Criminalizing unemployed - Sen. Hatch wants unemployed to face mandatory drug tests

[Bfgrn]

Sen. Hatch wants unemployed to face mandatory drug tests - The Hill

Hey Orrin, why not just use ankle monitors?

WHO will pay for this expensive 'program'? Fiscal conservatism is just a code word. It is all about trying to turn democracy into an aristocracy. Hatch's 'program' would help to perpetuate the perception that there's "a two-class system where if you're unemployed, you no longer have the same rights as other people. It kind of criminalizes being jobless, just like over the past 20 years or so we've criminalized being homeless. That seems to be the answer for a lot of Republicans; just go ahead and go to war on the problem instead of dealing with it in a more human way."

See the only reason that someone doesn't have a job in this thriving economy is because they are drug addicts. Hatch is just trying to help.

What with David Walker's wistful call for a return to debtor's prison and this hideous attack on the unemployed it's evident that the fatuous elites in this country are so out of touch that they really have no idea how obscene their aristocratic braying sounds to average Americans. or perhaps they do, and just don't care. If your point is to pretend that 10% official unemployment is simply a reflection of the bad character of the unemployed so you can protect the wealth of the ruling class, then turning every unemployed person into a suspected criminal and potential drug user makes sense.

RefRef

 

[ConHog]

I don't agree with THIS. If you are collecting UE isnurance that's money you paid in. I am however pro drug testing welfare fags.

 

[WillowTree]

why is that crminalizing? lots of people have to get drug tested to get their paychecks. nurses, policemen, firemen, taxi drivers,, come to mind.

 

[Immanuel]

Being unemployed at the moment and not a drug user, I say bring it on.

But, I do agree who is going to pay for this? Gees, I thought Hatch was a fiscal conservative. Does this sound like fiscal conservatism?

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

why is that crminalizing? lots of people have to get drug tested to get their paychecks. nurses, policemen, firemen, taxi drivers,, come to mind.

I don't agree with it in those instances either. I find it interesting that people on the right that screech 'police state', are the ones that support police state methods.

 

[Immanuel]

why is that crminalizing? lots of people have to get drug tested to get their paychecks. nurses, policemen, firemen, taxi drivers,, come to mind.

One problem Willow, it is the employer that pays for those people to be tested not the taxpayer.

Even though you will surely say that for the unemployed the government is the employer, I have to disagree or at least state openly that it is the employer (that can afford the costs of drug tests) that is footing the bill for these tests. In this case, the U.S. Government cannot afford the costs.

Immie

 

[ConHog]

why is that crminalizing? lots of people have to get drug tested to get their paychecks. nurses, policemen, firemen, taxi drivers,, come to mind.

I don't agree with it in those instances either. I find it interesting that people on the right that screech 'police state', are the ones that support police state methods.

Why don't you agree with it? You want people who might be on drugs running around with a badge? I don't. Just for example.

 

[Bfgrn]

why is that crminalizing? lots of people have to get drug tested to get their paychecks. nurses, policemen, firemen, taxi drivers,, come to mind.

I don't agree with it in those instances either. I find it interesting that people on the right that screech 'police state', are the ones that support police state methods.

Why don't you agree with it? You want people who might be on drugs running around with a badge? I don't. Just for example.

That's fine, if you choose to endorse it. Just don't come back and say we have too much government in our lives. It is an invasion of privacy.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I never knew anyone who was drug-free who gave a rat's ass about a drug test just like I never knew someone who wasn't prone to drunk driving worrying about DUI sobriety checkpoints.

 

[Bfgrn]

I never knew anyone who was drug-free who gave a rat's ass about a drug test just like I never knew someone who wasn't prone to drunk driving worrying about DUI sobriety checkpoints.

Then you don't know me. It amazes me how fascists don't know they are fascist.

 

[ConHog]

I don't agree with it in those instances either. I find it interesting that people on the right that screech 'police state', are the ones that support police state methods.

Why don't you agree with it? You want people who might be on drugs running around with a badge? I don't. Just for example.

That's fine, if you choose to endorse it. Just don't come back and say we have too much government in our lives. It is an invasion of privacy.

Excuse me but no it isn't. You don't want to succumb to drug testing , you don't apply for jobs that require drug testing. Pretty simple. There is NO invasion of privacy here

 

[Big Black Dog]

I never knew anyone who was drug-free who gave a rat's ass about a drug test just like I never knew someone who wasn't prone to drunk driving worrying about DUI sobriety checkpoints.

I agree with Soggy in NOLA. If you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?

 

[Avatar4321]

Better idea: Get the Federal government out of the process altogether.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't agree with THIS. If you are collecting UE isnurance that's money you paid in. I am however pro drug testing welfare fags.

You don't pay into unemployment insurance, your employer does.

Each state pays its unemployed workers from the pool of unemployment taxes it collected from employers, based on their number of employees and their turnover history. The formulae is different for each state. According to the Related Links below the state collects payroll taxes from employers, based on their turnover rate. This became a law under the Federal Social Security Act and is administered by the individual states. The only time employers pay employees directly is when the employer has an agreement to do so by the state that collects the taxes from them, in order to opt out of paying the tax. The employer does not receive a bill for payments made, but the state does adjust his tax rate based on his turn over experience. The taxes collected pays for both operational costs as well as benefit payments.

In Texas, Your employer ultimately pays 100% of any unemployment benefits you receive.

The state issues your the check from its account, So in that since it appears that the state pays you the benefit check, But then they bill the employer for the amount of those disbursements. So in actuality, the employer is still paying it. In Fact,, Unemployment commission employees here will not even call it "Unemployment Insurance" because it is in effect not insurance in the way it is handled here, They use the term "Unemployment Compensation" instead, or at least when talking to the employer.

•Unemployment Benefits: A Federal-State Lifeline for the Unemployed
•unemployment compensation: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
•http://www.azleg.state.az.us/briefs/Senate/UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.pdf

 

[ConHog]

I don't agree with THIS. If you are collecting UE isnurance that's money you paid in. I am however pro drug testing welfare fags.

You don't pay into unemployment insurance, your employer does.

Each state pays its unemployed workers from the pool of unemployment taxes it collected from employers, based on their number of employees and their turnover history. The formulae is different for each state. According to the Related Links below the state collects payroll taxes from employers, based on their turnover rate. This became a law under the Federal Social Security Act and is administered by the individual states. The only time employers pay employees directly is when the employer has an agreement to do so by the state that collects the taxes from them, in order to opt out of paying the tax. The employer does not receive a bill for payments made, but the state does adjust his tax rate based on his turn over experience. The taxes collected pays for both operational costs as well as benefit payments.

In Texas, Your employer ultimately pays 100% of any unemployment benefits you receive.

The state issues your the check from its account, So in that since it appears that the state pays you the benefit check, But then they bill the employer for the amount of those disbursements. So in actuality, the employer is still paying it. In Fact,, Unemployment commission employees here will not even call it "Unemployment Insurance" because it is in effect not insurance in the way it is handled here, They use the term "Unemployment Compensation" instead, or at least when talking to the employer.

•Unemployment Benefits: A Federal-State Lifeline for the Unemployed
•unemployment compensation: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
•http://www.azleg.state.az.us/briefs/Senate/UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.pdf

Oh good grief. any logical person could ascertain that UE insurance is part of your compensation package and therefor YOU pay it. Might as well say that if your employer offers company paid insurance then then that means they pay for your insurance, not you.

 

[Immanuel]

Why don't you agree with it? You want people who might be on drugs running around with a badge? I don't. Just for example.

That's fine, if you choose to endorse it. Just don't come back and say we have too much government in our lives. It is an invasion of privacy.

Excuse me but no it isn't. You don't want to succumb to drug testing , you don't apply for jobs that require drug testing. Pretty simple. There is NO invasion of privacy here

IMHO, in this case the problem is who is paying for the tests.

If you are working for an employer that chooses to do drug testing and to pay for it themselves, then you have to submit to those tests. This is a different scenario. Employment has nothing to do with it.

Immie

 

[Greenbeard]

Why don't you agree with it? You want people who might be on drugs running around with a badge? I don't. Just for example.

Out of curiosity, do you also think police officers shouldn't be able to drink after work?

 

[ConHog]

That's fine, if you choose to endorse it. Just don't come back and say we have too much government in our lives. It is an invasion of privacy.

Excuse me but no it isn't. You don't want to succumb to drug testing , you don't apply for jobs that require drug testing. Pretty simple. There is NO invasion of privacy here

IMHO, in this case the problem is who is paying for the tests.

If you are working for an employer that chooses to do drug testing and to pay for it themselves, then you have to submit to those tests. This is a different scenario. Employment has nothing to do with it.

Immie

What ? the guy I was responding to was talking about government employees being tested, not the original question of testing the unemployed who , as I sated, I am against doing.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why don't you agree with it? You want people who might be on drugs running around with a badge? I don't. Just for example.

That's fine, if you choose to endorse it. Just don't come back and say we have too much government in our lives. It is an invasion of privacy.

Excuse me but no it isn't. You don't want to succumb to drug testing , you don't apply for jobs that require drug testing. Pretty simple. There is NO invasion of privacy here

So what you're saying is you are as free as the police state allows. The blind statism of the right is unbelievable. You fuckers understanding of freedom is conformity and subservience. You have NO solutions, just a whole set of punishments.

THAT is what 'conservatism' has devolved to.

 

[SFC Ollie]

We test many people who work for the public, Police, Firemen, Military personnel, to name a few. And I for one have no problem with that. I also agree that welfare recipients should be drug tested. But unemployed.....I can't see that one.