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

[Bfgrn]

I find your attempt at moral superiority as a moral relativist a laughable folly. The day I accept the validity of 'feel good ethics' an 'cause I like it and that makes it right morality' as equal if not superior to an absolutist one Christian God view of reality, is the day I ask for the check. Spare me your sermonizing or at least find a sound proof room if you must prosthelatize to yourself.

After you create your monsters

I have created no monsters, they were created without my help and I society and their peers have deemed them such. They have the right and authority by our social compact to do such a thing. If you do not like it, please find the nation in which you agree with their judicial code and move.

It is always the way with the fascist mind. That is what allows you to put them in the ovens, or in your case, the chair.

Reacto in absurdum. You are drawing parallels that do not exist. Even the Bible proscribed capital punishment. Of course, you are not a Christian or if you claim to be, a very ignorant one. There is nothing wrong with doing away with monsters. Are you for keeping baby rapist/murderers around in a little box, driving them crazier and crazier and praying for them to never get out? Who's the inhumane one now? Or do you just want to stop at mutilation? Castration, chemical and physical, has been proven to fail for it is not about the sex, it is about power, control and the ability to do bad things. These monsters need to be shot, the instant they are convicted for there is no cure for them. Brighter minds than you and I have figured this out But let's let them live in a little box instead just so you can sleep at night.



Ah, here we get to it. You just want to be the arbiter of what is crime and what isn't. Gotta love relativist elitists. Then again, most elitists are relativists. It's the only way to justify their actions and beliefs. Not willing to accept the work of better minds who created this system of justice before you.



You just don't have the stomach to follow this logic to it's practical end. If you are NEVER going to let them out, execute them and be done with it. Otherwise you are a cruel and inhumane monster as well, executing them slowly by time and idleness. I find that excessively cruel. Much better the kindness to blow their brains out and be done with it. BTW, are you pro choice? Pro euthanasia for the suffering elderly?



ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funniest goddamn statement you have EVER made bfgrn in the passion of trying to win an argument! Oh my stars and garters!!! You are an astounding scoundrel, indeed! To try and paint me with the same slime and filth you worship??? My gawd! I'm a statist????? If stupidity was a sin, you should have immolated the instant you made that statement!

No. I'm not even going to go into a defense as why that was ******* stupid. You are too intellectually, morally and socially bankrupt to even comprehend this. You are worth only enough to laugh at for you have just fallen into the ocean and insist it is not wet.

Ha. Ha. Ha.



Having a prison psychologist in the family gives me a little better take on this than you I see. Drugs are not a victimless crime. Even the Chinese knew that with the opium wars. Drugs destroy nations. Always have, always will. They are a drain on society and a threat to law abiding citizens with their very acts. If they ever run out of ways to obtain their drugs legally, they will resort to other crimes, which you aren't even capable of punishing properly, leaving you in a very awkward dilemma.

I doubt you even understand why we finally banned drug use in this nation. Probably think it all started with Nixon. It didn't. Used to be until the Great Depression you could get many illegal drugs over the counter at the drug store or soda fountain or speakeasy. Common 'tonics' in New York taverns, for example circa 1890 would sell you cocktails mad of Ether, Chloral Hydrate, Benzene and Opiates as well as cocaine (back then they called it "Burny" cause it burned the nose so bad). People often died of these cocktails because of bad reations or from violence that followed in the wake of these little pockets of bacchanalia hell. Opium dens were common in the old west following the Chinese as they moved east through the nation and the Civil War turned an entire generation of wounded veterens into morphine fiends that created an actual crisis when dealing with federal government pensions for wounded veterans. It was not uncommon for the wife to go down and get "Laudnam" to feed their far older husband his habit, leaving him at home and as long as she kept him sedated, she had a life far better than her peers.

The Temperance League and many other organizations struggled just as hard against these drugs as they did Demon Rum for they saw the wreckage it left on society. And here you sit thinking it's just going to 'stop at pot'. It will not and we will return to an era of social degeneracy that would make even the carnal degenerates of the 1960's free love era flinch in horror. You do not understand the demon that you wish to release on this nation through your own naivete. It is not good what you serve, but one of the blackest evils that this world has ever known.



I'm astounded you're capable of functioning in society. Well I assume you are able to. You're only words on a screen to me. Very very stupid words.



No system of justice is perfect. Secondly, executing the wrong person is an accident. Not murder. Executions are a punishment for a crime.



Invalid argument. Everyone on the jury must agree that the death penalty is warranted. Also, if someone is incapable of considering that option for a death penalty case, they are unfit for that jury. They must at least be open to the possibility that punishment is necessary. I see you've never served Jury Duty before. I have, and was the member of the jury that got the man convicted by discovering his lie. We went from a hung jury to unanimous conviction and everyone in that jury room was satisfied they did right. The truth and justice is what must be served. I am very proud of myself for that even though it was not a death penalty trial.

You... obviously know nothing of what it's like to be in that position. I have taken away a man's freedom for what he did and know I did right. You need to volunteer and learn something little boy.

Killing an innocent human being is murder. WHO pays for that crime when the State murders an innocent person, you?...the Governor? What about the families of THOSE innocent victims YOU have created? If one of my family members murdered someone, I could find a way to accept their consequences. But if my family member were innocent and executed, I would now be a victim you righteously say you are protecting.

Okay, it's clear that you are not capable of rational thought on this. You are nothing more than a pile of advocacy bullshit, rage and blithering ignorance.

The depth and scope of your illness is sad Fitz. You aren't even aware of it, and I doubt you ever will. Until you come face to face with St Peter.

Hah! And the one ignorant of absolute ethics and morality tries to sermonize again. One little bit of advice here. Don't use St. Peter anymore, you don't get it and it's obvious you don't understand sin either. I am not sinless. I never have BEEN sinless. But through faith in Jesus Christ, My lord, (doubtful he's yours) I am forgiven.

Now sod off, and play with someone else. You're incapable of this discussion, Will Hunting.

PS... wasn't it also Thomas Jefferson who said the tree of liberty must every once and a while be watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants? Hmmmmmm not so pacifist now, was he?

Hey Fitz. I would appreciate if you would stop chopping up my posts and cutting off my quotes. I am very capable of arguing my beliefs in cognitive paragraphs. If you are not, then take a night course in writing.

 

[Immanuel]

In the business world, many companies give drug tests to those that have never done drugs; innocent people who are "guilty until proven innocent"...


So the unemployed will be subjected to it if they want to become employed and get a paycheck so what is wrong with subjecting them to it so they can get a paycheck when unemployed?

Furthermore, for those that do drugs, it will be an impetus to stop doing drugs.

I dopnt understand the outrage.

Do you really think it would be an impetus to stop doing drugs? If their own health, family, children isn't enough to get them off of drugs why would random drug testing?

Immie

They need the money to do the drugs. If the cant get the money, they wouldnt be able to do the drugs. So in that "circle", they may come to their senses.

I wish I could believe that.

Problem is when they don't have the money for their drugs they turn to other means of getting them including crime i.e. prostitution, burglary.

Immie

 

[Jarhead]

In the business world, many companies give drug tests to those that have never done drugs; innocent people who are "guilty until proven innocent"...


So the unemployed will be subjected to it if they want to become employed and get a paycheck so what is wrong with subjecting them to it so they can get a paycheck when unemployed?

Furthermore, for those that do drugs, it will be an impetus to stop doing drugs.

I dopnt understand the outrage.

it gives government power, they do not constitutionally have...they are not employing you in a dangerous or complicated job....it is a government ''reach'' in to the private lives of citizens, that employ them(the gvt worker) with their tax dollars.

if you can show me where in the constitution they have been given this power, i'd appreciate it.

You are not allowed to ask that question! Don't you know, the Constitution was written in the shape of a hammer that can only be used by 'conservatives'. This isn't invasion of privacy, it's a purity test.

lol.
Well done.

BTW....as a conservative.....it is an invasion of privacy. It is unconstiututional and none of the governments business.

 

[Jarhead]

Do you really think it would be an impetus to stop doing drugs? If their own health, family, children isn't enough to get them off of drugs why would random drug testing?

Immie

They need the money to do the drugs. If the cant get the money, they wouldnt be able to do the drugs. So in that "circle", they may come to their senses.

I wish I could believe that.

Problem is when they don't have the money for their drugs they turn to other means of getting them including crime i.e. prostitution, burglary.

Immie

That applies to all habitual drug users. Not just those that are unemployed.

Just needed to clarify as I have been blasted for my sentiments being taken out of context.

 

[Care4all]

the employee's unemployment compensation is EARNED according to the State

It is not earned as they do not pay for it like they pay for disibility.
The first and second employer of record pays it along with the state.
It is an entitlement, and one I do not disagree with.

it is EARNED....yes employers pay some for the required insurance, but this IS PART of the total compensation of the employee, just as the employer's portion of matching ones SS taxes paid. All employers consider this as YOUR compensation....what it costs them, to employ you.

they DO NOT pay this insurance on you, if you do not WORK for them....

And YOU as the employee must meet working requirements to draw on it, if unemployed....it is NOT automatic....you have to work for 6 months, the amount you have worked for and earned in UC compensation is all based on the EMPLOYEE.

 

[Ravi]

And then I have Ravi and Topspin exude their sentiments based on them assuming something I feel...that I dont believe in at all.

Maybe you should think before you post:

It will only help. Not hurt.

 

[Jarhead]

the employee's unemployment compensation is EARNED according to the State

It is not earned as they do not pay for it like they pay for disibility.
The first and second employer of record pays it along with the state.
It is an entitlement, and one I do not disagree with.

it is EARNED....yes employers pay some for the required insurance, but this IS PART of the total compensation of the employee, just as the employer's portion of matching ones SS taxes paid. All employers consider this as YOUR compensation....what it costs them, to employ you.

they DO NOT pay this insurance on you, if you do not WORK for them....

And YOU as the employee must meet working requirements to draw on it, if unemployed....it is NOT automatic....you have to work for 6 months, the amount you have worked for and earned is all based on the EMPLOYEE.

Not usre if you know this, but I just want to calrify it.

An employers unemployment ratio is not affected by those that are employed but by the amount that were terminated. So ones compensation while employed does not include the cost of unemployment inusrance to the employer.

Whereas UI is deemed as a cost of payroll from an operational expense standpoint, it is not at all based on payroll.

Furthermore, the second employer of record ALSO absorbs some cost of unemployment; even though they have not had that empoloyee under their employ in the recent past. Their UI ration ALSO increases when the first employer (most recent) terminates an employee.

SO whereas much of what you say is accurate, it is not considered part of an employees compensation while they are employed.

That is why I do not see it as earned.

Instead, I see it as a necessary entitlement.

 

[Jarhead]

And then I have Ravi and Topspin exude their sentiments based on them assuming something I feel...that I dont believe in at all.

Maybe you should think before you post:

It will only help. Not hurt.

It WILL help, not hurt.
But it is not consitutional.

Curfew at dusk for all US citizens will help crime rates drop dramatically. Not hurt crime rates.
But it is not consitutional.

Like I said. Read all posts. Do not make judgement calls on just one post.

 

[Care4all]

It is not earned as they do not pay for it like they pay for disibility.
The first and second employer of record pays it along with the state.
It is an entitlement, and one I do not disagree with.

it is EARNED....yes employers pay some for the required insurance, but this IS PART of the total compensation of the employee, just as the employer's portion of matching ones SS taxes paid. All employers consider this as YOUR compensation....what it costs them, to employ you.

they DO NOT pay this insurance on you, if you do not WORK for them....

And YOU as the employee must meet working requirements to draw on it, if unemployed....it is NOT automatic....you have to work for 6 months, the amount you have worked for and earned is all based on the EMPLOYEE.

Not usre if you know this, but I just want to calrify it.

An employers unemployment ratio is not affected by those that are employed but by the amount that were terminated. So ones compensation while employed does not include the cost of unemployment inusrance to the employer.

Whereas UI is deemed as a cost of payroll from an operational expense standpoint, it is not at all based on payroll.

Furthermore, the second employer of record ALSO absorbs some cost of unemployment; even though they have not had that empoloyee under their employ in the recent past. Their UI ration ALSO increases when the first employer (most recent) terminates an employee.

SO whereas much of what you say is accurate, it is not considered part of an employees compensation while they are employed.

That is why I do not see it as earned.

Instead, I see it as a necessary entitlement.

the percentage they pay is based on how many they fire, but the percentage is processed against all the employee salaries that they pay out.....no?

 

[Ravi]

And then I have Ravi and Topspin exude their sentiments based on them assuming something I feel...that I dont believe in at all.

Maybe you should think before you post:

It will only help. Not hurt.

It WILL help, not hurt.
But it is not consitutional.

Curfew at dusk for all US citizens will help crime rates drop dramatically. Not hurt crime rates.
But it is not consitutional.

Like I said. Read all posts. Do not make judgement calls on just one post.

Wasting money for a stupid program like this helps nothing.

 

[Ravi]

it is EARNED....yes employers pay some for the required insurance, but this IS PART of the total compensation of the employee, just as the employer's portion of matching ones SS taxes paid. All employers consider this as YOUR compensation....what it costs them, to employ you.

they DO NOT pay this insurance on you, if you do not WORK for them....

And YOU as the employee must meet working requirements to draw on it, if unemployed....it is NOT automatic....you have to work for 6 months, the amount you have worked for and earned is all based on the EMPLOYEE.

Not usre if you know this, but I just want to calrify it.

An employers unemployment ratio is not affected by those that are employed but by the amount that were terminated. So ones compensation while employed does not include the cost of unemployment inusrance to the employer.

Whereas UI is deemed as a cost of payroll from an operational expense standpoint, it is not at all based on payroll.

Furthermore, the second employer of record ALSO absorbs some cost of unemployment; even though they have not had that empoloyee under their employ in the recent past. Their UI ration ALSO increases when the first employer (most recent) terminates an employee.

SO whereas much of what you say is accurate, it is not considered part of an employees compensation while they are employed.

That is why I do not see it as earned.

Instead, I see it as a necessary entitlement.

the percentage they pay is based on how many they fire, but the percentage is processed against all the employee salaries that they pay out.....no?

The percentage that are laid off. And yes, it is figured on the number of employees you have. You must pay a percentage of the first $7,000 of each employee.

 

[Jarhead]

it is EARNED....yes employers pay some for the required insurance, but this IS PART of the total compensation of the employee, just as the employer's portion of matching ones SS taxes paid. All employers consider this as YOUR compensation....what it costs them, to employ you.

they DO NOT pay this insurance on you, if you do not WORK for them....

And YOU as the employee must meet working requirements to draw on it, if unemployed....it is NOT automatic....you have to work for 6 months, the amount you have worked for and earned is all based on the EMPLOYEE.

Not usre if you know this, but I just want to calrify it.

An employers unemployment ratio is not affected by those that are employed but by the amount that were terminated. So ones compensation while employed does not include the cost of unemployment inusrance to the employer.

Whereas UI is deemed as a cost of payroll from an operational expense standpoint, it is not at all based on payroll.

Furthermore, the second employer of record ALSO absorbs some cost of unemployment; even though they have not had that empoloyee under their employ in the recent past. Their UI ration ALSO increases when the first employer (most recent) terminates an employee.

SO whereas much of what you say is accurate, it is not considered part of an employees compensation while they are employed.

That is why I do not see it as earned.

Instead, I see it as a necessary entitlement.

the percentage they pay is based on how many they fire, but the percentage is processed against all the employee salaries that they pay out.....no?

Not based on those that are employed.
Based on those that were terminated.
Existing gross payroll has no affect on my UI ratio. Amount of people terminated does. When my ratio hits a certyain number, I am charged per claim; and the amount I am charged is based n the amount they are given by the state. And yes, the amount given by the state is based on what their most recent salary was.
But my ratio is strictly based on how many I terminated. Not my gross payroll.

And just an FYI......5 years and my ratio is still below the threshold of where I must contribute. Yep, I am proud of that.

 

[Immanuel]

Just how many people collecting unemployment do you morons think are spending it on drugs?

A small percentage at best.
Who said they are spending it on drugs? I simply responded to one who impliers that some do.
My point was that those that seek jobs are many times subjected to drug tests by the prospective employer, so if that is considered acceptable, then why is it not considered acceptable to do the same for those that collect unemployment?

It will only help. Not hurt.

Acceptable? Yes, I agree with that. However, I do not think that our government needs to add the costs of doing so to the cost Unemployment Compensation. Chances are even those who tested positive would get away with receiving UE.

Immie

 

[Jarhead]

Not usre if you know this, but I just want to calrify it.

An employers unemployment ratio is not affected by those that are employed but by the amount that were terminated. So ones compensation while employed does not include the cost of unemployment inusrance to the employer.

Whereas UI is deemed as a cost of payroll from an operational expense standpoint, it is not at all based on payroll.

Furthermore, the second employer of record ALSO absorbs some cost of unemployment; even though they have not had that empoloyee under their employ in the recent past. Their UI ration ALSO increases when the first employer (most recent) terminates an employee.

SO whereas much of what you say is accurate, it is not considered part of an employees compensation while they are employed.

That is why I do not see it as earned.

Instead, I see it as a necessary entitlement.

the percentage they pay is based on how many they fire, but the percentage is processed against all the employee salaries that they pay out.....no?

The percentage that are laid off. And yes, it is figured on the number of employees you have. You must pay a percentage of the first $7,000 of each employee.

It is NOT based on how many employees you have. It is based on hoiw many you terminate.

 

[Ravi]

And just an FYI......5 years and my ratio is still below the threshold of where I must contribute. Yep, I am proud of that.

I thought you were a marine.

 

[Ravi]

the percentage they pay is based on how many they fire, but the percentage is processed against all the employee salaries that they pay out.....no?

The percentage that are laid off. And yes, it is figured on the number of employees you have. You must pay a percentage of the first $7,000 of each employee.

It is NOT based on how many employees you have. It is based on hoiw many you terminate.

Your rate goes up if you lay people off. But yes, the employer pays his/her rate on each and every employee he has. The first 7,000 of salary you pay each employee is multiplied by the employers current unemployment rate.

 

[Jarhead]

And just an FYI......5 years and my ratio is still below the threshold of where I must contribute. Yep, I am proud of that.

I thought you were a marine.

Not all marines are career military.
I am 52 years old.

 

[American Horse]

Do you really think it would be an impetus to stop doing drugs? If their own health, family, children isn't enough to get them off of drugs why would random drug testing?

Immie

Absolutely yes. People doing drugs, particularly milder drugs like "dope" will stop, because even dope is not cheap, and they have to have money to get it. If they knew that by taking a test they would not only lose the benefit of getting money in the form of an unemployment check, but getting money over a sustained period, they would quit.

I've known people who did dope who stopped because they needed to get a job and they knew they would be tested up-front as a pre-requisite for that employment, so they quit at least 30 days before applying for a job, and they never re-started.

 

[Jarhead]

The percentage that are laid off. And yes, it is figured on the number of employees you have. You must pay a percentage of the first $7,000 of each employee.

It is NOT based on how many employees you have. It is based on hoiw many you terminate.

Your rate goes up if you lay people off. But yes, the employer pays his/her rate on each and every employee he has. The first 7,000 of salary you pay each employee is multiplied by the employers current unemployment rate.

Explain how that determines UI.

My ratio, here in NY is based STRICTLY on how many I terminate. At my peak of employment, I had a payroll of over 1 Million, but I was not paying a dime and have never paid a dime in UI.
I still have a ways to go before I pay a dime.

The only entity that requires a regular update of my gross payroll is my LTD and Workers Comp inusurer.

 

[American Horse]

Not usre if you know this, but I just want to calrify it.

An employers unemployment ratio is not affected by those that are employed but by the amount that were terminated. So ones compensation while employed does not include the cost of unemployment inusrance to the employer.

Whereas UI is deemed as a cost of payroll from an operational expense standpoint, it is not at all based on payroll.

Furthermore, the second employer of record ALSO absorbs some cost of unemployment; even though they have not had that empoloyee under their employ in the recent past. Their UI ration ALSO increases when the first employer (most recent) terminates an employee.

SO whereas much of what you say is accurate, it is not considered part of an employees compensation while they are employed.

That is why I do not see it as earned.

Instead, I see it as a necessary entitlement.

the percentage they pay is based on how many they fire, but the percentage is processed against all the employee salaries that they pay out.....no?

Not based on those that are employed.
Based on those that were terminated.
Existing gross payroll has no affect on my UI ratio. Amount of people terminated does. When my ratio hits a certyain number, I am charged per claim; and the amount I am charged is based n the amount they are given by the state. And yes, the amount given by the state is based on what their most recent salary was.
But my ratio is strictly based on how many I terminated. Not my gross payroll.

And just an FYI......5 years and my ratio is still below the threshold of where I must contribute. Yep, I am proud of that.

As a small business owner I want to say Jarhead has it exactly right here, except for one minor detail, unless things have changed: Firing with cause will disqualify the unemployed person from drawing UI.

All else being equal, a person "laid off" because of unavailability of work will always draw UI, if they meet work duration requirements.