Food stamps

[worldtalker]

I see your way of thinking, and I have to agree with quite a bit of it.

Please correct me if I am wrong. You said that if we allow ourselves to be drug tested, then we are also allowing them to do anything they want to do with us, like look through our trash?

I have to agree that you are right on this, we are giving in too much on our rights.

I once worked for a nuclear utility with random drug tests. I was randomly tested, every single month for 6 years = 72 times. In the meantime, I had a co-worker who received a speeding ticket. He was terminated.

I felt it was the right thing to do, keep working to support my family. Instead I was surrendering my rights voluntarily....

Geez, I was a perfect citizen, and this was 20 years ago.

Though I do disagree with your statement that everything should be free, at the cost of the less than 50% of us who work. We can't do that, it is not sustainable. But maybe you have a point of sarcasm there, and you are right about that as well.

So, I give you 2 points well made.

As for my 2nd Amendment rights, I don't own a single firearm (but don't tell the local felons that.) I do have a sparkling clean record. But that does not mean that I give up my 2nd Amendment rights. I fought for those rights, though I personally have not taken those rights to own firearms - I am not to dictate against those rights for others. It's the same as my view on abortion. Personally I am against it - but it is not the decision that I would make for others. Who am I to tell a woman what she must do with her own situation?

As individuals, we must also honor the legal rights of others.

As to the statement, I identified myself as a Neanderthal, merely spell checking - please pardon - once wanted to be an English professor - even criticize myself when I hit send prior to checking my own fingertips.

Davest - I think you are actually making valid points, and much depends on how they are read by others. In life it is always in the way we phrase things, and of course the interpretation of those who read them.

You and I may not agree, and sometimes quite thoroughly 180 degrees apart.

So you sir, take care of yourself, and do try to understand where conservatives come from as well.

6 years,do you glow in the dark?

 

[Chadeaux]

Just wondering, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE DRUG TESTED FOR EMPLOYMENT? I can almost understand LEOs being tested (incl steroids), airline pilots, nuke plant operators, and lawyers but I don't understand why burger flippers, file clerks and highway sign holders need it. I notice elected officials get a pass too.

Insurance liability for hiring persons with drug problems can get quite expensive.

You should be drug tested to see if you are fit for employment. You wouldn't hire someone with a heart condition to move pianos because the strain could kill him and result in injuries to his coworkers or even your customers.

You shouldn't hire someone who cannot show enough restraint to avoid trying to have sex with children if you operate a daycare.

You likewise shouldn't hire someone who cannot control their behavior enough to remain within the law. If they break the law against using drugs, do you really think a law against stealing is going to matter to them?

The only thing that matters to people like that is a fear of getting caught. That's why they would rather sit on their arses than get a real job. They can shoot up, smoke, snort or whatever without fear of getting caught anymore.

Best of all, the honest hard working person who respects the law and his family as well as him/her self is punished because of this group of worthless flesh.

"If a man does not work, neither let him eat." I believe that was a good idea a couple of thousand years ago, as well as today.

I have no problem with "make work" programs, provided those folks actually WORK. So, test them. If they pass, put them to work cleaning up the highways, city streets, removing grafitti, cleaning toilets or whatever.

The ones who flunk the drug test, same thing ... except no paycheck.

If welfare didn't reward laziness and irresponsibility, the rolls would diminish by at least 80%.

 

[squiggy]

VERY GOOD POINTS!

 

[dieselram94]

VERY GOOD POINTS!

X2!!!

 

[0121stockpicker]

Insurance liability for hiring persons with drug problems can get quite expensive.

You should be drug tested to see if you are fit for employment. You wouldn't hire someone with a heart condition to move pianos because the strain could kill him and result in injuries to his coworkers or even your customers.

You shouldn't hire someone who cannot show enough restraint to avoid trying to have sex with children if you operate a daycare.

You likewise shouldn't hire someone who cannot control their behavior enough to remain within the law. If they break the law against using drugs, do you really think a law against stealing is going to matter to them?

The only thing that matters to people like that is a fear of getting caught. That's why they would rather sit on their arses than get a real job. They can shoot up, smoke, snort or whatever without fear of getting caught anymore.

Best of all, the honest hard working person who respects the law and his family as well as him/her self is punished because of this group of worthless flesh.

"If a man does not work, neither let him eat." I believe that was a good idea a couple of thousand years ago, as well as today.

I have no problem with "make work" programs, provided those folks actually WORK. So, test them. If they pass, put them to work cleaning up the highways, city streets, removing grafitti, cleaning toilets or whatever.

The ones who flunk the drug test, same thing ... except no paycheck.

If welfare didn't reward laziness and irresponsibility, the rolls would diminish by at least 80%.

Was it the Clinton administration that first pushed the big welfare reform program? Or was that someone else?

 

[davest]

Insurance liability for hiring persons with drug problems can get quite expensive.

You should be drug tested to see if you are fit for employment. You wouldn't hire someone with a heart condition to move pianos because the strain could kill him and result in injuries to his coworkers or even your customers.

You shouldn't hire someone who cannot show enough restraint to avoid trying to have sex with children if you operate a daycare.

You likewise shouldn't hire someone who cannot control their behavior enough to remain within the law. If they break the law against using drugs, do you really think a law against stealing is going to matter to them?

The only thing that matters to people like that is a fear of getting caught. That's why they would rather sit on their arses than get a real job. They can shoot up, smoke, snort or whatever without fear of getting caught anymore.

Best of all, the honest hard working person who respects the law and his family as well as him/her self is punished because of this group of worthless flesh.

"If a man does not work, neither let him eat." I believe that was a good idea a couple of thousand years ago, as well as today.

I have no problem with "make work" programs, provided those folks actually WORK. So, test them. If they pass, put them to work cleaning up the highways, city streets, removing grafitti, cleaning toilets or whatever.

The ones who flunk the drug test, same thing ... except no paycheck.

If welfare didn't reward laziness and irresponsibility, the rolls would diminish by at least 80%.

I also would not sell firearms to someone that uses drugs or alcohol to extremes. But how is one to know?

 

[squiggy]

I think it was the Clinton Administration!

Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[worldtalker]

Not one of them has done it right,starting with George Washington,that is what the people wanted. God Bless All-----Chris

 

[davest]

Insurance liability for hiring persons with drug problems can get quite expensive.

You should be drug tested to see if you are fit for employment. You wouldn't hire someone with a heart condition to move pianos because the strain could kill him and result in injuries to his coworkers or even your customers.

You shouldn't hire someone who cannot show enough restraint to avoid trying to have sex with children if you operate a daycare.

You likewise shouldn't hire someone who cannot control their behavior enough to remain within the law. If they break the law against using drugs, do you really think a law against stealing is going to matter to them?

The only thing that matters to people like that is a fear of getting caught. That's why they would rather sit on their arses than get a real job. They can shoot up, smoke, snort or whatever without fear of getting caught anymore.

Best of all, the honest hard working person who respects the law and his family as well as him/her self is punished because of this group of worthless flesh.

"If a man does not work, neither let him eat." I believe that was a good idea a couple of thousand years ago, as well as today.

I have no problem with "make work" programs, provided those folks actually WORK. So, test them. If they pass, put them to work cleaning up the highways, city streets, removing grafitti, cleaning toilets or whatever.

The ones who flunk the drug test, same thing ... except no paycheck.

If welfare didn't reward laziness and irresponsibility, the rolls would diminish by at least 80%.

here's the rub. According to some, it is not the governments job to create jobs.

As we type, keep an eye on what the "sequester" is going to do to working Americans. It's my belief it will cause food stamp use to increase. What do you guys think?

 

[worldtalker]

here's the rub. According to some, it is not the governments job to create jobs.

As we type, keep an eye on what the "sequester" is going to do to working Americans. It's my belief it will cause food stamp use to increase. What do you guys think?

Like you.

 

[dieselram94]

here's the rub. According to some, it is not the governments job to create jobs.

As we type, keep an eye on what the "sequester" is going to do to working Americans. It's my belief it will cause food stamp use to increase. What do you guys think?

Dave, the sequester is just for show. The budgets still even with that end up with a net increase...
Sequester sure hasn't seemed to hurt Obama any...

 

[GMD52]

It's obvious to me that the sequester was nothing more than a bluff that backfired. Congress has already over-ridden portions of it, and restored funds. More job growth will be loss due to healthcare than the sequester. Remember that most of the jobs that were added to inflate the employment reports were public jobs, the high paying private industry positions are still lagging due to the unsure feeling that all is still not on the right track. I haven't hired anyone in 4 years, and unless you are a qualified sub-contractor with all you insurance certificates, you can look elsewhere for work!

I'm not sure how this will all sugar off, but I am very skeptical of what the future holds. Sorry to be so negative, but haven't seen any positive signs!

 

[0121stockpicker]

It's obvious to me that the sequester was nothing more than a bluff that backfired. Congress has already over-ridden portions of it, and restored funds. More job growth will be loss due to healthcare than the sequester. Remember that most of the jobs that were added to inflate the employment reports were public jobs, the high paying private industry positions are still lagging due to the unsure feeling that all is still not on the right track. I haven't hired anyone in 4 years, and unless you are a qualified sub-contractor with all you insurance certificates, you can look elsewhere for work!

I'm not sure how this will all sugar off, but I am very skeptical of what the future holds. Sorry to be so negative, but haven't seen any positive signs!

I agree the so called fiscal "cliff" turned out to be "the boy who cried wolf". Maybe every year we can go over the cliff under we actually start balancing the budget. Tell our friends in DC that budgets will be cut a percent or two every year for the next ten so start trimming the fat and redundancy.

 

[dieselram94]

I don't think I would call them friends in DC...

 

[Chadeaux]

I also would not sell firearms to someone that uses drugs or alcohol to extremes. But how is one to know?

See, you are starting to catch the conservative bug. I agree with drug tests for persons purchasing weapons.

I also think that if you get busted for drugs/DUI you should lose your right to own a weapon. You have already demonstrated that you are a threat to society.

Besides, if you commit a crime with a weapon then test positive for drug use, it should be that much easier to set you up with a room without a view for a very very very long time.

 

[DeepseekerADS]

Just wondering, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE DRUG TESTED FOR EMPLOYMENT? I can almost understand LEOs being tested (incl steroids), airline pilots, nuke plant operators, and lawyers but I don't understand why burger flippers, file clerks and highway sign holders need it. I notice elected officials get a pass too.

Once again I agree! But, unfortunately our desire to feed our families and keep them warm, our rights end at the pee cup.....

 

[hvacker]

here's the rub. According to some, it is not the governments job to create jobs.

As we type, keep an eye on what the "sequester" is going to do to working Americans. It's my belief it will cause food stamp use to increase. What do you guys think?

Of course it's the Governments job to create jobs. Every time the Pentagon orders a new airplane, Jobs are created. That's just a tiny bit of job creation. My contracting business was about 60% government contracts. Every time someone in the Gov needs a fax machine, some paper, a desk, a private company provides it. Also bombs and bullets.
Some here miss the point when they blame people on food stamps and turn a blind eye to those on corporate welfare. Why does blame always go downhill economically. Our food stamp problem is a jobs problem. Our Government deficit is a lack of tax revenue. Few jobs and corporate welfare. And most of our representatives represent the corporates. Wasn't it Rockefeller that said the business of America is business.
Instead of blaming some poor slob on food stamps why not turn your frustration on those that created the problem. I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the guy on the bottom of the ladder. Here's a ? Who's got their hand in your pocket?
Drug testing is to serve the insurance industry. Until they got involved few cared. Sometimes it was because management also used. Usually no one tested management.

 

[dieselram94]

Of course it's the Governments job to create jobs. Every time the Pentagon orders a new airplane, Jobs are created. That's just a tiny bit of job creation. My contracting business was about 60% government contracts. Every time someone in the Gov needs a fax machine, some paper, a desk, a private company provides it. Also bombs and bullets.
Some here miss the point when they blame people on food stamps and turn a blind eye to those on corporate welfare. Why does blame always go downhill economically. Our food stamp problem is a jobs problem. Our Government deficit is a lack of tax revenue. Few jobs and corporate welfare. And most of our representatives represent the corporates. Wasn't it Rockefeller that said the business of America is business.
Instead of blaming some poor slob on food stamps why not turn your frustration on those that created the problem. I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the guy on the bottom of the ladder. Here's a ? Who's got their hand in your pocket?
Drug testing is to serve the insurance industry. Until they got involved few cared. Sometimes it was because management also used. Usually no one tested management.

Government deficit is not a lack of tax revenue but rather over spending. The pull in way more revenue the should be pulled in now.

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chadeaux]

Of course it's the Governments job to create jobs. Every time the Pentagon orders a new airplane, Jobs are created. That's just a tiny bit of job creation. My contracting business was about 60% government contracts. Every time someone in the Gov needs a fax machine, some paper, a desk, a private company provides it. Also bombs and bullets.
Some here miss the point when they blame people on food stamps and turn a blind eye to those on corporate welfare. Why does blame always go downhill economically. Our food stamp problem is a jobs problem. Our Government deficit is a lack of tax revenue. Few jobs and corporate welfare. And most of our representatives represent the corporates. Wasn't it Rockefeller that said the business of America is business.
Instead of blaming some poor slob on food stamps why not turn your frustration on those that created the problem. I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the guy on the bottom of the ladder. Here's a ? Who's got their hand in your pocket?
Drug testing is to serve the insurance industry. Until they got involved few cared. Sometimes it was because management also used. Usually no one tested management.

No, it isn't the government's job to create jobs.

It IS the government's job to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!

It ISN'T the government's job to ILLEGALLY USE ITS POWER TO STIFLE ITS POLITICAL OPPOSITION.

It ISN'T the government's job to STAND BY AND ALLOW FOREIGN INTERESTS TO KILL OUR DIPLOMATS AND CITIZENS.

It ISN'T the government's job to TELL OUR TROOPS TO STAND DOWN AND ALLOW FOREIGN INTERESTS TO KILL OUR DIPLOMATS AND CITIZENS.

It ISN'T the government's job to LIE TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

It ISN'T the government's job to SHOP FOR JUDGES TO ALLOW THE SUPPRESSION OF OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

It ISN'T the government's job to PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH LAWS IT WILL OR WILL NOT ENFORCE WITH A VIEW TO POLITICAL GAINS.

Should I go on? This is only a 20 second START to the problems of government intrusion into our lives, and that of our countrymen.

 

[0121stockpicker]

No, it isn't the government's job to create jobs.

It IS the government's job to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!

It ISN'T the government's job to ILLEGALLY USE ITS POWER TO STIFLE ITS POLITICAL OPPOSITION.

It ISN'T the government's job to STAND BY AND ALLOW FOREIGN INTERESTS TO KILL OUR DIPLOMATS AND CITIZENS.

It ISN'T the government's job to TELL OUR TROOPS TO STAND DOWN AND ALLOW FOREIGN INTERESTS TO KILL OUR DIPLOMATS AND CITIZENS.

It ISN'T the government's job to LIE TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

It ISN'T the government's job to SHOP FOR JUDGES TO ALLOW THE SUPPRESSION OF OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

It ISN'T the government's job to PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH LAWS IT WILL OR WILL NOT ENFORCE WITH A VIEW TO POLITICAL GAINS.

Should I go on? This is only a 20 second START to the problems of government intrusion into our lives, and that of our countrymen.

I would disagree with that. I think it's fairly standard and accepted that it is beneficial for a government to stimulate an economy when it's in recession / depression.