NO! - Drug testing Welfare recipients is costing taxpayers more money than it's worth, and it demonizes the poor!
96% (51 votes)
YES! - And poor people should have their welfare saftey net taken away for failing a drug test.
4% (2 votes)
Total votes: 53

Comments

forestlady11's picture
forestlady11 2 years 26 weeks ago

dumb waste of money. How about drug testing congress, we pay them for their serve(???) alcohol is a drug (the worst one) and I don't want them drinking on the job! it's critical to think with good judgement when our future is at stake! and the planet...

arky12's picture
arky12 2 years 26 weeks ago

I wonder if the voters in FL know how much this stupid plan has cost them? They look for anything that punishes the poor people their policies created in the first place. I am so disgustedf with the right wing rhetoric I sometimes want to reach into the TV and strangle somebody. Not that I'd ever strangle anyone, but I am really, really even more disgusted with our media who while saying they are fair and balanced, actually bash the left while applauding the right, so how is that fair and balanced? It's not,unless someone changed the reality rules and didn't tell me.

mpl632's picture
mpl632 2 years 26 weeks ago

Well if these proggies could think for themselves, you would see that it does save money.

I noticed that the proggies choose to reference FLORIDA statics on the GET-TOUGH LAW. The proggies places facts that bolster their stance to free money that comes from the working people's taxes. Yet, I did not see the words, as to the people that failed to take said drug test as to knowing that they would not be reimbursed the cost of the test, only that two percent that TOOK the test failed. Kinda makes sense to include all of the figures as to give a clearer picture.

The purpose of the law is NOT to make or necessarily save money. It is to get the people that abuse the system off of it and that the money in the system goes to what it was designed for, PROVIDE HELP WITH FOOD and NEEDS of the family / children. When you are taking money to buy drugs instead of the necessities of life, you are stealing from the family / children that depend on help of the tax payers.

These drug test are not held in public view. You take a bottle to a rest room. The last three jobs I had required for me to have a drug test. I am sure many of your readers have had to do the same to fulfill the job requirements to be hired. I guess that the Proggies feel that all workers subjected to drug testing were embarrassed and humiliated. If this solution of not subjecting people to your so called embarrassing or humiliating times, I would suggest that they NOT be using drugs and applying for assitstance.

From a article on Florida drug testing, 2 percent failed the test and another 2 percent are not completing the application process. So, from said article, that means a 4% failure / no completing application rate combination. That seems like a pretty good savings. When a applicant takes the test, they pay for said test. If they fail, the cost is all on them. If they pass, the state reimburses them the cost. Remember, EVERY person in the household is NOT tested, only the applicant.

Cost of the tests averages about $30.00. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

Welfare checks average $241-to-$303 a month. So at a 4% failure and Florida checks 1000 > 1500 people. Simple enough math. Lets take the smallest amount of money ($241.00) and the largest amount of people (1500) that were tested. We have to do the 4% of failure rate of 1500 people equaling 60 people that failed or not completed the application. Now we multiply the $241.00 x 60 equaling $14460.00.

1440 people passed said test and would be reimbursed their cost. At $30.00 times 1440 equals $43200.00. Granted no savings there, but what is interesting is that once you failed the test, from one test is that drug addicts are barred from receiving benefits for a year. So to be fair in this example, I would have to figure at two percent as the ones not finishing application can come back next month to apply.

2% now figures are 30 people are cut from getting $241.00(low figure)Per month for 12 months. 30 x $241.00 = $7230. Now $7230.00 times twelve (months) equaling $86760.00. Now what you have to determine is there a savings? I think that the saving is clear. Testing cost 43200.00 and saving of two percent failing said test and not being paid for a whole year comes to $43560.00 savings. Please notice it is not much, but we used the small amount of money for the check they WOULD receive. But then again you have to consider the amount of applicants not completing the application. This is just a example and the reason for not making it 4% is the fact of reapplying on the 2 percent that can reapply as they had not tested or completed the application.

I truly hope the proggies explain why there was in his words and the others that are against drug testing, NO SAVINGS

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Beneath the success and rise of American enterprise is an untold history that is antithetical to every value Americans hold dear. This is a seminal work, a godsend really, a clear message to every citizen about the need to reform our country, laws, and companies."
Paul Hawken, coauthor of Natural Capitalism and author of The Ecology of Commerce
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"In an age rife with media-inspired confusion and political cowardice, we yearn for a decent, caring, deeply human soul whose grasp of the problems confronting us provides a light by which we can make our way through the quagmire of lies, distortions, pandering, and hollow self-puffery that strips the American Dream of its promise. How lucky we are, then, to have access to the wit, wisdom, and willingness of Thom Hartmann, who shares with us here that very light, grown out of his own life experience."
Mike Farrell, actor, political activist, and author of Just Call Me Mike and Of Mule and Man
From Cracking the Code:
"In Cracking the Code, Thom Hartmann, America’s most popular, informed, and articulate progressive talk show host and political analyst, tells us what makes humans vulnerable to unscrupulous propagandists and what we can do about it. It is essential reading for all Americans who are fed up with right-wing extremists manipulating our minds and politics to promote agendas contrary to our core values and interests."
David C. Korten, author of The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community and When Corporations Rule the World and board chair of YES! magazine