What a great idea.

[waste gate]

http://tinypic.com/2w3944n.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

I like it!

The only problem I see is that most employers are private concerns, and have the right to hire and fire whom they please.

On the other hand, government agencies also require tests for employees, so it again becomes a valid argument.

Mandatory drug testing for all government benifits recipients!

Of course a lot of people on welfare might starve or freeze to death, but it's only what they deserve!

[Tchocky]

Of course a lot of people on welfare might starve or freeze to death, but it's only what they deserve!

Thats nice. Sick people deserve to starve to death. How compassionate.

[Enigma]

Theres another issue for us all to disagree on....drug testing my companies! :lol:

[waste gate]

I like it!

The only problem I see is that most employers are private concerns, and have the right to hire and fire whom they please.

On the other hand, government agencies also require tests for employees, so it again becomes a valid argument.

Mandatory drug testing for all government benifits recipients!

Of course a lot of people on welfare might starve or freeze to death, but it's only what they deserve!

People who are in legitimate need and are not using their benefits for illicit or alchoholic endeavors have nothing to fear. They will not loose their benefits.

I'm aware that many people who are legitimately in need and are are trying to make the right decisions. I see this measure as helping those in real need even more.
They will no longer have to share the limited resources with those who only want to get drunk or high.

[TteFAboB]

But how much would the testing cost? To be worth it it would have to be pretty cheap, otherwise it'd make the benefits even more demanding.

[waste gate]

But how much would the testing cost? To be worth it it would have to be pretty cheap, otherwise it'd make the benefits even more demanding.

Simple urine or saliva tests can be had for $5.00.

Since the gov't will be involved, lets make it $15.00/week.

[August]

But how much would the testing cost? To be worth it it would have to be pretty cheap, otherwise it'd make the benefits even more demanding.
Simple urine or saliva tests can be had for $5.00.

Since the gov't will be involved, lets make it $15.00/week.

Yeah and who is going to administer the tests and how much will that cost?

[GSpector]

Hello All,

I'm thinking that if this idea was implimented, it would save the City, State and National Government a lot of money.

So I am not sure why the cost to hire maybe 3 nurses at each welfare office would be a problem. They would still come out way ahead.:hmm:

[waste gate]

But how much would the testing cost? To be worth it it would have to be pretty cheap, otherwise it'd make the benefits even more demanding.
Simple urine or saliva tests can be had for $5.00.

Since the gov't will be involved, lets make it $15.00/week.

Yeah and who is going to administer the tests and how much will that cost?

That is why I added $10.00. Administration fees.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Theres another issue for us all to disagree on....drug testing my companies! :lol:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Umbrella_Corp.gif


:up: :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Sailor Steve]

Of course a lot of people on welfare might starve or freeze to death, but it's only what they deserve!

Thats nice. Sick people deserve to starve to death. How compassionate.
I knew there'd be at least one. If you've ever read a single thing I've ever written, I'd love to know what made you think I was being serious?

Or is "sarcasm" not in your vocabulary?



Oh, by the way, if you'd ever read anything I've written, you would also know that I'm currently dependent on similar government aid. Oh, that means I'm homeless, in case you couldn't figure that one out.

[August]

But how much would the testing cost? To be worth it it would have to be pretty cheap, otherwise it'd make the benefits even more demanding.
Simple urine or saliva tests can be had for $5.00.

Since the gov't will be involved, lets make it $15.00/week.
Yeah and who is going to administer the tests and how much will that cost?
That is why I added $10.00. Administration fees.

Way, way too low. You'd need to create an entire new regulatory and enforcement department on either a city or state level to run the program. These of course would be civil service jobs requiring top of the line medical and dental benefits, retirement and other perks.

You'd also need to provide further, far more expensive tests to recheck any postive results you get as those cheap ones would never stand up in court. Speaking of court, you'd need to either hire or retain lawyers to handle the flood of lawsuits from those whom you deny benefits to, as well as from their dependants who will also be negatively effected by such a plan.

I'd say your costs would run at least into the millions per year range even for small states. Big ones like California will probably run into the 100s of millions and that's not even including the increased crime that would result from it.

[Tchocky]

I knew there'd be at least one. If you've ever read a single thing I've ever written, I'd love to know what made you think I was being serious?

Or is "sarcasm" not in your vocabulary?



Oh, by the way, if you'd ever read anything I've written, you would also know that I'm currently dependent on similar government aid. Oh, that means I'm homeless, in case you couldn't figure that one out.
I thought you were being serious. I operate on a "post, not poster" basis, because I don't spend much time on this forum, and thus dont have a knowledge of members personal posting styles. Also, I dont believe I can argue beyond the post.
I didn't know that you were homeless, and I wasnt going to search through previous posts to find that out.

[STEED]

If you think I am going to take a leak in front of my boss into a test tube you got to be joking. :rotfl:

[tycho102]

There's merit to that idea. Government employees are required to piss every once in a while. The private sector does this too.

There's merit.

[jumpy]

Stuff that for a game of soldiers.
The time my work starts to intrude upon my life to that extent is the time the villagers with their pitch-forks and flaming torches march on the proverbial ivory tower and raise the *********g thing to the ground around the ears of the la-de-da's who condescend to impose such strictures on the hoy-poloy whilst busily stuffing Bolivian marching powder up their noses and arseholes and leading a life so far removed from you or I that it sometimes beggars belief.


Perhaps that's a little over the top hehe, but if social security was run on the merits of finding work (ie. jobseekers allowance in the UK = looking for work and not a free cheque for slackers) and if you don't get decent employment in a reasonable amount of time then you have to work on various 'community projects' or realistically attainable opportunities to earn your continued government handout.... no wait, that's what's meant to happen already :o:roll:
That way no one has to employ a useless 'drugs tsar' figurehead to spearhead pointless initiatives and cough up millions for the implementation and administration of a useless and intrusive scheme. Instead those who are seemingly bent on living off the state get to give something back at a local community level. All that is required to achieve that is the proper use of existing administrative networks and liaisons with local contractors and businesses.
Oh, and not forgetting to make sure those contractors and businesses actually do what they're supposed to do for their government subsidy and not just collect a fat cheque to do sweet FA... does this sound at all familiar?

I'm sure it's all about economies of scale... the larger the con, the more veiled in legitimacy the scam the more it seems acceptable to pretend that such things don't happen, whilst all the time glibly sticking it to the little guy who might be a bit dodgy but never comes close to the brazen perfidy of many so-called 'businesses'.

Well, that's my experience of the benefits office here in the UK, bunch of useless time-wasters for the most part who wouldn't stick their necks out to really help a person back into gainful employment if their own jobs depended on it. As far as they were concerned when I had to see them at the time, they were more interested in getting me off the dole and into the poorly organised and ill conceived 'new deal' scheme which did me no favours whatsoever and in actual fact got me into debt by refusing to allow me the time to attend a training course for which I had already taken a loan to pay for, simply because what I wanted to do was not included in the list of government approved training opportunities.
Perhaps things have moved on somewhat in the last 5 or 10 years...?


By moving the goal posts in this fashion the government can turn around and say "look how many people we have cut out of the unemployment lists", because, at least here in the UK, when you sign on to 'new deal' you are technically no longer classed as 'unemployed' which translates into good publicity for tony and his bombastic approach to social welfare. Well done tone, give yourself a pat on the back for making yourself look good in the eyes of those voters who think everyone who gets a pittance of a social security cheque every couple of weeks is a jypo scrubber.

But I digress, lol.
Bottom line is don't give them any more opportunities to exclude people from society and push them to the fringe of existence. We're supposed to be civilised, not selfish.

[Sailor Steve]

I knew there'd be at least one. If you've ever read a single thing I've ever written, I'd love to know what made you think I was being serious?

Or is "sarcasm" not in your vocabulary?



Oh, by the way, if you'd ever read anything I've written, you would also know that I'm currently dependent on similar government aid. Oh, that means I'm homeless, in case you couldn't figure that one out.
I thought you were being serious. I operate on a "post, not poster" basis, because I don't spend much time on this forum, and thus dont have a knowledge of members personal posting styles. Also, I dont believe I can argue beyond the post.
I didn't know that you were homeless, and I wasnt going to search through previous posts to find that out.
Well, the weirdess is that there is a breathalyzer at the shelter check-in desk, and if you show up drunk you lose your bed; and it's very cold out right now.

On the one hand we've made jokes about having drug tests for shelter access, and wouldn't it be funny if half the guys in there suddenly found themselves outside in the cold. On the other, I'm actually against it, simply because I don't think weed ought to be illegal. And this in one of the most conservative states in the union.

Oh, just in case you're interested:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=95389&highlight=homeless+holidays