“Cat got your tongue?”

Level 7

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#22 Feb 8, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's actually not too far off ... about 30% of Americans receive at least one form of welfare.
Actually, that is way off. Are you including unemployment and Social Security? Welfare does NOT include unemployment benefits or Social Security since money, and lots of it, have been paid into the two programs by the recipients. These programs are called ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. After paying into these programs my whole working life...ya damn right I'm entitled to them!

December 18, 2012
A Bipartisan Nation of Beneficiaries

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/12/18/a-b...

No...no one should have to pass a drug test. Being poor is not a crime and therefore the state would need probable cause for searching people. Oh..we are getting real close to being unconstitutional. When someone gets cut off welfare it is the children that suffer since they are the largest recipients of the program.

I know..how about we stop giving the Pentagon money/welfare that they can't account for. Just that one thing would balance the budget.

Pentagon Unable to Account for Missing Iraqi Millions
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46160875/Pentagon_Unab...

Except it's TRILLIONS...

.."More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-325985....

Let's stop criminalizing and demonizing the poor...most of which are children and the elderly.

Just one more thing...

Who Else Doesnít Pay Taxes? Top 10 Corporate Deadbeats and Slackers
http://obrag.org/...

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Yup... the poor, children, the elderly are the cause of ALL America's problems!

“Maiden of Mayhem”

Since: May 08

OMFUG

#24 Feb 8, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's actually not too far off ... about 30% of Americans receive at least one form of welfare.
That's entirely possible. But has no relevancy to my comment.

“Maiden of Mayhem”

Since: May 08

OMFUG

#25 Feb 8, 2013
The Paisan wrote:
Yes, believe all welfare recipients should be drug tested (for ILLEGAL drugs). Then they should have to pass a calculus test before they can get a check.
But hey, that's just me.
I'd pass the calculus test and the drug test (if I lived in Colorado)

“Maiden of Mayhem”

Since: May 08

OMFUG

#26 Feb 8, 2013
Great White Hope wrote:
Maliciousness wrote: What if people in receipt of welfare were tested and found positive for drugs? Do you suggest that {{{their}}}* money be stopped?
You damn right I do! How'd it get to be {{{their}}}
money? It's my money and I want to keep more of it for myself. Their problems are not my problems.
Don't go using the =old feel sorry for me= approach
that's getting damn old I'm sick of it!
victoria1 if you have proof to the opposite or differing from my opinion that "might be constructive but bad mouthing 'straight' people isn't!
Continuing education is your friend.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#27 Feb 8, 2013
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, that is way off. Are you including unemployment and Social Security? Welfare does NOT include unemployment benefits or Social Security since money, and lots of it, have been paid into the two programs by the recipients. These programs are called ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. After paying into these programs my whole working life...ya damn right I'm entitled to them!
Nope, that number includes means tested welfare programs, not SS or Medicare or Unemployment:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/12/18/a-b...

Itís also the number of folks who are receiving at least one welfare program Ö many are receiving more!
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
No...no one should have to pass a drug test. Being poor is not a crime and therefore the state would need probable cause for searching people. Oh..we are getting real close to being unconstitutional. When someone gets cut off welfare it is the children that suffer since they are the largest recipients of the program.
I have no doubt it would pass constitutional muster. They drug tests truck drivers all the time. Donít want to take the drug test, donít be a truck driver. Same with welfare Ödonít want to take a drug test, donít accept welfare.

If someone would rather do drugs or would fail a drug test knowing their children would go hungry, they are clearly unfit parents. Better to remove them from that environment.
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
I know..how about we stop giving the Pentagon money/welfare that they can't account for. Just that one thing would balance the budget.
Iím all for that too.
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's stop criminalizing and demonizing the poor...most of which are children and the elderly.
I fail to see how ensuring folks arenít using taxpay funded welfare to support their drug habit is criminalizing them or demonizing them. Are we criminalizing or demonizing truck drivers when we drug test them? What if they fail and they have children? Think of the children!!!!

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#28 Feb 8, 2013
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
Iíd need more info about how they were able to avoid taxes (carry over losses, perhaps ... income not attributable to U.S. operations ... credit for taxes paid abroad to income made abroad ... I have no idea ... anyone can throw out numbers), but I also support corporations paying a fair amount of taxes.

I'm also against subsidies for oil companies making money hand over fist.

“Cat got your tongue?”

Level 7

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#30 Feb 8, 2013
@Sublime1

"I have no doubt it would pass constitutional muster. They drug tests truck drivers all the time. Donít want to take the drug test, donít be a truck driver. Same with welfare Ödonít want to take a drug test, donít accept welfare."
~~~~~
Truck drivers are governed by the Feds...USDOT and thus subject to their laws and regulations. They are driving dangerous machinery....not applying for welfare. The STATE constitutions are what applies and it hasn't worked out too well. These drug testing laws are a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than state saves, data shows
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871...

Appeals court weighs Florida welfare drug test law

.."Florida's law requires welfare applicants to pay for and pass a drug test to receive benefits.

It was in effect from July through October last year before being temporarily blocked by a federal judge after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging it.

The judge said that the law may violate the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches and seizures".....The National Conference of State Legislatures says Florida was the first state to enact such a law since Michigan tried more than a decade ago.

Michigan's random drug testing program for welfare recipients lasted five weeks in 1999 before it was halted by a judge, kicking off a four-year legal battle that ended with an appeals court ruling it unconstitutional.

Georgia has followed Florida's lead, adopting a similar law this year, but the governor has put that law on hold pending the outcome of the legal challenge."
http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2012/n...

So, these laws are being struck down as fast as they are created. Drug testing is a HUGE Tea Party failure!

"If someone would rather do drugs or would fail a drug test knowing their children would go hungry, they are clearly unfit parents. Better to remove them from that environment."
~~~~

You are making huge assumptions. First I'll address the FACT that the really destructive drugs are out of the body within 24 to 48 hours. You know, alcohol, cocaine, meth, Oxycontin, heroin...all those things are gone in a very short time period, especially with the products on the market that wash those substances out. You know who pays the price for this drug testing, beside the taxpayers? Cannabis users because cannabis stays in the body for about 30 days. People like Carl Sagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Cary Mullis. Nobel Laurate, Biology, Dr W.B. O'Shaugnessy, George W Bush, Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Laureate physicist, founder of quantum electrodynamics, FRANCIS CRICK, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics (he had used LSD before discovering the double helix)...just to name a few, would have lost their jobs if you had your way. As to taking children away from their parents...What do you propose to do with all of them? There are more than 463,000 children in foster care in the U.S.. Do you have any idea how much that is costing not only in terms of money but in the damage done to these kids? Obviously you know nothing about foster homes. Do you think, for instance, Carl Sagan should have lost his kids for smoking pot? That is what you are doing by supporting this intrusion.

“Cat got your tongue?”

Level 7

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#31 Feb 8, 2013
@Sublime1

I am glad to see we agree on somethings.

How about testing for harmful and over use of prescription drugs?

Kennedy's Crash Highlights Dangers of Ambien

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story...

There are many sides to the issue. We've explored just a few. Thanks for the civil debate.

Regards, N

“You think so?”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Greensburg, IN

#32 Feb 8, 2013
Pass!

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#33 Feb 8, 2013
Nancy Botwin wrote:
@Sublime1
"I have no doubt it would pass constitutional muster. They drug tests truck drivers all the time. Donít want to take the drug test, donít be a truck driver. Same with welfare Ödonít want to take a drug test, donít accept welfare."
~~~~~
Truck drivers are governed by the Feds...USDOT and thus subject to their laws and regulations. They are driving dangerous machinery....not applying for welfare. The STATE constitutions are what applies and it hasn't worked out too well. These drug testing laws are a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than state saves, data shows
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871...
Appeals court weighs Florida welfare drug test law
.."Florida's law requires welfare applicants to pay for and pass a drug test to receive benefits.
It was in effect from July through October last year before being temporarily blocked by a federal judge after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging it.
The judge said that the law may violate the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches and seizures".....The National Conference of State Legislatures says Florida was the first state to enact such a law since Michigan tried more than a decade ago.
Michigan's random drug testing program for welfare recipients lasted five weeks in 1999 before it was halted by a judge, kicking off a four-year legal battle that ended with an appeals court ruling it unconstitutional.
Georgia has followed Florida's lead, adopting a similar law this year, but the governor has put that law on hold pending the outcome of the legal challenge."
http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2012/n...
So, these laws are being struck down as fast as they are created. Drug testing is a HUGE Tea Party failure!
I looked at these cases, and I donít think these laws are being struck down under state constitutional grounds Ö they wouldnít be in federal courts if that were the caseÖ

I think you have to go up to the S.C. I donít see how, under any form of logic, it could be said that someone who voluntarily agrees to a random drug test in exchange for some privilege, whether that be a CDL, government employment, or welfare benefits, can claim that the search is illegal. Those are the sorts of analogies the S.C. like to make. You arenít owed welfare Ö just like you arenít owed a CDL or a government job.

Similarly, if a police man knocked on my door, told me he doesnít have the a warrant to search my house, but asked if he could come in and search, and I agreed to allow him to do so Ė this would not be considered an unlawful search.

You could even write the law so that you can decline the random test, with the result being that you just lose your benefits. For the life of me, I fail to see how that could be unconstitutional.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#34 Feb 8, 2013
Nancy Botwin wrote:
"If someone would rather do drugs or would fail a drug test knowing their children would go hungry, they are clearly unfit parents. Better to remove them from that environment."
~~~~
You are making huge assumptions. First I'll address the FACT that the really destructive drugs are out of the body within 24 to 48 hours. You know, alcohol, cocaine, meth, Oxycontin, heroin...all those things are gone in a very short time period, especially with the products on the market that wash those substances out. You know who pays the price for this drug testing, beside the taxpayers? Cannabis users because cannabis stays in the body for about 30 days.
Iím all for the legalization of marijuana. I think it is the most idiotic law on the book. I also realize fully well that the harder drugs are out one's system in a few days (absent hair testing, which is becoming more common)

I still say if you are on welfare, taxpayers shouldnít be subsidizing your drug habit. I honestly don't think you should be consuming alcohol either.
Nancy Botwin wrote:
People like Carl Sagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Cary Mullis. Nobel Laurate, Biology, Dr W.B. O'Shaugnessy, George W Bush, Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Laureate physicist, founder of quantum electrodynamics, FRANCIS CRICK, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics (he had used LSD before discovering the double helix)...just to name a few, would have lost their jobs if you had your way.
You are confusing folks with jobs, with folks on welfare. I donít care what drugs you do, if you are paying for your own habits. I do care and should have some say, when I am supporting someone via welfare.
Nancy Botwin wrote:
As to taking children away from their parents...What do you propose to do with all of them? There are more than 463,000 children in foster care in the U.S.. Do you have any idea how much that is costing not only in terms of money but in the damage done to these kids? Obviously you know nothing about foster homes.
While more studies need to be done, I like the idea of orphanages.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405274...

ďDuring the past decade I have surveyed more than 2,500 alumni from 15 American orphanages. In two journal articles, I reported the same general conclusion: The orphanage alumni have outpaced their counterparts in the general population often by wide margins in almost all social and economic measures, including educational attainment, income and positive attitude toward life. White orphanage alumni had a 39% higher rate of college graduation than white Americans of the same age in the general population, and less than 3% had hostile memories of their orphanage experiences. University of Alabama historian David Beito replicated the study with several hundred alumni from another orphanage, reaching much the same conclusions.Ē
Nancy Botwin wrote:
Do you think, for instance, Carl Sagan should have lost his kids for smoking pot? That is what you are doing by supporting this intrusion.
No. Once again, Carl Sagan wasnít on welfare.

“Raising hell since 1989”

Level 6

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#35 Feb 8, 2013
Who do you think is going to pay for these drug tests?
It will cost more tax payers' money to do the tests which will not be successful as most of the hard drugs are out of somebody's system within 3 days apart from cannabis which takes months to get out of your body.
The only way around this is to test someone every 2 days! That's completely ridiculous. How much is that going to cost the tax payer?

“Maiden of Mayhem”

Since: May 08

OMFUG

#36 Feb 8, 2013
Maliciousness wrote:
Who do you think is going to pay for these drug tests?
It will cost more tax payers' money to do the tests which will not be successful as most of the hard drugs are out of somebody's system within 3 days apart from cannabis which takes months to get out of your body.
The only way around this is to test someone every 2 days! That's completely ridiculous. How much is that going to cost the tax payer?
Even if that ridiculous scenario was possible. What happens if a junkie tests positive? The money is yanked, the junkie turns to crime to get money for drugs, if junkie is arrested it will cost $47,000 a year to incarcerate the junkie. Welfare would have been cheaper on the tax payer.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#37 Feb 8, 2013
victoria1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if that ridiculous scenario was possible. What happens if a junkie tests positive? The money is yanked, the junkie turns to crime to get money for drugs, if junkie is arrested it will cost $47,000 a year to incarcerate the junkie. Welfare would have been cheaper on the tax payer.
I'm thinking some here are more interested in punishing poor people for their extravagant lifestyles than actually saving tax money. Or they have money invested in private prisons.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#38 Feb 8, 2013
Maliciousness wrote:
Who do you think is going to pay for these drug tests?
It will cost more tax payers' money to do the tests which will not be successful as most of the hard drugs are out of somebody's system within 3 days apart from cannabis which takes months to get out of your body.
The only way around this is to test someone every 2 days! That's completely ridiculous. How much is that going to cost the tax payer?
How much does it cost to drug test all the truckers in this country? Maybe we shouldn't do that.

I don't know what the chemicals cost that are involved in follicle testing, but I have to think its not cost prohibitive and done by the state as opposed by a private company. Also follicle testing detects everything ... Maybe do some research instead of spouting off.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#39 Feb 8, 2013
victoria1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if that ridiculous scenario was possible. What happens if a junkie tests positive? The money is yanked, the junkie turns to crime to get money for drugs, if junkie is arrested it will cost $47,000 a year to incarcerate the junkie. Welfare would have been cheaper on the tax payer.
You've got it all figured out. If folks on welfare are tested for drugs they will naturally not forgo such behavior and instead will lose their welfare and turn to crime and go to prison. That's about as well thought out as your statement about passing a drug test in Colorado, considering regardless of what Colorado law is, smoking weed is still illegal at the federal level and the Feds are who fund entitlements, for the most part.
Just Me

Boise, ID

#40 Feb 8, 2013
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd much rather pay for drug testing than the free Obama Phone.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#41 Feb 8, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>I'm thinking some here are more interested in punishing poor people for their extravagant lifestyles than actually saving tax money. Or they have money invested in private prisons.
It's about enacting policy that will incentivize positive decision making. Unlike you, some folks don't feel that living on welfare should be a way of life. Unlike you, some folks don't feel that folks on welfare are innocent victims of society. Unlike you, some folks do not feel the main purpose of government should revolve around getting more and more folks to be wards of the state (what you like to call "helping people") so they vote for the Democratic Party.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#42 Feb 8, 2013
Just Me wrote:
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd much rather pay for drug testing than the free Obama Phone.
How will they contact their drug dealer? If they don't have a free phone to call their drug dealer they will resort to crime, steal one, possibly end up in prison and we'll spend 45k a year on incarceration expenses. Just ask Victoria .. She's already thought of this scenario. Clearly our only recourse is to give free phones to folks so they can call drug dealers. Do you wanna spend $100 on a phone or 45k on prison? The choice is clear! <sarcasm>

In fact, maybe if we should just give away free drugs to poor people since that would be cheaper than imprisoning people who commit crimes to support their habit. NOT ONLY THAT, but anyone who has ever smoked pot and has been jonsing and been told by their dealer that they are out but are getting some shyte in a week ... only to find out that come a week the mo f'ing dealer isnt answering his phone cause he didnt get hooked up knows how frustrating that is... Its not even fair to do that to someone such as ME! But to do that to innocent victims of society, i.e. poor people borders on abuse.... its almost like some people hate them and want them to suffer and jones!! When you really think about it and channel your inner Ferr, it's illogical not to give away free drugs. I rest my case.

Level 4

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#43 Feb 8, 2013
I think drug testing is a good idea.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 7 min Mister_ E 147,128
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 11 min ---Word Woman--- 20,373
A six word game (Dec '08) 25 min Trouser Cough 17,560
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 38 min Trouser Cough 54,581
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 42 min Trouser Cough 29,392
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 45 min Trouser Cough 40,254
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 49 min CJ Rocker 25,953
What's your tip for the day? 1 hr ms_Sweeter 1,051
I Like..... (Mar '14) 3 hr ms_Sweeter 317
What Could Be Sweet,...? 3 hr ms_Sweeter 33
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••