Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
  1. #41
    I am Murloc! Garnier Fructis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Location:
    Posts
    5,623
    Yes. My tax money going to some guy so he can buy drugs pisses me off just as much as the bleeding heart bitch with 15 kids that wants me to pay for her children.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Garnier Fructis View Post
    Yes. My tax money going to some guy so he can buy drugs pisses me off just as much as the bleeding heart bitch with 15 kids that wants me to pay for her children.
    Did you read the thread? Your tax money will never be used in this program unless YOU lose your job and apply for benefits. This is not Welfare.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Slummish View Post
    The bottom line is this, it's no one's business but my own whether or not I am a drug user. The government gladly accepted my monthly payments into the system and now they can stfu and pay out when I need it. Comprendo?
    So I suppose it's fine for people to waste tons of assistance money on drugs because they paid in before? The point of assistance isn't to feed your drug addiction.

    Bergtau's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability that somebody will mention Godwin's Law approaches 1.
    Hitler wasn't all bad, I mean, he DID kill Hitler.
    An accident is something that you did not mean to do at all. A mistake is something that you regret doing.

  4. #44
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    You probably should've read the whole article, what I linked was a snapshot.

    The two next paragraphs:


    You still feel like snarking? Cause seriously, it doesn't augment your argument, at all.
    Worst case scenario, they break even. If they don't, it was poorly administrated by retards. Plain and simple. How's that for, "snarky"?

    ---------- Post added 2011-12-09 at 01:20 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Did you read the thread? Your tax money will never be used in this program unless YOU lose your job and apply for benefits. This is not Welfare.
    You have no idea how unemployment insurance works, do you? The federal government grants an allotment to each state fiscally based on need and a long list of requirements. Not only are employee's, employer's, and the state paying into this cash cow, the federal government is as well. So no, it is NOT your money.

    If anything, it's more or less associated with time spent to qualify than how much money you've paid into it. Hell, $3,200 a month, and I pay $35 or so into FICA. That won't even BEGIN to touch a seniors social security check for a WEEK, let alone a month.
    Last edited by Epiphanes; 2011-12-09 at 06:22 AM.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    Worst case scenario, they break even. If they don't, it was poorly administrated by retards. Plain and simple. How's that for, "snarky"?
    And this is good, somehow? It's proven to completely nullify its purpose, which is to save the state money from a perceived rampant problem. They could've used that money on something else that could actually solve problems or create jobs. Like a training course for $30.

    I'll just have to accept your attitude. Not sure why I deserved it in the first place, but hey, it's the internet, what can ya do?

  6. #46
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    And this is good, somehow? It's proven to completely nullify its purpose, which is to save the state money from a perceived rampant problem. They could've used that money on something else that could actually solve problems or create jobs. Like a training course for $30.

    I'll just have to accept your attitude. Not sure why I deserved it in the first place, but hey, it's the internet, what can ya do?
    Because you're oblivious to how social contribution programs work. Even if they break even, they're still attempting to keep the system in check and clean. Again, much like the US military.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    Because you're oblivious to how social contribution programs work. Even if they break even, they're still attempting to keep the system in check and clean. Again, much like the US military.
    Disagreeing with the approach to how they keep it in check does not make me oblivious. Shit, dude, did I piss on your shoes or something?

    Comparing an occupation that is funded by taxpayers, to a social safety net that is funded by taxpayers, seems off to me. The money source is the same, but the purposes are completely different.

    If you're okay with this kind of thing, then am I to assume that we should drug test any recipient of taxpayer funding?

  8. #48
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Disagreeing with the approach to how they keep it in check does not make me oblivious. Shit, dude, did I piss on your shoes or something?

    Comparing an occupation that is funded by taxpayers, to a social safety net that is funded by taxpayers, seems off to me. The money source is the same, but the purposes are completely different.

    If you're okay with this kind of thing, then am I to assume that we should drug test any recipient of taxpayer funding?
    Why not? Illegal is illegal is illegal. If you're breaking the law, you should not qualify for or be protected by programs instituted to protect constituents.

    Edit: Small change to text, going to bed. Open your mind.
    Last edited by Epiphanes; 2011-12-09 at 06:35 AM.

  9. #49
    Fluffy Kitten Dacien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    9,069
    I don't agree with Obama on a lot. But even though he is philosophically at odds with me, I can't argue against the fact that I'm paying less in taxes, and that's something that pleases me greatly. And I'm not concerned at all about the drug testing provision. I don't use drugs. But I think if you live in a state where it's all employee-side contribution for UI, you have no say. Otherwise, you have an argument that you are rightfully entitled to that money.
    Last edited by Dacien; 2011-12-09 at 06:50 AM.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    Why not? Illegal is illegal is illegal. If you're breaking the law, you should not qualify for or be protected by programs instituted to protect constituents.

    Edit: Small change to text, going to bed. Open your mind.
    My mind's always open. I enjoyed our discussion, honestly. I just didn't see the necessity for snark or a high and mighty attitude about your opinion. Just because we disagree on something doesn't mean we have to be shitty to each other. It has nothing to do with open-mindedness.

    In regards to your opinion, I see where you're coming from. But it neither fixes the problem or saves the taxpayer any money. It just spends money just to spend it. I don't want that kind of government.

  11. #51
    I'm all for drug testing them.

    Im also all for legalizing weed... but if you're gonna milk the system, buy necessities.

  12. #52
    You know they did this drug screening thing in Florida.

    Turns out they didn't catch anyone getting welfare on drugs.

    Not that I think it matters.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    I don't agree with Obama on a lot. But even though he is philosophically at odds with me, I can't argue against the fact that I'm paying less in taxes, and that's something that pleases me greatly. But I'm not concerned at all about the drug testing provision. I don't use drugs.
    But if this passes, you'll still have to take the test. Multiple times, even, as it proposes random screening during your unemployment compensation period. Which will cost this country even more money.

    I'm more lenient with the idea of testing true welfare users(TARP/EBT). However, I would prefer some pretty good case studies to show it being a rampant problem before enacting it. It's a big reason that the Florida law was halted in October.

    Unemployment, though? It goes a step too far for me. I'm not a drug user either, besides cigarettes and alcohol from time to time.

    EDIT - And yes, I'm keeping an eye on this tax cut extension. If I lose it, I end up dropping in pay next year, because my health insurance rates went up...*again*.
    Last edited by Chonogo; 2011-12-09 at 06:50 AM.

  14. #54
    Less Government*!





    *Unless you're poor/a minority/an immigrant/ vote Democrat

  15. #55
    Fluffy Kitten Dacien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    9,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    But if this passes, you'll still have to take the test. Multiple times, even, as it proposes random screening during your unemployment compensation period. Which will cost this country even more money.
    This does concern me.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    This does concern me.
    See why I'm a moderate? Knee-jerk and half-assed short-terms "fixes" for long-term problems, from both parties. I'm sick of it.

    I want a country that helps people out in need, but also spends within their means. I guess that's too much to ask.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    You have no idea how unemployment insurance works, do you? The federal government grants an allotment to each state fiscally based on need and a long list of requirements. Not only are employee's, employer's, and the state paying into this cash cow, the federal government is as well. So no, it is NOT your money.

    If anything, it's more or less associated with time spent to qualify than how much money you've paid into it. Hell, $3,200 a month, and I pay $35 or so into FICA. That won't even BEGIN to touch a seniors social security check for a WEEK, let alone a month.
    You are thinking of Welfare. Unemployment Insurance is paid by the states and the federal government, however the fed is only involved when the state does not have enough money, and it is all of 32% of their former wage, AND they must have been employed for over a year straight before being laid off because the company removed their position. Also, they cannot be part time employees. Honestly the fact that everyone pays into it and the small number of people who get anything out of it is a little offputting, along with the fact that now this bill wants to add another layer of financial strain onto the system. The states, unlike congress and social security, CANNOT use this money for anything except unemployment insurance. I don't mind if the unemployed guy spends 50$ on a bag of weed, because that money goes right back into the economy, unlike if it sits in the states coffers collecting interest but not actually being spent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •