And again, bias or no, if you have to violate basic logic to believe the unbiased study over the biased one, then you’re valuing good intentions over critical thinking.
Poor people use more drugs than average. Therefore, if testing rates of welfare applicants show a lower percentage of users than the overall population, that means there’s selection bias: drug users are simply not showing up.
So let’s dispense with who is biased and try to refute that.
But hey, it’s biased, so critical thinking is unnecessary. 
Your study bases its math on not including the necessary expenses of the program, ignoring the legal fees and man hours, ignores these and extrapolates a year based primarily on a month, a month whose math is already compromised by the assumptions of the study, the architects of this study which have no interest in not filling the math with baseless and obviously wrong assumptions, because the study is funded by a conservative advocacy group which intends to reach a certain conclusion.
We may as well discuss how the dating of fossils is grossly inaccurate, according to a study funded by a creation science advocacy group. I mean, why the heck not. It could be a house of cards constructed by a biased source who absolutely must reach one certain conclusion, and who cares if every legitimate scientific organization rejects the findings? It’s a source you can cite, so it must be legit.
Ok. So we’ll post them again, since we missed them the first time.
DCF
Seems like a fairly authoritative source. Do you know something the DCF doesn’t?
I note that the DCF is the same source as your study. But of course, we’re reaching two totally different conclusions. How can this be?
Perhaps because your conservative advocacy group uses… different math?
Math which may completely and totally ignore relevant costs?
:o How unethical would that be?
But it doesn’t matter. It’s biased, so critical thinking is unnecessary.
These read like data points to me.
Also pertinent since it would affect the bottom line of this math equation.
Given that this entire discussion is primarily math-based, I’d say fudging the math equation deliberately would be a disqualifier, don’t you?
Other pertinent pieces of data:
Your study with its baseless assumptions picks a month/two months and extrapolates. The report I linked to was further into the* next year*, where more relevant data (and less assumptions, since the **source **wasn’t biased) was used. And of course, less need for extrapolation, since now you have several months of data.
So let’s talk about who is being misleading.
Or
Which may be relevant to the discussion, might I add.
Given that this is about math, and not ideology.
What is more misleading? Not including all the costs in your analysis of the cost-versus-benefit relationship, then extrapolating a figure which isn’t relevant because it’s not a real bottom line number throughout an entire year, and calling that bogus number your actual savings, or reporting what the actual costs and savings are, and noting that the actual result is that it costs the state money?
And I’m just a schlub who doesn’t care. Who do I trust?
Your biased source which knows the answer to the question before you ask it, because those are the sorts of studies the Koch brothers really invest in, or the neutral newspaper who investigated this thing and found it to be bull, and the judge who threw it out?
I guess it’s all a conspiracy by the Miami Herald.
And the New York Times.
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Welfare-drug-screening-bill-divides-lawmakers-5219233.php
And the Houston Chronicle.
No, no I’ll definitely trust your bogus study that was thrown out of court because it made ludicrous assumptions, and not the major neutral news outlets of the nation and the judge who might have seen more of the actual numbers than I am personally privy to.
Even if you were right, you also charged me with having no critical thinking for…
What was that exactly?
Oh yeah, greeting your right wing think tank study with a critical eye and not swallowing it whole immediately.
Classy!
The Herald also did not include all the expenses of the program. But I guess that’s okay since they told you what you wanted to hear.
The Koch study included more information. All the Herald did was report who failed the drug tests, which doesn’t even stand up to the most basic scrutiny as a measurement of the savings.
But let’s talk about personal experience. You’re a pizza guy, right? So was I, for many years. Does your establishment drug test? And if not, does it or does it not attract the pot smokers like crazy? My job sure did. Common sense: if most employers test, then drug users will stampede to the places that don’t. If tests are required for welfare, they won’t go.
So if you reach a negative bottom line without including all the expenses, this magically makes the numbers turn positive.
Never learned about that one in math class. Cite?
Yes, that report sure did contain a lot of words. Nice graphs, etc.
So why was it thrown out of court, and why was the bottom line for the state of Florida a negative, meaning it cost the state money?
When you consult the ultimate arbiter of whether it did or did not cost the state more than it saved, meaning the state itself, why does the state say it lost money?
Why does your biased study say it generated oodles and oodles of savings?
So they went directly to the net loss of the state.
Get me a neutral source which says that this number is imaginary.
This quoted part shifts the discussion to irrelevancies.
What was the discussion about again? Oh yes, the cost-benefit analysis to the state of Florida whether these drug screenings saved, or lost, money.
I have three major media outlets and a judge which say the state lost money.
You have a study declared to be horsefeathers by the actual authorities.
I’m a schlub who doesn’t know, and barely cares. I cannot trust your study, because I am aware that whatever the actual math is, your study will inform me of only information which will advance a political agenda and ignore all information which could get me properly informed if the information conflicts with the political agenda.
Instead of shifting the discussion, go get me a neutral source which states the State of Florida Saved Money With These Drug Tests.
Until then. 
They judged it lost money by counting only those who failed drug tests. They did not count those who never applied. The Koch study did. If you believe that counting those who never applied is invalid, explain yourself.
Since you objected to “cherry picking”, here are the caseload numbers. Look at the period for which the law was in effect, July 2011-Nov 2011.
http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/reports/caseload_circuit.xls
This was what stopped enforcement, and you notice that caseloads go back to normal afterwards.
So out of curiosity, I went to go see what Politifact had for me that was interesting info. A casual scroll leads me to this:
Which makes it a rather DUBIOUS assumption indeed that those rejected by the screenings therefore saved the state a year’s worth of welfare.
** 4.5 months does not equal 12 months. Who knew? :o**
I also perused the court ruling itself, and noted the following:
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/2011-10-24-ACLUTanfOrder.pdf
PDF, so I had to retype it by hand. Think I copied it basically exactly, or read it yourself.
Right off the bat, the judge found that the “savings” that were assumed by the study essentially inflated the amount of welfare “saved” by declining these applicants by double (if we’re counting the six months to re-apply) or triple (if we’re counting the 4 month average that someone is on this form of assistance) or ignoring the fact that it may save no money whatsoever, as a family member can apply instead of the purported drug user, so the system doesn’t even do what it is intended to do.
So the savings were inflated by two or threefold, and of course, as mentioned by these media outlets, forgot to include every expense the state incurs by the law.
So I don’t know how much more black and white this issue is.
The study is provided by a Cato and Heritage and Koch-related think tank, headed by a guy whose experience is in advocating public policy, not providing, you know, real data for the public to take seriously, and it inflates the savings while ignoring the costs.
All of those are incredibly damaging to the whole “math” thing.
**Politifact **tells me the average time on this program is 4.5 months. So the claim of year-long savings is bogus on a not insignificant factor of nearly triple what the actual average savings would be. The judge points out that this program won’t even successfully stop drug users from getting welfare, and how absurd the assumptions of the study were. However, both sources tell me that yes indeed, it will cost the state a lot of money. That much, every source I’ve found except your study, agrees on.
At this point advocates of the law do what? Shift the discussion to the need to fight the war on drugs. As mentioned in the judge’s decision, no less.
Which, we all know, has “saved” this country billions in increased police activity, public defenders, court trials, and incarcerations.
Then the judge talks about the Fourth amendment issues, and rightfully states that if this kind of unwarranted search is allowed, then anyone using any type of government service or accepting government funds could be searched, because the there is no difference. So basically, this law can also lead to students accepting government loans to have to undergo this sort of testing. Medicare recipients might have to go through this kind of unnecessary testing. Social security recipients. You know, anyone getting a check from the government, and there would be no legal protection against it.
But I guess all that doesn’t matter if a conservative think tank says it saves the government money using grossly inaccurate math and ludicrously biased assumptions.
Is this thing, drug-testing welfare recipients, perhaps going to be an election issue after all, then? Even after a federal court struck it down? Does anyone seriously want to try to raise it up again?
We should be able to acknowledge that all the studies are using biased assumptions. So perhaps we should look for the data ourselves and make our case that way.
I’ve done so. DCF had a significant drop in caseloads due to the drug testing requirement, which was reversed as soon as an injunction went into effect.
As for the 4th amendment issues, there is still no liberty interest in receiving a welfare check, anymore than there is in getting a drivers license, or a government job. But we’ll see what other courts say, since Florida isn’t giving up on this. Nor should they. The law clearly reduced the number of applicants, that much is beyond dispute. So let’s see how much money is saved if the law is in place for a couple of years.
I’d hope Scott would make it an issue, but then you’d complain about “wedge issues”.
I’m pretty confident of public opinion on this issue. And Scott did make it a campaign issue in 2010, so why not in 2014?
No, I’d grin and bounce and rub my hands together.
What’s sad is I am woefully under-competent to even argue this point because, as I mentioned, I’m a schlub who doesn’t care.
I am literally just googling the most obvious thing I can think of to google and then reposting what I find.
This is beyond simple. The issue is that biased studies by think tanks are almost always full of total crap, and finding things which prove that it is total crap is literally seconds and barely any thought away.
But, most folks don’t have that kind of time. 2 seconds? There’s porn on here. Gotta masturbate.
That’s why think tanks are effective. They spend the few hours or days to find data which supports their point, out of all context, and make their reports look all professional n’ shit. Which impresses people, I guess.
Mmm, and I suppose literacy tests and poll taxes for voters in poor districts made voter participation increase?
Of course if you make it more difficult for people to utilize government services, less people will use them. Add additional forms and tests, and then add a 30 dollar charge to someone who already needs financial assistance in the first place, and you’ll get less applicants.
Hey, if you mandate a 100 dollar fee to get a driver’s license, I bet fewer people drive, too.
Clearly this means poor people don’t want to drive because they’re too drunk.
You do realize that period also coincides with dropping unemployment rates, right?
Ouchies!
PS-
Enkel, I fear that I may be too verbose and out of my league to prosecute this particular case.
You have my permission to fight the good fight in my stead, I’ll quit while I’m ahead. I gotta go to bed. I’m nearly brain-dead. I must be a pot head.
The “reversal” also coincides with the end of heavy tourism season… darn those confounding factors!
Primary reason for drug denial = marijuana positive. Medical Marijuana on the ballot for legalization this fall.
Also, why doesn’t anyone highlight that the applicants had to pay $30 up front. That may not be a lot for some folks, but if you’re on assistance, that is not a small sum of money.
Enkel, the last three years coincides with dropping unemployment rates. And Florida’s tourist season is not July-November. And even if it was, you’d see similar drops in 2010 and 2012. You did not.
So now you’re just doing what’s called an ad hoc hypothesis.
Now you’re just making things up. I await your apology.
Not yet. The 1996 welfare reform bill made it no longer an entitlement. The fact that it was an entitlement was the key part of that decision.
PRWORA proposed TANF as AFDC’s replacement. The Congressional findings in PRWORA highlighted dependency, out-of-wedlock birth, and intergenerational poverty as the main contributors to a faulty system.[23] In instituting a block grant program, PRWORA granted states the ability to design their own systems, as long as states met a set of basic federal requirements. The bill’s primary requirements and effects included the following:
Ending welfare as an entitlement program;
That means it’s now a PRIVILEGE.