Florida to drug test Welfare recipiients.

[Cojito]

Two separate issues. Whether or not reefer should be illegal in the first place is one issue.

A completely unrelated issue is the question, "Do we put some limits on what we'll allow folks on assistance to purchase with those funds?"

..And from there, the question is about enforcement..

you're starting to repeat yourself.

"limits?" - yes. there are limits.

enforcement? - yes, vigorously investigate fraud in all gov programs.

drug testing. - hell no.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Very rarely in history have corrupt systems been 'cleaned' up by those that run them.
Usually the system has to implode, and refresh anew.
Sometimes they keep renewing and never clean up....Sorry Italia.

I'll offer that history has never seen a system that didn't have fraud. Where we may disagree is whether it's systemic. Systemic fraud has to be organized to exist. We have evidence of this and the system pursues it (in addition to non-organized fraud.)

One example of implosion was the great depression. Before and during, income disparity was record-level. We didn't get out of depression until we approached it collectively.

I agree that systems implode but that in itself isn't systematic. IMO, it's mismanagement that either doesn't account for aspects that undermine, (aka fraud) and/or revenues are turned on their ear.

With the former, we actually account for and estimate beyond the costs of fraud. We know who we actually catch and can reasonably calculate their transgressions, (ex. the governor of Fl.) We also know we don't catch all fraudsters and we have somewhat less, mathematically precise estimates for that. Real fraud and estimated fraud numbers go into the budget, just like non-fraudulent expenditures. Enforcement returns revenue in the form of fines, penalties and repossession.

Systematic fraud might encounter intentional mismanagement of revenues. One example might be where WI governor Scott Walker cut taxes for the top, claimed there was a budget crisis and applied austerity measures to the bottom. All without campaigning for such measures because he wouldn't have won election... for dogcatcher.

In addition, Walker never provided information that statistically proved his state budget was defunct w/o these actions. WI (was) one of the better budgetary-managed states. Not to mention, Walker's brand of austerity canned union activity. Since union employees are working and drawing their own wages and salaries, existing union rights made no adverse affect to WIs fiscal revenues. That dog doesn't hunt. In fact, union salaries and wages provided union-level funds to revenues.

So Walker's measures weren't tied to budgetary concerns, they were tied to private employer interests. By definition, any austerity the governor applied wasn't collectively distributed. His ideology of pain applies to the bottom while the rich made bank.

Based on the fact that Walker didn't campaign on union rights, nor giving a chunk of revenues back to the top, he constituted fraud. As evidence, WI is in the process of recalling Gov. Walker from elective office.

I am just talking about the Welfare part. All the other benefits, people should be able to get, until the well runs dry...And the well is running dry.

Contemporary use of the word "welfare" is sometimes a pejorative sense (ex liberal) that idealizes a state of mind rather than practical reality. This state of mind ignores statistics that show well-managed assistance programs actually improve economies. This state of mind doesn't care about the collective, even when statistics show their personal economies improve. This sense puts faith in tax cuts (that haven't statistically shown sustainable growth.)

In fact, statistics show that mismanaged tax cuts actually contract economies because revenues aggregate to private individuals, not coffers. Three decades of trickle up economics has produced the same, record income-disparity that preceded and endured through the worst part of the depression.

So Walker knocked down the house, then pontificated it imploded.

There is a bigger issue I take with this.
It is one of 'environment'. All this other shit is smoke and mirrors, distracting us from the big picture. Remember, the baby boomers are dying off, my generation needs to address the structural/environmental issues that effect these 'symptoms' of our society.

One thing that might help you to grasp more than pejorative sense is an introductory course in civics. Another thing that might help is remembering that we've already been where you appear to want to go. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

I must say I am very glad that my State has embraced free-online public school education, as a possible solution to the environmental problems associated with centralized learning systems (i.e. schools).

Face palm moment. Online public schooling is still managed. Face time with a teacher in a real classroom is no more centralized than your point of view. Sitting at home doesn't allow you're own answers any more than the schoolroom.

Teachers do more than teach you what to think, (in matters of math, spelling, science, history etc) where your ideological philosophy doesn't alter conclusions.

Teachers also encouraging you how to think by considering more than ideology in order to learn practical application. Ideology and practical application are yours, no teacher can change that. No teacher wants to change that.

Teachers just want you to be more prepared in a world where different fundamentals come together and work out practical solutions for the collective. Societal engineering isn't as broken as you might suggest. It's more the fact that we generally have more collective thinkers than individualists.

None of the above suggests it's you that needs to change. ALL of the above suggests you consider more than ideology when solving your practical solutions. That often requires looking past stereotypical oversimplifications and actually realizing what works - and more importantly what doesn't.

Another discussion entirely about WHY public schools are failing, but it is systemic. I mean, it's like that guy's sig. about the Lucas formula. But for schools it's "We're not in the 50's anymore".

A good education and child rearing takes a village. The village aspect surrounds kids with not only morals, reasoning and communication/social skills, the village aspect teaches us all that we have to live together. Even when we have our differences.

The village aspect erodes when segments of society segregate, either psychologically and or geographically. The human psyche becomes numb to empathy and we go at each other with our differences instead of working together for solutions.

The power of persuasion is more than Pavlov's bell. Persuasion is more than an envelope passed around to like minds. Persuasion is actually what's inside the envelope for others to consider. If one doesn't subscribe to your reasoning, don't put it away. Your just as big a part of the solution as anyone else.

Welfare/Entitlements are a vicious cycle. I see it in my state everyday. People learn to accept it, because there hasn't been anyone there to show them differently. Then their children and their children's children end up in the same boat.
But it does ensure votes for an un-named party.

That's a point that can't be ignored. Assistance begets freeloaders. But I offer that we shouldn't allow perfect to be the enemy of the best, overall economies we've actually owned and managed. I don't like a freeloader any more than you may. I just think we owe it to ourselves to realize what's best for all by thwarting fraud w/o creating large swaths of poverty. Even the fattest wallet is tempered by how many homeless folks are sleeping under it's bridge.

In conclusion, drug testing has been around enmasse since the 80's, Reagan. Even expanded more in the 90's, Clinton. And our society increasingly views the children as inputs into a machine. Performance based pressure on kids is horrible these days.
Matt Stone kills it @ min 1:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dYtOOtfQtM

'All in all, you're just another brick in the wall', Pink Floyd.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker for Co-Pres, Jon Stewart for Vice Pres. 2016

Insurance companies realized that substance abuse increases costs, thus cuts into margins. Drug abuse isn't economically viable in the workplace. While Nancy Reagan indeed offered, "Just say no to drugs", money and public safety dictates testing more than a given president. (Unless of course the president pontificates across-the-board drug testing where across-the-board doesn't test himself.)
.
I offer we're reinforcing the wall with intolerance. It takes folks that don't understand complexities of how things work to demand solutions they understand less, not to mention the consequences. Every system we've had since our beginnings has left some disaffected. If your idea of society leaves more disaffected, how is that better for the individual?

Even though you and I are self sufficient, money and power in the wrong hands can and will limit our opportunity.

When complex societal problems are listed, posts are relatively short. When they're reasoned practically, their posts are much longer. Is reasoning always correct? Unfortunately no. Is reasoning more comprehensive than the alternative? That's for you to decide.

 

[dagnabit]

That's why I wondered why you offer assistance figures, rather than projected, annual testing costs.

annual testing costs (based on $30.00 per) were offered and accepted(by me) by your counterparts on the side of the negative

You have a 275 max assistance figure. One might have to assume the number of folks tossed to get anything from it. Without statistics, you've got a supposition. Alone, that doesn't win any arguements.

do you really think consession(winning) is going to happen here?
this is all supposition on both sides(testing cost and percentage busted)
however,we do have the previously sited county study and the dcfs cost figures to extrapolate from..

i will concede the $15,000 number is off...

if one qualifies for the TCA($ @180 monthly for a single individual(1)) >200% of FPL they also qualify for "food stamps" (FA)($200.00 monthly for a single individual(2)) include the unemployment payment($275.00 per week (3) showing the math

180 200 1191
X 12 X 12 X 12
------ ------- -------
2160 2400 14,300


2160
+2400
14300
-------
18,860 total annual cost without admin or medicare included


feel free to orbit in an ellipse or a circle ...

just remember to counter with something other than your own assumptions or more straw snyders


1http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/docs/tcafactsheet.pdf

2http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/docs/fafactsheet.pdf

3http://www.unemployment-rate.org/benefits/florida-fl-unemployment-benefits

i readily accept the offered $30.00 per test number offered as well as the 44,000 tested.(the former being that assumption stuff you rail against the latter being provided by the state)

the point that needs consensus would be percentage of positive UAs...

 

[dagnabit]

formatting aside

i wish it looked the way it does when you type 'er in there...

 

[silver hawaiian]

you're starting to repeat yourself.

"limits?" - yes. there are limits.

enforcement? - yes, vigorously investigate fraud in all gov programs.

drug testing. - hell no.

Maybe it's a matter of semantics. If the government is giving money to citizens so that they can survive, is purchasing non-survial, non-essential, non-necessity items not a fraudulent use of those funds?

Is buying alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, heroin, Xanax, reefer, etc., an appropriate use of the funds that are intended for purchasing necessity-items?

It's all subjective. My answer to the above question is, resoundingly, no.

I feel like we're getting into an "entitlement" conversation, .. And again, it's all subjective, .. But I certainly do not feel that folks on public assistance are necessarily "entitled" to all of the trappings that those of us supporting ourselves (and them) are.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Maybe it's a matter of semantics. If the government is giving money to citizens so that they can survive, is purchasing non-survial, non-essential, non-necessity items not a fraudulent use of those funds?

Is buying alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, heroin, Xanax, reefer, etc., an appropriate use of the funds that are intended for purchasing necessity-items?

It's all subjective. My answer to the above question is, resoundingly, no.

I feel like we're getting into an "entitlement" conversation, .. And again, it's all subjective, .. But I certainly do not feel that folks on public assistance are necessarily "entitled" to all of the trappings that those of us supporting ourselves (and them) are.

Your moralizing is the most subjective when we know what one side costs (with the exception of fraud that testing may not uncover.)

Ever thought about taking a look at the economic side? You know, the side that one guy here is trying to tell us what it'll cost while dissing county budgetary numbers as spin.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

formatting aside

i wish it looked the way it does when you type 'er in there...

Yeah, ascii sucks for that.

Hope you won't get defensive but you have no idea what this law will cost the state of Florida. I'm sure you're a quality surveyor, real estate agent (in multiple states) and I'll lend credence to whatever other expertise you carry. But you're arguing ideology and dissing the professionals that you say the spin numbers.

We don't have to supposition the status quot. I don't care if it costs a dime or a dollar (Fl knows what their former program costs.) Rick never offered numbers and your substitutions aren't anything to put up beside what once was to even suggest this will save the tea party money.

Not to mention the crook's running it through his private entity.

 

[silver hawaiian]

Your moralizing is the most subjective when we know what one side costs (with the exception of fraud that testing may not uncover.)

Ever thought about taking a look at the economic side? You know, the side that one guy here is trying to tell us what it'll cost while dissing county budgetary numbers as spin.

No no - it's not about moralizing. This is a purely practical (and logical) thought process.

And again, DB, I'm talking in philosophy - not about a specific plan, nor a specific governor (with a specific history), ..

What I really see a lot of here (not from you DB, but in general) is a lot of folks who are offended by the idea of this, simply because they use cannabis.

To have an, as you say, intellectually honest, discussion about this, those issues need to be separated. It shouldn't be an emotional discussion - it should be based in logic. (And of course, we all have different versions of our logic - THAT is what's worth discussing).

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

No no - it's not about moralizing. This is a purely practical (and logical) thought process.

And again, DB, I'm talking in philosophy - not about a specific plan, nor a specific governor (with a specific history), ..

What I really see a lot of here (not from you DB, but in general) is a lot of folks who are offended by the idea of this, simply because they use cannabis.

To have an, as you say, intellectually honest, discussion about this, those issues need to be separated. It shouldn't be an emotional discussion - it should be based in logic. (And of course, we all have different versions of our logic - THAT is what's worth discussing).

You're right, can't argue away the subject or discussion of.

 

[dagnabit]

Yeah, ascii sucks for that.

Hope you won't get defensive but you have no idea what this law will cost the state of Florida. I'm sure you're a quality surveyor, real estate agent (in multiple states) and I'll lend credence to whatever other expertise you carry. But you're arguing ideology and dissing the professionals that you say the spin numbers.

i agree 110% with their cost numbers.
what was presented was NOT a cost benefit analysis it was a cost analysis. unless it is your contention that not one person will be denied benefits?
for a cost benefit analysis you must present the savings as well right?
i (once again) agree to the sited costs!

to act as if there would be no savings is..... whats the term?

intellectually dishonest?

tricky ricky?

i sk the gubment do not impose it's morals upon me. i try not to impose my morals upon it(sometimes i fail). ricky is a crook. the remedy is repeal,indictment or the ballot box.
i judge the legislation on it's own merits not those of the presenter.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

i agree 110% with their cost numbers.
what was presented was NOT a cost benefit analysis it was a cost analysis. unless it is your contention that not one person will be denied benefits?
for a cost benefit analysis you must present the savings as well right?
i (once again) agree to the sited costs!

to act as if there would be no savings is..... whats the term?

intellectually dishonest?

Spin, straw, lie...

The answer to your question. You have a piece, not a puzzle.

But what you finally admitted, it's only a portion of value. When you declare county figures are spin yet you avoid the elements within cost analysis, sorry bro.

Here's an example what you're doing and more importantly, what I honestly believe you're missing.

2 * X = 10 where X is a far more involved than the logical deduction of 5.

You're deducing relationships of 2 and 10 without the value of X because X contains various statistics and more math that haven't happened.

X actually looks more like

average cost of tests

average number of failed tests

average number of appeals

average cost of appeals

and everything else I'm missing

and the total formula that constitutes 5

Until you get those figures, you can't formulate value analysis. Part of the pic doesn't constitute an argument.

tricky ricky?

i sk the gubment do not impose it's morals upon me. i try not to impose my morals upon it(sometimes i fail). ricky is a crook. the remedy is repeal,indictment or the ballot box.
i judge the legislation on it's own merits not those of the presenter.

Rick isn;t just the biggest Medicare fraud in the history of the republic. The two aspects are inextricably linked.

Will the fox eat another chicken? The fact he's running chickens to market (through his lair) leaves to much room for fool me twice, shame on me - where "me" is the tea party

The biggest part of your reasoning takes apples to apples and compares oranges.

You mentioned evidence in the other thread and I posted not only aspects but the citations for each and every conclusion to show that lending fraud exists - big time.

You took offense when I asked what capacity you sat in hundreds of real estate transactions. We learned you're a multi professional as surveyor and real estate agent.

But my friend, the real estate agent isn't the mortgage broker nor the lawyer that deals with the aspects of the contract.

These entities are professionals too. Are you also into the brokerage duties and the legal translations and oversight?

My agent represented me in the transaction because I don't go straight to the broker, much less the legal entity.

The agent was a damn good agent. Been in hundreds of commercial and residential closings. But if he had the capacity of the broker and the lawyer, those guys wouldn't be there taking their part of the fees.

I'm warmed that you're an excellent agent. But you are WOEFULLY short with the picture, even if you sat through all those closures. The agent isn't actively involved where lending fraud takes place.
What's your argument... lending fraud doesn't happen

because

the buyer didn't exercise caveat emptor
Then you said the buyer wasn't forced to sign... nobody ever said forced... they were deceivedAll your arguments are circular. You never finish the pieces you hold up into a picture to represent your side of a debate.

But you do substitute nice pictures of cartoons and playground equipment, which basically says

I know you are but what am I?

udatrickyricky

 

[dagnabit]

which thread is this?
i never took offense ...

 

[forty]

the senator who tweets pics of his cawk to the nation would not like this bill.... it's totally immoral.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

And his fuckin' name's Weiner. What a maroon. I saw an article in the Times where Anthony Spitzer commented on the degree of fuck up, lol. The title was "Spitzer on Weiner"



you've got more game than Milton Bradley, dag

 

[Cojito]

It shouldn't be an emotional discussion - it should be based in logic.

like this?

"I feel like we're getting into an "entitlement" conversation, .. And again, it's all subjective, .. But I certainly do not feel that folks on public assistance are necessarily "entitled" to all of the trappings that those of us supporting ourselves (and them) are."

 

[Neo 420]

This is not about cost saving. The info given is skewed and misleading. This is about profit for certain individuals. Politicians have played this game with the people for many moons now. We sit here and argue the merits/disadvantage of the policy but in reality the policy was enforced to line pockets. FOLLOW THE MONEY..Do not let your party ideology keep you blind. There are so many real ways to save the taxpayers dollars. This is not going to save a dime, It may actually increase the spending of tax payers dollars due to higher crime rates, more imprisonment, justifying positives test, clarifying false positives, etc..... Remember the saying ...Politicians are liars? The ARE ALL LIARS.....Somebody test Rick.........Lets see what the fuck he is smoking......

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Cost analysis by gameboy misleading?

This guy ain't even driven, just likes to bug the crap outta people.

 

[Lone Wolf]

ok ok. close this damn thread.... or forward it to the damn governor...

 

[dagnabit]

ok ok. close this damn thread.... or forward it to the damn governor...

You're right here....
One side is so emotionally invested they are willing t deny facts and reinvent mathematics to meet their feelings....

I've so far only used state provided or negative side supposition for proper calculations and been told I'm the one leaving out numbers!!!
When they are not willing to acknowledge there will be monies saved in denials.
The same emotional poster who says with surety this will not save money argues an inability to be sure as the numbers are nonexistent.

Alas the plea from emotion is a strong tactic (albeit dishonest)

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

waste of time, fuggin tape recorder