No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests [FL]

I would recommend the sonsofbitches at the ACLU rethink their practice of systematically blocking, on contrived grounds, commonsense reforms to social programs. I fear -- and I mean literally fear -- we are rapidly approaching a tipping point,

Does the ACLU really wield that much power? Or is the problem with spineless lumps we put into government office?

Um, yeah! They, that is, and their coalition, which effectively includes the freakin' AG of the United States, and the President who appointed him.

Right now there are rafts of utterly rational, reasonable and duly enacted laws and policies in (Red) states all across the country which are under challenge, in abeyance, and/or killed due to ACLU compliant, leftwing assaults, challenges and suits by Eric Holder's Justice Department, and/or various threats, strong-arming, withhold of funds due to States, by various other Federal agencies.

If a company can require your passing a drug test for gainful employment, why can't the government require your passing a drug test for gainful non-employment?

That so many people have rolled over like lap dogs wanting their bellies scratched on the first part of that troubles me greatly. But, as for why you don't want the government to be able to impose searches without particularized suspicion in order to avail of any government service seems pretty obvious... unless you'd like a pee in a cup station at the end of your driveway to ensure you're not using the public roads within 3 weeks of having had a toke?

If a company can require your passing a drug test for gainful employment, why can't the government require your passing a drug test for gainful non-employment?

That so many people have rolled over like lap dogs wanting their bellies scratched on the first part of that troubles me greatly. But, as for why you don't want the government to be able to impose searches without particularized suspicion in order to avail of any government service seems pretty obvious... unless you'd like a pee in a cup station at the end of your driveway to ensure you're not using the public roads within 3 weeks of having had a toke?

Your inability to distinguish between accepting a government handout and operating under a government license is noted.

If a company can require your passing a drug test for gainful employment, why can't the government require your passing a drug test for gainful non-employment?

That so many people have rolled over like lap dogs wanting their bellies scratched on the first part of that troubles me greatly. But, as for why you don't want the government to be able to impose searches without particularized suspicion in order to avail of any government service seems pretty obvious... unless you'd like a pee in a cup station at the end of your driveway to ensure you're not using the public roads within 3 weeks of having had a toke?

Your inability to distinguish between accepting a government handout and operating under a government license is noted.

The limited purpose and scope of one particular straw on the peoples' back placed by government should have been adequately evidenced by the "PATRIOT" Act. I see there's still learning to do.

If a company can require your passing a drug test for gainful employment, why can't the government require your passing a drug test for gainful non-employment?

That so many people have rolled over like lap dogs wanting their bellies scratched on the first part of that troubles me greatly. But, as for why you don't want the government to be able to impose searches without particularized suspicion in order to avail of any government service seems pretty obvious... unless you'd like a pee in a cup station at the end of your driveway to ensure you're not using the public roads within 3 weeks of having had a toke?

Your inability to distinguish between accepting a government handout and operating under a government license is noted.

The limited purpose and scope of one particular straw on the peoples' back placed by government should have been adequately evidenced by the "PATRIOT" Act. I see there's still learning to do.

That has been the government's m.o. since long before the Patriot Act, which, if it did any good at all was to wake the Left up to government over-reach.

In the 1960s, my Father worked for a private corporation that ended up refusing to accept any government work whatever because the first penny of government money came with ever-increasing demands for more and more hoops to be jumped through. That was the government demanding conditions for it to pay for a product.

We now have people who deliver no product whatever, and you expect them to get government cash without having any conditions attached? Sober up.

...We now have people who deliver no product whatever, and you expect them to get government cash without having any conditions attached? Sober up.

There are all manner of conditions attached to receiving welfare, or unemployment, or any other government aid. The objection is to an invasive search of one's bodily fluids for no reason except to make the experience more punitive.

In any case, the Florida experiment did this much good. The next time some state legistwits suggest it, 'saving money' won't be in their arsenal of arguments. (Actually, it probably will, since truthfulness among politicians is an exceedingly rare commodity.)

...We now have people who deliver no product whatever, and you expect them to get government cash without having any conditions attached? Sober up.

There are all manner of conditions attached to receiving welfare, or unemployment, or any other government aid. The objection is to an invasive search of one's bodily fluids for no reason except to make the experience more punitive.

In any case, the Florida experiment did this much good. The next time some state legistwits suggest it, 'saving money' won't be in their arsenal of arguments. (Actually, it probably will, since truthfulness among politicians is an exceedingly rare commodity.)

If one is on welfare, and one has drugs in one's system, one is using government money for illegal purposes. You have no problem with that.

...We now have people who deliver no product whatever, and you expect them to get government cash without having any conditions attached? Sober up.

There are all manner of conditions attached to receiving welfare, or unemployment, or any other government aid. The objection is to an invasive search of one's bodily fluids for no reason except to make the experience more punitive.

In any case, the Florida experiment did this much good. The next time some state legistwits suggest it, 'saving money' won't be in their arsenal of arguments. (Actually, it probably will, since truthfulness among politicians is an exceedingly rare commodity.)

If one is on welfare, and one has drugs in one's system, one is using government money for illegal purposes. You have no problem with that.

Actually, the one doesn't require the other. Assuming the drug in question is marijuana (and most of the detections in Florida were marijuana), I could have plants in my yard, a generous friend, I could have attended a concert recently where someone was passing a joint, I could have been at a neighbor's house visiting when they offered a spliff. None of those require money.

...We now have people who deliver no product whatever, and you expect them to get government cash without having any conditions attached? Sober up.

There are all manner of conditions attached to receiving welfare, or unemployment, or any other government aid. The objection is to an invasive search of one's bodily fluids for no reason except to make the experience more punitive.

In any case, the Florida experiment did this much good. The next time some state legistwits suggest it, 'saving money' won't be in their arsenal of arguments. (Actually, it probably will, since truthfulness among politicians is an exceedingly rare commodity.)

If one is on welfare, and one has drugs in one's system, one is using government money for illegal purposes. You have no problem with that.

Actually, the one doesn't require the other. Assuming the drug in question is marijuana (and most of the detections in Florida were marijuana), I could have plants in my yard, a generous friend, I could have attended a concert recently where someone was passing a joint, I could have been at a neighbor's house visiting when they offered a spliff. None of those require money.

Admit it. You're Assistant DA Robert Hoover.

If a company can require your passing a drug test for gainful employment, why can't the government require your passing a drug test for gainful non-employment?

How about because it wastes money? My money.

If a company can require your passing a drug test for gainful employment, why can't the government require your passing a drug test for gainful non-employment?

How about because it wastes money? My money.

Which wastes more of your money, welfare or requiring welfare recipients to take a drug test?

Wrong question since they're virtually all passing the drug test.

So, either I pay for welfare or I pay for welfare plus useless drug tests.

[Nilla]

The problem here is that if they fail the drug tests, they wont just simply be kicked off the welfare rolls. Entirely new entitlement programs will be generated to deal with these degenerates while they remain on welfare.

I have a crazy idea to save money. How about ending welfare and the WoSD altogther?

Last edited by Nilla on Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wrong question since they're virtually all passing the drug test.

So, either I pay for welfare or I pay for welfare plus useless drug tests.

I'd opt for neither.

How about ending welfare and the WoSD altogther?

The problem here is that if they fail the drug tests, they wont just simply be kicked off the welfare rolls. Entirely new entitlement programs will be generated to deal with these degenerates while they remain on welfare.

I have a crazy idea to save money. How about ending welfare and the WoSD altogther?

Hence, what we really, and badly, need is a degenerates suppression program.

The problem here is that if they fail the drug tests, they wont just simply be kicked off the welfare rolls. Entirely new entitlement programs will be generated to deal with these degenerates while they remain on welfare.

I have a crazy idea to save money. How about ending welfare and the WoSD altogther?

Hence, what we really, and badly, need is a degenerates suppression program.

Its called: "Rioters will be shot on sight".

Wrong question since they're virtually all passing the drug test.

So, either I pay for welfare or I pay for welfare plus useless drug tests.

virtually all... of 4000 individuals... over a four month period... in a state with over 50,000 FAMILIES on monthly State subsidy.
again: something is *very* odd about the data set.

... I have a crazy idea to save money. How about ending welfare and the WoSD altogther?

"Ya fuckin' radical."
-- The Republemocrats

... I have a crazy idea to save money. How about ending welfare and the WoSD altogther?

"Ya fuckin' radical."
-- The Republemocrats

You know what is "radical"? Our government essentially pays people to not work and be unproductive. There are plenty of jobs. So much so that people from Central America risk life and limb to enter the country illegally to get them.

... I have a crazy idea to save money. How about ending welfare and the WoSD altogther?

"Ya fuckin' radical."
-- The Republemocrats

You know what is "radical"? Our government essentially pays people to not work and be unproductive. ...

Read much?

... I have a crazy idea to save money. How about ending welfare and the WoSD altogther?

"Ya fuckin' radical."
-- The Republemocrats

You know what is "radical"? Our government essentially pays people to not work and be unproductive. ...

Read much?

I know, I saw it. Newt was the last one to make any headway in this direction. I am not confident anyone will else will dare touch it. The whole thing is going to collapse one way or another.

Wrong question since they're virtually all passing the drug test.

So, either I pay for welfare or I pay for welfare plus useless drug tests.

virtually all... of 4000 individuals... over a four month period... in a state with over 50,000 FAMILIES on monthly State subsidy.
again: something is *very* odd about the data set.

Not so odd. The drug testing was for applicants, not all recipients. Florida TANF can run for 48 months. The vast majority are one (or none) parent households:

In 2001, about 37 percent of TANF families had no adult recipients. Sixty percent of TANF families had one adult recipient...

50,000/(3*4)=?

...Unfortunately this meant that the second 6th Circuit second hearing had no resolution, the first hearing didn't count, and since the matter was unresolved at the Appeals court level, the original district court single-judge injunction was left in effect.

"Unfortunately"?

You're familiar with the word, are you not?

Yes, it's unfortunate that the matter hasn't actually been resolved, despite your premature victory dance in your earlier post, in which you taunted us with a hearty "good luck with that" after gave an account of the Michigan case which falsely implied that the courts there had slam-dunked the matter in your favor and thus any other courts would clearly do the same.

The reality, as I pointed out, was quite different than your "version". One court there blocked the law, one court upheld the law, and one court couldn't make up its mind. Sounds like you can argue a tie, at best, although I'll take the considered opinions of three Federal Appeals judges (which *disagreed* with your take) over one District court judge (the one who agreed with you), as an indication of which way the matter may ultimately go if it makes it to the Supreme Court.

Speaking of which, see below.

The bottom line is... who won, again?

Nobody, really. Help me out here -- did you not read what I wrote, or just not understand it?

If the district judge was wrong, and the en banc decision flawed, why wouldn't some right thinking members of SCOTUS have granted certiori? Because the case sucked? Maybe.

The astute reader will note that Excineribus goes for a long walk on a short pier with his chain of so-called "reasoning", by waving around the Supreme Court's failure to take on Marchwinski as supporting "evidence" that "the case sucked", when in fact the reason the Supreme Court didn't hear Marchwinski was the Supreme Court can't consider cases that are not brought before it, and Marchwinski wasn't.

Or maybe Excineribus is trying to assert that "right thinking members of SCOTUS" could, if they liked a lower court case enough, take a drive down to Cincinnati Ohio on one of their days off, yank the case out of the Sixth Circuit's archives, and take it on as a pro bono case unless, and only unless, the "case sucked".

ETA: Note, the proposition has been heard in 3 courts. It looked *briefly* like it might prevail in 1, but the end of the day shows 0 for 3. How many strikes makes an out?

Ah, I see your problem. We're discussing the Constitution, and you're playing fantasy baseball.

Wrong question since they're virtually all passing the drug test.

So, either I pay for welfare or I pay for welfare plus useless drug tests.

virtually all... of 4000 individuals... over a four month period... in a state with over 50,000 FAMILIES on monthly State subsidy.
again: something is *very* odd about the data set.

Not so odd. The drug testing was for applicants, not all recipients. Florida TANF can run for 48 months. The vast majority are one (or none) parent households:

In 2001, about 37 percent of TANF families had no adult recipients. Sixty percent of TANF families had one adult recipient...

50,000/(3*4)=?

Oh cool, you're doing math.

As long as you have your calculator out, go ahead and crunch the NYTimes' numbers and see what you find. You'll find that they "conveniently" left out a lot of key information, *and* failed to provide a link or even a citation to the "state data" they said they used, but spotting the missing information is all part of the exercise.

Be sure to locate the average welfare benefit received by a Florida recipient, and how long the average applicant keeps drawing benefits before leaving the program, and see if it jibes with the NYTimes' numeric claims.