So sad. Yet they claim obama care is constitutional.The Feds ruled Florida's law was unconstitutional. The law will not stand.
Did you vote for Rupert he was for making weed legal...I agree, i really love our state man. our man in charge said he would vote against any assault weapons ban. I didnt vote for him, but he keeps this stuff up, he will garner my support.
That's the point, most people have to pass a drug test to gain employment, so the same should be for welfareYou people have it all wrong, Why punish the "bottom feeders" in society.
One of or govt "members of parliament" suggested that we drug test everybody that had influence in our day to day lives.
Starting with govt members, police, etc and work your way down.
over there you should drug test capitol hill ,these fuckers are making all the decisions that affect your lives
NO! lol I admitt that i did not even listen to him, or read anything on him. I know some people that voted for him though.Did you vote for Rupert he was for making weed legal...
Those numbers dont seem to make sense to me.And it will end up costing taxpayers 1.2 Million every year in the end for all the tests. This was NOT in this article but here are the money #'s
The House approved the bill despite a legislative staff financial analysis that showed the state would spend $2.7 million on the program to possibly the save the state $1.5 million in denied benefits. That means the state would lose $1.2 million next year if the bill were to become law.
lol just phuckin with ya i think i voted for Rupert, i was high at the time but i have never been on welfare...NO! lol I admitt that i did not even listen to him, or read anything on him. I know some people that voted for him though.
I had my facts mixed up as well. I did vote for Pence. Their was someone that i didnt vote for that got an office that was voicing their opinion about weapons ban and said they were bad,etc. but im drunk and cant remember who that was. haha
No big deal, lol. Had i known he was for legalizing pot, i probably wouldve voted for him, lollol just phuckin with ya i think i voted for Rupert, i was high at the time but i have never been on welfare...
"a legislative staff financial analysis" They ran and put out the #'s not me. They are paid to get these #'s close.Those numbers dont seem to make sense to me.
Even if it cost a grand per drug test....thats 1200 test that they can afford to give at 1.2 mil.
Thats a LOT for a drug test
some info I found says the average welfare payment for a family of four is 346 a month. Combined with 668 in food stamps, about 1,014 a month is available.
So....out of the 1200 people tested.....say 300 people cant pass. 25%. I dunno maybe thats a high estimate. Then again...maybe its low.
How long do they lose benefits for? Say....they arent eligible for 6 months.
300 people at 1014 a month times 6 months makes for a savings of 1,825,200.
Now you spent 1.2 mil to save that 1.8 so its roughly a 600k real world savings.
Keep in mind though....I used a super high estimate for the cost of the drug test
in reality the test is going to be cheaper by a large amount. So even if less fail.....if they collect anywhere near the average per month...it will be a big savings.
And just to expound further... What if a percentage of those folks losing their assistance actually go out and get work!
Add just a percentage of those people back in to the work force and have them pay taxes, instead of receive taxes......and indirectly.....state revenue grows even further.
And you and I know.....PLENTY of those people are capable of work, and some of them will start to work if they absolutely have to.
Unless the analyst anticipates that very very few people will fail(or get caught)....then I wonder how they came up with the figure that they lose welfare.
Because the reality of the situation is.....little bit of drinking or a little smoke doesnt render most folks incapable of performing their job.....whatever it may be.You people have it all wrong, Why punish the "bottom feeders" in society.
One of or govt "members of parliament" suggested that we drug test everybody that had influence in our day to day lives.
Starting with govt members, police, etc and work your way down.
over there you should drug test capitol hill ,these fuckers are making all the decisions that affect your lives
And furthermore.....do you people have jobs over there?You people have it all wrong, Why punish the "bottom feeders" in society.
One of or govt "members of parliament" suggested that we drug test everybody that had influence in our day to day lives.
Starting with govt members, police, etc and work your way down.
over there you should drug test capitol hill ,these fuckers are making all the decisions that affect your lives
Im not tryin to shoot the messenger and bust your chops. Im just saying its hard to see where they came up with the numbers."a legislative staff financial analysis" They ran and put out the #'s not me. They are paid to get these #'s close.
Here you can read all the cost listed out.Im not tryin to shoot the messenger and bust your chops. Im just saying its hard to see where they came up with the numbers.
The variable is people that will fail the drug test. Since we dont know yet...we can only assume. At this point in time, I can make it look like a fuck ton of money will be saved if I choose to "estimate" that damn near all welfare recipients will fail.
I "estimate" haha that my numbers were reasonable enough, and even with an over inflated cost of testing....it still works out in the good.
hell even if it cost the full 2.7 million.......they have to be spending WAAAY more than this on welfare. Something else I read says 13k people are on welfare in indiana. gotta be in the tens of millions spent. wouldnt take many fails to save over 2.7
Here you can read all the cost listed out.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2013/PDF/FISCAL/HB1483.006.pdf