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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
That's not pounds....it's tons........

Makes you stop to think how many schizophrenic meth heads are running around loose on our streets...robbing our homes.....attacking us....



1.15 tons of pure meth seized in Mexico - CBS News
MEXICO CITY - Mexican troops have made an historic seizure of 15 tons of pure methamphetamine in the western state of Jalisco, the Mexican army said in a ...
www.cbsnews.com/.../15-tons-of-pure-​meth-seized-in-mexico




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by explorer14
 



Society has an entitlement expectation of those who are poor – they should flip burgers, be janitors, and whatever other jobs of servitude that are expected of these people. We think we are entitled to the servitudes of others.


I disagree. I worked those jobs and more. I've mowed lawns, worked on cars, flipped burgers, cleaned restrooms, many many times. Its called doing whatever you have to do to be responsible. Paying your dues. Getting experience. Getting your foot in the door.

I don't expect someone to work a menial job just because they are poor. If they can get a CEO job, then fine. I only expect them to get whatever job they can get as soon as possible, and then work hard at that job and not have some attitude they are too good for it. Once they work hard at any particular job, they can leverage that hard work, experience, and good reference into a better job.

Nobody is keeping them down except for themselves. They are reliant on handouts, because they are not willing to make sacrifices and take a harder road to improve themselves.

There are single mothers, working two jobs, and raising kids, and keeping up with housework, and I guarantee those people hate the welfare folks even more than the rich people hate the welfare folks.

If I got fired today, I have no savings, and lots of bills, and a middle class lifestyle, and I would not be able to survive on unemployment. I would be forced to take whatever job or jobs I could get immediately. I may work days as an oil change/lube tech and nights flipping burgers, but I would not sit at home and wait for a handout, and I would not feel like I was in some type of servitude, instead, I would do those jobs to the best of my ability until they made me the boss!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Good points.

No, excellent points.

But it's tough explaining Self Reliance and Accepting Responsibility to those who have no clue.

Ah, well. Utopian Philosophy eventually comes crashing down around them....always..



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
It takes at least 3 full time menial jobs to get the equivalent value of the welfare dole including HEALTH BENEFITS and food stamps. Most people on the dole stay on it for the medicaid benefits. IMHO the dole should be temporary, not be a plain handout, the recipients should show they are actively seeking work, and they should have training and job placement programs.

Drug testing seems screwey to me to begin with, it's a lost cause, except for certain jobs where being high would actually endanger people's lives. The only real benefit is to get people used to the idea of a pre-employment drug screening which will help people get a job..



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Makies you wonder, which is more addictive: Welfare or meth?

After a while, the addict just no longer sees their addiction. It's like water around a fish.

Enbaling addicts is not OUR jobs. And should not be the job of Big Brother.

Hey, ever try to talk a meth head down to reality? It's almost impossible until the drug wears off....then comes the withdrawals. And that's just a lot more fun.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshF
 


unemployment is our RIGHT to collect ....we paid into the system for that, with every paycheck we earned......we lost our jobs and our economy was tanked by sanctimonious buffoons who enriched themselves off the treasure of this country.....I would say that the bastards who made this horror need to take the pee tests...not those of us who must collect on the insurance we paid for, because WE HAVE BEEN SCREWED....and, Josh...until you have been unemployed through no fault of your own, and you cannot find another job, because there ARE NO OTHER JOBS, then shut your mean-spirited trap!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by eywadevotee
 


It is an invasion of privacy and should not be required.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by doryinaz
 


No, you didn't. Already covered earlier. Employees do NOT pay into unemployment insurance.

The employer pays that. It is not deducted from your check in any way. It also does not even come close to covering the actual cost of the unemployment benefits. I mentioned in my earlier posts that states had to take loans from the Federal Govt to cover the extended benefits, and then they turned around and raised the cost to employers, thus creating a less favorable job market, thus creating MORE unemployment!

35,799 Help Wanted Ads in Arizona

That is just a single website. I know here in Florida and in Georgia there is a huge need for employees, because they have cracked down on illegal immigration. The Georgia Commissioner of Agriculture has stated the farmers in Georgia will lose billions of dollars this year, because they cannot find enough workers.

I've never seen a Taco Bell or McDonalds in my life that wasn't hiring. McDonalds just created a huge Nationwide job fair to help with their need.

I took a job making 1/3rd of what I was used to, and less than what unemployment and foodstamps would have paid, but I did so, because I knew I wanted to move up from that job. I am now making double what they hired me at, and I also was able to help a friend get a job here, and my wife get a job in another part of the agency, and I currently have 2 positions advertised to fill.

Sure, if someone refuses to take a low-paying job, then there are no jobs available. If someone thinks unemployment, welfare, and foodstamps pays better, then they are probably right, and they are doomed to stay in that position. If they make a choice to make a sacrifice, take a temporary hit with a longer term plan for success, then maybe they will actually find success!
edit on 10-2-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


What state do you live in? In my state we do pay into unemployment. Not trying to start an argument.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by KoolerKing
 


I'm in Florida, and I'm also familiar with Missouri. I didn't think of that, it is possible other states are different. I've never heard of any employee paying in though. What state are you in?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I am conflicted about this.
I saw the segment on The Daily Show about this issue, and I think they raised a good point. I believe that requiring welfare recipients to submit to a drug test because they receive taxpayer funds is discriminatory. Why choose this one group of people? What about mothers receiving WIC or TANF benefits? What about unemployment beneficiaries? Politicians are payed from our taxes, what about them? To be honest, I think its a little absurd due to the fact that the highest taxable substances in this nation are alcohol and tobacco, which are sin taxed. These tax dollars go to social institutions like welfare and salaries for government workers, who then purchase alcohol. The amount of drug addicts on welfare is the same as the amount of drug addicts in American society, about 2 percent. Yes, some jobs screen for drug use and some jobs don't. So, essentially, this piece of legislation says if your a working drug addict, we have no problem with you; keep it up. If you are on welfare though, we have an issue.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Im in Pa.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by KoolerKing
 


Some employers require you a pay into it here. It is taken out of your check just like fica or local taxes.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by KoolerKing
 


OK, in PA, the employee apparently pays 0.08%. Not too significant. The employer pays 2-10% based on their history of employee turnover and claims.


State Unemployment Insurance (SUI):
Wage base is $8,000

Rates range from 2.677% to 10.8236% for 2011
New employers use 3.703% except construction employers who pay 10.2626%.
Additional contributions tax of 0.65% in effect for 2011.

Employee rate -.08% for 2011 is withheld from gross wages. This tax is to be remitted to the Department with the employer's quarterly unemployment tax.

There are many details involved in calculating an employer rate. The numbers shown here are meant to be an overview. For complete details on Unemployment insurance in Pennsylvania


Link



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by explorer14
 



Society has an entitlement expectation of those who are poor – they should flip burgers, be janitors, and whatever other jobs of servitude that are expected of these people. We think we are entitled to the servitudes of others.


I disagree. I worked those jobs and more. I've mowed lawns, worked on cars, flipped burgers, cleaned restrooms, many many times. Its called doing whatever you have to do to be responsible. Paying your dues. Getting experience. Getting your foot in the door.
...
If I got fired today, I have no savings, and lots of bills, and a middle class lifestyle, and I would not be able to survive on unemployment. I would be forced to take whatever job or jobs I could get immediately. I may work days as an oil change/lube tech and nights flipping burgers, but I would not sit at home and wait for a handout, and I would not feel like I was in some type of servitude, instead, I would do those jobs to the best of my ability until they made me the boss!


Thanks for the reply...

True, responsible people will do what they have to do support their families and lifestyles. Precisely why people should live within their means, that way, if/when something happens they are not flat on their back.

Economies these days react quickly and job security is something I think most would likely put a high value on, myself included. I'm not advocating for people that simply refuse to work because they are lazy - rather I took issue that all people recieving entitlements are lazy. FYI, I do not recieve entitlements, have served my country, paid taxes and continue to do so. I don't think the issue can be summed up neatly with are you left/right.

Personally, I do advocate that if people are receiving 'handouts' they need to use it in the manner it was intended - to support themselves and/or their families and not indulgences that have no merit. So if testing for drug use is one of those ways, fine, but really, is that addressing the issue or mearly placing a monetary value on something that is not monetary in nature? Yes, some human behavior is 'priceless' (at least according to one major credit card company
) but just because you remove the means does not equate to people becoming more virtuous.
edit on 10-2-2012 by explorer14 because: tags

edit on 10-2-2012 by explorer14 because: sp



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by explorer14
 


Ya, the drugs is the least of my worries really, but I don't see any reason to oppose drug testing. I'd rather see lawmakers attacking the bigger issues of putting people back to work though.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by explorer14
 


Ya, the drugs is the least of my worries really, but I don't see any reason to oppose drug testing. I'd rather see lawmakers attacking the bigger issues of putting people back to work though.


Shutting off the supply of mind killing drugs from across the Mexican border is as good a step as any to getting people back to work.

If you can't wake up and function in the morning, you can't go to work.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join