Guess how many welfare recipients tested positive in Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s drug test?

originally posted by: bknapple32
And let me just add. Working poor is allowed the same consumed amount of marijuana as the rest of middle class america smokes. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean you get to control every dollar they spend. If someone is stuck in a rut and makes crap pay, lives on their own, and wants to spend a few sheckles a week doing something that makes them feel better in their own home, go for it bud.

No... they really aren't. For a very real reason. Those who earn more than them have more Disposable Income... in which they can buy Smokes.

The Working Poor do not have ANY disposable income... hard to buy smokes with 'nothing'.

Just like the Rich, through virtue of having even more money, can upgrade to Heroin and consume more of it than the Middle Class Man makes in a Month.

I'm all for doing things that make you feel better, but by the very virtue that people are on Government Assistance tells me they don't have the 'extra' to spare. That's part of being 'poor', much as I grew up... we don't have a lot of 'extras'.

So when they spend 'Middle Class America' amounts of Dollars on Weed, then that REQUIRES them to not pay the electric bill, or not buy food, or not take care of their Children. Because, you know... they wanted to smoke to feel good for a bit.

Circumstances are circumstances, and the circumstances of the Poor is No Disposable Income for such extras as Weed.

Which leads me to absolutely believe you've never been poor.

Also I find it highly suspect that of $300,000 given to a Pilot Program... $300 has been spent. What did they do, order 1 Drug Test and call it a wrap?

Taxpayers literally put $300,000 into the Program, and $300 has been used. Explain that. Drug Tests aren't free.

If this were Education we'd be pissed off that we gave $300,000 and the School bought 2 new Text Books and called it a wrap.

What about the other $299,700? Why hasn't that been used to facilitate more testing?

You think you might actually find more people... if you actually, I don't know, spent the money on Testing more people?

That should be the thing everyone here is looking at... $300,000 given for this, and $300 used. WTF are they doing?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: tothetenthpower

My guess. 1. Answer. 0. Lol, yet more proof that drug testing welfare recipients is an enormous waste of taxpayer money.

Did you read the part where it mentioned of the $300,000 the Taxpayers had put into this Program... a whopping $300 has been spent?

If you are going to get the money procured, you might as well use it. For the love of all things good, what exactly are they doing? $300 is like 2 Drug Tests and Pizza for the group.

Exactly how many people did they test off this $300 they used? And what exactly are they planning for the other $299,700?

But some how, 303 Drug Tests were administered off of $300? Bull #.

Some ones lying somewhere.

The Average Cost for Drug Tests, as per Cornell University, is about $48 per person. In the Army it's more than that... you know, you don't spend the Budget it gets cut on you and all that. Some of these serious ones demanded by bigger companies are at a STARTING RANGE of $1,400. Again... for ONE PERSON.

So let's say we got the cheap, it's $48 a pop.

How did 303 people get Tested off $300 at $48 per Person?

There is no Drug Test for $1 per Person. It doesn't exist.

Something is more than fishy here.

originally posted by: MrSpad
This has been a bust in every state they do it in. It always ends up costing a ton of money and never gets any results. Not a big surprise that poor people can not afford drugs.

Has only cost Rick's people $300.

I mean, they GAVE $300,000... but the report itself says only $300 has been spent so far.

I wonder where they got the $0.99 Drug Tests at, since 303 People were tested on $300. Since, you know... they don't make Dollar Drug Tests.

a reply to: KillerKell

Wow. That's a decent bit of info you covered up here. Sounds like some corruption is at work in addition to a useless policy, but then again corruption and useless policies go hand in hand since they were never intended to procure results in the first place.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You can take you back and go home. However you are a libertarian through and through as you said yet you actually disagree with their main principle.

No son your a neocon progressive who believes you can make people moral with legislation.

Drug testing is an invasion of civil liberties and every other country in the west has said so accept the us.

It's really simple

And tax breaks across the board for every bussiness to offset a wage hike is simplification. If you want to knock around with the nitty gritty of these policies let's do it since you are trying to say they are confusing.

And do read up on the basic income so you have a better response to argue. Is it really wealth distribution when everyone gets it? Does that make sense to you? Personally my wife and I pay well over 12k in taxes every year so I will just say it's my money coming back.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SlapMonkey
No son your a neocon progressive who believes you can make people moral with legislation.

Thanks for your input, dad, but once again, you are incapable of comprehending things. That's okay...I guess, although it makes for very painful discussion.

Drug testing is an invasion of civil liberties and every other country in the west has said so accept the us.

It's really simple

MANDATORY drug testing AGAINST ONE'S WILL would be an invasion of privacy. Agreeing via contract to accept employment, and drug testing being a known stipulation to said employment, is not an invasion of privacy.

It's really simple...see, I'm very specific as to how I'm phrasing this and that I'm talking about willful acceptance of drug-testing policies. You broadly generalize and then pretend that I'm talking about the same thing that you are. It's really odd that you keep doing it--and then claiming that you're right--but, whatever works for you, dad.

And tax breaks across the board for every bussiness to offset a wage hike is simplification. If you want to knock around with the nitty gritty of these policies let's do it since you are trying to say they are confusing.

I work in Criminal Investigation section of the IRS, dad--I have a general (and specific, in many instances) understanding of the tax code presumably MUCH better than you. But, you know, thanks for your input. (they are confusing to the average taxpayer--whether you accept that or not is irrelevant)

And do read up on the basic income so you have a better response to argue. Is it really wealth distribution when everyone gets it?

Yes--from where/whom does the money for said 'basic income' originate? And would they get an income that would equal the amount that was taken from them? (the answer to the latter question is an obvious "no"--and that, good sir, is called wealth redistribution [not "distribution"])

Personally my wife and I pay well over 12k in taxes every year so I will just say it's my money coming back.

If you want to look at it that way, that's up to you.

(sorry for the late response--I was traveling since last Saturday and officiated a wedding on Friday)

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I can see why working for the irs you would be against simplifying the tax code.

Basic income since you are such a master of economics is what? What was the Austrian school representation of it? What are the philosophical benifits? What is the cost and where are the proposed methods of collecting taxes?

I assume you had to study economics to have your job. Or else your more a technician which is fine you probably do have advanced understanding of the logistics of carrying out the political and economic philosophies.

However your credentials for understanding the theories and observations behind markets and how taxation effects those things is not inherent by understanding what the laws of forms are.

But over half he jobs in the us require drug testing. There are between 8-100 million less jobs available to people who can work depending in how you judge these people (8 million says Obama (16 million by many economists) unemployed 93 million who could work including stay at home parents and early retirement.

Anyhow all in all my point is the job market is extremely limited and 57 percent of jobs some being baggers at grocery stores perpetuates joblessness.

On top of that it doesn't work. Prescreening does not effect the rate of accidents only regular testing shows results. Those jobs are rare like missle silos and running the FED.

Interfearing with principles of liberty always create market setbacks.

You have to manage the way you regulate the market with extreme caution to intervene.

Many people think moral philosophy will reflect into the market and it just historically does not. Unintended consequences always happen. So at the very least when people people these types of additions to wellfare programs they need to have the courage to listen to economic philosophers explain failings they see from historical market observations.

Little side anectdote. I worked for Greenpeace as a young idealist in highschool. Environmental regulation swept through Maine where paper mills had been destroying rivers a long time coming at the same time I worked for GP. I was siked.

However it also caused massive unemployment and social drug problems from the voided job market. This was a total failure to implement policy with the guidance of economic planning in terms of creating enough job incentives and corperate tax code change (lowering state and negotiating federal incentives as well).

This drug testing is one massive problem philosophically and economical.

It's only a morality arguement. Which I don't think any person has a right to declare a group with over 100 million Americans in it immoral or suggest they are by testing their morality with urine. The fact that there aren't enough jobs means you are expecting 109 million poor people to become entrepreneurs. Some of the geniuses actually do. But the others just go through the war zones.

I think the fact that the ghettos are such lawless pieces of crap is enough of a failure in the part of law enforcement and government that the poor can't be blamed for their entire situation all the time like so many make it out to be. Most of those kids are now stuck in the loop growing up in Baghdad. Accept it's Chicago, Detroit, Florida etc.

a reply to: luthier

Yep, you don't get it.

I AM FOR SIMPLIFYING THE TAX CODE!

Hell, I'm for abolishing the IRS altogether, even though I am an employee of that same agency.

We're done...I couldn't read past your first sentence because you've obviously committed to just not listening to anything I say, and make assumptions at every turn during our discourse.

Best Regards.

a reply to: [post=20994797]SlapMonkey[/p

I don't get it because your not real clear.

You haven't addressed any of the points against your arguement.

1 the poor don't need to be drug tested to get benifits. The entire black market is set up with the aid of corruption in law enforcement and politics.

2. It's a civil liberty violation. Every other country makes safeguards against it.

3. It prevents employment to jobs that don't matter if you smoke a joint at home after work because civil liberties are not being protected.

Once you clean up the police justice system and politicians then sure test away. However you will probably find a whole lot less people on wellfare.


By the way your dept is terrible. I have had to deal with fraud from the same person for four years in a row. I get audited prove my case make a complaint and next year Bing same thing.