AtomicCEO Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Second, what part of RANDOM drug testing isn't sinking in? How does that discriminate? It's not discriminatory! I'm randomly testing ALL of the poor people! I find this hilariously ignorant (and sad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) +1. A different standard would apply to any welfare payments after unemployment runs out. I can see it that way. I can also see it like unemployment "insurance." And every insurance policy has terms and conditions by which the insurer does not have to pay, despite a normal triggering event (e.g., most life insurance policies don't pay out if the insured commits suicide). If - IF - we want want to view it like insurance then placing reasonable restrictions on receipt of benefits is perfectly reasonable. The fact is that with finite dollars to go around, showing preference to recipients who are clean, sober, and looking for work isn't *that* unreasonable when the goal is to get people back on their feet and paying taxes again as quickly as possible. Those folks are simply the best investment for our limited entitlement spending budget. Alternatively, if a limited fund of "guaranteed" unemployment benefits must be allocated among any given population, then preference should be shown to those who have paid in proportionally more than then guy/gal behind them. But I've never looked into unemployment so I honestly don't know how it works. Edited April 3, 2009 by yo mama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 What's next, a piss test to get your social security check? This stinks of a knee jerk reaction by people connected to the prison industry afraid that their going to lose a major portion of their business if Josh Gordon is legalized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 This has got to be the most ironic thing I've ever seen. Telling a company what they can and can't do when we give them bailout money = Have to agree here! Unconstitutional! Communism! Government control!! Telling your citizens what they can and can't do to take welfare money = Great idea! I see no problem with this! Good idea! What country do you people live in that corporations have rights to freedom that exceed those granted to people? Atomic... I tend to agree with you more often than not on issues, but I am not quite following you here. Firstly - I am a head. I think its outrageous that herb is illegal. Just wanted to get that out up front. With that said... do you honestly believe that this is a bad idea or are you just pointing out hypocracy on the right? I ask because as much as a head as I am - I wouldn't be buying if I didn't have a job. I also wouldn't be smoking if I didn't have a job as it would close a lot of doors for me. With that said - I don't have any problem with asking people to check their priorities... If you want aid - you best not be spending money on herb. If you want aid - you best be giving yourself the best chance to get a job. I'd ask that the tests not be random but rather once every 4-6 weeks as anything smoked in that time should still be in the system. I'd also add that anybody that pees positive could recieve invest one day a week towards counciling and community service and still recieve their benefits (for a time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Atomic... I tend to agree with you more often than not on issues, but I am not quite following you here. Firstly - I am a head. I think its outrageous that herb is illegal. Just wanted to get that out up front. With that said... do you honestly believe that this is a bad idea or are you just pointing out hypocracy on the right? I ask because as much as a head as I am - I wouldn't be buying if I didn't have a job. I also wouldn't be smoking if I didn't have a job as it would close a lot of doors for me. With that said - I don't have any problem with asking people to check their priorities... If you want aid - you best not be spending money on herb. If you want aid - you best be giving yourself the best chance to get a job. I'd ask that the tests not be random but rather once every 4-6 weeks as anything smoked in that time should still be in the system. I'd also add that anybody that pees positive could recieve invest one day a week towards counciling and community service and still recieve their benefits (for a time). I think it's truly hypocritical of the right to say government doesn't have the right to tell businesses what to do, but it does have the right to tell citizens what to do as a condition of receiving money. And I think that the government deciding to drug test the poor part of it's citizens for receiving money is discriminatory. You, Duchess, receive money and benefits from the federal government. Should we drug test you too? You can't get the child income tax credit if you fail a drug test. You can't get a drivers license if you fail a drug test. Did we drug test GM executives? Bank executives? Why not??? Why are they less suspicious in this regard than the poor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I heard food stamps recipients were getting a 13% increase. When is the last time you got a 13% raise...especially under this new economy? Good f'n luck with that. When was the last time food stamp benefits were increased? Have you ever gone 10 years without a raise? After that 10 years would 13% be unreasonably high? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I think it's truly hypocritical of the right to say government doesn't have the right to tell businesses what to do, but it does have the right to tell citizens what to do as a condition of receiving money. There is a big difference. You just don't want to recognize it. In one case you have individuals who are breaking laws, and the government is saying we aren't going to give you money unless you abide by the law. In the case of corporations, they too should be force to abide by all laws and regulations, but not subject to being ran by the government. And for the record, I say we lower everyone's taxes and not give the corporations or the individuals any money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 When was the last time food stamp benefits were increased? Have you ever gone 10 years without a raise? After that 10 years would 13% be unreasonably high? Uhh, aren't food stamps supposed to be a temporary thing? If you raise them, what is the incentive to get off them and support yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 This has got to be the most ironic thing I've ever seen. Telling a company what they can and can't do when we give them bailout money = Have to agree here! Unconstitutional! Communism! Government control!! Telling your citizens what they can and can't do to take welfare money = Great idea! I see no problem with this! Good idea! What country do you people live in that corporations have rights to freedom that exceed those granted to people? America is no longer for Americans. It's for the Top 1%. Gotta squeeze those workers for everything they have while the big wigs rake in all the money. Do CEOs take random drug tests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Wouldn't it simply be cheaper to kill anyone on welfare or food stamps? I heard food stamps recipients were getting a 13% increase. When is the last time you got a 13% raise...especially under this new economy? Good f'n luck with that. Ridiculous why we don't kill the poor in this country. The poor are called the poor because they have no money. Now we can take your idea and put it to work killing the Top 1%. Now that would create some revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 America is no longer for Americans. It's for the Top 1%. Gotta squeeze those workers for everything they have while the big wigs rake in all the money. Do CEOs take random drug tests? Our company does random testing, and I've been tested this year. How is drug testing squeezing workers? Or is this just more socialist tripe from you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 The poor are called the poor because they have no money. Now we can take your idea and put it to work killing the Top 1%. Now that would create some revenue. The envy is strong with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts