It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Again, Democrats Protest Drug Testing for Welfare and Unemployment Recipients...

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Maybe we should also drug test all those executives from the banks and financial institutions that got bailed out by tax dollars while partying down with huge salaries and bonuses.




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
I look at it this way: I put up with the Democrats handing out food and housing to people or the Republicans spending it bombing the crap out of random countries.

At least the Democrats want to prop up our own people instead of blowing others to kingdom come.

Either way, both parties are corrupt and don't have a policy to get people off the county.


One way creates dependence, the other way creates opportunity.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Before anyone receives any type of check from the government, they need to earn it in some way, and they need to be vetted. It is far too easy to game the system. I think everyone on unemployment should show up from 8 to 5 at some governmental facility and be put to work somehow. Weedeat the ditches, or process data on a computer, or process mail or something.

Yes, drug test, and also find some way to make them earn their money.

Just last week, the Georgia Commissioner of Agriculture was in our town talking about the billions of dollars farmers are losing because of the crackdown on immigration. The farmers cannot produce their crops, because there are no workers, yet 10% of the population is sitting at home not working? What the hell?!?!?

The Restaurant Association here in this town pooled their money, and they are currently running ads on the Radio talking about all the benefits of being a server or a cook in a local restaurant. They cannot keep enough employees on staff, and they are all hiring, and they are desperate for more applicants, yet we have some illusive unemployment problem?

What we have is an entitlement and lazy problem, not an employment problem.


So you are including Unemployment Insurance - Social Security Insurance - medicare.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Sure as long as we test politicans and heads of big business for sociopathy



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by tonycliffs
 


Politically and policy wise, Republicans are above and away the warhawk party, just like Democrats are above and away the welfare party.

They both get their hands dirty in both rackets, but the money that people babble about saving from cutting out welfare in a Republican system would then be funneled into bombing the crap out of some other country.

Neither party has a policy of financial responsibility, neither party has a policy for really getting people out of this rut, and they both have their own little pet projects that suck up billions.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


I would not be including Social Security benefits for retirement that were paid in by a person over the duration of their working life.

BUT, I would definitely be including Disability benefits, and Unemployment benefits, and Foodstamps, and Cash Assistance.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by tonycliffs
 


Politically and policy wise, Republicans are above and away the warhawk party, just like Democrats are above and away the welfare party.

They both get their hands dirty in both rackets, but the money that people babble about saving from cutting out welfare in a Republican system would then be funneled into bombing the crap out of some other country.

Neither party has a policy of financial responsibility, neither party has a policy for really getting people out of this rut, and they both have their own little pet projects that suck up billions.


A Democrat was president at the start of World War I, World War 2, Korean War and the Vietnam War.

A Republican was president at the start of the American Civil War.

There was no president at the start of the Revolutionary War.
edit on 9-2-2012 by tonycliffs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tonycliffs

A Democrat was president at the start of World War I, World War 2, Korean War and the Vietnam War.

A Republican was president at the start of the American Civil War.

There was no president at the start of the Revolutionary War.
edit on 9-2-2012 by tonycliffs because: (no reason given)


Correct, but you're omitting that a Republican was president at the start of Gulf War I, Gulf War II and the war in Afghanistan.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Are the Republicans also advocating those receiving corporate welfare be drug tested too? .... No I didn't think so, just the poor people getting welfare.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyteeny
 


YES, I agree totally, alllllllllllll those Senators, Representatives of the HOUSE, ALLLL WHite House Administrations
people, especially every President & Vice President, all JUGDES, COPS, DOCTORS, they allllllllllll need to take
the drug - tests daily before showing up for work or pleasure, cause they thrive on torture....



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Drug test politicians first.

Once they do that, then I don't care who they make do it through legislation.




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by spyder550
 


I would not be including Social Security benefits for retirement that were paid in by a person over the duration of their working life.

BUT, I would definitely be including Disability benefits, and Unemployment benefits, and Foodstamps, and Cash Assistance.


You pay into the unemployment pool when you work. I don't think you really realize how little unemployment payments are.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshF

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by tonycliffs
 


Maybe because drug testing is a violation of privacy...


Where in the constitution are you guaranteed privacy and where does it say welfare is a right?


There are many scholars who would argue that the right to privacy is guaranteed under the 9th & 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution but I'm not even going to go there. Instead, I offer the 4th amendment as a basis for the argument that drug testing is illegal.


www.law.cornell.edu...

FOURTH AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


On top of that, it's just plain stupid and the evidence shows that it's not cost effective as Aasif Mandvi so clearly pointed out in this little piece from The Daily Show;




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


You do not pay into the unemployment pool when you work. Your employer pays a very, very small amount into an insurance fund, but it doesn't cover the benefits. The employee pays nothing. The amount the employer pays is usually 1-4%.

When Obama extended the unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, my State took out millions of dollars in Federal Loans to cover the extra benefits, and then doubled the premiums employers were paying into the unemployment fund to pay back the loans. This in turn meant less money for the business to operate on, less expansion, and less jobs, which equals a higher unemployment rate, and more benefits paid out, which means even higher premiums will be necessary next year. It is a vicious cycle. Unemployment benefits are somewhat necessary for a very short term, but in the long run they do more harm than good. I could support up to about 13 weeks of benefits to give someone a chance to hit the street and find a new job, but anything longer than that is ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Why stop at welfare and unemployment?

Let's all start taking drug tests to drive on Federal roads....visit federal parks. I don't want drug users taking advantage of my tax dollars. Don't really care if you think i'm infringing on your rights either....don't care if you are military or a high standing citizen...you can all take drug tests.

/end sarcasm.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Random drug-testing without cause is definitely unconstitutional. However, people are applying for benefits of some kind. They are not guaranteed those benefits in any way. The benefits are charity at the will of their fellow citizens and taxpayers, by way of the government. So, if they don't want to be drug-tested, no problem, don't apply for the benefits. Privacy protected. Everyone wins.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshF

Originally posted by ladyteeny
i'm in favour of welfare recipients being drugs tested.... PROVIDING ALL THE LAWMAKERS AND ALL GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES TAKE IT FIRST.

wonder what would happen then!

edit on 9-2-2012 by ladyteeny because: (no reason given)


you obviously have never applied for a government job


I have. In fact, i worked a gov't job for YEARS, and was never once asked to drug test. Nice try though.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by spyder550
 


You do not pay into the unemployment pool when you work. Your employer pays a very, very small amount into an insurance fund, but it doesn't cover the benefits. The employee pays nothing. The amount the employer pays is usually 1-4%.



I stand corrected



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by tonycliffs

A Democrat was president at the start of World War I, World War 2, Korean War and the Vietnam War.

A Republican was president at the start of the American Civil War.

There was no president at the start of the Revolutionary War.
edit on 9-2-2012 by tonycliffs because: (no reason given)


Correct, but you're omitting that a Republican was president at the start of Gulf War I, Gulf War II and the war in Afghanistan.




And a Democrat has been president in the continuation of those wars.

And a Democrat was president for the start of the Libyan war of a few months back.

Don't forget that a Democrat was in the White House for America's involvement in the Bosnian War.

A Democrat was president at the start of the Texas War of Indpendence.

And it was a Democrat Congress that voted against a Republican President into the Spanish American War, a war McKinley did not want to get involved.

By the way, when James Madison led America into the War of 1812, he was a member of the Democrat-Republican Party.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
It has nothing to do with privacy. If you're on illegal drugs, breaking the law, why should you get assistance from the government or from my tax dollars?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join