Dont help people sit on their rears

[Bugman]

I got an e-mail from a friend the other day.The subject was a letter written to a newspaper in Douglas County Oregon.I wont try to reproduce it word for word,but it comes down to this.

I work and pay taxes.Some of that tax money goes to those on food stamps or other kinds of public assistence.To get my job and keep it,i had to pass a drug test and am subjected to a drug screening at any time.

Why should people on welfare not be subject to drug tests as well?If someone is one parole or probation they can be tested for drugs or alcohal,and in many cases have to bear the cost of same.

Again this is not an exact quote,but it conveys the main points of the letter.I dont have a problem with the concept myself,i would be intrested to see how everyone else feels about this.And if this needs to be moved to p&r mods,please do so.

 

[Lionhart]

All I have to say is..........

Bugman for president in 08'!!!

 

[Bugman]

Bugman for president in 08'!!!

Thanks for your support Lionhart,but i would rather be elected dictator. 😉

 

[maniactickler]

This is what you get with the disease called liberalism. 😡

 

[Dussicar]

This is what you get with the disease called liberalism. 😡

DUSSICAR'S last will and testament.


...And to maniactickler: I leave my tinfoil hat collection.

 

[maniactickler]

DUSSICAR'S last will and testament.


...And to maniactickler: I leave my tinfoil hat collection.

Thanks, but i better not wear them. might make me look like a liberal.

 

[Bugman]

DUSSICAR'S last will and testament.


...And to maniactickler: I leave my tinfoil hat collection.

I really dont understand here,i am required to be drug free to hold a job and pay taxes,but those i support with my dollars can do as they please?

I knew a woman when i lived in Texas who claimed she could not work because of her asthma.Despite this,she was a heavy smoker and kept a house full of dogs and cats,which are known to trigger asthma attacks.

She was in the hospital on a regular basis,at taxpayer expense,but was not asked to modify her behavior in any way.Indeed,while in the hospital she would go outside to smoke.

Am i the only one who sees something wrong here?

 

[cloudgazer2k]

actually, i believe in texas anyone who is a convicted felon cannot be approved for foodstamps. i know this because a very good friend of mine sat in prison for 6 or so years for 1 count of possesion of a controlled substance and intent to sell. a few weeks after getting out, he applied for foodstamps and was immediately denied.

 

[asutickler]

Here's a novel concept: We could make people actually perform some form of work in return for the public assistance they receive, such as sweeping up litter, shelving books in a public library, or something else to assist the local government. I also think that welfare should be distributed via some sort of debit card or other tracable, non-cash system. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to rig it so that said debit card (or whatever) couldn't be used for purchases involving liquor, cigarettes, strippers, or other such frivolous, stupid crap.


Drug testing is a damn good idea as well. As is denying public assistance to convicted felons.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

Here's a novel concept: We could make people actually perform some form of work in return for the public assistance they receive, such as sweeping up litter, shelving books in a public library, or something else to assist the local government. I also think that welfare should be distributed via some sort of debit card or other tracable, non-cash system. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to rig it so that said debit card (or whatever) couldn't be used for purchases involving liquor, cigarettes, strippers, or other such frivolous, stupid crap.


Drug testing is a damn good idea as well. As is denying public assistance to convicted felons.

been done, asu. in texas, we use the Lone Star Card, a debit type card that has your food stamp amount on it. and if you accept aid of that sort in Texas, you get enrolled in an employment program, since most people that apply for food stamps need help in that area.

 

[asutickler]

been done, asu. in texas, we use the Lone Star Card, a debit type card that has your food stamp amount on it. and if you accept aid of that sort in Texas, you get enrolled in an employment program, since most people that apply for food stamps need help in that area.

Well damn... Color me impressed! 🙂

 

[storyteller]

I really dont understand here,i am required to be drug free to hold a job and pay taxes,but those i support with my dollars can do as they please?

I knew a woman when i lived in Texas who claimed she could not work because of her asthma.Despite this,she was a heavy smoker and kept a house full of dogs and cats,which are known to trigger asthma attacks.

She was in the hospital on a regular basis,at taxpayer expense,but was not asked to modify her behavior in any way.Indeed,while in the hospital she would go outside to smoke.

Am i the only one who sees something wrong here?

No. You're not. Only parasites have a problem being responsible to themselves and anyone else who's paying for their daily sustenance, housing, and health care. I'm fed up with parasites.

 

[Dussicar]

I really dont understand here,i am required to be drug free to hold a job and pay taxes,but those i support with my dollars can do as they please?

I knew a woman when i lived in Texas who claimed she could not work because of her asthma.Despite this,she was a heavy smoker and kept a house full of dogs and cats,which are known to trigger asthma attacks.

She was in the hospital on a regular basis,at taxpayer expense,but was not asked to modify her behavior in any way.Indeed,while in the hospital she would go outside to smoke.

Am i the only one who sees something wrong here?

Heh. No. I wasn't picking on the subject. I was just goofing on maniactickler's rather silly pathological hatred of Liberals.

There are a lot of problems with the welfare system. Up here, we have got a very bad situation with it as well. Some people get it without question, while my friend who was severely injured and could not do even the most menial tasks, was forced to meet with his agent and then expected to jump through hoops just to justify why he deserved to stay on. It was very painfully obvious that he wasn't up to the task of getting a job due namely to the fact that he walked like a marionet, couldn't even move his head from side to side and the three letters that three seperate physiotherapists sent to said agent that told her that HE WAS TOO FUCKED UP TO EVEN MOVE PROPERLY!!!

And she STILL kept demanding things from him that was not technically possible. Fuck. This is what I mean by too much education and not enough brains. I swear. If I ever want to work in the governmental field, social work is going to be my calling. All I have to do is pass a few tests and I'm in like Flynn. Shit, I don't have to know what I'm doing, and I'm guaranteed job security for life.

The shittyest thing about that is the fact that there were a few of my "friends" from the old days who have been on welfare since the ninties and are fully capable of working. They don't because (by their own admition) they "just don't wanna."

The problem is mostly based on beaurocracy and not a concious decision. Unfortunately, corporations tend to be allowed to make their own laws as they seem fit. Drug testing does seem to be a good idea in the long run, but, I wonder, if Oregon isn't one of those "right to work" states. Even if it isn't, I still worry about what other types of control said business employ's.

Pound for pound, it isn't fair any way you cut it. But it is the government's sweeping generalisation of the problem as a whole. I don't think I'd have to tell anyone that either the government does or it dosen't. There is no real middle ground. Another aspect of the "more education than brains" syndrome, to be sure.

Now, I sure as hellfire do not wish to be attended by somebody in the professional field that comes off as a little "twitchy." or spaced out, so it depends on the type of job that is being brought to light, but it actually irks me that somebody with any THC in their system can and will lose their job. NO fucking corporation or place of business has ANY right to take control over people in their private lives. As long as they are not showing up high or drunk then it should not be their concern. Though this dosen't have much to do with the point you are touching upon, I feel it needs to be said.

There are other places of business that refuse to hire smokers. Some have wondered if, in the future, those who are pregnant might not get the axe. They are now developing cellular phones for business men that allows an employer to track the location of employees anywhere on any day. Employer calls employee on his/her day off. Employer tells employee to come in to work. Employee claims they can't because they are busy. Employer pulls out tracking device(did I mention that it will be company policy to carry said phone everywhere?). Employer notices that employee is at the baseball game. On monday, employee is fired.

Again. I'm sorry for pissing the conversation off course, but I have to wonder if the person who sendt you that e-mail isn't directing his anger in the wron direction? It's too easy to fret over a situation you can't control, and lash out at others who seem to have it easier. I try VERY hard not to do this.

Nobody likes a layabout welfare bum under any circumstances, but the two problems are apples and oranges.

 

[DannyMc]

Brad , if I can comment of two things , drug testing seems a request of the private sector for reasons of safety and not the requirement of the publc sector , more than likely being uconstitutional ............ Welfare , as my understanding goes , a person can come here from another country and get assistance , welfare , ect,,,, the more children , the more assistance . I see these children will be taught English , get an education and become a part of the working , paying taxes class when they grow up . Given the chance of higher education , they will become a welcomed addition to all of us ............ what was given was given back 10 fold , well worth our money , money well spent ................

 

[Bugman]

My concern,Danny,is those who are capable of improving their lot in life and chose not to do so.They are free to make that choice of course but should not expect to be mantained at the public charge.

For those who are doing their best to improve,i have no problem with giving them assistence in doing so,with the expectation that they will in some manner help others to do the same when able.

And Dussicar,i know what you mean about your friend.I have seen cases like that myself,while able bodied bums stay on the dole for years if not for life.

 

[DannyMc]

Brad, I agree , lazy , take advantage people should not be supported , they should be weeded out , either to do something for the money or do without , their choise . "A good kick of reality is worth it's weight in gold" ........

 

[CitY of MicA]

I hardly know where to begin...

So I suppose it's time to ramble. I wouldn't support drug testing for welfare recipients. I think it's a bad policy as a requirement for most jobs, and why take a bad policy and expand it? I'm not a drug user and never have been, but the idea of drug testing is still something that bothers me. Is it required of management (and ownership in a public company) and would the results of their tests, as administered by a third party, be treated in the same fashion? If everyone had to submit to them, suddenly the idea might lose traction.

Obviously, our tax dollars go to a lot of things we might wish they didn't. I find it offensive that I'm paying for people to sit in first class on airplanes or attend basketball games. Talk about bulls%@$. I don't know how closely welfare roles will reflect those who are homeless. But amongst the homeless population, you will have a large percentage of those who are mentally ill and in no condition to work. You also have a sizeable percentage of veterans to whom, I would argue, the soceity owes a great debt. A good use of tax dollars, I believe, is ensuring that there are decent, available mental health and substance abuse services. Welfare assistance will inevitably be subject to the strength of these services, whether there are jobs that pay enough to live on, affordable housing, etc.

 

[Bugman]

I work for a large corporation,and everyone is subject to random drugs screens,no exceptions.

I dont think any of us object to providing for those who truly are unable to care for themselves.There are many on the welfare rolls,however who could do so,i dont think anyone can argue that point.When i see people using food stamps at the grocery,and then buying beer cigarrattes and lottery tickets with cash however,i do have a major problem with that.

 

[Icycle]

Now, I sure as hellfire do not wish to be attended by somebody in the professional field that comes off as a little "twitchy." or spaced out, so it depends on the type of job that is being brought to light, but it actually irks me that somebody with any THC in their system can and will lose their job. NO fucking corporation or place of business has ANY right to take control over people in their private lives. As long as they are not showing up high or drunk then it should not be their concern. Though this dosen't have much to do with the point you are touching upon, I feel it needs to be said.

There are other places of business that refuse to hire smokers. Some have wondered if, in the future, those who are pregnant might not get the axe.

Unfortunately, our current system of health care with employer-sponsored health insurance gives employers a very strong incentive to care about what you do in your private life, for instance whether you are a smoker. Smokers have a higher risk for health problems. The more smokers an employer highers, the higher his company's health insurance costs will be. Whether it is right or legal to refuse to hire smokers, employers may simply be doing it out of concern for their bottom line. A single-payer health care system would eliminate this problem.

 

[asutickler]

Unfortunately, our current system of health care with employer-sponsored health insurance gives employers a very strong incentive to care about what you do in your private life, for instance whether you are a smoker. Smokers have a higher risk for health problems. The more smokers an employer highers, the higher his company's health insurance costs will be. Whether it is right or legal to refuse to hire smokers, employers may simply be doing it out of concern for their bottom line. A single-payer health care system would eliminate this problem.

One of my former employers actually used to pay people to stop smoking. I thought that was sort of cool.

 

[maniactickler]

Brad , if I can comment of two things , drug testing seems a request of the private sector for reasons of safety and not the requirement of the publc sector , more than likely being uconstitutional ............ Welfare , as my understanding goes , a person can come here from another country and get assistance , welfare , ect,,,, the more children , the more assistance . I see these children will be taught English , get an education and become a part of the working , paying taxes class when they grow up . Given the chance of higher education , they will become a welcomed addition to all of us ............ what was given was given back 10 fold , well worth our money , money well spent ................

Are you saying your a supporter?

 

[DannyMc]

Maniac ,I try to see as much of the whole picture as I can . Good things do come from it ............

 

[maniactickler]

Maniac ,I try to see as much of the whole picture as I can . Good things do come from it ............

Umm...yeah...ok. 🙄

 

[General Zod]

I really dont understand here,i am required to be drug free to hold a job and pay taxes,but those i support with my dollars can do as they please?

I knew a woman when i lived in Texas who claimed she could not work because of her asthma.Despite this,she was a heavy smoker and kept a house full of dogs and cats,which are known to trigger asthma attacks.

She was in the hospital on a regular basis,at taxpayer expense,but was not asked to modify her behavior in any way.Indeed,while in the hospital she would go outside to smoke.

Am i the only one who sees something wrong here?

To a sane thinking person,it is wrong But then getting her to change her habits for health reasons so taxpayers don't have to support her is against her rights

 

[Bugman]

General,anyone can do whatever they want to do,and i am required to support that with my hard earned dollars?I think not!The sence of entitlement we have in this counrty has gone on much to long and it has to stop somewhere.

Anyone can do pretty much whatever they want to as long as they dont harm others,but if i am expected to pay for their irresponsible behavior i object to that.To many people in this country are so concerned about their *right* to do whatever they want to do,without any though about how it may affect others.

With rights come responsibillity.We all make choices in life,and if someone choses to engage in self destructive behaviour go for it,but dont ask me to pay your way.