Drug Test for Unemployment Benies.

Kate wrote: It's "lose," not "loose." Loose is something you do to a bolt, as in "I want to loosen this bolt."

While I'm playing the grammar nazi, you should also know that it is not "lier," as you've typed so many times, it's "liar."

Thank you for pointing out those mistakes. I start getting really excited about some of the comments that are bubbling around in my head, that I start typing faster than I'm probably thinking. But you know how exciting it can get... almost like having an orgasm... not much control during a good orgasm. Well...maybe you wouldn't know... been a while... huh?

BEARS wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Indeed - when you seek the charity of others, you should expect to sacrifice a bit of your freedom,

Oh really? In america you not equal when youre poor? You lose some freedoms, privacy or rights when your lose your job?

You got us heading that way Printsh**, but we ain't there yet.

Yes, really. Whenever you require the assistance of others a portion of your freedom and privacy is sacrificed. When you borrow money from a bank, you sacrifice the privacy of your financial condition and the freedom to spend the fruits of your labor as you choose in exchange for the money. You sacrifice that financial privacy when you detail your earnings and your obligations and you sacrifice your freedom by committing to a monthly amount of money that you will pay to the bank to pay back the loan.

When you have to seek the charity of others, a portion of your dignity is sacrificed in begging for the assistance. You have no rights to the fruits of the labor of others BEARS, nor do you possess a personal property right to the appropriations of the federal Congress or that of your State government. Those who provide the charity you are in need of are free to impose any restrictions upon you in exchange for the receipt of that charity. Habitat for Humanity requires you to invest a certain number of labor hours before you are eligible to have a house built for you. The federal government requires that you log your efforts to obtain work in order to maintain your eligibility for benefits under the program. There are financial ceilings and work rules that exist for the receipt of benefits under Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, SNAPS, or any public charity program for that matter. Before your child qualifies for free or reduced lunches at the public schools you are required to provide financial information that proves eligibility. That is a sacrifice of your freedoms, your privacy and your rights. Passing a drug test is but another eligibility requirement that must be satisfied in order to be eligible for a public charity subsidy.

If you don't want to subject yourself to such testing to be eligible for public charity subsidies, you are not required to apply for the public charity subsidy. You are free to provide for yourself instead of seeking public charity BEARS, no one requires you to apply for public charity subsidies. If you are dependent on the fruits of the labor of others instead of the fruits of your own labor, there is a price attached to that dependency. When I was a younger lad first entering the workforce, I was living at home. I was subject to the rules of the house that my parents established and had to abide by them in exchange for living under their roof. If I was unwilling to abide by those rules, I was certainly free to establish my own domicile and live by my own rules. This is not substantially different from public charity to any appreciable degree. In exchange for the public charity, you must abide by the rules established for the distribution of that charity. If you are unwilling to do so, you are certainly free to go about your business without receipt of the public charity subsidy.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Kate wrote: It's "lose," not "loose." Loose is something you do to a bolt, as in "I want to loosen this bolt."

While I'm playing the grammar nazi, you should also know that it is not "lier," as you've typed so many times, it's "liar."

Thank you for pointing out those mistakes. I start getting really excited about some of the comments that are bubbling around in my head, that I start typing faster than I'm probably thinking. But you know how exciting it can get...

Bwha ha ha ha ha ha

How embarassing TLGT

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Kate wrote: It's "lose," not "loose." Loose is something you do to a bolt, as in "I want to loosen this bolt."

While I'm playing the grammar nazi, you should also know that it is not "lier," as you've typed so many times, it's "liar."

But you know how exciting it can get... almost like having an orgasm... not much control during a good orgasm. Well...maybe you wouldn't know... been a while... huh?

Wow, you really gonna say that to a woman? Not only is it creepy, you look like a pansy. Pick on me TLGT

So far the only two actual arguments supporting this are:

1. If people have to be drug-tested to hold a job, they should have to be drug-tested to receive unemployment benefits.

2. If you accept unemployment insurance benefits you are somehow agreeing to give up the right not to have your privacy invaded with a drug test.

As for argument number one, I guess it would depend on what you believe the purpose of drug testing for employment is. Is it to keep people who might prove a danger out of the workplace? If so, I don't see how that applies to the unemployed. If it's to humiliate and demean the workforce, I guess you could make an argument that it's "only fair" to humiliate and demean the unemployed, too.

The second argument, is that you are supposedly willing to give up privacy rights to accept unemployment insurance benefits. I guess that would make some sense to me if there was some actual, plausible, necessary reason to violate someone's privacy other than doing it just because you can. Do we drug test people who are seeking to collect insurance benefits when they dent the fender of their car?

I would propose that anyone receiving public monies be drug tested frequently, including congress, government employees, military, as well as those receiving public subsidies and tax breaks, such as the clergy, farmers, corporate officers, and those who receive government contracts or sell goods and services to the government or in any way benefit from the taxpayer. Wait, let's just drug test the whole damn country. I do not like the idea that all are not created equal, and that those in need should be less equal than others.
Talk about class warfare.

I can understand why some people have issues with people getting goverment money & staying home to get high.

And possibly rewarding people for staying off drugs might actually help them stay clean.

But I can see that testing people does get expensive. I worked for one employer who said a mandatory drug test was a condition of employment but never actually tested anyone. Just a good way to screen the druggies from applying.

Something the Dog Said wrote: I would propose that anyone receiving public monies be drug tested frequently, including congress, government employees, military,

The military has had drug testing for 30+ years.

FredHayek wrote: I can understand why some people have issues with people getting goverment money & staying home to get high.

Well, they might be sitting home and having continuous sex. Or watching trash TV all day. Or surfing porn sites. Should we install cameras in their homes to make sure they aren't?

Boy, it's a good thing that apparently only 2% (which is less than the national average) are doing it. Otherwise, we would have GOP people laying awake nights worrying about it....

Oh, wait... They are....