at their own expense. That doesn't mean taxpayer money should be spent on drug testing.

NeverStopMoving
10-25-2011, 09:55 AM
I wonder how much a single drug test costs...

Add up how many welfare recipients there are, and this was supposed to SAVE money?

The program would only save money if a lot of people failed the test and lost their benefits. If nobody failed the test, it would be a huge waste of resources.

Bullshiit like this needs to stop. Let's see Rick Scott enact a law that requires HIM to be drug tested in order for him to keep receiving HIS state benefits...yeah right.

themadgreek187
10-25-2011, 09:58 AM
Once again you are displaying sheer ignorance, there is no logic in what you posted. It is your employer who is subjecting you to drug tests, at their own expense. That doesn't mean taxpayer money should be spent on drug testing.

wut i dont even....


yea i get that. but they are abusing a federal program. u think they care about that? no they don't. welfare is a benefit that u apply for. if they made it apart of the application process how many people would apply for it? not too many i can tell u that. i see it everyday here in Florida and it disgusts me.

r0gue6
10-25-2011, 10:00 AM
wut i dont even....


yea i get that. but they are abusing a federal program. u think they care about that? no they don't. welfare is a benefit that u apply for. if they made it apart of the application process how many people would apply for it? not too many i can tell u that. i see it everyday here in Florida and it disgusts me.

The data doesn't back up your assertion brah.

You are wrong, is it that hard to understand?

NeverStopMoving
10-25-2011, 10:02 AM
but they are abusing a federal program.

how so?

germanyt
10-25-2011, 10:06 AM
so its ok for me to get up and go to work everyday and be subjected to drug tests but welfare recipients are not??? i say BS drug test them

So once you've ruled out that they are wasting money on drugs (btw many people pass drug tests who aren't clean) what next? You gonna somehow prevent them from buying cigarettes or alcohol? Take their gym membership away? Ban them from cable television? Or perhaps you would have all their income diverted to a government account where the state can equally distribute goods to poor people to ensure they aren't wasteful.

Where does it end? And many drugs, including the most common that people fail (MJ) shouldn't be illegal anyway.

themadgreek187
10-25-2011, 10:06 AM
so say u are in need of welfare. u are a honest hardworking individual who has no problem taking a drug test. recipient #2 is a crack head or what have u taking the advantage of the programs. does that person deserve the same benefits as yourself?

ZenBowman
10-25-2011, 10:09 AM
so say u are in need of welfare. u are a honest hardworking individual who has no problem taking a drug test. recipient #2 is a crack head or what have u taking the advantage of the programs. does that person deserve the same benefits as yourself?

If it costs more to administer the test than is typically abused by "druggies" then it is a bad idea.

germanyt
10-25-2011, 10:11 AM
so say u are in need of welfare. u are a honest hardworking individual who has no problem taking a drug test. recipient #2 is a crack head or what have u taking the advantage of the programs. does that person deserve the same benefits as yourself?

Drug testing doesn't decide who the upstanding citizen is. Just by drug testing how do know that the non crackhead doesn't spend 100 dollars a week on booze?

7rmr
10-25-2011, 10:15 AM
so say u are in need of welfare. u are a honest hardworking individual who has no problem taking a drug test. recipient #2 is a crack head or what have u taking the advantage of the programs. does that person deserve the same benefits as yourself?

The difference is who covers the cost and what is the purpose.

A private company having drug tests does not cost the the taxpayer money. It is a choice made by the private company and it costs that company money. Testing people on welfare costs tax payer dollars, and costs more than it saves. Never mind the massive violation of individual rights by the government.

Obviously, sometimes it makes sense for the government to have drug tests, people in the military or police officers being examples. However, that is because their job is to ensure public safety, a job they cannot fulfill if they are high.

YARDGORILLA
10-25-2011, 10:21 AM
I wonder how much a single drug test costs...

Add up how many welfare recipients there are, and this was supposed to SAVE money?

The program would only save money if a lot of people failed the test and lost their benefits. If nobody failed the test, it would be a huge waste of resources.

Bullshiit like this needs to stop. Let's see Rick Scott enact a law that requires HIM to be drug tested in order for him to keep receiving HIS state benefits...yeah right.


A. Testing is relatively cheap

B. It promotes lowering medicaid costs for the state. Return on investment.


The government(state/federal) spends money on worse things.



Although, think of all the people who turn $50 into $100 by buying welfare subsidized food items off drug addicts, may be disappointed.

themadgreek187
10-25-2011, 10:25 AM
A. Testing is relatively cheap

B. It promotes lowering medicaid costs for the state. Return on investment.


The government(state/federal) spends money on worse things.



Although, think of all the people who turn $50 into $100 by buying welfare subsidized food items off drug addicts, may be disappointed.


this

germanyt
10-25-2011, 10:25 AM
A. Testing is relatively cheap

B. It promotes lowering medicaid costs for the state. Return on investment.


The government(state/federal) spends money on worse things.



Although, think of all the people who turn $50 into $100 by buying welfare subsidized food items off drug addicts, may be disappointed.

None of that makes the program right. Its discriminating against drug users on the premise of waste and fraud while doing nothing to preven non drug waste. I don't see how you can support this and not also be calling for a welfare ban on cigarettes, alcohol, cable tv, netflix, porn subscriptions, etc.

7rmr
10-25-2011, 10:30 AM
None of that makes the program right. Its discriminating against drug users on the premise of waste and fraud while doing nothing to preven non drug waste. I don't see how you can support this and not also be calling for a welfare ban on cigarettes, alcohol, cable tv, netflix, porn subscriptions, etc.

Nevermind its clearly unconstitutional

YARDGORILLA
10-25-2011, 10:32 AM
None of that makes the program right. Its discriminating against drug users on the premise of waste and fraud while doing nothing to preven non drug waste. I don't see how you can support this and not also be calling for a welfare ban on cigarettes, alcohol, cable tv, netflix, porn subscriptions, etc.


No one is forcing the person to do drugs or TAKE welfare.

Personal choice/responsibility is Personal choice/responsibility

Legal versus illegal? Common sense and basic ideas of fairness?


And I am not an "anti-drug" person.

amtharin
10-25-2011, 10:40 AM
Finally, why you would spend money on such a stupid program is beyond me.

Faux conservatives gonna be faux.

For the same reason employers spend money to test their employees.

themadgreek187
10-25-2011, 10:41 AM
Nevermind its clearly unconstitutional

u apply for benefits. u are not REQUIRED to have them. it is a choice so therefore not unconstitutional for drug testing. i choose to go to work and i know there are drug test so i don't fight it. do i have to work? no but if i wanna pay my bills and eat i go to work and i don't hold my hand out and say give me money

amtharin
10-25-2011, 10:42 AM
I wonder how much a single drug test costs...

Add up how many welfare recipients there are, and this was supposed to SAVE money?

The program would only save money if a lot of people failed the test and lost their benefits. If nobody failed the test, it would be a huge waste of resources.

Bullshiit like this needs to stop. Let's see Rick Scott enact a law that requires HIM to be drug tested in order for him to keep receiving HIS state benefits...yeah right.

When was this law ever presented as a cost saving measure????

Link??

ZenBowman
10-25-2011, 10:43 AM
Nevermind its clearly unconstitutional

I would support birth control for welfare recipients, I feel drug testing is irrelevant with regards to stopping the problem.

amtharin
10-25-2011, 10:43 AM
Nevermind its clearly unconstitutional

No its not, people get drug tested for thing all the time.

IAmBatman
10-25-2011, 10:44 AM
A. Testing is relatively cheap

The actual test may be relatively cheap the actual cost of creation of department, administration of test, record keeping, legal costs etc.. would be very high. IIRC government testing of its own employees costs over $80,000 per positive test.

Also, and I haven't read anything about this law, what happens to people when they are caught? Is it a lifetime ban, do they have a chance to become clean or reapply at a later date? What if a single mother is caught with marijuana, what happens to the children? It just seems like it will cost a lot of money for little return and open up a lot of "rights" debate..

YARDGORILLA
10-25-2011, 10:45 AM
I would support birth control for welfare recipients, I feel drug testing is irrelevant with regards to stopping the problem.

Do you know the percentage of her. addicts with hep? HIV?

Do you know the percentage of crack addicts with heart issues? STDs?


Expensive on medicaid.

YARDGORILLA
10-25-2011, 10:48 AM
Qualification vs. Acceptance



ie:
PEOPLE ARE FREE TO EAT AS MUCH GOVERNMENT CHEESE AS THEY WISH, AS LONG AS THEY AREN'T EATING IT DUE TO THE MUCHIES FROM HITTING A BLUNT. IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD CHEESE, YOU CAN'T AFFORD WEED.

amtharin
10-25-2011, 10:52 AM
this law may have had potential for substantial political backing upon inception, but after results came back destroying everyone's belief that people on welfare are just phuked up drug addicts (what was it, 2% postitive???) it's useless on all fronts except for propaganda.

Only 2% failed, but the number of applicants were down significantly (i.e. they knew they would fail the test).

IAmBatman
10-25-2011, 10:57 AM
Only 2% failed, but the number of applicants were down significantly (i.e. they knew they would fail the test).

The few reports I have read suggested that drug and alcohol use occurs at the same rate in welfare recipients as it does in the general population.. so 2% would be low.

amtharin
10-25-2011, 10:58 AM
The few reports I have read suggested that drug and alcohol use occurs at the same rate in welfare recipients as it does in the general population.. so 2% would be low.

Exactly, the others just didn't show up.

brighamw
10-25-2011, 11:00 AM
None of that makes the program right. Its discriminating against drug users on the premise of waste and fraud while doing nothing to preven non drug waste. I don't see how you can support this and not also be calling for a welfare ban on cigarettes, alcohol, cable tv, netflix, porn subscriptions, etc.

So what?



Only 2% failed, but the number of applicants were down significantly (i.e. they knew they would fail the test).

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=139163463

From last nights thread on the same topic...

See post #10

YARDGORILLA
10-25-2011, 11:03 AM
Only 2% failed, but the number of applicants were down significantly (i.e. they knew they would fail the test).

Not that hard to pass one of these tests...........jussayin

7rmr
10-25-2011, 11:03 AM
u apply for benefits. u are not REQUIRED to have them. it is a choice so therefore not unconstitutional for drug testing. i choose to go to work and i know there are drug test so i don't fight it. do i have to work? no but if i wanna pay my bills and eat i go to work and i don't hold my hand out and say give me money

Well the judges seem to think otherwise. Also, you are still talking about an interaction between two private citizens, you and your employer. This is an interaction been a citizen and the government. Similarly, freedom of speech does not protect you from your private employer. You can not use your experience in this discussion as it does not apply.

7rmr
10-25-2011, 11:04 AM
I would support birth control for welfare recipients, I feel drug testing is irrelevant with regards to stopping the problem.

That is so messed up I cannot even enter into that discussion with you

YARDGORILLA
10-25-2011, 11:05 AM
Well the judges seem to think otherwise. Also, you are still talking about an interaction between two private citizens, you and your employer. This is an interaction been a citizen and the government. Similarly, freedom of speech does not protect you from your private employer. You can not use your experience in this discussion as it does not apply.

It actually does.

It furthers the point, you need to follow rules for the person who keeps food on your table and a roof over your head.

Regardless, of who the person, company, or government agency that it is.

7rmr
10-25-2011, 11:05 AM
Only 2% failed, but the number of applicants were down significantly (i.e. they knew they would fail the test).

Or they took a stand as they felt it was an infringement of their rights.

If the government said you had to put cameras in your house so they could watch you to prevent crimes, many more people would object than simply those who had something to hide.

YARDGORILLA
10-25-2011, 11:06 AM
That is so messed up I cannot even enter into that discussion with you

I know, because saving a person from a life time of suffering because of a drug addicted single mother is so mean.

YARDGORILLA
10-25-2011, 11:07 AM
Or they took a stand as they felt it was an infringement of their rights.

If the government said you had to put cameras in your house so they could watch you to prevent crimes, many more people would object than simply those who had something to hide.

Newsflash, many major cities do have these cameras.

7rmr
10-25-2011, 11:07 AM
It actually does.

It furthers the point, you need to follow rules for the person who keeps food on your table and a roof over your head.

Regardless, of who the person, company, or government agency that it is.

No it does not. Your constitution specifically regulates interaction between the government and its citizens. You cannot simply say because the government is giving out money in this instance that they are now equal to a private company.

If an employee protested against the head of their company they would be fired. What if welfare recipients protest against Obama, should they be cut off from welfare?

amtharin
10-25-2011, 11:08 AM
So what?




http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=139163463

From last nights thread on the same topic...

See post #10

Exactly 2% will be the figure thrown around by the people pushing this bill, when its actually around 25%.


I dont think the bill was ever sold as a cost saver, but it would be with a 25% fail rate.

7rmr
10-25-2011, 11:08 AM
Newsflash, many major cities do have these cameras.

Not in your houses they don't. And many people objected to those cameras, not just those who were criminals, that is my point.

amtharin
10-25-2011, 11:09 AM
Or they took a stand as they felt it was an infringement of their rights.

If the government said you had to put cameras in your house so they could watch you to prevent crimes, many more people would object than simply those who had something to hide.


Try that in any other situation where a drug test is required, and they will mark you down as a fail.

amtharin
10-25-2011, 11:11 AM
Not in your houses they don't. And many people objected to those cameras, not just those who were criminals, that is my point.

You chose to go in to public = you chose to be on camera

You chose to get welfare = you chose to take a drug test



Just gtfo with the invasion of privacy stuff.

germanyt
10-25-2011, 11:14 AM
So what?


So you agree that this is merely an extention of the war on drugs and not really anything to do with waste. If waste was a concern then they would reach beyond a simple drug habit. What if the pothead that gets turned down for food stamps smokes one joint a week that he doesn't even pay for? He isn't abusing, frauding, or wasting but is discriminated against. Should people with open traffic tickets be excluded from welfare? They broke the law and it could be considered a waste of personal money to pay a 150 dollar ticket for something that could have been prevented. That would have a bigger impact on a persons welfare need than a 25 dollar bag of weed a month.

amtharin
10-25-2011, 11:17 AM
So you agree that this is merely an extention of the war on drugs and not really anything to do with waste. If waste was a concern then they would reach beyond a simple drug habit. What if the pothead that gets turned down for food stamps smokes one joint a week that he doesn't even pay for? He isn't abusing, frauding, or wasting but is discriminated against. Should people with open traffic tickets be excluded from welfare? They broke the law and it could be considered a waste of personal money to pay a 150 dollar ticket for something that could have been prevented. That would have a bigger impact on a persons welfare need than a 25 dollar bag of weed a month.

You're using terrible logic here. There are many programs that are focused on eliminating waste, that does not mean that they reach to ridiculous lengths.

7rmr
10-25-2011, 11:18 AM
I know, because saving a person from a life time of suffering because of a drug addicted single mother is so mean.

Yes, all welfare recipients are drug addicted single mothers and no child born to a parent on welfare has ever gone on to have a fulfilling life.

Edit: Also, thats what social services are for. You demonstrate you are an unfit parent your child is taken away. the whole innocent before proven guilty logic also applies here.

Second edit: I am done. This has gone from a discussion of economics and the constitution, to a discussion dominated by ideology. There is no longer any point in trying to make intelligent arguments.

brighamw
10-25-2011, 11:24 AM
So you agree that this is merely an extention of the war on drugs and not really anything to do with waste. If waste was a concern then they would reach beyond a simple drug habit. What if the pothead that gets turned down for food stamps smokes one joint a week that he doesn't even pay for? He isn't abusing, frauding, or wasting but is discriminated against. Should people with open traffic tickets be excluded from welfare? They broke the law and it could be considered a waste of personal money to pay a 150 dollar ticket for something that could have been prevented. That would have a bigger impact on a persons welfare need than a 25 dollar bag of weed a month.

No, I just don't care if drug users are being discriminated against :D

amtharin
10-25-2011, 11:28 AM
Yes, all welfare recipients are drug addicted single mothers and no child born to a parent on welfare has ever gone on to have a fulfilling life.

Edit: Also, thats what social services are for. You demonstrate you are an unfit parent your child is taken away. the whole innocent before proven guilty logic also applies here.

Second edit: I am done. This has gone from a discussion of economics and the constitution, to a discussion dominated by ideology. There is no longer any point in trying to make intelligent arguments

You call those arguments you made intelligent??

7rmr
10-25-2011, 11:42 AM
You call those arguments you made intelligent??

Stating there is a difference between a private company and the government, and that the constitution was designed to specifically apply to one and not the other, yeah, I would say that passes for intelligence.

DennisR1977
10-25-2011, 11:42 AM
There's a huge difference between your list of what if wastes, and drugs. One is ILLEGAL.


So once you've ruled out that they are wasting money on drugs (btw many people pass drug tests who aren't clean) what next? You gonna somehow prevent them from buying cigarettes or alcohol? Take their gym membership away? Ban them from cable television? Or perhaps you would have all their income diverted to a government account where the state can equally distribute goods to poor people to ensure they aren't wasteful.

Where does it end? And many drugs, including the most common that people fail (MJ) shouldn't be illegal anyway.

amtharin
10-25-2011, 11:57 AM
Stating there is a difference between a private company and the government, and that the constitution was designed to specifically apply to one and not the other, yeah, I would say that passes for intelligence.


Yeah, and then you **** the bed with your understanding of privacy.

dakensta
10-25-2011, 12:00 PM
so its ok for me to get up and go to work everyday and be subjected to drug tests but welfare recipients are not??? i say BS drug test them

sounds like you're mad that you can't do drugs rather than that other people can do.
basically you're saying "If I can't do drugs then no one should be able to."
wouldn't you prefer it if you weren't drug tested?

7rmr
10-25-2011, 12:02 PM
Yeah, and then you **** the bed with your understanding of privacy.

No. Because over and over again the courts have ruled you have no expectation of privacy while in public.

I should clarify. By this I mean that is why you cannot sue someone for taking video of you while walking through a public street. Now, if they make money off that video, or use it in a way that misrepresents why you are doing, obviously that is different.

Edit: Also, expectation of privacy, and unreasonable search and seizure are not the same thing. Just as, someone can take a picture of you in public, however, they cannot come up to you and search through your stuff, including your blood, or hair, or urine (however the drug test is administered)

amtharin
10-25-2011, 12:19 PM
No. Because over and over again the courts have ruled you have no expectation of privacy while in public.

I should clarify. By this I mean that is why you cannot sue someone for taking video of you while walking through a public street. Now, if they make money off that video, or use it in a way that misrepresents why you are doing, obviously that is different.

Edit: Also, expectation of privacy, and unreasonable search and seizure are not the same thing. Just as, someone can take a picture of you in public, however, they cannot come up to you and search through your stuff, including your blood, or hair, or urine (however the drug test is administered)

If you wanted to get in a plane could the search through your stuff??


Its not violating any type of privacy rights because no one is walking up to random people demanding that they give drug test.

Bnk
10-25-2011, 12:46 PM
Exactly 2% will be the figure thrown around by the people pushing this bill, when its actually around 25%.


I dont think the bill was ever sold as a cost saver, but it would be with a 25% fail rate.

People who use drugs essentially remove themselves from the job market. Almost any meaningful employment with wages above poverty line is going to require a drug screen. Tax payers should not be required to support those who have voluntarily made themselves unemployable.

Tekkendo
10-25-2011, 12:51 PM
There should be a punishment for doing drugs and positive reinforcement for getting off drugs. Mandatory testing. If they tested positive each time, some amount of welfare payment is hold back each time. If they are clean for 3 months, they get those money given back to them. If they are clean for 6 months, a bonus added.

germanyt
10-25-2011, 02:19 PM
People who use drugs essentially remove themselves from the job market. Almost any meaningful employment with wages above poverty line is going to require a drug screen. Tax payers should not be required to support those who have voluntarily made themselves unemployable.

Not my job. And there are tons of manual labor jobs that don't drug test. As for companies that do, more often than not its a requirement of the business insurance to prevent people deemed risky from becoming a liability. If you can't see how this is different then I don't know what else to say. Your argument is a good one though.

germanyt
10-25-2011, 02:25 PM
There's a huge difference between your list of what if wastes, and drugs. One is ILLEGAL.

Speeding is illegal. Should a person who gets a lot of speeding tickets because they like to drive fast also be excluded from welfare? Or are you just attacking the harmless pothead who's activities shouldn't be illegal in the first place?

DocHol1day
10-25-2011, 03:27 PM
Not my job. And there are tons of manual labor jobs that don't drug test. As for companies that do, more often than not its a requirement of the business insurance to prevent people deemed risky from becoming a liability. If you can't see how this is different then I don't know what else to say. Your argument is a good one though.

Oh horse ****. Construction and labor jobs test more than any other industry and the reasons are obvious to anyone with a 3 digit IQ.

IAmBatman
10-25-2011, 03:39 PM
People who use drugs essentially remove themselves from the job market. Almost any meaningful employment with wages above poverty line is going to require a drug screen. Tax payers should not be required to support those who have voluntarily made themselves unemployable.

I've worked on Oil Rigs, in construction, welding, and a year in offices working accounts and research. I've been drug tested a total of once, and that was before I could take a job. Literally half of the people I knew on the rigs and in construction used some form of recreational drugs. In my experience a far majority of testing is done after an accident occurs and is more likely to be a Breathalyzer than a drug test... and these were definitely "meaningful" forms of employment, hardly anyone in the oil patch makes less than 100K a year. Drugs don't automatically remove you from the workforce.

7rmr
10-25-2011, 03:39 PM
If you wanted to get in a plane could the search through your stuff??


Its not violating any type of privacy rights because no one is walking up to random people demanding that they give drug test.

Well apparently it is, hence the reasons the courts have ruled against it. I am sure you can read the judges opinion if you really want to.

germanyt
10-25-2011, 03:53 PM
Oh horse ****. Construction and labor jobs test more than any other industry and the reasons are obvious to anyone with a 3 digit IQ.

Lol. There are tens of thousands of independent contractors that hire without testing. I bet I personally know a hundred. I've also worked at car dealerships selling cars without being drug tested. I haven't been tested since 2002 and that was my first night in boot camp.

DocHol1day
10-25-2011, 04:05 PM
Lol. There are tens of thousands of independent contractors that hire without testing. I bet I personally know a hundred. I've also worked at car dealerships selling cars without being drug tested. I haven't been tested since 2002 and that was my first night in boot camp.

Oh you mean those horse **** jobs that practice illegal 1099 misclassificatons? I thought we were talking about good jobs with decent wages lol. My bad....

My point stands. Construction workers are subject to more drug tests than workers in other industries and the reasons are obvious.

r0gue6
10-25-2011, 04:24 PM
Oh you mean those horse **** jobs that practice illegal 1099 misclassificatons? I thought we were talking about good jobs with decent wages lol. My bad....

My point stands. Construction workers are subject to more drug tests than workers in other industries and the reasons are obvious.

Your ignorance is showing.

DocHol1day
10-25-2011, 04:35 PM
Your ignorance is showing.

Well thank god you were specific so we could discuss it...

bassing68
10-25-2011, 05:00 PM
Once again you are displaying sheer ignorance, there is no logic in what you posted. It is your employer who is subjecting you to drug tests, at their own expense. That doesn't mean taxpayer money should be spent on drug testing.
But tax dollars should be able to be spent on drugs which can bar an applicant from a job? Talk about ignorance!

I wonder how much a single drug test costs...

Add up how many welfare recipients there are, and this was supposed to SAVE money?

The program would only save money if a lot of people failed the test and lost their benefits. If nobody failed the test, it would be a huge waste of resources.

Bullshiit like this needs to stop. Let's see Rick Scott enact a law that requires HIM to be drug tested in order for him to keep receiving HIS state benefits...yeah right.U can get an oral test for about 10 bucks which is a LOT cheaper than paying someone 300 bucks a month who can't even get a job cuz they can't pass a drug test


The data doesn't back up your assertion brah.
You are wrong, is it that hard to understand?it does and to expand on what another said...welfare comes from the taxes I pay from working where I am subjet to testing. They should be tested and required to learn English and obtain GED

Juzi
10-25-2011, 05:02 PM
People who use drugs essentially remove themselves from the job market.

Your joking right. Oh lawd .... I know people in all industries and all walks of life who use all sorts of gear, and still do a good job at work.

bassing68
10-25-2011, 05:06 PM
Your joking right. Oh lawd .... I know people in all industries and all walks of life who use all sorts of gear, and still do a good job at work.Dumbass, they are working. Welfare usually are not and most jobs require pre employment drug testing so they ARE taking theirselves from the market. I'm glad so many of u bozo's have no problem having your taxes stolen

amtharin
10-25-2011, 05:11 PM
Well apparently it is, hence the reasons the courts have ruled against it. I am sure you can read the judges opinion if you really want to.

You're a fool if you cant see how this test is just like any other drug test one would have to take, or any other search one would have to go through if they chose to take part in a certain activity. Requirements like this one are a dime a dozen and this judges decision is an example of legislating from the bench.

amtharin
10-25-2011, 05:14 PM
I've worked on Oil Rigs, in construction, welding, and a year in offices working accounts and research. I've been drug tested a total of once, and that was before I could take a job. Literally half of the people I knew on the rigs and in construction used some form of recreational drugs. In my experience a far majority of testing is done after an accident occurs and is more likely to be a Breathalyzer than a drug test... and these were definitely "meaningful" forms of employment, hardly anyone in the oil patch makes less than 100K a year. Drugs don't automatically remove you from the workforce.


Lol. There are tens of thousands of independent contractors that hire without testing. I bet I personally know a hundred. I've also worked at car dealerships selling cars without being drug tested. I haven't been tested since 2002 and that was my first night in boot camp.


Your joking right. Oh lawd .... I know people in all industries and all walks of life who use all sorts of gear, and still do a good job at work.


I promise there was a drug testing clause in every single one of those contracts.

Epilerik
10-25-2011, 05:16 PM
Welfare isn't supposed to be something you live off of. It's supposed to be something to get you by until you get back on your feet. How are you going to get back on your feet if you're doing drugs?

Now, I'm not talking crap on drugs. People should have the right to do whatever they want in their own home. I certainly do. But I also work for a living, and made sure I passed my drug test to get a good job.

What I am saying is, most good jobs out there require drug testing. Only restaurants and maybe some retail places don't drug test, and those types of jobs really don't pay well enough to live off of and especially not if you have children.


So our taxes are being given to these welfare recipients, they are using this money on drugs, and those very same drugs are what's keeping them from getting off welfare. It's a never-ending cycle where we keep spending money on these people to live a life where they don't have to work and get to be high all day, while the rest of us are working our asses off. That isn't fair, and that is the logic behind drug testing welfare recipients.

Again, I have no problem with working adults doing drugs in the privacy of their own homes. But there are people like my next door neighbor. She's a crackwhore, drunk, welfare recipient who lets her ******* kids do whatever the f*ck they want. She doesn't work, she just collects a check from the government to pay for basic things like food, clothing and housing. Then she whores herself out, under the table of course, to support her drug and alcohol habits. There's no end in sight, we are paying for her to live this lifestyle when really, she should be in jail and her kids should be in foster care. That's the type of situation that people want to stop.

TheReemFan
10-25-2011, 05:17 PM
Once again you are displaying sheer ignorance, there is no logic in what you posted. It is your employer who is subjecting you to drug tests, at their own expense. That doesn't mean taxpayer money should be spent on drug testing.

Taxpayer money shouldn't be spent on welfare either. I save a percentage of each paycheck for a ****ing reason. If I get canned tomorrow I can live comfortably for several years while I seek employment.

Its not my ****ing responsibility to feed/house/clothe people who are too lazy to take care of themselves. let them ****ing starve

TheReemFan
10-25-2011, 05:19 PM
Welfare isn't supposed to be something you live off of. It's supposed to be something to get you by until you get back on your feet. How are you going to get back on your feet if you're doing drugs?

Now, I'm not talking crap on drugs. People should have the right to do whatever they want in their own home. I certainly do. But I also work for a living, and made sure I passed my drug test to get a good job.

What I am saying is, most good jobs out there require drug testing. Only restaurants and maybe some retail places don't drug test, and those types of jobs really don't pay well enough to live off of and especially not if you have children.


So our taxes are being given to these welfare recipients, they are using this money on drugs, and those very same drugs are what's keeping them from getting off welfare. It's a never-ending cycle where we keep spending money on these people to live a life where they don't have to work and get to be high all day, while the rest of us are working our asses off. That isn't fair, and that is the logic behind drug testing welfare recipients.

Again, I have no problem with working adults doing drugs in the privacy of their own homes. But there are people like my next door neighbor. She's a crackwhore, drunk, welfare recipient who lets her ******* kids do whatever the f*ck they want. She doesn't work, she just collects a check from the government to pay for basic things like food, clothing and housing. Then she whores herself out, under the table of course, to support her drug and alcohol habits. There's no end in sight, we are paying for her to live this lifestyle when really, she should be in jail and her kids should be in foster care. That's the type of situation that people want to stop.


Agree but the whole notion of the government providing assistance while people "get back on their feet" is just absurd to me. I was taught by my father to plan for the worst situations. Save money today and it may save you tomorrow. I feel like hard working Americans are being robbed out of tax dollars because the norm in America is to live paycheck to paycheck and off of credit.

IAmBatman
10-25-2011, 05:22 PM
I promise there was a drug testing clause in every single one of those contracts.

Yes there was..

But the point of my post was that using drugs does not take you out of the workforce. Drug testing is very expensive and the cost per positive test can be incredibly high. Just because the employer can doesn't mean they will and in most cases they don't. I also know of two cases where people have been caught and have had the test thrown out, but obviously this is only anecdotal evidence.

2truSoldier
10-25-2011, 05:24 PM
It seems that everyone is ignoring the purpose of welfare, its not for the lazy or drugged out family it is to provide assistance mainly for impoverished children, so if a parent fails the drug test are you going to deny that child food. There is a bigger problem here and drug testing is not going to solve it, but it will create an all new problem.

Bnk
10-25-2011, 05:36 PM
Lol. There are tens of thousands of independent contractors that hire without testing. I bet I personally know a hundred. I've also worked at car dealerships selling cars without being drug tested. I haven't been tested since 2002 and that was my first night in boot camp.

There are always going to be exceptions, but it does not change the fact that inability to pass a drug screen removes an applicant from consideration for employment in most cases. Why should the taxpayers pick up the tab for some drug addict who has limited his employment prospects voluntarily.

DocHol1day
10-25-2011, 05:39 PM
There are always going to be exceptions, but it does not change the fact that inability to pass a drug screen removes an applicant from consideration for employment in most cases. Why should the taxpayers pick up the tab for some drug addict who has limited his employment prospects voluntarily.

not to mention those "independent contractors" hes speaking of are doing one of two things....

they are either individuals working for themselves. which is by definition NOT a job, which is what we are discussing here.

or they are legitimate contractors who hire hourly employees but classify them as independent contractors so they can avoid paying payroll/unemployment taxes on them as well as paying for workmans comp insurance. its called 1099 misclassification. not that i think he has any clue wtf i'm talking about. hes just spewing some garbage a guy named jim bob told him over a few beers and calling it fact when in reality he has not the slightest clue wtf he's talking about.

Epilerik
10-25-2011, 05:53 PM
Agree but the whole notion of the government providing assistance while people "get back on their feet" is just absurd to me. I was taught by my father to plan for the worst situations. Save money today and it may save you tomorrow. I feel like hard working Americans are being robbed out of tax dollars because the norm in America is to live paycheck to paycheck and off of credit.

I agree with that, but as it stands, we have welfare and it isn't going away. I'd rather it be something temporary to help people out then for it to be something people live off of. Ideally, we wouldn't have it at all

germanyt
10-25-2011, 06:19 PM
not to mention those "independent contractors" hes speaking of are doing one of two things....

they are either individuals working for themselves. which is by definition NOT a job, which is what we are discussing here.

or they are legitimate contractors who hire hourly employees but classify them as independent contractors so they can avoid paying payroll/unemployment taxes on them as well as paying for workmans comp insurance. its called 1099 misclassification. not that i think he has any clue wtf i'm talking about. hes just spewing some garbage a guy named jim bob told him over a few beers and calling it fact when in reality he has not the slightest clue wtf he's talking about.


Urine idiot. I've personally worked as a W2 construction worker with no drug test. And I know dozens of 1099 workers who didn't take a drug test. Strong retarded assumptions though. I currently work for a private college in admissions. No drug test. I've sold cars at 3 dealerships. No drug tests. Worked for an assembly company that puts retail goods together. No drug test. I got hired just before my current job as an electronics technician. No drug test.

Phaggot.

germanyt
10-25-2011, 06:22 PM
Its not my ****ing responsibility to feed/house/clothe people who are too lazy to take care of themselves. let them ****ing starve

The negative economic impact of this would affect you greatly. Also, what and angry, piece of shiit mentality to have. Why does every anti welfare person act like the recipients are all drug addicted deadbeats who don't want jobs?

TheReemFan
10-25-2011, 06:29 PM
It seems that everyone is ignoring the purpose of welfare, its not for the lazy or drugged out family it is to provide assistance mainly for impoverished children, so if a parent fails the drug test are you going to deny that child food. There is a bigger problem here and drug testing is not going to solve it, but it will create an all new problem.

Deny the child food. The reason those children exist is mostly due to welfare. 90% of them were conceived just to receive more money. Also the apple doesnt fall far from the tree as those children will grow up into similar welfare recipients and continue the vicious cycle of stealing hard working Americans money so let them ****ing starve.

TheReemFan
10-25-2011, 06:32 PM
The negative economic impact of this would affect you greatly. Also, what and angry, piece of shiit mentality to have. Why does every anti welfare person act like the recipients are all drug addicted deadbeats who don't want jobs?

The positive economic impact of this would greatly outweigh the negatives. Why does every welfare supporter act like they are all hard working Americans who just cant find a job? They conceive for more welfare "assistance". Any person going through rough times has nobody to blame but themselves. People living off of credit, paycheck to paycheck, not preparing for the worst of times. Its not hard to live a ****ing basic life putting away funds in case **** hits the fan but right now the system encourages these people not to do that. I visit an average of 15 homes of welfare recipients a week and almost every single one of them has a giant ****ing flatscreen TV bigger than the one I have at home.

Zedbimmer
10-25-2011, 06:37 PM
If a person receives uhhm $500 a month in welfare and the test costs $20 then would that save a lot of money or am I ignorant too. As a person who pays tax I really don't want my hard earned money being handed to someone so they can buy illegal drugs with it.

LennardiVooDoo
10-25-2011, 06:39 PM
If a person receives uhhm $500 a month in welfare and the test costs $20 then would that save a lot of money or am I ignorant too. As a person who pays tax I really don't want my hard earned money being handed to someone so they can buy illegal drugs with it.

They get paid $180 a month.

Good luck buying drugs on $45 a week.

Zedbimmer
10-25-2011, 06:48 PM
They get paid $180 a month.

Good luck buying drugs on $45 a week.

Free housing and food stamps will cover the basics so 180 is more than enough to buy drugs especially since the drugs come from the same neighborhoods.

DocHol1day
10-25-2011, 07:08 PM
Urine idiot. I've personally worked as a W2 construction worker with no drug test. And I know dozens of 1099 workers who didn't take a drug test. Strong retarded assumptions though. I currently work for a private college in admissions. No drug test. I've sold cars at 3 dealerships. No drug tests. Worked for an assembly company that puts retail goods together. No drug test. I got hired just before my current job as an electronics technician. No drug test.

Phaggot.

wow. have some red for your little uncalled for tantrum. lets get this conversation back on track shall we?

i wasnt talking about any jobs other than construction, so your experiences in any of those fields is totally irrelevant to the point i'm making. in case you forgot (obviously you must have considering how side tracked and mad you are), the only thing i've actually said is that construction is the most widely tested field in this country.

also, when you stated you knew 'dozens' of 1099 workers who didnt have drug tests, you are actually furthering my point for me. not that i expect you to be intelligent enough to understand that. a 1099 worker is SELF EMPLOYED and therefore is not relevant to a discussion about jobs.

now, how much you wanna bet that if you had sustained a recordable injury while on the clock at your w-2 construction job you would have been drug tested? ;)


you are not officially done here.

Pay_Me
10-25-2011, 07:12 PM
Not sure if this has been posted, but I'm all for testing Welfare if this provision is included.

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/columbus/news/2011/oct/14/bill-would-require-ohio-lawmakers-be-drug-tested

germanyt
10-25-2011, 08:01 PM
The positive economic impact of this would greatly outweigh the negatives. Why does every welfare supporter act like they are all hard working Americans who just cant find a job? They conceive for more welfare "assistance". Any person going through rough times has nobody to blame but themselves. People living off of credit, paycheck to paycheck, not preparing for the worst of times. Its not hard to live a ****ing basic life putting away funds in case **** hits the fan but right now the system encourages these people not to do that. I visit an average of 15 homes of welfare recipients a week and almost every single one of them has a giant ****ing flatscreen TV bigger than the one I have at home.


I'm not pro welfare but I do reconize that its not only a compassionate thing to do but also important to the economy. Without welfare programs like food stamps and unemployment local areas with 10 percent unemployment would suffer far worse. That's potentially 10 less revenue for local gas stations, resturaunts, grocery stores, stc. Not too mention the children of recipients going to bed hungry.

Also, ever consider than a person could have had a job, bought a flat screen, the lost said job and gone on welfare? I have a flat screen, live paycheck to paycheck, and my wife is on medicaid to cover her insulin prescriptions. And thank goodness for that program because without it I couldn't by diapers or pay my car insurance. Times get tough and I now make 17 bucks an hour instead of more than twice that I made just a couple years ago. And I'm paying tuition for my wife to go to medical assistant school. So call it what you want but I'm hard working and struggling to make ends meet. And I smoke weed from time to time. The little bit of help I get is making it possible for me to get my wife through school and keep food on the table so that next year we won't be in this situation. And well have a health plan option that isn't 800 dollars a month through my work.

germanyt
10-25-2011, 08:05 PM
wow. have some red for your little uncalled for tantrum. lets get this conversation back on track shall we?

i wasnt talking about any jobs other than construction, so your experiences in any of those fields is totally irrelevant to the point i'm making. in case you forgot (obviously you must have considering how side tracked and mad you are), the only thing i've actually said is that construction is the most widely tested field in this country.

also, when you stated you knew 'dozens' of 1099 workers who didnt have drug tests, you are actually furthering my point for me. not that i expect you to be intelligent enough to understand that. a 1099 worker is SELF EMPLOYED and therefore is not relevant to a discussion about jobs.

now, how much you wanna bet that if you had sustained a recordable injury while on the clock at your w-2 construction job you would have been drug tested? ;)


you are not officially done here.

Do you have a source for your testing claim? Because short of big time contracting companies like Group and HomeCare and union workers I don't know any construction worker that gets tested. My cousin install floors for a liscensed and insured subcontractor and has never been drug tested. Maybe it varies by area but small time contractors far outnumber union or large company contactors.

Tekkendo
10-25-2011, 08:08 PM
Deny the child food. The reason those children exist is mostly due to welfare. 90% of them were conceived just to receive more money. Also the apple doesnt fall far from the tree as those children will grow up into similar welfare recipients and continue the vicious cycle of stealing hard working Americans money so let them ****ing starve.
Let children starve b/c their parents are losers? You are just trolling there.

Yes i know they are using the kids to blackmail the system and to extort money. There need to be a workable solution. Letting kids starve is not one. Get real.

Tekkendo
10-25-2011, 08:12 PM
I'm not pro welfare but I do reconize that its not only a compassionate thing to do but also important to the economy. Without welfare programs like food stamps and unemployment local areas with 10 percent unemployment would suffer far worse. That's potentially 10 less revenue for local gas stations, resturaunts, grocery stores, stc. Not too mention the children of recipients going to bed hungry.

Also, ever consider than a person could have had a job, bought a flat screen, the lost said job and gone on welfare? I have a flat screen, live paycheck to paycheck, and my wife is on medicaid to cover her insulin prescriptions. And thank goodness for that program because without it I couldn't by diapers or pay my car insurance. Times get tough and I now make 17 bucks an hour instead of more than twice that I made just a couple years ago. And I'm paying tuition for my wife to go to medical assistant school. So call it what you want but I'm hard working and struggling to make ends meet. And I smoke weed from time to time. The little bit of help I get is making it possible for me to get my wife through school and keep food on the table so that next year we won't be in this situation. And well have a health plan option that isn't 800 dollars a month through my work.
:) That is why you are so afraid of this drug test thing......

tnel00
10-25-2011, 08:24 PM
A better solution would have been to just end the welfare program entirely

Dragger
10-25-2011, 08:30 PM
I wonder how much a single drug test costs...


$30.

And anyone that tests positive is billed for it.

Dragger
10-25-2011, 08:41 PM
I read in USA Today just a few days ago that 40,000,000 people in the US made welfare claims in September, at $134 average per person that's $5,360,000,000... in one month! Anyone that can afford any drugs(including beer and cigs) don't need my hard earned income that I work for. They have money for drugs, they have money for food, they don't need my money. If I can get drug tested just for the opportunity to WORK for my money, they can get tested so they can take 1/4 of my check for nothing.

And at $30 a test it's a helluva lot cheaper than just passing out money for nothing, when Fl passed the law requiring drug testing, welfare claims dropped(the one's that know they can't pass), now that the law's been suspended the claims will go back up costing more.

germanyt
10-25-2011, 08:43 PM
:) That is why you are so afraid of this drug test thing......

Ummmm. No. I could easily go without smoking. The point is that this law claims to be concerned with welfare recips wasting money instead of bying food or paying rent. But drugs aren't the only thing people waste money on. If I decided to play golf every weekend itd cost me 100 per month. But people seem to think that its okay to waste money as long as its not for something illegal. Which just proves that waste really isn't the point of the law. Punishing drug offenders is the point of the law. And if the law stated that its intention was such at least itd be accurate and my argument would be that MJ or possibly even all drugs shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

germanyt
10-25-2011, 08:51 PM
I read in USA Today just a few days ago that 40,000,000 people in the US made welfare claims in September, at $134 average per person that's $5,360,000,000... in one month! Anyone that can afford any drugs(including beer and cigs) don't need my hard earned income that I work for. They have money for drugs, they have money for food, they don't need my money. If I can get drug tested just for the opportunity to WORK for my money, they can get tested so they can take 1/4 of my check for nothing.

And at $30 a test it's a helluva lot cheaper than just passing out money for nothing, when Fl passed the law requiring drug testing, welfare claims dropped(the one's that know they can't pass), now that the law's been suspended the claims will go back up costing more.


You make a valid point. But how does drug testing stop people from wasting money? And how does a person buying a 20 bag of weed really impact it? 20 extra bucks for food isn't going to make the dif in needing or not needing welfare. And people who spend hundreds of dollars or are doing harsher drugs need rehab, not to be shunned and cut off by society.

Dragger
10-25-2011, 08:52 PM
Ummmm. No. I could easily go without smoking. The point is that this law claims to be concerned with welfare recips wasting money instead of bying food or paying rent. But drugs aren't the only thing people waste money on. If I decided to play golf every weekend itd cost me 100 per month. But people seem to think that its okay to waste money as long as its not for something illegal. Which just proves that waste really isn't the point of the law. Punishing drug offenders is the point of the law. And if the law stated that its intention was such at least itd be accurate and my argument would be that MJ or possibly even all drugs shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

Some states are starting to look into welfare recipient's assets, turns out some of them live in pretty nice $100,000+ houses, drive new $40,000 vehicles, etc... if some welfare recipient is driving a damned Escalade he/she don't need a part of my paycheck to "survive".

Dragger
10-25-2011, 09:01 PM
You make a valid point. But how does drug testing stop people from wasting money? And how does a person buying a 20 bag of weed really impact it? 20 extra bucks for food isn't going to make the dif in needing or not needing welfare. And people who spend hundreds of dollars or are doing harsher drugs need rehab, not to be shunned and cut off by society.

I don't care if they waste their money, that's not the point. It's the whole taking it from MY paycheck that I work for... and THEN wasting basically someone else's money.

Like I said, if someone can afford illegal recreational drugs then they have money for food and don't need mine. I should't have to pay for their lack of priorities. $20 can buy milk, bread, sammich meat, cereal, roman noodles, peanut butter, etc... you could eat off $20 a week if you HAD to. Or they could use that $20 a week for weed and put it towards gas to find a damned job. I shouldn't have to pay for their lack of responsibility, their,"F*ck it, I get free money for nothing, I'll spend this $20 on weed" attitude.

No, F*ck THAT!

germanyt
10-25-2011, 09:07 PM
Some states are starting to look into welfare recipient's assets, turns out some of them live in pretty nice $100,000+ houses, drive new $40,000 vehicles, etc... if some welfare recipient is driving a damned Escalade he/she don't need a part of my paycheck to "survive".

Some people have nice things because they work hard. Then they lose their jobs and need help. Would you expect someone 20.grand underwater in a house to short sell it and take the loss just to qualify for welfare? That same person could only need help for a month or two. I got out of the navy in 08 and accepted unemployment checks for 3 weeks while I looked for a job. All the while I owned a plasma TV, had 2 vehicles that I was making payments on, a 3000 dollar living room set, ridiculous stereo in my car, etc. When I found a job I called unemployment and had my benefits stopped. That's exactly what the program is designed for and a persons assets shouldn't be evaluated. A millioaire has a millionaires bills and is hit just as hard by tough times like job loss as a poor person on poor bills. I'd also like to add that had I smoked 1 joint when I got outta the Navy, Florida might have denied me those 3 weeks of unemployment, or food stamps, or health care. I just don't think that makes sense.

germanyt
10-25-2011, 09:12 PM
I don't care if they waste their money, that's not the point. It's the whole taking it from MY paycheck that I work for... and THEN wasting basically someone else's money.

Like I said, if someone can afford illegal recreational drugs then they have money for food and don't need mine. I should't have to pay for their lack of priorities. $20 can buy milk, bread, sammich meat, cereal, roman noodles, peanut butter, etc... you could eat off $20 a week if you HAD to. Or they could use that $20 a week for weed and put it towards gas to find a damned job. I shouldn't have to pay for their lack of responsibility, their,"F*ck it, I get free money for nothing, I'll spend this $20 on weed" attitude.

No, F*ck THAT!
If you're on welfare then you don't have to waste the benefits specifically to be wasting money. Again, if you don't care that they waste their or someone elses money then why do you care whether they spend it on weed or a round of golf? You can't control what a person spends welfare benefits on so why target something like drugs without targetting every unneccesary extra curricular activity? Why not ban them from driving farther than it takes to find a job? Can't be wasting that taxpayer money on unneccesary gasoline.

TheReemFan
10-25-2011, 09:44 PM
Some people have nice things because they work hard. Then they lose their jobs and need help. Would you expect someone 20.grand underwater in a house to short sell it and take the loss just to qualify for welfare? That same person could only need help for a month or two. I got out of the navy in 08 and accepted unemployment checks for 3 weeks while I looked for a job. All the while I owned a plasma TV, had 2 vehicles that I was making payments on, a 3000 dollar living room set, ridiculous stereo in my car, etc. When I found a job I called unemployment and had my benefits stopped. That's exactly what the program is designed for and a persons assets shouldn't be evaluated. A millioaire has a millionaires bills and is hit just as hard by tough times like job loss as a poor person on poor bills. I'd also like to add that had I smoked 1 joint when I got outta the Navy, Florida might have denied me those 3 weeks of unemployment, or food stamps, or health care. I just don't think that makes sense.

Do you not believe in saving money? If they are working hard they should be saving money instead of being irresponsible and living off credit or paycheck to paycheck. If someone loses their jobs and needs help it is their own fault. Let them starve.

TheReemFan
10-25-2011, 09:45 PM
Let children starve b/c their parents are losers? You are just trolling there.

Yes i know they are using the kids to blackmail the system and to extort money. There need to be a workable solution. Letting kids starve is not one. Get real.

They arent my children. I dont care about them.

germanyt
10-25-2011, 09:58 PM
Do you not believe in saving money? If they are working hard they should be saving money instead of being irresponsible and living off credit or paycheck to paycheck. If someone loses their jobs and needs help it is their own fault. Let them starve.

People don't live paycheck to paycheck because they want to. They don't save money because paying 2800 dollars worth of bills on 3000 net pay doesn't leave room for saving. But I'm sure your reply will be that they should lock themselves in their homes and save that last 200 dollars. Or you'll say something about how they shouldn't have 2800 in bills on 3000 net. But one day pehaps you'll lose a job and have to take a lesser paying one and you experience that struggle. And then maybe you will see things differently.

dakensta
10-26-2011, 12:29 AM
"Love thy neighbour as thyself, unless thy neighbour is on welfare, in which case fukk him. Same if he uses drugs, unless he earns considerably more than thyself, in which case admire him; he probably deserves a few drugs for working so hard." Jesus

Mr Beer
10-26-2011, 12:45 AM
Blows my mind that it seems to be normal for employers in the US to regularly test their employees for drug use, it seems so offensively intrusive to me.

2truSoldier
10-26-2011, 02:05 AM
Deny the child food. The reason those children exist is mostly due to welfare. 90% of them were conceived just to receive more money. Also the apple doesnt fall far from the tree as those children will grow up into similar welfare recipients and continue the vicious cycle of stealing hard working Americans money so let them ****ing starve.

Wow what a fuking dumbass. Do society a favor and just die.

germanyt
10-26-2011, 07:04 AM
Blows my mind that it seems to be normal for employers in the US to regularly test their employees for drug use, it seems so offensively intrusive to me.

It started with insurance companies limiting their liability. The insurance company could refused to insure a business that employed drug users. Then the anti drug sentiment just kind of tricked into most workplaces. Its so silly. I can smoke a J 2 weeks ago then get hurt on the job while completely sober and get denied any type of benefits. And get fired on top of that. Just illustrates the stupidity of weed being illegal. Cocaine takes 3 days to leave your system. So smoke a J weeks ago, get fired. Do a line 4 days ago, workmans comp. Fuking retarded.

Dragger
10-26-2011, 07:53 AM
Some people have nice things because they work hard. Then they lose their jobs and need help. Would you expect someone 20.grand underwater in a house to short sell it and take the loss just to qualify for welfare? That same person could only need help for a month or two. I got out of the navy in 08 and accepted unemployment checks for 3 weeks while I looked for a job. All the while I owned a plasma TV, had 2 vehicles that I was making payments on, a 3000 dollar living room set, ridiculous stereo in my car, etc. When I found a job I called unemployment and had my benefits stopped. That's exactly what the program is designed for and a persons assets shouldn't be evaluated. A millioaire has a millionaires bills and is hit just as hard by tough times like job loss as a poor person on poor bills. I'd also like to add that had I smoked 1 joint when I got outta the Navy, Florida might have denied me those 3 weeks of unemployment, or food stamps, or health care. I just don't think that makes sense.

They better start selling their sh*t before they start eating out of my check. Welfare should be a LAST RESORT! If they work so hard and made so much money but were too careless not to have SAVED any for a "rainy day" that's THEIR fault and I shouldn't have to pay for their immature "I got money gonna spend it all!" attitude. I don't make make much but I do set aside enough to live off of and pay my bills should something happen to my job. It's called being responsible and living within your means.

Dragger
10-26-2011, 07:55 AM
If you're on welfare then you don't have to waste the benefits specifically to be wasting money. Again, if you don't care that they waste their or someone elses money then why do you care whether they spend it on weed or a round of golf? You can't control what a person spends welfare benefits on so why target something like drugs without targetting every unneccesary extra curricular activity? Why not ban them from driving farther than it takes to find a job? Can't be wasting that taxpayer money on unneccesary gasoline.

Like I said, if they have money to waste, they don't need taxpayer's money to survive.

It's not hard to understand something so easy.

germanyt
10-26-2011, 08:17 AM
Like I said, if they have money to waste, they don't need taxpayer's money to survive.

It's not hard to understand something so easy.

OK, I agree. But drugs aren't the only way people waste money. Which brings me back to my OP.

germanyt
10-26-2011, 08:24 AM
They better start selling their sh*t before they start eating out of my check. Welfare should be a LAST RESORT! If they work so hard and made so much money but were too careless not to have SAVED any for a "rainy day" that's THEIR fault and I shouldn't have to pay for their immature "I got money gonna spend it all!" attitude. I don't make make much but I do set aside enough to live off of and pay my bills should something happen to my job. It's called being responsible and living within your means.

I don't make enough to save. Between rent, car, insurance, phone, tuition, electricity, food, diapers, etc. I'm tapped out. I sold the truck that I loved and was paying 684 a month on for a fuking Sentra at half the payment. I moved into an apartment that was 200 dollars cheaper. I already make less than my old job by far. If I lost this job I'd be screwed (not really though, being in good health and male makes it easy for me to work). So because I smoked a joint with my buddy a week ago I'm excluded from the welfare system. That is stupid.

Dragger
10-26-2011, 08:32 AM
OK, I agree. But drugs aren't the only way people waste money. Which brings me back to my OP.

And I've stated, in this very thread, that states are starting to look at welfare recipient's assets to deny their welfare in the future and rightfully so.

And I've flat out said if they have money to waste then they don't NEED mine. If you or anyone ealse were on ANY kind of welfare where tax payer money is just handed to you for nothing while you spend any money on any recreational drugs, legal or illegal, your claim should be denied for at least a year before you could reapply. If you have a bigscreen TV, Xbox, iphone, or a car worth more than $10,000 you shouldn't be eligible for any taxpayer welfare until those assets have been sold.

Dragger
10-26-2011, 08:34 AM
I don't make enough to save. Between rent, car, insurance, phone, tuition, electricity, food, diapers, etc. I'm tapped out. I sold the truck that I loved and was paying 684 a month on for a fuking Sentra at half the payment. I moved into an apartment that was 200 dollars cheaper. I already make less than my old job by far. If I lost this job I'd be screwed (not really though, being in good health and male makes it easy for me to work). So because I smoked a joint with my buddy a week ago I'm excluded from the welfare system. That is stupid.You have a kid but you risk forfeiting any possible workman's comp or welfare just so you can smoke weed.... no THAT is stupid. And irresponsible. You're 27, you have a kid, it's time for you to grow up, we all gotta do it someday, son.

A good parent sacrifice's for their kids.

germanyt
10-26-2011, 08:42 AM
And I've stated, in this very thread, that states are starting to look at welfare recipient's assets to deny their welfare in the future and rightfully so.

And I've flat out said if they have money to waste then they don't NEED mine. If you or anyone ealse were on ANY kind of welfare where tax payer money is just handed to you for nothing while you spend any money on any recreational drugs, legal or illegal, your claim should be denied for at least a year before you could reapply. If you have a bigscreen TV, Xbox, iphone, or a car worth more than $10,000 you shouldn't be eligible for any taxpayer welfare until those assets have been sold.


What if your car is worth 10 but you owe 15? And you have bad credit? Can't exactly sell your car can you? What is an xbox worth 2nd hand? 100 dollars at best? You would deny an unemployed person welfare because they have 100 dollars in the bank? What if the tv is 5 years old with pixels burnt out? Sorry, you don't qualify because you own a TV worth 20 bucks?

germanyt
10-26-2011, 08:48 AM
You have a kid but you risk forfeiting any possible workman's comp or welfare just so you can smoke weed.... no THAT is stupid. And irresponsible. You're 27, you have a kid, it's time for you to grow up, we all gotta do it someday, son.

A good parent sacrifice's for their kids.

First off, I work an office job so unless it wasn't mentioned to me we don't have a workmans comp policy.

Second, fuk you brah, don't judge me.

Dragger
10-26-2011, 09:42 AM
First off, I work an office job so unless it wasn't mentioned to me we don't have a workmans comp policy.

Second, fuk you brah, don't judge me.

Hey, you're bitching about having a kid, doing illegal drugs and crying that you should be eligible for tax payer's pay checks if something happens. Hey dumbass, easy solution, grow up, be a good Dad, put your kid 1st. Stop bitching when you have the solution.

Now go f*ck yourself, kid.

germanyt
10-26-2011, 09:57 AM
Hey, you're bitching about having a kid, doing illegal drugs and crying that you should be eligible for tax payer's pay checks if something happens. Hey dumbass, easy solution, grow up, be a good Dad, put your kid 1st. Stop bitching when you have the solution.

Now go f*ck yourself, kid.

Facepalm

I'm not bitching about having a kid. I'm a great father. Not that I need to prove any oth that to you. I disregard the illegality of drugs because I'm in favor of legalization. And you are basically saying that a 5 dollar joint makes the difference in needing or not needing welfare. News flash moron, 5 buck or even 100 dollars doesn't make the dif in being broke. I'm not on food stamps or unemployment. My wife gets cheaper prescriptions because based my income we qualify for that aid.

How on earth do you ride such a high horse? Shiit happens man. A person can have 10 grand saved up and have an unexpected funeral to pay for. And when that person loses his job a month later you tell him, "fuk you". You should have saved money. Your a self righteous phaggot with no common decency or compassion who is looking at everything in black and white.

bassing68
10-31-2011, 04:23 PM
It seems that everyone is ignoring the purpose of welfare, its not for the lazy or drugged out family it is to provide assistance mainly for impoverished children, so if a parent fails the drug test are you going to deny that child food. There is a bigger problem here and drug testing is not going to solve it, but it will create an all new problem. If I use drugs and get caught I get fired which also causes my kids to go without...what's the difference? Also if they are using drugs, then they are already taking from their own kids anyway

bassing68
10-31-2011, 04:26 PM
It seems that everyone is ignoring the purpose of welfare, its not for the lazy or drugged out family it is to provide assistance mainly for impoverished children, so if a parent fails the drug test are you going to deny that child food. There is a bigger problem here and drug testing is not going to solve it, but it will create an all new problem.


Blows my mind that it seems to be normal for employers in the US to regularly test their employees for drug use, it seems so offensively intrusive to me.Tell me if u still believe this when u lose an arm due to a drugged up worker

HCCFootball
10-31-2011, 05:55 PM
i am for the drug testing of people on welfare. I also think after a prolonged period of time (lets say 4 months) you must start to do community service 20 hours a week.
20hrs a week looking for a job
20hrs giving back to the the people that helped you

also i dont understand why you would feel that drug testing is intrusive. I have nothing to hide and i would hate to work on a machine next to someone high. Grow up, if you still need to smoke weed when your a grown adult, get your priorities straight and just give it up. There is too much to lose with smoking weed, even if u think it is wrong, it doesnt matter.

tk217
10-31-2011, 06:26 PM
Once again you are displaying sheer ignorance, there is no logic in what you posted. It is your employer who is subjecting you to drug tests, at their own expense. That doesn't mean taxpayer money should be spent on drug testing.

I would argue with my company it is tax payer money spent on this as we work for the Fed/State/Local/County ect.

jked4life
10-31-2011, 06:32 PM
Well if people are getting money from the taxpayer they ought to be drug tested. This of course would have to include Governors, Mayors, Cops, Teachers, and Corporate Welfare Recipients (CEO's right on down). I would think of those people are using drugs with that kind of influence on society, it would be a lot more harmful. A Congressman/Senator/Defense Secretary high on Coke scares me a lot more than a welfare recipient pulling just enough to feed themselves and a couple kids. Don't tell me it doesn't happen!

It's a slippery slope... and it's expensive, especially considering how much money would be saved. I work with the public, particularly a large portion from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I've known many individuals/families receiving some kind of public assistance and none of them were happy about it. Do some abuse it, sure... but I don't think it's nearly as many as some individuals would like to believe.

Dragger
11-01-2011, 12:56 PM
Facepalm

I'm not bitching about having a kid. I'm a great father. Not that I need to prove any oth that to you. I disregard the illegality of drugs because I'm in favor of legalization. And you are basically saying that a 5 dollar joint makes the difference in needing or not needing welfare. News flash moron, 5 buck or even 100 dollars doesn't make the dif in being broke. I'm not on food stamps or unemployment. My wife gets cheaper prescriptions because based my income we qualify for that aid.

How on earth do you ride such a high horse? Shiit happens man. A person can have 10 grand saved up and have an unexpected funeral to pay for. And when that person loses his job a month later you tell him, "fuk you". You should have saved money. Your a self righteous phaggot with no common decency or compassion who is looking at everything in black and white.

F*ck you b*tch.

I'm for legalization of weed too, just like I'm for legalization of driving above 100 mph on the interstates, that doesn't mean I'm going to take it upon myself to drive 100+ mph on the interstate, because it's illegal and I'm not going to risk my budget on speeding tickets and higher insurance. A little thing called responsibility, dumb*ss.

You claim you only spend $5 on weed... I somehow doubt that's all you spend anually on weed, cigs, and alcohol. Either way, if you want to take the risk of using illegal drugs, you can take the consequences and without your b*tching and crying about it and without tax payers money paying for it. I dont care if you only spend 1 cent on illegal drugs(or any drugs for that matter). If you have money to spare you don't need any financial assistance.

Welfare should be a LAST RESORT! Not for easier recreational living.

Dragger
11-01-2011, 01:07 PM
What if your car is worth 10 but you owe 15? And you have bad credit? Can't exactly sell your car can you? What is an xbox worth 2nd hand? 100 dollars at best? You would deny an unemployed person welfare because they have 100 dollars in the bank? What if the tv is 5 years old with pixels burnt out? Sorry, you don't qualify because you own a TV worth 20 bucks?

Back to responsibility.

1st off if you wreck your credit then that's on you, tax payers shouldn't have to pay for that. 2nd of all don't buy things you can't afford. If you're stupid enough to buy a brand new car with little to no money down, a car with high depreciation, and pay for all the BS dealer fees and add-ons without doing any research... then you're a dumb*ss and tax payers should't have to pay for your stupidity.

X-Box is worth, say $100, okay, the average welfare check in the US in Sept was $137. There ya go, sell that bitch and all your unnecessary sh*t you don't need BEFORE you start eating off tax payer's money, some working tax payers can't even afford a damn X-Box but an unemployed welfare moocher should have one??? F*ck that. I hope more states start going after people's assets BEFORE allowing any any welfare.

germanyt
11-01-2011, 01:11 PM
F*ck you b*tch.

I'm for legalization too, just like I'm for legalization of speeds above 100 mph on the interstates, that doesn't mean I'm going to take it upon myself to drive 100+ mph on the interstate, because it's illegal and I'm not going to risk my budget on speeding tickets and higher insurance. A little thing called responsibility, dumb*ss.

You claim you only spend $5 on weed... I somehow doubt that's all you spend anually on weed, cigs, and alcohol. Either way, if you want to take the risk of using illegal drugs, you can take the consequences and without your b*tching and crying about it and without tax payers money paying for it. I dont care if you only spend 1 cent on illegal drugs(or any drugs for that matter). If you have money to spare you don't need any financial assistance.

Welfare should be a LAST RESORT! Not for easier living.

Whatever dude. There is no logical explanation for drug testing. A waste of 5 dollars on weed and a waste of 5 dollars gas to take my kid to see christmas lights is still a waste. This just appeals to the right wing retartds who are both anti drug and anti welfare. It has nothing to do with waste and everything to do with hate.

Source7769
11-01-2011, 01:11 PM
So once you've ruled out that they are wasting money on drugs (btw many people pass drug tests who aren't clean) what next? You gonna somehow prevent them from buying cigarettes or alcohol? Take their gym membership away? Ban them from cable television? Or perhaps you would have all their income diverted to a government account where the state can equally distribute goods to poor people to ensure they aren't wasteful.

Where does it end? And many drugs, including the most common that people fail (MJ) shouldn't be illegal anyway.yes all those things you mentioned are luxuries not necessities

Dragger
11-01-2011, 01:17 PM
yes all those things you mentioned are luxuries not necessities

He has entitlement issues, lacks responsibility, and doesn't have his priorities straight.

germanyt
11-01-2011, 01:17 PM
Back to responsibility.

1st off if you wreck your credit then that's on you, tax payers shouldn't have to pay for that. 2nd of all don't buy things you can't afford. If you're stupid enough to buy a brand new car with little to no money down, a car with high depreciation, and pay for all the BS dealer fees and add-ons without doing any research... then you're a dumb*ss and tax payers should't have to pay for your stupidity.

X-Box is worth, say $100, okay, the average welfare check in the US in Sept was $137. There ya go, sell that bitch and all your unnecessary sh*t you don't need BEFORE you start eating off tax payer's money, some working tax payers can't even afford a damn X-Box but an unemployed welfare moocher should have one??? F*ck that. I hope more states start going after people's assets BEFORE allowing any any welfare.


Now it sounds like you are saying that because a person is an inexperienced car buyer they shouldn't qualify for welfare. Or an inexperienced home buyer. You have a superiority complex and are attacking people you think are less intelligent than you by punishing them via welfare. Or perhaps your dumb as fuk and should just be lucky you don't need welfare. Either way, your arguments stem from anger and not rationality. IMO of course.

germanyt
11-01-2011, 01:21 PM
yes all those things you mentioned are luxuries not necessities

I agree. I'm not saying people should be wasteful. Just saying that each case is different and pointing out that this really has nothing to do with waste. Its about punishing drug users.

Dragger
11-01-2011, 01:22 PM
Whatever dude. There is no logical explanation for drug testing. A waste of 5 dollars on weed and a waste of 5 dollars gas to take my kid to see christmas lights is still a waste. This just appeals to the right wing retartds who are both anti drug and anti welfare. It has nothing to do with waste and everything to do with hate.

$5 a what? A day? Week? Month?

Either way the drug tests are only $30, and if it saves us from paying $1,644 a year for 1 person that has money to waste, then there is your "logical explanation".

markymark69
11-01-2011, 01:23 PM
$30.

And anyone that tests positive is billed for it.

There is a reason you are a prison guard. Math, managing a department, finances, projections, etc are definitely not your forte.

I covered this topic some time ago and like always the uneducated posters like to perpetuate misinformation...just like you referenced welfare lifers..another lie.

Class is in session. All you faux conservatives sit down, shut up and let an college educated person give you a math lesson.


You cannot be serious.

$35 covers the cost of the test itself. Associated overhead brings it up to $100/person/test. That is industry standard cost accounting for a company with 10k employees....that is why I asked for a ballpark figure for 10k people for a bimonthly split key drug test.

Quite honestly I am surprised with your statement. You are a business owner correct? Then you should understand overhead. How many times has someone come into your shop and complain because you offer $60 for a $100 item because you have to cover your overhead?

It is quite obvious that neither you...nor anyone else in this thread fully understands the cost of implementing a large scale drug testing program. If it is not contracted out (which again..will cost you on average $100/person/test) this is what a company has to do to implement a comprehensive drug screening program:

1)Account for a increase in foot traffic.
2)Build or modify existing facilities to accommodate screening.
3) Ensure your records management/network are HIPAA compliant. <---- At a min. this will require an audit. Additional changes to network, computer, database, et. al. will further increase costs.
4) Training/hiring of screening personnel.
^^
This is why most companies contract out drug screening.


So lets summarize the costs: $100/person/test. I am assuming you guys want welfare recipients to be drug tested every time they receive a check. Some states that is bimonthly others monthly.

Just for argument sake...lets assume we have 10k people and a monthly drug test in Florida.
For 10k welfare recipients we are looking at $1mil/month with a $350k offset or a total annual cost to taxpayers:
$7.8mil/10k recipients.


Florida has a 2yr time limit on welfare benefits. So they must recover the associated costs within 24 months.

What is the average welfare benefit in Florida? Im too busy atm to research it.
What is the baseline rate for drug use among welfare recipients? Again I am too busy to research it.

If the avg benefit and baseline rate are not high...this is a money losing program.
Perception /= Fact.

Class dismissed

germanyt
11-01-2011, 01:23 PM
He has entitlement issues, lacks responsibility, and doesn't have his priorities straight.

O for three. But keep on with that feeling of superiority if it makes you feel better.

Dragger
11-01-2011, 01:29 PM
Now it sounds like you are saying that because a person is an inexperienced car buyer they shouldn't qualify for welfare. Or an inexperienced home buyer. You have a superiority complex and are attacking people you think are less intelligent than you by punishing them via welfare. Or perhaps your dumb as fuk and should just be lucky you don't need welfare. Either way, your arguments stem from anger and not rationality. IMO of course.

With the internet and all the info available for research, it's not about being "inexperienced", it's about being flat out careless. Cars and houses are huge and important potentually life changing decisions. Doing it blindly and without any research is stupid. Cars are easy to buy and some idiots will buy one as an impulse buy and end up paying way too much and/or more than what they can afford.

Salesmen have a saying, "Didn't sell the car yet? Just wait, there's a sucker born every minute".

germanyt
11-01-2011, 01:29 PM
$5 a what? A day? Week? Month?

Either way the drug tests are only $30, and if it saves us from paying $1,644 a year for 1 person that has money to waste, then there is your "logical explanation".

Let's assume no dollars. Let's say I smoked a joint the day before I got laid off that I didn't pay for. We really shouldn't be focusing so much on the drug and more on the waste. Waste is waste is waste. 8 ball of coke or Modern Warfare 3. Which is worse in regards to waste if your on welfare?

Dragger
11-01-2011, 01:31 PM
There is a reason you are a prison guard. Math, managing a department, finances, projections, etc are definitely not your forte.

I covered this topic some time ago and like always the uneducated posters like to perpetuate misinformation...just like you referenced welfare lifers..another lie.

Class is in session. All you faux conservatives sit down, shut up and let an college educated person give you a math lesson.



Class dismissed

There is a reason you're a convict... lol.

Dragger
11-01-2011, 01:34 PM
Let's assume no dollars. Let's say I smoked a joint the day before I got laid off that I didn't pay for. We really shouldn't be focusing so much on the drug and more on the waste. Waste is waste is waste. 8 ball of coke or Modern Warfare 3. Which is worse in regards to waste if your on welfare?

Does't change what I said. If you do illegal drugs, you suffer the consequences.

If you have money to waste, you don't need tax payer's money.

germanyt
11-01-2011, 01:36 PM
With the internet and all the info available for research, it's not about being "inexperienced", it's about being flat out careless. Cars and houses are huge and important potentually life changing decisions. Doing it blindly and without any research is stupid. Cars are easy to buy and some idiots will buy one as an impulse buy and end up paying way too much and/or more than what they can afford.

Salesmen have a saying, "Didn't sell the car yet? Just wait, there's a sucker born every minute".


Sold cars for 3 years. Never heard that saying from anyone.

60 year old woman has no family and lives on fixed income. She works to pay minimal bills but doesnt have much left over. She buys a Kia because the payments are affordable. She's an occasional MJ smoker. Let's say a dime a month that her neighbor gives her. She loses her job. She's buried in the car even with 10% down and can't afford groceries.

Let her starve! Amirite?

flairon
11-01-2011, 01:39 PM
The law is stupid for multiple reasons.
1. its a violation of 4th amendment rights. The 4th amendment protects you from illegal search and seizure (including bodily fluids) without probable cause. Probable cause infers that you are breaking a law...what law are they breaking? being poor? If you force piss tests for aid then you are basically criminalizing being poor. You can't use the logic that that 'people on aid use drugs'..studies have shown that less than 2% on aid have ever been shown to use drugs.

2. It's $100 a month. If they pass, you pay. So your $100 a month just turned to $170 a month (yeah, $70 is the price quoted for the tests). If there are 2 adults, both have to be tested. So now we just went from $200 to $340 to the household. And the $70 quoted as the price doesnt even cover the costs of processing the test, so more likely these test will have money out of the taxpayer pocket up to about 200 per person.

3. Nobody is paying attention to the fact that the governor who pushed this through, also pushed mandatory testing for state employees (also deemed illegal) and more importantly that the same governor owns 23 facilities statewide that do this testing PLUS owns a medical equipment company that makes many of these tests (he quietly transferred ownership of these businesses to his wife before the election).

4. The way the law is worded practically guarantees that you will end up paying. Each person getting tested gets 2 weeks notice in the law. The only drug that stays in your system that long is weed. In my county alone there are at least 100 or so head shop that sell cleansing teas for about $15-20 bucks that work in about an hour and they will get you past a piss test. The piss test is also not monitored, so that means when you go pee in a cup, you will be in a bathroom, by yourself filling that cup. That means that everyone who has something to worry about will bring urine with them in one form or another and there are tons of ways to do this.

5. Even if they fail and they have children, the money for the children will still go to a person that is selected by the parents. If the parents have a drug problem to begin with what makes you think they will even so much as blink about shorting the kid's food money to get their drug of choice.

6. If they fail, they can reapply in 6 mos. If they fail again 1 year, if they fail again 3 years.

The bottom line is that the law is unconstitutional (which is why it was repealed in the 3 other states that tried to pass it) and the way its worded guarantees that the people using drugs will still pass which means they will continue to get tested, which mean the governor will still be getting more of your money by proxy and depending on how you look at it, he has basically legislated himself a raise under the guise of a law.

Dragger
11-01-2011, 01:39 PM
O for three. But keep on with that feeling of superiority if it makes you feel better.

You wrecked your credit buying sh*t you can't afford that you don't need, you have a kid, and you risk everything doing illegal drugs while b*tching you should be entitled to free money from other people's paychecks if you lose your job while keeping your X-Box sitting at home playing video games and getting hi. Looks 3 for 3 to me. Would you call all that being responsible with straight priorities and not having entitlement issues?

Dragger
11-01-2011, 01:52 PM
Sold cars for 3 years. Never heard that saying from anyone.

60 year old woman has no family and lives on fixed income. She works to pay minimal bills but doesnt have much left over. She buys a Kia because the payments are affordable. She's an occasional MJ smoker. Let's say a dime a month that her neighbor gives her. She loses her job. She's buried in the car even with 10% down and can't afford groceries.

Let her starve! Amirite? Why is she buying a brand new car? And one with HORRIBLE depreciation??? And only 10% down? A 72 month term or 36? Last I checked illegal drugs are illegal for now, she should go to jail instead of getting a piece of everyone's paycheck.

Try this one: Kid buys an Escalade he can't afford with no money down for 72 months, wrecks his credit, smokes weed everyday, get's caught in a drug test at work and is fired. Should he be allowed to sit at home the rest of his life stoned off his *ss playing video games driving his Escalade while there are tax payers out there working full-time to live paycheck to paycheck paying for stoner boy's careless irresponsibilities? THIS sounds good to you? I'm starting to think you don't even work...

germanyt
11-01-2011, 01:55 PM
Does't change what I said. If you do illegal drugs, you suffer the consequences.

If you have money to waste, you don't need tax payer's money.

So there it is. I knew it was in you somewhere. Do illegal drugs and suffer the consequences. Even if it was free. Thus proving my point that this has nothing to do with wasting money and everything to do with drug use.

Dragger
11-01-2011, 01:59 PM
The law is stupid for multiple reasons.
1. its a violation of 4th amendment rights. The 4th amendment protects you from illegal search and seizure (including bodily fluids) without probable cause. Probable cause infers that you are breaking a law...what law are they breaking? being poor? If you force piss tests for aid then you are basically criminalizing being poor. You can't use the logic that that 'people on aid use drugs'..studies have shown that less than 2% on aid have ever been shown to use drugs.

2. It's $100 a month. If they pass, you pay. So your $100 a month just turned to $170 a month (yeah, $70 is the price quoted for the tests). If there are 2 adults, both have to be tested. So now we just went from $200 to $340 to the household. And the $70 quoted as the price doesnt even cover the costs of processing the test, so more likely these test will have money out of the taxpayer pocket up to about 200 per person.

3. Nobody is paying attention to the fact that the governor who pushed this through, also pushed mandatory testing for state employees (also deemed illegal) and more importantly that the same governor owns 23 facilities statewide that do this testing PLUS owns a medical equipment company that makes many of these tests (he quietly transferred ownership of these businesses to his wife before the election).

4. The way the law is worded practically guarantees that you will end up paying. Each person getting tested gets 2 weeks notice in the law. The only drug that stays in your system that long is weed. In my county alone there are at least 100 or so head shop that sell cleansing teas for about $15-20 bucks that work in about an hour and they will get you past a piss test. The piss test is also not monitored, so that means when you go pee in a cup, you will be in a bathroom, by yourself filling that cup. That means that everyone who has something to worry about will bring urine with them in one form or another and there are tons of ways to do this.

5. Even if they fail and they have children, the money for the children will still go to a person that is selected by the parents. If the parents have a drug problem to begin with what makes you think they will even so much as blink about shorting the kid's food money to get their drug of choice.

6. If they fail, they can reapply in 6 mos. If they fail again 1 year, if they fail again 3 years.

The bottom line is that the law is unconstitutional (which is why it was repealed in the 3 other states that tried to pass it) and the way its worded guarantees that the people using drugs will still pass which means they will continue to get tested, which mean the governor will still be getting more of your money by proxy and depending on how you look at it, he has basically legislated himself a raise under the guise of a law.

If you really think it's illegal search and seizure, what do you feel about drug testing employees of private companies? State employees? Government employees? Soldiers? Airline pilots? Cops? Doctors? Politicians? Without probable cause in each case.

Or how about background/credit checks for apartment housing? Where's the probable cause in that? Or credit checks for loans? If I haven't given any reason for a background check then why is there one?

Seriously because I want to know.

germanyt
11-01-2011, 02:00 PM
Why is she buying a brand new car? And one with HORRIBLE depreciation??? And only 10% down? A 72 month term or 36? Last I checked illegal drugs are illegal for now, she should go to jail instead of getting a piece of everyone's paycheck.

Try this one: Kid buys an Escalade he can't afford with no money down for 72 months, wrecks his credit, smokes weed everyday, get's caught in a drug test at work and is fired. Should he be allowed to sit at home the rest of his life stoned off his *ss playing video games driving his Escalade while there are tax payers out there working full-time to live paycheck to paycheck paying for stoner boy's careless irresponsibilities? THIS sounds good to you? I'm starting to think you don't even work...


Try this. A legal system of guilty until proven innocent. Puts some innocent people in jail but at least it catches all the bad guys. That sound good to you?

And I do work. 4O hours a week. Don't sell cars anymore though.

Dragger
11-01-2011, 02:00 PM
So there it is. I knew it was in you somewhere. Do illegal drugs and suffer the consequences. Even if it was free. Thus proving my point that this has nothing to do with wasting money and everything to do with drug use.

I also mentioned people should surrender/sell any or all unneeded assets earlier. Already covered that too.

Dragger
11-01-2011, 02:03 PM
Try this. A legal system of guilty until proven innocent. Puts some innocent people in jail but at least it catches all the bad guys. That sound good to you?

And I do work. 4O hours a week. Don't sell cars anymore though.

What do you feel about drug testing employees of private companies? State employees? Government employees? Soldiers? Airline pilots? Cops? Doctors? Politicians? Without probable cause in each case. Guilty until proven innocent as well? How about credit and background checks for an appartment? Or credit check for a car loan? I mean If I claim I'm good for it, shouldn't my word be good enough? amiright?

germanyt
11-01-2011, 02:09 PM
If you really think it's illegal search and seizure, what do you feel about drug testing employees of private companies? State employees? Government employees? Soldiers? Airline pilots? Cops? Doctors? Politicians? Without probable cause in each case.

Or how about background/credit checks for apartment housing? Where's the probable cause in that? Or credit checks for loans? If I haven't given any reason for a background check then why is there one?

Seriously because I want to know.


I agree that this isn't unreasonable search and seizure. It just a bad way to address the problem of waste and fraud.

germanyt
11-01-2011, 02:19 PM
What do you feel about drug testing employees of private companies? State employees? Government employees? Soldiers? Airline pilots? Cops? Doctors? Politicians? Without probable cause in each case. Guilty until proven innocent as well? How about credit and background checks for an appartment? Or credit check for a car loan? I mean If I claim I'm good for it, shouldn't my word be good enough? amiright?

I adressed it already but here goes. Drug tests for jobs are silly. Weed can be tested for 10 times as long as other narcotics. So person A smokes a joint 3 weeks ago and doesn't get the job. Person B snorts coke 4 days ago and does get the job. All the while person C gets drunk every night and doesn't have to worry one bit. Make sense? Of course not. Apartment renters can do as they choose. I'm not paying into a system that provides me a free apartment if I go broke. And there are apartments, homes, condos, etc that don't check. So if you absolutely had to you could go there. I'm not arguing for violation of the constitution through unreasonable search and seizure.

Streetbull
11-01-2011, 02:27 PM
There is a reason you are a prison guard. Math, managing a department, finances, projections, etc are definitely not your forte.

I covered this topic some time ago and like always the uneducated posters like to perpetuate misinformation...just like you referenced welfare lifers..another lie.

Class is in session. All you faux conservatives sit down, shut up and let an college educated person give you a math lesson.



Class dismissed

Did you learn all this in prison, Mr. 420?

I know you hated the guards because they laughed while you were the Block Bitch. College? ROFLMAO!!

markymark69
11-01-2011, 02:32 PM
There is a reason you're a convict... lol.

Oh yeah there is: I was an idiot. However, I got out, earned a master's degree from UF and went on to be successful in life.

You on the other hand are still uneducated and still working as a sh!t eater. With a little brown nosing you should make lt. in 20yrs.
Good luck.


back on topic: Absolutely nobody in this thread can refute fiscal facts I posted. In fact the costs are even higher because I made the assumption every person would pay $35/test.

markymark69
11-01-2011, 02:36 PM
Did you learn all this in prison, Mr. 420?

I know you hated the guards because they laughed while you were the Block Bitch. College? ROFLMAO!!


Ah another one of my fans decided to chime in.
You must be miffed over this post:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=139355313&p=774943603&viewfull=1#post774943603

It never ceases to amaze me...I spent a solid 6.5yrs in prison, yet I am still better educated, most certainly wealthier than either of you...even with a 6yr head start. I'd post a picture of my wonderful wife, but I dont want some old fat slob jo'ing off to it.

flairon
11-01-2011, 06:16 PM
If you really think it's illegal search and seizure, what do you feel about drug testing employees of private companies? State employees? Government employees? Soldiers? Airline pilots? Cops? Doctors? Politicians? Without probable cause in each case.

Or how about background/credit checks for apartment housing? Where's the probable cause in that? Or credit checks for loans? If I haven't given any reason for a background check then why is there one?

Seriously because I want to know.

Private companies are a different entity. They can set whatever limits they like on their employees as to condition of employment. If you don't like it you can always get another job, getting citizenship in another country or aid from the administration you live within isn't the same thing.

For any public employee it is also illegal search and seizure in some cases as dictated by the Supreme Court. There is a ruling that the SC put down that unless their job in some way has an impact on public safety (cop, fireman, soldier, etc), that requiring a urinalysis for employment is a violation of 4th Amendment rights.

A background check is a report based on public information, not the same thing as a piss test and generally you have to approve them with signatures. Plus with housing you can do substantial monetary damage to someone else's property, and making sure you're not that kind of a person or a sexual predator is a service to the community as a whole.

Piss testing for TANF (not welfare) will do nothing but cost even more money to the tax payer with no real benefit to anyone except the guy that pushed the law. However soccer moms that take the edge off with a couple xanex a day, and other people that drown their sorrows in whatever legal pharmaceutical or drinkable item of choice get to enjoy complete smugness in believing that they showed those dirty dopers that they aren't gonna take it dammit!! and let them believe that they have a little bit of power in their pathetic existences.

markymark69
11-02-2011, 06:50 AM
I also mentioned people should surrender/sell any or all unneeded assets earlier. Already covered that too.

In Florida to receive TANF payments your countable assets have to be <$2000
Value of your car <$8500.

You would know that if you were educated.

Dragger
11-02-2011, 06:57 AM
back on topic: Absolutely nobody in this thread can refute fiscal facts I posted. In fact the costs are even higher because I made the assumption every person would pay $35/test.

It's $30 a pop. They come in a sealed wrapper, you open it, stick it in their pee or mouth depending on which state test they are using, no sending it to the lab, no lab fees, results come within 3-5 minutes. Done

$30, dumb*ss convict.

Dragger
11-02-2011, 06:59 AM
Ah another one of my fans decided to chime in.
You must be miffed over this post:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=139355313&p=774943603&viewfull=1#post774943603

It never ceases to amaze me...I spent a solid 6.5yrs in prison, yet I am still better educated, most certainly wealthier than either of you...even with a 6yr head start. I'd post a picture of my wonderful wife, but I dont want some old fat slob jo'ing off to it.

You're a full of sh*t liar. Only thing you're good at is bullsh*tting, typical inmate.

You got 6.5 years of learning how to get manipulated, F'ed in the A, dick sucking, and going weeks without a shower.

Dragger
11-02-2011, 07:05 AM
In Florida to receive TANF payments your countable assets have to be <$2000
Value of your car <$8500.

You would know that if you were educated.

Educated? You think that tidbit of info comes from education? Do they teach that in school, dumb*ss? No, to know THAT you must be on welfare. So now we know you are just another inmate and you are on welfare. Nice.

I'd also like to add that people are getting around whatever bullsh*t you're shoveing now because I've seen welfare leeches live off welfare and have assets above $2000 and cars/trucks above $8500.

markymark69
11-02-2011, 07:15 AM
Educated? You think that tidbit of info comes from education? Do they teach that in school, dumb*ss? No, to know THAT you must be on welfare. So now we know you are just another inmate and you are on welfare. Nice.

I'd also like to add that people are getting around whatever bullsh*t you're shoveing now because I've seen welfare leeches live off welfare and have assets above $2000 and cars/trucks above $8500.

Yeah..that is one of the problems with uneducated people...they have a tendency to rely on anecdotal evidence. In almost every instance they seem to know somebody that has done such & such.

You do this time and time again

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=138273263&p=772344073#post772344073

You always seem to know somebody that is a 'welfare lifer', driving a benz and living high on welfare, etc

edit: They didnt teach me that tidbit in college. What they did teach me in college is critical thinking and research skills. It took me 5 seconds with google.
http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/tca.shtml

markymark69
11-02-2011, 07:28 AM
/class dismissed

flairon
11-02-2011, 09:09 AM
Educated? You think that tidbit of info comes from education? Do they teach that in school, dumb*ss? No, to know THAT you must be on welfare. So now we know you are just another inmate and you are on welfare. Nice.

I'd also like to add that people are getting around whatever bullsh*t you're shoveing now because I've seen welfare leeches live off welfare and have assets above $2000 and cars/trucks above $8500.

or he could have used the mystical powers of the internet to find out that information. I hear you can do more than find porn and post to bb.com with the internet. It sounds crazy..but it just may be true.

flairon
11-02-2011, 09:11 AM
Oh yeah there is: I was an idiot. However, I got out, earned a master's degree from UF and went on to be successful in life.

You on the other hand are still uneducated and still working as a sh!t eater. With a little brown nosing you should make lt. in 20yrs.
Good luck.


back on topic: Absolutely nobody in this thread can refute fiscal facts I posted. In fact the costs are even higher because I made the assumption every person would pay $35/test.

the tests are almost twice that amount. This is a government contract, the contractors are going to demand the the very top they can, and seeing as how the guy leading the government in the state is also the same guy that is going to be dictating the price that is submitted to the government, my bet is he's not only going to ask for the top of the scale to charge for the piss tests, he's going to get it.

markymark69
11-02-2011, 12:38 PM
It's $30 a pop. They come in a sealed wrapper, you open it, stick it in their pee or mouth depending on which state test they are using, no sending it to the lab, no lab fees, results come within 3-5 minutes. Done

$30, dumb*ss convict.

You are quoting the cost of the supplies...not the overhead. In any organization whenever you implement a new program or purchase new equipment there are associated overhead costs. You have to factor in the cost of procurement, delivery, inventory, record keeping, training, auditing, etc. Jesus...even a high school drop out assistant manager at McDonalds probably knows this.

For example you stated a drug test takes 5 mins. Lets assume that is the only associated cost center hours (which we know is not true) You just added 13,000 hours to the cost center. Assuming the hourly rate is $10 = $130k. I could go on and on to show you how overhead is calculated, but you probably wont get it.

You stated the recipient only pays if they test positive, not if they test negative. I made the assumption every recipient would pay $35. Thats where I factored in the $350k offset.
Something tells me you didnt understand what I posted. Whatever you do...do ever start a business, you most certainly will fail.

Dragger
11-02-2011, 01:27 PM
You are quoting the cost of the supplies...not the overhead. In any organization whenever you implement a new program or purchase new equipment there are associated overhead costs. You have to factor in the cost of procurement, delivery, inventory, record keeping, training, auditing, etc. Jesus...even a high school drop out assistant manager at McDonalds probably knows this.

For example you stated a drug test takes 5 mins. Lets assume that is the only associated cost center hours (which we know is not true) You just added 13,000 hours to the cost center. Assuming the hourly rate is $10 = $130k. I could go on and on to show you how overhead is calculated, but you probably wont get it.

You stated the recipient only pays if they test positive, not if they test negative. I made the assumption every recipient would pay $35. Thats where I factored in the $350k offset.
Something tells me you didnt understand what I posted. Whatever you do...do ever start a business, you most certainly will fail.

400,000 people in the US recieved welfare in September, averaging $137 each, that's $54,800,000. In a single month. $657,600,000 a year. And you're crying about adding what? 1% to that, which would result in saving more than it costs in the long run. Drug testing and disallowing those with exspensive houses, cars, assets, and requiring community service to EARN assistance instead of just handing out free money would reduce the amount of claims. The drug testing takes 2 minutes to train for use, there's already shipment of supplies, audits, inventories, etc... in place you're just adding 0.01% in logistics that already exists. You're looking at it as if you're implementing all of this from scratch which is not the case, and you're ignoring the fact that the requirements would reduce the amount of claims and payouts.

Public assistance right now is a problem in the US, can you deny that? Some people actually need it, most are just riding the system. But you're just a dumb inmate who spent 6.5 years sucking off tax payers dollars and seeing how vocal you are towards this you seem to be on of the welfare leeches still doing illegal drugs. Typical inmate...

flairon
11-02-2011, 02:03 PM
400,000 people in the US recieved welfare in September, averaging $137 each, that's $54,800,000. In a single month. $657,600,000 a year. And you're crying about adding what? 1% to that, which would result in saving more than it costs in the long run. Drug testing and disallowing those with exspensive houses, cars, assets, and requiring community service to EARN assistance instead of just handing out free money would reduce the amount of claims. The drug testing takes 2 minutes to train for use, there's already shipment of supplies, audits, inventories, etc... in place you're just adding 0.01% in logistics that already exists. You're looking at it as if you're implementing all of this from scratch which is not the case, and you're ignoring the fact that the requirements would reduce the amount of claims and payouts.

Public assistance right now is a problem in the US, can you deny that? Some people actually need it, most are just riding the system. But you're just a dumb inmate who spent 6.5 years sucking off tax payers dollars and seeing how vocal you are towards this you seem to be on of the welfare leeches still doing illegal drugs. Typical inmate...

the drug testing isn't for welfare, its for tanf. tanf is not what people know of as welfare. Its not food stamps, its not housing, its temp assistance. It won't be 'just' an addition of 1%, you will be practically doubling the taxpayer money used in the program to give a test that they have ample time to get by and statistically less than 2% getting assistance are drug offenders or users.

You really just dont get a drug problem on $100 a month. Thats not even a good saturday night.

stealth_swimmer
11-02-2011, 03:43 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/25/judge-blocks-floridas-new-welfare-drug-testing-law/#comment

I didn't actually find the story itself that interesting but the comments at Fox News were too stupid for me to not post. I'm glad the law was blocked and unfortunately it had to be blocked for the wrong reasons. While unreasonable search and seizure may keep this law dead the real reason for its demise is simply because drugs aren't the only things people waste their money on. Conservatives hate drugs so much that they agree with this law just for that reason. Now that a person has been deemed not a pothead or cokehead what's to stop then from buying beer or expensive clothes or even fast food? It seems they don't really care that people on welfare are wasteful, just don't so drugs. This will put a huge strain on Floridas budget to be drug testing all those people too.

Conservatives
'Cut spending, less government, stay outta my personal life. But please, please government, waste money by digging too far into the personal lives of those nasty welfare recipients.'

basically. Just goes to show they can't be taken seriously. Forgot which state already tried it, but basically like 2% of the welfare recipients tested positive or something like that and so it ended up costing more money than it saved.

Transposed
11-02-2011, 03:58 PM
Smh @ taking peoples welfare just because they smoke pot.

bassing68
11-06-2011, 12:43 PM
Whatever dude. There is no logical explanation for drug testing. A waste of 5 dollars on weed and a waste of 5 dollars gas to take my kid to see christmas lights is still a waste. This just appeals to the right wing retartds who are both anti drug and anti welfare. It has nothing to do with waste and everything to do with hate.You are so wrong. There is no logical reason for someone to be able to use my tax dollars to buy and use drugs, especially if it prevents them from being able to get a job due to drug testing. This only keeps them on welfare. don't like the rules; don't play the game and the ruls should be testing, period

markymark69
11-06-2011, 03:08 PM
the drug testing isn't for welfare, its for tanf. tanf is not what people know of as welfare. Its not food stamps, its not housing, its temp assistance. It won't be 'just' an addition of 1%, you will be practically doubling the taxpayer money used in the program to give a test that they have ample time to get by and statistically less than 2% getting assistance are drug offenders or users.

You really just dont get a drug problem on $100 a month. Thats not even a good saturday night.

Trust me...he doesnt understand anything once you get beyond adding 2 numbers. I laid out the costs in a concise manner in this post: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=139177053&p=774960633&viewfull=1#post774960633

If 10k welfare recipients pay for their drug tests each month it will cost the taxpayers ~$8mil/yr. The costs are higher because only people that test positive pay for the tests. So you are looking at closer to $12mil/yr

flairon
11-06-2011, 03:25 PM
Trust me...he doesnt understand anything once you get beyond adding 2 numbers. I laid out the costs in a concise manner in this post: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=139177053&p=774960633&viewfull=1#post774960633

If 10k welfare recipients pay for their drug tests each month it will cost the taxpayers ~$8mil/yr. The costs are higher because only people that test positive pay for the tests. So you are looking at closer to $12mil/yr

Yep.

But from what I understand of the law and statistics that i researched it won't be quite that much..but still sizeable. There are something like 150k TANF recipients in Florida every year. The law reads that they are tested when they enter the program and then once a year. They can only be on the program for so long but pretty much as fast as 1 gets off, there is 1 to replace them so the numbers on TANF in the state stay pretty regular and have been that way for about a decade. I went through all the facts and figures for a report for government class and after everything was all said and done the testing would end up adding a little over 1 mil. to the taxpayer out of pocket costs, and that's almost double what the TANF program itself costs taxpayers.

Dragger
11-10-2011, 07:28 AM
You are so wrong. There is no logical reason for someone to be able to use my tax dollars to buy and use drugs, especially if it prevents them from being able to get a job due to drug testing. This only keeps them on welfare. don't like the rules; don't play the game and the ruls should be testing, period

Well said, repped.

Dragger
11-10-2011, 07:32 AM
basically. Just goes to show they can't be taken seriously. Forgot which state already tried it, but basically like 2% of the welfare recipients tested positive or something like that and so it ended up costing more money than it saved.

And welfare claims dropped too(reducing tax payer's dollars on claims paying for the tests), no one's going to take a drug test they know they won't pass, or continue doing illegal drugs when they know their "income" relies on it.

markymark69
11-10-2011, 07:34 AM
400,000 people in the US recieved welfare in September, averaging $137 each, that's $54,800,000. In a single month. $657,600,000 a year. And you're crying about adding what? 1% to that, which would result in saving more than it costs in the long run. Drug testing and disallowing those with exspensive houses, cars, assets, and requiring community service to EARN assistance instead of just handing out free money would reduce the amount of claims. The drug testing takes 2 minutes to train for use, there's already shipment of supplies, audits, inventories, etc... in place you're just adding 0.01% in logistics that already exists. You're looking at it as if you're implementing all of this from scratch which is not the case, and you're ignoring the fact that the requirements would reduce the amount of claims and payouts.

Public assistance right now is a problem in the US, can you deny that? Some people actually need it, most are just riding the system. But you're just a dumb inmate who spent 6.5 years sucking off tax payers dollars and seeing how vocal you are towards this you seem to be on of the welfare leeches still doing illegal drugs. Typical inmate...

*sigh*..like I have stated and shown again...and again...and again....including the overhead costs..it is $100/test. To test all 400k people each month will cost $40mil/month.
You are unable to grasp basic math let alone operational costs (brb..thinking supplies are your only costs)

If ten percent test positive you reduce the monthly award by $5.5mil. However you spend ~$40mil to realize a savings of $5mil. So now your in the hole $35mil. It will take 7months to realize those savings in reduced payments. However, during those seven months you will still incur the monthly cost of testing @ $40mil.

bassing68
11-12-2011, 08:15 AM
*sigh*..like I have stated and shown again...and again...and again....including the overhead costs..it is $100/test. To test all 400k people each month will cost $40mil/month.
You are unable to grasp basic math let alone operational costs (brb..thinking supplies are your only costs)

If ten percent test positive you reduce the monthly award by $5.5mil. However you spend ~$40mil to realize a savings of $5mil. So now your in the hole $35mil. It will take 7months to realize those savings in reduced payments. However, during those seven months you will still incur the monthly cost of testing @ $40mil.
You are under the incorrect assumption that it costs $100 to test when in fact an oral swab is only 10 bucks

flairon
11-12-2011, 08:25 AM
You are under the incorrect assumption that it costs $100 to test when in fact an oral swab is only 10 bucks

never dealt with government contractors have you.

There is something in this that people aren't paying attention to. Florida is where this law is currently in place. The governor of this state also made it a law (unconstitutional mind you) that all state employees require testing and he owns 25 medical testing facilities across the state that do these types of tests and he also owns a couple medical equipment manufacturing companies that make parts to the tests (cups and thermometers). The price has already been loosely set at $70 per at the urging of the testing facilities (read: the governor), but that is only the test, that doesn't cover the fees and overhead associated with processing each test. Once you factor that in, its about $100 a pop. The governor is sort of sliding by on this one because nobody has really made the connection between him and these facilities apparent because before the election he quietly transferred ownership of these companies to his wife. Whenever that is brought up in the media it is either buried in the story or sort of glossed over.