Disgusted With Obama Administration.

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Disgusted With Obama Administration.
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Feb 10, 2012 11:59 AM
BGFalcons82;1082084 wrote:IWP - Can you find the cute little chart that shows how much private companies spend on drug testing? Maybe the folks knew they were going to be tested and stayed cleaner than normal? Maybe testing has effects like this that you can't measure?
I posted data, you're speculating. Find some info on those things.
Feb 10, 2012 11:59am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 10, 2012 12:02 PM
I Wear Pants;1082148 wrote:The people of Florida wasted $178 million on the tests. Not really effective.

Effective would be if the test showed a significant portion of the welfare recipients using drugs and hence being ineligible for benefits which resulted in a savings to taxpayers. That's not the case.
That was far from a waste. It kept people from using drugs...even if for a short time before their test,and it helped aid in confirming that those receiving benefits were not utilizing drugs for that period.

I don't find that a wast at all.

If the process continues and is altered to a random test the benefits are almost immeasurable.
Feb 10, 2012 12:02pm
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Feb 10, 2012 12:13 PM
Haha wow. Obviously referring to the waste of money. Wasting money testing people who dont do drugs and testing people who pass and do drugs. Not to mention the constitutionality of doing so. But not shocked that modern republicans are ok with wasteful spending as long as it fits their agenda.
Feb 10, 2012 12:13pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 10, 2012 4:12 PM
Con_Alma;1082154 wrote: If the process continues and is altered to a random test the benefits are almost immeasurable.
This is a win-win only for bureaucrats. The conservatives get to claim they are doing something and being tough on entitlements, not just giving handouts for drugs. Meanwhile the bleeding hearts will win out in that no fiscal benefit will really come from it - denial of benefits will be only temporary, or the test is so easy to beat that it's not really hurting anyone.

And - god forbid - people take the approach that these people are addicted and need help, meaning only MORE money will be funneled to these people.

This is just another microcosm of how fucking stupid our bureacrats are. Instead of BS back-and-forth about not giving benefits to drug addicts, why not just focus on not having people on benefits to begin with? I really don't care if someone smokes some pot or even does some blow as long as they get back on their feet. I don't know that the casual drug user is more lazy or less ambitious than other unemployed and so on. Just focus on getting people back on their feet and ESPECIALLY on people not going back on the tit again and again and again.

You want to spend hundreds of millions to ensure people receiving endless benefits aren't doing drugs. I say unless there is a damn good reason for it, just put a stop to the endless benefits. Because ultimately the people you are trying to target are the habitual users habitually receiving welfare & other entitlements, so just cut-off the 95% who shouldn't be on the tit into perpetuity in the first place. Problem solved, without need for any testing.
Feb 10, 2012 4:12pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 10, 2012 4:15 PM
pmoney25;1082169 wrote:Haha wow. Obviously referring to the waste of money. Wasting money testing people who dont do drugs and testing people who pass and do drugs. Not to mention the constitutionality of doing so. But not shocked that modern republicans are ok with wasteful spending as long as it fits their agenda.
This was, predictably, one of the dumber ideas I've seen. I GUARANTEE it is only a matter of time before the bleeding hearts start demanding that these people be helped with treatment so they can receive their precious handout. That will end-up costing more money than the denial of benefits saved (because then the next step is to continue benefits while they are receiving treatment), not to mention the costs of the test themselves. Massive fail from inception to end.
Feb 10, 2012 4:15pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Feb 10, 2012 4:22 PM
I Wear Pants;1082151 wrote:I posted data, you're speculating. Find some info on those things.
It's not rocket surgery to deduce that if someone happens to be using, and knows he/she will have to pass a test to get benefits, they might clean up before taking said test. I also agree with QCB...at $30 a pop, that's 6 million tests. Something ain't right with those numbers.
Feb 10, 2012 4:22pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 10, 2012 4:34 PM
fish82;1082458 wrote:It's not rocket surgery to deduce that if someone happens to be using, and knows he/she will have to pass a test to get benefits, they might clean up before taking said test. I also agree with QCB...at $30 a pop, that's 6 million tests. Something ain't right with those numbers.
Haha, don't forget all the administrative costs for the program! But, yeah, someone probably misplaced a decimal.
Feb 10, 2012 4:34pm
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Feb 10, 2012 5:29 PM
gut;1082450 wrote:This was, predictably, one of the dumber ideas I've seen. I GUARANTEE it is only a matter of time before the bleeding hearts start demanding that these people be helped with treatment so they can receive their precious handout. That will end-up costing more money than the denial of benefits saved (because then the next step is to continue benefits while they are receiving treatment), not to mention the costs of the test themselves. Massive fail from inception to end.
Predictably you jump to conclusions. I am no bleeding heart liberal.. My comment was that Modern Republicans claim fiscal conservatism but act diffetently. These tests are a waste of money and resources. I know this may sound weird but I would prefer for the govt to actually spend money wisely.

Random testing wont solve much either. I would rather have a real solution like oh I dont know getting jobs and getting off welfare.
Feb 10, 2012 5:29pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Feb 10, 2012 5:34 PM
Another question...because I'm just that intellectually curious. ;)

The graphic states that $178 Million has been spent in the past 12 months...when the law went into effect 7 months ago. What's up with that?
Feb 10, 2012 5:34pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 10, 2012 6:24 PM
pmoney25;1082515 wrote:Predictably you jump to conclusions.
Predictably, you misread what I wrote. I was agreeing with you on the waste, and commenting further that "dumb idea" would only be compounded by bleeding heart liberals diggin in to castrate what little efficiency the program has (if any). Not sure what conclusions you think I jumped to or misattributed to you....next time I remember to use the "^^^+1" for people too lazy to read.
Feb 10, 2012 6:24pm
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Feb 10, 2012 9:37 PM
gut;1082537 wrote:Predictably, you misread what I wrote. I was agreeing with you on the waste, and commenting further that "dumb idea" would only be compounded by bleeding heart liberals diggin in to castrate what little efficiency the program has (if any). Not sure what conclusions you think I jumped to or misattributed to you....next time I remember to use the "^^^+1" for people too lazy to read.
I apologize. I misread your post. I took the first part of it wrong. After reading it again, definitely see a Derp moment for me.
Feb 10, 2012 9:37pm
IggyPride00's avatar

IggyPride00

Senior Member

6,482 posts
Feb 10, 2012 10:11 PM
This thread should really read "Disgusted with the Obama Regime" because the heavy handed government gestapo tactics have really kicked up now that he is in re-election mode.

Calling it an "administration" offers it an air of credibility he doesn't deserve.
Feb 10, 2012 10:11pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 10, 2012 10:18 PM
pmoney25;1082638 wrote:I apologize. I misread your post. I took the first part of it wrong. After reading it again, definitely see a Derp moment for me.

LOL.....No harm done, I was just busting your balls.
Feb 10, 2012 10:18pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Feb 11, 2012 1:05 AM
IggyPride00;1082673 wrote:This thread should really read "Disgusted with the Obama Regime" because the heavy handed government gestapo tactics have really kicked up now that he is in re-election mode.

Calling it an "administration" offers it an air of credibility he doesn't deserve.
We'll remember that if and when a Republican ever inhabits the White House. You throw around terms such as "regime" and "socialist" like they mean nothing. Just keep in mind that you're talking about the President, who was elected by a majority of the people. To use terms such as you do shows your immaturity and total disrespect for the office. Wait a minute, what's that? Your mom is calling you to dinner. Time to log off and resume your prepubescent ways.
Feb 11, 2012 1:05am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Feb 11, 2012 1:09 AM
stlouiedipalma;1082764 wrote:We'll remember that if and when a Republican ever inhabits the White House. You throw around terms such as "regime" and "socialist" like they mean nothing. Just keep in mind that you're talking about the President, who was elected by a majority of the people. To use terms such as you do shows your immaturity and total disrespect for the office. Wait a minute, what's that? Your mom is calling you to dinner. Time to log off and resume your prepubescent ways.


He's a criminal, just like the one before him. Being elected president doesn't make him a god among men or above the law.
Feb 11, 2012 1:09am
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Feb 11, 2012 1:15 AM
And your savior, Ron Paul, will be above all this?
Feb 11, 2012 1:15am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Feb 11, 2012 1:15 AM
stlouiedipalma;1082764 wrote:We'll remember that if and when a Republican ever inhabits the White House. You throw around terms such as "regime" and "socialist" like they mean nothing. Just keep in mind that you're talking about the President, who was elected by a majority of the people. To use terms such as you do shows your immaturity and total disrespect for the office. Wait a minute, what's that? Your mom is calling you to dinner. Time to log off and resume your prepubescent ways.
Yet you have used terms such as racist and bigot to describe those that oppose the president because of his politics. Sounds like the old pot is calling the kettle black. Dinner is ready.
Feb 11, 2012 1:15am
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Feb 11, 2012 1:21 AM
majorspark;1082772 wrote:Yet you have used terms such as racist and bigot to describe those that oppose the president because of his politics. Sounds like the old pot is calling the kettle black. Dinner is ready.
Really? Please show me an example.
Feb 11, 2012 1:21am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Feb 11, 2012 1:26 AM
stlouiedipalma;1082771 wrote:And your savior, Ron Paul, will be above all this?
Do you know anything about Ron Paul? Be sure to let me know when ever supported assassinating American citizens without any due process, or rounding up Americans with the military and holding them indefinitely without due process, or handing out billions of taxpayer dollars to cronies that support his campaign, or selling guns to the Mexican drug lords so he can blame our 2nd amendment for the bloodshed on the border, or launching several new aggressive wars without even consulting with Congress, let alone getting a declaration of war from them.
Feb 11, 2012 1:26am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Feb 11, 2012 3:17 AM
stlouiedipalma;1082775 wrote:Really? Please show me an example.
I was recalling the whole birther/academic records BS. You insinuated that those questioning them were motivated by race and biggotry. I pointed out that the 9/11 truthers accused the white president Bush of something far more horrid. Both cases were clearly typical partison politics. My post was hastily made. I was not referring to any specific policy. Just general poltical division.
Feb 11, 2012 3:17am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Feb 11, 2012 1:15 PM
stlouiedipalma;1082764 wrote:To use terms such as you do shows your immaturity and total disrespect for the office. Wait a minute, what's that? Your mom is calling you to dinner.
To show disrespect for the officeholder is not showing disrespect for the office.
Feb 11, 2012 1:15pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Feb 11, 2012 1:27 PM
stlouiedipalma;1082764 wrote:We'll remember that if and when a Republican ever inhabits the White House. You throw around terms such as "regime" and "socialist" like they mean nothing. Just keep in mind that you're talking about the President, who was elected by a majority of the people. To use terms such as you do shows your immaturity and total disrespect for the office. Wait a minute, what's that? Your mom is calling you to dinner. Time to log off and resume your prepubescent ways.
You're upset about the term, "regime"? Here's a link to a webpage with a video of many Democrats talking about the Bush "Regime" - http://newsbusters.org/?q=blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/04/12/video-liberals-msnbc-loved-using-term-bush-regime

Here's a listing of even more Bush-loathers using the term - http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/197376/matthews-and-regime-change-contd/jonah-goldberg

If you Google, "Bush Regime", you'll get over 10,000,000 links, so it's not just a few one-offs, now is it?

What's the matter...the shoe from the other foot not fitting as well as you'd like it?
Feb 11, 2012 1:27pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Feb 11, 2012 2:19 PM
BGFalcons82;1082943 wrote:What's the matter...the shoe from the other foot not fitting as well as you'd like it?
When are you going to learn that only liberals are allowed to get away with being hypocrites? ;)
Feb 11, 2012 2:19pm