The Goat Pen

but consistent

Owlman wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:I'm all for drug testing people getting gubment checks and kicking them off if they are positive. That includes unemployment.

You'd have to drug test:

teachers, police, firemen, students getting financial aid and grants, all employees and executives of Exxon etc.

The costs of testing will markedly be more than the benefit

Agreed

Owlman wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:I'm all for drug testing people getting gubment checks and kicking them off if they are positive. That includes unemployment.

You'd have to drug test:

teachers, police, firemen, students getting financial aid and grants, all employees and executives of Exxon etc.

The costs of testing will markedly be more than the benefit

Teachers, firemen, police etc are all subject to drug testing. They are subject to it randomly as well as after any incident.

But I see absolutely nothing wrong with welfare an other people on the gubment tit being subject to monthly drug testing or whatever. If the taxpayer is paying for them then the taxpayer has the right to make sure that money isn't going on drugs.

Big Orange Junky wrote:

But I see absolutely nothing wrong with welfare an other people on the gubment tit being subject to monthly drug testing or whatever. If the taxpayer is paying for them then the taxpayer has the right to make sure that money isn't going on drugs.

So then you are still down with testing oil execs and farmers.

LMBO.

I don't know any farmers or oil execs that are making a living off the gubment.

You are just wanting to waste money for spite now.

I would be for drug testing for people on the GUBMENT DOLE, the TIT , ie not working and mooching off the taxpayer.

That means welfare, WIC, gubment housing etc.

I would not double test, in other words I wouldn't test the teachers etc cause they get tested as a condition of employment, same for the oil execs.

If the farmers you are talking about are getting a direct gubment check I wouldn't have a problem with it (ie not a check for producing something and being paid by the gubment but a check for doing nothing like welfare etc).

Farmers get government subsidies all the time. Have you not heard of this?

Test all government workers including elected officials for everything but weed.

10ac wrote:I must have missed the post DSL made about Weiner's wiener.

I can't believe he pulled such a boner.

Big Orange Junky wrote:LMBO.
You are just wanting to waste money for spite now.

I would be for drug testing for people on the GUBMENT DOLE, the TIT , ie not working and mooching off the taxpayer.

That means welfare, WIC, gubment housing etc.

Waste money? That's you. You do realize that a large percentage of people on TANF work, don't you? That many of the people on WIC are employed. Perhaps the issue is your view of the person that uses the benefits.

LMAO @ Karen!

"AP
URGENT: Rep. Weiner will request a short leave of absence and is reportedly seeking treatment after top Democratic leaders called for his resignation following sexting scandal"

The old 'get help and get back at it" dodge.

All politicians should be tested for affairs, love children, and sexting.

Owlman wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:LMBO.
You are just wanting to waste money for spite now.

I would be for drug testing for people on the GUBMENT DOLE, the TIT , ie not working and mooching off the taxpayer.

That means welfare, WIC, gubment housing etc.

Waste money? That's you. You do realize that a large percentage of people on TANF work, don't you? That many of the people on WIC are employed. Perhaps the issue is your view of the person that uses the benefits.

Honestly...

Do you just give money to people you know, with no questions asked, regardless of their behavior and what you see them spending the money on? And would you just continue to give them money under those circumstances? My guess is no.

It should be no different with the government. You come with your hand out, you agree to some ground rules. Bristling at that is just ridiculous. Comparing welfare recipients to government employees and farmers is about ludicrous as it gets. You really have to be desperate and out of arguments to go there.

Hack wrote: "Honestly...

Do you just give money to people you know, with no questions asked, regardless of their behavior and what you see them spending the money on? And would you just continue to give them money under those circumstances? My guess is no.

Actually I do. And when I feel they spent it foolishly I have the right to tell them so and tell them no the next time.

Jungle Rat wrote:Hack wrote: "Honestly...

Do you just give money to people you know, with no questions asked, regardless of their behavior and what you see them spending the money on? And would you just continue to give them money under those circumstances? My guess is no.

Actually I do. And when I feel they spent it foolishly I have the right to tell them so and tell them no the next time.

Naturally. And so should taxpayers have a say when it's their money being given away.

Wait a fuckin' minute. Are you two agreeing about something?

Hacksaw wrote:

Jungle Rat wrote:Hack wrote: "Honestly...

Do you just give money to people you know, with no questions asked, regardless of their behavior and what you see them spending the money on? And would you just continue to give them money under those circumstances? My guess is no.

Actually I do. And when I feel they spent it foolishly I have the right to tell them so and tell them no the next time.

Naturally. And so should taxpayers have a say when it's their money being given away.

Yes. That's why we vote

About half the people vote to get their hands on that taxpayer's money

Keep your government hands off my tree farm subsidy, VA loan, federal job, and my 2 kids' government college scholarships!

Hacksaw wrote:Do you just give money to people you know, with no questions asked, regardless of their behavior and what you see them spending the money on? And would you just continue to give them money under those circumstances? My guess is no.

It should be no different with the government. You come with your hand out, you agree to some ground rules. Bristling at that is just ridiculous. Comparing welfare recipients to government employees and farmers is about ludicrous as it gets. You really have to be desperate and out of arguments to go there.

In your language, do you know of any government program that doesn't ask a lot of questions before they give govt money (except for maybe Exxon)? Your first assumption was that "welfare" recipients don't work? Wrong! You second is that they aren't asked any questions? Wrong again! Farmers, teachers (maybe where you are, your teachers are all regularly drug tested, but I suspect most aren't), oil execs police, firemen, students, university employees are all on the government dole. I suspect this attack of yours comes from a belief that most "welfare" recicipients (by your definition) are drug abusers and by drug testing you can get rid of most of them. If this is your underlying belief, it also is probably an errant belief.