5/7/2014 11:53 AM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/7/2014 11:45:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2014 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/7/2014 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2014 11:32:00 AM (view original):
I have no problem with that, other than the drug testing. It's a jobs program, similar to what FDR did and what Obama proposed before. Good to know you righties are so in love with New Deal style stimulus.
Just curious as to why you think it is fine for people receiving gov't assistance to spend those tax payer dollars on drugs?
If you're hiring them to do a job, it's their money to spend how they want. I don't have a problem with someone working m-f 9-5 and going home on Friday night and having a beer or smoking a joint. They won't still be drunk/stoned on Monday.
So as the system stands now, where you aren't "hiring them to do a job" and they're just getting assistance for doing nothing it would be reasonable to drug screen them?
If they aren't working, what need is there to test them?
5/7/2014 11:59 AM
Because they're taking tax payer funded assistance and buying drugs. How is that good?
5/7/2014 12:05 PM
They may not be buying drugs.  They may be hanging around with people who do the buying. 

Kind of a pointless point but it's a fact.   I don't think I care for people on welfare smoking it up but they aren't necessarily spending money on drugs.  
5/7/2014 12:06 PM
But, if they're considered part-time employees, they can't do drugs.    Workplace safety.
5/7/2014 12:11 PM
If people want free money they should be willing to obey the law.

I really have never understood the lefts resistance to this seemingly logical standard.
5/7/2014 12:13 PM
With states approving pot use, and many more sure to fall in line, I'm not sure "the law" is going to work in your argument for much longer.  

But employers can restrict drug use.
5/7/2014 12:16 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/7/2014 12:11:00 PM (view original):
If people want free money they should be willing to obey the law.

I really have never understood the lefts resistance to this seemingly logical standard.
A drug testing program is an expensive-to-administer intrusion into someone's privacy. There is no probable cause. I don't understand a supposed "conservative" wanting to illegally search someone.

I don't care if someone uses their unemployment check to buy an 8th of weed. Or a case of beer. Or wild, organic salmon. Or a double cheeseburger at McDonalds. It's none of my business and I have no interest in violating their rights.
5/7/2014 12:26 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/7/2014 12:11:00 PM (view original):
If people want free money they should be willing to obey the law.

I really have never understood the lefts resistance to this seemingly logical standard.
The left is all about "They're not hurting anybody...."

Which is fine.   Except, if I make a million dollars, they want more from me despite the fact that I "wasn't hurting anybody" while earning that million dollars. 

I think the left is all about getting re-elected.    If they start taking things away, or restricting, their voter base, getting re-elected gets harder.   The million dollar earner isn't part of that base and, even if it was, it's a much smaller base than govt assistance drug users.
5/7/2014 12:34 PM
5/7/2014 12:44 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2014 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/7/2014 12:11:00 PM (view original):
If people want free money they should be willing to obey the law.

I really have never understood the lefts resistance to this seemingly logical standard.
A drug testing program is an expensive-to-administer intrusion into someone's privacy. There is no probable cause. I don't understand a supposed "conservative" wanting to illegally search someone.

I don't care if someone uses their unemployment check to buy an 8th of weed. Or a case of beer. Or wild, organic salmon. Or a double cheeseburger at McDonalds. It's none of my business and I have no interest in violating their rights.
I care.

Some former neighbors of ours have fallen on some (self inflicted) very hard times financially.  He lost both of his businesses (he owned two gas stations), they lost their house, etc.  Pretty much everything.  They were relying on family members to help them get by.  She was crying on my wife's shoulders about how bad it was, just to get groceries to feed the family, etc.  In the meantime, my wife and I calculated how much they were spending on her smokes and their alcohol (wine for her, harder stuff for him).  Rough estimate was around $100 a week.  That's a lot of grocery money to feed themselves and their kids.

We were expecting to be asked for a "loan" (which we fully knew would never get repaid) to help them get through the end of a month at some point.  Fortunately, the request never happened.

Kind of hard to feel that much sympathy for that kind of mindset.  I don't want to subsidize somebody else's vices.  Whether it's directly out of my own pocket, or from the money the government collects from my paycheck in taxes.
5/7/2014 12:54 PM
"It's none of your business"? They're spending YOUR money.

That's where the big divide is right there. Conservatives are perfectly willing to help those who truly need help. We don't want to help the scammers and the lazy and the people that feel drugs and alcohol are part of their "needs" to get by.

Some people are poor due to bad circumstances, but there are tons who are poor due to poor choices. Subsidizing those poor choices is NOT helping them.
5/7/2014 12:56 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2014 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/7/2014 12:11:00 PM (view original):
If people want free money they should be willing to obey the law.

I really have never understood the lefts resistance to this seemingly logical standard.
A drug testing program is an expensive-to-administer intrusion into someone's privacy. There is no probable cause. I don't understand a supposed "conservative" wanting to illegally search someone.

I don't care if someone uses their unemployment check to buy an 8th of weed. Or a case of beer. Or wild, organic salmon. Or a double cheeseburger at McDonalds. It's none of my business and I have no interest in violating their rights.
I care.

Some former neighbors of ours have fallen on some (self inflicted) very hard times financially.  He lost both of his businesses (he owned two gas stations), they lost their house, etc.  Pretty much everything.  They were relying on family members to help them get by.  She was crying on my wife's shoulders about how bad it was, just to get groceries to feed the family, etc.  In the meantime, my wife and I calculated how much they were spending on her smokes and their alcohol (wine for her, harder stuff for him).  Rough estimate was around $100 a week.  That's a lot of grocery money to feed themselves and their kids.

We were expecting to be asked for a "loan" (which we fully knew would never get repaid) to help them get through the end of a month at some point.  Fortunately, the request never happened.

Kind of hard to feel that much sympathy for that kind of mindset.  I don't want to subsidize somebody else's vices.  Whether it's directly out of my own pocket, or from the money the government collects from my paycheck in taxes.
So how much testing do you advocate for people on unemployment? Just drugs? Random alcohol tests? Tests for nicotine?

What about diet? Should we monitor what food they are buying so that we know the money isn't being "wasted?" And what is acceptable food? Is high quality, expensive stuff from whole foods OK? Or is that too good for people on assistance? What about cheap fast food? Is that OK or should they just eat rice and beans?

Ridiculous.
5/7/2014 12:56 PM

Ha.   I'm playing an out of town tourney.  We're eliminated and about to go home.   I gas up and am standing in line behind one of my teammates and his wife/kid.   He says "I'm not sure I've got enough gas/money to get home."   I offer to loan him $20.  He declines.   On the drive home I think "Damn.  He was holding a 12 pack of beer.  Maybe that could have gone to gas money."

So, yeah, people think of their booze/drugs/smokes as a "necessity" when they certainly aren't.

5/7/2014 12:59 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/7/2014 12:54:00 PM (view original):
"It's none of your business"? They're spending YOUR money.

That's where the big divide is right there. Conservatives are perfectly willing to help those who truly need help. We don't want to help the scammers and the lazy and the people that feel drugs and alcohol are part of their "needs" to get by.

Some people are poor due to bad circumstances, but there are tons who are poor due to poor choices. Subsidizing those poor choices is NOT helping them.
It's not my money. It's their money.

There is no way to know who uses drugs without testing. So now, without probably cause, we have to test everyone on unemployment in order to catch the percentage that may or may not be drug addicts.

It's expensive and a privacy violation.
5/7/2014 1:02 PM
Maybe not so much for unemployment, as if I'm not mistaken, you have to have some work history before you can receive benefits. But certainly for welfare.
of 121

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.