The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on June 16, 2010, 01:57:02 PM
-
babsbunny (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-16-10 02:46 PM
Original message
Senator aims to force unemployed to take drug tests
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0616/senator-unemployed-fac... /
By John Byrne
Wednesday, June 16th, 2010 -- 10:01 am
Though the Clinton Administration passed a law years ago allowing states to test welfare recipients for drug abuse, one Republican senator wants to go farther: require drug tests of anyone who applies for government assistance.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) offered an amendment Tuesday that would require drug tests for those who seek welfare and unemployment benefits. States have the authority to enact drug testing requirements for their welfare programs under the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, but they are not mandated to conduct tests under current law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8572183
Oregone (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-16-10 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hm
I couldn't pass one with a job...sure as hell couldn't pass one unemployed.
What business is it of the governments what I do with all my unemployed free time?
It's new.
-
What business is it of the governments what I do with all my unemployed free time?
It's an old expression, but a good one--"You take the king's coin, you do the king's bidding."
-
I agree with Hatch on this.
-
I agree with Hatch on this.
I think almost all of us do on this board.
-
Oregone (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-16-10 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hm
I couldn't pass one with a job...sure as hell couldn't pass one unemployed.
What business is it of the governments what I do with all my unemployed free time?
Uh, aren't ya 'sposed to be at least "lookin'" for a job, asshat?
Heaven forbid ya get your worthless ass off the couch and put down the doobie! Sheesh, how dare they ask ya to do somethin'!
-
Oregone (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-16-10 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hm
I couldn't pass one with a job...sure as hell couldn't pass one unemployed.
What business is it of the governments what I do with all my unemployed free time?
Why does Oregoner care? I thought he skipped out to Canada a year or 2 ago . . .
-
I've pushed this idea for over twenty years.
-
Oregone (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-16-10 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hm
I couldn't pass one with a job...sure as hell couldn't pass one unemployed.
What business is it of the governments what I do with all my unemployed free time?
I have to say I'm feeling like a hypocrite here, Oregone's post ticks me off, if the Government is giving you OUR money then we have a right to expect you to do the right thing with that money, and buying drugs with that money isn't the right thing. I'm feeling like a hypocrite because I posted in another thread that I buy cigarettes for the homeless people and give them a couple of dollars even though I know they're going to buy alcohol with it, so why am I ticked at 1 instance but not the other instance?
-
I've pushed this idea for over twenty years.
You and me both buddy, you and me both.
-
I have to say I'm feeling like a hypocrite here, Oregone's post ticks me off, if the Government is giving you OUR money then we have a right to expect you to do the right thing with that money, and buying drugs with that money isn't the right thing. I'm feeling like a hypocrite because I posted in another thread that I buy cigarettes for the homeless people and give them a couple of dollars even though I know they're going to buy alcohol with it, so why am I ticked at 1 instance but not the other instance?
Because you have the right to do whatever you want with your money, as you earned it. Oregoner didn't earn a dang thing, so he has no say.
-
Oregone (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-16-10 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hm
I couldn't pass one with a job...sure as hell couldn't pass one unemployed.
What business is it of the governments what I do with all my unemployed free time?
It is like this brainiac moonbat - you can pour molten lead in your ears, drink Drano, and snort used cat litter all you want. *IF* however you are a parasite on the backs of the TAXPAYER and can find the resources to fund your weed-feed, you can fund your own food-feed.
-
Because you have the right to do whatever you want with your money, as you earned it. Oregoner didn't earn a dang thing, so he has no say.
True, it's not like I think it's right for the Government to do that.
-
many people can lose their jobs for what they do on their own time. Employers often expect you to represent their values... and if you don't, then you should find new employment.
Now, in this case it's a catch-22. Because someone sitting at home smoking dope on the public dole due to nothing but refusal to take responbility... well... that's kind of inline with this goverment's values... So in that sense, I can get the complaint.
Personally, I like to think that those on welfare work for me. I'm helping foot the bill, afterall. So I'd like them to represent my values... and I have a very simple way to make that happen.
Anyone on Welfare works 3 days a week, 12 hours days, doing the jobs that even Steve Roe won't try on his show. Picking up cigarrette butts on the street, cleaning ditches, doing my dishes and starching my shirt collars. THEN they attend school 4 hours a night after their shift.
Three days during the week, they "babysit" another welfare recipients offspring while he/she works and goes to school.
They get Sunday off.
Everybody wins.
-
I have to say I'm feeling like a hypocrite here, Oregone's post ticks me off, if the Government is giving you OUR money then we have a right to expect you to do the right thing with that money, and buying drugs with that money isn't the right thing. I'm feeling like a hypocrite because I posted in another thread that I buy cigarettes for the homeless people and give them a couple of dollars even though I know they're going to buy alcohol with it, so why am I ticked at 1 instance but not the other instance?
You are NOT being hypocritical at all.
You are giving of your own free will AFTER the government extorts taxes from you so the Red Diaper Doper Baby can sit on his parasitic ass, smoke weed, and eat munchies all day.
-
many people can lose their jobs for what they do on their own time. Employers often expect you to represent their values... and if you don't, then you should find new employment.
Now, in this case it's a catch-22. Because someone sitting at home smoking dope on the public dole due to nothing but refusal to take responbility... well... that's kind of inline with this goverment's values... So in that sense, I can get the complaint.
Personally, I like to think that those on welfare work for me. I'm helping foot the bill, afterall. So I'd like them to represent my values... and I have a very simple way to make that happen.
Anyone on Welfare works 3 days a week, 12 hours days, doing the jobs that even Steve Roe won't try on his show. Picking up cigarrette butts on the street, cleaning ditches, doing my dishes and starching my shirt collars. THEN they attend school 4 hours a night after their shift.
Three days during the week, they "babysit" another welfare recipients offspring while he/she works and goes to school.
They get Sunday off.
Everybody wins.
I agree with you completely, with one minor exception. It is Mike Rowe, not Steve Roe.
That is all. :cheersmate:
-
I agree with you completely, with one minor exception. It is Mike Rowe, not Steve Roe.
That is all. :cheersmate:
No CLUE where I got Steve Roe from. soooooo close to a profound and entertaining point... yet so far..... :thatsright:
-
I have to say I'm feeling like a hypocrite here, Oregone's post ticks me off, if the Government is giving you OUR money then we have a right to expect you to do the right thing with that money, and buying drugs with that money isn't the right thing. I'm feeling like a hypocrite because I posted in another thread that I buy cigarettes for the homeless people and give them a couple of dollars even though I know they're going to buy alcohol with it, so why am I ticked at 1 instance but not the other instance?
I agree with the others above - what you are doing is charitable, and your own decision as to how to spend your money. The other involves the government spending our tax dollars for us.
-
Last time this came up I said this, if I have to piss in a cup (or give a hair sample) in order to receive my paycheck they can do the same damn thing.
-
Last time this came up I said this, if I have to piss in a cup (or give a hair sample) in order to receive my paycheck they can do the same damn thing.
Most employers require a drug test before being hired. Every welfare form should come with it's own little cup.
-
It's bad enough that Uncle Sam rips off those that work without the work-less using OUR money on drugs. Just look at the harm drug trafficking has done our country...and Mexico! To have that done with money that was stolen from taxpayers is a double blow.
-
I agree with the others above - what you are doing is charitable, and your own decision as to how to spend your money. The other involves the government spending our tax dollars for us.
There are times that "piling on" is done in a bad sense. I'm "piling on" in a good sense. I fully agree with Miskie and the others who agree with you.
-
But what is the cost of this drug testing for the unemployed? And who pays for it? Is the cost of drug testing the unemployed worth it? What is the societal gain?
These are the first thoughts that came to mind as I have never really thought of this and on it's face I oppose it. Interesting though.
-
But what is the cost of this drug testing for the unemployed? And who pays for it? Is the cost of drug testing the unemployed worth it? What is the societal gain?
These are the first thoughts that came to mind as I have never really thought of this and on it's face I oppose it. Interesting though.
The number of people dropped from welfare rolls will cover the cost of the tests.
-
But what is the cost of this drug testing for the unemployed? And who pays for it? Is the cost of drug testing the unemployed worth it? What is the societal gain?
These are the first thoughts that came to mind as I have never really thought of this and on it's face I oppose it. Interesting though.
Considering the number that would lose benefits for failing drug tests, it can just be added on to the already massive expense of government. We'd come out ahead, in the end. Of course, that'll just give our government more incentive to waste money in another area...but at least taxpayer dollars wouldn't be funding the violence on the Mexican border and supporting criminals.
-
The number of people dropped from welfare rolls will cover the cost of the tests.
If you can afford drugs, you don't need welfare.
Call it fraud prevention. Well worth the investment.
-
I'm on unemployment right now (hopefully not too much longer if the job I applied for last week comes through...looking like it's a good possibility) and I would have no problem with this. The again I'm not a drug addled fool like most of the morons at DU so I can understand why they'd be against it.
-
I have been on unemployment myself, and when I was, I wouldn't have a problem with it either. I have to take a drug test randomly at work, why would I object to taking one when I was not working?
-
To get Unemployment, one is supposed to be ready and willing to take a job. Considering how many employers require drug tests, doing drugs would prevent them from becoming employed, and should be an absolute barrier. Not to mention, they are using government money to purchase something that that same government has outlawed. Absolutely they should be drug tested.
-
I see ..... I seeeee .. more alcoholics . You cant social engineer losers into something they are not .
There is a guy that walks by my store window every two hours , every day , to fetch another quart of beer . We have yet to track his movements with a bingo marker and an hourly chart , but the thought has occurred to me . I am just too damned busy bailing to bother with play . But when I am outside, I do encourage him to pick up the pace , lest he be late for WORK . He just grins . What a pot full of money that must cost .
-
I'm all for drug testing ANYONE AND EVERYONE who applies for any type of government assistant.
-
I'm all for drug testing ANYONE AND EVERYONE who applies for any type of government assistant.
I'd extend that to anyone that receives any form of money from the government. Including elected officials, contractors, all staff and so forth.
-
That's fine with me too.
-
To get Unemployment, one is supposed to be ready and willing to take a job. Considering how many employers require drug tests, doing drugs would prevent them from becoming employed, and should be an absolute barrier. Not to mention, they are using government money to purchase something that that same government has outlawed. Absolutely they should be drug tested.
At the very least, if the reason you are not hired is because you failed a drug test, then you should lose your unemployment the same day!
That would eliminate the fed from having to fund it! Win, win!
-
I once knew a man that was desperate to get custody of his daughter. For a while, I was in total sympathy with him...he seemed to be so upset at losing custody. Then he started drinking - again - and spent a good hour ranting about the fact that he'd never have to work again, and could drink all he wanted, if the state would just give him his kid and his welfare benefits back.
Needless to say, I was a lot less sympathetic after that. In fact, as I recall it, the next time he brought it up when he was sober, I was down right rude. :bird:
-
I once knew a man that was desperate to get custody of his daughter. For a while, I was in total sympathy with him...he seemed to be so upset at losing custody. Then he started drinking - again - and spent a good hour ranting about the fact that he'd never have to work again, and could drink all he wanted, if the state would just give him his kid and his welfare benefits back.
Needless to say, I was a lot less sympathetic after that. In fact, as I recall it, the next time he brought it up when he was sober, I was down right rude. :bird:
Completely understandable. I probably would have done the same. :hi5:
-
Completely understandable. I probably would have done the same. :hi5:
The system screws a lot of things up, but sometimes they get it right.
-
I see ..... I seeeee .. more alcoholics . You cant social engineer losers into something they are not .
That may be true but by the same token, the taxpayer cannot be burdened with funding an immoral loser's drug habit. Besides, losers like you STEAL funding/taxpayer support from those that really and honestly need it - like children.
-
Hell, to deliver the mail, I ended up getting tested for something on the order of 26 different illegal drugs and commonly abused prescription drugs. took me all of a few minutes to pee in a cup, and then wait for the lab technician to pour it into a testing vessel with markers for all the different drugs pre-affixed and ready to go.
I get government money (well - I get paid by postage.. the P.O. gets nothing from taxes, but close enough) so I got tested. no big deal.
-
Hell, to deliver the mail, I ended up getting tested for something on the order of 26 different illegal drugs and commonly abused prescription drugs. took me all of a few minutes to pee in a cup, and then wait for the lab technician to pour it into a testing vessel with markers for all the different drugs pre-affixed and ready to go.
I get government money (well - I get paid by postage.. the P.O. gets nothing from taxes, but close enough) so I got tested. no big deal.
Yeah, we have random tests where I work, also.
-
Yeah, we have random tests where I work, also.
We get tested if we get hurt so Workers Comp can screw us if we fail and if we run into something, damaging it so they can fire us if we fail.
-
We get tested if we get hurt so Workers Comp can screw us if we fail and if we run into something, damaging it so they can fire us if we fail.
DOT Randoms here. I could get canned if I took anything that wasn't prescribed to me.
-
If you look in the Want Ads you will see that the majority of opportunities, (as scarce as they are), are requiring pre-employment drug tests.
Personally I feel that it is an affront to my civil liberties but you can either have your pride and starve or piss in a cup and feed your family.
-
If you look in the Want Ads you will see that the majority of opportunities, (as scarce as they are), are requiring pre-employment drug tests.
Personally I feel that it is an affront to my civil liberties but you can either have your pride and starve or piss in a cup and feed your family.
Again, where do your "civil liberties" come into play? That libertarian mindset bullshit works both ways. BTW--if people are using food stamps or their EBT to obtain cash and drugs, would you not agree that the government has a right, if not an OBLIGATION to the taxpayer to 1--remove that person from the dole, or 2--ensure ONLY foodstuffs and BASIC necessities (clothing and shelter) are purchased with said welfare?
It's not an either-or. You can still have your "pride" and still piss in a cup to feed your family. I do it as a condition of my employment on a random basis. So do a lot of other folks here. Please try to remember that.
-
It will be easier to remember when every member of Congress, the Executive and Judicial branch have unannounced random drug tests. And lets make sure that state and local government politicians and employees are also tested.
-
It will be easier to remember when every member of Congress, the Executive and Judicial branch have unannounced random drug tests. And lets make sure that state and local government politicians and employees are also tested.
Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with it if they have security clearances or otherwise handle sensitive information. I've been subject to random urinalysis by EVERY employer I've had (government or civilian) since the age of 17. Nature of the beast.
Bottom line, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
-
Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with it if they have security clearances or otherwise handle sensitive information. I've been subject to random urinalysis by EVERY employer I've had (government or civilian) since the age of 17. Nature of the beast.
Bottom line, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
And if you choose to do the crime you'd best find a legit way to support yourself.
-
It will be easier to remember when every member of Congress, the Executive and Judicial branch have unannounced random drug tests. And lets make sure that state and local government politicians and employees are also tested.
I'd be totally in favor of that. Given some of the stuff they pull, I wouldn't doubt that half our government is high most of the time. :thatsright:
-
I'd be totally in favor of that. Given some of the stuff they pull, I wouldn't doubt that half our government is high most of the time. :thatsright:
I'd also add that they have to blow into a breathalyzer before they vote. Especially after they come back from lunch.
-
It will be easier to remember when every member of Congress, the Executive and Judicial branch have unannounced random drug tests. And lets make sure that state and local government politicians and employees are also tested.
To make it sweeter for our esteemed bureaucrats, IF you test positive, you get ONE chance at rehab, counseling, whatever, to clean up your act. ONE CHANCE!
Blow the second test, YOU ARE REMOVED FROM OFFICE! No paycheck, no pension, no appeal, just GET THE HELL OUT! :loser:
As an extra added bonus, any and all legislation that they sponsored the previous 12 months WILL BE NULLIFIED, regardless if it was passed or not!
No Kennedys (or their relatives) will be allowed in the chambers for a vote if said vote happens after the lunch recess, unless they can blow a BAC of <.01%, and haven't had a traffic offense in the last 6 months....
-
Hate to bust your balls, but there's a lot of people in sensitive positions who can't meet that criteria.
I'm okay with members of Congress undergoing random urinalysis and breathalyzer as well as any of their staffers who handle classified information (and some already do), but you can't just "undo" a law.
-
Hate to bust your balls, but there's a lot of people in sensitive positions who can't meet that criteria.
I'm okay with members of Congress undergoing random urinalysis and breathalyzer as well as any of their staffers who handle classified information (and some already do), but you can't just "undo" a law.
Yer right! Can you imagine the cluster**** that could start? All of the laws on the books being repealed?
........Oh wait, that could be a good thing, like say healthcare, Tarp, Fannie and Freddie, the list could be endless!
I'm a firm believer in giving the congress critters more vacations! If they're not there they can, screw us!
-
If they had to stop and blow every time they voted , at least it would be funny .
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG6X-xtVask&NR=1[/youtube]
-
I have a better Idea. Make them take a drug test and make them pay TAXES on what they earn too. That way they can find out what its like to be us.