Drug-test welfare recipients? OK, but no reason to stop there
From The Athens Banner-Herald:
Two Georgia lawmakers want to drug-test welfare recipients, a controversial policy that’s been struck down as unconstitutional in other states.
Rep. Jason Spencer, R-Woodbine, and Sen. John Albers, R-Roswell, said Thursday they plan to introduce legislation to require people to pass a drug test to qualify for cash welfare.
“Georgia taxpayers have a vested interest in making sure that their hard-earned tax dollars are not being used to subsidize drug addiction,” Spencer said in a news release. “In these tough economic times, it is easy to understand that many deserving families need some temporary help until they can bounce back financially — that’s why we have public assistance programs like TANF. This additional eligibility requirement will simply ensure that those funds are used for that intended purpose.”
TANF is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a federal program that pays cash to the poor for up to five years over their lifetimes. About 50,000 people receive it in Georgia, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.”
Personally, I think that’s a waste of taxpayer resources — drug-testing 50,000 people on a recurring basis is not going to be cheap. And as the story suggests, a program that forces citizens to submit to a search of their bodies as a condition of receiving a government benefit, with no probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, also raises significant constitutional issues.
But hey, if that’s the way they end up going, let’s at least make sure it’s done right and equitably.
Every CEO who seeks economic-development assistance from a state or local government also ought to be drug tested, because as Spencer puts it “Georgia taxpayers have a vested interest in making sure that their hard-earned tax dollars are not being used to subsidize drug addiction.”
I mean, why put tens of millions of dollars of tax dollars into the hands of a CEO who is high on cocaine, pot or some other intoxicant? (And please, don’t try to tell me it doesn’t happen, because this and this and this and this argue otherwise.)
In addition, every student who applies for a HOPE scholarship also ought to be drug-tested, again to protect the vested interests of Georgia taxpayers. Why waste precious state scholarship dollars on weed-besotted students, right? And of course, running backs at UGA apparently need those tests weekly, certainly before every SEC game. (I will presume that I do not need to provide links to document drug use among college-age students, correct?)
Again, as Spencer says, “This additional eligibility requirement will simply ensure that those (scholarship) funds are used for that intended purpose” and not to subsidize four years of partying.
If Spencer and Albers would not agree to these friendly amendments, I’d like to hear their rationale for it. I’d want to hear their reasoning for targeting only TANF recipients, but not recipients of other forms of state assistance in amounts that far exceed the average TANF check of $225 a month.
Because without that convincing rationale, this might be mistaken for a class-based effort to gain political popularity by bashing and stereotyping poor people. And Lord knows Georgia politicians would never indulge in something that crass, correct?
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
446 comments Add your comment
Armed Liberal
November 4th, 2011
8:19 am
How about a civics exam for all elected officials. If they fail, you just test the next highest vote getter and so on until you get a real winner.
I’m guessing it’d dump about 60% of the GA from both sides of the aisles as well as the Lt. G and the other minor statewide elected fools…
Test ‘em all, dammit.
jt
November 4th, 2011
8:20 am
A nation of pee-sniffers.
.
I weep.
Jay
November 4th, 2011
8:22 am
We can agree on that one, jt.
stands for decibels
November 4th, 2011
8:22 am
a class-based effort to gain political popularity by bashing and stereotyping poor people.
Yep. It’s what they do for a living. And on a certain level, to complain about such things is a bit like complaining about Albert Pujols hitting home runs or Aaron Rodgers throwing passes.
Paul
November 4th, 2011
8:28 am
‘class-based effort to gain political popularity”?
republican class warfare? naaah.
I wonder about the voters who reelect representatives of limited intelligence.
Gale
November 4th, 2011
8:29 am
Better idea, and just as dumb, btw, don’t let anyone on public assistance vote. Guess what they vote for?
Normal
November 4th, 2011
8:31 am
Sure does sound like Spencer and Albers are advocating for smaller government, doesn’t it?
Jay
November 4th, 2011
8:32 am
So Gale, that would mean most of Wall Street, most bank employees, most farmers, a lot of oil-company employees, etc. also would not be able to vote, because of all the taxpayer support their industries have received, correct?
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:32 am
Jay – I have one thing to say about today’s column.
SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-LUTE!
well said. take the rest of the day off.
Paul
November 4th, 2011
8:32 am
Gale
You’re talking about those CEOs, right?
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:33 am
Normal – now, is it me?
or didn’t the GOP motto use to be “get government out of our personal lives”???
ah, yes, I remember those days …
Jay
November 4th, 2011
8:34 am
Paul, the problem with our representatives is that they are all too representative.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
November 4th, 2011
8:34 am
Jay, add to that the drug testing of every state legislator and member of the executive branch. It sure seems that there are a lot of drugs being used when some of these guys are writing these bills.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:34 am
So, does this mean that the GOP has…. DRUG ENVY???
Normal
November 4th, 2011
8:35 am
I bet that one or both of them have stock in a drug testing company…
AmVet - Read my lips. No more random people.
November 4th, 2011
8:36 am
To many neo-cons, being poor in America is a crime in and of itself.
And the reverse corollary, if one is rich in America, there is absolutely no crime worth mentioning.
Too bad their heroes in corporate (owned) America are ensuring that a whole boatload of them are joining that first group, huh?
It’s called the Wholesale Charlie Sheen syndrome…
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
8:36 am
Just another excuse for Republicans to dabble in homo-erotic golden showers freakery. Keep it in the bedroom, cons, or the bathroom, or wherever.
godless heathen
November 4th, 2011
8:37 am
Many government agencies require contractors to be certified “Drug Free” workplaces and drug testing programs are a part of that. Why is that not unconstitutional?
Normal
November 4th, 2011
8:37 am
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:33 am
I guess…except for your uterus and urine…
St Simons - beach philosopher
November 4th, 2011
8:38 am
I was in Woodbine yesterday.
Mr. Jason the Pompous needs to clean up his own house
aint that the way it always is with these cons
Adam
November 4th, 2011
8:38 am
Armed Liberal: I disagree with that kind of testing because I would not trust that the person giving the test would give a fair one or the SAME one to all participants. And again, testing doesn’t really help things. Perhaps instead an education program for the winner that afterwards requires a test and those results be made public. Then it’s not a condition of being in office, except for voter re-election purposes, maybe, if the voters haven’t already decided that civics knowledge is just too “elite” for their representative.
Personally this is the best counter-argument I have seen to drug testing yet right here: a program that forces citizens to submit to a search of their bodies as a condition of receiving a government benefit, with no probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, also raises significant constitutional issues.
I’m stealing this argument shamelessly Jay. Too many of my friends still think this is somehow a good policy. I have pointed out the cost problems and general moral problems of targeting a specific group for discrimination before, but they are not swayed. Yours is much better, I think (though I think they still won’t be swayed).
Paul
November 4th, 2011
8:38 am
Jay
That provided a good understanding.
But not much confidence.
Chuck Doberman
November 4th, 2011
8:38 am
I think maybe we should test our legislators as they wield the financial sword in the first place
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:38 am
okay, I’m taking us off topic EARLY today …
since it’s Friday (which usually means music day) … and we know Normal lurvs the kittehs … here’s a combo of both – classic album covers with kittehs!
http://thekittencovers.tumblr.com/
no need to thank me … it’s all part of the service …
Rebo
November 4th, 2011
8:39 am
Jay, what about random drug testing? Many corporations have been doing that for years! Sometimes just the threat of being tested can influence behaviors.
Obozonomics
November 4th, 2011
8:39 am
No reason to stop there is correct, make it illegal for a company to drug test or ask for ID for a job, right Jay?
Mick
November 4th, 2011
8:39 am
Once I got out of the service, I never, ever want to pee in a bottle again for anybody, for any reason…
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:40 am
Normal – 8:37 – well they ARE lined with pixie dust, so I can understand the fascination …
Armed Liberal
November 4th, 2011
8:40 am
Perhaps if the GOP took their focus off our “junk” we’d acutally something positive?
GOP – Junk Freaks since 1973.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:41 am
Obozo – “No reason to stop there is correct, make it illegal for a company to drug test or ask for ID for a job, right Jay?”
do you just not understand the difference between a PRIVATE ENTITY doing that a the STATE???
no, you evidently don’t.
Gale
November 4th, 2011
8:41 am
Well, Jay, I guess corporations – which now count as people- could not vote, and that would be a plus. But farmers with farm subsidies, yep those folks. I don’t know what you mean about bank employees. I don’t recall getting any special government assistance when I was a bank teller back when. Mostly I was being flip. I meant individuals on welfare and I was purposely stoking the class warfare fire. Democracy begins to fall apart when people realize they can vote themselves benefits.
That said, I also advocate a high level of support for people who need help, unemployment, health care, child care, and so on.
Jay
November 4th, 2011
8:41 am
I don’t see anybody on here attempting to justify this yet. Nobody wants to take a shot at it?
Don't Tread
November 4th, 2011
8:41 am
Spencer is right. We don’t need to subsidize drug addiction. If I have to pass a drug test to get a job to earn money so it can be taken away from me and given to someone who doesn’t work, they should at least have to pass a drug test as well. (Oh wait….that’s not fair!)
If you want to drug test CEOs and atheletes, go right ahead.
I’d be interested in the results of a drug test for these COWS people…
Normal
November 4th, 2011
8:41 am
In the Navy, drug testing was deemed legal if it were random and everyone, from the Captain down to the lowliest mess cook were tested at the same time.
I don’t know how it works in civilian life, but Defense Contractors are required to give drug tests at the start of employment and then after, only for “probable cause”.
Hootinanny Yum Yum
November 4th, 2011
8:42 am
I agree to government getting out of our personal lives. Don’t ask for anything and don’t provide anything. Let federal government handle relationships with foreign countries and let local governments see to the needs of the local citizenry.
No handouts to individuals, to corporations or to foreign nations. And stop meddling in foreign country’s affairs.
Armed Liberal
November 4th, 2011
8:42 am
Adam – I was being a smart-a$$… real ideas are an afterlunch kinda thing on Fridays for me at least…
Granny Godzilla
November 4th, 2011
8:43 am
” drug testing of every state legislator and member of the executive branch.”
ding ding ding
we have a winner
start with Spencer and Albers…
Adam
November 4th, 2011
8:43 am
Oh getting these out of the way early:
It’s all Obama’s fault, he wants a dependent class and class warfare!
Choices determine everything, if you’re poor BLAME YOURSELF (and pay more taxes).
Climate Change and Evolution aren’t real because they don’t explain the whole of the universe.
WEALTH ENVY!
(Did I miss any?)
Jay
November 4th, 2011
8:43 am
Curious sentiment from somebody with “Don’t Tread” as a blog name.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:43 am
Jay – we still have the warm-up act from the right side of your blog here … not your headliners … I’m sure they won’t let you down
godless heathen
November 4th, 2011
8:43 am
So if the government can require contractors and it’s own employees to be drug free, why not those that receive money for doing nothing?
And for the record, I oppose drug testing. We would never allow our employers or the government to come into our homes and rummage through our sock drawers, but we are willfully allow them to search our bodily fluids.
mystified
November 4th, 2011
8:44 am
I don’t disagree with the concept of fairness. It seems the liberal mindset only calls for fairness when it’s advantageous for them though…I don’t recall the calls for fairness because so large a portion of our citizenry don’t pay any taxes at all or when certain students are given preference to State Universities based on demographic factors. If you truly wanted “fairness”, we’d see evidence of it in more than republican initiatives. Until then, your argument simply doesn’t hold water.
Yep
November 4th, 2011
8:44 am
Jay, you may have something here. Just about every person on this board has taken a drug test simply to get a job. I do not see why we should not test every person asking us provide assistance. I do not see why we should make it continual testing though. Merely require testing at initiation or contract implementation and any time a change is made to their entitlement support.
Having hired hundreds on employees myself, I do not see the rub here. Those who are truly drug abusers can not pass one test, even if they know it is coming. Normal American taxpayers HAVE to take drug tests in order to work, but persons we support do not? If conducted fairly, this procedure will help prepare those on support for the real world and their next step into the working class.
Normal
November 4th, 2011
8:45 am
USinUK!
Superb!!
Sarah
November 4th, 2011
8:45 am
Anyone who is receiving free money or food stamps should take a drug test. The only reason I could think of as to why they would not want to take a test is they have something to hide?
Obozonomics
November 4th, 2011
8:46 am
USinUK;
Clearly you believe there are 2 sets of laws, but what would you expect from a loser liberal.
St Simons - beach philosopher
November 4th, 2011
8:46 am
the banana republic of Florida is doing this 30 miles to the south.
So far $3.1 mil spent on tests & admin, $40k in denied payments
Guess who has an interest in the Test Lab company? ding ding
In defense, it mirrors every other con “plan”
I swear, these guys could f up an anvil.
HRPufnstuf
November 4th, 2011
8:46 am
Drug testing sounds good on the surface and a good sound byte on right wing shows, but peel back the onion and you’ll see that in Florida, only 2% have come up hot on the drug tests so far (according to Gov. Rick Scott). Definitely not worth the money.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:47 am
Normal – 8:45 –
SouthernGal
November 4th, 2011
8:47 am
I believe all government officials from the top down should have to submit to random drug testing.
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
8:47 am
Don’t we have a vested interest in our Representatives? And at a local level, I’d sure like to see more county employees and commissioners tested, especially for that drug, Viagra, because some of them are the biggest…
Jm
November 4th, 2011
8:48 am
I agree. Drug test anyone who gets govt $
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:49 am
Obozo – that’s right – when you can’t argue the point, resort to name calling
and, actually, there ARE different laws. Companies can fire you for doing all sorts of legal activities such as smoking, drinking, etc, in your spare time.
but, then your ilk has NO PROBLEM with whatever companies decide to do and we should all just be grateful they employed us.
Normal
November 4th, 2011
8:49 am
How much more will this “Fair” drug testing cost us taxpayers? Let’s raise taxes on the rich to pay for it. Good God, y’all, putting a portion of our population through this just because they need help is not only wrong, it’s Unamerican.
Obozonomics
November 4th, 2011
8:49 am
USinUK;
So the CIA and FBI should stop drug testing right now, it should be fine for a drugged out agent to have weapons, right libs?
retired early
November 4th, 2011
8:50 am
Why not include teachers and lawmakers, they receive “taxpayer’s money”.
These lawmakers know what is appealing to their constituents. It’s scary when you realize it takes laws like these to impress their ignorant, selfish and self centered voters.
godless heathen
November 4th, 2011
8:51 am
But USinUK, governments are requiring testing by PRIVATE contractors all the time.
Pat
November 4th, 2011
8:51 am
I agree. I’d particularly support mandatory drug testing for the largest recipients of taxpayer largesse – elected officials.
Of course, drug testing all these folks would be far too expensive – and that’s the point.
Officials who’ve mandated drug testing the poor to qualify for benefits have been surprised by the results, which have generally reflected lower drug usage than is seen in the general population.
But the image of the druggie welfare recipient is iconic in the minds of the white suburbanite GOP voter – the one who’d never imagine their pampered offspring getting caught in a HOPE scholarship drug testing, for example.
SouthernGal
November 4th, 2011
8:51 am
Then why does the government require testing of pilots, train engineers, bus drivers etc.
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
8:51 am
The only reason I could think of as to why they would not want to take a test is they have something to hide?
Ah, finally a fan of water sports weighs in. Sarah, some people don’t like others watching them pee. Imagine that. And some of us don’t think spending hundreds of millions of dollars for some people to watch other people pee is a good use of tax dollars, it doesn’t excite us one bit.
You’re welcome.
Obozonomics
November 4th, 2011
8:52 am
USinUK;
My neighbor is an FBI agent and he gets tested several times a year? Since that is government, with a “different” set of laws they should stop testing them, right?
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:53 am
Obozo – there’s a world of difference between people who carry weapons / enforce the law / are privvy to state secrets and people who are receiving food stamps.
but then, I’m not surprised you don’t get that distinction, either.
Jay
November 4th, 2011
8:53 am
Then why does the government require testing of pilots, train engineers, bus drivers etc.
Because if they were high they could kill a lot of people.
melvinowens
November 4th, 2011
8:55 am
some of these republican lawmakers advocating this drug test are themselves addicted to cocaine, marijuana or alcohol, but still receive taxpayer money. what hypocrites
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:55 am
godless – that could have to do with 1) the jobs they have to do (such as anything dealing with the justice department) or 2) the nature of the work (anything having to do with weapons / safety / heavy machinery)
Obozonomics
November 4th, 2011
8:55 am
Aquagirl;
We are already spending millions testing government workers and contractors for the governed. Why is welfare any different from a government job?
Jm
November 4th, 2011
8:55 am
Jt my dog is a good pee sniffer
jconservative
November 4th, 2011
8:55 am
Google the question and you get $42. for the average cost of a drug test.
So we gonna hand out a check for $225. and spend $42 on a drug test before we give them the check?
A dumb idea by any other name is still a dumb idea.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
8:56 am
USinUK: and, actually, there ARE different laws. Companies can fire you for doing all sorts of legal activities such as smoking, drinking, etc, in your spare time.
Or for stuff they find on your Facebook page.
williebkind
November 4th, 2011
8:56 am
Jay so comparing CEO’s to TANF recipients is equitable in your mind and the minds of your daily followers? Could you please explain what a CEO is and what a CEO does for your plantation residents then explain the same for the TANF recipients. I eagerly await your definitions.
Furious Styles
November 4th, 2011
8:56 am
What lawmakers should be doing is fixing these water main breaks. There been at least 2 a week since this summer. That would be better use of their time and taxpayer dollars.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:57 am
Jm –
that’s IT!! trained dogs. unfortunately, that means that the test will require everyone to pee on a tree …
Stonethrower
November 4th, 2011
8:57 am
Why stop at drug testing. Why not ban them from using tobacco products and alcohol? Also, make sure they aren’t buying lottery tickets.
carlosgvv
November 4th, 2011
8:57 am
It’s tempting to think these Republicans are doing this “to gain political popularity by bashing and stereotyping poor people”. The real reason is even more despicable. The ultimate Republican goal is to put and end to Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, welfare, food stamps and any other program labled “entitlements”. The hard-core Republicans have a “let them eat cake” mentality on anyone who does not meet their “compassionate conservative” standards as they have been repeatedly showing over the years to anyone paying attention to their actions.
deegee
November 4th, 2011
8:58 am
If you take the drug and alcohol abuse out of the equation, I would estimate that 75% of our DFCS cases would be resolved. We spend billions on the consequences of drug and alcohol abuse. I don’t see anything wrong with spending money on a pilot program to see if drug testing would be a deterrent to people whose addiction has interfered with their ability to support themselves and their families.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:58 am
willieb – he accepts MILLIONS in government subsidies instead of just hundreds.
you’re welcome.
Obozonomics
November 4th, 2011
8:59 am
Jay,
I am so glad that people on welfare don’t kill other people, I feel safe now… If you get taxpayer money you should pee for it, ALL government jobs and welfare. The tests are cheap and why not take the $10 out of their government checks…
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
8:59 am
Stonethrower – or expensive tennis shoes for their kids – and you’d damned well BETTER make sure they don’t have any satellite dishes …
Adam
November 4th, 2011
8:59 am
williebkind: I eagerly await your definitions.
Coming from someone who has already defined people as being “plantation residents”? I know I would pass on that one until you gave a more respectful argument.
By the way, people, try defending the decision directly instead of attacking Jay’s comparisons.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
8:59 am
Everyone in the corporate world gets drug tested at minimum prior to “higher” date
High time government caught up
Ask Florida's Governor About Test
November 4th, 2011
9:00 am
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/24/1029618/-Court-blocks-Florida-drug-testing-for-welfare-applicants
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:00 am
“The tests are cheap and why not take the $10 out of their government checks…”
excellent – so guilty (and penalized) until proven innocent …
even a stoppped clock...
November 4th, 2011
9:00 am
Jay, you’re still a fool.
Someone who works as a CEO actually pays income taxes.
Welfare recipients do not. They are a net drain on the economy.
godless heathen
November 4th, 2011
9:00 am
No, UsinUK. Pencil pushing contractors. If the government can require it for them, they can require it for welfare recipients.
If you want to see a really frightening thing, go down to your local law enforcement agency and pull a random drug screen.
Normal
November 4th, 2011
9:00 am
Adam
November 4th, 2011
8:59 am
Well said…high five!
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:01 am
Usinuk 8:57. That’s a double bennie
Free tree watering!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
November 4th, 2011
9:01 am
Jay, is there any information regarding FL or another state who has implemented this to determine whether there is a real problem. I know SC Nikki Haley tried to make false claims about employment applicants at a nuke plant that were outrageous. Quantitatively, let’s say, if only 1% of the testees are on drugs (and assuming not false postitives like poppy seeds throwing off the tests), does the “cost” benefit analysis make sense.
I also know that despite industry claims, there are a lot of questions about the accuracy of these tests. So do the “accused” get a right to a trial and counsel if they have a “positive” that arguably could be false?
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:01 am
I’d be more interested in your explanation of why they’re different, Willie.
Both groups are asking the state for taxpayers’ money. The CEOs are just asking for sums with the decimal point moved to the right about five or six places, so the taxpayer risk is considerably higher. And if we’re “protecting the vested interests of Georgia taxpayers,” why shouldn’t they be tested.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:01 am
deegee: I don’t see anything wrong with spending money on a pilot program to see if drug testing would be a deterrent
Any such pilot program would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also, it’s been tried. It doesn’t do anything except p*ss away WAY more taxpayer dollars than it saves.
williebkind
November 4th, 2011
9:01 am
jconservative
November 4th, 2011
8:55 am
Many employers require you to pay for the drug test, criminal background investigation, and a five to seven year motor vehicle record. The cost of the drug test can come out of the recipients free money. If the recipient belongs to the democratic plantation then the DNC can pay for it–they can call it housekeeping expenses.
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
9:01 am
“Two Georgia lawmakers want to drug-test welfare recipients, a controversial policy that’s been struck down as unconstitutional in other states.”
I seem to be missing what is wrong w/ this. It’s to make sure welfare recipients aren’t spending their check on drugs…common sense to me. We all know this happens by the way(you’re ignorant if you think it doesn’t happen ever).
Normal
November 4th, 2011
9:01 am
even a stoppped clock…
November 4th, 2011
9:00 am
Is this your reasoning for giving them piss tests?
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:02 am
godless – and, again, it depends on what the job has to do with – even pencil-pushing contractors can interact with law enforcement / judicial system, etc.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:03 am
Jm – 9:01 – we laugh in the face of droughts and water wars with Florida!!! muahahaha!
Darwin
November 4th, 2011
9:03 am
A Republican’s dream legislation – anti welfare and drugs all in one. Who cares about real problems?
Obozonomics
November 4th, 2011
9:03 am
carlosgvv
I am so glad you cleared that up, and you forget that the democrats are saints too, right? What hogwash, the democrats are just as corrupt if not more so….
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:04 am
Peadawg: We all know this happens by the way(you’re ignorant if you think it doesn’t happen ever).
It doesn’t happen in a statistically significant way, and certainly not enough to justify the taxpayer cost of testing versus just giving that hundred dollars to the 1 in 50 who are actually on drugs.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:04 am
“Someone who works as a CEO actually pays income taxes.”
there you go, Obozo – you want to talk about 2 sets of laws – THAT is an example of two sets of laws: if you PAY taxes but receive government money, no drug testing for you. if you don’t, please pee here.
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:04 am
So Stopped, paying taxes means you don’t use drugs? I’m trying to understand the connection you’re trying to make between paying taxes and drug abuse, but silly me, I just don’t get it.
Can you explain it a little more clearly for us slow learners?
kappellmeister
November 4th, 2011
9:04 am
Unfortunately the ones who will suffer, if these drug tests happen, are the children. My wife comes from a home where her parents were drug addicts (but not any more), and without the financial assistance she and her sisters would have had even less food and resources than they did.
St Simons - beach philosopher
November 4th, 2011
9:05 am
TANF – needy FAMILIES.
Take away the parents’ check, leave the CHILDREN needy. Typical pandering con crap. Atta way to care about those needy children, who didn’t do anything to anybody.
Rot in Hell, Georgia (& Fla) Republicans. Rot.In.Hell.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:05 am
Drug testing welfare recipients is good. And the more people tested if they get government $ tue better.
If u want govt $ don’t do drugs (they’re bad anyways)
And if you want to do drugs, fine have at it, but don’t count on taxpayers
And if you’re a freedom lovin person, fine you’re free todo as you wish as long as you’re not using my dough to subsidize your bad habit
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:05 am
So Peadawg, drug-testing for HOPE scholars then? Because we all “know” what college kids do, right?
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:06 am
Jay – NO! paying taxes means you can use all the drugs you want … you pay for the priveledge.
Right Thinker
November 4th, 2011
9:06 am
I support drug testing of recepients. I find it baffling how a reasonable person could or would object.
Welfare is a tax payer funded benefit, not a right. It is well within reason to set standards for those who receive public benefits. Referencing private sector companies who receive government contracts is within reason. Those companies are subject to government imposed regulations and requirements specific to a contract such as minority employment standards relative to participation, government job site rules and regulations such as OSHA, code compliance, and requirements set forth in an agreed to contract. Obviously there are exceptions witness the Obama giveaway to Solyndra where the prerequisite was political contributions. State government requires one to submit to a written test and a driving test to qualify for a Drivers License, a state license exam to obtain a Barbers License to cut hair, an exam to become a licensed contractor.
It is reasonable to administer a drug test to any person living on state assistance or Welfare. It can’t be an invasion of privacy because a recepient doesn’t have to accept benefits, it is an agreement. Want the benefits, take the test, it’s your choice, it’s a requirement, the state provides the benefit based upon you successfully passing a test. Don’t we have case workers who visit homes to be sure children are being cared for? Is a search warrant required? No, it’s part of the agreement.
Requiring those on public assistance to be drug tested should have been mandatory years ago. Pass the test receive the benefit.
bman
November 4th, 2011
9:07 am
If I were offered some “stimulus” cash, I would pee in a cup when told…anywhere, anytime for anyone. That said, I believe that anyone who works for the city, county, federal levels should be drug tested. We (The American public) should demand it. Welfare people? If they are accepting welfare OR unemployment over a certain amount of time, they should have to do the deed.
By the way…what is a “EBT” card? A person in front of me used a card that was EBT and got a cart of groceries for $6 and change???
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:07 am
Jm: And if you’re a freedom lovin person, fine you’re free todo as you wish as long as you’re not using my dough to subsidize your bad habit
I will remember this the next time you talk about how the poor are lazy and deserve no assistance whatsoever.
williebkind
November 4th, 2011
9:08 am
Jay I guess we have higher expectations of CEO’s! The CEO can only go to the free money pool once and if the CEO does not produce, well like they say in baseball–you outta there! Now how do we say the same thing for the TANF side? I got it! Tell them they must attend the next OCCUPY AND DESTROY demonstration. A gentlement stated to a progressive liberal in my presence that he (the progressive liberal) was educated beyond his intelligence. Amazing is it not?
Yep
November 4th, 2011
9:08 am
If all I had to do was take a drug test to provide support for my children when I was down, I could provide a few quarts. What is the problem here? This is a gateway to receiving benefits. We should have more to ensure that the correct recipients receive government subsidies. DO we really want people to stay welfare recipients for life? I thought the program was meant for a short term support vehicle to help persons in between jobs to prepare for gainful employement? If corporate america will not hire you due to drug dependency, when are you going to clean up your act?
GTJohn
November 4th, 2011
9:08 am
I like the idea of a civics test for all elected officials.
I would also go one further and require a civics test for all voters who must pass in order to vote.
The drug tests are a waste of money and would not be needed if the above two items were implemnted – we would not have welfare as we currently know it.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
November 4th, 2011
9:08 am
Forgot to add…. so if a father is found to be using drugs and that is held up, then we let the kids in the family starve under the con model? Or does the state take the family away?
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:09 am
Oh I know what I forgot!
SOLYNDRA! SOROS! SOCIALISM!
….So?
Marie
November 4th, 2011
9:09 am
People who are on public assistance are receiving a direct benefit (cash/check in the hands) from taxpayers and this is probably their only source of income. If that money is being used to purchase drugs then I can see why it would be in the interest of government officials to cut these folks off for their own good as well as the good of the public at large.
All these other examples Jay wants to include in the mix are not relying on the government for their livelihood. A student receiving HOPE benefits funds are paid directly to the school and the same goes for some student athlete who has received an atheletic scholarship (NOTE: I do believe student athletes are subject to random drug tests). In the case of the CEO of a corporation; his company has received a taxpayer benefit — not the CEO himself.
However, I do not agree with this law because I believe it’s unconstitutional. It’s one thing for my “private company” to have a policy that I submit to random drug test as a condition of employment; it’s another thing for the government to go around drawing blood and/or urine from citizens. What else will you do with that blood and urine? Will it be stored? Do you plan on entering that DNA into some state/national database?
I think requiring welfare recipients to perform at least 60 hours per month of community service in order to remain eligible for government benefits would be a much better idea.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:09 am
Usinuk. U r eeeeevil
bman
November 4th, 2011
9:10 am
Keep up the good fight…..
Father goes to jail. family still recieves welfare. Easy.
jd
November 4th, 2011
9:10 am
Bookie, why not just stop ALL government assistance, PERIOD? That way, we preserve the Constitution and save the taxpayers money.
Why does the government need to “assist” people, corporations and other nations with direct handouts???? There is no logical answer in the affirmative.
MILF Chaser
November 4th, 2011
9:10 am
There is a severe lack of logical soundness in comparing a CEO to a welfare recipient.
Statistically, welfare recipients do have a very high instances of drug abuse, alcoholism, having multiple children by different fathers, a criminal history, and much more.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:11 am
Adams neurons are scrambled. See his 9:07
Sure Adam, you remember that. Are you a nervous welfare recipient?
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:11 am
Keep Up: Well, obviously the state takes the family away and puts them into re-education camps where they learn that all science is really god magic they will never understand, and that they should vote Republican. Oh, and don’t forget that Obama is the anti-christ.
MILF Chaser
November 4th, 2011
9:11 am
Marie +1
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:12 am
Jm – 9:09 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw
kappellmeister
November 4th, 2011
9:12 am
RIGHT THINKER – typical high-brow BS. So, I know this hungry little girl whose mom is an addict. Would it be OK if she comes to live with you?
Funny how the same folks who stand up and declare abortions are immoral and every unborn child deserves the right to live then do not give a tinker’s damn about those children once they are born.
williebkind
November 4th, 2011
9:13 am
We need to see more videos like the teenage girl get a spanking by her judge father except these videos should show how many people died to get those illegal drugs to these poor TANF clients. Every joint should have blood stains on it and every coke line shoud be tinted red. That is the reality Jay and the other media are not broadcasting.
Normal
November 4th, 2011
9:13 am
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
9:01 am
So, you ARE for bigger government then?
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
9:13 am
It can’t be an invasion of privacy because a recepient doesn’t have to accept benefits, it is an agreement.
Right Thinker (that is neither) wants to pee in a cup every time he/she accesses government benefits. That should be interesting. Drop off a urine sample at school along with your kids! Ah, family values.
carlosgvv
November 4th, 2011
9:13 am
Obozonomics – 9:03
So you agree that the Republicans are corrupt?
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:13 am
Jm: I’ll add that snark to my list of things you cons say about my character when you have no real argument against me or others.
1) Mom’s basement
2) Paid to blog
3) No job
AND NOW…
4) On welfare!
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:14 am
“Why does the government need to “assist” people, corporations and other nations with direct handouts???? ”
holy crap.
I leave the country for 5 and a half years and THIS is what happens in my absence???
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:14 am
Chaser (but not catcher, I’m sure), would you care to provide us with these statistics you claim to exist regarding drug abuse and TANF recipients?
If you’re going to base your argument on said numbers, it’s only fair to ask to see them.
bman
November 4th, 2011
9:14 am
Marie ….good post! I agree about the community service thing! What a great idea!
Also, college athletes ARE tested. I thought everyone knew that
LydiasDad
November 4th, 2011
9:14 am
Of course, the difference is that HOPE scholarship winners and CEOs have earned the gov’t funding, whereas welfare recipients have done nothing. But I’m ok with all of it anyway,.,
Jay is just being sarcastic though. He doesn’t want to test welfare recipients regardless simply because that would be good for the country. And he hates that.
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
9:14 am
“It doesn’t happen in a statistically significant way”
But it does happen and that’s the problem.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:14 am
MILF Chaser: Statistically, welfare recipients do have a very high instances of drug abuse, alcoholism, having multiple children by different fathers, a criminal history, and much more.
Not Intended to Be a Factual Statement
Ice Road Trucker
November 4th, 2011
9:15 am
We’re manly men.
We have big beards and do copious amounts of tobacco products.
We laugh like men and live in the land of the free.
We drive big trucks and we are brave.
.
But first you must tinkle in the cup.
Line forms to the left.
crackbaby
November 4th, 2011
9:15 am
How about our politicians stay home, smoke dope and don’t make any new laws? GTF out of the way!
Stop regulating the s*&% out of America for crying out loud. GOP is as bad as the Dems.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:15 am
Peadawg: But it does happen and that’s the problem.
Blanket testing everyone isn’t the solution.
Normal
November 4th, 2011
9:15 am
OK,
I’m good with drug testing gun owners.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:15 am
Aqua – hey – there’s a point … anyone who drives on gov’t paid-for roads and bridges is receiving assistance!
pull over at the next exit and pee, please.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:16 am
Obama probably wouldn’t be eligible for office if he had to take a drug test
Stonethrower
November 4th, 2011
9:16 am
Again, why stop at drug testing? You claim these folks are using that money for drugs, then what about alcohol and tobacco products? Why not just give them a list of things they can purchase with this so called “free money”? Better yet, let’s hire someone similar to a probation officer to randomly visit them and check what’s in the fridge and pantry. I could go on and on.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:16 am
Anyone with kids in public schools or universities …
anyone who uses water from the mains …
anyone who uses OTC medicines that have been tested by the government …
shall I go on???
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:17 am
LydiasDad: $3.1 million spent, $40k saved. Yep, that’s good for the country alright!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
November 4th, 2011
9:17 am
bman, well now if we are just arresting people and jailing them based on test results, you have created a whole new criminal law standard. So when private corporations drug test employees, are you going to have them arrested too when the tests are positive.
Normal
November 4th, 2011
9:17 am
Add me as a supporter of Marie’s idea…
SEAL Team 6
November 4th, 2011
9:17 am
If it wasn’t for us, there would be no America.
We fight for your freedom.
We are on the front-line to preserve this freedom.
Ooooh-Rahhh.
.
But first, we must pee in the cup.
Line forms on the left.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:17 am
Normal – 9:15 – criminey, they don’t even do that HERE .
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
9:18 am
“So Peadawg, drug-testing for HOPE scholars then? – Students never actually see the money from HOPE. It gets applied directly to their student account when tuition is posted…so HOPE funds aren’t used to pay for drugs.
“So, you ARE for bigger government then?” – If drug testing welfare recipients somehow means “bigger gov’t” then in this case, sure. (I’m confused on how they relate but that’s another argument)
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:18 am
Adam – “Yep, that’s good for the country alright!”
if by “country” you mean the private firm with the government contract … then, yes!
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:18 am
Obama probably wouldn’t be eligible for office if he had to take a drug test
Not Intended To Be a Factual Statement
Afghani Man
November 4th, 2011
9:18 am
Pee?
.
In a cup?
.
BAM!
FL Alum
November 4th, 2011
9:19 am
Why don’t we cut out “Government benefit’ programs altogether?
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:19 am
You know what would save money? Throwing the poor in jail. It’s much cheaper than educating them and providing some small amount of health care for them.
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
9:19 am
How about our politicians stay home, smoke dope and don’t make any new laws?
If they’d spend 5 minutes toking up instead of the Jesus-luvs-’Merica kickoff prayer, Congress might quit bickering and get something done.
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
9:19 am
“Blanket testing everyone isn’t the solution.” – Do it randomly w/out notice like the NCAA. You get a positive, you get suspended a game. A welfare recipient gets a positive, you don’t get a check for a month.
Normal
November 4th, 2011
9:20 am
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:17 am
All I’m saying is that if you are going to test one segment of the population, all segments should be tested. Anything else is unconstitutional.
Yep
November 4th, 2011
9:20 am
Like Right Thinker stated, you are not forced to take government benefits. Free Money! Let’s all get some. It has worked for Greece, hasn’t it?
Armed Liberal
November 4th, 2011
9:20 am
Test Grandma too!!
SS, Medicare, government pensioners, retired military folks, Pell Grant recipients – heck, if you get a check from the IRS as a refund even – TEST ‘EM ALL!!
/snark off/
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:20 am
woohoo –
another month of positive job growth … previous month revised up
The 80,000 increase in payrolls was less than forecast and followed gains in the prior two months that were revised up by 102,000, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The unemployment rate fell to a six-month low of 9 percent from 9.1 percent even as the labor force expanded.
bman
November 4th, 2011
9:20 am
“So when private corporations drug test employees, are you going to have them arrested too when the tests are positive.”
No. Why? Because it’s “private”. There’s a difference ya know….you do know the difference, right?
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:20 am
other good news
The data also showed a pickup in hourly earnings, a drop in long-term joblessness and a decrease in so-called under- employment.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-04/u-s-payrolls-increased-by-80-000-in-october-as-jobless-rate-falls-to-9-.html
godless heathen
November 4th, 2011
9:20 am
bman,
An EBT card is the new food stamps. Intended to be more efficient and less able to be used as currency in “the hood”. Also makes it harder for us to spot the ones buying cavier with public assistance. (Had to through that in.)
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:21 am
Do you think Michelle grows organic coca and marijuana out back of the whitehouse for ole Barack?
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:21 am
Peadawg: Do it randomly w/out notice like the NCAA. You get a positive, you get suspended a game. A welfare recipient gets a positive, you don’t get a check for a month.
Well, I disagree with the approach in general, but at least you’ve solved the Constitutionality problem.
Midori
November 4th, 2011
9:22 am
Great column Jay.
Can we add jm to that list? That guy shouldn’t allowed to blog while high.
On a side note, today Midori turns 56 years young. And I woke up with new aches and pains.
JJ
November 4th, 2011
9:22 am
When you apply for a job, 90% of employers will drug test you. If I have to be drug tested to get a PAYING job, then these leeches need to be drug tested to get ANY government benefit!!!!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
November 4th, 2011
9:22 am
Pea adds another layer to the evasio that someone Hope recipients are different. If a TANF recipient is drug tested and its a positive test (and not a false positive), then you have to prove that they used funds provided by the state to purchase drugs and did not receive free drugs by sharing some with a friend or perhaps taking some from the big bowl at those 1%’ers drug parties.
midtownguy
November 4th, 2011
9:22 am
Drug testing TANF applicants has been struck down by the courts everywhere it has been implemented for obvious reasons. First Michigan now Florida. Florida had the brilliant conservative twist of making the applicant pay the test themselves then be reimbursed if they passed.
Federal Law prohibits drug testing for Food Stamp benefits. So, to make political hay politicians go after the one welfare program where they can impose additional rules (TANF is a block grant). They know it will be struck down but they don’t care because the judicial process will take them past the next election.
Any voter who can’t see through this shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
1811/0311
November 4th, 2011
9:22 am
JAY:
Did Robin Hood have to undergo a drug test ?
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:22 am
Yep: Free Money! Let’s all get some.
Sure. It’s all free money! All you have to do is show up, right?
Go apply. Let me know how much you get.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:23 am
Normal – 9:20 – well, bloomin’ heck, let’s just make everyone pee in a cup – no reason, just cuz … after all, if they have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t worry about it …
let’s see … that’s 307M x $5 / test … carry the one …
RB from Gwinnett
November 4th, 2011
9:23 am
I don’t see anything wrong with the idea, Jay. Since most of us are subject to random drug tests at work and many employers require pre-employment drug screens, wouldn’t it be in these people’s best interest to be able to pass the test if they are offered a job?
Lets test congress too while we’re at it.
1811/0311
November 4th, 2011
9:23 am
“No one wants to see your underwear or the crack in your butt” !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgIOqlhBtAc&feature=related
Normal
November 4th, 2011
9:23 am
I wonder where GLL is? This is his kind of meat. Must still be recovering from the smack down he got last night…
Paul
November 4th, 2011
9:24 am
I gotta admit it’s been a lot more entertaining since people showed up and tried to defend the proposal.
But reading them leaves me feeling like I must be on drugs.
Normal
November 4th, 2011
9:24 am
I’m waiting for some Republican to say the poor must be eliminated for their own good.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:25 am
“When you apply for a job, 90% of employers will drug test you”
got anything to back up THAT statement???
my brother, sister, father and I have a combined 160 years in the workforce (roughly) and none of us have EVER been drug tested
roughrider
November 4th, 2011
9:25 am
While they are at it, how about putting a time limit on welfare, food stamps, SSI, heating assistance etc. One or two years should be the max for a helping hand.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
November 4th, 2011
9:25 am
bman, you aren’t making sense. Using drugs either is or is not a crime. So you are only “arresting” those who test positive. You do comprehend the nuances right? You’re evading the failure of your logic with absurd distinctions without differences.
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
9:25 am
“Pea adds another layer to the evasio that someone Hope recipients are different.” – You don’t know how the financial aid system works, keep. Of course they are different. The student doesn’t ever see the money from HOPE. How can they spend it on drugs if they never see the money since it is applied directly to their student account when they register?
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:25 am
Adam
Obama admitted he used cocaine. It explains a lot actually and it is a factual statement.
Did you and Obama go to college together and share some good times? Cause your memory sure is lacking.
bman
November 4th, 2011
9:25 am
USinUK ….this woohoo news??
“Amid few expectations that the employment picture has improved, government numbers Friday confirmed the obvious: The unemployment rate is stuck at 9.0 percent where it likely will be for many months to come.
Still, that was one-tenth of a percent lower than September’s rate. The number has vacillated as the labor participation rate has varied.
The total job creation was a bit lower than the 100,000 that economists had expected.
The report comes just days after the Federal Reserve delivered its own body blow, saying the unemployment rate will go no lower than 8.5 percent to 8.7 percent by the end of 2012 and will remain in the 6.8 percent to 7.7 percent through 2014.”
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
November 4th, 2011
9:26 am
Jay, please accept my congratulations on your insightful suggestion. We could see a significant reduction in controlled substance abuse with your recommendation especially among young people. BTW…does the AJC have a random drug testing policy and or pre-employment drug testing?
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:26 am
Normal – 9:24 – where’s a good potato famine when you need one … did no END of good when it came to getting rid of Ireland’s poor …
Don't Tread
November 4th, 2011
9:26 am
“A welfare recipient gets a positive, you don’t get a check for a month.”
Then we could go baseball on them…three strikes and you’re out. Permanently. You want to use illegal drugs, fund that habit yourself.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:26 am
Normal: Just make more private jails. No more need to pay for welfare, health care, or education for these folks. Just jail them and you save OODLES of cash.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:27 am
bman – yes. positive job growth is good news.
a decrease in long-term unemployed is good news.
a decrease in under-employed is good news.
rome wasn’t built in a day.
Liberalism will kill america
November 4th, 2011
9:27 am
Yes we should drug test students. They do not earn that scholarship based on merit correct? By no means am I advocating drug use for anyone but the fact is, the students earn that scholarship and they must keep their grades up in order to graduate to ultimately pay for the 19% living off of the hard work of others. Shouldnt we allow them a little break while they take the road to feed the millions? I dont think it is feasible to drug test so many people but the idea should be tested to see how effective it is
godless heathen
November 4th, 2011
9:27 am
USinUK, when was the last time you applied for a job in the US? It’s pretty much standard practice in the private sector to pee for a job.
Armed Liberal
November 4th, 2011
9:27 am
Kill the poor!
mm
November 4th, 2011
9:27 am
The lawmakers should be tested first. We’re paying their salaries too.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:27 am
Midori
2 words for your pains: medicinal marijuana
It’s all good.
Btw, jay said no suggesting people do drugs you crack addict
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:27 am
Recon, the AJC tests pre-employment and thereafter with cause.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:29 am
Jm: Obama admitted he used cocaine. It explains a lot actually and it is a factual statement.
So because he used it in the past that means he’s using it now, and his wife is growing it in the backyard. You’re a real piece of work.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:30 am
“the idea should be tested to see how effective it is”
it has been.
it wasn’t.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
9:30 am
Every CEO who seeks economic-development assistance from a state or local government also ought to be drug tested- Jay
Jay,
A couple of fallacies and errors here. First of all what do you mean by economic assistance? If you’re talking about tax breaks and incentives to business then you’re not actually talking about the govt giving money to businesses. You’re talking about govt simply promising to confiscate less money of what a business earns in exchange for the business bringing jobs, economic productivity, and a bevy of taxpaying employees to a local economy. What you fail to understand or which you do understand but are being disingenous about is the fact that if businesses are given tax breaks to come to a local economy the reason for those tax breaks is the simple idea that the tax base will be increased to the point that taxes taken in exceed the tax breaks given out. Your comparison of a jobs and tax producing business getting over on the taxpayer vs do nothing welfare recipients is nothing short of ludicrous.
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
9:30 am
“my brother, sister, father and I have a combined 160 years in the workforce (roughly) and none of us have EVER been drug tested”
I was drug tested before one of my jobs when I was 17 and another time @ random at a different job when I was like 19. Some companies do it, some don’t. I don’t know about the 90% though.
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
9:30 am
Since most of us are subject to random drug tests at work and many employers require pre-employment drug screens
Uh, no. That really doesn’t happen for most of us. But given some of your posts, I can see why employers would constantly ask you for a sample.
bman
November 4th, 2011
9:30 am
Keep –
If someone comes into my business and fills out an application for a job, but I find that they are in the country illegally, do I report it to the authorities? nah….
I think if someone is on welfare (for years) it would not be asking too much for a random drug test every now and then…meaning…oh, I don’t know….3 times a year maybe? You may not think I make sense, but I do. It’s called “common sense”.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:30 am
“kill the poor”
Not possible. There are more of them and they prefer to “eat the rich”
After they eat the rich they will have to eat each other because there aren’t enough rich. Courtesy of obummer policies.
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
9:31 am
Why is scout so obsessed with men in tights.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:31 am
“kill the poor”
Also, they kill themselves with bad habits. U should rephrase and say: “the poor are killing themselves”
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:32 am
Peadawg – 9:30 – was that because of the (ahem) “maple leaf” t-shirt you wore to your interview???
(I keed! I keed!!)
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
9:33 am
Rick Perry needs to be tested. Limbaugh wants to know what he takes.
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:33 am
When Florida instituted such tests, 2 percent of welfare applicants failed.
And yet, as the Tampa Tribune reports:
According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.
A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.”
Armed Liberal
November 4th, 2011
9:34 am
Hey – since the FAA staffs the AT Controllers thereby providing a subsidy to all who fly, shouldn’t we also test EVERY PASSENGER?
From what I gather here on today’s topic this is reasonable, no?
mm
November 4th, 2011
9:34 am
I see the truth came out this morning about corporate taxes. Bottom line, they aren’t paying anywhere near 35%. But that won’t stop the wingnuts from spouting their lies.
Generation$crewed
November 4th, 2011
9:34 am
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:26 am
Now if you were smart you would have asked for prison farms to be reborn!
Couple of birds with one stone…
Solves the problems from the new immigration laws, takes care of the needs of the poor and needy, and way less cost effective as they may even be able to turn a profit if we can get them to work 10-12 hour days.
Geez be a lil more progressive in your thinking
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
9:34 am
“a decrease in long-term unemployed is good news.
a decrease in under-employed is good news.
rome wasn’t built in a day.”
Putting lipstick on a pig. It just don’t work.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:34 am
Given Jay’s recent posts (and all his previous ones), they must test him daily
“Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:27 am
Recon, the AJC tests pre-employment and thereafter with cause.”
Mr. Snarky
November 4th, 2011
9:34 am
I’d suggest IQ tests for candidates for public office. That would help avoid moronic legislation like this.
midtownguy
November 4th, 2011
9:34 am
The injunction issued in Florida stopping the test was by a Bush-appointed judge
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
9:34 am
http://www.pre-employ.com/blog/post/2009/08/Survey-Reveals-3-Out-Of-4-Companies-Have-Drug-Test-Policy.aspx
75% doesn’t equal 90% – for whoever said that.
Paul
November 4th, 2011
9:35 am
Hi Midori!!!
Happy Birthday!!!!
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
9:36 am
I don’t see the big deal personally. Knowing the mindset of the Republicans now as well as I do, they are bound to include in that legislation a drug test cost recovery stipulation whereby they deduct the cost from the TANF payment and hand it over to the CEO of the the drug test company that they happen to own.
Mick
November 4th, 2011
9:36 am
What always gets me about drug tests is that alcohol gets a pass, when in fact, it’s one of the most addictive and dangerous. Societies legal black hole..
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:37 am
Mm 9:34
I happen to work for a certain company (never to be named) that pays very little in taxes
And it’s all because of liberal incentives you guys love. Seriously
So stop whining.
1811/0311
November 4th, 2011
9:37 am
” ………… this might be mistaken for a class-based effort to gain political popularity by bashing and stereotyping poor people.”
Well, let’s see now.
I was a pretty good person and employee but for 34 years in my career I had to submit to surprise/random drug testing as part of my career (you would walk into the office and then be sent for the test ……… no excuses). I also had a full background update every three years (credit check, criminal history check, neighbor interviews, etc., etc.).
Life is tough out there ………………………….
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:37 am
thulsa – denial just won’t work.
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:38 am
“What you fail to understand or which you do understand but are being disingenous about is the fact that if businesses are given tax breaks to come to a local economy the reason for those tax breaks is the simple idea that the tax base will be increased to the point that taxes taken in exceed the tax breaks given out.
That’s the theory, Doom. Most of the time, that theory proves invalid, which is why state officials fight against releasing data on actual job creation, etc. It saves them from embarrassments like this new case in New Jersey, where they gave a company $80 million for creating all of nine jobs.
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/commentary/nj-offering-goya-foods-80m-to-create-only-9-jobs
So your argument fails for lack of evidence.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
9:39 am
“denial just won’t work”
USinUK,
Well then I’m glad that you’ve come to your senses about Obama’s dismal economic performance.
Dawg fan
November 4th, 2011
9:40 am
you should have to be a tax payer to vote !
GD Right!
November 4th, 2011
9:40 am
Well, hmmmmm… Let me think about this…
Let’s see… Since I have to pass a drug test for a job that pays me, then it only makes since to have welfare recipients REQUIRED to pass a drug test to obtain FREE s*** from the taxes that are collected from MY paycheck.
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:41 am
and by your logic, jm, I must also pass those tests daily, correct?
Man, I gotta get a higher quality of foil here. And I don’t mean the kind of foil they wear on their heads.
Elmer Gantry
November 4th, 2011
9:41 am
I do believe drug testing welfare recipients has the greatest possibilities. A dr ug test[blood test] can be used to test for 16 different conditions of the body. Can test for a plethora of diseaese that can be communicABLE. Testing will be the wave of the future. Take myself, I am getting a blood workup, lets me know the whole nine yards, liver function, diabetes, tryglicerides, cholesterol, ps for prostate cancer and on and on.
Now, having said all of that, it would be a violation of the 4th Amendment- Freedom of Privacy. Soooooo what do we do, change the law ofcourse, make it a law that welfare recipients have to give up their blood, afterall, are they really citizens or simply dependents of the tax paying citizen, and as a dependent their provider makes the decisions.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
9:41 am
I am absolutely and unutterably against any sort of government drug testing without cause for same. And IMO, being poor and applying for benefits do not constitute cause.
On the last consulting contract I did before I came off the road, the client decided to roll out biometric devices as an additional security layer for their IT network. They wanted all employees and contractors to submit to fingerprint scanning in order to have the devices configured and installed on their workstations. I refused.
It was pointed out to me that submitting was a ‘condition of continued employment,’ whereupon I pointed out that I had a duly executed contract of employment that didn’t provide for amendment or revision, and that if they wanted me to leave, then they could just buy out the remaining 10+ months of my contract or speak with my attorney. However, I said, I’d be glad to stay on and complete the contract under the terms already agreed upon if they just kept those damn fingerprint things away from me and didn’t scan my fingers.
They caved.
Poor folks on welfare, however, probably aren’t in a position to be able to do what I did.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:42 am
Dawg fan. There’s some legitimacy to that argument
midtownguy
November 4th, 2011
9:42 am
For all you Obama Bashers; the laws that “no additional conditions can be put on applicants for federally funded means-tested programs” has been around since the 70’s. The laws are there because of men like Albers and Spencer and Woodbine.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
9:42 am
Jay: It saves them from embarrassments like this new case in New Jersey, where they gave a company $80 million for creating all of nine jobs.
Cue the STIMULUS poutrage.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:43 am
thulsa – stick those fingers in your ears and sing “lalalala” all you want, but the US economy is slowly recovering, despite the GOP trying its best to hamstring it
Mick
November 4th, 2011
9:43 am
doom
Don’t forget – the repubs keep saying no to infrastructure spending because we all know the #1 goal is to get obama, the country and jobs be damned. Lest I forget, protect the rich at all costs…
BooWhoo
November 4th, 2011
9:43 am
TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) benefits are awarded to guardians of minor children to provide for the CHILDREN. The benefits should be used for the children and not for drugs. Test the recipient!
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:43 am
Jay 9:41
. I’m sure you have Lance Armstrong quality consultants
Generation$crewed
November 4th, 2011
9:44 am
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:33 am
In the interest of honesty, not that you would intentionally keep facts from your readers, the percentage of those who failed the drug test in florida was only 2%…. but nearly 1600 refused to take the test…
So in reality because of the drug test and its results, either actual or feared over 23% were purged from the roles because of the drug test…
1 in 4 is waaay different that 2%.
i am sure it was an honest mistake and accidental oversite on your account.
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
9:44 am
you should have to be a tax payer to vote !
So, buy a pack of gum and show the receipt before voting.
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
9:45 am
but for 34 years in my career I had to submit to surprise/random drug testing as part of my career
Your job description also included pointing guns at people. What part of “compelling interest” do cons not get?
If y’all love this sort of thing, have at it, but any future b!tching about the TSA will be taken with a grain of salt. After all, you don’t HAVE to fly and use government subsidized air travel.
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
9:45 am
Adam, $80 million for 9 jobs deserves (p)outrage.
Jimmy62
November 4th, 2011
9:45 am
We shouldn’t be drug testing anyone. I don’t care what drugs you do, if you can do your job then it doesn’t matter. If you can’t do your job, I will fire you. Doesn’t matter why you can’t do your job, it could be incompetence, drug addiction, laziness… I don’t care. And if you are doing your job well, then you can snort stuff all day long, just do your job. This sort of thing is where libertarians and conservatives part. Of course Obama’s actions with marijuana in California show that he’s no better than the GOP on these issues. Lying, hypocritical scum, all of ‘em are when it comes to drugs.
Poor Michael Phelps, that kid smoked pot, and only won like 15 gold medals at the olympics. It obviously destroyed his life!
Thomas
November 4th, 2011
9:46 am
I use to have a drug problem but with my gov’t check and off the books cash income I am now able to afford my daily drug habit.
thank you America-
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
9:46 am
“So, buy a pack of gum and show the receipt before voting.”
**polite golf clap**
That made me laugh…
RB from Gwinnett
November 4th, 2011
9:46 am
“Uh, no. That really doesn’t happen for most of us. ”
Aquagirl, you do know you’d have to actually get a job first, don’t you?
Mick
November 4th, 2011
9:46 am
Most of you know this but if someone really wants to beat a drug test there is a thriving industry out there of ways to defeat it…
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:47 am
Jay, I don’t think you need drugs. You’re naturally crazy. God bless you.
They probably gave up testing you long ago. But the first thing Anne Chambers does in the AM is check the web to see what “Crazy Jay” has written.
Midori
November 4th, 2011
9:47 am
thanks Paul.
My daughter called me last night to taunt me by calling me an old goat
willie lynch
November 4th, 2011
9:47 am
While I agree that on the surface this does have the appearance of being targeted at a certain class. It does make sense in that these people are unemployed. I don’t think it’s too much to ask someone who by (in most cases) no fault of their own is sitting at home and getting a check for sustaining their household should be asked to remain clean and sober while on the welfare roll.
Also you kill your chances of getting hired if your urine is dirty during the pre- employment drug screen. So by cleaning people up earlier you help their employment possibilities.
Jimmy62
November 4th, 2011
9:48 am
USinUK: It’s got a long way to go, and the worst is yet to come as far as the collapse of the economy.
But even if you stick your fingers in your ears and imagine all is recovering, I find it interesting that you don’t consider the possibility that the GOP keeping Obama from doing more stupid things is why the economy is recovering, while it might be tanking even worse if Obama was free to act as he would.
1811/0311
November 4th, 2011
9:48 am
………….. “compelling interest” means not spending my tax dollars on illegal drugs.
mm
November 4th, 2011
9:48 am
jm,
“And it’s all because of liberal incentives you guys love.”
Yeah, right. All of the tax loopholes were created by Dems. YOU need to be tested.
1811/0311
November 4th, 2011
9:48 am
Hey, just think of the additional jobs Obama could claim for this !!!
Wikijunkie
November 4th, 2011
9:49 am
How about instead of drug testing these individual promote good spending habits and limit what they can buy only to the essentials. No reason why someone on food stamps can get Kraft cheese when I have to buy generic cheese.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
9:49 am
GS — “So in reality because of the drug test and its results, either actual or feared over 23% were purged from the roles because of the drug test…”
I believe most cops and judges will tell you that someone who refuses to take a field sobriety test isn’t automatically guilty of DUI. However, you seem to be leaping to the conclusion that anyone refusing to submit to a drug test ‘fears’ the results.
I haven’t taken any drugs outside of prescriptions in over 25 years, but if you ask me to submit to a drug test, I’ll tell you to go get stuffed.
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:51 am
just out of curiosity … does this TEST EBBERYBODY plan include Social Security and Medicare?
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:51 am
Generation, according to the stories I’ve seen, 2 percent failed the drug test, another 2 percent “failed to complete the application process for whatever reason” and 96 percent passed. I’ve seen no data on how many “failed to complete the application process” prior to the drug test requirement, so assuming all or most of those were drug users is incorrect.
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/
Also, Florida requires the recipients to pay for the tests themselves, upfront cash, which by definition might be hard on those folks.
midtownguy
November 4th, 2011
9:51 am
This issue is not if you SHOULD drug test welfare recipients but if you CAN. The federal courts have said over and over that you can’t.
But politicians keep proposing it over and over. Why? Because the publicity they get from it is a form of taxpayer financed campaign ad. They know it will be struck down and that millions will be spend implementing it, defending it in court, then dismantling it but they don’t care. But hey, its not their money, right?
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
9:52 am
Jay,
Great example. Reminds me of when govt gets involved in crap it shouldn’t be involved in like Solyndra. The crony capitalism of picking winners and losers that the Dems love to play.
There are 2 problems with your response. First of all you cited one example of a poor decision by govt. and that one reflects on govt- not on business. Now I’m certain you could come up with other examples. Just as I could come up with numerous examples of a few tax breaks given to companies meaning economic booms to local economies. We could play that game all day long.
Secondly, as I pointed out the govt is not “giving taxpayer money” to a business as they are giving taxpayer money to welfare recipients. They are simply confiscating less of what a company earns in the way of taxation. For some reason the liberal mindset is that when someone earns money that that money belongs not to the person or entity that actually did the work to earn it but to the govt. Its pretty bizarre logic but such is life in the bizarro world of the far left.
Paddy O
November 4th, 2011
9:52 am
Jay is ignoring the drop in applications for assistance from those who know they are taking the illegal drugs – at least that is what has happened in FL. Only a liberal would see this having constitutional issues – liberals generally want to mitigate personal responsibility.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:52 am
Mm
Nope. Look st the list of lowest taxpayers and figure out how they got their incentives. Probably too difficult for you, but it’s rather simple really.
U r not very bright. I said I know how our company avoids taxes. I didn’t say all tax avoidance. But it is because of deductions credits etc U CREATED.
So again, stop whining. You should love these non tax paying COs. They’re doing lots of liberal good for you.
Hypocrite u r.
St Simons - beach philosopher - like Pericles,Socrates - I will call myself Testicles
November 4th, 2011
9:53 am
I wanna 40k return on my $3 mil unconstitutional investment, ’cause I’m from the party of “good businessmen”
USinUK
November 4th, 2011
9:53 am
jimmy – “while it might be tanking even worse if Obama was free to act as he would.”
sorry, bubba, but the facts don’t bear that out.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
9:53 am
“compelling interest” means not spending my tax dollars on illegal drugs.
You can re-define “compelling interest” to mean “whatever irritates my bum” when you are officially crowned dictator. Until then, tough luck.
Generation$crewed
November 4th, 2011
9:53 am
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
9:49 am
Thats your choice!
Me when it comes to the ability of me to provide for myself and my family, I will glady step up and pee in a cup, if thats what it takes to put food on the table for my kids.
Apparently your pride and/or beliefs ahead of the nourishment of your children.
Any way, my point was not to state why it was that 1600 refused to take the test, but to show that 1600 had indeed lost benefits because of the drug testing. which brings the figure close to 1 in 4, which is slightly more than 2%.
Just getting the facts out there, apologies if you do not like the facts.
tired of mooches
November 4th, 2011
9:54 am
Get rid of welfare period
williebkind
November 4th, 2011
9:54 am
“thulsa – stick those fingers in your ears and sing “lalalala” all you want, but the US economy is slowly recovering, despite the progressive liberals trying its best to hamstring it with federal programs like the EPA.”
There! I fixed your errors.
midtownguy
November 4th, 2011
9:54 am
They guy in Florida who brought the challenge was a male combat veteran with custody of his children. He refused to take the test. Said after what he had sacrificed for his country he shouldn’t have to. He won.
(the real) Independent
November 4th, 2011
9:54 am
Yes, test them all. At our company we have to: 1)submit to drug test before hire, 2) submit to drug test after ANY incident involving injury or property damage, and 3) submit to drug test if there is any reasonable suspicion. We have not implemented it yet, but I am totally in favor of random drug testing for our employees.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
9:56 am
midtownguy
November 4th, 2011
9:51 am
This issue is not if you SHOULD drug test welfare recipients but if you CAN. The federal courts have said over and over that you can’t.
That pretty much sums it up. Probably the most common sense post of the morning. If its going to be struck down then there is of course no damn sense in promoting the idea and spending time, energy, and money on something that is just going to be struck down. On this point I will agree with Jay and the liberals. Its just more political grandstanding by the Republicans and a waste of time.
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:57 am
They are simply confiscating less of what a company earns in the way of taxation. For some reason the liberal mindset is that when someone earns money that that money belongs not to the person or entity that actually did the work to earn it
That’s pure silliness, Doom. The taxes that these companies don’t pay? Somebody else DOES pay those taxes, correct? You. Me. All of us. All of pay HIGHER taxes so these folks can pay lower taxes. People in New Jersey are coughing up an additional $80 million for that company. That’s not theory, that’s sheer arithmetic.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
9:57 am
Bye kids. I’m out. Don’t get too scrappy.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
November 4th, 2011
9:57 am
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/04/corzine-resigns-as-head-bankrupt-mf-global/
Another Enron and another fat cat Obama Wall Streeter. Will Obama have to return this bundlers money? Is part of the missing 600 million in Obama’s campaign coffer? Obama’s ties to corrupt big business CEO’s and the administrations crony capitalism continues. The scandals will continue but also continue to be ignored by the MSM and the woefully ignorant occupiers.
RandallPinkFloyd
November 4th, 2011
9:58 am
CEOs provide jobs for others.
Welfare recipients who are too lazy/high to work provide nothing for society.
What does UGA football have to do with this? Had you acutally done your research or understood big boy economics, you’d realize that the UGA athletic association makes enough money from donations to cover the costs of scholarships. But good liberal slant, chief.
Innocent Bystander
November 4th, 2011
9:58 am
“a program that forces citizens to submit to a search of their bodies as a condition of receiving a government benefit, with no probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, also raises significant constitutional issues”
And a program that seizes the money I worked for and against my will gives it to crackheads who sit around doing nothing all day doesn’t raise any constitutional issues? You’re right of course, we’re obviously taking advantage of freeloaders. Let’s just scrap the whole idea and go with a 4 year lifetime maximum for receipt of welfare funds. Four years, then your lazy behind better freshen up on your burger slingning skills.
Granny Godzilla
November 4th, 2011
9:59 am
stepping over dollars to pick up dimes
as granny’s granny used to say
deegee
November 4th, 2011
9:59 am
I think that we can all agree that there is a drug and alcohol addiction problem in the US. Apparently the State of Florida proved that the people that are collecting welfare benefits are not abusing drugs on a large scale. So, why are there so many kids in foster care? Why is DFCS so overloaded with cases of abuse and neglect? What is the cause of so many ruined lives? Why are we powerless to do anything to reverse the trend?
t
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
9:59 am
GS — “Me when it comes to the ability of me to provide for myself and my family, I will glady step up and pee in a cup, if thats what it takes to put food on the table for my kids.”
I have no issue with your choice. Seems like *my* choice upsets *you,* however.
“Apparently your pride and/or beliefs ahead of the nourishment of your children.”
Got no kids.
“Any way, my point was not to state why it was that 1600 refused to take the test, but to show that 1600 had indeed lost benefits because of the drug testing. which brings the figure close to 1 in 4, which is slightly more than 2%.”
It’s not a substantial variance.
“Just getting the facts out there, apologies if you do not like the facts.”
They’re not substantively different than was represented. Apologies if the facts don’t help you paint your desired picture.
Meeting now, back later.
Jm
November 4th, 2011
10:00 am
“sheer arithmetic.”. Apparently Jay knows how many sheep it takes to make a wool sweater. Kudos
Ok really I’m gone. No really. (midori rejoicing)
williebkind
November 4th, 2011
10:00 am
Jay when you say “taxes” all I hear is government spending. Now that is the root of all evil.
coach
November 4th, 2011
10:00 am
if you work in a gov’t job-you should be subject to random testing.
if you don’t/can’t/won’t work and take unearned gov’t benefits-you should have mandatory testing. if you apply for WIC, you should have to get the depo shot. if you don’t want to be tested, or on mandatory birth control, don’t take the benefits. no one is forcing you to take welfare, WIC, etc.
the only people that would have problems with this, are people that are doing drugs or having more babies when they cannot afford the ones they already have. we cannot continue to afford/subsidize, reckless expensive behavior.
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
10:00 am
but I am totally in favor of random drug testing for our employees.
Honestly, I wish people in favor of watching others pee would find another way to celebrate their…uh…individual preference. Hold a Pee Pride Parade with giant cup floats, dance down the street with containers of body fluids, whatever. Just don’t force others to live your lifestyle.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:00 am
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:51 am
Generation, according to the stories I’ve seen, 2 percent failed the drug test, another 2 percent “failed to complete the application process for whatever reason” and 96 percent passed
Jay,
I’m guessing only 2 % failed because most of the ones that knew they would fail it simply didn’t go through with the application process and therefore the stats are completely meaningless. You should have been able to see through this. If 1600 refused the test then obviously that 2% stat is completely flawed.
jhowie
November 4th, 2011
10:01 am
The problem is that welfare is based on the presupposition that the government owes these individuals something.
“A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this [federal government's] power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people [financially].” -Grover Cleveland
Also, does it seem bizarre to anyone else that most of the voting public probably couldn’t pass the citizenship test (Armed Liberal’s “basic civics”) that most immigrants have to pass? At this point administering such a test wouldn’t be the same as “Jim Crow laws” because free public education that teaches [or should teach] these basic principles is available to EVERYONE.
Generation$crewed
November 4th, 2011
10:02 am
Jay
November 4th, 2011
9:51 am
It is a $35 fee.
If it was for my family to eat…. and get $225 in return… I could come up with $35.
For you to make that aregument means you are unwilling to admit reality or you feel the people who refused are dumber than anyone you or I know. Again $35 to get $225
http://news.yahoo.com/1-597-welfare-applicants-decline-drug-test-fla-223619572.html
there is your information on the 1600 who refused to take the test… comes to 23.1%
But I know for your purposes it serves a far greater purpose for you to spout of the 2% because it sounds like such a bad number…..
Why would we expect you to mention the 1600 or 20% who refused to take it and made the financial decision that $35 is not worth $225.
Butyou may be right, they may not have had anyway, or anyone who would let them borrow, or even a collection of folks who would let them borrow $35….
Unless they knew it would be a waste of $35 and there would not be any $225 to pay the folks back with.
That said not a fan of drug testing, or the criminalization of many drugs.
Just thought you should be willing to present the facts, not just the part you like or fits your argument better. There are enough people on the blog who do that, doesn’t help when the host of the blog engages in that too
Jay
November 4th, 2011
10:02 am
Let’s just scrap the whole idea and go with a 4 year lifetime maximum for receipt of welfare funds. Four years, then your lazy behind better freshen up on your burger slingning skills.
Bystander, I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know that the 4-year limit you suggest is exactly the limit already in place under state and federal law.
From the State of Georgia website:
“There is a four-year lifetime limit on cash assistance. Work is a major component of TANF; adult recipients with a child over age 1 are required to participate in a work activity. These activities help recipients gain the experience needed to find a job and become self-sufficient.”
Given that your demand has been met, I’m certain that you are now a strong supporter of this program and see no need for the drug-testing requirement, just as you stated earlier.
Correct?
(the real) Independent
November 4th, 2011
10:02 am
When you give cash payments or food stamps to people using drugs, you are an enabler. They will use that money, or cash that otherwise could be used for support, to buy their drugs. It is not a wise decision for the government to give money to be used to buy drugs. You might as well just give them the drugs. Another benefit is that those who are on drugs won’t apply for these benefits (that may be why only 2% failed the drug tests). I never understood why prospective employees who are using drugs apply at places that clearly state “we screen for drugs”. And then they are surprised when they fail. Drug use is a choice, same as tobacco. I am not happy when I see people using their food stamps for their food, then buying cigarettes with cash. If they have cash to buy tobacco, then they probably don’t need food stamps ( or maybe not as much).
Wikijunkie
November 4th, 2011
10:02 am
Why not criminal background checks too. At my company with have to take both a drug and background check. If you have nothing to hide what is the problem.
midtownguy
November 4th, 2011
10:02 am
Paddy: The “liberals” didn’t see this as a constitutional issue. The Bush-appointed federal judge in Florida did.
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
10:04 am
By the time the Republicans finish working on their jobs bill, we’ll already be back to full employment. Just not Ryan’s level needed to make his “more bigger tax cuts for the wealthiest” plan work. A 2.8% unemployment rate is only achieveable in a Republican fantasyland. In the real word, it’s called “unobtanium”.
getalife
November 4th, 2011
10:04 am
My views on peeing in a cup and calling it freedom are well known on this blog.
Lets start with perry.
Anyhoo, # 1 LSU Tigers vs #2 bama.
It’s time !
Behold the power of the LSU Tigers!
Bow down.
St Simons - beach philosopher
November 4th, 2011
10:04 am
“waste of time” now we’re getting somewhere.
Some of us compromised with conservatives yesterday on taxes.
Give credit where its due. maybe we have some movement.
Good show, mr conservative. Let’s go, time’s a wastin’
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
10:04 am
“Honestly, I wish people in favor of watching others pee would find another way to celebrate their…uh…individual preference. ”
Sounds like Aquagirl has something to hide….otherwise she wouldn’t be being such a smartass and defensive about it.
Ugly truth
November 4th, 2011
10:05 am
Not sure the part about testing college students receiving hope really counts. That’s funded from the lottery and UGA running backs are being funded through the UGA Athletic Association which does drug test…obviously. You could have an argument for testing students with subsidized loans in which the guvment pays their interest while they’re in school. But again…these are loans that people will hopefully pay back, not true no strings attached assistance.
Jimmy62
November 4th, 2011
10:05 am
USinUK: This may be a hard concept for you, but showing a chart of unemployment figures in no way shows how much better or worse things might be if Obama had been able to do everything he wants to do. Nor are unemployment figures the sole means of measuring the economy. The government employing an extra 3 million people will help the unemployment rate (temporarily), but ultimately lead to disaster and much higher unemployment rates (plus a bunch of people incapable of doing useful work outside of the public sector).
1811/0311
November 4th, 2011
10:05 am
Joe Mama:
“Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil – it has no point.”
Libertarian
November 4th, 2011
10:06 am
Drugs cost money. If you can afford drugs, you don’t need my (and other people’s) money. I’m fine with the CEO testing too. Most of us who work have to have drug tests. No one seems to have a problem with that.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:07 am
williebkind @9:54,
Thank you for the correction on USinUK’s typos. I’m sure she appreciates it as well.
Peeman
November 4th, 2011
10:07 am
I had to be drug tested all the time when flying in the Army. Did we complain or say it was unconstitutional? No, we were doing our job which we got paid for by the US Govt. And now I get tested before I apply for private jobs and randomly when the company says. I get paid so I do what they ask. The people accepting Federal or State funds should be under the same terms – want money, pass the drug test. Simple…what is the big deal? Go pee in the bottle.
RB from Gwinnett
November 4th, 2011
10:07 am
Hey, I’ve got a great idea…. Let’s all just continue to make excuses for the drug using unemployed and unemployable dregs of our society and raise taxes on rich people and businesses to pay for their food/housing/transportation/cell phone/heating bills/healthcare/drugs/PS3 and anything and everything else they might want. Heck, we can even let a bunch of illegal aliens in the country to do thier jobs for them under the radar, pay no taxes, and join them at the ER and assistance office for more free stuff and can raise taxes on the rich and businesses to pay for that too!!
Who could possibly think there is anything wrong with that plan?!!!
Jay
November 4th, 2011
10:07 am
“Libertarian” endorsing mandated drug testing?
Boy, wait until Ayn Rand gets ahold of you!
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
10:10 am
If you have nothing to hide what is the problem.
Remember that line when the TSA agent pulls you out of line to a secluded room and busts out the rubber gloves and lube.
Also, our Founding Fathers didn’t quite see it your way, if you want a country where probable cause is a quaint notion, numerous countries are ready when you are. I suggest Iran, you’ll enjoy the public hangings.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:10 am
getalife,
Bama is a 4 1/2 pt. favorite. If LSWho is so good why are they underdogs?
And God’s 11th commandment- “Thou shalt not run the football on the Crimson Tide defense” shall be enforced Saturday night. Mr. Hightower and Mr. Upshaw will see to that.
Tinkle
November 4th, 2011
10:10 am
So Jay…..can you pass the drug test? We don’t want some crazy marijuana junkie spewing his thoughts all over Atlanta
shonuff
November 4th, 2011
10:11 am
Well said…..I actually thought it might be good idea but after your reading your article I’m swayed because I for one didn’t think about it like that! Again, well said! Kudos to you!
Generation$crewed
November 4th, 2011
10:12 am
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
9:59 am
not a substancial varience??
Yeah 2% and 23.1% are not that big of a difference.
I also have no problem with your choice to not take a drug test even if it puts your family at risk….. they are your family and honestly none of my business. You told me what you have done, I told you what I would do…
Then you claim I have a problem with your choice?
Yeah that makes sense.
Really, you don’t think 1 of 50 is that much different that 1 out of 4?
Which high school and or college did you study math at? Cause at the ones i attended, they told ust that 1 in 4 is way different statistically speaking than 1 in 50.
Jay
November 4th, 2011
10:13 am
You have to wonder how many of these “if you have nothing to hide….” folks also see themselves as stern defenders of the US Constitution. Most, probably.
larry
November 4th, 2011
10:13 am
Here we are having to cut pre-k and HOPE scholorships, put teachers on furlough etc. etc. and we are going to waste over 3 million dollars on a stereotype. Geezzz, this state gets more stupid by the day.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:16 am
GenerationScrewed,
Yeah. I kinda laughed myself when I saw Joe Mama state that the difference between 2% and 25% is not a “substantial variance”. For a guy who prides himself on the scientific method that was outrageously funny. Sound like Joe just smoked something and needs to pee in a cup.
Generation$crewed
November 4th, 2011
10:16 am
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
10:00 am
There are other methods for testing for drugs, ya know?
Seems you are the most hung up on watching people pee, not too many other poster hammering it over and over the way you have.
Are you a urophiliac?
bill arp
November 4th, 2011
10:17 am
speaking of constitutional issues/rights, where in the Constitution does it say that if you’re jobless, the gubment will take care of you? Just wondering. And if it does say so, maybe an amendment should be installed stating that you should be drug tested.
Ayn Rand's Medicare
November 4th, 2011
10:17 am
well, what let em eat cake Libertarian is for this? It’s ok, I was agin’ it before I was for it. I was agin’ meddycare til I got sick. But I’m pandering to the basest instincts of my base, so i can change that whenever i want. ’cause i don’t need no stinkin credibility.
Kramer
November 4th, 2011
10:18 am
Typical Book Man. You don’t seen to care when it is a waste of tax dollars when it is a liberal social free for all program. You are the true definition of a hypocrit.
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
10:22 am
Sounds like Aquagirl has something to hide….otherwise she wouldn’t be being(sic) such a smartass
When am I NOT a smartass about practically everything?
I have nothing to hide and have never gotten welfare, TANF, etc. I do defend people’s right to basic privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches, unlike y’all fair-weather Constitutionalists.
straitroad
November 4th, 2011
10:22 am
Jay,
Take the cost of the drug test out of the benefits they received. College athletes get drug tested regularly despite probable cause of wrong doing yet they receive a government benefit. This is a non issue.
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
10:22 am
Will the Republicans also be requiring that the wimmin folk be tested for the presence of any of them abortion drugs before they can git any funding too.
Libertarian
November 4th, 2011
10:23 am
Whatever Jay.
Unlike you and your blog groupies, I wouldn’t walk off a cliff for my party. So, what do you think about workplace drug testing? You think its ok for productive citizens of this country to be tested but not the moochers?
Also, I think Ms. Rand would advocate cutting off all gov’t aid period.
Butch Cassidy
November 4th, 2011
10:25 am
How about baby steps? We start with anyone who supports the current batch of GOP Presidential candidates.. Afterall, you MUST be high to believe the BS they shovel.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
10:26 am
If you have nothing to hide, then you should submit to a blood test for your DNA, any possible diseases or STDs, any possible future diseases based on your DNA probability of getting it, cholesterol levels, stool sample to determine what you ate so we know you’re making healthy food choices, nicotine test, blood alcohol test AND breathalyzer, drug testing of illegal AND legal drugs so we can make sure you’re not on any ADD meds, each of these tests DAILY, and you have to pay for all these tests yourself.
ONLY THEN will you be allowed to accept public assistance.
Sounds pretty good, right “defenders of the Constitution”? Right, “test them all” people? Right? RIGHT?
Seriously, what part of unreasonable search and seizure do you not understand?
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
10:26 am
I do believe that some are trying to make something out of 1600 that they should not try to make. After all, the only thing I saw presented was that 1600 refused to take a test. Do you guys have some polling results from those 1600 regarding why they did not take the test. If not, then your opinions regarding why are duly noted.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:26 am
When am I NOT a smartass about practically everything?- Aquagirl
Truer words were never spoken. But some of us cons still enjoy your smartassery.
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
10:27 am
“When am I NOT a smartass about practically everything? – Good point.
obama sin laden
November 4th, 2011
10:28 am
southernGal right on sista
Adam
November 4th, 2011
10:28 am
1600 people who don’t take the test necessarily are ALL on drugs and that’s why they didn’t take the test. Clearly, all of them could afford to pay up front for the test, and if they have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t have denied the government’s right to invade their bodies and turn the information over to the police. Right?
Armed Liberal
November 4th, 2011
10:29 am
Smartassery or not, Aquagirl is right more often than Doom or Peedog.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:29 am
While we’re at it can we make a law that anyone who thinks that the difference between 2% and 25% “is not a substantial variance” be drug tested.
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
10:29 am
Good point.
My poor mama is in full agreement. I think she regrets teaching me to talk.
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
10:30 am
Smartassery or not, Aquagirl is right more often than Doom or Peedog.
Some things go without saying. And the “Peedog” thingie, good play on the spelling.
Jay
November 4th, 2011
10:32 am
I hadn’t seen those updated numbers, Generation, thanks. (My earlier link was from August numbers).
Armed Liberal
November 4th, 2011
10:32 am
TaxPayer – I’m just here to giggle at my own comments today… the absurdity level of others is too baffling to take seriously…
Adam
November 4th, 2011
10:32 am
I have a duplicate comment, yet my comment does not appear. Hmm.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:33 am
Armed Liberal
November 4th, 2011
10:29 am
I am wrong more often than Doom or Peedog.
Armed Liberal, I was able to correct your typo. You’re welcome.
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
10:33 am
While we’re at it can we make a law that anyone who thinks that the difference between 2% and 25% “is not a substantial variance” be drug tested.
Two percent of a stack of oranges and 25% of a stack of grapes may be comparable if one is comparing a stack of Republicans but not when one is comparing “failure of a taken test” versus “refusal to take a test”. The scientific method does not allow such basic flaws.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
10:33 am
Oh, probably because I started with a less than sign. Oops.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
10:35 am
TaxPayer: The scientific method does not allow such basic flaws.
The scientific method is the DEVIL. Science is something made up by the liberal elite to convince people of things that make them go to hell. All of creation is god magic and can never be understood by humans. Now don’t take my tax cut or my guns, LIBRUL
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:35 am
Taxpayer,
I would take the time to correct your typo also but I’ve deemed you as just not being worthy of it.
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
10:37 am
I would take the time to correct your typo also but I’ve deemed you as just not being worthy of it.
No doubt a result of another of your applications of the Thulsa unscientific method of analysis.
Don't Forget
November 4th, 2011
10:38 am
It’s just like all the cons ideas, costs more than it’s worth and it doesn’t help anyone. It’s just an expensive ploy to get votes from social conservatives.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:39 am
Taxpayer,
Aaaaaand I’m sure those 1600 who refused the test were all clean. Such is life in liberal fantasyland.
(the real) Independent
November 4th, 2011
10:39 am
Drug testing is not an invasive procedure like drawing blood, subjecting someone to radiation, or doing body cavity searches. It is simple, cheap and effective. Maybe hair sample analysis (it might cost more). Anyone who does not want to pee in a cup of give a few pieces of hair either have something to hide or have a real hang-up about privacy. Either way they should not get government benefits.
ragnar danneskjold
November 4th, 2011
10:40 am
I agree with your thesis, Mr. Bookman. No tax dollars should ever go to one using those monies for recreational drugs, and that is as true of every corporate “investment” by the government as it is of every welfare layabout. Every green company receiving a dollar of taxpayer, every subsidy paid to an affiliate of GE, every payment to community organizations providing taxpayer services, every gift to planned parenthood, every National Endowment for the Arts gift, ought to be conditioned on clean drug screens by the office administrator.
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
10:41 am
Aaaaaand I’m sure those 1600 who refused the test were all clean. Such is life in liberal fantasyland.
Aaaaaand I’m sure you arrived at that result in a most unscientific way too.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:42 am
Taxpayer,
You might want to have a word with Joe Mama about the scientific method. He didn’t dispute what generationscrewed was saying. His argument was simply that the difference between 2% and 25% is “not a substantial variance”. Just another case of that librul fuzzy math.
Armed Liberal
November 4th, 2011
10:43 am
Damn, the Cons keep losing on their desire to peek into my bedroom whenever they want so now they want to spy on folks peeing?
Pervs.
Athensguy
November 4th, 2011
10:43 am
The biggest welfare program in the US is the home mortgage interest deduction, so I guess that would be the first place to look if you want to test people on welfare.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
10:44 am
Man did I call Thulsa’s arguments ahead of time or what?
All you have to do is think of some crazy biased and irrelevant argument to make about some numbered statistic and PRESTO! Con argument.
(the real) Independent
November 4th, 2011
10:44 am
How many people would have to be caught in order for it to be cost effective? If the test cost $20 and 2% failed it, and the average payment is $200 per month (for ease of calculation, the program would pay for itself in 5 months. It actually would pay for itself in less time because of all the people who don’t apply knowing they are on drugs. If you assume that only 10% were on drugs (less than Jay’s statistics), then the program would pay for itself in 1 month.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:44 am
Taxpayer,
And your hypotheses as to why these 1600 refused the test? Lemme guess. They are all strict constitutionalists or libertarians who consider the drug testing to be an invasion of privacy. And that of course is wayyyy more important to a welfare recipient than their food stamps. You’re a funny guy taxpayer. Me loves your comedy routine.
Don't Forget
November 4th, 2011
10:45 am
Don’t forget Head Start! Who knows what those little buggers are up to.
Generation$crewed
November 4th, 2011
10:45 am
To only mention the 2% and not teh 23% who efused to take the test, but still include those 1600 people in the results is dishonest….
Regardlss of what type of science you are using.
Are all 1600 using drugs? NO
Are all 1600 clean? NO
Is it fair to spout off the 2% number as justification of failure, while ignoring the fact that some 1600 refused to even take the test and count them in the overall number to achieve the 2% fair? NO
Gator Joe
November 4th, 2011
10:46 am
Jay:
“Normal” in an earlier post nailed it, Messrs. Albers and Woodbine probably would benefit from this monetarily, either directly through campaign contributions from the testing companies, or in the form of under-handed rewards from those companies. This, while enhancing their support from the narrow-minded bigots in their constituencies.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:47 am
Adam,
The math is so simple that even you can understand it. Basically 1 in 4 of the welfare recipients refused the application process which included a drug test. I can’t make it any simpler for you.
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
10:50 am
Anyone who does not want to pee in a cup of give a few pieces of hair
Now I’m neither a man or a Republican, but after the whole Larry Craig incident I’m under the impression most men do not stare at other men’s junk in the restroom. Maybe unzipping without an audience is foreign to some of you.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:51 am
Generation$screwed @ 10:45,
That pretty much sums it up. It was just a dishonest use of statistics to make an argument that only 2% of welfare recipients were using drugs.
Generation$crewed
November 4th, 2011
10:52 am
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:42 am
Hell taxpayer and adam ain’t disagreeing with what I am saying!
All i did was provide the information, both of them then made commentss about all 1600, when i never made an indication about how those 1600 would have done on said test, just that they didn’t take the test for some reason.
I just feel it is unfair to only mention the 2% number when 1600 were removed from the roles for not taking the test.
Logic would conclude that atleast a percentage of the 1600 would have had positive results, just as a certain percentage would have posted a negative result.
The likelyhood of the percentage staying the same had those 1600 submitted to the test is very small.
getalife
November 4th, 2011
10:52 am
The gop could propose to drink that pee and this cons would agree.
Sheep.
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
10:52 am
Thulsa,
please. There’s no need for you to spend so much of your time on me.
getalife
November 4th, 2011
10:53 am
these not this.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:54 am
Aquagirl,
I don’t know about women but when men are given drug tests and I’ve taken many I’ve never had anyone standing there staring at my junk. They’ve always either stood behind me or let me go into the bathroom with the door closed if it was the woman administering the test. Seems pretty non intrusive to me.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
10:54 am
R. P. Floyd — “CEOs provide jobs for others.”
Not on their own, they don’t. And over the last few years, they haven’t been doing a very good job of it anyway.
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
10:55 am
The Republicans and their trickle-down theories! Well, they are known to be in perfect correlation with the occurrence of the yellow snow.
Redneck Convert (R---and proud of it)
November 4th, 2011
10:55 am
Well, I’m all for testing welfare and jobless bums. I don’t want them getting high on my tax money.
But let’s not take this too far. I mean, a little meth or pot never hurt a hard-working taxpayer. Just because you live in a trailer is no reason to make you take a drug test.
I think there ought to be two classes of citizens. The ones that work and the ones that don’t. The ones that work ought to be able to use a little meth or pot without having the cops all over you. The ones that don’t work ought to have the cops on them like stink on you-know-what till they start working.
That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good Friday everybody. I’m out here hauling and lugging and trying to get you ready to swap weird music tonight. And you won’t be drug-tested neither.
Peadawg
November 4th, 2011
10:55 am
“The gop could propose to drink that pee and this cons would agree.”
What is it w/ liberals and their obsession w/ pee this morning?
Armed Liberal
November 4th, 2011
10:55 am
Stop focusing on peoples junk.
Pervs.
getalife
November 4th, 2011
10:57 am
“Stop focusing on peoples junk.
Pervs.”
It started with clenis and they never let go.
TaxPayer
November 4th, 2011
10:57 am
“CEOs provide jobs for others.”
Hold that cup steady,” shouted the disgruntled CEO. “More Regulations,” he exclaimed. “Who’s idea was this anyway.”
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
10:58 am
Generation$crewed,
I’m with you on that. I never said all 1600 would fail the drug test either. We will never know how many of them would pass or fail the test but as you stated its simply unfair to include them in the overall numbers and then say only 2% failed the drug test. Its a blatant display of dishonest use of statistics. If some of the liberals can’t understand this simple point then they are just being intellectually dishonest. Nothing new there.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
10:59 am
1811 — ““Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil – it has no point.”
Shrug. Not everyone shares your opinion on that score.
deegee
November 4th, 2011
11:01 am
When I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s every family in my neighborhood had more kids than they could afford. Moms stayed at home with the kids, the kids went to public schools. There were very few creature comforts but all of the kids were safe and well fed. There was one family with alcoholic parents in the neighborhood. Their kids were physically and verbally abused. I witnessed it with my own eyes. They were a sad and marked contrast from the rest of the families in the neighborhood.
TheDixieDove.COM
November 4th, 2011
11:01 am
This is is just about the saddest thing in the world. The one thing that is even a bigger tragedy than the Iraq war is our nation’s endless insane drug war and now GA legislators want to make it even worse. Our prison population has increased by 700% since the start of the drug war. Even Rep. Paul Broun has sponsored legislation to medicalize marijuana.
philosopher
November 4th, 2011
11:01 am
I give you money because you lost your job- for whatever reason –either b/c you’re lazy and stupid or maybe because our financial institutions crashed our financial system and over 10% of you are UNABLE to find a job. Never mind the reason, I give you money so…pee in this cup. And now I have the right to look through your home…after all, I have to make sure my money is not spent frivolously! And while you’re at it, explain why your kid is wearing fancy Nikes…no, I do NOT believe you got them at Goodwill, try again. And I’ll take that TV, I see because I have a right to use it to recoup the taxes I paid to give you food. And is that a TWINKIE I see on that table…I can’t believe that- and I’m not buying the excuse that your child got “A”s in school today and it’s a treat…we all know none of you do well in school. In addition, I was told (in another blog) that there are lots of job openings in North Dakota…so we’re shipping you up there-so what if winter is coming on- you need to get up off your ass and work so I don’t have to pay for you! What?! You don’t want to do that? Why, you ungrateful wretch!
getalife
November 4th, 2011
11:02 am
Your speaker said tax increases are on the super congress’s plan.
What say you cons?
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
11:02 am
Ya’ll have fun. Doomy going back to work. Somebody gots to pay the taxes to pay for the welfare checks for the drug abusers, uh I meant law abiding citizens who simply refuse to take drug tests because it violates their treasured libertarian views of privacy. I’m sure these folks are all constitutionalists and libertarians.
Aquagirl
November 4th, 2011
11:02 am
They’ve always either stood behind me or let me go into the bathroom with the door closed if it was the woman administering the test. Seems pretty non intrusive to me.
Seems like a total waste of time and money to me. Why not just have them mail it in? What is the point of testing bodily fluids unless you know they’re from that particular body?
It does make me understand why you think it’s no big deal if you’ve only done something meaningless like that. What I don’t understand is why you support wasting tax money on something so easily subverted by drug users.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
11:04 am
GS — “I also have no problem with your choice to not take a drug test even if it puts your family at risk….. they are your family and honestly none of my business. You told me what you have done, I told you what I would do…”
It doesn’t matter to me what you would do. And it shouldn’t matter to *you* what I would do. I didn’t complain about your choice. You complained about mine. You clearly have a problem with my choice. If you want to credibly claim that you don’t have a problem with my choice, then kindly stop griping about it and claiming that I’m harming my family by following my chosen course of action.
“Really, you don’t think 1 of 50 is that much different that 1 out of 4?”
We seem to have a legitimate difference of opinion regarding the validity of those numbers.
“Which high school and or college did you study math at? Cause at the ones i attended, they told ust that 1 in 4 is way different statistically speaking than 1 in 50.”
What college did you study statistics at? Cause at the ones I attended, they explained that not all statistics are derived in a valid and statistically meaningful manner.
St Simons - beach philosopher
November 4th, 2011
11:06 am
If you add the 1600 people in Fla that refused the test,
plus the 2% that failed it, that is 5.2%, (not 25%)
of people in need in Fla probably were dirty (giving you that assumption)
mr. doom, I highly recommend against accounting as a career choice
The ADMITTED rate of the gen population is 8%
Con mantra: “All them welfare ____ are on drugs innyways”
It appears that con paradigm is incorrect.
And It has a 40k return on $3 mil investment.
And Unlimited legal costs on the back end, now that its thrown out.
All to pander to the base. THAT’s what it is.
I swear, putting a con in charge of anything is like letting my 3-yr old drive the golf cart.
Jack
November 4th, 2011
11:06 am
The man Bookman has a talent for ubiquity.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
11:06 am
Doom — “Yeah. I kinda laughed myself when I saw Joe Mama state that the difference between 2% and 25% is not a “substantial variance”.
Shrug. You’ve admitted before to not having any background in statistics.
“For a guy who prides himself on the scientific method that was outrageously funny.”
I like when you laugh, Doom. That’s almost always an indicator that you don’t understand what you’re reading.
Sound like Joe just smoked something and needs to pee in a cup.
Joe don’t smoke. And he doesn’t pee into cups, either.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
11:09 am
Doom — “Aaaaaand I’m sure those 1600 who refused the test were all clean. Such is life in liberal fantasyland.”
Doesn’t matter why they refused. Refusal to take the test does not establish that any of the refusers actually would have turned up positive on a drug test.
That ‘evidence’ wouldn’t fly in a courtroom, so you certainly can’t have the state relying on it.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
11:11 am
GS — ” while ignoring the fact that some 1600 refused to even take the test and count them in the overall number to achieve the 2% fair? NO”
Statistics aren’t fair.
What college did you study stats at again?
Jack
November 4th, 2011
11:11 am
Overweight slugs shouldn’t receive food stamps.
Matti's Reality Check
November 4th, 2011
11:11 am
Let’s start by sniffing the pee of every Congressman involved in that ridiculous MOTTO business this week! And the ones who went on TV to explain why they wasted their time and taxpayer money on a bill to “reaffirm” a motto that was not under attack: GO AHEAD AND TAKE THEM TO REHAB NOW!
If they really think we’re THIS stupid, then they’re are smoking way better *bleep* than middle-class working Americans have access to! Seriously. Just. Damn.
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
11:12 am
Aquagirl,
I gotta go but will make one last post. It all is a waste of time anyway since the drug testing will be ruled unconstitutional anyway.
If it weren’t unconstitutional I would be in favor of drug testing welfare recipients for 3 reasons. One is that its not unreasonable to expect that if someone is on taxpayer assistance that they should’nt be spending money on drugs when working taxpayers are supporting them. Two is that if they are on drugs then why the hell would we be supporting someone that may have to take a drug test to get a job anyway. Its just enabling people to keep engaging in destructive behavior. And last of course is that mathematically a couple of posters already pointed out that if we could eliminate assistance for folks who want to spend money on drugs then of course the drug testing is cost efficient in terms of cost/benefit analysis and the drug testing would more than pay for itself.Doomy out.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
11:12 am
Doom — ” It was just a dishonest use of statistics to make an argument that only 2% of welfare recipients were using drugs.”
Nothing dishonest about it.
People *proven to use drugs* lose their benefits.
Only 2% were *proven* to have used drugs.
I can’t make it any simpler for you, Doom.
godless heathen
November 4th, 2011
11:14 am
Normal: “I’m waiting for some Republican to say the poor must be eliminated for their own good.”
Well that’s me. I’d love to see no more poor people. Republicans just have different approach than the failed “war on poverty”.
Bill Bixby
November 4th, 2011
11:18 am
It’s clear that this whole mess is Obama’s fault. Just like all of the other ills in the world today.
People being poor …………………………………….. Obama’s fault
‘Super committee’ wasting time …………………….. Obama’s fault
Grover Norquist being the leader of the Repubs …. Obama’s fault
Herman Cain’s sexual harassment scandal ……… Obama’s fault
Justin Beiber’s baby-mama drama (you guessed it) …………………. Obama’s fault
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
11:20 am
Joe Mama,
Sorry dude but there is just not much to say to a person who thinks that the difference between 2% and 25 % is “not substantial variance”. That comment alone speaks volumes about your statistical understanding or rather shocking lack thereof.
“Shrug. You’ve admitted before to not having any background in statistics.”- Joe mama
Nope. I’ve never admitted that. Making stuff up on the spot Joe? Outright lying is not becoming of a poster. I took 2 statistics courses in college so I never would have stated that I did not have a background in statistics. Why you would lie so blatantly is sad. But not unexpected. Have a good day sir.
getalife
November 4th, 2011
11:22 am
They let the biggest nuttiest con guv propose something stupid then follow that nut’s lead. The nut in Florida started this bs.
How many millions in legal fees will this stupid idea cost your State?
Where are the fiscal cons?
You cons are trying to start riots?
Don't Forget
November 4th, 2011
11:24 am
So how are they going to pay for this?
Generation$crewed
November 4th, 2011
11:25 am
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
11:11 am
Thulsa Doom
November 4th, 2011
11:25 am
Joe Mama,
You still need help with your lack of critical thinking skills. While only 2% were proven to abuse drugs it doesn’t mean the 1600 who refused the test are all clean. It simply means that we don’t know. And in no way, shape, or form is it proven that they are not abusing drugs since they refused the test. At this point some common sense, a rarity in your world, has to come into play. If you think that these 1600 or even a good % of them are clean then go on living in your liberal fantasy world. Even an unexpected modicum of common sense from you should enable to you to understand this simple point. And bring me back one of them imaginary chocolately unicorns when you return. Once again good day sir.
Producer
November 4th, 2011
11:30 am
Not only drug test them but put the women on mandatory birth control. If there was a birth control for the men parasites I’d suggest it, too. If the drug test is positive suspend all benefits until they can pass the dang thing. The three generations of parasitic living is over. Good riddance!
Generation$crewed
November 4th, 2011
11:32 am
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
11:11 am
1st… When my dog tries to hump my leg i kick him off, so please stop it is not pleasent!
2nd if you do not want people to hurt your feelings regarding your choices, 1 suggestion, do not offer them up on a blog! Kinda what people do here.
3rd provide proof of me “complaining” about your choice, may have disagreed as it being the logcal one, but complain? I would say you are mistaken and throwing out false accusations.
4th…The original argument was made that 2% failed their drug test. However how can you claim that 2% failed a drug test when you are including some 1600 people in the results that didn’t take any test?
How can one be included as having passed the test, when they never took the test?
Is that a good way to calculate statistics in your opinion?
philosopher
November 4th, 2011
11:33 am
“…it’s not unreasonable to expect that if someone is on taxpayer assistance that they shouldn’t be spending money on drugs when working taxpayers are supporting them.”
Accept that statement and now it’s not unreasonable for me to search their homes at will, demanding justification for every dollar of my money they spend, taking anything “frivolous” away and selling it (to the highest bidder, of course), fining/arresting them for positive drug tests and any other infractions of the rules I am now free to make up. After all, they took taxpayer’s money…
A line has to be drawn somewhere- unless, of course, you don’t think “poor people” should have the protection of the constitution…and you are not worried about ever losing your job/home (as have, lots of those in that spot now, from architects and engineers to teachers developers who once did not believe they would be).
Producer
November 4th, 2011
11:34 am
Only 2% of the welfare population using drugs? Bulls**t! It’s vastly more and it’s more than the 25% that’s being thrown around this morning. Try north of 50%!
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
11:38 am
Doom — “Sorry dude but there is just not much to say to a person who thinks that the difference between 2% and 25 % is “not substantial variance”. That comment alone speaks volumes about your statistical understanding or rather shocking lack thereof. ”
The 25% statistic is based on supposition and guesswork. That makes in invalid from a statistical POV. Your insistence on pushing it as valid speaks volumes about YOUR lack of statistical knowledge.
“Nope. I’ve never admitted that. Making stuff up on the spot Joe?”
You have, and I’m not. You’re the one making stuff up — like that 25% figure.
“Outright lying is not becoming of a poster.”
Then stop doing it.
“I took 2 statistics courses in college so I never would have stated that I did not have a background in statistics.”
(laughing, pointing)
“Why you would lie so blatantly is sad.”
It is sad that you would lie. Please stop.
deegee
November 4th, 2011
11:39 am
While we can quibble over whether it’s 2% or 25% of people denied benefits because of drug testing, there are a lot of grandparents raising their grandchildren because their kids won’t stay off of the pipe. The grandparents should be getting public assistance if necessary. You can debate the constitutionality of drug testing all you want, but that isn’t doing much to break the cycle of child abuse and neglect due to drug and alcohol addiction.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
11:44 am
Doom — “You still need help with your lack of critical thinking skills.”
From you? That’ll be the day.
“While only 2% were proven to abuse drugs it doesn’t mean the 1600 who refused the test are all clean.”
Irrelevant, since that’s not the point. The point is that people who tested positive lost their benefits. Only 2% tested positive. No further statistical inferences can be made from the data as supplied.
“It simply means that we don’t know.”
I know that. I haven’t asserted that those people aren’t clean. I’ve simply pointed out that they haven’t been *proven* to have used drugs, which was the standard for dropping them from the benefit rolls.
“And in no way, shape, or form is it proven that they are not abusing drugs since they refused the test.”
That’s kind of my point. It hasn’t been proven. Only 2% have been *proven* to have taken drugs. That’s as far as you can go with the data as supplied.
“At this point some common sense, a rarity in your world, has to come into play.”
No. No further statistical conclusions can be drawn, no matter how much you want them to be. Here’s where you go off into guesswork and supposition. I don’t care to join you in that.
“If you think that these 1600 or even a good % of them are clean then go on living in your liberal fantasy world.”
Didn’t say it, didn’t think it, don’t have to defend it. You are arguing against a position that I do not hold.
“Even an unexpected modicum of common sense from you should enable to you to understand this simple point.”
I prefer to deal in what is provable and what is not. You can have your guesswork; I want no part of it.
“And bring me back one of them imaginary chocolately unicorns when you return. Once again good day sir.”
Wake me up before you go-go, Doom. (laughing)
That Black guy
November 4th, 2011
11:47 am
Normal
November 4th, 2011
9:24 am
I’m waiting for some Republican to say the poor must be eliminated for their own good.
Wouldn’t that be the Progressive Margret Stanger (sp?)Planned Parenthood founder and the eugenics crowd. Also, obama’s science czar, John Holdren.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
11:49 am
GS — “1st… When my dog tries to hump my leg i kick him off, so please stop it is not pleasent!”
Grow up.
“2nd if you do not want people to hurt your feelings regarding your choices, 1 suggestion, do not offer them up on a blog! Kinda what people do here.”
You haven’t hurt my feelings. You have, however, given the lie to your claim to not caring about my choice. Your complaints about it give you away.
“3rd provide proof of me “complaining” about your choice, may have disagreed as it being the logcal one, but complain? I would say you are mistaken and throwing out false accusations.”
Making claims about not caring for my family because I don’t pee on command sounds like complaints to me. I would say that you need to get over yourself.
“4th…The original argument was made that 2% failed their drug test. However how can you claim that 2% failed a drug test when you are including some 1600 people in the results that didn’t take any test?”
Because only 2% of the test population was *proven* to have tested positive.
“How can one be included as having passed the test, when they never took the test?”
Erroneous assumption on your part. I haven’t said they *passed.* I said that 2% of the test population were proven to have used drugs, and that’s true.
“Is that a good way to calculate statistics in your opinion?”
You need to pay closer attention to what I actually say, not to what you thought I said.
Marie
November 4th, 2011
11:53 am
off subject — CBS News has spoken with Joel Bennett the lawyer who represented one of the women in the Herman Cain fiasco. He is now saying that the settlement was reached after Cain had already left the association and that it’s conceivable that Cain did not even know anything about it. It is also possible that Cain may have been gone when the woman even made the complaint.
Politico also reported on yesterday that 10 of the members on the association’s board at the time Cain was there had never heard of any sexual harassment complaints against him.
Sorry this is looking more and more like a hatchet job by folks within the Perry camp including the Perry pollster who claims he (along with three others) witness Cain engaged in some aggregious behaviour with one of these women. How can a CEO of any company engage in “eyewitness” sexual harassment and none of the board members be made aware of it? Somebody has some ’splaining to do.
Mike
November 4th, 2011
12:30 pm
Florida’s welfare drug testing costs more than it saves
Posted on 08.19.11
By David Edwards
.
Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s plan to test welfare recipients for drugs is costing the state money, despite his claims that the program would actually save tax dollars.
A WFTV investigation found that out of the 40 recipients tested by Department of Central Florida’s (DCF) region, only two resulted in positive results. And one of those tests is being appealed.
Under the rules of the program, the state must reimburse recipients who receive negative test results. The state paid about $1,140 for the 38 negative tests, while saving less than $240 a month by denying benefits over the two positive tests.
“We have a diminishing amount of returns for our tax dollars,” the ACLU’s Derek Brett told WFTV. “Do we want our governor throwing our precious tax dollars into a program that has already been proven not to work?”
The cost to taxpayers could end up being significantly higher because the state expects to have to defend the law in court.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
12:31 pm
That Black guy: Wouldn’t that be the Progressive Margret Stanger (sp?)Planned Parenthood founder and the eugenics crowd.
Ahhhhh, the old “Forced Abortions!” card. Not only is it old, it’s false.
Tell me that people having family planning choices, such as birth control and health services, is worse than birth control being illegal and everyone who gets pregnant being forced to have a baby.
Straight Talk
November 4th, 2011
12:40 pm
Armed Liberal Your idea about requiring a civics exam for elected officials is a good one. Let’s start with President Obama and then move on to liberal columnists like Bookman. Required exam prep must include reading the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers. If you flunk you lose your office or your columnist job. Wow! Great Idea!
That Black guy
November 4th, 2011
12:52 pm
Adam
November 4th, 2011
10:28 am
Adam, do your fingers smell like spit? They must since you are constantly trying to words in other peoples mouths.
md
November 4th, 2011
12:52 pm
Doing them all makes no fiscal sense……..but making them sign a form agreeing to random tests would be fine by me. I’ve peed in plenty of cups to keep a job, I see no harm.
md
November 4th, 2011
12:54 pm
tbg,
Adam has a tendency to attribute his thoughts to others…….he just can’t help himself.
philosopher
November 4th, 2011
1:08 pm
And while we’re at it, let’s make everyone take a history exam with special focus on the effect of hubris on a society, what happens when a large percentage of a population is marginalized by a few, and what happens when a society begins to give up civil liberties for trite but popular excuses. If you fail you get sent back in time to Nazi Germany as a Jew.
That Black guy
November 4th, 2011
1:10 pm
Adam
November 4th, 2011
12:31 pm
Are you saying they weren’t proponents of eugenics?
That Black guy
November 4th, 2011
1:14 pm
Adam
November 4th, 2011
12:31 pm
Ahhhhh, the old “Forced Abortions!” card. Not only is it old, it’s false.
Are you talking about Stanger of Holdren?
That Black guy
November 4th, 2011
1:25 pm
Adam – “Tell me that people having family planning choices, such as birth control and health services is worse than birth control being illegal and everyone who gets pregnant being forced to have a baby.”
“birth control being illegal” – where the heck did this come from? Who proposed that? Do you ever get bit putting words in peoples mouths?
Please point out in my post where I said any of that. I’ll wait.
That Black guy
November 4th, 2011
1:31 pm
Adam – “everyone who gets pregnant being forced to have a baby.”
BTW, since I’m a d00d (thanks Joe for that), I’ll never have an abortion. So it’s not my place to tell a woman whether or not She can have one.
Howard
November 4th, 2011
1:48 pm
“Georgia taxpayers have a vested interest in making sure that their hard-earned tax dollars are not being used to subsidize drug addiction,” Spencer said in a news release.
Why is he singling out welfare recipients? Why not recommend drug tests for other groups who receive our hard-earned tax dollars – such as teachers, student loan recipients, & LEGISLATORS?! And don’t forget to drug test the DRUG TESTERS giving the drug tests. They also receive hard-earned tax dollars.
coach
November 4th, 2011
1:51 pm
as a us history and economics teacher in a gwinnett co. high school, i can tell everyone, when the constitution and bill of rights was written, there was no gov’t assistance. no debt, no deficit, no welfare/social security/medicare/medicade, etc.
so, yes, it might not be constitutional, but if the testing is not, then what about the transfer payments/income redistribution that is gov’t assistance?
unfortunately, some folks seem to want to have it both, ways. (which is how we got into this entire mess in the 1st place)
Jay
November 4th, 2011
2:01 pm
Coach, they also didn’t have jets and interstate highways and sales of radio spectrum back then either.
And though I hate to correct a history teacher, our founding fathers most certainly did have debts and deficits. If you’re teaching your kids that, you’re teaching them wrong. The American Revolution was financed through debt, and the U.S. government began its existence deep in debt to France, among others.
Jay
November 4th, 2011
2:02 pm
and if Corzine did as alleged, he ought to be in prison.
philosopher
November 4th, 2011
2:03 pm
I guess the only solution is to stop ALL government assitance-ALL of it! Merry olde England comes to mind with visions of starving, begging paupers, rampant disease (we certainly can’t give out free healthcare, immunizations, and the like, either), people freezing to death in winter, most of the population uneducated (we all know that uneducated people will not critically think or be quick to rise up against inequity…so that works for a lot of folks around here), and on and on. I guess that’s how we want America to be…again?
Adam
November 4th, 2011
3:31 pm
That Black guy: My reply is upstairs.
Lee
November 4th, 2011
3:37 pm
The main problem is that the Temporary Assistance for Families has morphed into the Permanent Payments for Parasites, a.k.a, the Democratic base.
Jay
November 4th, 2011
3:38 pm
Lee, you are badly mistaken. Not that I think you care, or that learning the truth will change your opinion.
There’s a lifetime limit of four years for receiving TANF.
philosopher
November 4th, 2011
4:44 pm
What I’d really like to see is some real numbers-rather than opinions- on how many people on welfare are abusing the system. I am no longer willing to accept the premise that there are “lots” of lazy good-for-nothings who won’t get up and get a job.. Without a doubt, there are those who do work the system and I have witnessed a little bit of that first hand. However- I will listen to no more of the “wasteful spending on wellfare” diatribes until someone is able to produce numbers…proof that there are so many that I should lie awake at night fuming about all my tax dollars that go to the undeserving. Besides, when that is accomplished, we should logically be able to address the problem and cull those who are abusers…end of problem.
Lee
November 4th, 2011
5:06 pm
@Jay, TANF, food stamps, Section 8, ad infinitium. It’s all part of taking money from the producers of this country to pay the parasites. Google “Generational Welfare” and you find countless examples of three and four generations all receiving taxpayer provided hand-outs.
The TANF program is especially problematic as the proceeds are provided to the recipients via an EBT (debit) card. As this news story illustrates, funds for “children” and being spent in liquor stores and beauty salons.
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/iteam/iteam-tanf-debit-card-abuse-20110502-es
Adam
November 4th, 2011
5:27 pm
You know, businesses have to agree to accept that money and if they use that money for anything other than what the government says it is supposed to be for, they are in violation of the law. You should report the salons and liquor stores if they are doing something illegal.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
5:34 pm
Lee — “It’s all part of taking money from the producers of this country to pay the parasites.”
I’m a disabled veteran. Did you serve in the military?
If not, then am I entitled to call you a “parasite?”
Producer
November 4th, 2011
5:54 pm
Joe, why would you call Lee a parasite? Did I miss something and is Lee on some form of public assistance? The quote you show from Lee is 100% correct. Public assistance is, by it;s very nature, taking from people who pay taxes and giving money to those who did not earn it. It’s forced charity and the vast majority of American are damn tired of paying it.
philosopher
November 4th, 2011
6:03 pm
Producer- please speak only for yourself! Selfishness, self-absorption, self-centeredness, stinginess, and wallet-watching produce little of value. If such people represented the majority of Americans we would indeed be a very sorry lot!
Chris McNabb
November 4th, 2011
6:09 pm
Interesting post. Glad I’m in Kansas. Our company tests pre employment applicants everyday. we also do on site employee drug testing. he difference is that these individuals CHOOSE to work for an employer, he/she agrees to testing before and during employment. Don;t want to be tested? Find another job. Welfare recipients, in many ways, are not choosing assistance (I know on could argue that point as well), but social program guarantee the right of individuals who meet requirements access. Where is the line drawn?
Producer
November 4th, 2011
6:14 pm
Thanks, Philosopher! Welcome to the socialists’ club, although I suspect you’ve been there quite a while now. Wallet watching works well for those who actually EARN what they have. What produces little or no value are the tapeworms sucking off the teat of those who put out their hard earned dollars to subsidize the non-productive. And although I wish I could be as sensitive as you, Philosopher, many more people agree with my sentiments than yours. Am I selfish for wanting ti keep the fruits of my labors? They are, after all, mine.
Producer
November 4th, 2011
6:17 pm
Welfare folks are certainly choosing assistance, Chris. They actually go down to the welfare shop and apply for the benefits.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
6:22 pm
Producer — “Joe, why would you call Lee a parasite? Did I miss something and is Lee on some form of public assistance?”
Lee, like all Americans, receives public assistance in the form of national defense provided by the armed forces.
I am a disabled veteran. Therefore, I have paid more than my fair share towards our nation’s defense.
If Lee has not served in the US Armed Forces, then IMO he has paid *less* than his fair share towards our nation’s defense, and might possibly be fairly called a “parasite” in that case. I’m simply trying to ascertain his status in that regard.
Producer
November 4th, 2011
6:31 pm
Sorry for your loss, Joe, but should Lee go out and put himself in harms’ way, like many a civilian contractor, sustain an injury, just to be considered as worthy of a contributor to our nation’s well-being as you? Is Max Cleland a better tax paying citizen than the contractor or the average Joe who works at Starbucks and pays his taxes? I deference to your loss, Joe, I don’t think so. And if he is paying his taxes he certainly is not a parasite.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
6:41 pm
Producer — “Sorry for your loss, Joe, but should Lee go out and put himself in harms’ way, like many a civilian contractor, sustain an injury, just to be considered as worthy of a contributor to our nation’s well-being as you?”
Sure. Or he could enlist. I’m not picky in that regard.
“Is Max Cleland a better tax paying citizen than the contractor or the average Joe who works at Starbucks and pays his taxes?”
It’s not taxes of which I speak, and one may, IMO, be a parasite with regard to other things than taxes.
If those who pay less in taxes are to be considered “parasites,” then those who pay less in time, risk and injury in our nation’s defense should be as well. Time and risk are of value, just as money is. Ask any corporate officer about the value of time and risk.
“I deference to your loss, Joe, I don’t think so. And if he is paying his taxes he certainly is not a parasite.”
Well, then — did YOU serve in our nation’s armed forces? Inquiring minds want to know.
Producer
November 4th, 2011
7:02 pm
Because I didn’t agree with you, you now, turn and attack my service , motivation or lack thereof? Get the giant chip off your shoulder, Joe. It’s unseemly. I have been a civilian serving my country since 1985, my friend, and have served in the hottest spots there are, the Middle East, Colombia and more recently Mexico, where the drug cartels threatened to kill me and my colleages if they got a shot to do so. I am that ciivilian contractor I wrote about and my service has been/is worth every cent as much as yours was/is. Does that satisfy your bitter inquiring mind?
Producer
November 4th, 2011
7:05 pm
Joe, why don’t you just offer me your hand and say “Thanks for your service, too.” We’re all on the same side here.
Producer
November 4th, 2011
7:07 pm
And, I had two agent colleagues killed by that SOB Kadafy on PA 103 and no one cheered as hard as I did when his own people snuffed his sorry a$$ a few days ago.
Adam
November 4th, 2011
7:13 pm
You’re being ridiculous “Producer.” Everyone pays taxes, whether you choose to admit that or not. Some more than others, but that’s how it’s supposed to be.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 4th, 2011
7:40 pm
Producer — “Because I didn’t agree with you, you now, turn and attack my service , motivation or lack thereof?”
I didn’t attack you. I asked you a question. If you perceive it as an attack, then maybe you have a guilty conscience.
“Get the giant chip off your shoulder, Joe. It’s unseemly.”
GFY. If you’re going to attack others for the relative amount of taxes they pay, then you have no complaint coming when someone else’s military record or lack thereof is scrutinized.
“I have been a civilian serving my country since 1985, my friend, and have served in the hottest spots there are, the Middle East, Colombia and more recently Mexico, where the drug cartels threatened to kill me and my colleages if they got a shot to do so. I am that ciivilian contractor I wrote about and my service has been/is worth every cent as much as yours was/is. Does that satisfy your bitter inquiring mind?”
I’m not bitter at all. I’m simply exposing your tax-centered hypocrisy.
“Joe, why don’t you just offer me your hand and say “Thanks for your service, too.” We’re all on the same side here.”
Maybe when you can offer poor people YOUR hand and not be such a jagoff about how much tax they pay, then I could treat you in the way you ask.
“And, I had two agent colleagues killed by that SOB Kadafy on PA 103 and no one cheered as hard as I did when his own people snuffed his sorry a$$ a few days ago.”
Huh. I got three replies out of you for one post. Maybe you ARE feeling guilty.
Producer
November 4th, 2011
11:21 pm
Joe, I have nothing to feel guilty about. I have served my country every bit as honorably as you. You are the one who asked what I had done for God and country, implying that my contributions couldn’t possibly be as worthy as yours.
“Well, then — did YOU serve in our nation’s armed forces? Inquiring minds want to know.
My initial response to you was very respectful. I simply disagreed.
Go back to feeling sorry for yourself.
LD
November 5th, 2011
12:04 am
EVERY PERSON who receives ANY type of government aid should be required to have a security photo ID AND should be drug tested prior to getting aid. Every government employee–including those elected–should be required to have the same BEFORE ever getting their first paycheck. AND ALL these folks should be subject to random drug tests and “for cause” tests thereafter.
Tarvaris
November 5th, 2011
1:04 pm
“But hey, if that’s the way they end up going, let’s at least make sure it’s done right and equitably.”
Agreed. Another category to include in mandatory testing is newspaper employees who run internet blogs. Some drug crazed blogger could influence scores of young, weak minds. We must do it ‘for the children’.
Fair
November 5th, 2011
3:51 pm
Need to test for alcohol as well.
Fair
November 5th, 2011
3:53 pm
Any job that has drug testing should include alcohol testing as well. Had a beer during the game on Sunday? Better not drive to work Monday!
HempAct
November 6th, 2011
3:17 pm
What about all the people that could benefit from the use of Medical Marijuana as introduced in the Physicians Desk Reference (PDR) as of 1999? Or that could benefit from all the uses of the perfect ratio of the Essential Fatty Acids EFA found most perfectly in the oil of it’s seed. Or all of the findings in the last 40 years that Cannabis cure cancer. Oh wait, It’s illegal in the state of Georgia, this “Agricultural state”. Damn it Georgia! Are we going to be the last bring the first agricultural crop back to America?! Embarrassing!
catlady
November 7th, 2011
11:33 am
Also test everyone who takes a tax writeoff for children, or charitable deductions, or mortgage expenses. Every farmer who gets a subsidy. Every member of every church that gets tax benefits. Every teacher, legislator, judge, cop….
Name
November 7th, 2011
2:10 pm
As an individual who supports a person’s right to use drugs (as long as his/her use is not interfering on the peace of others) I think that this bill is incredibly fair to the taxpayer. I pay into these programs to ensure that the less fortunate can provide household needs for themselves and their families. What I chose to do with my money that I worked for is my choice, and if that includes some pot so be it. I wouldnt be too happy with someone coming into my house and taking some straight out of my jar, but everytime my tax dollars are used to buy drugs that is essentially what they are doing.
a very tired tax payer
November 7th, 2011
9:50 pm
Yes…they should be tested! If I have to be tested in order to work and then my tax dollars go to some of these people who sit home and do nothing, then absolutely they should have to be tested. Why is it fair for those of us who pay taxes to be tested for drugs and not them?!
Joe Hussein Mama
November 8th, 2011
8:46 am
Producer — “Joe, I have nothing to feel guilty about.”
Of course you do, hypocrite.
“I have served my country every bit as honorably as you. You are the one who asked what I had done for God and country”
Don’t dishonestly misrepresent what I said. I asked you nothing whatsoever about an imaginary deity.
“implying that my contributions couldn’t possibly be as worthy as yours.”
Given that you’ve been outright *stating* that the financial contributions of others aren’t worthy, you have no complaint coming when someone questions you regarding your military contribution to this nation. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, pal.
“My initial response to you was very respectful. I simply disagreed.”
I’ll take that as an admission that you have not served in our nation’s armed forces.
“Go back to feeling sorry for yourself.”
I don’t feel sorry for myself one bit. But I *do* pity *you.* hypocrite.
josh stl
November 8th, 2011
12:05 pm
First off, to all you hypocrites out there, I do not think for a second that it is un-constitutional to submit a drug test at all. Each person that APPLIES for welfare are not automatically entitled to it, they have to go through a screening process for it. everyone else that administers a drug test to be hired for a job or play for an athletic team does. There is nothing to add a clause to the application process that everyone takes part of that is on welfare, furthermore there would be none of the BS about it un-constructional. How is it fair for those who want to pop out kids, not work and receive OUR hard earned money for nothing; then they turn around and spend said funds on drugs. If you think that is ok then you are one of these disgusting people. I have witnessed people selling the money on their EBT cards for cash or drugs… that is not what I pay taxes for. Welfare is supposed to supplement the people that need help getting on their feet. It is not supposed to be a way of life. and to interject on these CEO’s, they are wrong for abusing drugs, however as far as contributing to the cause they offer jobs services products to increase the commerce in this country. these welfare recipients that sit and do nothing but collect free money and procreate and raise other abusers, are nothing but a draining useless symbyote on the lifeblood of society. This is simply useless and unneeded, they should be tested. College students that get federal funding are bettering themselves to enter the work force and create commerce. Welfare leaches… no I think not. So before people like you go running your mouths about these things to bring up political controversy just to sate your cynical personalities; regardless of who makes the proposal, make sure you truly think about what is being suggested and then when you, as intelligent individual realize the benefit of the proposal, shut your mouth…
Jickdick
November 9th, 2011
12:26 pm
Test everybody receiving any aid from the government. If they are doing drugs well receiving aid then that means the USA is paying for drug habits and that is illegal.
John
November 9th, 2011
10:41 pm
I hear it’s easy to fake a drug test. Then will it just be more of a burden if there is no thinning of the heard, plus the cost of testing AND administration?
dlk
November 10th, 2011
12:01 pm
Actually, the whole welfare system needs to be revamped.This program was started in the 1950’s and is antiquaited.I work with welfare reciepants on a day to day bases. If you saw how they spent YOUR HARD WORKING MONEY you would really be FURIOUS. And YES they are doing more than just buying food with that card.Call me cold hearted but I don’t feel that shoud be supporting someone else. I could use that tax money that is taken out of my paycheck every week.