Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because the crack you smoke would surely be detected.......bottom line, the taxpayers are paying for people they have the right to see who is abusing it
But there are dozens of other abuses. Why pick only on drugs?
I don't want to pay someone on welfare to play golf. Why not prohibit any welfare person from playing golf?
What are you basing this number or theory on? Why would you beg for the entire state unemployment to go up and to whom would you beg?
I was basing it on my own personal experience (and never claimed otherwise, though I did give examples as to why I felt that way).
And I was being a bit facetious but my point is this - that an unemployment rate of about 5-6 percent is really not anything critical or much to worry about at all, considering that when you dip below that down to around 4 percent, you're hiring some very incompetent people. Customer service and quality of product begin to suffer when employers are so desperate for workers to meet the needs of a booming economy, that they will hire anyone who breathes.'
Unemployment is an insurance program paid for by employers. Technically, if employers were not paying this to the government, they would likely be paying this money as salary. It's not frickin' welfare. .
You are partly correct. It started out as an insurance program and you are correct in that it is part of the workers salary paid on their behalf by their employer.
Unfortunately, it is no longer just an insurance program. When the Nanny State extended benefits it became a partially funded welfare program that no longer pays for itself.
I don't mind taking a drug test. We have a huge drug abuse problem in this country and anything that will help identify drug users and encourage them to quit using drugs is a good idea.
The thing that will reduce drug abuse is ending the war on drugs and stopping all drug testing. Then focus efforts on treatment of drug diseases.
The whole thing was sarcasm. I'm flat-out saying that most people on welfare don't play tennis or golf (I didn't mention fishing). What I was suggesting is a concurrence with Alan Colmes' point: that this idea is targeting the lower class and leaving upper class citizens who also recieve money from the government alone.
And then I echoed the claim from the supporters of this idea by saying "I mean, umm... They're not illegal, yeah".
I'm on your side
OK.
If we drug test individual welfare recipients we should drug test Solyndra, GM and other executives who are corporate welfare recipients.
Anyone getting handouts should be drug tested. Chances are it's their drug use that made them unemployable in the first place -- especially in Texas where many cities never were hit with any recession.
Would that include the executives at Solyndra and GM?
Everyone unemployed that I know was fired -- couldn't do the job or could do the job but broke the rules too many times. I've known people who got laid off because their company downsized but they went out and got another job.
You must no know very many people. Everyone I know that is unemployed was fired due to staff reductions. And yes, they all went out and got a job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
