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

With 'rights' come 'responsibilities'. This is something often overlooked by the drooling lefties. I have no problem with those drawing unemployment checks to be required to ensure that they are capable of getting a job in return for their money. So, why shouldn't they have to stay off the illegal substances?

And just how isn't that BIG government intrusion into people's lives? The people that lost their jobs were doing the 'responsible' thing...they were ******* WORKING.
Absolutely!!!!!

.....And, too-often, they're experienced-people (15-20 years) the company should be retaining, but they're also at a (well-deserved) pay-grade, that....when-eliminated....can do wonder$ for a CEO's bonu$!!!!

If CEOs are only gonna be concerned with (their) short-term-profits....typically at The Company's expense/future-prospects....ya' can't very-well criticize those (laid-off), for managing their future/future-prospects, the best they can!!!​
 
First he needs to get drug test for his peers on the hill.
They MUST be on drugs....... 'cause they damn sure don't know how to run a business.
 
With 'rights' come 'responsibilities'. This is something often overlooked by the drooling lefties. I have no problem with those drawing unemployment checks to be required to ensure that they are capable of getting a job in return for their money. So, why shouldn't they have to stay off the illegal substances?

And just how isn't that BIG government intrusion into people's lives? The people that lost their jobs were doing the 'responsible' thing...they were ******* WORKING.

The current job market offers 1 job opening for every 5 unemployed Americans looking for work.

The small government argument is no longer yours...you just abdicated.
Why are there no jobs?

Industry is not hiring.

Why are they not hiring?

Because there is too much uncertainty in the market to trust spending capital on hiring o new facilities.

Why is there uncertainty?

Because the federal government has fuckall for policy.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....so, when a CEO takes that fuckall-attitude....and, grabs as-much-ca$h-as-he-can.....he's considered to be some kind o' capitali$tic-hero, to "conservatives"; a man-on-a-mission...a captain-of-industry!!!

"conservatives" ALSO suggest (especially prior to Bush Debacle II) that government should be run like a business....but, they also don't want to be ignored by the government!!

There's certainly been no consistency wasted on "conservatives"!!!! How QUICKLY they forget that ol' corporate-dictum:

The Workplace Is NOT A Democracy!

.....but....somehow....they expect the government TO be run LIKE a business??!!!!
323.png


Is it any wonder that Teabaggers are so confused?

:rolleyes:
 
And just how isn't that BIG government intrusion into people's lives? The people that lost their jobs were doing the 'responsible' thing...they were ******* WORKING.

The current job market offers 1 job opening for every 5 unemployed Americans looking for work.

The small government argument is no longer yours...you just abdicated.
Why are there no jobs?

Industry is not hiring.

Why are they not hiring?

Because there is too much uncertainty in the market to trust spending capital on hiring o new facilities.
Why is there uncertainty?

Because the federal government has fuckall for policy.

Why is the government have bad policy?

Liberals want to play social engineers regardless of economic realities based on an ultra naive faith in mommy style 'fairness'.

Why isn't fairness a successful policy?

Because we run in a world of limited resources and the laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed. Therefore you cannot govern with this fantasy as your guide.

So what should be our guide?

Capitalism. Rational, ethical, capitalism. Government cut back to it's original levels and let the people be in charge of their own destiny with as little federal involvement as possible. The states on the other hand need a return to their true levels of power, taking back what has been usurped by the national government.

I would be interested to know the data supporting your conclusions. We know that millions of jobs have been moved to China and India. Republican Candidates Carly Fiarino and Meg Whitman have helped see to that. The Bush tax cuts financed this "movement" of American Jobs.

Curious. I didn't see you mention these "facts". Care to explain?

Like I say.....There's been NO Consistency wasted on "conservatives".

:rolleyes:
 
Not sure what the problem with this is. While on unemployment, you are basically hired by the government. Most employers won't keep you emplyed if your on drugs. Also, if your supposed to be looking for work while on unemployment, you need to pass a drug test of your future employer.

You want drugs? No unemployment check. The choice is yours.
 
Why are there no jobs?

Industry is not hiring.

Why are they not hiring?

Because there is too much uncertainty in the market to trust spending capital on hiring o new facilities.
Why is there uncertainty?

Because the federal government has fuckall for policy.

Why is the government have bad policy?

Liberals want to play social engineers regardless of economic realities based on an ultra naive faith in mommy style 'fairness'.

Why isn't fairness a successful policy?

Because we run in a world of limited resources and the laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed. Therefore you cannot govern with this fantasy as your guide.

So what should be our guide?

Capitalism. Rational, ethical, capitalism. Government cut back to it's original levels and let the people be in charge of their own destiny with as little federal involvement as possible. The states on the other hand need a return to their true levels of power, taking back what has been usurped by the national government.

I would be interested to know the data supporting your conclusions. We know that millions of jobs have been moved to China and India. Republican Candidates Carly Fiarino and Meg Whitman have helped see to that. The Bush tax cuts financed this "movement" of American Jobs.

Curious. I didn't see you mention these "facts". Care to explain?

So then you do not think Obama has created any uncertainty?

:)

Yeah.....we surely do miss those Days O' Certainty; By BUSHCO!!

:rolleyes:
 
Ahhhh... ther eit is... Booooooooooooooosssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Didn't take long.
 
mumbai_waste_beach_child_pollution_q.jpg

Mumbai, India

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners. - Albert Camus​
Wow.....a capitali$t's dream.

How could we (in the U.S.) have denied ourselves so much....for so long????​
 
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

If it weeds out the abusers then it pays for itself....there is a tremendous amount of corruption out there.
No doubt......​

"While it is easy for employees to criticize the large pay gap between their wage and that of the CEO, history is full of unequal wealth distribution, from kings to the Pope. If the compensation is legal and approved, why are so many people upset?"
 
Marvelous! You bite on my tweek! AAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA Gawd, you're easy, tardtard. BTW, Gullible's written on the ceiling.

Hey pea brain...what you just created all by your little lonesome is 3rd world America...congrats you ******* ignorant authoritarian moron...

I knew I could count on you to say something ******* stupid, Tardtard.

I have done nothing of the sort. I have pointed out precisely WHY we have more expensive culture than those nations. We have a ******* wedding cake of regulations and laws and zoning that provide services and laws for a lifestyle that is many orders of magnitude more expensive than India.

Look again at those pictures. Look close and realize that WAS America Circa 19OO when progressive scion TR was in charge. It's one of the few things I'm in agreement with TR. It's shit like this that makes me know there's a reason for a certain level of civil structure to prevent this level of filth from being permitted in society. But you, Tardtard and Hairnet think I want to return to that era. Intellectually bankrupt as usual.

BTW rdean, Big FIZZZZ doesn't really have a problem with BIG government...he is a devout Statist when his beloved state is carrying out God's work...murdering innocent human beings.

Back to YOUR One Note Samba. Intellectually bankrupt and a ******* liar to boot. Gonna break out your security blanket charts again and cry over scum of the earth criminals again?

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Damn Tardtard. You have that wonderful quote of mine on speed dial? Good to know I'm ******* you up every waking second by an accurate statement.

"[They] are so young they think Calmus is a SOAP!" Name that quote. I'll give you a hint, it's from TV. But it's about as intellectually relevant as Albert was.

So go commit philosophical masturbation somewhere else, Tardtard or get on topic.
 
Not sure what the problem with this is. While on unemployment, you are basically hired by the government. Most employers won't keep you emplyed if your on drugs. Also, if your supposed to be looking for work while on unemployment, you need to pass a drug test of your future employer.

You want drugs? No unemployment check. The choice is yours.
If an employee is performing below expected-standards....and, the employer can prove it's the result of intoxication....that's one-issue....and, seems reasonable-enough.

The idea of pre-employment-screening, as an indicator of future-performance, is absurd....not-to-mention a total-waste of company-assets!!!​
 
Not sure what the problem with this is. While on unemployment, you are basically hired by the government. Most employers won't keep you emplyed if your on drugs. Also, if your supposed to be looking for work while on unemployment, you need to pass a drug test of your future employer.

You want drugs? No unemployment check. The choice is yours.
If an employee is performing below expected-standards....and, the employer can prove it's the result of intoxication....that's one-issue....and, seems reasonable-enough.

The idea of pre-employment-screening, as an indicator of future-performance, is absurd....not-to-mention a total-waste of company-assets!!!​

If you are unemployed, your below standard of being employed. Pre-employment screens are routine today. Companies invest time and money into training new employees. It is money well spent to weed out people up front. Your ignorance is showing.
 
Not sure what the problem with this is. While on unemployment, you are basically hired by the government. Most employers won't keep you emplyed if your on drugs. Also, if your supposed to be looking for work while on unemployment, you need to pass a drug test of your future employer.

You want drugs? No unemployment check. The choice is yours.
If an employee is performing below expected-standards....and, the employer can prove it's the result of intoxication....that's one-issue....and, seems reasonable-enough.

The idea of pre-employment-screening, as an indicator of future-performance, is absurd....not-to-mention a total-waste of company-assets!!!​
Okay, since you like this libertarian idea of legalized drugs, let's include the fact of another libertarian idea: Freedom of association.

If I, as an employer want to hire someone, I have the right to exclude all drug users. Freedom of association. I don't want potheads on staff. Therefore, I have the right to say you can't work for me and it's not illegal.

Or is it we just want to protect your personal right to get stoned without repercussions?

The government is not designed to be an enabling mother letting her 40 something pothead trekkie son live in the basement. There are economic realities to attend to.
 
Hey pea brain...what you just created all by your little lonesome is 3rd world America...congrats you ******* ignorant authoritarian moron...

I have done nothing of the sort. I have pointed out precisely WHY we have more expensive culture than those nations. We have a ******* wedding cake of regulations and laws and zoning that provide services and laws for a lifestyle that is many orders of magnitude more expensive than India.

Look again at those pictures. Look close and realize that WAS America Circa 19OO when progressive scion TR was in charge. It's one of the few things I'm in agreement with TR. It's shit like this that makes me know there's a reason for a certain level of civil structure to prevent this level of filth from being permitted in society.

HOW did Teddy Roosevelt and the progressives create 'a certain level of civil structure to prevent this level of filth from being permitted in society'?

By implementing what you call 'a ******* wedding cake of regulations and laws and zoning that provide services and laws for a lifestyle that is many orders of magnitude more expensive than India.'

Pollution is the perfect example of unregulated capitalism. It is not free market, it is corporate polluters that circumvent the rules of a free market. It is externalizing THEIR costs on to We, the People. They increase their profits because they are burdening society with the costs of their waste.

------------------------------------------------

I believe that the free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free market-capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it’s the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can’t make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter; I’ll show you a subsidy. I’ll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and force the public to pay his production costs. That’s what all pollution is. It’s always a subsidy. It’s always a guy trying to cheat the free market.

Corporations are externalizing machines. They’re constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That’s their nature. One of the best ways to do that, and the most common way for a polluter, is through pollution. When those coal-burning power plants put mercury into the atmosphere that comes down from the Ohio Valley and it comes down on my state New York, I buy a fishing license for $30 every year, but I can’t go fishing and eat the fish anymore because they stole the fish from me. They liquidated a public asset, my asset, they liquidated a pubic asset, my asset. The rule is the commons are owned by all of us. They’re not owned by the governor or the legislator or the coal companies and the utility. Everybody has a right to use them.

Nobody has a right to abuse them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others. But they’ve stolen that entire resource from the people of New York State. When they put the acid rain in the air, it destroys our forest, and it destroys the lakes that we use for recreation or outfitting or tourism or wealth generation. When they put the mercury in the air, the mercury poisons our children’s brains, and that imposes a cost on us. The ozone in particular has caused a million asthma attacks a year, kills 18,000 people, hundreds of thousands of lost work days. All of those impacts impose costs on the rest of us that should in a true free-market economy be reflected in the price of that company’s product when it makes it to the marketplace.

What those companies and all polluters do is use political clout to escape the discipline in the free market and force the public to pay their costs. All of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, all of them were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
 
Last edited:
15th post
I don't favor any drug testing. It is a waste of peoples money, and other people's right to privacy. Just because you are employed doesn't mean the employer can go into your pants and search your house. How easy cons give up freedom with their BS lines of "If you got nothing to hide." LOL!
 
And just how isn't that BIG government intrusion into people's lives? The people that lost their jobs were doing the 'responsible' thing...they were ******* WORKING.

The current job market offers 1 job opening for every 5 unemployed Americans looking for work.

The small government argument is no longer yours...you just abdicated.
Why are there no jobs?

Industry is not hiring.

Why are they not hiring?

Because there is too much uncertainty in the market to trust spending capital on hiring o new facilities.

Why is there uncertainty?

Because the federal government has fuckall for policy.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....so, when a CEO takes that fuckall-attitude....and, grabs as-much-ca$h-as-he-can.....he's considered to be some kind o' capitali$tic-hero, to "conservatives"; a man-on-a-mission...a captain-of-industry!!!

"conservatives" ALSO suggest (especially prior to Bush Debacle II) that government should be run like a business....but, they also don't want to be ignored by the government!!

There's certainly been no consistency wasted on "conservatives"!!!! How QUICKLY they forget that ol' corporate-dictum:

The Workplace Is NOT A Democracy!

.....but....somehow....they expect the government TO be run LIKE a business??!!!!
323.png


Is it any wonder that Teabaggers are so confused?

:rolleyes:

No confusion on their part. You are catching on to their real message.
 
Keep in mind now that Hatch put in a bill or somesuch to make it so Arnold could run for president.

um, a bill? only a constitutional amendment could allow Arnold to run for President.

A proposed ammendment then. But Hatch id it, becuase Arnold was such a great republican he was sure he we would need arnold as president.

Good decision seeing as how Arnold is still the republican poster boy.

Hatch is a Kneejerk politician.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom