PDA

View Full Version : Drug Testing in NC



GaryJ
09-04-2013, 10:09 PM
People are upset with the new law requiring some of those folks who are on a certain parts of public assistance to have be drug free and get a test a prove it to receive benefits. Those same people, in many but not all cases, would be required to take a drug test to get employment.

So why is it ok to be required to take a drug test to be able to 'earn' money yet be wrong when getting free money?

Backwater
09-04-2013, 10:26 PM
Because Democrats are running most things now!

prpryor
09-04-2013, 10:38 PM
good idea to test anyone who receives public assistance. housing, food stamps, afdc, unempioyment, farm subs, crp, wrp, tif funds, tax credits. the list of govt. hand outs just goes on and on.

Backwater
09-04-2013, 10:43 PM
And why not the Congress, Senate, and law enforcement?

mngundog
09-05-2013, 02:53 AM
good idea to test anyone who receives public assistance. housing, food stamps, afdc, unempioyment, farm subs, crp, wrp, tif funds, tax credits. the list of govt. hand outs just goes on and on.

Throw in Obamacare credits and we are talking about 28 million people to test?

roseberry
09-05-2013, 08:38 AM
Throw in Obamacare credits and we are talking about 28 million people to test?

i would like to have the government contract to drug test 28 million people monthly. mn, our government spends a great deal more on a lot less.

good on north carolina for this policy. properly implemented, it will cut public assistance in half.......and double theft and burglary!;-)

luvmylabs23139
09-05-2013, 09:05 AM
Unfortunately it does not go far enough. They should drug test them all and also random tests.

paul young
09-05-2013, 09:09 AM
I think we should just test everyone. Anyone WITH a job should be tested randomly twice a year during working hours including for alcohol. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, what's to worry about.-Paul

luvmylabs23139
09-05-2013, 09:12 AM
Throw in Obamacare credits and we are talking about 28 million people to test?

Anyone getting that credt should be tested at their expense every month! Screw my rates are going thru the roof over this BS!

luvmylabs23139
09-05-2013, 09:25 AM
I think we should just test everyone. Anyone WITH a job should be tested randomly twice a year during working hours including for alcohol. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, what's to worry about.-Paul

Many private employers already do random drug and alcohol tests. The real issue is people leeching off the taxpayers. I have worked for mutiple employers that had random tests yet those that leeched off of my hard earned money were not subjected to any tests.
True story.
We had an employee resign for other employment after receiving a job offer but they did not wait until they passed the drug test for the new employer. Then they failed the test. Guess what they filed for unemployment. This was in VA. Naturally when the claim came in I fought it as the employee quit and no way the company should get a black mark for it. The employee still got to collect but the company did not get a hit agianst the rating. What a pile of crap. He should not have gotten a dime!

prpryor
09-05-2013, 09:59 AM
I forgot about testing people on social security, medicare and medicaid. Maybe I just agree with Paul and lets test everyone. Or test anyone who benifits from govt spending like providing roads, police protection, clean water, sewers, national security oh that would be all of us, so were do you get in line. I'm not scared.

Marvin S
09-05-2013, 10:16 AM
I forgot about testing people on social security, medicare and medicaid.

FYI - SS & medicare are programs folks were forced into but they paid dearly to get those benefits - Medicaid is welfare :confused:.

Just thought I would clear that up for you as you should not go through life being misinformed & spreading that misinformation. Someone might think you informed enough to have an opinion.

luvmylabs23139
09-05-2013, 10:20 AM
I forgot about testing people on social security, medicare and medicaid. Maybe I just agree with Paul and lets test everyone. Or test anyone who benifits from govt spending like providing roads, police protection, clean water, sewers, national security oh that would be all of us, so were do you get in line. I'm not scared.

SS and medicare no. They paid in. SSDI and medicaid yes.!
Personally medicaid should be dumped end of story. Nothing but leeching off of taxpayers.
Police protection might be a good idea if the actual taxpayers got the patrols rather than the leeches. Never seen a cop on my road except for my neighbor.
Roads we pay thru gas tax.
Sewers? I have a septic.
Water? I have a well, rather than city crap water.
Nation defense? That is what the consitution says the feds should be doing.

Buzz
09-05-2013, 10:58 AM
You just can't fix stupid I guess...

Statement:

"We need smaller government."

Translation:

"I am sick and tired of all those deadbeats taking my hard earned money. They should be drug tested and kicked off the dole when they fail. In fact, we should just test everyone. If you're clean you have nothing to fear..."

WTF????

Read this and weep.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130326-editorial-no-drug-tests-for-welfare-texas-should-heed-floridas-lesson.ece

prpryor
09-05-2013, 11:25 AM
The majority of people receiving ssi and medicare are getting more than they ever put in. so test them. lucky for anyone with a well or septic and does not have tax or fee for water or sewer but if they do test them. I drive more than most so I pay more taxes for roads and people who walk or bike on roads are leeches so test them. and if we want to consider what the constitution says how about looking at the entire document and consider if all this testing might violate the 4th amendment.

Marvin S
09-05-2013, 12:37 PM
The majority of people receiving ss and medicare are getting more than they ever put in.

I'm not sure this is a fruitless post as far as you are concerned but will give it a shot. As I pointed out to Paul, who doubted what I said, but my comment was confirmed by Buzz. Had the money been invested in that "lock box' the politico's bring up often there would have been plenty to provide for our needs. That it was treated like a Ponzi scheme creates the "you get more than you contributed" comments that I hear from the likes of you.

My 1st contributions were over 70 years ago, from a paper route I tended. While a small amount at the time, over the years I paid the maximum into the system while employed. A typical rate of return from index funds is 8%, using the rule of 72, that means what was contributed should double every 9 years, each years contibution starting a new set. So the initial amount would have been worth roughly 256 times what was originally contributed. So when we pass on there would have been a tidy amount to pass on to our heirs & we would have lived comfortably & not in dependency as you insinuate.

Had the government made the system voluntary rather than mandatory, we would not have been subject to an 18% total COLA over the last 7 years as we would have grown that more like the growth we have experienced in our investments.

Had Medicare not turned up, folks would have paid for their own care, lived just as well & as long, the trash would have passed on earlier & the US would not have that unnecessary burden of caring for folks whose value to society was diminished from the get-go :o.