Ah ok, ty.

So the only useful information in this paper is actually right under the title: whether sunny. It seems as if they know there is no point in reading the rest of their stuff.

a) Forcing people to work? Come on.
b) reasonable
c) Pretty much everything people are buying that you don't want them to buy can also be bought at a supermarket already. If there is anything they can't buy in a supermarket then after you start this card idea the supermarkets will start carrying those iteams.
d & e) That would just increase costs and I don't think the extra costs will outweigh the long term benefits.

Cutting the benefits and the amount of time one can be on these benefits is still the most effective way to cut the amount of people on the payroll.

Bahbah getting fooled by satire, posting terrible ideas, and misstating his own point in the last line unless on the payroll means something different than having a job.

A strong tournament effort, lets see if it gets him into the second round.

lol bahbah

this is my favorite thread right now

If you found out that compulsory drug testing fit those criteria (increase cost, not worth the benefit), would you still support it?

I dont think I really had any new ideas other than what was posted and cutting benefits.

On the fence with this. Since so many people with jobs have to take one I'd consider it, but I'm leaning towards no drug tests if this was the case. I couldn't image this being the case though considering how cheap drug tests are and how much money tax payers would save ending a person's monthly income.

Well, there's one real world example for you. Florida's brief run of mandatory drug testing for welfare ended up costing more than it saved: https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-l...esting-welfare

Here's another question for you. Do you think there should be mandatory drug testing for tax breaks on things like home mortgages, charitable donations, etc?

Impressively, there was a good post in this thread. I'm not going to hold my breath for another. And I fully acknowledge that this post ain't any good.

Only true if you don't assign any value to denigrating the poor. Not sure I trust the ACLU's accountants.

So reimbursing the test cost the state $118k. Being able to refuse benefits to 2.6% of applicants is huge long-term even if we ignore everyone who won't try to sign up because they know they can't pass a drug test. We are also ignoring the benefit we are creating for these people and society by getting people off of drugs.

Super rough math: 118k (cost of reimbursing drug tests)/108 (failed drug testers)= $1092 per person kicked off. So this means that as long the avg person on welfare was getting more than $1100 over the next ~5 years we are saving taxpayers money. Now we also need to factor in the administration costs, staff costs etc, but it sounds like a slam dunk way to save money. What am I missing?

I assume the tests were done at random and they weren't requiring people to take them every quarter or something.

The study accounted for the money saved via denied benefits and it still came up as a net negative of $45k.

I still have a couple of questions for you that I'd be interested to hear your answer on:

1) Should other taxpayer funded benefits such as first-time home buyer credits, mortgage interest deductions, charitable donation deductions, etc. require drug testing as well? Or are you OK with the thought that our tax dollars are potentially buying drugs for these people?

2) How much of the money saved in these cases do you think would have gone towards food, shelter, and clothes for the children in these families? Is it fair to punish the children because their parents smoked a joint? (the majority of failed tests were for marijuana)

bahbah give zero ****s about those kids. We know that from his history.

Just read his prior answer. He doesn't even give a misguided statement about reducing drug use or using taxpayer money for drugs. He's just excited because there is an excuse so that we are "able to refuse benefits" to someone. He'd be nearly just as happy if we did something arbitrary and said "everyone whose last name starts with B cant get benefits"

It seems impossible to think that booting 2.6% of those getting benefits off would not result in a net gain. The 118k they mention in reimbursements is insignificant so really we are talking about admin costs and whatever it costs to pay ppl to check these drug tests.

1) I think we should get rid of deductions like 1st time home-buyer, mortgage interest, and even any tax break for having a kid. If, in your hypothetical question, you mean I can't totally get rid of them then lets do the next best thing and make them harder to get. I would make it so you only qualify if you are over 6'2, under 6'4, have a shoe size of less than a men's size 8, black hair, 1 arm, your last name starts w/ a "z", and your first name ends with a "z".

2) None of the saved money would go to the children, if some of it did go to the kids then it wouldn't be saved money.

If a family needs $2k for food and $1k for other necessary bills over some time frame and they get 3k in benefits they will be ok. However, if the dad uses $500 for drugs then the family will cut back on either food or other bills. Then if we go back in and give the kid $500 for food then the family will be whole again since they can buy the food and necessary bills. However, what do we do now if they dad starts using $750 of the $3k benefit for drugs? Now we are going to have to up the benefit or the amount of food we give the kid. rinse. repeat.

I wish there was a way to really help those kids, but I don't see one and I sure as hell don't see you proposing one. You, like most liberals, are elite at pointing at problems but are the WOAT and coming up with solutions.

Nailed it

This is why we lol bahbah and why he made the WOAT politics tournament.

Gambol, I was referring to mortgage interest and first time home buyer when I said that. Not welfare. Good try.

You were getting smoked by Gamblor in your round 1 matchup, but his banning and your return to posting has cut it to a one vote game.

Do you have any other benefit related ideas to post? You are sooooo close to the elite eight.

Voting has already started?

Why didn't you respond to my last post calling you out about lying/ misleading/ not comprehending something very straight forward?

wow, very impressive

Well, taking your hypothetical with the drug testing results, our options are:

1) Without drug testing:
Taxpayer expense: $3000
Dad's drugs: $750
Kid's needs: $2250

2) With drug testing:
Taxpayer expense: $4500
Dad's drugs: $0
Kid's needs: $0

Are you still going with option 2?

Just because one liberal person wrote an article saying implementing drug testing increases costs does not mean that implementing drug testing increases costs. He sited the cost of reimbursing the negative drug tests and he gave us an insignificant number. The number was so low that all we have to do is kick one or two people off of welfare and that covers the cost of the 5,000 or so reimbursements. But there wasn't only 1 or 2 positive drug tests, were there?

lol bahbah. Suddenly wants to evaluate sources. Not so discriminating when he's posting links about the knockout game being played by African Americans with tiny brains, but now watch out its teh LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS

I didn't vote in the Gamblr/Bahbah match-up because I didn't feel like I had enough information at the time. Now it won't let me go back and cast one.

Id just post your vote in the thread, I have one I might do that one on myself

The data came from the state. 108 of 4,086 applicants failed the test (2.6%). The $45k loss to the state doesn't even count the costs to administer those tests, either.

Putting aside the fact that no amount of information would likely convince you that Florida lost money on the program, just pretend for a moment that it did lose money. In that hypothetical world, are you still picking option #2?

Or consider a world where it DID save some money and it looked something like this:

1a) Without drug testing:
Taxpayer expense: $3000
Dad's drugs: $750
Kid's needs: $2250

2a) With drug testing:
Taxpayer expense: $2250
Dad's drugs: $0
Kid's needs: $0

Would you support 2a?