Wisconsin closer to drug testing food stamp users

[bshole]

They'll abandon the policy once they discover how many of these people they catch arent minorities like they assume.

Doubtful, this bill is a winner with their base. It's efficacy is irrelevant. Scott is gearing up for the next election and you better know this particular move will be ALL over the ads.

 

[Jhhnn]

They'll abandon the policy once they discover how many of these people they catch arent minorities like they assume.

The leadership doesn't care about that. It's a project that carves out another profit center for the elite. If they catch literally nobody they'll claim it works as a deterrent.They'd say we need to test for alien dna if they thought it would sell.

 

[theeedude]

So in other words they are spending millions of dollars to test a population where they expect a 0.3% positive rate (is that even distinguishable from zero given the test accuracy?). They are doing this so that if they DO find someone who tests positive they can take money and food away from their children.

This is not just stupid and wasteful, it's spiteful and immoral. What is wrong with these people.

It's conservatism.

 

[crashtech]

Democrats could win this issue easily simply by proposing their own testing program, not tied to benefits but to treatment programs. No one should want to cut benefits for someone who is getting help.

Neither blindly throwing money at a problem nor cruelly cutting off desperate people is the best way to solve the problem. And it is a problem, those who assert that only a tiny number of recipients have a drug or alcohol problem would probably answer differently in a different context. Which leads to another thing, alcohol is probably the worst scourge of the poor, so alcohol abuse screening and rehab programs should probably be in front of the drug testing.

A proposal like this would help reveal true motivations.

 

[theeedude]

Unnecessarily testing 67,000 people to avoid feeding 220 people who are addicted to drugs. Clearly what Jesus would do.

 

[crashtech]

Unnecessarily testing 67,000 people to avoid feeding 220 people who are addicted to drugs. Clearly what Jesus would do.

I've seen other statistics that say nearly 25% of the US population at large has used some kind of illicit substance in the past 30 days. So, like many things, the numbers depend on what the goal is.

 

[theeedude]

I've seen other statistics that say nearly 25% of the US population at large has used some kind of illicit substance in the past 30 days. So, like many things, the numbers depend on what the goal is.

Those 220/67,000 numbers are from Wisconsin governor who is pushing this testing.

 

[crashtech]

Those 220/67,000 numbers are from Wisconsin governor who is pushing this testing.

Oh. Well, that's pretty retarded.

 

[Jhhnn]

Those 220/67,000 numbers are from Wisconsin governor who is pushing this testing.

Amazing, isn't it? The best part is that EBT is federal money administered by the states. It's free to Wisconsin. Drug testing obviously isn't.

 

[bshole]

Amazing, isn't it? The best part is that EBT is federal money administered by the states. It's free to Wisconsin. Drug testing obviously isn't.

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...... so fucking true. Any tard can tell this is a fiscal loser but at least it is punching down. The punching down is mandatory for the base. This little bit of malice is just the ticket for Walker to win re-election.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If this goes through, I can't imagine it doing anything other than costing way the hell more money. So these drug addicts no longer have money coming in. Do Republicans really believe they are just going to sit there and starve to death? No they will not. They will resort to violent crime to take care of themselves. Innocent people will be harmed or killed and eventually the drug addict will end up in prison. So what was a relatively inexpensive monthly check turns into an expense that is an order of magnitude larger.... and innocents are harmed to boot. When you dive into Republican thinking, you really are swimming in the shallowest end of the intellectual pool (I won't even mention the morality pool).

I agree with you.

I'm on disability, and I depend on a check to live, since my disability makes me unemployable. (Before my disability I used to be a programmer.)

But if I have to be hospitalized, I'm sure that it costs the state, via my medicaid and medicare, quite a bit more than my monthly check. Probably a year's worth of checks.

So, I do my best to live on my own in public housing, on the monthly check, and try to stay out of trouble, out of the hospital, and basically out of society's way.

I live on less than $15K/yr, and rent and car insurance costs nearly half of my check. Yeah, I eat a lot of Ramen, and a lot of P&P Loaf sandwiches.

No, surprisingly, I don't really qualify for Food Stamps. For maybe two years I was on there, but I only got $16/mo.

Edit: Forgot to mention, no alcohol / tobacco / illicit drugs.

The newest technology, and plenty of caffeine, those are my drugs.

 

[theeedude]

Reminds me of Lee Atwater talking about southern strategy.
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017...p-lamis-rough-transcript-weekend-reading.html

Lee Atwater: That should be a first of his. Now in 1968, the whole Southern strategy that Harry had put together, the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. And now they don't have to do that.All you gotta do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues his campaigned on since 1964. And that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cutting taxes, you know that old cluster of being tough with national defense. And it's going to be very hard for Reagan to lose.

Alexander Lamis: Whether he, I'm not saying that he does this consciously, but the fact is that he does get the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by doing away, by cutting down on food stamps.