Requiring drug tests for welfare and unemployment?

http://www.kpic.com/news/local/113612639.html

PORTLAND, Ore. - Two Oregon lawmakers have introduced legislation that will require people to submit to drug tests in order to receive state services.
MULTIMEDIA
WATCH THE VIDEO
State Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Hillsboro, is the chief sponsor of Senate Bill 538, which will require adults to undergo drug tests before they receive public assistance like welfare and food stamps. To continue receiving public assistance, they must take a drug test every six months. If they fail a test, their benefits will be revoked.
State Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, is sponsoring House Bill 2995. If passed into law, those who want unemployment insurance will also need to pass a drug test. Those who fail will be denied the insurance unless they take part in a drug-treatment program.
Starr said the idea for his bill came from his constituents, and he said the goal is to get people off drugs.
Recipients of public services would pay for the tests and Starr said it would not be unlike what people do when they get a job. The idea is to provide an incentive for people to kick drug habits, and Starr thinks if they really want and need state services they will do so.
“Ultimately, though, as Oregonians, we should really hope and desire these people to get off the drugs,” he said. “Because that’s not healthy for them; it’s not healthy for their families, (and) if they have children, it’s not healthy for their children.”
He said taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill to support someone’s drug habit.
“We’re in a tough economic environment. We’re trying to look for opportunities to save money in government, and I think this is a way to do that that benefits the taxpayers and the recipients of state services.”
If both bills become law they will take effect on July 1, 2012.
What you can buy with food stamps
Read Senate Bill 538
Read House Bill 2995

Well good for them! I just had a conversation with a local buisness owner that said he's tired of the employment office sending down 20 people that he was sure he wouldn't waste his time drug testing 18 of them. Flocking Slackers anyway.

Fucksake, while we're at it, let's install ignition interlocks on all your cars...just in case...driving's a privilege not a right, correct?

The public would save 1000% more money by denying similar benefits to anyone that voted to cut taxes.

Make them install trip meters in their cars that turn on automatically as soon as they enter a public roadway and ding up fees whenever they enter a public space such as a park schoolyard, post office, or local ballpark.

When they come whining for medicare or unemployment, say "tough schit, buddy, what ever happened to that 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' you used to repeat over and over like a mantra?"

It's easy to fvck someone when they're already on the ground.

Coming from a guy who can't hold a job for more than a year or two?

Welfare = YES It's an entitlement program that generally panders to lazy people.

Unemployment = NO It's an insurance program that the employee paid into.

If you can't stop using drugs long enough to pass a test every 6 months there might be a problem.

I think it's a fair requirement.

Oregon isn't the only state pondering chages to their welfare system.

Tough new changes coming to a state near you!

The employee pays NOTHING into unemployment insurance. It's paid by the employer.

This isn't just for the casual pot smoker, but for the meth head and crack whore too.

Well I don't like the state compelling people to give bodily fluids for a benefit they themselves paid into.

Besides, any drug that I would classify as harmful is undetectable after a few days.

BD----The employee pays it indirectly.

IOW.....I don't give a phvck who writes the check.

You don't care who writes the check as long as you get something you didn't pay into. Lemme guess, you're not employed?

Technically I suppose not...

Yep! Bait Dunker is just another neo-con/lib in sheeples clothing.

I can understand the reservation. You won't find me in line to readily submit any bodily fluids to any local gov't tax feeder.

On the other hand, those who support others that feed at the public trough have a resonable expectation to have the peace of mind knowing that money is going to someone who is a making an honest effort to better themselves.

As opposed to some meth head who's taking their cash and buying god knows what.

If you have your hand out,........ don't be suprised when those who are doing the giving require some assurance that their money is being spent wisely.

How many jobs can you get these days without a drug test? That was the beef the buisness owner I talked to said. These people aren't even looking for a job, they just wanted him to sign the little card saying they applied for a job to keep the checks coming.

Which Police depts, Sheriff depts, or even the State Patrol do random drug tests on their uniformed officers?...you know..the guys that carry guns and shoot citizens. I am not talking about "for cause" tests I'm talking random drug tests....like the kind they give the kid that bags my groceries at Safeway.

It's probably better for all of us and the goats if baitphvcker didn't live his dream.

I've slung my fair share of chit towards Abu but I certainly don't begrudge a fellow for living life and having fun.

I take a radical conservative position on this one. I don't care if welfare or unemployment compensation recipients use drugs. Not my business, and not for me to care about.

What I care about is that anyone receiving welfare be actively engaged in a program (vocational training, retraining, or some such) that will result in getting them off of welfare. For example, an unwed mother who didn't finish high school would be provided child care and educational opportunity and a small stipend. Should she be stupid enough to get knocked up a second time, her first child is taken away and put up for adoption, and she is kicked onto the street where bad decisions belong (sort of). It's an "actions have consequences" type of plan, but some people think I lack compassion.

In the second case, I don't care if someone who is unemployed entertains themselves with drug use. Similar thing though, need to be actively engaged in an effort to get off unemployment or get kicked to the street. The exception is the present economic recession where people able and willing to work simply cannot find it anywhere in the country. That's too deep a hole to expect individuals to dig themselves out of.

Sg

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20...133f1f9f0b5970b


Drugs ain't the only problem with our Welfare System.

Phvck off you dream-chasing, Hawaii living heterosexual.

I think its high time to test our law makers for alcohol and drugs. Who is going to fund this program? There's ways to pass the test or quit before the test. There's not reasonable cause to test those on welfare or unemployment. What happens if somebody is prescribed drugs? Who is going to pay for treating those who are on drugs? Dumbass Republikans. Probably a couple of reformed hippies that are born again.

I don't remember the last time I felt like RvW was replying for me on a thread.





It's paid as part of the employee's compensation package, you f'n goat.

What will this drug testing program do about all the drunk, lazy pieces of sh!t who aren't working because they'd rather hit the sauce?

Hell yeah! But not just the "law makers" let's not forget about the law "enforcers"...they ought'a have randoms too.

Not to mention that a good majority of those on welfare are already going through treatment programs, AA, or NA and may be living in an Oxford house or they have already gone through the system and may be living a clean and sober lifestyle. These lawmakers are clueless and are pandering to a certain segment of our high and mighty society.

Yeah I agree that alcohol and drug abuse is a big problem.

Use by Obama, GW Bush, and Clinton didn't seem to prevent them from the presidency.

Everybody's gott'a have a New Years resolution....looks like mines working.

So just give all the low paying jobs to illegal aliens in Washington, Oregon, and California who bring the drugs across the border or grow/manufacture them and don't get tested. Heck we pay for their medical care. Maybe those unemployed or on welfare could work these jobs. Really seems fair and hypocritical.

Also some of those who would get cut off would probably just resort to a life of crime and drug dealing/trafficking.

Kind of leaning towards RVW idea here. I also like Salmo's suggestions as they apply to welfare.

Most drugs, with the exception of THC, leave the body in a few days and make pee tests a hit & miss issue. Now if they were to test hair, that would be a whole other deal.

Pot doesn't bother me, but it is persistant in the body as it is store in fat. It is possible to score pretty low a few days after smoking, and then show up REALLY hot 15-30 days later based on how the body gets rid of THC. This is the one substance that should be legalized.

Makes you wonder what they would do in a socialist state.

[quote=

It's paid as part of the employee's compensation package, you f'n goat.
[/quote]

It's paid because the government forces us to pay it. Unemployment is just another welfare program. Just like workmans comp, It's not part of your compensation package, find a legal job in America where the employer doesn't have to pay into it? It's just like social security, a ponzi scheme.
Drug tests for law makers as well as welfare and enemployment seekers would NOT be a violation of the 4th amendment because it would be voluntary. If you choose not to take the test, no "benefits".
RvW, where do you get the idea that public safety employees are not drug tested?

As mentioned by others there are one hell of a lot more problems related to alcohol than drugs. What the hell, lets let the gubmint see if we have to much to drink, maybe Nyquil too often, or how about Oxcycontin. Jeesh. I thought we were trying for less gubmint.

So it looks to me like the government isn't forcing you to pay unemployment insurance, either..........you choose to do it by having employees.

Bait dumpster....

Actually, they force me to pay it on myself as well, if I were a sole proprieter, I wouldn't pay, but I couldn't collect either.

Marsha, of course, is out in left field. A government pension would be part of your compensation package, where as unemployment is not.

I find it hard to believe so many of you think meth addicts should be able to collect welfare, but then again, PP is about as drug friendly as burning man.

Do me a favor and go up and find where one single person said that they support meth addicts collecting welfare...please?

You won't find it...because no one said it.

Saying that they don't support everyone taking a drug test does not in any way, shape, or form imply that they support meth addicts taking benefits.

Do you want a TSA agent to stick a metal bar ten inches up your ass every time you get on a plane? No? What? You actually support people getting on planes with grenades up their asses?

Fish on...

Todd

You guys that think one should pass a drug test to recieve aid are frickin clueless. I am not saying that I agree with our welfare state but the state is gonna end up paying for drug addicts one way or another.

Why would you want to collect, ya f'n sponge? I figured you'd just pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

How is this "less government", sure seems like a lot more, and who the fuk is going to pay for this mass drug testing?
We are supposed to be thinking of ways to pare down spending, not ramp it up.
For those wondering why Sara Palin is viewed as a leader, look no further than those that propose things like this, dimbulbs seem think she's the smart one.

I believe the testing is paid for by the person requesting aid, and as someone who was required to take drug tests in order to maintain his Goverment Issued License I guess I don't see what the problem is. Of course I don't have a problem either.

I voluntarily applied for my job, and one of the conditions of my employment was a drug test. When I hire an employee for my company, one of the conditions is a drug test.
Drug testing is a good way to keep drug addicts off of the welfare system. Being against drug testing allows the drug addicts, meth heads, crack whores etc. To remain on the system. Anyone have a better suggestion for getting drug addicts off public assistance? I would submit that a large percentage of you who are against drug testing are also current or rather recent drug users yourselves, so you are biased, if not baked on the issue.

BD must have been a cop at some point in his life. Only the buzzcut paramilitary type cop would say "public safety employee." The only time cops do anything safety-oriented is when they're asleep. Most of the time they're just busy shooting unarmed civilians and taking our money, but I digress...

Last time I checked, local cops don't receive drug tests. Federal LE doesn't either. It would be very interesting knowing just about many LE smoke pot. I bet the numbers of guilty officers would be astounding.

I just have a hard time believing why a person whose job was just shipped to China or Mexico needs to be drug tested while he's on unemployment looking for a new job. Sounds pretty brutal to me.

Cost is another problem. No one will pay for this since it costs over $100 just for a UA. On top of that, most guilty people would have pot in their system. No fckin' way anyone deserves to have benefits cut because of pot.

I would submit that you're a simple-minded fool.

BWP The bill does not reduce or take away unemployment benefits, it's to make sure the unemployed are employable. Most all companys require a UA for pre-employment screening. This is going to be an interesting fight. Small Buisness owners against the unemployed who don't want to take a UA, better get a bag of popcorn for this one.

Wrong.

Answer me this, Say a person is a life long drug addict (my sister From late teenage year's to her death at age 50 something)She never could beat the drug's.For the most part unemployable the last 25 year's due to drug's.
Do you cut this person off and just let them die in the street or steal to survive.
Don't see how our gov. could possibly manage something like this, Where does the intrusion into daily lives stop.

Yeah kick all those lazy SOB's off welfare and such sound's good but in the real world our government would just screw it up and the people that do actually need it would get screwed.

Our government is too Big, Unmanageable,and fricken completely out of control,

And nobody is forcing anyone to go on welfare or seek unemployment. Thank you for proving my point. Stay off the dope so you're employable and have some money, and go get a damn job. Most of America can do it, why can't everybody else? It's really not that hard, there are ALWAYS jobs out there for those who really want to work.

" . . . and go get a damn job. Most of America can do it, why can't everybody else? It's really not that hard, there are ALWAYS jobs out there for those who really want to work."


BD For a guy who spews a constant stream of dumb remarks that may top the list. So I guess there was no great depression, just a bunch of guys who all decided to quit working at the same time? If they had wanted jobs there were jobs for everybody. Do you EVER think before typing?


Right now there are about 14.5 million unemployed in America. I guess there are jobs for all of them if they really wanted to work. They just prefer to lose their houses, their life savings, and everything else they worked for. Yeah, that's it.

He just doesn't want to lose his stranglehold on 1st place.

KOTY. Kook Of The Year, by a landslide.

I'm not sure how he managed it, but I think he's managed to annoy every single person here, from every possible ethnic, religious, or political background...we all piss off a good portion of them, but to piss off all of them at once? That takes some doin'...

Fish on...

Todd

My neighbor was laid off, he drives school bus and sells firewood to make a living. He sold his toys, boat, motorhome etc, but he's keeping his house. His wife was a stay at home mom but now she works at a grocery store. Hell, a kid knocked on my door a month ago asked if I had any odd jobs. I hired him to plant ten trees @$10 a pop, 6' pine trees. Sure, a hundred bucks won't make the house payment, but he has a whole month to do jobs like that for people. He wants to work, and worked hard, if I had an opening at my shop I'd hire him. Stop making excuses for dead beats.

That has to be the #1 all-timer for PP.



Stay tuned for this public service announcement:

Stam has the best business plan ever...hang out with a bunch of dimwits like us, and he's always got a good customer base

Fish on...

Todd

There is iron in the words of stam.

bait dumpster speaks with forked tongue.

pot....meet kettle

And a mushy head. .

Somebody should start a poll .. . . who here has had Stam work on their vehicle ?? ? ?

I have.

Do boats count?

BD,

Along with the other perfectly valid reasons for opposing drug testing for welfare and unemployment, I take a conservative approach and favor the complete and total legalization of drugs, all of them. Therefore drug testing would be superfluous. No government laws against drugs and no government laws requiring drug testing. Less government, see?

You really got this one bass ackwards, but then that's kind of your specialty.

Sg

It's not like he deals in rare literature and antiquities.

Fucksake, I don't even hit this place up for book recommendations.

"Along with the other perfectly valid reasons for opposing drug testing for welfare and unemployment, I take a conservative approach and favor the complete and total legalization of drugs, all of them. Therefore drug testing would be superfluous. No government laws against drugs and no government laws requiring drug testing. Less government, see?"


I like this one, might as well just get rid of unemployment and welfare too. It's amazing that our grandparents ever survived without it.

So, if you are opposed to drug tests, do you have anything you would try to get chronically unemployed drug users off of unemployment? Or, are you ok with them remaining on unemployment?

It seems that if you don't want to do anything (something - I don't care if it's a drug test) about the abuse, then you're OK with letting it continue.

I'm also curious about the claim that these drug tests would be unconstitutional. Sure it would be unconstitutional to just show up at a citizen's house and demand a drug test. But would it be unconstitutional to make it a condition of receiving gov't funds?

Interesting topic.

By the way, I kind of like Salmo's take.

I love it when stupid people make stupid assumptions. Ever met me Masrsha? Are you sure I'm white?

Dan-O,

As Aunty M mentioned, unemployment benefits are not indefinite. See, I don't care if someone uses drugs or is a drug addict. That's their personal choice and none of my business. If a drug user does his or her job, why should I care that they use drugs? However, if a person cannot do their job, whether because of drug use or some other reason, fire them. Pretty simple. People fired for cause aren't supposed to qualify for unemployment benefits, but I understand that they nonetheless often do. But that's a different problem that should be solved in and of itself, and not confused with "giving unemployment benefits to drug users."

As further evidence of American stupidity, I submit that altogether too many people have this bass ackwards idea that we can change drug use patterns in society by passing more laws. But the track record is absolutely clear that it makes no difference and has only succeeded in adding to government spending by over $105,000,000,000 per year in 1995 dollars. Flat out total legalization would have little effect on drug use in the U.S., except that heroin use most likely would decline significantly, and pot use might, maybe, possibly, potentially, increase slightly. Most people's drug use decisions are not base on laws about drug use. Believing otherwise is delusional at best, or misinformed, or stupid in many cases.

If you want people off welfare, support policies that make welfare recipients better off by getting off welfare.

If you want people off unemployment, support policies that add more jobs to the economic stream.

Negative incentives like drug testing for welfare and unemployment are excellent examples of shallow, nearly dimwitted, thinking, and far more likely than not are doomed to failure should they be used. There's gobs of social data showing what works and doesn't work when dealing with people, but the American aversion to science-based decision making pretty much assures a continuation of ineffectual policy level decision making.

Sg

AM+SG = +1000 BD how high do negative number go?

Marsha are you stoned or just stupid? Your incredibly dumb comparison is like saying if you're against murder you hate minorities because more minorities are in prison for murder than white people.

In your example of the family on welfare, why is a man who can't afford to feed his family buying a fishing license and dope? He has money for a fishing license, gas to go fishing and drugs, but can't afford food??? WTF are you doing defending decision making that is that poor? Why should taxpayers subsidize stupid decision making when they don't have to? What are this mans children going through at school, being made fun of for being on welfare so dad has money to buy drugs? If pot is harmless and not addictive as many users say, why can't he stop as to not jeopardize his families stability? Why do so many of you liberals defend his selfishness? Even if his drug habit is only $50-100 a month, that could buy a lot of groceries, car insurance for a month, heating bill for a month, electric bill, new shoes or jackets for his children etc.

There have to be consequences for poor decision making. When your kid asks you to borrow some money for car insurance, but then blows it while bowling or partying with friends do you give them more money, or teach them a lesson by making them ride the bus until they earn enough money to pay the car insurance?

If your brother bought meth with his house payment money, then asks you to loan him money to make his house payment, is it wrong to put a condition on the loan of not buying drugs with it? Of course not. Nobody is proposing the end of the welfare programs as there are people who do truly need it, but it is not unfair to ask them to stay drug free. Food stamp programs won't let you spend the money on beer, McDonalds, cigarettes or energy drinks. It's the same line of thinking.

I know people with CDL's that have lost there license and jobs over a off work DUII, guess someone on welfare shoudn't be held accountable..

Curious here....how do you drugs are OK folks feel about the over-serving law? You know, where the bar is responsible for what the drunk does. To me that says that the general concensus is that when someone is under the influence, they are no longer able to make rational decisions.....hence the bar is responsible.
Do you also feel that the supplier of drugs should be held responsible for one's use?

Chuck last time I looked drugs are still an illegal activity, these people are asking for public assitance from many law abiding citizens that really don't like working and paying taxes to support this. Point is my aquantance took a job where it clearly stated that if he got a DUII or Drug conviction he would be terminated and he was. He did get a job back with the same company because he was a good worker and he was not driving company trucks at the time, but it's at a lesser pay scale and he's not driving just a yard man.

Hope it doesn't get to the point that Bob install's a blow & go before logging on....

Mf

"Hope it doesn't get to the point that Bob install's a blow & go before logging on.... "



What and shut the whole board down..

Slab,

A socially responsible bar tender doesn't serve a customer who is drunk. It's bad business in the long run IMO. I think it's wrong to hold bar tenders financially or criminally responsible however, for serving a drunk. The bar tender can't always know how much a person has had to drink; i.e., the customer could have already had a few drinks before arriving at this bar, and he may appear to hold his liquor pretty well. The drinker is the one who makes the choice to drink and should be held responsible for whatever occurs as a result of that.

In most cases I wouldn't hold a drug pusher responsible for the actions of one of his customers. I do make an exception for heroin pushers/dealers, however. Less you think me inconsistent, let me explain. Most people come to heroin use only partly of their own free will. The general pattern is that a heroin pusher who is an addict befriends other people looking for a good time, and provides an assortment of booze and drugs for a few fun weekends. I'm not sure if it's deceit or subterfuge, but then they lace pot, meth, or some other drug with a bit of heroin without the newbie being aware. Once the newly initiated get to liking the combo drug they are introduced to straight injectible heroin. I should be a harsh jerk and say that the newebie should turn and run at this point, but most don't because they were headed down a loser road already. So they don't, figuring at this point that they can handle a shot or two of heroin, and besides, it's so much fun. The problem is that the friendly-so-far pusher who has been providing everything for free becomes not-so-friendly. Next time they get together, the pusher says, ahah, that's gonna' cost $100, knowing that he's already deceived the newbie into being a junkie. Pushers do this because lying and deceit is the surest way for them to recruit new junkies who will need them to provide them their heroin. This is how the pusher/junkie supports his own habit, by recruiting new users and destroying their lives such that they embezzle from work, lose their jobs, and begin stealing and prostitution to get their next fix. So I have a little bit of sympathy for someone who becomes a heroin junkie via this route. Conversely, I'd put the hit on any and every pusher who recruits this way.

So except for the above noted exception, I wouldn't hold drug suppliers responsible for customers who of their own free will choose to buy drugs. While other drugs like crack cocaine and meth are extremely addictive, as far as I know, only heroin is the equivalent of a death sentence to a user (not that it has to be; if heroin were totally legal, a user could get a phara. grade dose for about $1).

There are effective ways to deal with and treat drug issues. Witholding welfare and unemployment are not among those methods.

Sg

I'm sure Oregons Attorney Generals Office would need to weigh in before this could ever become law. But it's already legal for the CG to drug test before issuing a license and they are a goverment agency.

Just because someone is on food stamps or public assistance doesn't mean they do illegal drugs.

Our nation is coming to a point where they are going to put a tag in everybody and put a video camera in every bedroom. And yes a blow and go in every vehicle.

So where do you live and work Bait Humper? How do we know you are not doing anything illegal? We want to see your bank statements and search your house. Post your last five tax returns here and your last 4 paychecks too. We will schedule you for a lie detector test. We will also make you pee in a cup and get hair samples from you. If you don't submit to the PP investigation service then you have something to hide.

Good point. There is a point, and I think lately the far-right has begun crossing it, that Libertarianism begins to start to smack more of just plain Sociopathy than any real political ethos.

You see it more and more lately especially since fvcktards like Glenn Beck and The Teabaggers crawled out of the woodwork and were given soapboxes courtesy of the Pharma and Insurance industries.

One of the cool things about America used to be Civic Pride, in which as tax paying citizens, we enjoyed seeing our money go into our communities in the for of roads, bridges, and architectually pleasing public works. No one ever said anything like "I dont use the town park, so I ain't gonna pay fer it! Charge user fees!" Or "I hate gubmit so I think instead of courts we should just shoot people."

I think it's a tragic trend and if I had to put my finger on any root cause, I'd say it began with desegregation.

Owned.

I'd gladly pee in a cup, and do twice a year at work. No, not everyone on welfare is on drugs, I never made that case. The case I made is why should the general public, many who are barely making it, pay to support drug addicts?
Do I do illegal things? Of course I do. I drive too fast, I burn farm diesel in my truck, and I sell a few Christmas trees and don't report them. The difference is that I don't ask the public to support me or my "illegal habits". That's all the difference in the world. To think speeding is akin to asking the public to support a meth addict is just plain silly.

bait dumpster is nothing more than a common thief the way he burns farm diesel in his truck like that.

He's no different than the guy who sticks up a 7-11.

Really? So child molestation, murder, and rape are the same as smoking pot, jay walking and speeding? Did someone say borderline retarded????

What someone does in their own home is their own business within reason, I agree. You seem to choose to ignore that fact that asking the public to support someones drug using ass is the difference. As I've said before, it's not just the casual pot smoker, it's the meth addict who screws with your truck at the boat ramp. Either way, we shouldn't have to support them while they continue to make bad decisions.

Hey Marsha,

I won't go so far as to say that I have a functional knowledge of the 4th amendment, but doesn't unreasonable search and seizure apply to the gov't coming looking for you? In this case, it's the person coming to the gov't looking for $$. I guess I just don't see the 4th amendment violation.

I don't think the gov't has any business in my business......... unless I've got my hand out. I may even have my hand out for perfectly valid reasons, but I still have my hand out. In that case, I don't think the gov't should just give me money because I want it. I think they have some sort of fiduciary responsibility. And, no, I'm not sure a drug test is the right way to go, but isn't there some culpability for making sure their spending my tax dollars wisely (he asks as naively as possible).
If not a drug test, is there any test, or should they just be given money because they asked?

I guess I'd pee in a bottle without hesitation if I were asking for money, but then I do worse than that for money now. :-)

v/r..... even on the Dark Side,

Dan

And don't even get me going on the unreported income.

Someone should yell "thief!!".

It is when you ask me for help and are unemployable because of your illegal drug use.
If you're self sufficient, snort coke or suckstart a shotgun, I don't care!

I care that you're a thief.

BD

There are so many incorrect assumptions and contradictions in your ramblings that I simply don’t have the energy to take them all on. But, know this. The meth head at the boat ramp is almost certainly NOT on unemployment or any form of welfare. There are NO welfare programs that I am aware of, and I used to work in the welfare branch of DHHS, that pay any benefit to a single, able males.

There are lots of folks, about 14.5 million, out of work, and many of them get unemployment or did until it ran out. So if this poor guy had a toke on his neighbor's bong two months before he became unemployed you want to cut him off of the benefits he earned. His kids and wife can suffer , what do you care?

This hypothetical person has done nothing to harm society, unlike you who are a tax cheat, but you want to sit in judgment on them. You should be ashamed.

I would be much quicker to deny benefits to a tax cheat than to a guy who smoked the occasional joint.
I think AM did a pretty good assessment of what you are.


"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

Corinthians (ch. XIII, v. 1)

Stam,
Yes, I agree that the rich take more from the government, they also pay more, but that still doesn't give them the right.
Actually, on your advice, I am. I'm going to hire him to reroof my house, shop and a rental this summer.

I don't begrudge any needy, clean person public assistance, it's there for a reason. I'm not a believer in rehab programs. A recent trade publication said that only 15-20% meth users successfully make it through rehab and stay clean from meth. Honestly, people who want to get clean, will, those who don't, unfortunately will end up in prison. Hopefully they will get the help they need.
Pot users only hurt themselves. If it's really not addictive, then it's a choice and they can easily quit. Meth on the other hand is highly addictive, and almost always spirals downward. With most meth addicts, the amount they collect in welfare, isn't going to make or break them. $300 means very little when you have a $1500-$3000 a month habit. I'm well aware of this being that my shop has been broken into 4 times last year. Dealing with them is going to be a lose, lose, likely lose. Leave em on the street and they will rob you blind to feed their habit, arrest them and everybody pays to keep them in jail, or pay for their rehab and hope like hell they can stay clean. In short, I don't have a real answer that's going to please everyone, but continuing to pay them with taxpayer money to feed their habit is not the answer.

Do we have to drug test unemployed folks to pick up trash on the streets here in Seattle?

well, if he was smart he wouldnt have taken the toke so he wouldnt have to worry about it since he would have known the consequences.

Yeah, I cheat the government out of $100 bucks a year, more but legally if you count my biodiesel. Yeah, I'm a regular Tim Geithner.

Stop!! Thief!!

Then can you explain why I routinely respond to overdoses, or other drug induced calls and we find Oregon Trail cards (state welfare) on them??

New Rule:

As punishment for bait dunker freeloading on the roads that WE ALL pay for via legitimately buying gas (and thus paying our fair share of taxes) I propose the following punshment: NOBODY respond to anything bait dunker posts..

First, we'll all feel good about shunning the tax dodging, freeloading, hypocrite...

Second, he'll shrivel up and go away...

Not smart, by definition.

You respond because you are a Good Guy! And thank you for that. Not a lot to offer, but most heart felt.

Anybody here sold anything in our local PP board? Is that considered income? Funny, isn't it? Selling via a public board which is certainly documentable (sp) and thinking that it is tax exempt? I would hope that it will not become an issue with any tax collectors, but then again nothing would surprise me.

If they shoot someone, it's a solid bet they're pissing in a cup soon after.

.

Not familiar with Oregon Trail card, but again, there are zero federal programs that provide funds to able bodied males, and there are none in washington that do either. Not familial with Oregon programs but doubt they do either. A quick search of the oregon DSH site revealed the cards are most likely for food stamps or benefits based on dependent children. Would you dney the children food because thei father is a dirt bag?

Can you explain why you would have so many instatces where it is necessary to go through a victim's pockets to see these cards you see so often. How many of these have you seen this way?

Not familiar with Oregon Trail card, but again, there are zero federal programs that provide funds to able bodied males, and there are none in washington that do either. Not familial with Oregon programs but doubt they do either. A quick search of the oregon DSH site revealed the cards are most likely for food stamps or benefits based on dependent children. Would you dney the children food because thei father is a dirt bag?

Can you explain why you would have so many instatces where it is necessary to go through a victim's pockets to see these cards you see so often. How many of these have you seen this way?[/quote]


As you may have read before, I'm a firefighter/EMT, I work 24 on, 48 off. When I'm not at my job, I'm running a small business that I own. There is a small volunteer fire dept next to my shop, I volunteer there when I can. Combined, I would say I attend an average of 3 calls a day. If a patient is Unconscious/unresponsive or uncooperative, then often times the police (if on scene) or my partner will open the patients wallet/check pockets to get basic information, ie. Name, dob, etc, it's not uncommon to see an Oregon trail card in the wallet/pocket as well. As for how often I see this, a conservative guess would be 1:10 patients.

I appreciate your work as an EMT/Firefighter.

But you didn't answer my question regarding what you would do regarding welfare payments and food stamps for the family of the guy who fails the drug test. Remember almost ALL welfare type programs are based on dependents. No dependents, no welfare. Would you do the same if they were proven to have had a drink in the past few months?

Dave, if a man tests positive for drugs, in my opinion he should be cut off of financial aid. The mother would be free to join up, but as I understand it, welfare benefits are usually in the mothers name. Perhaps if both parents refuse to clean up for the sake of their children, the children might be better off removed from the home. I don't say that lightly, but what decent parent would jeopardize their families financial security over a little pot? If both parents are on meth, heroin, etc., and cant stop, that can't be a good environment to raise children. To address your other question, no, I don't think people on public assistance should be drinking alcohol either, but that is legal, and I'm not sure how you would go about enforcing a ban on it for welfare seekers. If they have no money for food, they shouldn't have money for beer either.

This is not about me being "better" than anyone else, When I was 19 I was homeless the summer after highschool. Lived in my car, then a tent at the KOA until I could afford an apartment and go to school, now I'm on track to be retired at 50, through hard work. Many people on this site think I'm dumb as a post, so if I can become successful, why can't others?

bait dunker,

Go set yourself on fire, you f'n thief.

I'd rather be surrounded by drug users than thieves. Not every drug user is a lowlife, but every thief is.

Heck, if we're going to drug test people for welfare, then I think we should start docking TAX BREAKS from people who commit misdemeanors... You know like that mortgage interest tax deduction? You lose that if you run a red-light.

Oh, what's that? You think YOUR misdemeanors shouldn't cost YOU an entitlement? Hypocrites...

It never fails to amaze me how many of those who preach diversity cannot tolerate opposing opinions. Just how does that work??

Personally, I'm not taking sides on this as I think I see this whole issue from a slightly different perspective than most. I am a recovering alcoholic almost 24 years sober, and believe me, I did my share of stealing (both in merchandise and family availability). As far as I know there is no such thing as an honest addict and the first lie is the one they tell themselves that what they choose to do is OK. The disease has been referred to as the, "I ain't got it." disease.

At my 20th class year reunion I told the then Chief of Police whom I went through high school with that the cops who let me off the hook repeatedly, while with the best of intentions, really had done me no favors. And for what it's worth, I had very little to do with my getting sober. I believe there are times in my life where God simply picked me up by the shirt collar, so to speak, and said, "Well, it's obvious you can't handle this."

I'm not attempting to sway anyone's opinion in any way here, as I know full well that I could neither hear nor see the truth until I was ready. Just offering up a bit of my own personal experience. Flush at will.....or not.

Too lazy to read this whole thread but as the title states. Hell yes they should be drug tested. The welfare line would shrink for sure, un employment a little too. At the mini mart yesterday a girl was in front of me and asked if they accept the EBT card, some sort of state assistance. They said yes and she said I will take a carton of marolboros and she had a 12 pack of beer. She didn't know her PIN number and started yelling at the clerk that she shouldn't need to know it, then started crying and left. Clerk said he sells lots of smokes and alcahol to EBT card holders. Thats not right that we tax payers help pay for unfortunete peoples beer and smokes. Should be limited to bread, water, eggs and milk etc.

Nothing.

Thank you, Chuck.

Can't remember her pin#.Give me a fukin break.Trading there EBT cards and BJ's for crack/smokes and a couple beers.Good luck,
SZ

No one should get gov money if they have a drug or booze issue.

We should be testing our politicians, judges and CEO's on a random annual basis with the results being public. After all, who's more of a danger if they have a drug problem?

i agree

Six pages and a bunch of you still haven't read Aunty M's post indicating that this has been through the U.S. Court of Appeals and struck down as unconstitutional. For a generally smart forum we still have our share of slow learners. Probably didn't get enough publicly subsidized educational benefits.

Sg

Besides, why bother testing WSU alumni? We already know there's something wrong with them.

I'll second that amendment!

I can't tell you how much I hate thiefs..........

Speaking of which, should I go to jail if I gun someone down for breaking into my house? Hard part would be not emptying the clip...

Keith

Ah Hell they have been trying to overturn our Death with Dignity law for years, just wait intill this passes and there's a mass exodus from Portland to Vancouver.

you saying that is just incredible

Marsha, Marsha, Marsha, you carefully picked your links, citing lower courts to back your position, but the only court that matters, the Supreme court does not agree with you.

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/drug-testing

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16639854

The Supreme court has ruled Multiple times that random, suspicion-less drug testing is legal because:
1) drug abuse is a serious societal problem; 2) drug use has an adverse impact on job performance; and 3) children must be protected from those who use drugs or could influence children to use them.

He said taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill to support someone’s drug habit.
“We’re in a tough economic environment. We’re trying to look for opportunities to save money in government, and I think this is a way to do that that benefits the taxpayers and the recipients of state services.”

Maybe they should go find that 9 billion in reconstruction funds lost in Iraq or the 2.3 trillion the pentagon can't account for before they worry about some dopers collecting welfare.

Testing kids who participate in school activities is a far cry from testing welfare and unemployment insurance beneficiaries...

Fish on...

Todd

BD, shut up.

Just Shut the [censored] Up.

Really, how so? Both extra school activities and welfare collection are both voluntary. Both are funded by the tax payers. I fail to see the difference.

Not talkin drug test, just sayin its not right that us tax payers are paying for someone to have luxeries like beer and smokes. Those are extra non neccessary items.

So if its unconstitutional to drug test people who sign up for welfare and unemployment, how can it be ok when I sign up for a new job to get tested by the employer. Essentially the state is paying you, why can't they be tested. Make em random and lots of folks will get nailed. I got nothin against someone who gets high, thats their deal, until its coming out of my tax paying pocket. Or how about shortening enemployment? I know guys that have been on it for over a year. Some of them draw the maximum 600 bucks a week and work construction jobs for cash and are making more on unemployment than they ever would normally. They have no desire to go back to a paycheck. Also I think many of these folks are just lazy. Labor ready hires everyday.

Uh.... Although I don't smoke, I'd jump off a bridge if they quit making alcohol tomorrow. It's a must to get through the pothetic fishing and pothetic world we live in...

But seriously, don't take the booze away. That's some cold [censored]...

Keith

I still want to know if those who support the idea of this testing welfare recipients are supportive of similarly testing all taxpayers to be eligible for their own personal tax-code "welfare" -- Mortgage interest deductions, favorable 401K/IRA treatments, etc.

Fail the tests, or refuse to take them, you lose your deductions.. Because if you test positive, you're obviously spending your deductions on drugs...

You know as well as I do that you can shop cases to any judges and get different results, it's don't all the time. I recently heard on NPR that the 9th circuit court of appeals has nearly half of it's decisions overturned by the supreme court. Very comforting.

OK, I read all 10 pages.

Can I get an honorary law degree. I'm not talking from a top-tier institution like the UW. Maybe just PIMA or WSU.

P.S. Aunty, I did get your replies. They make sense. But Dammit, I want to pay less taxes for lazy cheaters, so I guess I'm willing to trample their constitutional rights.

Actually, there is a federal program called TANF, temporary aid for needy families. On the EBT card there are several accounts that can be accessed by the card. They can be basic food, TANF, unemployment and reimbursements for foster parenting can be accessed by the EBT card. Just FYI

[
What I care about is that anyone receiving welfare be actively engaged in a program (vocational training, retraining, or some such) that will result in getting them off of welfare. For example, an unwed mother who didn't finish high school would be provided child care and educational opportunity and a small stipend. Should she be stupid enough to get knocked up a second time, her first child is taken away and put up for adoption, and she is kicked onto the street where bad decisions belong (sort of). It's an "actions have consequences" type of plan, but some people think I lack compassion.


What you'll have here is a subclass of people that will continue to need to be cared for and housed. Just because one is involved in sometype of vocational program will not make them a decent or appropriate hire. Stupid is....has already been determined way before one becomes an adult or mooch off of society. Or else there will be a lot ..and I mean a lot of homeless people on our city streets.

If you read the cases involving testing school kids for participation in after school activities, you'd see that the courts found that it would violate their 4th Amendment rights, but that the State has an overriding and more important need to keep drugs out of the school place.

That is the basis for upholding those rulings, and that basis has nothing to do with this conversation.

(nor do work place drug tests)

Fish on...

Todd

I'm with you, Aunty. But it doesn't mean it doesn't piss me off.

Exactly.

Bwp, Yes, I hired a 20 something year old kid to plant trees. Was I cheap? I don't know, he named the price and was done in 4 hours. That's $25 an hour. Am I a tax cheat for selling $100 worth of Christmas trees and not reporting it? Maybe so, cheating the government out of a whopping 30 or so bucks, call the police! Am I going to lose sleep that i ran 3 tanks of dyed diesel through my farm truck last year, cheating the government out of $30 bucks in road taxes, not a chance. I paid nearly 20k in property taxes alone last year. My $60 in unpaid tax revenue can be considered a protest. If you want to get technical, now that you make think about it, I paid someone to plant $100 worth of trees, and sold $100 worth of trees, no income afterall. Gee, thanks bwp!
The kid worked in construction, if I contract him to reroof my buildings, I won't need to pay his ss etc.

Do you pay taxes when you have a garage sale or when a guy chips in for gas on your boat? Didn't think so.

So if I paid taxes last year I can steal this year.............you know, as a protest?

Cool.

Hell, I'm not stealing, the government is..

A mandatory drug test would be routine in any socialistic country.
I thought you tea baggers were against socialism?

TeaBaggers like Big Government, so long as it's aimed at someone else...even better if it can take something from someone else and redistribute it to them.

Fish on...

Todd

Oh brother, could you be anymore full of yourself? I compete just fine, business is successful, and debt free thank you. I own a business for the money, I have a day job because I love the job. I'm not scared of an audit because I run a clean shop. You're clueless.

Were you helping in the planting of the trees? Gonna report me for giving the guy a beer at lunch too? While youre on the phone with the IRS, a neighbor lady gave me a few boxes of canning lids in exchange for some vegetables, i forgot to report that also.

Pot

Kettle

Black

"What I care about is that anyone receiving welfare be actively engaged in a program (vocational training, retraining, or some such) that will result in getting them off of welfare. For example, an unwed mother who didn't finish high school would be provided child care and educational opportunity and a small stipend. Should she be stupid enough to get knocked up a second time, her first child is taken away and put up for adoption, and she is kicked onto the street where bad decisions belong (sort of). It's an "actions have consequences" type of plan, but some people think I lack compassion."

This would cost more than the welfare. New training programs, Child care, education, stipend then possibly adoption services and a homeless person who resorts to crimes against the tax payer and requires us to build more expensive prisons. Not to mention all of the "I work for a living and these free loaders are getting free training, etc off of my dime" whiners. Total cost way more than just paying the damn welfare.

I say you have to pick up your check in person from BD after spending an hour listening to him. I bet 75% don't come back for a second check. The 25% who do are obviously on drugs.

Where did you hear that?

Keith

So what about a mandatory drug and alcohol test to buy guns and ammo?
Or we could just tax stupid, that way bait donkey would paying his fare share.

LOL... the bait dunker tax protest justification is [censored] priceless.

You, sir, are a specialty tool.

Unreal.

Bottom line IMO, three quarters of welfare and a third of unemployment are just lazy bottom feeders that enjoy their crappy life and don't want anything better. They are oxygen stealers.

So your opinion is the bottom line? Are you one of those who make up 87% of all statistics on the spot? Are you in a race with BD for the dumbest posts on PP?

Thats my bottom line. I'll bet I am not far off either. There is work out there but a lot of em don't want to work. And don't get me started about the single women with peanut butter legs that has 8 kids from different dads, and doesn't even have an idea who the dads are.

Coming from a dirty hippie, I'll take that as a compliment. What ever happened to the hippie mantra "screw the man"? Btw man, do you pay taxes on your weed, man?

Under the stupid taxation plan, you would now be liable for $500, for making a stupid statement.
The only way around this tax is to sit down and think it through, good luck.

Bait Dunker,

Trust me when I tell you that your custom moniker is far more representive of you than my custom moniker is of me.

By the way, any taxes I'm not paying is just a protest, right?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Have you visited a random sammple of welfare recipients in several big cities across the nation? I have. My first visit was to an 82 year old blind woman.

You wild estimates are waaaaaay off. My educated guess would be 15% of welfare recipients. I have no real knowledge of the unemployed, but if there are all these jobs out there why so much unnemployment? For some inexplicable reason 10 plus milliuon people just decided to stop working. In the last month of the Bush regime more than 700,000 lost their jobs. i guess they just all got lazy at once?

42 is his IQ

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbenefitprograms/a/welfarereform.htm


Welfare reform act of 1996 gave the power to manage the funds to the states.

So I am stupid because I don't like to pay for others who make bad decisions or are lazy? I say you are stupid for being OK with that. Never said all participants fall under that category but I think a lot do. There are some that are deserving of assistance. Not saying the programs should be cut just wishing we could weed out the bad apples somehow.

There are jobs out there. Lots are minimum wage like labor ready but they are out there. UPS hired for holiday help and would hire anyone with a heart beat that was interested and couldn't find as much help as they needed. All someone had to do was sign up and they had a 2 month job.

Dave, there are two ways to look at this. If the average family who's struggling to make ends meet like many Americans, walks into any grocery store on the 1st or 2nd of any month and they will likely see people with tattoos, multiple kids, don't speak English, people driving expensive cars or any combination of, with carts full of .99 pizzas, soda pop, donuts, and other junk food, paid by (insert govt program). A dad may have to tell his son they can't afford a new toy, a bottle of Snapple or even a candy bar, while watching someone on assistance buy a case of Mountain Dew. Where is the justice? Does that family not have the right to be outraged? Are the families who only buy staples and wholesome foods in line too, of course. In my observations, they are usually the family who is quiet, humble, and is usually very discret.

Then there's people like you and me who see a broader cross section, like the blind lady you mentioned, the terminal patient, someone with a debilitating disease. You being a compassionate person sees these people, and knows the devastation that would happen if they were cut off. Others see the deadbeats at Walmart and are outraged. A simple drug test, or if you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it, assures the public that the money is going where it needs to go, to the people who need the help.

That's a funny one!

Keith

Cheap shot below the belt. You a member or just hang out there?

Agreed not all are druggies, a lot of them that abuse the system are just lazy but how else could we weed some of them out? Maybe somehow they should be sent info on jobs available that are willing to hire anyone in their area like the UPS holiday positions or labor ready and if they are capable and able to work and don't pursue it they are cut off.

For life or for a month, time frame does not matter to me. 1 day is too long for the ones that don't deserve it. Plus there is always some other person to take their place and abuse the system.

Hail to Hitler!

I'd like to know how tax cheats find moral ground to b*tch about welfare cheats.

Actually, using your welfare scratch to buy booze and smokes isn't even cheating, it's just being stupid.

Therefore, morally speaking, the tax cheat is the criminal, and should be treated as such, as opposed to the poor--yet honest-- sod on the dole queue, looking to buy a sixxer. And the tax cheat has no grounds to complain, since it isn't even his tax dollars being spent.

If I knew who you were I'd turn your ass in just for being such a dirty, selfish, callous azzhole.

Wow, still not one of the "I'm for testing" people willing to agree that ALL TAX BREAKS should be subject to passing drug tests?

I wonder why you are so eager to subject people to drug tests if they're on welfare, but not willing to subject yourself to get your own welfare-equivalent tax breaks? In fact, I bet most of your tax breaks are more costly to our nation than welfare is. I think we should start testing you first.

A simple drug test ??? The fed's world does not include simple,They would spend million's trying to implement this and it probably would not be effective.
I do not have a better Idea but a "simple drug test" would just kick people to the curb and they would somehow end up back on some kind of public assistance.

Did we not just spent million's to kick them off public assistance.

Make's sense to me.

I'd bet he is a "volunteer firefighter". They give him a t-shirt to make him feel good about himself

I'm not aware of any "welfare equivalent" tax breaks that I'm receiving. Please enlighten me. I take 3 drug tests a year, 2 at my job, and 1 where I volunteer. Obviously, I have no problem showing that I'm clean. And I pay more than my fair share of taxes.

Big Moby, maybe you should read a couple pages back.......

Do you deduct dependants?
Did the govt force them on you or were they by choice?
Why do you ask the rest of America to subsidize the choices you make?

I certainly don't doubt that you believe that.

No, I don't. Next.

No, you don't. Your "fair share" is paying fuel tax on the diesel your truck burns, and paying income tax on your undeclared income.

You're a simple thief, and a scumbag.

You're a scumbag because while you're avoiding taxes and placing an unfair burden on other tax payers, you're busting the balls of others who are placing an unfair burden on those that actually pay their taxes.

Your holier-than-thou attitude makes me want to puke.

"No, I don't. Next."

So no kids.

Now for those property taxes.
Why do you expect Americans to refund your state property taxes?

Unfair burden? You've got to be joking! Unfair burden is drug users who have money for dope, but not for food for their kids. Who's really the thief? According to my accountant Well over 50% of my income goes to taxes, so forgive me if I don't lose sleep for not paying taxes on a couple tanks of fuel or a few Christmas trees. I don't ask for public assistance, and you're not supporting me, no matter how you twist it. I contribute far more to the community than I use. Set yourself on fire flamer Dan.

Let's keep it that way!

BD claims to be a fireman.
DanS requdiates through combustion.

Could be an interesting interaction.

You are.



Bullsh!t. For every tax dollar you cheat the state and feds out of, some responsible taxpayer, like ME, has to make up for.



Is that your justification for being the weasel that you are?

Quit sniveling about others being a burden on taxpayers. YOU are a burden on other taxpayers. Take that high f'n horse you're riding on, and point it towards a cliff.

Just need a little oxygen.

Firemen are public employees and get paid by taxes. Back in the old days firemen where volunteers at least around here my dad spent time as a volunteer firefighter and assistant chief. Only the larger cities had paid firefighters. Now it seems like firefighters have enough time on the job to access the internet and post on bulletin boards. Maybe firemen should only get paid when they are actually putting out fires or drill.

"Let me show ya something"

I still wanna know what happen's with all the people that are kicked to the curb.
I don't think they are just gonna go away or become model citizen's. My sister spent the first half of her life as a functional drug addict paying taxes etc. It was the last twenty years when her brain and body failed that she became a burden. She is entiled to something for her contributions to medicare,S.S.etc.
No chance for her to her become a functional part of society at that point,body and brain just to ravaged by drug's.

I think that Dan might still be holding back.

Sorry to have missed so much. I was at my job.... The one I need to pass periodic drug tests to keep.....

If I went on unemployment I wouldn't get drug tested anymore and I could keep up with these threads....

BD - do you own a house? Do you take a mortgage interest deduction? That's welfare. do you itemize? what about those deductions? And to be clear I wasn't asking if YOU would take a drug test, I asked if you thought it was right to make EVERY AMERICAN take a drug test in order to get their deductions.

Anyone that thinks Welfare, Unemployment or any other assistance program is some sort of fukkin' CAKEWALK ought to go and try it first.

Ten years ago I was supporting my new family on the CRAP wages the state pays it's workers and so we applied for WIC to feed my pregnant wife and then later our newborn baby.

Imagine being scowled at and treated like a shoplifter for checking out with some milk and eggs by the dickhead supermarket manager. He looks at what you pick out with a pissed off look on his face, examining each item covered by your coupons and makes comments like "You don't really need THIS!" and "What, store brand not good enough?"

Yes, they really did that. This was also at "pro-life" Ralph's Thriftway that caused that court case for refusing to allow their pharmacists to dispense Plan B. I guess they stop giving a schit about human life at birth. Fvck you, Stormann family.

Anyway.

Another example. The WIC plan required monthly "check ups" with the case worker.

After about 8 months, during mid winter, our daughter came down with a double ear infection. The pediatrician at St Pete's family practice only gave her antibiotics for TWO DAYS. The infection came back, now drug resistant, and almost killed her. The Doc turned out to be a quack with an off-shore Med degree and had his card yanked by the state about a week later.
However, when we came in for our "check up" the case worker accused us of child neglect and threatened to take our daughter away, because of the massive weight loss she suffered, DESPITE the fact that we had letters from St Pete's explaining what happened. She didn't care. Didn't give a fiddler's fart. She treated us like criminals using the state for our own means and letting our daughter starve. We told her to keep her crappy milk & diaper coupons and get fuct, and if she wished to pursue the matter, we would have her azz, and we walked out.

The moral of the story is-- If you thing people on assistance are doing it foe schits and giggles, you have another thing coming. Go try it for six month and see how you like it.

This thread's played out.

"- do you own a house? Do you take a mortgage interest deduction? That's welfare. do you itemize? what about those deductions? And to be clear I wasn't asking if YOU would take a drug test, I asked if you thought it was right to make EVERY AMERICAN take a drug test in order to get their deductions."

It takes a real wack job to somehow think that using the law to keep your own money is somehow welfare. Is not working to your full potential theft to the state? Does the government own us?

Sorry Irish Rogue, but you are an idiot. Disagreeing with breaks is one thing, but calling them welfare is another. 10 to 1 you not self employed.

Now, about welfare, Lets talk about the extended unemployment benefits. Since I am in the building industry I could easily pick up the phone and talk to dozens of people who have lost everything or are seriously struggling. Not one extra penny will ever go to these people as they are all self employed. Eventually they may qualify for free lunches and general welfare, but I would guess 90% will survive with little or no help. Maybe others should learn to do the same. Especially after 2 years.

Does abuse of the system happen? Of course it does.

Does that mean we throw everyone under the bus? NO!!

Human nature is not to give up and to accept living in poverty. We need to help those who need it to get back on their feet. As for the small % of deadbeats well that's the cost of doing business in a compasionate society. Now how to best go about that is where I differ from my liberal friends

As for the main subject of this thread........

If it's OK for the Feds to drug test welfare receipiants then it's also OK for the Feds to drug test those who want a drivers license, fishing license, SS card, passport etc......

Slippery slope this fragile thing we call freedom is!

JUST SAY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"It takes a real wack job to somehow think that using the law to keep your own money is somehow welfare. Is not working to your full potential theft to the state? Does the government own us? "

You are using the law to AVOID paying taxes that others pay so yes it is welfare. And it's not YOUR money. There is a set tax rate for your bracket. That's the govt's money. Unfortunately the govt over the years has decided to hand out welfare to select groups allowing them to avoid paying the full rate. The interest on a $50 million yacht is tax deductable and you pay for it and that SHOULD piss you off unless you are a wack job.

What a F-ing idiot. Stlhead are you joking. Deductions are "avoiding paying taxes" and "its not your money". How? Who earned it. Did the govern give it to you or did you work hard for it. They take less of your money because they wish to encourage people to spend. If they did not people would not. It is not a hand out you F-ing wackjob.

They give a break on housing and interest to encourage spending. And they already tax the business you pay the interest too. So taxing you for it and the guy that you pay would be pretty B.S. Not that they dont do it everywhere else. But calling a tax deduction welfare is about as big of a joke as I have ever heard around here. Figures it would come from you two.

Now I see how the LWWJ's around here look at what people make. The govern deserves it and should be thankful they let you keep anything. Remember that you bunch of welfare cases. Be thankful.

O'wait, I almost forgot.......Anyone that thinks the govern should be able to drug test because they want too.......RWWJ. Never allow this govern to force people into anything. And yes, they are forcing them if they state no test, no check. And the arguement that they are not forcing because they dont have to get a check. RYFKM!!!!! Likely the worst idea since the patriot act. Just keep gving away our rights and soon we will have none.

Ok since name calling week is over Docs pud, whoever Doc is and I don't want to know why you're his pud, if you think about it you will realize that taxes are already factored in to everything you earn and pay for. It's assumed a portion goes to the Govt. If it weren't you'd be making a lot less dough. Any smart person, and I'm not assuming you, would request a salary factoring in tax brackets. And extra dime gross could actually mean less net for an idiot. Encouraging spending is not capitalism. It's a bastardized form of capitalism. And it's selective so yes it's a hand out that props up various industries. Welfare. Whack job.

Your insults are as lame as your arguement. I thougth we got out of grade school a while back. In fact I am sure of it because I dont have your lunch money today and I would have never let that pass.

Evidently, not all of us actually finished grade school.

So not paying your own way started at an early age? Let me guess. You had a special dietary need over the cafeteria meatloaf and your parents expected all of the other parents to pick up the cost? It's all legal right?

Well now we see Iries dog in the fight. He had a sh!tty job (his choice), and decided to have kids when he couldn't even feed his own wife (his choice). Now were supposed to feel guilty because he felt like a loser signing up for WIC? The system is there for people in need, but when do we stop rewarding bad decision making?

"but when do we stop rewarding bad decision making?"

Your parents would owe a lot of back taxes.

bait dunker,

You're a crying little tax-evading bitch.

Go set yourself on fire.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northw...lubs_boein.html


Wow... Now Washington is jumping on the bandwagon.

Oh I'm sure someone on welfare will complain that his right to bear arms is being violated.

http://www.krem.com/news/northwest-news/114690174.html

The new ATM data shows that of 68,000 welfare cash clients in the state, at least 20 percent withdrew cash at a casino last year. Even worse, DSHS expects that percentage to grow as it receives data from more casinos and card rooms.

1 out of 5 of the poorest of the poor who actually qualify for cash assistance. Yeah, I feel better about all this now.

Never said I "only" objected to the drug use of welfare recipients. I did say that I don't begrudge someone in need, but if you have extra income for drugs, or in this case gambling, I will object to giving them welfare. We've already covered the 4th amendment and disagree, hopefully the court will settle it sooner than later.
You were against drug tests, are you against stopping the use of EBT cards at casinos as well?

You will object, huh?

Oooh.

Is that all you've got? Much like the women you've known, I'm disappointed in your performance.

Hey look everyone..............bait humper objects.



Go fark yourself, tax cheat.

AM, I don't spend all my time on this site like you, I have a life, a living to make and a family to take care of, forgive me if I forgot some of your drivel 10+ pages ago.

I'm still trying to figure out why someone on Welfare is spending that much money in a Gun Shop. Are we subsidizing armed robbery now as well as substance abuse?

How many gun shops have an ATM?

Yet, in post #655779 you claimed you don't take deductions for family members. Is that to justify not paying other owed taxes?

Yep, the ex takes the deduction as we have 50/50 custody. She opted to take the deduction and I opted to be listed as the custodial parent. See what happens when you assume?

Why does it not surprise me that BD is not still married? Are his standards for personal excellence, you know the ones which make him believe he should be making grocery-store shopping decisions for all, not sufficient to help him keep perhaps the largest single promise he made in his whole life?? Is he not a man of his word? Just askin, since he seem to be all up on ripping people for having tattoos and having the nerve to go shopping.

And BD, you STILL haven't told me if you think that home-owner WELFARE (mortgage interest tax deduction) should require a similar drug test? Why is your government handout any different than theirs?

My guess is BD has to have a job, make money, have good credit and be a productive member of society to get your so called home owner welfare. Unlike most people I have seen sucking off the goverment [censored]. Oh ya I would say yes to both but I don't have anything to hide either..

You probably should have thought about taking care of a family before you ended up with an ex.

First off tax deductions are not welfare, to suggest they are is the most perverted definition possible.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=welfare

Government benefits distributed to impoverished persons to enable them to maintain a minimum standard of well-being.

Not sure where you live, but I don't know any "needy" or " impoverished" homeowners. So, that said, no drug tests would be needed.

As for why I'm not married, not that it's any of your business, but she decided the drug/jail life was the direction she wanted to go. Feeling stupid yet?

Typical liberal, when you're beat on the issue, attack the person. Only the stupid would assume on an unknown quantity. Good job sport!

She chose drugs to deal with her dickhead husband, huh, bait humper?

So many people on this board aren't riding their high horse around pointing their booger-picking finger at everyone else, Hank.

I'm not shocked you couldn't see the obvious difference, though.

Yeah, gee...........that's a RESPONSE to bait humper and his high-horse riding bullsh!t.

Try again.

If you try harder, chances are you won't look like a fool next time.

If you insist.

Hank..

Uh, you missed the point. We are ripping BD for getting a divorce in JEST. In truth, it *is* none of my business why he got a divorce, and I *do* understand that these things happen. Now when he sees a guy with tattoos, buying mountain dew, he may perhaps realize that it's none of *his* business either, and that people can and do end up on welfare without being second class citizens, and requiring them to submit to drug-tests because he doesn't like them.

BD...

Welfare/Stimulus/Tax Breaks -- they are not different, the NAMES may have specific definitions, but the obvious (to all but you) point is they all equal money given by the government to people to achieve some goal. Homeowners are DEDUCTING money they owe to the government, because we enacted policies giving enormous tax credits to encourage home ownership. And as you point out, the benefits of this tax credit are almost entirely borne by people who have plenty of money. I believe the cost to the government on this is on the order of $100B a YEAR.

Now with $100B of entitlements here, and no clear need, I can't see any reason we shouldn't start at least DRUG TESTING all homeowners to ensure they're not spending it on Crack. And additionally, I think visits to casinos by anyone on this entitlement program, they should be declared ineligible as well.

B

p.s. Since obviously people get confused, that last paragraph, was SARCASM

It's always in jest, Hank.

It's the Dark Side.

I don't really think bait humper is a dickhead.

Well..................maybe a little.

Not attacking at all, just merely making a suggestion after an observation. Not surprised you get so defensive when your obvious weaknesses are displayed.

Okay, feel free to consider that an attack, but not because you are the issue, regardless of what your narcistic dementia conjures up.

Just in case she does punish all by sending pics....

JEST maybe not the perfect word choice there -- but you do get the point, that I'm making, I trust...

IR,
Agian, its idiotic to equate deductions with welfare. If the government ceased to exist, the homeowner would keep his money, but the welfare recipient would have no money. If deductions ended or taxes went up, the homeowner will have less and if welfare goes up the reciepient has more. Allowing someone to keep more of something is not the same as giving them something.

WIthout deductions, our ecomony would cease to work. Thats not saying some are not bad or do not achieve the desired goal, but they must exist on some level or the cost of production would be unbearable. Take a builder. Can he deduct the cost of land and raw material? What about the cost of labor? Advertising? General overhead? When we get into questionable material is when we talk about things like deduction on equipment or client lunches. Where the legitimacy ends is the question is? But they all still involve keeping something not recieving something. If you can't understand that you are truely an idiot.

Now on the drug testing, perhaps where bluewater is going is the real answer. If we actually had social workers that checked up on children and had the authority to remove them in bad situations, then the problem would be moot. The second the recipeint was not providing the adequate care for the child, the child would be removed. If the peson had excess funds available, then the checks could end too. No need for the test or to end cash checking, just do the real job of following up on the true reason the checks are being paid out rather than try to take the easy way out.

Krijack,

Let's imagine that instead of calling them tax "deductions" we change their name to tax "refunds". You send in the full amount, and get a refund check the next day for your qualifying refund amount. The net amount is unchanged from today.. This is functionally equivalent to what we have today, you just CHOOSE to think of it as different because it makes you feel better.

Contrary to what you write, deductions are not required for a functioning economy and a vastly simpler tax code (and wildly less $$ spent on accountants) would result if we simply lowered rates a bit, and did away with all deductions. It's not like your example is wrong, we've just set tax rates high enough that your builder needs deductions to survive.

Deductions enter the tax code because they are POLITICALLY easier to vote for than refunds, stimulus, or welfare. They are not intrinsically a different action--they simply re-distribute wealth and/or liabilities in a way that politicians agree is likely to keep them in office.

To answer your question Hank, nobody should become a citizen unless they speak English. Legal immigrants should not be given any welfare. Why import people who take more than they contribute? We need to close the anchor baby loophole. Welfare of any kind should be limited to 18 months total lifetime benefit, in no more than 6 month periods. Same for unemployment. There is no reason MOST people can't get their sh!t together in 6 months. Welfare breeds government dependence and underachievement.

What I want to know is why the 6.2% taken out of my check for social security does not go towards my retirement, but someone elses?

You mean all the white people who dont speak English like the Dutch, Germans, French, Russians, Swedish, Finns, Norskis, etc? I don't remember mentioning race. Just FYI, more people in the world speak English than any other language. Dumb ass.

English is the "standard" language in America, although it is not the official language yet. Imagine all the money we could save in printing costs alone.

No te preoccupe, se felicite!

Remember when I said I didn't really think bait humper was a dickhead?


Well, I lied.

Here's the thing, bait humper. Nobody gives a fark what you think other than you. Go ahead and object, whine, snivel, and piss your pants. It's not going to change anything, except to let everyone know what a pathetic sad-sack you are.

We have to cut them off at some point, do you want to support them forever? Oh wait, you don't even have a job, you're not supporting anyone.

Once people know their benefit is coming to an end, it becomes a very motivating factor, suddenly jobs that they passed up seem desirable.

Hank,
Growing up I had a freind whose father worked for the US government in Vietnam. As a result, his father was targeted and assinated. His mother than married an american citizen and the group moved to the US. After a few years, the couple divorced. His mother never spoke english, and the Husband had never adopted the children. I thinks that's why they never heard from him or ever got a penny. Should we have sent them back to Vietnam because his mother didn't learn english quick enough.

Close to the same thing happened to my brother-in-law. In his case his GI father died so they got a little SSN but never enough to survive. His mother also spoke a little english, but not enough to really get by.

Had other freinds that were refugees from camodia. They too got aid for a couple of years until they were able to get established.

My understanding is that most of these people would have faced instant death if they were sent back to their country of origin.

One thing for certain, none of these kids from these non-english (little english) speaking parents have ever taken a penny once they grew up. Also should point out that the parents worked, just didn't always make eonough to cover all the costs at first.

Remember the 2010 elections? Many Americans feel like I do, not saying they all agree 100%, but more and more are by the day. As people find themselves tested by the economy, the more they are outraged supporting druggies on welfare, illegal aliens etc. If it makes me a dickhead to want to see my taxes spent wisely, then so be it.

Welfare - financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government.

I'll fudge a bit for simplicity.

Person A:
Earns $1 mil a year
Debt free and no deductions
pays $250k in taxes

Person B:
Earns $1 mil a year
Property tax and interest on primary residence -$20,000
Property tax and interest on secondary residence -$20,000
Interest on $1 mil yacht -$10,000
pays $200K in taxes
And he has two million dollar homes and a yacht. WELFARE by choice.

The big question is how did a drug addicted convict get 50% custody of his children?

Bait Dunker, just stop. You are completely clowning yourself at this point. You live in a tiny world. Can you say "dumb ass" in Mandarin too?


Language Approx. number of speakers:
1. Chinese (Mandarin) 1,213,000,000 2. Spanish 329,000,000 3. English 328,000,000 4. Arabic 221,000,000

I thought Stlhead was in error here - that you couldn't deduct Mortgage Interest on a secondary residence, but lo and behold he's RIGHT. Why in the world is this true? More welfare for the rich I guess... Since everyone is all excited about "means testing" the poor now, maybe we should be "means testing" all the rich guys too...

The mortgage interest deduction was intended to spur home ownership, but clearly folks with the "means" (like the example above) shouldn't be getting this housing stimulus, should they?

(clarity for those who get confused easily -- I'm *not* really arguing for the repeal of these deductions nor am I arguing for means/drug testing of all wanting to take these deductions... Just wondering why BD, et al, seem so fired up about making the poor prove their worth/need, yet are perfectly happy letting all the rich/white/homeowning people skate)

Hankster,

Problem, lots of Americans can't read, English or any other language. So no, reading the list of benefits in English shouldn't be a qualification for benefits. But then, no one at DSHS should have to read them to them in any language other than English.

Unlike a few liberals, I favor having one national language. I've noticed that far too many people cannot communicate effectively in even one language. It is bad policy to accomodate more than one language for official gov't. business unless we're dealing with foreign nationals.

As for welfare recipients using their cash cards for casino expenses, a Libertarian simply figures they must need whatever a casino sells more than they need rent or groceries. It's really not our problem. However, as part of due dilligence on the part of DSHS, it might be wise to review the eligibility of those recipients who are using their cash cards at casinos.

Sg

Classic Hank writing/arguing style.

So why even type, "Anyone born in the country should have the full rights and privelges of an American citizen" when you go and qualify it after-the-fact?

Don't casinos have cheap buffets?

Thanks for pointing out my error. You have listed native speakers. I should have said English was spoken in more countries than any other language. English is only slightly behind Chinese.

Total Speakers

1. Chinese (1.5 billion)
2. English (1+ billion)
3. Spanish (500 million)
4. Hindustani (460 million)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_common_language_in_the_world

Typo fixed.

Thought this thread would die

But now KK is fired up and it's great entertainment.

I'm pretty sure those are majors there.

Hank...............

STFU!!!

So because welfare cheats only cost us millions instead of billions we shouldnt worry about it?

Baitdunker & Mr. Hankster make a formidable team, no doubt.

Mf

And so does kk & Marsha.....And so does Marsha & kk.

Mf

Typo.

I don't think anyone has said to just throw all the needy in the street. The premise has been to cut off those who abuse the system by gambling, buying drugs, or going to strip clubs with their benefits, and to give a time table to those receiving benefits to motivate them to find work. Very simple concept.

You're forgiven Hank....

Mf

Nice one Chuck.

Mf

AM is on to something here. The Californian, BD and BWP are more concerned about a single mom receiving some assistance so she can feed herself and her children than a man who already makes millions of dollars a year ripping off all of us so he can get a multi-million dollar bonus.

But then again this is the logic of T-baggers -- protect the rich at all costs, even if it means you living off 10 bucks and hour.

No, Marsha is trying the change the subject. Yes, corporate welfare is wrong and should be stopped, if a business can't survive on it's own, let it fail. There goes most of the "green jobs". I will hold wall street to the same standard as everyone else, abuse the system and you get cut off. If I catch my son shooting at the dog with his BB gun, he gets it taken away. The idea that if we can't stop the billions were losing we should just turn a blind eye is stupid. You start small, and gain momentum.

What if you're caught using farm diesel in your truck?

Then what?

I think your truck and farm equipment should be seized and sold off.

And then you should be hung or shot............right alongside Hank, for being the tax-dodging thief that HE is.

You guys make it sound hard to find a Stoopid...ferchrissakes, it's a steelhead fishing website...cast a spoon into the crowd and you're just as likely to snag a Stoopid as a dimwit snagging a king on the Skok.

I love the Skok.

Fish on...

Todd

HANK, SHUT THE FCUK UP!

Spoken like a guy who doesn't know how to solve big problems if you ask me. In any optimization problem I've ever been associated with, this is exactly the opposite of the correct strategy. You go after the BIG stuff first not the little stuff because:

a) It's big, not small.

b) You find that once you have gotten the big stuff, your perspective shifts and there is even MORE big stuff you hadn't noticed before.

c) "Momentum", while a fine physical analogy for getting a train moving, doesn't apply generally to accounting and budgeting.

Hank:

I don't know if McMahon actually works in foodservice or not, but either way, it makes you look like a real a$$ when you belittle others for the work they do. Besides, if they're working at all, a republican like yourself should be pleased.

I, myself spent almost 10 years in the restaurant business (because I loved the work), and I can assure you that most of the people working in that business have far better time and stress management skills than anybody whose work has been limited to office jobs and the like. If they don't, they don't last long.

Next time you're eating out and you feel obligated to bitch about the food or the service, keep in mind your opinion of the people working their asses off to provide you that experience. If you think they deserve less than $10/hr., you're getting exactly what you deserve when your dining experience sucks. There may be a lot of f-ups doing restaurant jobs, but the ratio is no higher there than in the white collar world, I can assure you.

And to answer your question about drug tests, you would be surprised how many restaurants drug test their employees. Corporate restaurants are especially likely to do so, as insurance companies give them a break on their premiums if they do random drug testing, and no corporation can resist a cost savings. in fact, the only jobs I have held where I have been subject to drug testing have been the lowest-paying ones. Since starting my professional career, I have never been drug tested.

Back to the topic at hand, I generally agree with Aunty. Welfare cheats are a problem in this country, but they don't even register on the scale next to the damage large corporations do to our reserves. Drug tests have no place in a free society, in my mind. To force someone who is destitute and seeking assistance to pay for a drug test seems counterproductive, if not downright inhumane.

Don't mind him. He's had way too much radiation.

Hank,

That doesn't mean we can't bag on you and call you a dickhead for saying it.......................cuz we're on the Dark Side.

Isn't the Dark Side awesome?

+1

For some it takes 65 years to figure it out, the brain trust around here is frightening.

What I want to know is why the 6.2% I pay on my employees earnings doesn't go to my retirement.. They didn't make it I did..

Yeah, but check this out...when you turn 65 and start drawing on Social Security, who's money do you think will be paying you then?

(Hint: It's the people who will be working and putting into it at that time)

(Hint 2: That's how it was set up to be...it's working right when the money you put into is paying current recipients, it's supposed to be that way. It's not a 401K plan, it's insurance, you pay when you work, you receive when you're done.)

Fish on...

Todd

"What I want to know is why the 6.2% taken out of my check for social security does not go towards my retirement, but someone elses? "

Because the system is designed under the assumption that you did not earn that money on your own, you earned the opportunity to make it because of the collective system in place in America. An example would be a farmer in Eastern Washington who claims he is a self made man and never got anything from the government so why should he pay into it. We you start asking him if he paid for the full length of road from his farm to where his grain was processed? Did he pay for the electrical grid to keep his lights on , Did he pay for all of the programs that allow low income workers to maintain a life style so they could work for him all on his own? If he truly was self made and paid as he went with out a govt. food would be worth more than gold. People do not want to admit or recognize that we live under a socialist system and have for a long time. That battle was fought and lost many years ago.

Hank:

First of all, it's "Capisce," not "Capiche." Capisce?

I'll admit to sometimes being a bit wet behind the ears in the past (and I probably will have plenty of opportunities to stick my foot in my mouth in the future), but I suspected you were simply jabbing McMahon. I don't read everything around here, but I don't recall McMahon posting anything to affiliate himself with "Taco Town," so I figured you were merely trying to insult him, which I agree is fair sport on the Dark Side. It's the fact that you chose to insult him by labeling him a lowly restaurant worker that I took issue with. Belittling a person for what he or she does for a living or how much he or she earns amounts to little more than petty, misguided arrogance, which does little to enhance one's credibility in an argument. You are here to make an argument, aren't you?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to unruffle my tutu now. Kind of enjoying the bunched up panties, so I may leave those alone.

Tom,

I agree we are all slaves to the "system" , I just have to ask myelf that every payday. I just wonder where this country would be without all these programs. I do think you are mixing a couple of things the 6.2% has nothing to do with roads or power just an outdated "retirement system". I have no problem paying gas tax, well wait maybe I do but thats an other story..

Who really believes Social Security will be in place in 20 years?

Can you survive 20 years as the mole in a Whack A Mole game?

I'd love to have the SS dollars I put in at retirement but then others who didn't do so well would become wards of the govt on welfare and I'd end up paying for that anyway. I don't know where we lost the "take care of the elderly" mentality. It's not the way I was raised. Mostly I see from the RWWJ's an attitude that if you didn't survive the life long assault on your finances from their handlers then you should just die when you become unproductive to the machine.

Social security. As Todd says, there is a way it is supposed to work, unfortunately it doesn't. I remember in High School (80's) listening to someone explain how there would not be enough workers in the future to continue paying in to fund our social security. For that reason we were going to be paying extra into a fund to have enough. The gov't then raided this fund and used it for current funding and put back IOU's. I remember asking, "So, how is this new generation going to be able to pay enough in taxes to repay the fund if they won't have enough to pay for social security." Answer is, they can't. We were screwed agian by our parents as they found out a way to switch their burden to us. Add in all the unfunded retirements and other entitlements, along with the cost of cleaning the enviroment and paying for the newly required technologies and more expensive energy, and I think we are all in trouble.

Aunty M.
In general, the generation before us voted the politicans in that enacted such stupid policies. You may not have personally voted for them, but someone did, and it sure wasn't those of us who will have to pay for it. Same guys that scream, don't cut our social security, just raise the qualification age. Let the generation to come suffer, not us.

Well, Hank, this is America, where we bastardize our own native tongue to no end, so I suppose it should come as no surprise that we allow limitless alternative spellings of a word from a different language. That said, because we're on the Dark Side (arguing a moot point well beyond the point to which doing so is worthwhile is the object of the game, right?), I can't let it go quite that easily. To do so might suggest that I lack the frivolity required to be deemed a successful poster over here.

To be completely accurate, "capisce" is a derivative of "capisci" (as noted in your reference), which literally means "Do you understand?" (singular first person). The derived form "capisce" is generally associated with Italian Americans (the Mafia, in particular), who have also altered other Italian words similarly (apparently to eliminate the need to pronounce the last syllable in informal speech) over the years. Given the sort of people associated with the origins of the word, I, for one, would recommend avoiding misspellings, particularly those that alter the pronunciation. People have been sent to "sleep with the fishes" over less eggregious misgivings.

Were the origin of the word French, your chosen spelling would be phonetically correct. In Italian, "ch" is pronounced like a K (as in Chianti or Machiavelli). No matter how many alternative spellings American conventions may allow, the fact remains that there is only one truly correct spelling, and you didn't use it.

As regards your assertion that I have difficulty recognizing jokes, I will concede that there is some truth to that at times, but generally only when the "joke" is poorly-delivered or, as in this scenario, doesn't strike me as funny. I personally don't think a restaurant worker, a lawn curator, or a ditch digger is any less useful to society than anyone else, and it annoys me that other people do. Perhaps that is why your joke went over my head. Then again, lest I forget, it could be because I'm stupid....

I hope you have more for me... this is fun!

Aunty,
You were around when they raided the trust funds. That is what I was talking about. Also when they set the rates. When they promised unfunded pensions.. The list goes on and on. The same generation is now fighting hard to make sure that these same benefits are never reduced, with no regards the working generation that must somehow pay for it.

This thread turned into a phuckin Italian Rosetta Stone commercial...

Well, sensitive beats stupid (especially if you're sensitive), so I'll take what I can get. I'm not biting on "capeche" vs. "capiche" for fear that to do so might result in a prompt return to my former status. If you do get a visit from Vinny and Guido, it won't be on my account. It looks like the natives are getting restless, so I'm bowing out of what has, admittedly, been a tremendous waste of bandwidth.

Nice.

You sure he didn't have you out on the "ho stroll" while he picked up someone else's money?

Jeezus Stam I bet the local illegals hated your azz for taking their jobs. ......those are 'sposed to be jobs Americans don't want.

I know its not breaking news anymore but.....YES! Its about time. As of July 1 everyone who enrolls for welfare will have to submit to a drug test to receive it in the state of Florida. I bet once the rest of the nation see's how much money this saves by not supporting the crack heads all states will start drug testing.

Why shouldn't they? Everyone working to support that system has to take a drug test, at least when they are hired.

Since when?

Are you on drugs?