If states are going to drug-test recipients on the lower end of the economic scale who receive government benefits, then said testing needs to be expanded to the higher end as well. Why not, for instance, drug-test farmers who receive federal payments for not growing certain crops ... or those receiving unemployment benefits ... or corporate fat cats who receive millions in federal subsidies? Why are they exempt?

 

It seems silly to just drug-test those on welfare. It takes a steady stream of income to support a drug habit. Hence, drug-testing those of means likely would see the "gotcha" percentage rise higher than the the less-than-1 percent figure for welfare recipients.

 

Wonderful! Please contrast and compare the various programs you mentioned and defend why you believe they should be held to the same standards. I would love to hear how you believe they are comparable or different as to their administration, purpose of the regulation, and resulting benefit or detriment to the american citizens, particularly taxpayers.

It's hard to separate GOP state lawmakers from their myth system.

 

Funny to hear you complaining abut myths, but carry on.

Wonderful! Please contrast and compare the various programs you mentioned and defend why you believe they should be held to the same standards. I would love to hear how you believe they are comparable or different as to their administration, purpose of the regulation, and resulting benefit or detriment to the american citizens, particularly taxpayers.

 

To quote Mcpapa good luck with that. It's almost hysterical trying to see people equate these different scenarios. Sounds good as a talking point but if you ask for a detailed comparison the argument crumbles.

You've asked for facts rather the hyperbole. He gone.

Wonderful! Please contrast and compare the various programs you mentioned and defend why you believe they should be held to the same standards. I would love to hear how you believe they are comparable or different as to their administration, purpose of the regulation, and resulting benefit or detriment to the american citizens, particularly taxpayers.

I don't quite understand your question/proposition. You seem to be defending the practice of drug-testing welfare recipients but feel it unnecessary to drug-test others higher up the economic ladder who also have their hat in hand for government funds ... because why?

 

Isn't the goal to remove drug users from getting government handouts? So why not move higher up the economic ladder, where the odds of success would be greatly improved by testing, say, CEOs of oil companies benefitting from oil depletion allowances ... or top execs of companies receiving tax breaks to locate their company in this or that city ... or owners of professional sports teams whose stadiums have been built with public money?

 

Returns from Tennessee have already shown that chasing welfare recipients is a waste of time and money. Time for these GOP state legislatures to pursue bigger fish.

I don't quite understand your question/proposition. You seem to be defending the practice of drug-testing welfare recipients but feel it unnecessary to drug-test others higher up the economic ladder who also have their hat in hand for government funds ... because why?

 

Isn't the goal to remove drug users from getting government handouts? So why not move higher up the economic ladder, where the odds of success would be greatly improved by testing, say, CEOs of oil companies benefitting from oil depletion allowances ... or top execs of companies receiving tax breaks to locate their company in this or that city ... or owners of professional sports teams whose stadiums have been built with public money?

 

Returns from Tennessee have already shown that chasing welfare recipients is a waste of time and money. Time for these GOP state legislatures to pursue bigger fish.

 

Again you are avoiding what was asked .

Again you are avoiding what was asked .

I believe I've answered the question. Every person or company that receives taxpayer assistance ... every person or company that comes to Uncle Sam with hat in hand ... should be held to the same standard when it comes to sobriety as a requisite for public money.

 

Gee, Bash, I didn't realize that blind (economic) justice was such a controversial topic.

Wonderful! Please contrast and compare the various programs you mentioned and defend why you believe they should be held to the same standards. I would love to hear how you believe they are comparable or different as to their administration, purpose of the regulation, and resulting benefit or detriment to the american citizens, particularly taxpayers.

 

Its just too easy for you to vilify and squeeze the politically and economically vulnerable isn't it? If we implemented drug testing for members of Congress, how many would fail? I would say it is by far more important for those in decision making roles to held to the highest level of accountability. If you want to screen welfare recipients, fine. Then those receiving corporate welfare should be screened as well!

I believe I've answered the question. Every person or company that receives taxpayer assistance ... every person or company who comes to Uncle Sam with hat in hand ... should be held to the same standard when it comes to sobriety as a requisite for public money.

 

You do realize first the government does not have money . All money used by the government is the tax payers money.

 

Secondly tax incentives , deductions or tax breaks are completly different from welfare. Those created for corporations are meant to spark growth , higher tax revenues through growth , job growth and innovation in the private sector .

 

Also corporate tax breaks isn't corporations taking money out of other tax payers pockets . They are tax incentives to allow them to keep more of their own money for the reasons I listed in the previous paragraph. That is the key difference keeping your own money.

 

Now we move on to individual welfare programs this is an actual act of taking money out of one persons pocket and giving it to a separate person. They are receiving funds that were taxed from one taxpayer and given to them. They are not receiving tax incentives or breaks on their own money .

 

Again I'm fine with welfare programs as short term to help get people off their feet . But to even try and make the correlation you are trying to make is dishonest and is proven wrong with simple breakdown.

I'd be all for drug testing our elected officials. Oh, and subsidized farmers as well.

Its just too easy for you to vilify and squeeze the politically and economically vulnerable isn't it? If we implemented drug testing for members of Congress, how many would fail? I would say it is by far more important for those in decision making roles to held to the highest level of accountability. If you want to screen welfare recipients, fine. Then those receiving corporate welfare should be screened as well!

 

Drug test congress . I'm all for that. They work for us the tax payers

I'd be all for drug testing our elected officials. Oh, and subsidized farmers as well.

 

That would be amusing!

Which is a greater threat to economic stability ... 1,000 guys in the grocery store parking lot trying to sell me food stamps for cash ... or one currency trader for a major investment bank who comes to work goosed up on cocaine?

 

Hint: (A) is the wrong answer.

Which is a greater threat to economic stability ... 1,000 guys in the grocery store parking lot trying to sell me food stamps for cash ... or one currency trader for a major investment bank who comes to work goosed up on cocaine?

 

Hint: (A) is the wrong answer.

 

Your arguments aren't making any sense now you want to drug test traders? You are all over the map.

Which is a greater threat to economic stability ... 1,000 guys in the grocery store parking lot trying to sell me food stamps for cash ... or one currency trader for a major investment bank who comes to work goosed up on cocaine?

 

Hint: (A) is the wrong answer.

 

Also showing your lack of understanding of today's landscape this isn't the 1980s. I don't know of a single major financial company that doesn't have a drug testing policy now.

 

But it is irrelevant because the trader doesn't work for the government and isn't receiving welfare from the government.