OPs numbers...not mine.

"Out of over 800 tested in my great state of TN, only one has tested positive..."

(08-24-2014 11:58 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 11:57 AM)Smaug Wrote:  25% of the money allotted for actual recipients, with 75% going to pencil-pushers?

You're right, Drew. A private charity operating like this would end up behind bars.

Sounds like our health system...more paper-pushers than doctors.

Thank your federal government for that.

(08-24-2014 12:48 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 11:58 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 11:57 AM)Smaug Wrote:  25% of the money allotted for actual recipients, with 75% going to pencil-pushers?

You're right, Drew. A private charity operating like this would end up behind bars.

Sounds like our health system...more paper-pushers than doctors.

Thank your federal government for that.

Yours too...Obama is YOUR President...unless youre no longer an American.

(08-24-2014 12:33 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Which one of you moonbat liberals wants to bet me a significant sum of money that random drug testing, without prescreening questions, would result in more than 1 in 800 tests being positive?

That would be unconstitutional, per the federal court.

(08-24-2014 12:45 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:34 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:32 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:22 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:15 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Nah...I mean the stupidity of the author and the progressives/liberals that skew information to spread mistruths.

The next step is just to adopt the same system as public housing, based on reasonable suspicion. Anyone being honest with themselves knows how much drug usage goes on with welfare recipients. Now, we just need a system that will catch them and pass legal muster...because I refuse to see my tax dollars go to people that can afford dope, crack, and meth.

800 tested...1 failed.

They tried it in FL...

4,086 tested...108 failed.

Your ASSumption doesn't hold water.

And, that is a lie. Not even your propaganda says that. So, I suspect your Florida numbers are just as suspect.

Before you start showing how ignorant you are by cursing and lying, you need to get your numbers correct and then make a reasoned argument.

I wouldn't want to violate your virgin ears, so I'll just post facts.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/flor...ws/1225721

You just lied about TN saying 800 people were tested, when it was just 6.

As to FL, you get 2 out of 4 Pinocchios. The article says:

Quote:Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.

What this means is that not all applicants were tested. Additionally, it says "scheduled"...not "tested". That means when you apply, you can schedule the test and then you simply miss the date. 40 people were good enough to cancel because they probably knew they would be dirty. Some people probably didn't even schedule to start with (because the article would just say "applicants" and not add a qualifier, "who scheduled drug tests").

So, that's one solid lie and one half lie.

Looks like the OP and UofMemphis need some reading comprehension classes.

I went off his numbers, take it up with him.

(08-24-2014 12:47 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  OPs numbers...not mine.

"Out of over 800 tested in my great state of TN, only one has tested positive..."

Like I said, "Good grief...do liberals/progressives ever think for themselves or just parrot dumb stuff all the time."

Gotta actually READ the article

Quote:In the month since it began, six people submitted to a drug test and just one tested positive out of the 812 people who applied. Four were turned down for benefits because they refused to participate in drug screening.

(08-24-2014 12:53 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:47 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  OPs numbers...not mine.

"Out of over 800 tested in my great state of TN, only one has tested positive..."

Like I said, "Good grief...do liberals/progressives ever think for themselves or just parrot dumb stuff all the time."

Gotta actually READ the article

Quote:In the month since it began, six people submitted to a drug test and just one tested positive out of the 812 people who applied. Four were turned down for benefits because they refused to participate in drug screening.

So youre upset the OP posted inaccurate info, and you blame me for that? Wow...OK.

(08-24-2014 11:54 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Private charity isn't a replacement for govt assistance. It's important that every American knows should they fall on hard times, their government is there to help them with SNAP, Unemployment, Section 8, WIC, etc

You can judge a society by how it treats those at the bottom.

Moreover, testing is a waste of money...800 people tested...1 tested positive.

You do know what the definition of insanity is...right?

Do you think the system can be reformed in a fashion that returns the same percentage of funds that private charity accomplishes?

I have BTW no problem with the initial goal government assistance that was set up to help those that "fall on hard times". I Think we both can agree that is NOT the system we now have. If it was? We would not be having this discussion.

If as you say... We can judge a society by how it treats those at the bottom?...then we should be ashamed. Not because of lack of funding or lack of trying...but...the fact we have institutionalized people in a revolving door system. We have generated a system that mostly benefits those that administer it...while enslaving those that receive what is left.

I see nothing wrong with moving much of this system into the hands of those that actually help people...not only with funds but with tools to escape it. Private charity does this now and it does it efficiently. The track record of government success in this regard is beyond dismal. In fact...I would submit that bureaucrats have NO incentive to reduce the welfare rolls. It is counterproductive to their jobs. Private charity is incentivized to do this because they are competing for funding. Those that donate tend to choose organizations that are efficient and have proven track records of success.

(08-24-2014 12:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 11:54 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Private charity isn't a replacement for govt assistance. It's important that every American knows should they fall on hard times, their government is there to help them with SNAP, Unemployment, Section 8, WIC, etc

You can judge a society by how it treats those at the bottom.

Moreover, testing is a waste of money...800 people tested...1 tested positive.

You do know what the definition of insanity is...right?

Do you think the system can be reformed in a fashion that returns the same percentage of funds that private charity accomplishes?

I have BTW no problem with the initial goal government assistance that was set up to help those that "fall on hard times". I Think we both can agree that is NOT the system we now have. If it was? We would not be having this discussion.

If as you say... We can judge a society by how it treats those at the bottom?...then we should be ashamed. Not because of lack of funding or lack of trying...but...the fact we have institutionalized in a revolving door system. We have generated a system that mostly benefits those that administer it...while enslaving those that receive what is left.

I see nothing wrong with moving much of this system into the hands of those that actually help people...not only with funds but with tools to escape it. Private charity does this now and it does it efficiently. The track record of government success in this regard is beyond dismal. In fact...I would submit that bureaucrats have NO incentive to reduce the welfare rolls. It is counterproductive to their jobs. Private charity is incentivized to do this because they are competing for funding. Those that donate tend to choose organizations that are efficient and have proven track records of success.

You missed the point (I know, simply shocking)

I said, and I quote "Private charity isn't a replacement for govt assistance"

You can't replace govt assistance with charity, and you can't replace charity with govt assistance.

They are separate things...with separate missions.

Well, lunch is over...good day, and I'll try not to shoot anyone...today.

(08-24-2014 11:29 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/08...-positive/

Out of over 800 tested in my great state of TN, only one has tested positive...

I call fabrics on this data BTW.

(08-24-2014 01:02 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Well, lunch is over...good day, and I'll try not to shoot anyone...today.

Just stay out of the middle of the street and you should be fine.

(08-24-2014 12:55 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:53 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:47 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  OPs numbers...not mine.

"Out of over 800 tested in my great state of TN, only one has tested positive..."

Like I said, "Good grief...do liberals/progressives ever think for themselves or just parrot dumb stuff all the time."

Gotta actually READ the article

Quote:In the month since it began, six people submitted to a drug test and just one tested positive out of the 812 people who applied. Four were turned down for benefits because they refused to participate in drug screening.

So youre upset the OP posted inaccurate info, and you blame me for that? Wow...OK.

Nope. I blame you for doing what liberals always do. You take an article and disseminate it without reading it first. When someone points out the error of the "facts" you say you found within, you then say "some other dude did it". But, before you try to rub so-called facts in the face of others, you should learn not to just parrot what some other dude said and actually make sure you have the FACTS first. You seem smarter than that.

(08-24-2014 01:03 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:55 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:53 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:47 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  OPs numbers...not mine.

"Out of over 800 tested in my great state of TN, only one has tested positive..."

Like I said, "Good grief...do liberals/progressives ever think for themselves or just parrot dumb stuff all the time."

Gotta actually READ the article

Quote:In the month since it began, six people submitted to a drug test and just one tested positive out of the 812 people who applied. Four were turned down for benefits because they refused to participate in drug screening.

So youre upset the OP posted inaccurate info, and you blame me for that? Wow...OK.

Nope. I blame you for doing what liberals always do. You take an article and disseminate it without reading it first. When someone points out the error of the "facts" you say you found within, you then say "some other dude did it". But, before you try to rub so-called facts in the face of others, you should learn not to just parrot what some other dude said and actually make sure you have the FACTS first. You seem smarter than that.

I'm not going to give myself a headache trying to read an article on my iPhone...

All I can go on is the OPs data

conservatives say: no no...it can work*

*based on assumptions that have been disproven and doing something that the courts say is unconstitutional.

what sickens me about the whole fiasco is that this idea didn't even originate out of conservative ideology, it first surfaced when a drug testing company pushed it through legislation.

(08-24-2014 01:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  conservatives say: no no...it can work*

*based on assumptions that have been disproven and doing something that the courts say is unconstitutional.

what sickens me about the whole fiasco is that this idea didn't even originate out of conservative ideology, it first surfaced when a drug testing company pushed it through legislation.

Well...That is what you get with ALL government programs. More money goes to the bureaucracy than to addressing the problem. What is your solution?...More government?

Foolish cons

(08-24-2014 01:34 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Foolish cons

Thanks for that brilliant insight.

(08-24-2014 12:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:29 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:11 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 11:29 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/08...-positive/

Out of over 800 tested in my great state of TN, only one has tested positive...

1. This proves that getting people to take drug tests to get Welfare actually works in getting them to stop taking drugs.

2. So one person failed. How many men around the country got Obamacare mammograms?

So your contention is they were all on drugs before...then they found out about the questions...and they all decided to stop drugs?



Wow.

Where did I say they were all on drugs? Don't you feel better knowing these people passed a health test? You do approve of health tests like blood pressure, cholesterol, etc, don't you?

A piss test for drugs doesn't tell you jack or s$&t about blood pressure or cholesterol.

Well, Duh!