|
The Macaroni posted:So there's a written test in addition to a drug test. Gee, why would poor, under-educated people trying to seek assistance possibly drop out of the process when it closely resembles a graduate school application? I can't help but wonder what's actually on those tests, and if there are any similarities to the literacy tests in terms of deliberately misleading questions. For reference, they looked like this: 
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
The test they use is called the SASSI. It's a real test that claims a 94% accuracy. It's designed to have subtle questions that don't reveal that it's actually looking for signs of drug problems. That said, I'd really like to know more about that 6% fail rate. Is that for type 1 or type 2 errors. What are our best estimates for the actual rate of drug abuse in the group that was tested? Why were only around 700 of the 1000 people who were flagged by the test actually offered a drug test? Were any interviews done on the people who declined the test? What were the reasons they gave for refusing the test?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
mystes posted:Just imagine how much more money the government could "save" by not having any welfare programs at all! Just think of all the prisons we could build!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Neptr posted:Home mortgage interest deduction? Sounds like a subsidy for pot farms and meth labs. Drug test everyone with a mortgage. Why stop there? Just drug test everyone. Then, shortly after, OBAMA HOW DARE YOU, ONLY A DICTATOR WOULD DRUG TEST EVERYONE 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Edminster posted:During the Cruz fauxlibuster I got into a minor argument with some youtube commenter and asked this exact question after I pointed out that the PPACA specifically forces congress to go on the exchanges. Like four people in Congress could pass the physical qualifications.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Like four people in Congress could pass the physical qualifications. I know at least one of those four!  Those arms! I just want them wrapped around me while he tells me that I won't need Medicare and the glorious Market will provide. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
At least he's not in a squat rack doing his curls. Minor victories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:life expectancy by country: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Why stop there? Just drug test everyone. Georgia had a statute that required candidates for the legislature to submit to drug testing, which the Supreme Court overwhelmingly struck down as being a suspicion-less search that did not address any concrete harm. So, alas, Congress would be exempt from universal drug testing, and we know how the right feels about congressional exceptions
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
The non-compliance statistic made me curious just what kind of barriers the drug testing requirement might create for an applicant. I became curious, because I'm not a shithead who assumes poor people are filthy druggie scum. So, per http://jobs.utah.gov/assistance/drugtest.html I have a summary of the process, as I understand it, as follows: Visit a Eligibility Services Center to apply or reapply for FEP (Utah's cash assistance program with work requirements). You must visit the Service Center on a workday before 4:00PM. When applying, you must provide a proper photo ID and complete the drug screening questionnaire. If the application meets financial requirements for qualification, the case will be approved case and the questionnaire evaluated. I didn't catch anything about how soon after approval an applicant can expect the results of their questionnaire, but they will be informed via mail notice if they are required complete a drug test. Their case manager may or may not contact the applicant by other means. The applicant has 7 businesses from case approval to register for a the drug test via phone with the testing service, Pharmatech. Referral information provided with the drug testing notice must be used when registering. The applicant must make their scheduled drug testing appointment, or face non-compliance. Based on drug testing results, meet FEP compliance to receive assistance. If you not registered and tested by this point, you will become non-compliant and you will be disqualified from benefits for three months, after which you must repeat the process. Since the statistic listed people that did not follow through with the test, not those that failed, we can scrutinize the drug testing process. An applicant's notice with referral information will probably take 1 to 2 business days out of the allotted 7 to arrive, granted referral information may be accessed online if the counselor notifies the applicant early. An applicant must contact a private company to schedule a drug test. The applicant must call during Pharmatech's hours, Mon-Fri 7AM-5PM, and have referral number and information from the notice on hand. Testing location and instructions will only provided over the phone at the time of scheduling. There is little indication on how plentiful Pharmatech's testing sites are, especially since they are likely using contracted clinics to perform the tests and courier to their labs. As a bonus, that testing is almost guaranteed to occur during regular business hours. Seems pretty simple to me that a lot of people probably slip up or give up on that drug testing process for the same reasons as we often see brought up in voter ID discussions: it's a bunch of bullshit they can't manage in the timeline given, especially when most applicants are working at least one full-time job during regular business hours. Even better, if something goes wrong on test day or your can't get a few hours off to travel who-knows-how-far for testing, you're hosed for 3 months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:It's almost as though people who qualify for government assistance don't have significant levels of disposable income to pay for illegal drugs, which are expensive. They have the audacity to spend their pittances on trivial items such as food, and shelter. Obviously they can afford illegal drugs. That fact is clearly verified because someone once saw a poor person with a cell phone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post--food-stamp-glitch-leads-to-wal-mart-stampede All the comments i have seen on this is that those that exploited the glitch are scumbag leecher criminals. Nevermind the fact that mebbe there is a problem if people are loading up on that much food when they get an opportunity like this, and that being hungry kinda sucks
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
V-Men posted:Obviously they can afford illegal drugs. That fact is clearly verified because someone once saw a poor person with a cell phone. This reminds me of the time that my department was presenting a bike lane plan to our city council and someone opposed it during citizen participation because he claimed he'd seen a drug deal go down in a bike lane before 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
LunarShadow posted:http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post--food-stamp-glitch-leads-to-wal-mart-stampede This is like a win-win for everyone but the US Government who had to foot the bill. Conservatives should love this! They won't. They'll just call poor people animals. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I think everyone is agreed that both soldiers (insofar as they should exist at all) and fast-food workers should be paid more, but I want to point out that this isn't a good argument to make in defense of that idea. Including room and board as part of a worker's pay is how we got scrip and company towns. Workers should be paid a living wage in cash that they have the freedom to spend as they wish. The point isn't that we should give fast food workers room and board as part of their salaries, it's that the soldiers we have get these things as extra benefits outside their salary. You can't compare apples and oranges. Personally, $15-20 an hour seems like a pretty good living wage if we're talking about a minimum for people. That's $30-40K a person, which while not a huge amount is enough to keep 3 hots and cot for most places. I'm assuming that places like NYC and San Francisco would have higher locally passed minimum wages, of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
LunarShadow posted:http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post--food-stamp-glitch-leads-to-wal-mart-stampede Under the "worst" comments 206 thumbs down posted:Greedy? They were buying food not material things. Its sad imagine how much these people needed this food. I think it speaks to the much bigger problem in the country. It has nothing to do with political affiliation there are a lot of people in this country who can't afford to eat and that is a shame. With all we have in the US there is no reason anyone should be going hungry yet so many do. America 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Crossposting from the Idiots on Social Media thread, because I think it fits pretty well here too.Mister Bates posted:Having a bunch of hippy flower-child friends results in me occasionally being exposed to RAWN PAUL 2016/The Joos Secretly Run All The Banks/The Federal Reserve Is Evil/etc. conspiracy-theorist crap, and a gem just showed up on my Facebook feed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Crossposting from the Idiots on Social Media thread, because I think it fits pretty well here too. If he's talking national banks, he missed out on Jackson. Which of course doesn't help his point since he drug the country into a depression with his poor economic policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
So apparently "FEMA camps" are returning to the forefront of the the Obama dictatorship. I saw this video this afternoon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUVqsWBJbxg After pointing out how he was talking about the detainees at Gitmo, I agreed that we needed to shut that down. Then, this video appears from a town near by. It is simply amazing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVpQlHFFSy4 FEDEX and FEMA both start with "FE". IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
I'm trying to formulate an article on that Thomas Sowell "Who Really Shutdown the Government?" article that I'm seeing a ton of now. Am I right in saying that Obamacare funding isn't IN that damned CR. It's a stopgap for discretionary spending that has nothing to do with the ACA but that the House is trying to hijack it with a rider that eliminates Obamacare funding which is a mandatory spending program that has nothing to do with the CR causing the stalemate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I know at least one of those four! Cover everything below the eyes and try to tell if he's smiling or not. Dirt posted:You got your troop worship in my plight of the working poor debate! According to this: http://www.military4life.com/mil/military-deployment-pay/ Worst case, a soldier in a combat zone is an E1 getting 1516 a month in base pay. They're probably getting 325 a month in hazard/combat pay. They are getting BAS of 357.27. I think they MAY be getting per diem of something like 100 dollars per day. Or possibly 3.50 per day, I'm not really clear on that. So a total of at least 2313.27 per month. Minimum. They're probably getting COLA on top of that. If they are married or otherwise have dependents, they're also getting BAH, a minimum of about 800 dollars per month. edit: They also get 250 a month in family separation pay. If they're single without dependents, they MAY be getting BAH, which would be a minimum of about 600 dollars per month. They also get health insurance, pensions, and educational benefits including GI bill and tuition assistance. GI bill alone is worth about 20 grand a year on a 4 year enlistment. (But in that case you're not getting the pension). Let's assume they have a family. That's 3363.27 per month. Tax exempt, because they're in a combat zone. And to be an E1 in a combat zone PROBABLY means you're a fuckup, because you should have made E2 by the time you finished training. 12 hours per day, 30 days a month (we're comparing to deployment, here), at minimum wage, would be 2610 per month. No housing, no pension, probably no insurance, and no overtime either. No automatic promotions and pay increases either. No Cost Of Living Allowance. Probably no merit promotions, too. Now 15 bucks an hour WOULD be more than that, 5400 per month. But most military members are making more than the minimum; and if they're getting per diem, even the fuckups are making at least 5400 per month. Also, most minimum wage workers can't get that many hours. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Oct 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:The point isn't that we should give fast food workers room and board as part of their salaries, it's that the soldiers we have get these things as extra benefits outside their salary. You can't compare apples and oranges. It seems like it could pretty easily be turned into an argument for government provided housing and food assistance, because hey, that's what the troops get right!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:16
|
|
WampaLord posted:I know at least one of those four! To quote Have I Got News For You, I'd never tire of kicking that man in the balls.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:If he's talking national banks, he missed out on Jackson. Which of course doesn't help his point since he drug the country into a depression with his poor economic policy. I thought his point was that both were shot in the head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
"If they have the minimum skills, why should soldiers be expected to be paid more than minimum wages?"  I find that conflating military assistance with social programs, and holding that up as a good thing, is a pretty effective narrative for people to attach to. Most people who worship the military are shocked at first because they think you are attacking the institution by comparing it to programs they've been trained to hate (or even calling them "government employees"), but when they find out you're praising it, they're going to be wary of contradicting you. Sometimes you'll get "soldiers earned it by being warrior princes" jabber but that can quickly be dismissed by noting that >90% of servicemembers never see combat in today's military, but they are, of course, still essential. Once they agree to that, compare the duties they perform to low wage private sector jobs, since you've both agreed how important they are. Maybe they should be paid better wages... I'm unaware if you can translate this well to general support of the lower classes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:It seems like it could pretty easily be turned into an argument for government provided housing and food assistance, because hey, that's what the troops get right! No one who would need this argument made would think that poor people deserve to have it as good as the troops. rkajdi posted:The point isn't that we should give fast food workers room and board as part of their salaries, it's that the soldiers we have get these things as extra benefits outside their salary. You can't compare apples and oranges. My claim is that attempting to include some dollar value for food/housting/etc as part of a soldier's "real" salary normalizes the idea that it would be okay to provide a worker substandard monetary compensation if you also give room and board. I don't think that anyone here actually supports that, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it coming from "mainstream" newspeople/politicians in the next decade or two, so no reason to not avoid giving it any rhetorical support now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:My claim is that attempting to include some dollar value for food/housting/etc as part of a soldier's "real" salary normalizes the idea that it would be okay to provide a worker substandard monetary compensation if you also give room and board. I don't think that anyone here actually supports that, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it coming from "mainstream" newspeople/politicians in the next decade or two, so no reason to not avoid giving it any rhetorical support now. Honestly, if it was as good as the Air Force provides in most places, I'd be okay with that. But of course it would degenerate into Arpaioesque dog-food grade bologna and tents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:My claim is that attempting to include some dollar value for food/housting/etc as part of a soldier's "real" salary normalizes the idea that it would be okay to provide a worker substandard monetary compensation if you also give room and board. I don't think that anyone here actually supports that, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it coming from "mainstream" newspeople/politicians in the next decade or two, so no reason to not avoid giving it any rhetorical support now. Luckily, the people who would be convinced by that argument are also "Support the Troops  " types so by lobbying for better pay and care of enlisted soldiers you're also raising the ceiling of what they'll accept for workers' rights.It takes a special type of cynical cruelty to do a Bush- or McCain-style "gently caress over the soldiers as hard as possible for a minor political benefit" trick. If Democrats push military pay and benefits hard enough, the Republicans will have to cave 2006-style and pass it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article IBD also said Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service (NHS) would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless" so I wouldn't put much stock in anything they have to say, ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Just think of all the prisons we could build! You have no idea how many people I've heard say that the solution to America's problems is to demolish welfare and give the money to the prisons. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
Griff Lee posted:You have no idea how many people I've heard say that the solution to America's problems is to demolish welfare and give the money to the prisons. Literally Scrooge
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
dur posted:IBD also said Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service (NHS) would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless" so I wouldn't put much stock in anything they have to say, ever. I bring that up any time I see anyone post anything from IBD, ever, and will continue to do so forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Under the "worst" comments While it's true that the poor starve more than they should I don't think taking advantage of a free meal is something only the hungry would do. There was an article a few years back where a kid accidentally keyed in the wrong amount for gas before leaving for the night, so like instead of 3.59 he accidentally keyed in .359 and left. When someone noticed the entire town absolutely took advantage of that, because they could, until it was found out. My point I guess is that human nature makes us want to take a free lunch if we can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:While it's true that the poor starve more than they should I don't think taking advantage of a free meal is something only the hungry would do. What if you're constantly worried about having food to feed your kids? Meanwhile, a major political party has shut down the government and the USDA is unable to guarantee that there will be money for benefits if the situation continues into November. Oh, and that party spent the summer fighting tooth and nail to cut food stamps to the bone. Now suddenly you have a chance to stock up. Do you decide that Wal-Mart needs that food more than your kids? It's easy to moralize about people "taking advantage" when you're comfortable without stealing. Wal-Mart profits from exploitation and sweatshops. Anyone who complains that the poor stole less than a rounding error of their corporate profit worth of food is focusing on the wrong injustices in life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 07:52
|
|
|
Anyone else getting the football Washington Redskins poo poo posted on Facebook, how 'dem filthy crybaby lieberals' want to change the name to something 'less offensive?' When I asked the poster (who shared this poo poo to everyone on her friends list; we know each other from loving breeding bettas) when we would see new teams like the New Orleans Spear Chuckers or the San Francisco Fags, she called me a racist and that I missed the point. Of course, she 'only posted it because it was funny, and it makes you think, doesn't it!'
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 11:16
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Anyone else getting the football Washington Redskins poo poo posted on Facebook, how 'dem filthy crybaby lieberals' want to change the name to something 'less offensive?' Yeah, I got a few of those, one of them even had an #obamashutdown tag on it! Such an odd thing to tie to the shutdown mess. "That drat Obummer trying to mees with the proud histories of our football teams instead of ending the shutdown!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 11:40
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Anyone else getting the football Washington Redskins poo poo posted on Facebook, how 'dem filthy crybaby lieberals' want to change the name to something 'less offensive?' On a related note, the one I got was about a movement to change Columbus Day to Explorer's Day, given what we know now of Christopher Columbus' exploits in the New World. "It's a holiday! Just shut your mouth and go along with it. Besides, all the Founding Fathers had slaves anyway"
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 11:53
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:On a related note, the one I got was about a movement to change Columbus Day to Explorer's Day, given what we know now of Christopher Columbus' exploits in the New World. What that's crazy. I will continue to celebrate and honor Christopher Columbus and his discovery of McCauley Culkin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 13:21
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Anyone else getting the football Washington Redskins poo poo posted on Facebook, how 'dem filthy crybaby lieberals' want to change the name to something 'less offensive?' Only thing I saw on this was a "The Washington Redskins were thinking about removing Washington from their name because it was too offensive" which is clever enough a joke I'm not going to poo poo on it. But I already pruned (or rather they pruned me) the insane Washington fans from my Facebook account, so I expect that the stupidity is happening outside my presence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 13:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
Why would you want to name sports team after an ethnic slur? Even if you don't think it's offensive, you're alienating a huge potential fan base who might otherwise support that team, buy merchandise, etc. It's bad business. And, yknow, dehumanizing and insensitive. But that's just POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 13:44
|
|
