Pages: 1 2 3

 

2009-03-28 20:00:27
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6297|Truthistan

Macbeth wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

If we're going after welfare people. Then I'd say that we should test all cops, all teachers, all politicians, all pilots, all bankers, every one at the federal reserve, anyone who handles more than $1 million, all professors, and may be all right wing talk show hosts (sorry Rush) just to make sure that when these guys pick on the poor that they are not being hypocrites. After all, their use of drugs could have much more detrimental consequences for society that a welfare recipient.

In fact, I say give the welfare recipients free narcotics, I would rather that they be medicated and in their homes than roaming the streets looking to rob someone to get their next high because some populist retard with a wild hair up his a$$ thought it would be cool cut people off of welfare.

Picking on the poor is too easy, too safe, too populist and its cowardly easy. These people have no political clout, but go after the groups I mentioned above and see what happens.
Last I checked all those groups actually provide a service and earn their pay.
Too easy. Doesn't mean that shouldn't be tested too. Last I checked doing drugs was illegal so just because they made their money doesn't mean they could break the law.

Besides Cops, teachers and other mentioned above are receiving tax payer money so really that's just welfare for service, and they should be clean for reasons of public safety which is much more important than going after poor people on welfare.

A populist argument that picks on the poor only goes so far.
2009-03-28 20:04:50
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5888

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

If we're going after welfare people. Then I'd say that we should test all cops, all teachers, all politicians, all pilots, all bankers, every one at the federal reserve, anyone who handles more than $1 million, all professors, and may be all right wing talk show hosts (sorry Rush) just to make sure that when these guys pick on the poor that they are not being hypocrites. After all, their use of drugs could have much more detrimental consequences for society that a welfare recipient.

In fact, I say give the welfare recipients free narcotics, I would rather that they be medicated and in their homes than roaming the streets looking to rob someone to get their next high because some populist retard with a wild hair up his a$$ thought it would be cool cut people off of welfare.

Picking on the poor is too easy, too safe, too populist and its cowardly easy. These people have no political clout, but go after the groups I mentioned above and see what happens.
Last I checked all those groups actually provide a service and earn their pay.
Too easy. Doesn't mean that shouldn't be tested too. Last I checked doing drugs was illegal so just because they made their money doesn't mean they could break the law.

Besides Cops, teachers and other mentioned above are receiving tax payer money so really that's just welfare for service, and they should be clean for reasons of public safety which is much more important than going after poor people on welfare.

A populist argument that picks on the poor only goes so far.
lol I don't care if somebody does drugs that's a personal choice, I do care if that person doesn't work and receives money for it while doing drugs.
They are working, the teachers and the police are actually earning their pay. I don't mind them doing drugs since they actually show up for work and do their jobs.

I don't like the idea of rewarding failure.
2009-03-28 20:15:22
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

OrangeHound wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:


Well, since it doesn't impact you other than a small ripple from your future paychecks, it doesn't matter what you believe ... but, get in the middle of this stuff (as I have) and your opinion might change.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. did a pretty good job of explaining some of this reality in his book "America Behind The Color Line".
You seem to take quite the "white man's burden" approach to the issue.
No.  Not at all.  This has nothing at all to do with history.

It simply has to do with me caring about people in their current entrapped situation, and providing mentoring out of that situation.  It is what I do.
It's a trap constructed of nothing but their own mental state, one without any grounding in reality.

They are just as capable as understanding the full breadth of methods to climb the rungs of the societal ladder as any Uzique drinking his life away. Government welfare does not change this fact, and it does not mean that they need, deserve, entitled to, or would be better off with mentoring.
2009-03-28 20:22:00
OrangeHound
Busy doing highfalutin adminy stuff ...
+1,335|6952|Washington DC

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You seem to take quite the "white man's burden" approach to the issue.
No.  Not at all.  This has nothing at all to do with history.

It simply has to do with me caring about people in their current entrapped situation, and providing mentoring out of that situation.  It is what I do.
It's a trap constructed of nothing but their own mental state, one without any grounding in reality.
This is true.  But, a mental trap is still a trap, nonetheless.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They are just as capable as understanding the full breadth of methods to climb the rungs of the societal ladder as any Uzique drinking his life away. Government welfare does not change this fact, and it does not mean that they need, deserve, entitled to, or would be better off with mentoring.
I will disagree.  My experience is that they are not "as capable" because they develop learned helplessness, sometimes through multiple generations.
2009-03-28 20:28:26
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6297|Truthistan

Macbeth wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Last I checked all those groups actually provide a service and earn their pay.
Too easy. Doesn't mean that shouldn't be tested too. Last I checked doing drugs was illegal so just because they made their money doesn't mean they could break the law.

Besides Cops, teachers and other mentioned above are receiving tax payer money so really that's just welfare for service, and they should be clean for reasons of public safety which is much more important than going after poor people on welfare.

A populist argument that picks on the poor only goes so far.
lol I don't care if somebody does drugs that's a personal choice, I do care if that person doesn't work and receives money for it while doing drugs.
They are working, the teachers and the police are actually earning their pay. I don't mind them doing drugs since they actually show up for work and do their jobs.

I don't like the idea of rewarding failure.
Looks like you don't like the implication that cops, teachers, bail out queens on wall street are all recipients of welfare. If drug testing is good for one group its good for all groups. But since you don't care about people doing drugs then this OP real is just about picking on the poor. So why not just ask the question "don't you just hate the poor?" out right and be done with it.

Brow beating the poor = fail.
2009-03-28 20:33:34
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

OrangeHound wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

No.  Not at all.  This has nothing at all to do with history.

It simply has to do with me caring about people in their current entrapped situation, and providing mentoring out of that situation.  It is what I do.
It's a trap constructed of nothing but their own mental state, one without any grounding in reality.
This is true.  But, a mental trap is still a trap, nonetheless.
The difference being that a physical trap works on the laws of nature, on physical impossibilities. A mental trap can be beaten by nothing but reason and will power, scarce but unlimited commodities.

Orangehound wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They are just as capable as understanding the full breadth of methods to climb the rungs of the societal ladder as any Uzique drinking his life away. Government welfare does not change this fact, and it does not mean that they need, deserve, entitled to, or would be better off with mentoring.
I will disagree.  My experience is that they are not "as capable" because they develop learned helplessness, sometimes through multiple generations.
They are perfectly capable. If living off the meager government hand out isn't enough to motivate someone to get out, I question their humanity.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Looks like you don't like the implication that cops, teachers, bail out queens on wall street are all recipients of welfare.
At first I was like but then I was like
2009-03-28 21:01:00
OrangeHound
Busy doing highfalutin adminy stuff ...
+1,335|6952|Washington DC

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They are perfectly capable.
I realize this is your opinion, and it is held by many who have never really worked in the arena ... I even once had this opinion.  I'm not a psychologist/psychiatrist, but it is my observation (not merely an opinion) that there are dark experiences of life that put people into situations where they are just not capable.  They just aren't.  In the extreme, they are depressed, psychotic, and sometimes even deranged.  But, the population I'm referencing are physically capable, but they are mentally "helpless" ... and the government programs enable them to maintain this state of existence.
2009-03-28 21:05:33
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

OrangeHound wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They are perfectly capable.
I realize this is your opinion, and it is held by many who have never really worked in the arena ... I even once had this opinion.  I'm not a psychologist/psychiatrist, but it is my observation (not merely an opinion) that there are dark experiences of life that put people into situations where they are just not capable.  They just aren't.  In the extreme, they are depressed, psychotic, and sometimes even deranged.  But, the population I'm referencing are physically capable, but they are mentally "helpless" ... and the government programs enable them to maintain this state of existence.
Welfare has nothing to do with what they choose to do with their life.

If they are capable of achieving something greater, then they will do it. If they are not, for physical or mental reasons, then they either subsist on welfare or die. They are not being "kept down" if they are already as low as they can go.

and they are capable by your own source, learned helplessness means that they do not function even when capable.
2009-03-28 21:06:51
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7064

Turquoise wrote:

I think it's reasonable.
i agree with slap nuts
2009-03-28 22:01:19
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7019
It would be reasonable to ask but the outcry by the ACLU would be huge...
  I agree with OH... there is a learned helplessness that people are born into and they use their parents and relatives as role models... Their parents tell them that this is the way it is(and nothing you can do about it)... either verbally or through their own actions... To try an understand it... It's like asking someone to explain what love feels like if they have never felt it... 
   Or for someone to explain what its like to come home everyday and your parents are there and there is food in the refrigerator and the lights are on... Given the chance with individual attention people from really crappy beginnings can rise up and do amazing things... and it does happen...
  One of the major reasons for learned helplessness is the govt giving the poor almost enough to survive in the form of welfare and other supposed benefits... that takes away any motivation to try and rise up...
  Everyone has a desire to do something exciting and or great in their life... the right things need to be in place... a good family or support system and someone to tell that you can do it... and to take off the shackles of the govt taking care of you... Is it any wonder kids get into drugs and drinking if they are sure there is no possibilty for them...
hope this made sense to some degree... long day... lol
Love is the answer
2009-03-28 22:33:29
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX
It would be reasonable to make the buggers work for it.
Fuck Israel
2009-03-28 23:18:18
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6682|MN

OrangeHound wrote:

I will disagree.  My experience is that they are not "as capable" because they develop learned helplessness, sometimes through multiple generations.
I completely agree.  Anyone who works with the poor has to ask themselves why they are where they are.  Can these people get themselves out of the situation they are in or not.  I will bet a lot of money that over 90% of them are capable of a lot more than their current position in life. 

As Oranghound has said, they either feel they cannot do anything else, or are too lazy to try.  I think I lean more towards the lazy side than Orangehound, but this is just based on the people I work with.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-03-29 00:11:50
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5888

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:


Too easy. Doesn't mean that shouldn't be tested too. Last I checked doing drugs was illegal so just because they made their money doesn't mean they could break the law.

Besides Cops, teachers and other mentioned above are receiving tax payer money so really that's just welfare for service, and they should be clean for reasons of public safety which is much more important than going after poor people on welfare.

A populist argument that picks on the poor only goes so far.
lol I don't care if somebody does drugs that's a personal choice, I do care if that person doesn't work and receives money for it while doing drugs.
They are working, the teachers and the police are actually earning their pay. I don't mind them doing drugs since they actually show up for work and do their jobs.

I don't like the idea of rewarding failure.
Looks like you don't like the implication that cops, teachers, bail out queens on wall street are all recipients of welfare. If drug testing is good for one group its good for all groups. But since you don't care about people doing drugs then this OP real is just about picking on the poor. So why not just ask the question "don't you just hate the poor?" out right and be done with it.

Brow beating the poor = fail.
Christ you really don't get the idea that, teachers and police are actually doing a job. They're educating your kids and protecting you while you sleep. It's not the same as sitting on a couch all day smoking crack. I don't care if you do drugs and still do your job, I do care when I'm paying for you to be home all day doing drugs without contributing.
2009-03-29 01:05:57
BVC
Member
+325|6998
Why not drug test everyone aged 15-70...
2009-03-29 12:33:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I think it's reasonable.
i agree with slap nuts
You know, I had a conversation with my brother about this drug testing idea the other day.  He said that drug tests have a big problem with false positives.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that maybe this isn't such a good idea, because the tests aren't exactly 100% accurate.

So, the net effect of this idea would actually be that some people would test positive who haven't actually done anything wrong.

I'd like to avoid that sort of thing, and the fact that so many companies do drug testing shows how little corporations seem to care about the possibility of screwing over someone for something they didn't even do.
2009-03-29 15:46:55
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

Dilbert_X wrote:

It would be reasonable to make the buggers work for it.
Work for the dole? Not bad.


CDEP = failure though. Creates a false economy on remote communities.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-03-29 21:11:47
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5913|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

ghettoperson wrote:

Harmor wrote:

IMHO, in addition to drug testing you suggested:

1) Implantable Contraceptives - comes with free healthcare
2) Access to a FREE ROP program (Regional Occupancy Programs - its basically school for adults to learn new skills)
3) Work Furlough program - you work 20/hrs per week getting minimum wage doing stuff like pick up trash and 'busy work' though the government (yes i know its 'big brother', but I want them to do something useful to the community for their weekly check).
I'd support that.
It sure sounds like a helluva good plan to me. They should do something/learn to do something, not just sit around.
2009-03-30 00:44:09
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX

Flecco wrote:

Work for the dole? Not bad.
Seems fair to have them do ~10-20 hours work a week for the dole, something useful like collecting cane toads or backburning scrub.
If they don't like it they can stop claiming or find a better job.
Fuck Israel
2009-03-30 02:39:36
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6682|MN

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I think it's reasonable.
i agree with slap nuts
You know, I had a conversation with my brother about this drug testing idea the other day.  He said that drug tests have a big problem with false positives.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that maybe this isn't such a good idea, because the tests aren't exactly 100% accurate.

So, the net effect of this idea would actually be that some people would test positive who haven't actually done anything wrong.

I'd like to avoid that sort of thing, and the fact that so many companies do drug testing shows how little corporations seem to care about the possibility of screwing over someone for something they didn't even do.
As a member of a company that enforces these policies, I feel inclined to comment.

The process goes as follows:

Person provides sample for testing.
Sample tests positive.
Lab tests sister sample.  (they split the initial sample for this reason)
Lab sends positive results to company.
Company informs employee of results and provides options. 
---Re-test (at the employees expense, company pays if it comes back negative).
---Attend rehab program while returning to work.
---Decline Re-test and Rehab=Good Bye

I know, we corporate war mongering big business folks are horrible people to treat our employees this way.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-03-30 03:49:54
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Work for the dole? Not bad.
Seems fair to have them do ~10-20 hours work a week for the dole, something useful like collecting cane toads or backburning scrub.
It seems fair to everybody but long term claimants who are avoiding getting a job.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-03-30 14:44:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

LividBovine wrote:

As a member of a company that enforces these policies, I feel inclined to comment.

The process goes as follows:

Person provides sample for testing.
Sample tests positive.
Lab tests sister sample.  (they split the initial sample for this reason)
Lab sends positive results to company.
Company informs employee of results and provides options. 
---Re-test (at the employees expense, company pays if it comes back negative).
---Attend rehab program while returning to work.
---Decline Re-test and Rehab=Good Bye

I know, we corporate war mongering big business folks are horrible people to treat our employees this way.
While multiple samplings decrease the chances of errors, they aren't foolproof.  Until you have a test with a negligible error rate, you still run the risk of penalizing someone for a false positive.
2009-03-30 20:48:51
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6828|South Florida

Macbeth wrote:

Just a thought that went through my mind today, but would it be unreasonable to make people who collect unemployment and welfare to submit to random drug testings?

Now I don't think he government has a right to tell you what you can or cannot put into your body but when you are collecting a check from the government I think you should at least make an agreement to not to not spend your money on things like crack.

Also would it be unreasonable to ask people who are on welfare to not breed and create more of them. Seriously if you cannot support yourself why would you create more of you?

Maybe a bit heartless but it would teach people a lesson about responsibility right?
Abso fuckin lutely.
If your collecting welfare you better be showing some effort.

There are some people who need welfare as a way to get by, and i hope i am not one of them someday, but there are some who have turned even the word into a disgraceful embarrasment.

If you need help from the tax payers then you shouldn't be buying uneccesary things. No 22'' rim payements.
15 more years! 15 more years!
2009-04-02 10:28:40
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6682|MN

Turquoise wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

As a member of a company that enforces these policies, I feel inclined to comment.

The process goes as follows:

Person provides sample for testing.
Sample tests positive.
Lab tests sister sample.  (they split the initial sample for this reason)
Lab sends positive results to company.
Company informs employee of results and provides options. 
---Re-test (at the employees expense, company pays if it comes back negative).
---Attend rehab program while returning to work.
---Decline Re-test and Rehab=Good Bye

I know, we corporate war mongering big business folks are horrible people to treat our employees this way.
While multiple samplings decrease the chances of errors, they aren't foolproof.  Until you have a test with a negligible error rate, you still run the risk of penalizing someone for a false positive.
What error rate is exceptable then?  Is it 1/1000?

Don't you think, given our sue happy culture, that we wouldn't be able to do all this drug testing if it wasn't pretty accurate?  I have let 2 people go due to drug testing in the last year alone.  I believe we are at about 10 in the last 5 years as a company.  If this was an innacurate or unfair practice I think we would have heard about it.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-04-02 10:30:08
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6803|so randum
-if- i remember, i'll ask my mum for a pretty accurate breakdown of how the dwp works, it's highs and lows and all that stuff. then you can see our communistic agenda in all it's glory
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-04-02 10:35:58
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7068|Cambridge (UK)

FatherTed wrote:

-if- i remember, i'll ask my mum for a pretty accurate breakdown of how the dwp works, it's highs and lows and all that stuff. then you can see our communistic agenda in all it's glory
the dwp works???

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard