Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

paullud

Veteran Expediter
The test was administered by Utah's Dept of Workforce Services - the same ones who pay welfare benefits. Maybe you could explain how it benefits them to enlarge the pool of welfare recipients?
Because everything I've read is about how states are trying to shrink that pool, which is why the drug testing was suggested.
It's really hard to give up those cherished myths, eh?

LOL, the same ones who pay for welfare recipients? The UT Department Of Workforce Services are welfare recipients and their job is to get as many on welfare as possible. You mean why would they want to expand their reach, budget, and over burden the system guaranteeing job security? Gee, I don't know let me think about it. Have you considered you are having trouble giving up your cherished ideals?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
In August of 2007 while at Panther Orientation. When it was announced they were going to start the drug screen at least 7 persons got up and walked out.:rolleyes:

I worked at a pave at which they were trying to get rid of a problem child but were being cautious because he had medical claims pending. I told the boss to announce that drug tests would start on Monday and they'd never see him again. He replied that if we did that, we'd lose half the fleet.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
LOL, the same ones who pay for welfare recipients? The UT Department Of Workforce Services are welfare recipients and their job is to get as many on welfare as possible. You mean why would they want to expand their reach, budget, and over burden the system guaranteeing job security? Gee, I don't know let me think about it. Have you considered you are having trouble giving up your cherished ideals?

If the Dept of Workforce Solutions uses welfare recipients, then they are former welfare recipients, turned productive taxpaying citizens - good for them! But I am having just a weee bit [ok, a whole lot] of trouble believing that a state department is trying to give more money to poor people in this day & age. Even if they have a humungous budget surplus to use [or lose], there must be things they'd rather spend it on than poor people. And they can't simply expand their budget by signing up more people, as the budget is allotted by the federal officials, with the state determining who to distribute it to - they won't get more money just by approving more claims, IOW.
I've already given up quite a few of my cherished ideals, in favor of pragmatism - sometimes, reality sucks, but it's what we have to work with. I know there are welfare cheats & scammers, and I'm all for finding them and throwing the book at them - but I think that effort should begin with the worst offenders: doctors, dentists, medical clinics, home health agencies, etc. Start cracking down on them, and keep going all the way down to the little guys, and we'll all be better off.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Because everyone knows that government is so incredibly good and efficient at everything they do. :rolleyes:

Sarcasm does not an argument make.
Besides, I have far less trouble with the Post Office, the various License Bureaus, and even getting a tax refund, than any of the private companies I pay a lot of money [Verizon, for instance]. If you think for profit companies would do better, check out the prisons where they've been trying it.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
I have far less trouble with the Post Office, the various License Bureaus, and even getting a tax refund, than any of the private companies I pay a lot of money [Verizon, for instance]. If you think for profit companies would do better, check out the prisons where they've been trying it.
I don't believe that for a second. I think your anti-capitalist views cloud your judgment.
BUT...even if it is true, with the public sector, if you don't like the way you're treated, you can tell them to stick it and not do business with them anymore. Can you do that with the public sector employees? They know it takes practically an act of Congress for them to get fired, and unless you're willing to take extreme measures, you HAVE to do business with them. Unless you're not going to drive, you HAVE to be abused by the DMV; It's almost impossible to not deal with the post orifice because they've got a legal monopoly on 1st class mail; unless the Rethuglicans grow a spine & some gonads, soon it'll be impossible for you to get a pap smear without dealing with the government.
If a for-profit company treats you poorly, you give them the heave-ho. Try that with gummint and let me know how it works out. They've arranged it so you're stick with what they give you. No one would take it, otherwise.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
I don't believe that for a second. I think your anti-capitalist views cloud your judgment.
BUT...even if it is true, with the public sector, if you don't like the way you're treated, you can tell them to stick it and not do business with them anymore. Can you do that with the public sector employees? They know it takes practically an act of Congress for them to get fired, and unless you're willing to take extreme measures, you HAVE to do business with them. Unless you're not going to drive, you HAVE to be abused by the DMV; It's almost impossible to not deal with the post orifice because they've got a legal monopoly on 1st class mail; unless the Rethuglicans grow a spine & some gonads, soon it'll be impossible for you to get a pap smear without dealing with the government.
If a for-profit company treats you poorly, you give them the heave-ho. Try that with gummint and let me know how it works out. They've arranged it so you're stick with what they give you. No one would take it, otherwise.

The drivers licensing/permits is privatized in Ontario Canada...and believe me you get NO better service from them...in fact ... worse because they cut back to make a profit....less staff and longer lines....try to phone them??...hahaha....please SD don't go private...Privatizing is comparable to cheap freight haulers...
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
The drivers licensing/permits is privatized in Ontario Canada...and believe me you get NO better service from them...in fact ... worse because they cut back to make a profit....less staff and longer lines....try to phone them??...hahaha....please SD don't go private...Privatizing is comparable to cheap freight haulers...
Do they have a legal monopoly? Can anyone who thinks they can do better open up their own licensing agency?
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Do they have a legal monopoly? Can anyone who thinks they can do better open up their own licensing agency?

pretty much you could call them an agent for the government......and I don't think having 2 or 3 different licensing companies all with different requirements wouldn't do a darned thing...except muddy the pool.
 
Last edited:

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
pretty much you could call them an agent for the government......and I don't think having 2 or 3 different licensing companies all with different requirements wouldn't do a darned thing...except muddy the pool.
No, they'd have to have the same requirements to issue a license as all the others. But if they have to compete for customers, then they all have to do it as cheaply, efficiently, and politely as they can. Maybe one agency isn't all that polite, but they're cheap, and people who value that over other factors would choose to go there. Others may value speed most of all, and agency B gets you in and out the fastest, so that's where they decide to go.
I'm not saying there necessarily should be 3 agencies or that there's enough work for 3, but just that when consumers have a choice, the suppliers either compete for their business or go bankrupt. Case in point: if the post orifice no longer had the legal monopoly and FedEx & UPS & whoever else could deliver first class mail, guess what the post orifice would do... They'd either improve overnight or be out of business in 6 months. Or maybe weeks. Why do they remain as they are? They don't HAVE TO change. They're not operating as a private sector entity who has to please the customer.
 
Last edited:

usafk9

Veteran Expediter
Nice fantasy, Monger. Let us know when you return from that dreamy place known as Capitalist Utopia.

On second thought, don't.
 

cubansammich

Not a Member
It's almost impossible to not deal with the post orifice because they've got a legal monopoly on 1st class mail

You have several Glorious Free Market choices to get that letter delivered. UPS and Federal Express and several others. Just give em a call they will come right to you and take it to the consignee. You could even expedite it if you want it there faster. Be forewarned instead of 50 cents or so it may cost you a tad more.

Personally I don't care if the USPS is over budget. It is a valuable service and somewhat paid for by the user. They provide home PICK UP and delivery daily without even having to let them know you want a letter mailed. You think any private company is going to go to every address in the U.S. and look for those little red flags?
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Sarcasm does not an argument make.

No argument was made. An argument would presuppose a second side. A statement of fact was made that could tangentially be taken as sarcasm. The primary point was and is the statement. There is no argument to it. Government pretty much sucks at everything they do. The fact that Verizon or whomever else may also suck doesn't alter the original fact, nor does it create an argument where none exists.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
You have several Glorious Free Market choices to get that letter delivered. UPS and Federal Express and several others.
No, I don't. It's illegal for them to offer first class mail delivery.
Just give em a call they will come right to you and take it to the consignee. You could even expedite it if you want it there faster. Be forewarned instead of 50 cents or so it may cost you a tad more.
Now it does, sure. Know why? Because (1) it's illegal for them to set up a system for first class mail delivery, so they don't have infrastructure in place to do it; (2) their would-be competition is government-subsidized.
You take away the post orifice's subsidy and legal monopoly--that is, allow alternatives--and the price of first class mail delivered by the USPS skyrockets because it's no longer kept artificially low, and the price of delivery through private means plummets. And they'd do it far better and more pleasantly, because THEY HAVE TO COMPETE FOR YOUR BUSINESS OR GO OUT OF BUSINESS, unlike the post orifice.
Don't you commies know anything about economics? Oh, wait, if you did, you wouldn't be commies...
You think any private company is going to go to every address in the U.S. and look for those little red flags?
It may be that that can't be done at the price it's being done for now, by anybody, because the PO can operate at a loss. Perhaps that's worth it to you and the rest of society (apparently it is), but because of that, you perpetuate the surly, lazy, incompetent postal workers. Introduce competition and everything improves.
You know why a domestic car costs thousands of dollars more than it need to? Because government has skewed the laws of economics in the labor market through labor union laws.

You know why the Cubs suck, have done so almost every year and will continue to suck for the foreseeable future? Because their fans allow them to. The Cubs could go 0-162 and their idiot fans will still fill that ballpark, eliminating any incentive for them to change. They're effectively shielded from the consequences of the suckiness, so they don't have to change. So they don't, and they continue to suck.

If you hold a ball in your hand, you're preventing gravity from affecting it. Release the ball and gravity will do its thing. It usually doesn't negatively impact us when you hold up a ball, unless it's an opponent who snatched it out of mid-air when you'd rather he didn't. But in economics, the central planners' interference always harms us. It's why things cost more than they should, and it's why when you deliver at an auto plant, you have to deal with rude, lazy, and overpaid employees. Take away their outrageous union protections--that is, stop shielding them from the effects of the free market--and they'd have to compete on a level playing field, and improve their product and customer service or face the consequences--going out of business!
We've removed the consequences for being rude and inefficient, so rude and inefficient is what we've got in the auto industry. Hey! Just like the post orifice, where we did the same thing!
Where I work, there's a guy in the shop who can't be fired except by the owner. He knows it, everybody else knows it, and he knows everybody else knows it. He's been shielded from the effects of the free market. Guess how much work he does. That's how the vast, vast majority of people work when you shield them from cause & effect, from the consequences of their actions. It's human nature. But the lefty central planners don't believe that's human nature and never take that into account. In addition, because he doesn't do his work, another employee must be kept on the payroll to do the work he should but doesn't, raising the cost for the company's customers. Finally see how this works?

Hey, just like the auto industry and the post orifice! Funny how that works so consistently!
 
Last edited:

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Not exactly accurate. The Postal Service is actually called for in the constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".

Yes, the post orifice is called for in the constitution. But the government also gave them a monopoly by outlawing private first-class mail delivery. I don't think the constitution says to do that.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
No argument was made. An argument would presuppose a second side. A statement of fact was made that could tangentially be taken as sarcasm.

The third sentence had me wondering who hijacked LDB's computer to claim it wasn't sarcasm - but the rest of the sentences proved nobody did - just 'inelegantly phrased', I guess.

The primary point was and is the statement. There is no argument to it. Government pretty much sucks at everything they do.


Totally disagree. There are many things the government does a credible job at, such as libraries, state and local parks, trash/garbage collection, recycling, public transportation - the list is long. And I've never been abused by a government employee - the worst I can complain about is waiting in line, and even that isn't half as bad as calling Verizon [or Panther!].

The fact that Verizon or whomever else may also suck doesn't alter the original fact, nor does it create an argument where none exists.

Too many companies cancel out the benefits of competition for the most part, by creating de facto monopolies, and numerous crafty ways of deceiving people about what they get & what it costs. The government can deceive people too [NSA, for example], but when they get caught, we can exert some leverage. As is happening now with Syria: Obama was all set to take action, until the citizens made it clear to their representatives that it isn't what they want done, and now he's backtracking, looking for a compromise. It's pretty rare for a company to do that, IMO.
Even if you believe otherwise, there are still the examples of prisons, toll roads, and 'private security' [ie: Blackwater] that indicates just how much worse a company can do than the government did.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Well, if you like losing money continuously then yes, public transportation is a good example of government doing a good job at something. The continual financial drain of public transportation aside, everything you mention is state level or lower which does nothing to refute the fact that federal government is good at nothing beyond the military and should be removed from most everything with state and local governments not too far behind.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Even if you believe otherwise, there are still the examples of prisons, toll roads, and 'private security' [ie: Blackwater] that indicates just how much worse a company can do than the government did.
When private companies don't please the customers, they go out of business, unless, of course, they're propped up by the government, either directly or by stifling competition, creating barriers to entry, much like wireless companies.
Some of your examples are flat wrong. Blackwater, forex, is a private company in name only. The masquerade allows the gummint to do things that are otherwise illegal if done by GIs.
I travel toll roads all night, and though I don't like them, they're in better condition overall and plowed & salted better in the winter.
Private prisons are messed up, but they don't have to be. The gummint would never let private prisons do what needs to be done to fix it. But then again, public prisons are screwed up the very same way.
 
Last edited:

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Whatever the cost of public transpo, it will never hope to approach the costs of individual cars, trucks, and limos - especially those that require fossil fuel. Not just because it's finite, but because protecting the supply has cost so many lives, and that's a lot worse than just blowing money, IMO.
And as for the fed vs state/local issue, much of the money spent by states and localities is disbursed to them by the federal government.

One last thing: for those who feel that union workers are surly, lazy, and incompetent: I think you should go work for WalMart - they hate unions too, and you deserve each other.
 
Top