It's about F-ing time

[Duuuuuuuude]

For real! No one has anything to say about the super fu(ked up true story I told?

Its more common than you think...

 

[RANOVRU]

Your personal life ceases to be personal when someone else is footing the bill. You never really answered the question I gave you earlier...would you give me money to sit around, get stoned, eat cheese burgers, pop three or four kids out, and not really show any ambition towards getting back on my feet?

Would crime go up? Possibly. Can't deny that one. But over time those kinds of people would most likely start to diminish. Healthy, educated people are much less likely to turn to a life of crime.

If they were working no one would be footing the bill. You are flip flopping on the way things are, and the way things should be, so Im going back and forth too.

Tell me how giving money to someone who can pass a drug test but has a habitual spending problem is any smarter or different?? Regardless of habbits giving money away for nothing isnt a good practice.

Point is there are other/better ways of sifting through the loafers rather than wasting resources worrying about what they do in their spare time.

Just because someone doesnt do drugs doesnt make them any less prone to being a lazy ass....

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

You are flip flopping on the way things are, and the way things should be, so Im going back and forth too.

Tell me how giving money to someone who can pass a drug test but has a habitual spending problem is any smarter or different?? Regardless of habbits giving money away for nothing isnt a good practice.

Just because someone doesnt do drugs doesnt make them any less prone to being a lazy ass....

How am I flip flopping?

There is no difference, other than you can test for drugs. You can't test for poor spending habits. Though if they walk in wearing a pair of $1000 shoes, somebody might get suspicious...

True that you can be sober and lazy. The point was that a drug user/whatever could be doing better things with their money, like using it to better their life and hopefully reach a point where they no longer need assistance.

 

[RANOVRU]

There is no difference, other than you can test for drugs. You can't test for poor spending habits. Though if they walk in wearing a pair of $1000 shoes, somebody might get suspicious...

True that you can be sober and lazy. The point was that a drug user/whatever could be doing better things with their money, like using it to better their life and hopefully reach a point where they no longer need assistance.

Its nobodies business what others do in their own time. You say, "Well sure it is if Im footing the bill!". Why are you footing a bill in the first place?? The systems f'd up from the get go & useless ideas like drug testing just fuel the already inefficient system.

 

[ThinkTank]

Point is there are other/better ways of sifting through the loafers rather than wasting resources worrying about what they do in their spare time.

Just because someone doesnt do drugs doesnt make them any less prone to being a lazy ass....

Liability. Employers want more productivity with less liability. Same reason they do background checks.

Drugs = Illegal.
Illegal stuff = Bad for business.
Drug users in company = Complications
Complications = Not worth the trouble.
Solution = Hire another guy.

Edit: Also I suppose it could be a sign of weakness too.
If you have to drink/ do drugs to cope with the stress, then you are a loser. The Corporate world is merciless. :shock:

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Its nobodies business what others do in their own time. You say, "Well sure it is if Im footing the bill!". Why are you footing a bill in the first place?? The systems f'd up from the get go & useless ideas like drug testing just fuel the already inefficient system.

People "foot the bill" because sometimes a person might need help for one reason or another, and its a civilized thing to do. Of course not everyone who "needs" help truly does, but that comes with the territory.

The system is inefficient, but only because no one has been able to stand up and make any affectual change. Too many people exploit the loopholes, and its too easy to do it.

 

[Jeepkid]

Its more common than you think...

Yeah, your right. I probably see alot of ppl in a day that are on welfare and have cadi's and so forth.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Yeah, your right. I probably see alot of ppl in a day that are on welfare and have cadi's and so forth.

As do I. Some of my customers are on welfare, and have got all kinds of shit they shouldn't. One lady called me and needed something done, and said she didn't have a lot of money. I don't mind helping people out once in a while if I can, so I say thats fine and headed over there. This chick looked like she had won a $5000 electronics shopping spree at WalMart. There was a flat screen tv the size of her dining room table (it was actually sitting on her dining room table), a 4 foot stack of new release movies, a new computer, dvd player, xbox 360, etc etc. All kinds of new shit, which you could tell was really new because everything else looked like garbage.

I was like WTF! You don't have any money to pay me, but you can buy all that shit?

She said yeah, I just got on social security and medicare because of my back pain (she was about 100 lbs overweight and in her 20's). They gave me back pay and I spent most of it at Walmart last week.

I'm just glad she hasn't figured out how to procreate yet...

 

[romulus22]

I don't mind people who choose to use drugs. But People who are too lazy to work and mooch off of my tax dollars but still find the money for drugs I do have a problem with.

Only problem I see is the cost of the drug testing. That would probably be just as much money if not more to pull off than just paying the welfare.

 

[sloppy]

I don't mind people who choose to use drugs. But People who are too lazy to work and mooch off of my tax dollars but still find the money for drugs I do have a problem with.

Only problem I see is the cost of the drug testing. That would probably be just as much money if not more to pull off than just paying the welfare.

I have a idea for that.. if they fail the piss test make them pay for it "thumbsup" You know like a fine for robbing all of us that support there drug addicted ass's..

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

I don't mind people who choose to use drugs. But People who are too lazy to work and mooch off of my tax dollars but still find the money for drugs I do have a problem with.

Only problem I see is the cost of the drug testing. That would probably be just as much money if not more to pull off than just paying the welfare.

Exactly what I'm thinking. Though I may not have said it...:ror:

You want to do drugs, fine. You want assistance, you gotta stop.

Drug tests aren't that expensive. I think the last one I took was $50. Pretty cheap method for clearing out the dopers. Besides, should a work program be utilized, wouldn't you want to know who was sober and who wasn't? There's an awful lot of liability there...

Who's driving the bus full of senior citizens to the library today? Kevin the crackhead? Awesome! "thumbsup"

 

[JeremyH]

I like it when Kevin drives my bus! We get to take a different route...through the "historic" part of town....

 

[RANOVRU]

People "foot the bill" because sometimes a person might need help for one reason or another, and its a civilized thing to do. Of course not everyone who "needs" help truly does, but that comes with the territory.

The system is inefficient, but only because no one has been able to stand up and make any affectual change. Too many people exploit the loopholes, and its too easy to do it.

Youre issues with the dissassociation between "assistance" & ethics leaves your ideals flawed. You say its not charity but then in the same breath want to bring up moral issues like "the right thing to do".

Again, true charity doesnt come with stipulations. If it isnt charity than make them work for it, plain & simple. Then this whole convo becomes null.

Drug testing will do nothing to solve inefficiencies with our welfare system. If anything it will make things worse.

 

[RANOVRU]

Liability. Employers want more productivity with less liability. Same reason they do background checks.

Drugs = Illegal.
Illegal stuff = Bad for business.
1.Drug users in company = Complications
Complications = Not worth the trouble.
Solution = Hire another guy.

Edit: 2.Also I suppose it could be a sign of weakness too.
If you have to drink/ do drugs to cope with the stress, then you are a loser. The Corporate world is merciless. :shock:

1. That is a fallacy. Futhermore, you could replace "drugs" with a lot of other things that would fit that statement. Oh but because the fed has deemed them "illegal" that justifies the negative bias.

2. What about the successful ceo's/doctors/lawyers/business man/etc. who dont NEED them, they just like them occassionally?? Surely you arent comparing them to a meth head in a trailer???

 

[RANOVRU]

Drug tests aren't that expensive. I think the last one I took was $50. Pretty cheap method for clearing out the dopers. Besides, should a work program be utilized, wouldn't you want to know who was sober and who wasn't? There's an awful lot of liability there...

Who's driving the bus full of senior citizens to the library today? Kevin the crackhead? Awesome! "thumbsup"

You sound like a dem trying to raise support for another way of spending more money. You got any idea how many are on welfare?? Now multiply the assumed $50 x (Im gonna guess upwards of 7 figures) and suddenly its not that cheap anymore.

Why is it that the answer to our problems is always percieved as a money issue?? Got a problem? Just throw money at it and it will go away.

And if you let Kevin behind the wheel because you cant tell that Kevin is high, than you should be fired. Its blatantly obvious if someone is under the influence of anything.


As much as it sounds like youd like to, you will never be able to control all the variables....

 

[BJoe]

You sound like a dem trying to raise support for another way of spending more money. You got any idea how many are on welfare?? Now multiply the assumed $50 x (Im gonna guess upwards of 7 figures) and suddenly its not that cheap anymore.

Wouldn't that still be cheaper than just paying a portion of them to sit on their ass, get intoxicated, and pop out kid after kid?

Why is it that the answer to our problems is always percieved as a money issue?? Got a problem? Just throw money at it and it will go away.

Isn't that what you're proposing, or do you just want to get rid of the system all together and screw over those who might actually need it?

And if you let Kevin behind the wheel because you cant tell that Kevin is high, than you should be fired. Its blatantly obvious if someone is under the influence of anything.

Well, that $50 drug test would confirm suspicions and make sure Kevin isn't hired"thumbsup"

As much as it sounds like youd like to, you will never be able to control all the variables....

No, you never will, but if you can do your damnedest to make sure the money goes to the people who are struggling to put food on the table while one if not both parents are laid off, all the better!

1. That is a fallacy. Futhermore, you could replace "drugs" with a lot of other things that would fit that statement. Oh but because the fed has deemed them "illegal" that justifies the negative bias.

The fact that those things are illegal seems like a good reason to make their use a reason for exclusion of employeement/aid. Booze, tobacco, and maybe even soft drinks shouldn't be allowed either.

2. What about the successful ceo's/doctors/lawyers/business man/etc. who dont NEED them, they just like them occassionally?? Surely you arent comparing them to a meth head in a trailer???

I have much more of a problem with them using as I would a methhead, especially if their decisions affect how well somebody (employees, customers, patients, clients, ect) else can live their life.

 

[JeremyH]

Why is it that the answer to our problems is always percieved as a money issue?? Got a problem? Just throw money at it and it will go away.

Who do you know in this world that is willing to work for free? What business or government program that you know of that is completely self sustaining (requires NO money to start or maintain)? Most volunteers aren't full time. Programs to help the needy MUST employ people....and to ensure that those employees don't become needy themselves, they are paid a salary.

Whether you like it or not, it takes money/goats/wampum (something of value) to survive in this world.

I have much more of a problem with them using as I would a methhead, especially if their decisions affect how well somebody (employees, customers, patients, clients, ect) else can live their life.

That discussion has happened here before. I agree with you....others dont.

 

[BJoe]

Who do you know in this world that is willing to work for free? What business or government program that you know of that is completely self sustaining (requires NO money to start or maintain)? Most volunteers aren't full time. Programs to help the needy MUST employ people....and to ensure that those employees don't become needy themselves, they are paid a salary.

Whether you like it or not, it takes money/goats/wampum (something of value) to survive in this world.

Is it me, or does it seem like there aren't a lot of people in world of business that understand that:|

That discussion has happened here before. I agree with you....others dont.

Thanks for the warning"thumbsup"

 

[microgoat]

Youre issues with the dissassociation between "assistance" & ethics leaves your ideals flawed. You say its not charity but then in the same breath want to bring up moral issues like "the right thing to do".

Again, true charity doesnt come with stipulations. If it isnt charity than make them work for it, plain & simple. Then this whole convo becomes null.

Drug testing will do nothing to solve inefficiencies with our welfare system. If anything it will make things worse.

Charity is when you give because you feel like giving. The government does not give charity, it gives "assistance" or to use Obama-speak, "investments".

To collect the assistance, we all pay taxes. Don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. There's no charity anywhere in the system.

You're saying I should feel good about the government taking money from my pocket and giving it to drug users? If I wanted my money to go to the local drug dealers I'd just buy that shit myself.

And think about this: Anyone who's serious about wanting to get off welfare isn't going to use, because they'll have to take a piss test if they get hired.

 

[RANOVRU]

Wouldn't that still be cheaper than just paying a portion of them to sit on their ass, get intoxicated, and pop out kid after kid?


Regardless of sobriety we shouldnt be "giving" away money period.



Isn't that what you're proposing, or do you just want to get rid of the system all together and screw over those who might actually need it?


Yes I think we need another system.



Well, that $50 drug test would confirm suspicions and make sure Kevin isn't hired"thumbsup"


Its money spent on something thats simply not needed.


No, you never will, but if you can do your damnedest to make sure the money goes to the people who are struggling to put food on the table while one if not both parents are laid off, all the better!


Not everyone gets off on trying to control every aspect of life. There will always be people who get, who shouldnt, just as there will always be people who should get, but are left out.


The fact that those things are illegal seems like a good reason to make their use a reason for exclusion of employeement/aid. Booze, tobacco, and maybe even soft drinks shouldn't be allowed either.


This is the mindset of a control freak. With all of the other problems in the world the most important are whos doing, smoking, drinking, eating, what. Get real.



I have much more of a problem with them using as I would a methhead, especially if their decisions affect how well somebody (employees, customers, patients, clients, ect) else can live their life.



LMFAO! You need to take a trip to DC and find out just how much bourbon plays a role in politics (which affects ALL of us). And its been going on for eons and the country is still here. If we're going to scrutinize the poor majority that has much less affect on our society than politicians, shouldnt we do the same for our elected officials?? Yeah, you let me know when that happens.

...