Republican Orin Hatch calls for MASSIVE EXPANSION of Government

R

rdean

Guest
Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, proposed yesterday that people seeking unemployment benefits or welfare undergo drug tests before they can receive benefits

Hatch suggests such a system would save money and reduce the deficit, presumably by virtue of withholding benefits from those who fail drug tests. His release does not address the costs of drug testing everyone receiving unemployment or welfare benefits or enrolling those who fail the test in treatment programs.

Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

image5353562x.jpg


Millions and million of Americans unemployed and Orin Hatch wants to start a "massive expansion" of Federal Government to test these millions and millions of people for drugs.

We would have to set up tens of thousands of labs and staff. It could cost billions. Oh those "fiscally conservative Republicans". Always "thinking".
 
Lame post. I would 100% support this idea. And if there was a system that could be implemented to keep those on Food Stamps from using them to buy sugary sodas and potato chips, I would support that too.
 
Lame post. I would 100% support this idea. And if there was a system that could be implemented to keep those on Food Stamps from using them to buy sugary sodas and potato chips, I would support that too.

More government, just what we need.
 
Drug Tests for Unemployment Compensation - NO - they were probably tested at their previous job and will be when they get a new one.

Drug Test for Welfare - Yes - Tax dollars do not need to got to people who sit on the couch eating BonBons and Doing Drugs.


:razz::razz::razz:
 
Wasn't Hatch the one who submitted a bill to get the constitution changed so Arnold could be president?
You know who I mean, the Governor of CA who never was really a conservative?
 
I don't see how Hatch's proposal would in any way (gasp!) EXPAND government. It makes sense. Drug testing would not need to be done by the government when there are private drug testing facilities from coast to coast - in part because of employer-required drug testing. It's not like these tests are $10,000 a pop.

I was in the grocery store in line behind a woman a week or so ago - she had on sun glasses but I could see her eyes well enough from the side to see they were all red and bloodshot. She bought a pack of gum with her food stamp card, requested $100 in cash and asked the clerk if she could use the card again right away. What do you think she was spending the money on? If she could draw down $100 in cash and still have room to use the card again, she had some dependents she should have been thinking about feeding rather than where she could get her next hit. A lot of food stamp/welfare money goes to drug purchases. A lot of people on welfare have live-in boyfriends or unreported husbands supporting them, some just jump from man to man and have no idea which one is the father of the child they're giving birth to ... another child = more welfare/food stamp money.

I can tell you from a legal secretary's perch and from personal observation that many of these people have "inside" help who approve their benefits even when they know it's a lie. They know how to play the system - and they do it quite well.
 
I don't see how Hatch's proposal would in any way (gasp!) EXPAND government. It makes sense. Drug testing would not need to be done by the government when there are private drug testing facilities from coast to coast - in part because of employer-required drug testing. It's not like these tests are $10,000 a pop.

I was in the grocery store in line behind a woman a week or so ago - she had on sun glasses but I could see her eyes well enough from the side to see they were all red and bloodshot. She bought a pack of gum with her food stamp card, requested $100 in cash and asked the clerk if she could use the card again right away. What do you think she was spending the money on? If she could draw down $100 in cash and still have room to use the card again, she had some dependents she should have been thinking about feeding rather than where she could get her next hit. A lot of food stamp/welfare money goes to drug purchases. A lot of people on welfare have live-in boyfriends or unreported husbands supporting them, some just jump from man to man and have no idea which one is the father of the child they're giving birth to ... another child = more welfare/food stamp money.

I can tell you from a legal secretary's perch and from personal observation that many of these people have "inside" help who approve their benefits even when they know it's a lie. They know how to play the system - and they do it quite well.

I think you're making stuff up, honey.

a basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific.
 
Not really. Almost all private companies that drug test do so by outsourcing to labs that speacialize in this kind of work. Then they just fax the results over.

BTW - If I have to be clean to get a job so I can work for a living, why shouldn't the same hold true in order to collect public assistance?

Lame post indeed.
 
BTW - If I have to be clean to get a job so I can work for a living, why shouldn't the same hold true in order to collect public assistance?

Lame post indeed.

The question the premises of you having to be presumed guilty to get a job and the socialistic welfare state, rather than insisting everyone else give up their rights to be equally enslaved with you.

The only urine sample I'd ever give up for a job would be for a taste test.
 
BTW - If I have to be clean to get a job so I can work for a living, why shouldn't the same hold true in order to collect public assistance?

Lame post indeed.

The question the premises of you having to be presumed guilty to get a job and the socialistic welfare state, rather than insisting everyone else give up their rights to be equally enslaved with you.

The only urine sample I'd ever give up for a job would be for a taste test.

Dude:

I don't disagree with you often, but here I do kinda. Your presumption of guilt statemnt, I can sympathize with... that's why I rarely shop at WalMart. They always stop you and want to see your receipt, as if they are assuming you have stolen everything in your basket! WIth the drug testing, I see it differently. I have many oilfield clients who randomly drugtest. I can understand that. The last thing you need is a stoner out on an oil platform or in the machine shop. As for public assistance.. I'd kinda like to know that my tax $$ aren't going to openly subsidize drug use.

Just saying.
 
Lame post. I would 100% support this idea. And if there was a system that could be implemented to keep those on Food Stamps from using them to buy sugary sodas and potato chips, I would support that too.

really? why in the world would you support this? it flies in the face of freedom, liberty and privacy?
 
And BTW... I don't do drugs, but I also see it as a personal choice. We waste waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy too much time, effort and money locking up people for getting high. I'd love to know what % of congress is high on something on any given day!
 
Holes in companies' hiring processes aren't my problem.

If they can't screen out potential stoners in the interview process for important jobs such as you describe, then they should come up with a better procedure that doesn't put the onus on the innocent to prove their innocence. Morover, drinking on the job is as terminable an offense as any and I have yet to hear of anyone having to do a breathalyzer to show up for work.

Workplace drug testing is just another capitulation to the idiotic "war" on (some) drugs.
 
Lame post. I would 100% support this idea. And if there was a system that could be implemented to keep those on Food Stamps from using them to buy sugary sodas and potato chips, I would support that too.

really? why in the world would you support this? it flies in the face of freedom, liberty and privacy?

Privacy? I dunno.. I think when you ask another to feed you, you can't expect a blank check. As for what kind of food they buy, that is an education issue. But I don't think that should be monitored/controled in any way. As for using public assistance to buy drugs and alcohol... no f'n way.
 
I have a friend who failed an on the job breathalizer test. FIRED. She wreaked of alcohol and they nailed her.
 
I have a friend who failed an on the job breathalizer test. FIRED. She wreaked of alcohol and they nailed her.
Right...They had probable cause.

I'm all for drug testing when there's cause or after an accident, just not at random or as a pre-condition of getting a job....Even then, the value of the drug test is of questionable merit, as they test for metabolites rather than actual concentrations of a given drug in the system.
 
Lame post. I would 100% support this idea. And if there was a system that could be implemented to keep those on Food Stamps from using them to buy sugary sodas and potato chips, I would support that too.

You do understand that application of "Lame post" to that of Deanie-weanie is more than redundant...

I like the idea 'a system that could be implemented to keep those on Food Stamps from using them to buy sugary sodas and potato chips.'

On the one hand, it seems at first a fine idea, and could be implemented quite simply: have an aisle with nutritionally acceptable foods, and have food stamps apply only to these items, that aisle.

On the other hand, I have always championed freedom of choice...and suggested education rather than government enforcement.

I'll have to think about it. But good post.
 

Forum List

Back
Top