I Wear Pants;384363 wrote:Center, you missed the whole point of his post.

Maybe I did, but I'm not thinking so.

How do you think I missed it?

Belly35;384376 wrote:Those of us in the Private sector of this population have to adhere to laws and requirement place on our business and personal lives …….
When legal and law bidding citizen are subject to testing for employment and regulation and others that receive government benefits from our hard work and labor and are required only to take …. Them lets do away with all regulation and program that benefit the “taker of this society” Test for drug is not creating big government it will decrease the fraud, cheating and corrupt that leads to big government.

On-site testing kits can do the trick: "On-site" drug testing actually can refer to two (2) entirely different processes. One, is associated with what is called an "immediate-results onsite testing device (or 'kit')"- that is, using a device ("kit") that tests (or "screens") for one or more drugs. Ours screens for the Industry standard "NIDA-5" drugs, plus, we have others that test for those and as many as five additional drugs. Most kits provide results within 3-10 minutes, which is why they are described as "immediate results" devices.

The minute the testing program goes into effect the cost of government welfare participation will drop.

Few years ago I placed a sign on the door “new hires will be drug tested” …. 55% less application. Note: I don’t test yet………..I trust my worker and expect that same respect and dedication of they get fired.
Now if I would have said : New hires Tattoos limit to two per year ..application would have dropped to 70%

I hear what you're saying....you want people who aren't fully self-reliant and are for whatever reason, apparently in need of government assistance, that they don't take advantage of this and don't leech the system. You want them to be regulated just like hard working people like yourself. Ok. But, by all accounts, drug testing doesn't stop drug use and it seems to me that we'll just have, at least in some cases, dead beat parents who get kicked off of government assistance and then the children, who had no choice in being stuck with dead beat parents, have no food to eat, etc.

Again, I think a better approach is trying to limit the spending of government granted monies to what their purpose is...helping fellow U.S. citizens united with us Under God with the basic essentials when they're in need. If said recipient sucks a dick for a line of coke; so be it...as long as she's still using her Ohio Direction Card to properly feed and clothe her child.

Drug testing would be yet more pointless spending. It would accomplish nothing.

Belly35;384301 wrote:Why? What is the benifit to me or my business. In have a nobody look at my records I'm not asking for anything from you nor do you have nothing I want. See Thread Bomber in business the idea is to make money and to do things that will benifit the aspect of making a profit. Show and tell for no reason has no good results...
I have applied to recieve Federal / State / Local SBA Grants and Loans for research and development of our new product.
In doing so a complete personal and business accounting record where provide ....plus my personal investment for a loan to start the process of development of the new product a set of finanical records was also provide ... Clean

..........................So the bottom line is I'm dam good at hiding or they are just stupid accountants...........

You just said that you have applied for grants. That is our money. And we all know what kind of government accountants we have

derek bomar;384138 wrote:this may be the dumbest thing I've ever read...so you're saying that government encroachment into peoples lives is more likely in a Republican controlled DC?

Nice try but here's the reality that even a blind liberal can understand.

I work hard for a living and the government (local, state and Feds) takes a sizable portion of MY income and redistributes MY money to the welfare recipient. Now whether or not the government should arbitrarily confiscate MY money and give it to someone else is an argument for a different thread. I'm simply saying that if the government is giving MY money to someone else, then I should expect that government to assure me that MY money is being used for food and shelter...not crack.

See how that works?

It would just create another government bureacracy, even if it caught drug abusers it wouldn't be worth the costs and hassle. Besides, anyone that watched The Wire saw how Dennis "Cutty" Wise could just purchase clean urine.

believer;384638 wrote:Nice try but here's the reality that even a blind liberal can understand.

I work hard for a living and the government (local, state and Feds) takes a sizable portion of MY income and redistributes MY money to the welfare recipient. Now whether or not the government should arbitrarily confiscate MY money and give it to someone else is an argument for a different thread. I'm simply saying that if the government is giving MY money to someone else, then I should expect that government to assure me that MY money is being used for food and shelter...not crack.

See how that works?

There's probably better ways to do that than drug testing.


As an aside...the feds have redistributed my money to whatever it is to ensure that you have nice highways to drive on....should the feds check your car for drugs to make sure that you're not using the fruits of my dollars to traffic drugs? I realize that analogy is not one to one...but it's similar to counter-arguments from Conservatives used against expansions of government offered by Liberals. Such as, "well if people have a right to good health, why not a right to good food" etc.

believer;384638 wrote:Nice try but here's the reality that even a blind liberal can understand.

I work hard for a living and the government (local, state and Feds) takes a sizable portion of MY income and redistributes MY money to the welfare recipient. Now whether or not the government should arbitrarily confiscate MY money and give it to someone else is an argument for a different thread. I'm simply saying that if the government is giving MY money to someone else, then I should expect that government to assure me that MY money is being used for food and shelter...not crack.

See how that works?

Well MY money is being used to pay for the roads you used and MY money is being used to pay for our military to protect your freedoms. Sure you pay too but I just want to be sure that MY portion of money isn't being used to pay for roads and protection for some crack head. So I'd like it if they implemented drug testing on everyone.


This is stupid.

Yes they should be drug tested.

If they test positive then they are removed from the books... money saved. Drug tests are cheap compared to the number of people we can kick off the books. Rx drugs are heavily abused by all facets of society, welfare patients are no different. I see it every time I work, the abuse is really getting old.

I Wear Pants;384664 wrote:Well MY money is being used to pay for the roads you used and MY money is being used to pay for our military to protect your freedoms. Sure you pay too but I just want to be sure that MY portion of money isn't being used to pay for roads and protection for some crack head. So I'd like it if they implemented drug testing on everyone.


This is stupid.

Wow. I'm guessing most people that use roads (whether they are taxpayers or not) use roads for their intended purpose. It doesn't matter if the user is a crackhead or not, they aren't snorting asphalt, they are driving on roads.

Why this is even an issue is because people may be using funding for puposes other than their intended purposes, welfare is intended to support necessities for recipients. Crack isn't a necessity.

I don't think drug testing is helpful and would likely be incredibly costly which is why I don't support it, but I certainly understand why philosophically some people think it is a good idea. There is a reason why some means of welfare assitance, for example food stamps, have a built-in measure - at least to some extent - to prevent abuse.

Manhattan Buckeye;384684 wrote:Wow. I'm guessing most people that use roads (whether they are taxpayers or not) use roads for their intended purpose. It doesn't matter if the user is a crackhead or not, they aren't snorting asphalt, they are driving on roads.

Why this is even an issue is because people may be using funding for puposes other than their intended purposes, welfare is intended to support necessities for recipients. Crack isn't a necessity.

I don't think drug testing is helpful and would likely be incredibly costly which is why I don't support it, but I certainly understand why philosophically some people think it is a good idea. There is a reason why some means of welfare assitance, for example food stamps, have a built-in measure - at least to some extent - to prevent abuse.

Well, I don't suppose you're suggesting that most people on TANF use their assistance monies inappropriately are you? Seems to me that if it's unjustified to search cars for drugs because most drivers use roads to get from here to there....it ought not be justified to drug test people on government assistance, if most TANF recipients use it for its intended purpose; if we are to follow your reasoning.

^^^ most employees don't use drugs, but They are still randomly drug tested in lots of places.

BoatShoes;384656 wrote:As an aside...the feds have redistributed my money to whatever it is to ensure that you have nice highways to drive on....should the feds check your car for drugs to make sure that you're not using the fruits of my dollars to traffic drugs? I realize that analogy is not one to one...but it's similar to counter-arguments from Conservatives used against expansions of government offered by Liberals. Such as, "well if people have a right to good health, why not a right to good food" etc.

Roads, law enforcement and national defense are no issue for me. I use the roads to travel to and from work, church, school, and shopping therefore I SHOULD contribute to the cause. I also enjoy the freedom afforded me and even served 9 years in the military so other hard working Americans like us can also enjoy those freedoms.

I DO NOT, however, believe my tax dollars should go to crack heads on welfare. Sorry...there's no benefit in that to me and if the crack heads burglarize my home to pay for their crack habit should their welfare checks run dry due to drug testing, that's why I pay taxes for law enforcement.

See how that works?

BoatShoes;384706 wrote:Well, I don't suppose you're suggesting that most people on TANF use their assistance monies inappropriately are you? Seems to me that if it's unjustified to search cars for drugs because most drivers use roads to get from here to there....it ought not be justified to drug test people on government assistance, if most TANF recipients use it for its intended purpose; if we are to follow your reasoning.

Don't ALL drivers use roads to get from here to there? Look I know its a crappy time for many people with left-leaning points of view, but are you really arguing this? There is nothing IMO that's even close to being a civil rights violation to drug testing TANF recipients. The private sector does this often. I just think it isn't worth the cost.

It isn't worth the cost and it is clearly not something we should be engaging in.

And most people who receive government support use it properly. Many people largely overplay the scenario where people are living large off of welfare and food stamps. I'm sure there are abuses but many scores more people are using it just as the systems are intended. To scrape by.

Some people use cars on drugs or inappropriately. Should we drug test all car drivers?

Manhattan Buckeye;384720 wrote:Don't ALL drivers use roads to get from here to there? Look I know its a crappy time for many people with left-leaning points of view, but are you really arguing this? There is nothing IMO that's even close to being a civil rights violation to drug testing TANF recipients. The private sector does this often. I just think it isn't worth the cost.

That's fine but I was just following your reasoning. I didn't suggest it was a civil rights violation to drug test welfare queens either. For what it's worth, we're both on the same side here...but I see no reason people can't use these kinds of counter examples against arguments for the increase in federal power just because this is expansion is one desired by a Conservative like Belly. But I suppose you and I are just spinning our wheels over something silly as we both agree that even if drug testing welfare queens is philosophically justified it's not pragmatic.

believer;384715 wrote:Roads, law enforcement and national defense are no issue for me. I use the roads to travel to and from work, church, school, and shopping therefore I SHOULD contribute to the cause. I also enjoy the freedom afforded me and even served 9 years in the military so other hard working Americans like us can also enjoy those freedoms.

I DO NOT, however, believe my tax dollars should go to crack heads on welfare. Sorry...there's no benefit in that to me and if the crack heads burglarize my home to pay for their crack habit should their welfare checks run dry due to drug testing, that's why I pay taxes for law enforcement.

See how that works?

You missed the point though...It's clear you don't think TANF nor any kind of social security program should even exist. Suppose there was only roads, law enforcement and national defense. From your initial premise, that your tax dollars should not go to someone using a federal program improperly.....using a federal program for drug use is improper and we should therefore test for drug use....you should believe that you ought to get tested for drugs in order to drive on the highway. That was from your initial position....but hey, it's just a silly hypothetical.

The bottom line is....you don't think welfare should exist anyways....irregardless if the person receiving money is on crack or a bible believing, hard working but down on his luck family-values christian.

But by the way...there is a benefit to you if people are receiving subsistence from a good government...if you think a guy who uses his ohio direction card to smoke rocks is a threat to your home....I'm sure you've thought about what it be like without it haven't you; I think Hobbes had a phrase for it. Class War is just rhetoric in our world...but in the world it sounds like you want, it's happening.

Yes, Spend more money on the WAR on Drugs. It has done wonders for us so far. If people are addicted to drugs, testing them and taking away welfare money is not going to stop them from doing drugs. Instead of buying them, they will sell them, rob for them or kill for them.

I'm all for getting people who abuse the system off welfare but this idea would not work in anyway whatsoever and just cost more money on a lost cause.

^^^^

When will people realize that spending billions and billions of dollars fighting pot and other drugs not only doesn't do much of anything but waste money but it isn't a fight we should be fighting.

/me waits for the "what, do you think kids should be able to use meth?" questions

There are no good arguments for continuing the drug war.

pmoney hit the nail on the head.

BoatShoes;384753 wrote:You missed the point though...It's clear you don't think TANF nor any kind of social security program should even exist.

First, don't tell me how I think. Second, I've gone on record here and on that "other site" many, many times that with regard to Social Security that program had BETTER be around when I retire. Why? Because the government has FORCED me to contribute into it since I started to draw a paycheck when I was 15 years old back in the early 70's. That's MY money and I want it back.

BoatShoes;384753 wrote:The bottom line is....you don't think welfare should exist anyways....irregardless if the person receiving money is on crack or a bible believing, hard working but down on his luck family-values christian.

Nice underhanded play on my Christian values but it doesn't fly. I'd expect my Christian brothers and sisters to assist the downtrodden in the church through their charitable Biblical values. God asks me for 10%. The government CONFISCATES 30%. See the difference?

BoatShoes;384753 wrote:But by the way...there is a benefit to you if people are receiving subsistence from a good government...if you think a guy who uses his ohio direction card to smoke rocks is a threat to your home....I'm sure you've thought about what it be like without it haven't you; I think Hobbes had a phrase for it. Class War is just rhetoric in our world...but in the world it sounds like you want, it's happening.

Ah yes, the tried and true leftist argument of class warfare. That has never worked for me before and it certainly doesn't work now. Ready to play the race card yet?

believer;385196 wrote: Ah yes, the tried and true leftist argument of class warfare. That has never worked for me before and it certainly doesn't work now. Ready to play the race card yet?

It's already been played. (pg.2)

Basic drug tests are dirt cheap now a days, we get boxes of them for new hires at work. It's just a swab of the mouth test with a little plastic handle...mix it in the bottle of solution, and it will tell you if there is drugs present or not.


And for those talking about "using the system as it was intended"....the system was intended to be temporary, but it has become a generational way of life.

Also, SSI is the biggest scam out there. Everyone on public assistance claims their kid has some kind of learning disability so that they receive an extra check from the good old government.

I suggest simply limiting the amount of time a person can be on the public dole ---- say a total of 12 months in your life up to the age of 70. Thus, during your productive years, 18 - 70, you can tap the public roles for a maximum of 12 months. The rest of the time you need a job, or a family, or a caretaker, or a charity.

We must end the dependency cycle, and now is a good time to start.

believer;385196 wrote:First, don't tell me how I think. Second, I've gone on record here and on that "other site" many, many times that with regard to Social Security that program had BETTER be around when I retire. Why? Because the government has FORCED me to contribute into it since I started to draw a paycheck when I was 15 years old back in the early 70's. That's MY money and I want it back.



Nice underhanded play on my Christian values but it doesn't fly. I'd expect my Christian brothers and sisters to assist the downtrodden in the church through their charitable Biblical values. God asks me for 10%. The government CONFISCATES 30%. See the difference?



Ah yes, the tried and true leftist argument of class warfare. That has never worked for me before and it certainly doesn't work now. Ready to play the race card yet?

Well...so you do think TANF/Welfare should exist? Social Security, I've seen you say that you want it to be around because it's your money. But, because you're a hard-working, self-reliant conservative you would never have a need for a program like TANF/Welfare, and from I've read from you before...you don't support that because it redistributes your money to someone else. If that statement is true, your statement....it follows from your statement that it doesn't matter if the person receiving the redistributed money is a christian, a jew, a crackhead, or a hooker. Where am I wrong? You've said that you don't believe in the welfare state but you're stuck with social security and unemployment insurance so you have to keep those cus you've put money into them...I don't see where TANF falls into that. Where was I wrong? You do believe that there should be a government run welfare program?

The Government hasn't "Confiscated" anything from you without your consent through your representation in government. What you need to do is put down your NIV and read some John Locke. Why don't you just say that Republicanism has failed and that the founder's and the philosopher's they read were full of shit.

And, you say the Gubment "takes" 30%. Well, If you were helping out fellow christian brothers or maybe helping missionaries spread the good news more because of your Charitable Biblical Values; you could knock that in half because you get an opportunity to deduct up to half of your AGI. It's amazing, more closely adhering to your Christian values can keep more money out of the pockets of the feds.


And I'm sorry....but you think Karl Marx or Al Sharpton were the first one's talking about Class War; that this is some kind of new, hip, liberal phenomenon? Aristotle's Politics was written for the Aristocracy of his day to convince them that they ought to give the people power, why democracy could make a state more self-sufficient than the upper classes ruling over them. It was a rejection of Plato's idea that the people can't be trusted. It was all about classs war. The fact is that good government and the rule of law prevents the have nots from forceably taking form the haves and forming mobs and anarchy. Class war is everywhere.