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

[Big Fitz]

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??!!!!

Is it any wonder that Teabaggers are so confused?

​

No confusion on their part. You are catching on to their real message.

And so BDS reinfects.

 

[Big Fitz]

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'?

Time to educate people who may think you actually have a point, Tardtard. You are a lost cause, so I'll help inoculate others from your tardation.

Teddy Roosevelt ushered in an era which it became accepted that government not only had a right, but a RESPONSIBILITY to protect citizens against the abuses of others. Now, mind you, when you look at the quality of life back in 1900, it was a damn good thing we did. Pigs are no longer allowed to wander in the streets of major cities. Coal unions and obstinate corporate heads who were just a hairs breadth away from slave owners could no longer threaten the lives of millions innocents who depended on their work to survive winter. The government had a right and duty to preserve natural spaces as a 'heritage' to the future.

All these progressive ideas are a good idea... TO A POINT! A point we have long since exceeded. Read Jakob Riis's "How the other half Live" to see how far we've come in improving the quality of life for the worst off of our nation.

These other nations have not had these moments in any large scale way and still live in squalor because they have not demanded as a people an improvement to their quality of life. But quality of life is not free. If you want to limit people doing messy, nasty, unhealthy things in the public square, you have to hire people and create alternatives in which to fix problems. That is the inherent cost of civilization.

Pollution is the perfect example of unregulated capitalism. It is not free market, it is corporation polluters that circumvent the rules of a free market.

My God! You've actually hit upon something! Lightning can strike! UNREGULATED capitalism IS bad! I've never said it wasn't. As a society you must come together for an agreement, a compact of what is and isn't acceptable behavior and quality of life. Again, this isn't free. Of course that's why you need capitalism, because it is the best form of wealth creation in history and allows us to afford a better quality of life. The cautionary part of this tale is this is that you cannot try to create a world that you cannot afford, for quickly you will collapse what gains you have made and make things worse than when it started.

They increase their profits because they are burdening society with the costs of their waste.

Oops, flash in the pan. the smarts have fled your post.

Welcome to yet another expression of the Laffer Curve. A business is best served by finding the HIGHEST price the public is willing to pay for their product or service. If you go over that, you lose business. This is economics 101. You find the equilibrium between highest cost and greatest access. This is the fundamental law of economics, the market always finds the balance point. Those who fight it go out of business.

So your theory that it's all 'greedy profit', is full of so much bovine flatulence. Only governments can try and pull off over charging (that's over-taxation for those of you in Port St. Lucie) for services, because they have guns and jails to enforce it. That force only holds on so long before productivity and ability to earn becomes so oppressive the economy collapses... MUCH like it is today, thank you very much you corrupt ***** in congress... and you get revolution and a return (one hopes) into smart fiscal policy, or you slide into a third world dark age if the wrong people get in charge.

The waste you need to worry on is the TRILLIONS of dollars wasted by government. They can sink the lives and futures of millions of innocent people. A company only ***** over their stockholders if they go down in flames.

So what happens AFTER a company goes down? It is broken up and bought up by it's former competitors who then take their place with more successful and stable style of business. What happens to a nation? Same thing except we call them foreign powers, or they spin off parts into independent nation states.

So... again, WHO's waste should we be worrying about?

 

[Bfgrn]

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'?

Time to educate people who may think you actually have a point, Tardtard. You are a lost cause, so I'll help inoculate others from your tardation.

Teddy Roosevelt ushered in an era which it became accepted that government not only had a right, but a RESPONSIBILITY to protect citizens against the abuses of others. Now, mind you, when you look at the quality of life back in 1900, it was a damn good thing we did. Pigs are no longer allowed to wander in the streets of major cities. Coal unions and obstinate corporate heads who were just a hairs breadth away from slave owners could no longer threaten the lives of millions innocents who depended on their work to survive winter. The government had a right and duty to preserve natural spaces as a 'heritage' to the future.

All these progressive ideas are a good idea... TO A POINT! A point we have long since exceeded. Read Jakob Riis's "How the other half Live" to see how far we've come in improving the quality of life for the worst off of our nation.

These other nations have not had these moments in any large scale way and still live in squalor because they have not demanded as a people an improvement to their quality of life. But quality of life is not free. If you want to limit people doing messy, nasty, unhealthy things in the public square, you have to hire people and create alternatives in which to fix problems. That is the inherent cost of civilization.

Pollution is the perfect example of unregulated capitalism. It is not free market, it is corporation polluters that circumvent the rules of a free market.

My God! You've actually hit upon something! Lightning can strike! UNREGULATED capitalism IS bad! I've never said it wasn't. As a society you must come together for an agreement, a compact of what is and isn't acceptable behavior and quality of life. Again, this isn't free. Of course that's why you need capitalism, because it is the best form of wealth creation in history and allows us to afford a better quality of life. The cautionary part of this tale is this is that you cannot try to create a world that you cannot afford, for quickly you will collapse what gains you have made and make things worse than when it started.

They increase their profits because they are burdening society with the costs of their waste.

Oops, flash in the pan. the smarts have fled your post.

Welcome to yet another expression of the Laffer Curve. A business is best served by finding the HIGHEST price the public is willing to pay for their product or service. If you go over that, you lose business. This is economics 101. You find the equilibrium between highest cost and greatest access. This is the fundamental law of economics, the market always finds the balance point. Those who fight it go out of business.

So your theory that it's all 'greedy profit', is full of so much bovine flatulence. Only governments can try and pull off over charging (that's over-taxation for those of you in Port St. Lucie) for services, because they have guns and jails to enforce it. That force only holds on so long before productivity and ability to earn becomes so oppressive the economy collapses... MUCH like it is today, thank you very much you corrupt ***** in congress... and you get revolution and a return (one hopes) into smart fiscal policy, or you slide into a third world dark age if the wrong people get in charge.

The waste you need to worry on is the TRILLIONS of dollars wasted by government. They can sink the lives and futures of millions of innocent people. A company only ***** over their stockholders if they go down in flames.

So what happens AFTER a company goes down? It is broken up and bought up by it's former competitors who then take their place with more successful and stable style of business. What happens to a nation? Same thing except we call them foreign powers, or they spin off parts into independent nation states.

So... again, WHO's waste should we be worrying about?

My theory is NOT 'that it's all 'greedy profit', is full of so much bovine flatulence'.

My theory is that corporate profit is full of corporate welfare, subsidies and corporate socialism that manifest in inflated corporate profits because corporations are allowed to externalize THEIR costs on to the backs of We, the People, who get stuck with THEIR bills and even worse, we sacrifice lives of our loved ones because of it.

Do you understand the rules of a free market? Do you comprehend what cost externalization is? Are you aware of what is called regulatory capture?

You said ONE thing in that makes sense...'quality of life is not free'

'Quality' is your word for the day...now include human capital in your equation.

 

[Dante]

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

 

[saveliberty]

A simple pre employment drug screen cam save a company about $10,000 in training costs on average. It also reinforces company policy and helps with a safer work environment, which can also reduce company costs. It is simple, you don't want a test, don't signup for unemployment.

 

[Big Fitz]

My theory is that corporate profit is full of corporate welfare

And who's fault is that? Corrupt politicians currying favor of special interests to keep themselves in power in perpetuity. Currently what you have is bunch of people who through the freedom of opportunity afforded by this nation have decided that now they got theirs, they want no more challenges to their power. So they manipulate congress to close off opporunity to those who would threaten it making them protected.

ALL subsidies to corporations, industry of all stripes and businesses must be ended. Special laws that protect individual companies should be reviewed and most likely repealed. I am only for protectionism against those who are utilizing uncompetitive foreign advantage and government supplementation to make unfair advantages that normally they would and should not have.

subsidies and corporate socialism that manifest in inflated corporate profits

Wait. YOU are arguing against socialism? Wow, Tardtard... this IS a red letter day for you!

because corporations are allowed to externalize THEIR costs on to the backs of We, the People,

Reality to dope... reality to dope... ALL business externalizes costs, DUH! It's called the marketplace and basic economics. Every tax you lay on business is passed on to the consumer. What? If you have a business and taxes eat up 30% of YOUR profit, you're going to just suck up that loss when you can justifiably say "government taxes force me to charge extra. Sucks to be you." It's a cost of doing business and nothing will ever ever ever change that, even if you try and pass a law forcing them to do other wise. Why? Because if you become too onerous, they just go out of business on you and you're fucked again. Corporate taxation hurts only the consumer in the end.

Do you understand the rules of a free market?

You've proven I understand it far far better than you, Tardtard.

Do you comprehend what cost externalization is?

Again, far better than you if not most liberals on this board. Nothing wrong with externalization either. You'd do it too.

You said ONE thing in that makes sense...'quality of life is not free'

Now I see you don't comprehend that statement's true meaning. Let me ask this then. Where's the money coming from to fund your precious 'quality of life'? You have to produce something somewhere, and the rich can ultimately flee your stupidity, forcing you to put the burden finally on those you claim to be helping. It's an economic death spiral that is as universal as gravity.

'Quality' is your word for the day...now include human capital in your equation.

Okay, let's consider the word Quality. What do YOU mean by this word? I am referring to a level of cleanliness, safety, equality, opportunity and accessability. I am NOT referring to results. I want to live in a society where pigs aren't allowed to forage in the streets like they did 100 years ago in most minor cities. I want to be free of cholera laden water when heavy rains run parasite laden horseshit into the rivers and creeks. I want to be free to walk down the street and not accosted by a crackhead looking to steal money for his next fix. These are quality of life issues that I want and am willing to sacrifice some of my freedom and money to have in society.

Notice what is NOT there. Equality of outcome. Poverty should not be spread equally among all as socialism always provides. Opportunity to do better than my neighbor and move away to nice land and own as much property as I can afford is something else I want. I have a right to achieve to the best of my ability and live in a gated community. I have right to earn so much that giving 2 million dollars doesn't even touch the interest of the smaller of my ten thousand bank accounts.

You want to talk about 'human capital'. Find someone else. We all know your pet issue here, Tardtard. Try and think about something else for once. That horse is dead as the criminals you hope to coddle with it.

 

[Bfgrn]

My theory is that corporate profit is full of corporate welfare

And who's fault is that? Corrupt politicians currying favor of special interests to keep themselves in power in perpetuity. Currently what you have is bunch of people who through the freedom of opportunity afforded by this nation have decided that now they got theirs, they want no more challenges to their power. So they manipulate congress to close off opporunity to those who would threaten it making them protected.

ALL subsidies to corporations, industry of all stripes and businesses must be ended. Special laws that protect individual companies should be reviewed and most likely repealed. I am only for protectionism against those who are utilizing uncompetitive foreign advantage and government supplementation to make unfair advantages that normally they would and should not have.

subsidies and corporate socialism that manifest in inflated corporate profits

Wait. YOU are arguing against socialism? Wow, Tardtard... this IS a red letter day for you!



Reality to dope... reality to dope... ALL business externalizes costs, DUH! It's called the marketplace and basic economics. Every tax you lay on business is passed on to the consumer. What? If you have a business and taxes eat up 30% of YOUR profit, you're going to just suck up that loss when you can justifiably say "government taxes force me to charge extra. Sucks to be you." It's a cost of doing business and nothing will ever ever ever change that, even if you try and pass a law forcing them to do other wise. Why? Because if you become too onerous, they just go out of business on you and you're fucked again. Corporate taxation hurts only the consumer in the end.



You've proven I understand it far far better than you, Tardtard.



Again, far better than you if not most liberals on this board. Nothing wrong with externalization either. You'd do it too.

You said ONE thing in that makes sense...'quality of life is not free'

Now I see you don't comprehend that statement's true meaning. Let me ask this then. Where's the money coming from to fund your precious 'quality of life'? You have to produce something somewhere, and the rich can ultimately flee your stupidity, forcing you to put the burden finally on those you claim to be helping. It's an economic death spiral that is as universal as gravity.

'Quality' is your word for the day...now include human capital in your equation.

Okay, let's consider the word Quality. What do YOU mean by this word? I am referring to a level of cleanliness, safety, equality, opportunity and accessability. I am NOT referring to results. I want to live in a society where pigs aren't allowed to forage in the streets like they did 100 years ago in most minor cities. I want to be free of cholera laden water when heavy rains run parasite laden horseshit into the rivers and creeks. I want to be free to walk down the street and not accosted by a crackhead looking to steal money for his next fix. These are quality of life issues that I want and am willing to sacrifice some of my freedom and money to have in society.

Notice what is NOT there. Equality of outcome. Poverty should not be spread equally among all as socialism always provides. Opportunity to do better than my neighbor and move away to nice land and own as much property as I can afford is something else I want. I have a right to achieve to the best of my ability and live in a gated community. I have right to earn so much that giving 2 million dollars doesn't even touch the interest of the smaller of my ten thousand bank accounts.

You want to talk about 'human capital'. Find someone else. We all know your pet issue here, Tardtard. Try and think about something else for once. That horse is dead as the criminals you hope to coddle with it.

First of all, when you cut up another person's post into 'Quotes' and that person replies, the SITE deletes 'Quotes', so it creates a disjointed conversation. Why the **** can't you just hit the "Quote' button, so it doesn't delete sections of the reply?

You said:
Reality to dope... reality to dope... ALL business externalizes costs, DUH! It's called the marketplace and basic economics. Every tax you lay on business is passed on to the consumer. What? If you have a business and taxes eat up 30% of YOUR profit, you're going to just suck up that loss when you can justifiably say "government taxes force me to charge extra. Sucks to be you." It's a cost of doing business and nothing will ever ever ever change that, even if you try and pass a law forcing them to do other wise. Why? Because if you become too onerous, they just go out of business on you and you're fucked again. Corporate taxation hurts only the consumer in the end.

You just stepped on your tiny little dick. Clearly you don't understand how the market works, or you just can't put 2 & 2 together. If a business or corporation COULD charge more for their product or service, they already would. BUT the MARKET won't let them. YOU said it yourself...

You said:
Oops, flash in the pan. the smarts have fled your post.

Welcome to yet another expression of the Laffer Curve. A business is best served by finding the HIGHEST price the public is willing to pay for their product or service. If you go over that, you lose business. This is economics 101. You find the equilibrium between highest cost and greatest access. This is the fundamental law of economics, the market always finds the balance point. Those who fight it go out of business.

 

[Big Fitz]

First of all, when you cut up another person's post into 'Quotes' and that person replies, the SITE deletes 'Quotes', so it creates a disjointed conversation. Why the **** can't you just hit the "Quote' button, so it doesn't delete sections of the reply?

You post your way, I'll post mine.

You just stepped on your tiny little dick. Clearly you don't understand how the market works, or you just can't put 2 & 2 together. If a business or corporation COULD charge more for their product or service, they already would. BUT the MARKET won't let them. YOU said it yourself...

::: ...stares at the stupidity... wonders how it can't be clear to Tardtard. Looks at the assembled crowd who also get it.... looks back at the befuddled and bitchy Tardtard...:::

Uhhh, yeah. I charge 450 dollars a credit for elementary economics.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Yeah.....you're really gonna weed-out the hard-core alcoholics, speed-freaks & junkies.

Your ignorance is showing.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

If you're managing an accounting-firm (or, bank)....where very-little creativity is required....fine!

On-the-other-hand, company's that're more-geared towards engineering/R&D are finding they're excluding way-too-many people (from possible employment, with them), using drug-testing.​

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

Ah, yes....there's that....you're need to totally-control you own private-little-World; where regimentation is Priority 1. People (like you) typically hire ex-military....'cause they still know how to take orders....and, are no threat to your ego.

It's gotta (nearly) drive you insane, watching Silicon Valley make the BIG BUCK$!!!! (....While you're wasting so-much-time playing Social Engineer.)​

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

If you're managing an accounting-firm (or, bank)....where very-little creativity is required....fine!

On-the-other-hand, company's that're more-geared towards engineering/R&D are finding they're excluding way-too-many people (from possible employment, with them), using drug-testing.​

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

Ah, yes....there's that....you're need to totally-control you own private-little-World; where regimentation is Priority 1. People (like you) typically hire ex-military....'cause they still know how to take orders....and, are no threat to your ego.

It's gotta (nearly) drive you insane, watching Silicon Valley make the BIG BUCK$!!!! (....While you're wasting so-much-time playing Social Engineer.)​

I dare say that taking orders from your boss would be a good thing. Along with some of the other traits one picks up in the military. You want good employees, look at your veterans.

* Ability to get the job done
* Exceeding oneself
* Overcoming one's fear
* Discipline (following orders and sticking to the plan)
* Consistency in bringing one's A-game to every situation
* Courage
* Skill and proficiency
* Reliability

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

If you're managing an accounting-firm (or, bank)....where very-little creativity is required....fine!

On-the-other-hand, company's that're more-geared towards engineering/R&D are finding they're excluding way-too-many people (from possible employment, with them), using drug-testing.​

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

Ah, yes....there's that....you're need to totally-control you own private-little-World; where regimentation is Priority 1. People (like you) typically hire ex-military....'cause they still know how to take orders....and, are no threat to your ego.

It's gotta (nearly) drive you insane, watching Silicon Valley make the BIG BUCK$!!!! (....While you're wasting so-much-time playing Social Engineer.)​

Obviously you don't have a job and are posting from your mommy's basement between episodes of Stargate SG1 or you're just putting on an act here.

 

[Big Fitz]

If you're managing an accounting-firm (or, bank)....where very-little creativity is required....fine!

On-the-other-hand, company's that're more-geared towards engineering/R&D are finding they're excluding way-too-many people (from possible employment, with them), using drug-testing.​

Oy! Three examples of why this is dumb as ****.

1. AMC Pacer
2. AMC Gremlin
3. Pontiac Fiero

They must have been stoned out of their ******* MINDS to design these cars!

Ah, yes....there's that....you're need to totally-control you own private-little-World; where regimentation is Priority 1. People (like you) typically hire ex-military....'cause they still know how to take orders....and, are no threat to your ego.

It's gotta (nearly) drive you insane, watching Silicon Valley make the BIG BUCK$!!!! (....While you're wasting so-much-time playing Social Engineer.)

I'm trying to decide... Aspbergers? Or just so socially inept, you don't know how to function among humans. I don't give a **** about earnings. More power to em. Wish I was one of them. Let em do what they want. I don't have to support them if I don't want to. Freedom of association! WOOT! And this is social engineering???

It's long since been proven you're braindamaged, but dayum...!

 

[The T]

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.

If you're managing an accounting-firm (or, bank)....where very-little creativity is required....fine!​

On-the-other-hand, company's that're more-geared towards engineering/R&D are finding they're excluding way-too-many people (from possible employment, with them), using drug-testing.​

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

Ah, yes....there's that....you're need to totally-control you own private-little-World; where regimentation is Priority 1. People (like you) typically hire ex-military....'cause they still know how to take orders....and, are no threat to your ego.​

It's gotta (nearly) drive you insane, watching Silicon Valley make the BIG BUCK$!!!! (....While you're wasting so-much-time playing Social Engineer.)​

I dare say that taking orders from your boss would be a good thing. Along with some of the other traits one picks up in the military. You want good employees, look at your veterans.

* Ability to get the job done
* Exceeding oneself
* Overcoming one's fear
* Discipline (following orders and sticking to the plan)
* Consistency in bringing one's A-game to every situation
* Courage
* Skill and proficiency
* Reliability

* Adapt and overcome.

 

[code1211]

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.

<snip>

]

I don't see the problem with this.

Most employers test for drugs before hiring a new empoloyee. Why? Because a person who uses is less reliable and less attentive. Sorry. That's just the way it is. The basis of unemployment is to tide a guy over until he can get a job.

If he's using, he will never get a job.

If he wants my tax money, he should at least be willing to make himself hire-able.

If he doesn't want the unemployment money, he can forego it and smoke his brains out. Not my problem. Not my expense.

 

[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.

<snip>

]

I don't see the problem with this.

Most employers test for drugs before hiring a new empoloyee. Why? Because a person who uses is less reliable and less attentive. Sorry. That's just the way it is. The basis of unemployment is to tide a guy over until he can get a job.

If he's using, he will never get a job.

If he wants my tax money, he should at least be willing to make himself hire-able.

If he doesn't want the unemployment money, he can forego it and smoke his brains out. Not my problem. Not my expense.

I find it so ironic that right wingers who constantly screech about 'BIG' government, are so submissive to it; pissing in a government cup, and trusting that the test will be accurate.

You right wingers are the creators of the BIGGEST nanny state in our nations history.

 

[Bfgrn]

First of all, when you cut up another person's post into 'Quotes' and that person replies, the SITE deletes 'Quotes', so it creates a disjointed conversation. Why the **** can't you just hit the "Quote' button, so it doesn't delete sections of the reply?

You post your way, I'll post mine.

You just stepped on your tiny little dick. Clearly you don't understand how the market works, or you just can't put 2 & 2 together. If a business or corporation COULD charge more for their product or service, they already would. BUT the MARKET won't let them. YOU said it yourself...

::: ...stares at the stupidity... wonders how it can't be clear to Tardtard. Looks at the assembled crowd who also get it.... looks back at the befuddled and bitchy Tardtard...:::

Uhhh, yeah. I charge 450 dollars a credit for elementary economics.

Sorry pea brain, bluster is not an argument, it is an outburst of emotion.

You are way over your head here, because you have no idea what a free market is, how it works or how it is being undermined.

Example:

Again, far better than you if not most liberals on this board. Nothing wrong with externalization either. You'd do it too.

Hey pea brain, what you just said is there's nothing wrong with SOCIALISM

 

[kyzr]

I love the idea of making the unemployed take drug tests to get benefits. Same with welfare recipients. If they can afford drugs they don't need government handouts.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I love it when "small government" conservatives demand more government to police people's private lives.

 

[Bfgrn]

I love it when "small government" conservatives demand more government to police people's private lives.

They call themselves 'conservatives', but what they really are is authoritarians. Authoritarians have a very strong affinity for punishment. Some even enjoy it, regardless of the cost to society.

They would rather spend $40,000 per year to incarcerate a human being, than spend $9,500 per year for welfare relief.

They have taken over the Republican party and the Tea party...they will destroy America if they gain enough power.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer