Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

Welfare in Ohio - News & Updates

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Welfare in Ohio – News & Updates

This topic contains 141 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by News News 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 144 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #497035
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    pedex said:
    what if fixing the problem costs more than the problem you are fixing?

    on the problem scale welfare fraud is pretty small

    Didn’t even read this thread, did you?

    http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/drug-testing-for-ohio-welfare-recipients/page/3#post-436750

    #497036
    Graybeak
    Graybeak
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    Didn’t even read this thread, did you?

    http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/drug-testing-for-ohio-welfare-recipients/page/3#post-436750

    Hey, I was mentioned in there, awesome! Today’s AP story says “Overall, food stamp fraud costs taxpayers about $750 million a year, or 1 percent of the $75 billion program that makes up the bulk of the department’s total budget for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.”

    But also says 46 million people nationwide receive the assistance.

    Even with economies of scale, when does it become a good deal?

    #497037
    DavidF
    DavidF
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    Bullshit.

    Taking “no one calls it food stamps” at face value for the sake of argument, if there really is an evil right wing conspiracy to eliminate such social spending ( just writing that I feel like I should be petting a bald cat ) what better way to do so than let fraud as has been noted in this thread continue?

    Why do you equate eliminating or reducing fraud with “not fixing a problem”?

    Because it won’t reduce fraud. Because it will cost more to implement than it will recover. Because if you want to reduce fraud why isn’t your first target the biggest players in the fraud game? Why this above all other things? And why is it that the small government adherents are the most adamant about inserting government in the private lives of everyone at every opportunity.

    Fracking oversight? Screw that. Financial regulation to prevent anyone from being too big to fail? Hell no!

    Transvaginal ultrasounds on already traumatized women? Of course! It’s the only moral thing to do! Drug tests on already humiliated people? Damn straight, fiscally responsible regardless of the cost! Tighten voting restrictions to deal with an almost non existent voter fraud problem? Of course, it’s important to keep the wrong sorts of people away!

    #497039
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Graybeak said:
    Even with economies of scale, when does it become a good deal?

    Just from fiddling with the numbers, at about %20 fraud it starts to get cost competitive.

    #497040
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    DavidF said:
    Because it will cost more to implement than it will recover.

    Speaking of not paying attention…

    #497041

    pedex
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    DavidF said:
    Because it won’t reduce fraud. Because it will cost more to implement than it will recover. Because if you want to reduce fraud why isn’t your first target the biggest players in the fraud game? Why this above all other things? And why is it that the small government adherents are the most adamant about inserting government in the private lives of everyone at every opportunity.

    Fracking oversight? Screw that. Financial regulation to prevent anyone from being too big to fail? Hell no!

    Transvaginal ultrasounds on already traumatized women? Of course! It’s the only moral thing to do! Drug tests on already humiliated people? Damn straight, fiscally responsible regardless of the cost! Tighten voting restrictions to deal with an almost non existent voter fraud problem? Of course, it’s important to keep the wrong sorts of people away!

    the sales pitch usually doesn’t actually match the product being sold huh?

    #497042
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    pedex said:
    the sales pitch usually doesn’t actually match the product being sold huh?

    More like small government types aren’t necessarily social conservatives and vice versa.

    #497043
    DavidF
    DavidF
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    More like small government types aren’t necessarily social conservatives and vice versa.

    And yet they line up in lockstep with this type of stupidity. And yes, I’ve been paying attention to this thread. You know better than that Rus.

    #497044

    myliftkk
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Why don’t we just make every government benefit, contratual or otherwise, contingent on a piss test?

    You want that mortgage interest deduction? Pee in a cup homeowner.

    Your company want to make a profit off of selling the government services/goods, or subcontracting to do so? Pee in many cups, employees & management.

    You want your bank’s deposits covered by FDIC, your carried interest loophole? Get your dicks out bankers and traders.

    And yes, if you want your food stamps. We’ll even give you the pot you don’t have to piss in.

    As long as it’s fairly applied, what’s the issue (it would create a huge industry for cups & cleansers)?

    #497045
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    DavidF said:
    And yet they line up in lockstep with this type of stupidity. And yes, I’ve been paying attention to this thread. You know better than that Rus.

    Can drug testing make sense?

    DavidF said:
    From a fiscal point of view, sure.

    You can not first say that from a fiscal point of view drug testing can be viable and then, later, claim it will cost more to implement than it will recover.

    Thought we already settled this point.

    Everyone seems to agree, from critics to the administration, that better fraud control would be useful.

    Right now, with a detected fraud rate of 1%, I don’t see drug testing as useful. The important points are how that detected fraud rate is arrived at and if greater fraud control would detect and eliminate more fraud. As I said earlier, just from playing with the numbers drug testing benefit recipients starts to pay off if the fraud rate is at least %20. We’ve been talking about that in just the past few posts.

    So, really, do try to keep up.

    #497046

    pedex
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    More like small government types aren’t necessarily social conservatives and vice versa.

    I’d buy that if it was just one two polices but it isn’t, it is almost all of them. Replublicans have a whole slew of hypocritical self defeating or outright false policies and beliefs. Democrats are no better, but their hypocrisy is elsewhere instead of across the board lunacy. Both do the same basic thing though, sell one thing and then do the opposite.I hate making generalizations bout stuff like this but our govt history bears it out. It’s comical at this point really.

    #497048
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    myliftkk said:
    Why don’t we just make every government benefit, contratual or otherwise, contingent on a piss test?

    For contractors, that’s already a requirement.

    #497049

    pedex
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    myliftkk said:
    Why don’t we just make every government benefit, contratual or otherwise, contingent on a piss test?

    You want that mortgage interest deduction? Pee in a cup homeowner.

    Your company want to make a profit off of selling the government services/goods, or subcontracting to do so? Pee in many cups, employees & management.

    You want your bank’s deposits covered by FDIC, your carried interest loophole? Get your dicks out bankers and traders.

    And yes, if you want your food stamps. We’ll even give you the pot you don’t have to piss in.

    As long as it’s fairly applied, what’s the issue (it would create a huge industry for cups & cleansers)?

    what do you do with the govt official that lobbied for it and runs a company that does the drug testing and manufactures drug testing equipment? does he get tested too?

    #497050
    DavidF
    DavidF
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    Can drug testing make sense?

    You can not first say that from a fiscal point of view drug testing can be viable and then, later, claim it will cost more to implement than it will recover.

    Thought we already settled this point.

    Everyone seems to agree, from critics to the administration, that better fraud control would be useful.

    Right now, with a detected fraud rate of 1%, I don’t see drug testing as useful. The important points are how that detected fraud rate is arrived at and if greater fraud control would detect and eliminate more fraud. As I said earlier, just from playing with the numbers drug testing benefit recipients starts to pay off if the fraud rate is at least %20. We’ve been talking about that in just the past few posts.

    So, really, do try to keep up.

    Umm, I’ve never claimed it would be viable. 1. positive test rates would never be a 1:1 correlation with fraud. 2. The costs of cutting off a mass of theoretical persons would likely lead only to cost shifting into law enforcement (increased crime, homelessness, perhaps even civil unrest). 3. By your own speculation 1 in 5 persons would have to test positive to even theoretically hit a point of fiscal return. Again, not likely.

    But if you are really just determined to be a jackass to me (when I thought we were past that) feel free.

    Further, absent national security or compelling safety reasons, I’m not a fan of compulsory preemptive drug testing at just about any level. I shouldn’t have to prove I’m not a drug addict in order to get that job, benefit, etc. The presumption should generally be one of innocence with provisions made for situations where a reasonable suspicion can be shown. I doubt you would see few or any negative societal consequences to turning back the clock to that point in time. (See, I can be conservative about some things)

    #497051

    cheap
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    DavidF said:
    I shouldn’t have to prove I’m not a drug addict in order to get that job, benefit, etc.

    what about proving you dont smoke cigarettes??

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 144 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?