what do you think ? theres alot of costs up front for the tests, however in the long run, it will pay off IMO
lets discuss!
lets discuss!
however in the long run, it will pay off IMO
Explain.
I'd curious to know if they really would save money. Drug tests aren't cheap. Plus the staffing and logistics required to do so....
Sounds good at first, but would probably be costly and difficult to implement.
That doesn't matter... It's just revenge on them for being poor and an additional humiliation that they have to go through when they hit hard times. The country doesn't wanna admit that they've managed themselves into a shitter so they attack the poor for being a reminder of the shitter that the entire country's in.
^^ +1 for testing.
2 or 3 failed tests, and no more welfare or reduced welfare until you can show you're clean. recreational drug/alcohol use is not a necessity. Food and shelter are. Wanna have $ for vices? find a way to make it. something's gotta give.
Everybody has a choice in life and are partly to blame for where they end up.
Would you say that in a country that has 30% unemployment rate where statistically, chances are 3 out of 10 that you'll be unemployed not because you don't wanna work but because there aren't any jobs to be had? What if that drug testing program costs more to administer than it would save by denying coverage to drug addicts? How right wing to waste tax dollars just to flaunt your moral superiority. Also remember that addiction is a disease. Will some of that money "saved" go into rehab programs? Are those people supposed to self-rehabilitate? What if they can't? Let them crawl "somewhere" and die?
Florida has an unemployment rate of 8.5%, not 30%. see here
Doing a quick job search (jobing.com), there are plenty of entry-level and part time jobs to help you get back on your feet.
8.5 is still bad enough.. Generally you wanna keep it at about 5% to account for workers between jobs and the few bums who just wouldn't wanna work if a job came and bit them in the arse. Question is whether there are enough jobs where most of those 8.5% people live or where they can get to day in and day out and/or if it's reasonably easy to relocate to where there are jobs. An unemployed person cannot easily afford first and last.
You've been in a country that had over 30% unemployment, currently 23.7%. Is a quarter of the population over there responsible for where they are right now and does it deserve to be punished for it? That's what Paul is trying to insunuate.
In any case you fail to address the remaining issues such as whether they would be helped up and offered a rehab program or just kicked while they're already down and whether such a program would save or waste tax dollars.
I hear what you're saying and agree to an extent.
All I'm saying is that a better system to check for abusers of welfare is required. One issue at a time
Would you say that in a country that has 30% unemployment rate where statistically, chances are 3 out of 10 that you'll be unemployed not because you don't wanna work but because there aren't any jobs to be had? What if that drug testing program costs more to administer than it would save by denying coverage to drug addicts? How right wing to waste tax dollars just to flaunt your moral superiority. Also remember that addiction is a disease. Will some of that money "saved" go into rehab programs? Are those people supposed to self-rehabilitate? What if they can't? Let them crawl "somewhere" and die?
8.5 is still bad enough.. Generally you wanna keep it at about 5% to account for workers between jobs and the few bums who just wouldn't wanna work if a job came and bit them in the arse. Question is whether there are enough jobs where most of those 8.5% people live or where they can get to day in and day out and/or if it's reasonably easy to relocate to where there are jobs. An unemployed person cannot easily afford first and last.
You've been in a country that had over 30% unemployment, currently 23.7%. Is a quarter of the population over there responsible for where they are right now and does it deserve to be punished for it? That's what Paul is trying to insunuate.
In any case you fail to address the remaining issues such as whether they would be helped up and offered a rehab program or just kicked while they're already down and whether such a program would save or waste tax dollars.