What do you think Romney and the Republican controlled House and Senate should work on first?

[bsd058 296]

when someone wants my tax $$ as a helping hand, to be a short term bridge so-to-speak, to help them survive is one thing.

if they want my tax $$ to buy drugs instead of life's necessities (ie food) that is totally unacceptable.

if the person using my tax $$ to survive so they can eat better than I do and buy junk food/ soda and other "feel good foods" as well ... that also is unacceptable.

want my tax $$$$ via government welfare ... the recipient should then consider themselves working for me (the gov't represents me) the tax payer. the welfare recipients job at this point is simple ... stay clean/sober & prove it, and get a j.o.b so they can take care of themselves.

Yes I understand. I think I agree that it's a contract.

I just was pointing out where the analogy of employer-employee and Government-welfare recipients breaks down. Employers MUST test. To not do so could be considered negligent. Government doesn't owe a legal duty to ensure welfare recipients aren't going to hurt someone. There is no vicarious liability that could be incurred. That's all my point was.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Interesting discussion.. I have no problems having requirements for people to receive free money.. In the case of drug tests I am not sure there is a reason. If someone fails a test are they going to be denied food and medical? I don't see that happening. Unless we are going to take some sort of action (punitive or recuperative) then the results of the test are meaningless which means the tests themselves are meaningless. Why waste the money?

[natty bumppo 297]

Yes I understand. I think I agree that it's a contract.

I just was pointing out where the analogy of employer-employee and Government-welfare recipients breaks down. Employers MUST test. To not do so could be considered negligent. Government doesn't owe a legal duty to ensure welfare recipients aren't going to hurt someone. There is no vicarious liability that could be incurred. That's all my point was.

the gov't already determines if someone is eligible or not for welfare (requirements based). isn't the means testing already ... well financially intrusive?

a welfare recipient who is receiving my tax dollars should be drug tested so they can't hurt someone after buying drugs with my money. nothing like a juiced up welfare recipient injuring "john or jane q public" so they can no longer work or support their family thereby potentially placing an additional burden on public assistance ... all courtesy of my tax money buying drugs for a welfare recipient.

drug testing will also let me (the taxpayer/ temporary employer) know that the welfare recipient is clean/sober therefore better equipped to find a job

[bsd058 296]

the gov't already determines if someone is eligible or not for welfare (requirements based). isn't the means testing already ... well financially intrusive?

a welfare recipient who is receiving my tax dollars should be drug tested so they can't hurt someone after buying drugs with my money. nothing like a juiced up welfare recipient injuring "john or jane q public" so they can no longer work or support their family thereby potentially placing an additional burden on public assistance ... all courtesy of my tax money buying drugs for a welfare recipient.

drug testing will also let me (the taxpayer/ temporary employer) know that the welfare recipient is clean/sober therefore better equipped to find a job

There's no legal duty owed by the government no matter how much you want there to be. That's why the analogy breaks down. No matter how much you want there to be, it just won't exist. Are you trying to say that the government should owe a legal duty to ensure that the money is not used by someone who would use the money to harm someone else? Because if there is a duty owed, that would be a pretty crazy standard of reason and prudence.

Edited November 1, 2012 by bsd058

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Yes I understand. I think I agree that it's a contract.

I just was pointing out where the analogy of employer-employee and Government-welfare recipients breaks down. Employers MUST test. To not do so could be considered negligent. Government doesn't owe a legal duty to ensure welfare recipients aren't going to hurt someone. There is no vicarious liability that could be incurred. That's all my point was.

Actually Employers are not required to test. Nice try. Possibly certian safety sensitive position, but no general requirement under the drug free workplace act

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Actually Employers are not required to test. Nice try. Possibly certian safety sensitive position, but no general requirement under the drug free workplace act

Insurance companies can make that mandate, and many self-insurers do as well. I know one major retailer that requires a drug test every time an employee is injured, and as part of the pre-employment interview.

[bsd058 296]

Actually Employers are not required to test. Nice try. Possibly certian safety sensitive position, but no general requirement under the drug free workplace act

Oh I was under the assumption they could be found liable if they didn't test and it was found out that the employee caused losses to others as a proximate cause of employment and being under the influence.

I'm not talking statute law. I'm talking tort law.

Edited November 1, 2012 by bsd058

[natty bumppo 297]

There's no legal duty owed by the government no matter how much you want there to be. That's why the analogy breaks down. No matter how much you want there to be, it just won't exist.

with the lawyers in this country ...

it would be interesting to see the gov't named in a wrongful death/ injury lawsuit because they supplied a known addict with welfare money to purchase drugs ...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Also, I know several union companies are doing the same thing. I have a friend that received a six week suspension from the union when he failed a piss test as a requirement for starting on a new job site. He took one of his wife's Vicodin's a couple days before, and tested positive for opiates.

[bsd058 296]

with the lawyers in this country ...

it would be interesting to see the gov't named in a wrongful death/ injury lawsuit because they supplied a known addict with welfare money to purchase drugs ...

Exactly. It would be crazy. lol.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Also, I know several union companies are doing the same thing. I have a friend that received a six week suspension from the union when he failed a piss test as a requirement for starting on a new job site. He took one of his wife's Vicodin's a couple days before, and tested positive for opiates.

Every trades union has drug testing and has had for the past few decades now. If you fail one of those pee test your not only down the road, your looking at going to drug & booze counselling and that cost $$$$.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Oh I was under the assumption they could be found liable if they didn't test and it was found out that the employee caused losses to others as a proximate cause of employment and being under the influence.

I'm not talking statute law. I'm talking tort law.

I know what your talking but Tort law is so speculative. Who knows what a jury might find.

[bsd058 296]

I know what your talking but Tort law is so speculative. Who knows what a jury might find.

I don't think I'm speculating much. Much is based upon what a reasonable and prudent person would do given the circumstances, and what best practices are in the industry. Some of it, on precedence.

If it is common that employers use drug testing as a means of decision to hire, then it is reasonable and prudent for an employer to do so. Either way, there is still a duty owed by the person who committed the act under the influence, and if they caused harm a breach would be found. Vicarious liability would probably take over even if an employer was found not negligent. This is when an employer assumes responsibility just because they hired someone, whether hiring them or not was negligent.

Edited November 1, 2012 by bsd058

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That's just one of the concerns. The other is that contrary to right wing nut belief, people on public assistance are actually less likely to use drugs than the general population. They've done this mandatory drug testing here in FL and it costs a lot more to do the tests than what is saved in denied benefits. The usage rates are far below averages of the state population. It's just more smoke and mirrors on the right. More big government that they continue to advocate while claiming to be against big government.

So drug tests cost more than the savings in benefits. I bet you the same thing is true for almost all companies that drug test. Maybe they are drug testing to promote the safety and welfare of the kids involved. Why do democrats hate children.

Possibly it makes welfare a hassle and some might find it easier to get a job. Maybe we make all benefits as much hassle as getting up and going to work everyday, and some of the millons who could work and don't would got to work. Require 40 hours a week of some positive activity. Work, School, Public service. Require drug testing. Require you to show up on time and be prodcutive during that 40 hours .

Sooner or latter people would just go to work because it's easier.

Contract private firms like Sams, Wal-mart etc to distribute Flour, Eggs, Cheese, milk, Grits. Stop giving people cash to go spend however they like.

How about this one.. Instead of giving welfare just have the electric company, etc debit the Govt. So you supply food, utilities and basic housing what do you need cash for. All your needs are met, right. I mean that is what you liberals cry isn't it, someone might starve to death.?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Doesn't matter anyways. Mitt's odds are crumbling...

...while Obama's are rising.

So, as I said earlier, the only thing Romney will work on is his retirement home in California.

And as we look at the key Senate races, there will be no Republican controlled Senate either.

It's your nutjobs over there on the right that keep fcuking Senate majority prospects up for the GOP. The Tea Party freaks are killing the GOP. And it's fun to watch!