No Drug Tests For Food Stamp Recipients, Feds Tell Georgia

If we're going by SC precedence... then probably not even then. UT only evaded being struck down by a) the tests not being random and b) even if you failed the actual drug test (not the written one), then you were still not denied benefits but had to seek counseling.

 

I'm not talking about controlled slave labor. I am talking about keeping people busy doing many things. Picking up trash on the roadways one day, beautifying neighborhoods the next, there would be a lot of landscaping, possibly construction of some form or another, and mother's with children could be helping watch other people in the same situations kids, while they are rotating back and forth, but every hour worked would be paid a regular wage, and nobody would get $300 a month and have to work 4 hours a week like the Giuliani plan in the 80's, to replace city workers with welfare recipients by compensating them less than minimum wage. I am also not saying that businesses shouldn't be working with the program to get them full time work. Training, yes definitely, but the current system has to be scrapped to introduce something viable, and the illegal alien freebee train needs to be derailed at the border. No vacancies, and we are way over the maximum capacity now..

A discussion to find solutions doesn't include an, 'and that is all I have to say to you on the topic'. That is why nothing ever gets done and nothing ever changes. And i will have a nice weekend, you do the same.

 

It doesn't work, and just eliminates a small amount of welfare recipients if at all, to create another welfare program for pharmaceutical corporations.

 

No, but it's an interesting proposition.

 

...and while we are discussing it if the military has to be tested then they should be too. Why they are not is beyond me. Oh and why the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you going to ask them if they want to agree, they are our employees and need to be informed of that fact daily?

 

Maybe 'cause there job doesn't involve handing guns? Dunno, I don't think it would be a great hardship to have all federal employees or welfare recipients take regular drug tests — including congress. Would love to see a congress argue as to why he'd prefer not to.

And no, congressmen are not your employees. They're employed by a corporation you own stock it. Try picking up some UPS stock and then telling the next guy in a brown hat who comes to your door that you work for him.




​

 

Uh... they are.

If you're/we're the boss then why is it none of them do the things you/we want? I'd say the boss is the guy that fills their pockets and that ain't tax payers.

 

I didn't say, my I said "our". No? They are just responsible for making laws, who we go to war with, who we ally with, determining how our accumulative wealth/money is spent, and who gets preferential treatment by the most corrupt government on the planet, or not. Obviously they are not "our" employees but our masters.

 

No, I didn't know that. Glad you brought it to my attention. But since my own company receives two to three government contracts per month, and since no one has ever mentioned me taking a drug test, I guess I'd just have to call bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on you.

 

I can hear that scheduling dilemma.

"Senator, we need you to come in for a urinalysis, this morning."

"Can't do it today, am busy not voting on important issues and sucking the ass of my corporate masters, set me up for one in about 6 weeks and if I feel like it we'll do it then, I will. Do I get a kickback from the pharmaceutical corporation for this? If not catch me in 8 weeks."

Because we as in us, allow them to dictate to us or we, as if they are our masters.

I would say you are right.

 

For some reason i thought you were referring to the military. I misunderstood I suppose.

Good luck getting the citizenry riled up about anything other than Master Chef or Game of Thrones.

Sad but true. =\

 

I contract with the government also in various capacities, here is what I go by;

Federal contractors must comply with certain obligations relating to the use of drugs in the workplace. In particular, the Drug Free Workplace Act of 198842 and implementing regulations require contractors who receive procurement contracts of $25,000 or more and recipients of federal grants of any amount to maintain drug-free workplaces by (1) publishing a policy statement informing employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying the disciplinary actions for violations of the policy; (2) establishing a drug-free awareness program informing employees of the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace, the policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace, available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs, and the penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations; (3) providing all employees with a copy of the policy statement; (4) notifying employees in the policy statement that, as a condition of continued employment, the employee must not only abide by the terms of the policy statement, but must also notify the employer, within five calendar days, if he or she is convicted of a criminal drug violation in the workplace; (5) notifying the contracting agency within 10 days after receiving notice of a conviction; (6) imposing a sanction on or requiring the satisfactory participation in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program by any employee who is convicted; and (7) making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace. Individuals who receive contracts or grants of any value must agree not to engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance in the performance of the contract/grant.

Contractors also may be subject to agency-specific, drug-free workplace/testing requirements. For example, defense contractors may be required to establish and maintain a drug-free workforce pursuant to DOD regulations.43 Specifically, contracting officers are required to insert Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause 252.223–7004,44 outlining the DOD’s drug-free workforce requirements, in contracts that involve access to classified information or when the contracting officer determines that such requirements are necessary for reasons of national security or to protect the health and safety of those using or affected by the product of or performance of the contract. DFARS 252.223–7004 requires covered contractors to institute and maintain drug-free work force programs that include employee assistance programs, supervisory training to identify and address illegal drug use by employees, a provision for self-referrals and supervisory referrals for treatment, and a provision for identifying illegal drug users, including drug testing of employees in “sensitive positions.”

Contractors who institute drug testing programs, however, must be careful to check the laws of the states in which they do business, as many have enacted legislation regulating and, in some cases, limiting drug testing by employers. Therefore, a policy complying with both federal and state requirements must be developed and followed.

 

As much as you seem to want a master to guarantee you room & board, provide you with tasks, see to you health care, and be blamed for anything you don't like about your life — you don't have one. Their are no chains on your ankles. Your life is your own responsibility and your own fault.

Say 'my' or 'our' whatever, they're not your employee or our employees. They're the board of directors of what used to be the biggest economic entity on the planet. The processes they go through, the decisions they make, have sufficient visibility and safeguards that I have great confidence drug testing won't effect their performance at all. For good or bad. I have less confidence in a high school dropout with a gun.

That said, I have no problem with you wanting to drug test the whole batch. I'm just telling you it will be more of a negotiation that you seem to expect. You're not their boss, you don't dictate their working conditions.





​

 

You obviously have me confused with somebody else.

I owe you nothing, have never asked you for anything, or received anything from you, and everything I have was earned and worked for. So do the letters F or O mean anything too you?

Any individual who serves as a elected/public official is an employee of the government for whom he or she serves, and the government according to the founding fathers belongs to the people, that's us. The state and federal governments were and are contractual agents of the people (employees), not sovereign lords over them, and their purpose as employees of the people is to represent and serve the people. They need to be reminded of this daily and they need to get back to those basic principals.

My point was and is, they are employees and as such they are not exclusive according to the courts as being exempt from scrutiny such as background checks, investigations of their finances/credit checks, and/or a drug test. People on welfare are not employees, and cannot by law be coerced to comply with such indignities, according to the courts. I don't necessarily agree with that fact but it is the reality of the situation.

And you, you and your supremacist point of views are still part of the problem, not any part of any relevant or legitimate solution.

 

Last year, a country of over 300 million spent over $3.5 trillion to give it's citizens the same rights and privileges. If your family put about $12,000 per person into the pot — then you paid your way.

F... O... hm. No, doesn't mean anything to me. Maybe to you?



​

 

Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/asp/drugfree/screenr.htm

call me a liar again

 

A hypocrisy free work place Act would have established so much more confidence in their sincerity.

 

source it.

 

Google it.

 

Detroit is like Pakistan, and it's that way because of the welfare mentality.

it's FINE economics, since it encourages people to earn more. Stealing from them discourages them, while the welfare recipients aren't creating anything and are just a hole money sinks into producing nothing.

You vote Rodent, you therefore confess to absolute ignorance about economics.

 

Fine.

If the goal is to reduce the number of welfare recipients, then do what logic dictates, and turn off the welfare dollar payments entirely, which will reduce the number of welfare recipients by 100%.

If the goal is to restrict welfare prizes to the most needy, then means testing is required, and is someone has the means to purchase drugs, they're not needy, by definition, and hence a drug test is a reasonable requirement.

Have the testee sign an affadavit attesting to her drug free status before the test, so that they can be arrested for perjury and put in prison when the re-test comes back positive. As a deterrence, such a form is welcome too. Nothing wrong with scaring leeches out of the pool.

- - - Updated - - -

Right. You're appealling to no one. You're just ignorant.

You've already been educated about what powers the Congress has, and you've been educated that Congress does not have the power to welfare.

Hence you are no longer ignorant, you're merely dishonest.

 

It doesn't. Abolish food stamps, don't require drug tests.

 

you're confused, the gop is like the taliban

The Republicans:

#1 Conservative Christians
#2 Religious fanatics (look at the presidential candidates they presented)
#3 Want to seriously limit the freedoms of women (till nothing is left ?)
#4 Oppose equality for man and woman. (oppose equal pay for women)
#5 Want to redefine RAPE so it can be blamed more to the woman
#6 Are in favor of a theocracy

The Taliban:

#1 Conservative Muslims
#2 Religious fanatics (speaks for itself)
#3 Want to seriously limit the freedoms of women (till nothing is left ?)
#4 Oppose equality for man and woman. (oppose education for women)
#5 RAPE is always blamed on the woman
#6 Are in favor of a theocracy

 

It doesn't though. Turns out when people are so far down on their luck that they would qualify for welfare they aren't too interested in improving themselves without it. Their interested in quick bucks so they can feed their family. And those quick bucks usually come in the form of scams, muggings and robberies.

Don't believe me? Travel to any third world country that doesn't have a welfare state and watch how the poor people act around you upon discovering you're a "rich american"

People only seek to improve themselves when they aren't desperate for money to feed themselves.

 

No, it isn't. It is because the right doesn't have any faith in the laws of demand and supply or the fiscal responsibility to supply us with better governance at lower cost.