Chip is going to love this. Want government money? Pee in a cup. It’s about time.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/jobless.benefits/index.html
I don’t understand why this makes sense at all.
MORE tax payer funded red tape?
Are we going to prevent people from buying alcohol and porn with the money too?
Either give people money or don’t. Programs to try and control lives are futile and a waste of money.
Did you read the article?
HOLY CRAP! The government is going to turn the entire populous from business to the welfare recipients into their “bitches”. Basically if I give you money you live like I want you to. Not saying that there is anything wrong with that…cept for the first part about giving them money.
Like I said in another thread, if we are going to tell execs how much money they can make we better start telling welfare recipients how to live their lives as well…, and Voila!
We’re so screwed.
~Matt
Did you read the article?
Yeah, who are you referring to as making sense exactly?
I don’t understand why this makes sense at all.
It doesn’t make sense to you and I because we don’t think people should be getting the money in the first place. People that TRULY need the money deserve the help but also will put their best effort forward to get off the dole and pay it back as well. So for us it makes no sense.
However to a politician who’s goal is to provide what people want, not because they need it but because it gives them power it makes perfect sense. “I gave them what they wanted…now I get to tell them how to live”
~Matt
Yeh right, all the execs from AIG, GM and etc lining up with their zippers down and their swinging dicks.
Ooops he’s talking about drug users . . .
actually he sounds like a typical politician - - blame an easy target and take attention away from the real bastards
Yeh right, all the execs from AIG, GM and etc lining up with their zippers down and their swinging dicks.
Ooops he’s talking about drug users . . .
actually he sounds like a typical politician - - blame an easy target and take attention away from the real bastards
You really don’t have a clue, do you?
help us out man, why does this make sense?
You really don’t have a clue, do you?
"It doesn’t make sense to you and I because we don’t think people should be getting the money in the first place. People that TRULY need the money deserve the help but also will put their best effort forward to get off the dole and pay it back as well. So for us it makes no sense. "
I agree with that 100%. Why give the money to people who view these programs as their right or entitlement when they won’t do anything to help themselves.
As an employer and a taxpayer I don’t want to fund some woman who has more kids to get more money. Nor do I want to fund the junkie who makes it to the UE office once a week so he can collect a check to give to his crack dealer.
“It doesn’t make sense to you and I because we don’t think people should be getting the money in the first place.”
I’m in that category too, of course. OTOH, shouldn’t we welcome any limitation on such handouts? It makes a lot more sense than the War on Drugs does, IMO–not that that’s saying much.
You have to look at this pragmatically though.
Let us pretend that we want to have unemployment checks go out to people. Let us pretend for the sake of argument that this is a good idea (it might be, despite the downsides)
Now, some people will abuse the system and buy alcohol or drugs with their checks. This has a cost to society. We can ask that people pee in a cup to try and prevent that, but
-
That has a cost too, will the testing cost more than the abuse was?
-
Will the testing actually STOP anybody? See the tour de france
-
What % of the people who would fail actually ARE productive people who happen to use a drug the government doesn’t agree with?
-
What of the inevitable law suits over false positives etc etc?
-
what of human dignitity of not having to pee in a cup for an asshole politician who is probably using drugs himself?
After factoring all of that in, I conclude that there are two possible rational options:
A. Have unemployment checks, for a limited time, for everyone, drug user or not.
B. Do not have unemployment checks at all.
I agree with that 100%. Why give the money to people who view these programs as their right or entitlement when they won’t do anything to help themselves.
As an employer and a taxpayer I don’t want to fund some woman who has more kids to get more money. Nor do I want to fund the junkie who makes it to the UE office once a week so he can collect a check to give to his crack dealer.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying.
As a D1 college athlete I had to pee in a cup in order to compete and keep my scholarship, and we had to do it quite a bit. I didn’t mind at all (except on the days I had asparagus).
The last thing I wanted to do was lose my scholarship so I made damn sure I didn’t/wouldn’t do drugs. It seemed pretty reasonable to me.
As an athlete I might be ok with that too, since I am peeing in part to ensure that my competition is cheating ME
When I have to pee in a cup for an employer though, I am ENRAGED.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying.
As a D1 college athlete I had to pee in a cup in order to compete and keep my scholarship, and we had to do it quite a bit. I didn’t mind at all (except on the days I had asparagus).
The last thing I wanted to do was lose my scholarship so I made damn sure I didn’t/wouldn’t do drugs. It seemed pretty reasonable to me.
OTOH, shouldn’t we welcome any limitation on such handouts?
For me this falls into the “Two wrongs don’t make a right” category. This is no longer a fight about “Fiscal responsibility” but a fight about the very cores of freedom and individuality.
It turns my stomach that the government spends like a drunken sailor. It both scares the hell out of me and saddens me to the core to see government representatives dictate how people should live their lives based on receiving these hand outs. One is a case of poor fiscal policy, the other is a case of using that poor fiscal policy to destroy the freedoms laid out in the constitution.
** It makes a lot more sense than the War on Drugs does, IMO–not that that’s saying much.**
Well a lot of things make more sense than that. The fact that there are so many things that make so much more sense than the war on drugs that are also so completely against the base that the country was founded on is truly a sad statement about our current society.
We, as a society, have become so “numbed” by such stupidity and daily infringements of our rights as individuals that we have become numb to new infringements, so much so we start to see them as “Good things”.
~Matt
As a kid I always heard, “if you live under my house, you live under my rules.” If I did not like those rules I was free to find and pay for my own housing. If you want the government to be your parent and give you an allowance, then you have to accept that they have say over how you live your life.
I personally would rather live a life free of government intervention and part of this means a life free of government handouts.
help us out man, why does this make sense?
You really don’t have a clue, do you?
Jack, it doesn’t; guilty as charged. I was overreacting to a post published earlier by Lorenzo which seemed to blame “Corporate America” for all ills.
Must go run, but no…I’m in the LR spewing forth…
god damned corporate america!!
Jack, it doesn’t; guilty as charged. I was overreacting to a post published earlier by Lorenzo which seemed to blame “Corporate America” for all ills.
Must go run, but no…I’m in the LR spewing forth…
I agree with that 100%. Why give the money to people who view these programs as their right or entitlement when they won’t do anything to help themselves.
Then what makes sense is not trying to control people that are already on the dole, but to only put people on the dole that truly need it.
~Matt
If it were a case where you received the check and after that the government started snooping on you, I’d probably see it differently. But as the idea is described in the article, you would have to comply with a condition before receiving the check. Actually, you already have to comply with at least one condition: You have to show that you qualify for unemployment. (Do you regard that qualification as a “wrong” too?) I don’t see it as a “two wrongs” situation, but simply as a condition that would limit an existing “wrong.”