Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
rightard rick
()
Date: July 22, 2015 04:53PM
Arizona is another embarrassment to the union.
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/030615_welfare_drug_test/welfare-drug-tests-fail-save-az-predicted-cash/
Recipients are taken off welfare benefits for a year if they fail a drug test or do not take a required test. More than 142,000 adult recipients have been completed the form since the drug tests were implemented.
When the law passed through the Legislature, lawmakers estimated that it would save the state up to $1.7 million a year by taking people off welfare. This year, the state will spend around $45 million on TANF benefits, which goes to about 30,000 recipients, according to a Joint Legislative Budget Committee report.
The latest data available from DES calculate the total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients removed from TANF benefits totals to less than $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a net savings of about $3,500.
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/030615_welfare_drug_test/welfare-drug-tests-fail-save-az-predicted-cash/
Recipients are taken off welfare benefits for a year if they fail a drug test or do not take a required test. More than 142,000 adult recipients have been completed the form since the drug tests were implemented.
When the law passed through the Legislature, lawmakers estimated that it would save the state up to $1.7 million a year by taking people off welfare. This year, the state will spend around $45 million on TANF benefits, which goes to about 30,000 recipients, according to a Joint Legislative Budget Committee report.
The latest data available from DES calculate the total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients removed from TANF benefits totals to less than $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a net savings of about $3,500.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
Paul LePage
()
Date: July 22, 2015 05:01PM
Read about what happened in Maine with the work requirements. Losers stopped milking the system.
Of course libtards believe there is and never has been any welfare fraud.
Of course libtards believe there is and never has been any welfare fraud.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
rightard rick
()
Date: July 22, 2015 05:07PM
Paul LePage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read about what happened in Maine with the work
> requirements. Losers stopped milking the system.
>
> Of course libtards believe there is and never has
> been any welfare fraud.
Stay focused dipshit. I know you'd like to spin a better story but they estimated 1.7M in savings and ended up saving a lousy 3,500. Your rightard scare tactics continue to be proven wrong time and time again.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read about what happened in Maine with the work
> requirements. Losers stopped milking the system.
>
> Of course libtards believe there is and never has
> been any welfare fraud.
Stay focused dipshit. I know you'd like to spin a better story but they estimated 1.7M in savings and ended up saving a lousy 3,500. Your rightard scare tactics continue to be proven wrong time and time again.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
savings is savings
()
Date: July 22, 2015 05:14PM
rightard rick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The latest data available from DES calculate the
> total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients
> removed from TANF benefits totals to less than
> $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug
> tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a
> net savings of about $3,500.
It's money that they can spend on a more deserving innocent child. Why do libtards like druggies more than innocent children?
-------------------------------------------------------
> The latest data available from DES calculate the
> total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients
> removed from TANF benefits totals to less than
> $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug
> tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a
> net savings of about $3,500.
It's money that they can spend on a more deserving innocent child. Why do libtards like druggies more than innocent children?
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
kilt
()
Date: July 22, 2015 05:32PM
savings is savings Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rightard rick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The latest data available from DES calculate
> the
> > total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients
> > removed from TANF benefits totals to less than
> > $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug
> > tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a
> > net savings of about $3,500.
>
>
>
>
> It's money that they can spend on a more deserving
> innocent child. Why do libtards like druggies
> more than innocent children?
I suspect it's going to be a net loss once you factor in the personel to administer the test and cross check against judicial records. 3500 is not much. The OPs point is that conservatives seem to want to yell fire before anything is known (even the smell of smoke).
If it's a net loss then your innocent children scenario holds true in the other direction.
-------------------------------------------------------
> rightard rick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The latest data available from DES calculate
> the
> > total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients
> > removed from TANF benefits totals to less than
> > $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug
> > tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a
> > net savings of about $3,500.
>
>
>
>
> It's money that they can spend on a more deserving
> innocent child. Why do libtards like druggies
> more than innocent children?
I suspect it's going to be a net loss once you factor in the personel to administer the test and cross check against judicial records. 3500 is not much. The OPs point is that conservatives seem to want to yell fire before anything is known (even the smell of smoke).
If it's a net loss then your innocent children scenario holds true in the other direction.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
Libtardz!!! LoLz!!
()
Date: July 22, 2015 05:41PM
rightard rick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arizona is another embarrassment to the union.
>
> http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/030615_
> welfare_drug_test/welfare-drug-tests-fail-save-az-
> predicted-cash/
>
> Recipients are taken off welfare benefits for a
> year if they fail a drug test or do not take a
> required test. More than 142,000 adult recipients
> have been completed the form since the drug tests
> were implemented.
>
> When the law passed through the Legislature,
> lawmakers estimated that it would save the state
> up to $1.7 million a year by taking people off
> welfare. This year, the state will spend around
> $45 million on TANF benefits, which goes to about
> 30,000 recipients, according to a Joint
> Legislative Budget Committee report.
>
> The latest data available from DES calculate the
> total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients
> removed from TANF benefits totals to less than
> $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug
> tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a
> net savings of about $3,500.
Kill yourself...do it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arizona is another embarrassment to the union.
>
> http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/030615_
> welfare_drug_test/welfare-drug-tests-fail-save-az-
> predicted-cash/
>
> Recipients are taken off welfare benefits for a
> year if they fail a drug test or do not take a
> required test. More than 142,000 adult recipients
> have been completed the form since the drug tests
> were implemented.
>
> When the law passed through the Legislature,
> lawmakers estimated that it would save the state
> up to $1.7 million a year by taking people off
> welfare. This year, the state will spend around
> $45 million on TANF benefits, which goes to about
> 30,000 recipients, according to a Joint
> Legislative Budget Committee report.
>
> The latest data available from DES calculate the
> total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients
> removed from TANF benefits totals to less than
> $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug
> tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a
> net savings of about $3,500.
Kill yourself...do it.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
Larry the Lib
()
Date: July 22, 2015 05:41PM
Paul LePage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course libtards believe there is and never has
> been any welfare fraud.
Don't be an imbecile!
If something involves human activity, there's always fraud.
The question is: How much fraud is there?
When AZ lawmakers estimated that drug testing TANF recipients would save the state up to $1.7 million a year, and the actual savings are a few thousand bucks, somebody fucked up.
u can look at it two ways: you want to be a pessimist, you say it’s failed you want to be an optimist, it’s a strong deterrent and they’re not using drugs,” Kavanagh said. “I don’t know which is true.”
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course libtards believe there is and never has
> been any welfare fraud.
Don't be an imbecile!
If something involves human activity, there's always fraud.
The question is: How much fraud is there?
When AZ lawmakers estimated that drug testing TANF recipients would save the state up to $1.7 million a year, and the actual savings are a few thousand bucks, somebody fucked up.
u can look at it two ways: you want to be a pessimist, you say it’s failed you want to be an optimist, it’s a strong deterrent and they’re not using drugs,” Kavanagh said. “I don’t know which is true.”
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
uKWNW
()
Date: July 22, 2015 05:42PM
Any Net savings is good and unproductive citizens is a bad situation.
Kudos to AZ -- the freedom state.
Kudos to AZ -- the freedom state.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
pesky details
()
Date: July 22, 2015 05:52PM
What the article and OP think you're too stupid to notice and don't make clear...
"The reason so few people must take the test is because reasonable cause is needed, said Nicole Moon, a public information officer for DES. When someone is approved to receive welfare benefits in Arizona, that person is screened by being given a three-question form, which asks if the recipient has used any illegal drugs in the past 30 days. If the applicant answers yes, then a drug test is required."
Of course the numbers are low because the only people who are tested are those stupid enough to say that they've used drugs in the past 30 days. lol
According to the article, they've had 142,000 adults who have filled out the form NOT submitted to drug tests.
Sorry, just based on the numbers alone there's no way in hell that only the handful tested represent the actual number who have taken drugs within 30 days and who would test positive otherwise. Of the sample population of those who do take the test, the percentage is very high.
Stupid lib tricks...
"The reason so few people must take the test is because reasonable cause is needed, said Nicole Moon, a public information officer for DES. When someone is approved to receive welfare benefits in Arizona, that person is screened by being given a three-question form, which asks if the recipient has used any illegal drugs in the past 30 days. If the applicant answers yes, then a drug test is required."
Of course the numbers are low because the only people who are tested are those stupid enough to say that they've used drugs in the past 30 days. lol
According to the article, they've had 142,000 adults who have filled out the form NOT submitted to drug tests.
Sorry, just based on the numbers alone there's no way in hell that only the handful tested represent the actual number who have taken drugs within 30 days and who would test positive otherwise. Of the sample population of those who do take the test, the percentage is very high.
Stupid lib tricks...
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
Reality.
()
Date: July 22, 2015 05:56PM
pesky details Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, just based on the numbers alone there's no
> way in hell that only the handful tested represent
> the actual number who have taken drugs within 30
> days and who would test positive otherwise. Of
> the sample population of those who do take the
> test, the percentage is very high.
I doubt the SCOTUS would let stand a law that madates drug testing of all TANF recipients.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, just based on the numbers alone there's no
> way in hell that only the handful tested represent
> the actual number who have taken drugs within 30
> days and who would test positive otherwise. Of
> the sample population of those who do take the
> test, the percentage is very high.
I doubt the SCOTUS would let stand a law that madates drug testing of all TANF recipients.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
$$$ man
()
Date: July 22, 2015 06:00PM
Let's drug test everybody who claims a mortgage deduction. Same difference.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
674Kp
()
Date: July 22, 2015 06:12PM
$$$ man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's drug test everybody who claims a mortgage
> deduction. Same difference.
No, it's not.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's drug test everybody who claims a mortgage
> deduction. Same difference.
No, it's not.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
trumps hair
()
Date: July 22, 2015 06:26PM
pesky details Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What the article and OP think you're too stupid to
> notice and don't make clear...
>
> "The reason so few people must take the test is
> because reasonable cause is needed, said
> Nicole Moon, a public information officer for DES.
> When someone is approved to receive welfare
> benefits in Arizona, that person is screened by
> being given a three-question form, which asks if
> the recipient has used any illegal drugs in the
> past 30 days. If the applicant answers yes,
> then a drug test is required."
>
> Of course the numbers are low because the only
> people who are tested are those stupid enough to
> say that they've used drugs in the past 30 days.
> lol
>
> According to the article, they've had 142,000
> adults who have filled out the form NOT
> submitted to drug tests.
>
> Sorry, just based on the numbers alone there's no
> way in hell that only the handful tested represent
> the actual number who have taken drugs within 30
> days and who would test positive otherwise. Of
> the sample population of those who do take the
> test, the percentage is very high.
>
> Stupid lib tricks...
So why did they estimate 1.7M in savings? If this was dead in the water, why even kick it off? Sounds like the moronic team spent a shit load of time and money putting forward (and executing on) and destined to fail policy.
How much did we pay the law makers to draft up this little jewel.
Still stupid!
-------------------------------------------------------
> What the article and OP think you're too stupid to
> notice and don't make clear...
>
> "The reason so few people must take the test is
> because reasonable cause is needed, said
> Nicole Moon, a public information officer for DES.
> When someone is approved to receive welfare
> benefits in Arizona, that person is screened by
> being given a three-question form, which asks if
> the recipient has used any illegal drugs in the
> past 30 days. If the applicant answers yes,
> then a drug test is required."
>
> Of course the numbers are low because the only
> people who are tested are those stupid enough to
> say that they've used drugs in the past 30 days.
> lol
>
> According to the article, they've had 142,000
> adults who have filled out the form NOT
> submitted to drug tests.
>
> Sorry, just based on the numbers alone there's no
> way in hell that only the handful tested represent
> the actual number who have taken drugs within 30
> days and who would test positive otherwise. Of
> the sample population of those who do take the
> test, the percentage is very high.
>
> Stupid lib tricks...
So why did they estimate 1.7M in savings? If this was dead in the water, why even kick it off? Sounds like the moronic team spent a shit load of time and money putting forward (and executing on) and destined to fail policy.
How much did we pay the law makers to draft up this little jewel.
Still stupid!
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
kLN3Y
()
Date: July 22, 2015 06:28PM
What is Stupid is for a president to run up a 12 trillion dollar bill for tax payers to pay, whose great great great grandkids still won't be able to repay.
Thanks Barry!
Thanks Barry!
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
kilt
()
Date: July 22, 2015 06:30PM
kLN3Y Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is Stupid is for a president to run up a 12
> trillion dollar bill for tax payers to pay, whose
> great great great grandkids still won't be able to
> repay.
> Thanks Barry!
Again, with trying to change the subject.
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is Stupid is for a president to run up a 12
> trillion dollar bill for tax payers to pay, whose
> great great great grandkids still won't be able to
> repay.
> Thanks Barry!
Again, with trying to change the subject.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
newchoppers
()
Date: July 22, 2015 09:00PM
Holy frijoles
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
pesky details
()
Date: July 22, 2015 09:16PM
trumps hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pesky details Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What the article and OP think you're too stupid
> to
> > notice and don't make clear...
> >
> > "The reason so few people must take the test
> is
> > because reasonable cause is needed, said
> > Nicole Moon, a public information officer for
> DES.
> > When someone is approved to receive welfare
> > benefits in Arizona, that person is screened by
> > being given a three-question form, which asks
> if
> > the recipient has used any illegal drugs in the
> > past 30 days. If the applicant answers yes,
> > then a drug test is required."
> >
> > Of course the numbers are low because the only
> > people who are tested are those stupid enough
> to
> > say that they've used drugs in the past 30
> days.
> > lol
> >
> > According to the article, they've had 142,000
> > adults who have filled out the form NOT
> > submitted to drug tests.
> >
> > Sorry, just based on the numbers alone there's
> no
> > way in hell that only the handful tested
> represent
> > the actual number who have taken drugs within
> 30
> > days and who would test positive otherwise. Of
> > the sample population of those who do take the
> > test, the percentage is very high.
> >
> > Stupid lib tricks...
>
> So why did they estimate 1.7M in savings? If this
> was dead in the water, why even kick it off?
> Sounds like the moronic team spent a shit load of
> time and money putting forward (and executing on)
> and destined to fail policy.
>
> How much did we pay the law makers to draft up
> this little jewel.
>
> Still stupid!
Probably wasn't known at the time passed. The exact method of implementation of testing isn't done in the law but rather by the agency. AZ like other states with similar policies probably were sued to limit who could be tested. The number for potential dollar savings cited wasn't unreasonable. It would work out to be about 1,100 people removed out of 30,000 participating. Probably low based on reality.
-------------------------------------------------------
> pesky details Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What the article and OP think you're too stupid
> to
> > notice and don't make clear...
> >
> > "The reason so few people must take the test
> is
> > because reasonable cause is needed, said
> > Nicole Moon, a public information officer for
> DES.
> > When someone is approved to receive welfare
> > benefits in Arizona, that person is screened by
> > being given a three-question form, which asks
> if
> > the recipient has used any illegal drugs in the
> > past 30 days. If the applicant answers yes,
> > then a drug test is required."
> >
> > Of course the numbers are low because the only
> > people who are tested are those stupid enough
> to
> > say that they've used drugs in the past 30
> days.
> > lol
> >
> > According to the article, they've had 142,000
> > adults who have filled out the form NOT
> > submitted to drug tests.
> >
> > Sorry, just based on the numbers alone there's
> no
> > way in hell that only the handful tested
> represent
> > the actual number who have taken drugs within
> 30
> > days and who would test positive otherwise. Of
> > the sample population of those who do take the
> > test, the percentage is very high.
> >
> > Stupid lib tricks...
>
> So why did they estimate 1.7M in savings? If this
> was dead in the water, why even kick it off?
> Sounds like the moronic team spent a shit load of
> time and money putting forward (and executing on)
> and destined to fail policy.
>
> How much did we pay the law makers to draft up
> this little jewel.
>
> Still stupid!
Probably wasn't known at the time passed. The exact method of implementation of testing isn't done in the law but rather by the agency. AZ like other states with similar policies probably were sued to limit who could be tested. The number for potential dollar savings cited wasn't unreasonable. It would work out to be about 1,100 people removed out of 30,000 participating. Probably low based on reality.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
Mike O'Meara Show Fan
()
Date: July 22, 2015 10:48PM
rightard rick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arizona is another embarrassment to the union.
>
> http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/030615_
> welfare_drug_test/welfare-drug-tests-fail-save-az-
> predicted-cash/
>
> Recipients are taken off welfare benefits for a
> year if they fail a drug test or do not take a
> required test. More than 142,000 adult recipients
> have been completed the form since the drug tests
> were implemented.
>
> When the law passed through the Legislature,
> lawmakers estimated that it would save the state
> up to $1.7 million a year by taking people off
> welfare. This year, the state will spend around
> $45 million on TANF benefits, which goes to about
> 30,000 recipients, according to a Joint
> Legislative Budget Committee report.
>
> The latest data available from DES calculate the
> total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients
> removed from TANF benefits totals to less than
> $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug
> tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a
> net savings of about $3,500.
The OP's math is JUST FUCKING WRONG. Food stamps for one person is an expense of about $3,000 a year, which means the savings would be about $70,000 for 26 people.
That's 26 people who basically failed an intelligence test by admitting what they did. No SYMPATHY.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arizona is another embarrassment to the union.
>
> http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/030615_
> welfare_drug_test/welfare-drug-tests-fail-save-az-
> predicted-cash/
>
> Recipients are taken off welfare benefits for a
> year if they fail a drug test or do not take a
> required test. More than 142,000 adult recipients
> have been completed the form since the drug tests
> were implemented.
>
> When the law passed through the Legislature,
> lawmakers estimated that it would save the state
> up to $1.7 million a year by taking people off
> welfare. This year, the state will spend around
> $45 million on TANF benefits, which goes to about
> 30,000 recipients, according to a Joint
> Legislative Budget Committee report.
>
> The latest data available from DES calculate the
> total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients
> removed from TANF benefits totals to less than
> $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug
> tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a
> net savings of about $3,500.
The OP's math is JUST FUCKING WRONG. Food stamps for one person is an expense of about $3,000 a year, which means the savings would be about $70,000 for 26 people.
That's 26 people who basically failed an intelligence test by admitting what they did. No SYMPATHY.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
sonos
()
Date: July 23, 2015 03:27AM
Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The OP's math is JUST FUCKING WRONG. Food stamps
> for one person is an expense of about $3,000 a
> year, which means the savings would be about
> $70,000 for 26 people.
OP didn't do any math.
>
> That's 26 people who basically failed an
> intelligence test by admitting what they did. No
> SYMPATHY.
Admitting that rightards lie. Though obvious, thanks for your honesty.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The OP's math is JUST FUCKING WRONG. Food stamps
> for one person is an expense of about $3,000 a
> year, which means the savings would be about
> $70,000 for 26 people.
OP didn't do any math.
>
> That's 26 people who basically failed an
> intelligence test by admitting what they did. No
> SYMPATHY.
Admitting that rightards lie. Though obvious, thanks for your honesty.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
Mike O'Meara Show Fan
()
Date: July 23, 2015 05:01AM
sonos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > The OP's math is JUST FUCKING WRONG. Food
> stamps
> > for one person is an expense of about $3,000 a
> > year, which means the savings would be about
> > $70,000 for 26 people.
>
> OP didn't do any math.
>
> >
> >The latest data available from DES calculate the total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients removed from TANF benefits totals to less than $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a net savings of about $3,500.
Yeah, totally no math there. You are fucking brilliant, and I think you should stop fucking her so she can get on with her education, since yours is a lost cause.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > The OP's math is JUST FUCKING WRONG. Food
> stamps
> > for one person is an expense of about $3,000 a
> > year, which means the savings would be about
> > $70,000 for 26 people.
>
> OP didn't do any math.
>
> >
> >The latest data available from DES calculate the total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients removed from TANF benefits totals to less than $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a net savings of about $3,500.
Yeah, totally no math there. You are fucking brilliant, and I think you should stop fucking her so she can get on with her education, since yours is a lost cause.
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
sonos
()
Date: July 23, 2015 05:19AM
Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sonos Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > The OP's math is JUST FUCKING WRONG. Food
> > stamps
> > > for one person is an expense of about $3,000
> a
> > > year, which means the savings would be about
> > > $70,000 for 26 people.
> >
> > OP didn't do any math.
> >
> > >
> > >The latest data available from DES calculate
> the total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients
> removed from TANF benefits totals to less than
> $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug
> tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a
> net savings of about $3,500.
>
> Yeah, totally no math there. You are fucking
> brilliant, and I think you should stop fucking her
> so she can get on with her education, since yours
> is a lost cause.
That was a quote from the article genius. Seriously, is everyone in your party so stupid?
-------------------------------------------------------
> sonos Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > The OP's math is JUST FUCKING WRONG. Food
> > stamps
> > > for one person is an expense of about $3,000
> a
> > > year, which means the savings would be about
> > > $70,000 for 26 people.
> >
> > OP didn't do any math.
> >
> > >
> > >The latest data available from DES calculate
> the total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients
> removed from TANF benefits totals to less than
> $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug
> tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a
> net savings of about $3,500.
>
> Yeah, totally no math there. You are fucking
> brilliant, and I think you should stop fucking her
> so she can get on with her education, since yours
> is a lost cause.
That was a quote from the article genius. Seriously, is everyone in your party so stupid?
Re: Rightards wrong again
Posted by:
Sillary Clit
()
Date: July 23, 2015 09:42AM
rightard rick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arizona is another embarrassment to the union.
>
> http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/030615_
> welfare_drug_test/welfare-drug-tests-fail-save-az-
> predicted-cash/
>
> Recipients are taken off welfare benefits for a
> year if they fail a drug test or do not take a
> required test. More than 142,000 adult recipients
> have been completed the form since the drug tests
> were implemented.
>
> When the law passed through the Legislature,
> lawmakers estimated that it would save the state
> up to $1.7 million a year by taking people off
> welfare. This year, the state will spend around
> $45 million on TANF benefits, which goes to about
> 30,000 recipients, according to a Joint
> Legislative Budget Committee report.
>
> The latest data available from DES calculate the
> total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients
> removed from TANF benefits totals to less than
> $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug
> tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a
> net savings of about $3,500.
So sounds like the program saved money. Thanks for the update!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arizona is another embarrassment to the union.
>
> http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/030615_
> welfare_drug_test/welfare-drug-tests-fail-save-az-
> predicted-cash/
>
> Recipients are taken off welfare benefits for a
> year if they fail a drug test or do not take a
> required test. More than 142,000 adult recipients
> have been completed the form since the drug tests
> were implemented.
>
> When the law passed through the Legislature,
> lawmakers estimated that it would save the state
> up to $1.7 million a year by taking people off
> welfare. This year, the state will spend around
> $45 million on TANF benefits, which goes to about
> 30,000 recipients, according to a Joint
> Legislative Budget Committee report.
>
> The latest data available from DES calculate the
> total savings from 16 of those 26 recipients
> removed from TANF benefits totals to less than
> $4,000. The costs of administering the 19 drug
> tests totaled to about $500, which amounts to a
> net savings of about $3,500.
So sounds like the program saved money. Thanks for the update!