http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/08...-positive/

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

It's not hard to beat a drug test when you know it's coming.

(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...

Good. Glad to see that the benefits are not being used improperly.

I found one thing interesting in that article. The author makes a case to end this program because of the theory that it takes away money from the system that could go to those in need. That is a valid point...but...He fails to mention that already aprox. 75% of the funds allocated for public assistance are already gobbled up by the middle class bureaucrats that administer the programs.

If the author was a thinking and diligent person? He would be advocating for an end to all these government programs and support a shift toward private charity....which coincidently returns almost 80% of its funding to its intended purposes. Instead...he chose (probably due to ignorance) to concentrate on one aspect of government waste instead of attacking the entire system that needs overhaul.

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.

(08-24-2014 11:32 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  It's not hard to beat a drug test when you know it's coming.

Everything else has been ruled unconstitutional...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/flo....html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/us/law...oided.html

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.

(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.

Your tax dollars at work.

(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...

Did you read the damned article??? The only people tested were ones who answered yes to one of three questions. And you think that qualifies as only 1 in 800 testing positive for drugs? Just answer no, and you dont get tested.

You should have seen 1 in 800 positive to know that was a bull**** result. If you test 800 people, you are going to get more than one test positive, no matter who you test.

(08-24-2014 12:03 PM)UofMstateU 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...

Did you read the damned article??? The only people tested were ones who answered yes to one of three questions. And you think that qualifies as only 1 in 800 testing positive for drugs? Just answer no, and you dont get tested.

You should have seen 1 in 800 positive to know that was a bull**** result. If you test 800 people, you are going to get more than one test positive, no matter who you test.

typical conservative ==> can't admit when they are wrong.

(08-24-2014 12:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:03 PM)UofMstateU 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...

Did you read the damned article??? The only people tested were ones who answered yes to one of three questions. And you think that qualifies as only 1 in 800 testing positive for drugs? Just answer no, and you dont get tested.

You should have seen 1 in 800 positive to know that was a bull**** result. If you test 800 people, you are going to get more than one test positive, no matter who you test.

typical conservative ==> can't admit when they are wrong.

typical liberal, falls for a slanted headline, but cant comprehend the details.

Okay everyone....let's read the article and analyze the STUPIDITY of the author:

Quote:Applicants have to answer three questions about drug use to get benefits, and if they answer yes to any of them, they get referred to urine testing....

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.

In other words, of the 812 applicants, we know 10 people were dumb enough to answer the questions truthfully, given their usage of drugs. And of those, four of them knew what the test would say and one of them thought they could beat the test.

So, unless you're dumb enough to affirmatively answer the drug questions, you are not asked to take the test.

Good grief...do liberals/progressives ever think for themselves or just parrot dumb stuff all the time.

(08-24-2014 12:03 PM)UofMstateU 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...

Did you read the damned article??? The only people tested were ones who answered yes to one of three questions. And you think that qualifies as only 1 in 800 testing positive for drugs? Just answer no, and you dont get tested.

You should have seen 1 in 800 positive to know that was a bull**** result. If you test 800 people, you are going to get more than one test positive, no matter who you test.

Yes, because that's how the system works.

I'm glad you see testing is a waste of money.

Everything else has been struck down by the court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/flo....html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/us/law...oided.html

(08-24-2014 12:08 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Okay everyone....let's read the article and analyze the STUPIDITY of the author:

Quote:Applicants have to answer three questions about drug use to get benefits, and if they answer yes to any of them, they get referred to urine testing....

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.

In other words, of the 812 applicants, we know 10 people were dumb enough to answer the questions truthfully, given their usage of drugs. And of those, four of them knew what the test would say and one of them thought they could beat the test.

So, unless you're dumb enough to affirmatively answer the drug questions, you are not asked to take the test.

The author simply explained the system...I believe you mean the stupidity of the drug testing system.

(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?

(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.

(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.

And the the government taking it over will make this better or worse?

(08-24-2014 12:10 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 12:08 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Okay everyone....let's read the article and analyze the STUPIDITY of the author:

Quote:Applicants have to answer three questions about drug use to get benefits, and if they answer yes to any of them, they get referred to urine testing....

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.

In other words, of the 812 applicants, we know 10 people were dumb enough to answer the questions truthfully, given their usage of drugs. And of those, four of them knew what the test would say and one of them thought they could beat the test.

So, unless you're dumb enough to affirmatively answer the drug questions, you are not asked to take the test.

The author simply explained the system...I believe you mean the stupidity of the drug testing system.

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.

(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.

And the biggest reason for all the paper-pushers? Tons of paperwork created by the nanny state government.

(08-24-2014 12:17 PM)Kaplony 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.

And the biggest reason for all the paper-pushers? Tons of paperwork created by the nanny state government.

I know, I blame our single payer system...oh wait, we don't have one of those...maybe we should.