I should have known! Can't believe I missed it. Seriously, welcome back. Everyone who agrees with him sees the light and is brilliant, everyone who disagrees is an idiot/commie/pinko/liberal/whatever. The good ol days.
Drug testing for benefits in Tennessee yields only 65 positives
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
I should have known! Can't believe I missed it. Seriously, welcome back. Everyone who agrees with him sees the light and is brilliant, everyone who disagrees is an idiot/commie/pinko/liberal/whatever. The good ol days.
I'm against the drug testing, but your compassion isn't valid.
I'd be for welfare to consist of providing food and clothing directly with no cash benefits.
Which would likely be more expensive. As is the real question in all of this: How much more are we willing to spend to do it "our way", which is always some way that doesn't involve handing over money? What other types of programs, that might cost more up front (like education, training), are we willing to do? The answer to the latter is almost none, anything that involves spending up front scares the shit out of politicians and their voters, even if demonstrated to lessen overall costs.
All for drug testing - I have to be willing to do so either in the military or at my civilian job. Why the heck wouldn't it be required for those sucking on the teet?!
I'm against it for job requirements as well, though private companies should be able to if they want.
I'm for it - why should someone with an addiction that can adversely affect not only their job by mine as well, be allowed\afforded the same as someone that doesn't have an addiction?
Get them help, train them in a skill.. "Teach a man to fish vs giving him a fish..."
And it would pretty much involve testing every citizen of the United States who benefits from government programs, which is every one of us. Oh, and Vroom, if you're going to insult people who receive government assistance you should really learn how to spell "teat." I guess I can see how you might be resentful, as you apparently didn't take very good advantage of the public educational opportunities the government provided for you.
Use does not equal addiction.
I don't have a problem with testing for drug use while on the job, if it could adversely affect performance or more importantly cause a safety issue.
However, one using drugs on their own time does not mean that they are addicted, or that it will adversely affect their work.
If you are using tax payer money to support your habit - its wrong and should be stopped. Welfare, etc is not meant to support a drug purchase (addiction or not).
Plenty of ways to get around that. I don't understand why drug testing isn't a requirement everywhere for welfare. And while we are at it, it should be required for any executives of companies with any kind of government contract as well as recipients of subsidies.
Before the 40 hour work week, many laborers were required to work 12 days, 6 days a week, if they had two shifts. If only one shift was used, the days could be longer and many workers often worked 7 days per week. But the thought behind the 40 hour work week was to break the 2 shifts into 3 and give workers a whole weekend off.
You can't say these CNAs are dumb if they figure out they're going to get more money working part-time plus assistance, and also probably not having baby sitting problems (though possibly that is free or govt helped). CNAs are notoriously low paid, however, so I suppose there has to be some reason as you say it is a job in high demand.
Except that in these circumstances the results of the tests are not being used for prosecution.
Oh, I've seen the way around it. Ive been approached by people willing to buy me $150 dollars worth of food for $100 cash. Giving them food directly would get rid of that.
As far as working people are concerned, I couldn't care less about what drugs they do at home as long as they do a good job. Drugs do not inherently make people bad employees. You shouldn't get your drug knowledge from watching Reefer Madness.
Well, that certainly could be a requirement that is included in such contracts. However, there is a substantial distinction. The companies with government contracts are not getting transfer payments, but instead, are providing a valuable service for which they are presumably receiving fair, market based compensation. Thus, it is a bilateral deal in which both sides are getting fair consideration. What would be the point of drug testing? If drug use were preventing the company from providing the contracted service, then the government would not pay, and terminate the contract.
Joel seems like one of those "I know more than my boss" types. Maybe he's just coming across wrong, at least I hope so.
didn't know receiving welfare benefits was a constitutional right. i tell you what, you dont want your rights violated by an unconstitutional drug test, then start making your own way in this world.
While it is anecdotal, I have 15 years of experience in working as a contractor, tons of it for the government. In my ample and very well qualified experience, the government would be screwed if it actually disqualified all drug users. In nearly every case, they do actually require drug tests for anyone that actually works on site, or is a principle participant in a project.
1. I never said CNA's are dumb. Watch yourself.
2. Yes, babysitting is also paid for in most cases.
3. CNA's are not notoriously low paid. They make good money. The pay is not the reason the job is in high demand.
Do you think you know what you are talking about?
[
There isn't. But there is a 4th Amendment right to be free of suspicionless searches and the government generally can't condition the recieipt of benefits on waiving your constitutional rights - in this case your 4th Amendment rights.
There isn't. But there is a 4th Amendment right to be free of suspicionless searches and the government generally can't condition the recieipt of benefits on waiving your constitutional rights - in this case your 4th Amendment rights.
Providing food and clothing to people would require having people who provide those things, as opposed to automatically placing it in things like EBT accounts, but food would have to be specifically determined by person, and more so for clothing, determining size, attire, necessity, etc.
Unless you are planning on giving a gift box of vegetables and a pair of jeans every single month?
There is rarely anything cheaper than literally handing people money. Also, many people ignore the impact that this money has on local economy, I would guess equal to or more than equivalent numbers of middle class, who can/will do their shopping non-locally. EBT is great for farmers markets and the like.
I've heard at least one poster on here preach the idea of a government-run type of farmers marker to ensure healthy choices of food, which I think is a good idea, but would definitely be more expensive. I fail to see any ways it would be cheaper. I guess you could pay the producers directly, but that would just be a different way of shifting the money.
We should make them quarter soldiers for free, sew their mouths shut, and pelt them with rocks when they try to pay.
Also, I always love the underlying thought that accompanies thought processes like dirtyglass': If we stop the flow of money to poor people (or lazy, or leeches, whatever you want to call them), they will definitely obtain jobs and improve their status.
Seriously, that is what you believe? Either that or you believe they will somehow end their own lives without causing any disturbance on the public and not costing any other taxpayer money (courts, prison, hospitals, etc.).
Seriously, that is what you believe? Either that or you believe they will somehow end their own lives without causing any disturbance on the public and not costing any other taxpayer money (courts, prison, hospitals, etc.).
Charities already exist that the government could work with. I would certainly have private industries and charities managing it with the use of public funds in addition to charitable ones.
You are right,my at the government is incredibly inefficient, but Inwouldnt have the government in charge.
You underestimated how adaptable people are. While there are exceptions, most can and will either adapt to their circumstances or rise up out of them. The easier you make it to adapt to being poor, the less people who will take action to rise above it.
How about I would rather see assistance go to people who actually try to make it on their own but still have a hard time making ends meet rather than hand everything over to people who turn down opportunities or just refuse to earn their keep because they will lose their handouts if they take opportunities to better their situation (as the situations listed earlier in this thread regarding the poster who said that somebody refused a full time position because they would make too much). I would rather see assistance go towards people like that, than go to people who simply refuse to work (or work as little as possible) so they can get "free" money.
Why do you want to hand over all this money without any strings attached? I assume that is what you are saying because it seems to be an outrageous concept to you that people should be clean if they are receiving taxpayer money. is it an outrageous concept for you to be drug tested before someone is offered a job? Hell, I guess I can go smoke some weed (should be legal anyway), lines of coke or do some meth and let the gubment hand me some money.
This attitude is why the left is so incredibly institutionally racist as well. How can you fundamentally believe certain people just don't have the capability to do something.
Simple question, tIH, do you have any children? If so, do you raise them to learn responsibility and make proper choices or do you just give them everything they want/need?
it's glorious how people do not want government intrusion in their lives unless it results in the government handing them money and benefits
So "job expertise" plays second fiddle to willingness to burn oneself out as far as pay, bonuses and salary in management's eye? Interesting perspective 22....
If you die before you retire, look at how that benefits Social Security! You management types are friggin' genius!
And I find it amazing that people have no problem requiring the poorest of the poor to waive their constitutional rights for $160 a month, but don't apply that same thought process to corporations and individuals who receive millions in corporate welfare.
I think it's a pretty dead on balls accurate comparison. (It's an industry term). But since you disagree, please explain why.
I already have in a prior post. What you call "corporate welfare" is generally no such thing, and is not a direct transfer payment. With government contracts, there is payment for a good or service provided. They are not comparable, and moreover, there is not the same rationale. Specifically, the government has an interest in checking to see whether welfare recipients are doing things that harm their ability to get off of public assistance. Thus, drug testing is beneficial to the recipients.
1. So if it's beneficial to the person, constitutional rights are optional? That's an interesting standard.
2. Where do you come up with the notion that there is no such thing as corporate welfare?
Which section of history are you pointing at to demonstrate this? Ancient Rome where much of the people were fed by the government out of understood necessity? Dark Ages where kings did the same? The United States at any point in history? Asian nations?
You are trying to paint the picture that most people, when "cut off the government teat" would simply "adapt" and "rise up", and that the exceptions might not, when I think history has shown that the rising up is the exception.
I get it, it is a fundamental liberal/conservative divide. Conservatives usually believe that people will pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make something of themselves, and anybody who doesn't didn't have what it took to survive anyways, while liberals are usually of the opinion that most people are objects of circumstance and changing those circumstances can lead to future improvement. There are those from both sides pragmatic enough to understand the idea of spending money now to save money later in various other forms, and welfare is one of those big ones.
I'm not sure either side has proven any point over the last century other than that none of us really want to pay for other people, but are willing to take it for ourselves (usually because we are different than them, somehow).
You are refusing to take your logic the next, necessary step. Drug testing is to their benefit if it stops the drug use. How is it to their benefit if it removes the assistance?
What are you offering to "benefit" those? You can't claim it be beneficial if only to those it might not actually affect. That is like saying "testifying against yourself is beneficial, because you get to tell your story," as some sort of argument in favor of ignoring everyone's fifth amendment.
Similar threads
