Scott Walker Calls Food Stamp Drug Testing 'A Progressive Thing'

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yah it probably is "Progressive" as in more Big Government. All I have to say about it. Don't get me wrong. I like Scott Walker and what he has done in his term. But I want to see less government bureaucracy.

But "progressive" doesn't mean "big government". And it's conservatives who keep pushing these policies throughout the country, not progressives. So how is it a progressive thing like Walker said? It's literally a conservative thing, since it's conservatives who push the programs and implement them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why test the poor souls? I mean even if they come up positive for controlled substances in there system they still need to eat to survive. You just know statistics such as these will be used to prevent the stamps being issues, if not today at some future date.

It still does not make sense. If you can afford to do drugs then it's more than obvious you have additional money that could be spent on food. So now our tax dollars are really paying for people's food so they can then use their own money to buy drugs. Right that's not an invasion of privacy. Its more like weeding out the people who are just using the systems we have in place and are not actually in need. Excuse me they do need food, sense they spend their money on drugs.

a reply to: Zerodoublehero

Did you not see the evidence I posted in the OP that show that every state that has implemented one of these programs have turned out to just waste tons of money while catching very few people doing drugs?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This translates to me: "I don't like bigger government when its the other guy who wants it, but when my guy is pitching it its a great idea."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Oklahoma passed its law in 2012, requiring a screening of all applicants and chemical tests for those for whom there is a “reasonable cause” to believe they are using illegal substances. From November 2012 through November 2014, 3,342 applicants were screened and 2,992 selected for further testing (though those numbers could include some who applied more than once). Two-hundred and ninety-seven tested positive for illegal "substances.

You are just trying to be misleading with your numbers. Reasonable cause isn't everyone. It's quite an unreliable statistic if you ask me. And I think the cost of testing is misleading. A drug urine drug test at a store dosent cost more than 40 dollars even if you had to hire a person to administrate them it still seems like a good way to ditur people on drugs from seeking those types of assistance considering they obviously have extra money to spend on drugs but can not afford food. I'm sure you would oppose people on the programs to have to do 15 hours of community service a week right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're just basically saying well you want to be one drugs? Sure we will feed you house you and heck here's some extra spending cash

The logic just isn't there

And let's not even get into the states them selves that we are talking about. # show me one for California or new York or new jersey. I bet the statistics would be alot differnt.

Ahem.

Executive Order 12564

www.archives.gov...

Food Stamps is a FEDERAL program that uses FEDERAL FUNDS.

Read it and weap.

back to demagoguing Walker.

originally posted by: Zerodoublehero
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Oklahoma passed its law in 2012, requiring a screening of all applicants and chemical tests for those for whom there is a “reasonable cause” to believe they are using illegal substances. From November 2012 through November 2014, 3,342 applicants were screened and 2,992 selected for further testing (though those numbers could include some who applied more than once). Two-hundred and ninety-seven tested positive for illegal "substances.

You are just trying to be misleading with your numbers. Reasonable cause isn't everyone. It's quite an unreliable statistic if you ask me. And I think the cost of testing is misleading. A drug urine drug test at a store dosent cost more than 40 dollars even if you had to hire a person to administrate them it still seems like a good way to ditur people on drugs from seeking those types of assistance considering they obviously have extra money to spend on drugs but can not afford food. I'm sure you would oppose people on the programs to have to do 15 hours of community service a week right?

I ran the numbers, they're a page back you're free to read them. There is no savings, the average test costs about $700 and only 10% of the people are coming up with drugs in their system. In the state I ran the numbers for it resulted in $29 million to test people while saving 4.5 million in fraud.

You also can't use cheap tests because of the chance for false positives.

a reply to: Aazadan

700$ a person I'd like to see that link. Seems way too high. They absolutely have very precise ways of determining if you have drugs in your system for alot less than that. But besides that far out number all the states we are even arguing about are all small figures and not exactly poverty stricken areas, to an extent. like I said I'd like to see one for new york. Doubt we would though. But hey I totally get what you're saying. Let's just continue to allow people to use their money for drugs because they will get supported in every way possible and then vote for us. Makes sense.

And to not get off topic but people on unemployment as well as welfare should be mandated to do 15 or 20 hours of community service a week. I bet alot more poeple would be alot more inclined to be get jobs instead of riding the system as long as possible.

originally posted by: Zerodoublehero
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're just basically saying well you want to be one drugs? Sure we will feed you house you and heck here's some extra spending cash

The logic just isn't there

No the logic isn't there to drug test these people. It has been shown that these tests are wastes of money and don't catch very many drug users. Did you not read the full OP?

And let's not even get into the states them selves that we are talking about. # show me one for California or new York or new jersey. I bet the statistics would be alot differnt.

Those programs don't exist in those states. California is likely to NEVER implement such a program since it is probably going to legalize weed in 2016. New York will eventually follow suit, and I imagine that once the bloated ass known as Chris Christie leaves office, so will New Jersey. And no, the statistics wouldn't be different. You are trying to argue in favor of doing something over and over again and expecting different results. Most call that the definition of insanity.

a reply to: neo96

So? What's your point?

a reply to: Zerodoublehero

It's all in the links in the OP. Lets take the first one, Missouri. They tested 446 people at a cost of $336,297 that's $754 per person. Kansas spent $40,000 to test 65 people that's $615 per person. Then not in the OP there's the numbers from Florida which came out not too long ago. These drug tests are a massive waste of money.

a reply to: Aazadan

"Utah also enacted its law in 2012, requiring a written screening and a drug test for anyone with a “reasonable likelihood” of having a “substance use disorder.” Between its implementation in August 2012 and July of 2014, 9,552 applicants were screened and 838 were given drug tests. Just 29 tested positive at a cost of more than $64,000, according to a Utah Department of Workforce Services spokesman."

Or take the one from Utah is the OP post. Oh gosh only 76 dollars a person? Damn that's alot of money. I love you you picked the most expensive one and lets not forget all the start up cost there. So at what your math was earlier seams reasonable to keep drug users from draining funding from people who would actually need it. But hey who cares just gimme my free money and let me go get high

a reply to: Zerodoublehero

So they spent $64,000 to catch 29 drug users for that year. They get about $150/month in assistance which works out to $1800 per year. Even in your example they spent $64,000 to save $52,000. There are also legal reasons the state has to use more expensive tests because it's illegal to deny benefits to a person who qualifies, so if they're disqualifying someone they need to be certain of it. Less expensive tests are as high as a 15% false positive rate. That's a massive lawsuit the state would be setting up for themselves.

a reply to: Aazadan

150 a month for assistance is way low. Way low. Housing assistance, food stamps, and state insurance come on really lol you my friend are very good at bull#ING numbers. Or trying to I mean how did u even come up with 150 a month.

originally posted by: Zerodoublehero
a reply to: Aazadan

150 a month for assistance is way low. Way low. Housing assistance, food stamps, and state insurance come on really lol you my friend are very good at bs ING numbers.

We're talking about food stamps. Housing assistance, insurance, and all the rest aren't part of that. $150 is pretty typical of what a single person with no kids gets and that might even be high.

a reply to: Aazadan

I'm very positive most people get more than that. I know several people who get much more than that per month for food stamps and if you want to get real technical you not equating the cost of what it actually cost to run those types of programs. Even though the people may end up with 150 (which is laughable at best) the real cost to get them that money is much much more. But ok

originally posted by: Zerodoublehero
a reply to: Aazadan

I'm very positive most people get more than that. I know several people who get much more than that per month for food stamps and if you want to get real technical you not equating the cost of what it actually cost to run those types of programs. Even though the people may end up with 150 (which is laughable at best) the real cost to get them that money is much much more. But ok

And to be perfectly clear we are talking the article we are specifically talking about pertains to welfare not just food stamps. Which yes dose include housing and heathcare.