Tech, politics, sports, and the overuse of ellipses...
Published on June 18, 2010 By dan_l In Blogging

What an asshole....

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, proposed yesterday that people seeking unemployment benefits or welfare undergo drug tests before they can receive benefits.

"Too many Americans are locked into a life of a dangerous dependency not only on drugs, but the federal assistance that serves to enable their addiction," Hatch said in announcing the proposal. "This amendment is a way to help people get off of drugs to become productive and healthy members of society, while ensuring that valuable taxpayer dollars aren't wasted."

His release does not address the costs of drug testing everyone receiving unemployment or welfare benefits or enrolling those who fail the test in treatment programs.

Naturally.

I, for one, agree. Those unemployed people are just sucking at the teat of the United States government. These Obama communist shitheads and their weed is exactly what's wrong with this country. Them and the illegals, but the illegals are brown and way easier to spot. For these insidious pinko bastards, we need to administer medical testing to determine if they're Alinsky Radicals. And I don't want to hear none of the rational shit like "BUT THESE TESTS WILL COST A FORTUNE". Yeah? Well we just socialized healthcare so it'll be dirt cheap. These unemployed people are useless to to society----look at them---all standing there in their unemployment lines with their hands out. These people expect an unemployment check as though they paid into some sort of insurance system for their entire careers or something.

Look, if you want to do something like this for chronic wellfare collectors, fine. It's not going to fix much, but if it makes you feel good go right ahead. But why fuck with the unemployed? More to the point, why liken unemployed folks to the food stamps for crack crowd in the first place? Seems to me there's a pretty clear distinction there.

Oh and I can't wait to surf through Blogistan tomorrow. I'm sure it's going to be nothing but cricket chirps from the alleged 'small government' types.


Comments
on Jun 18, 2010

"BUT THESE TESTS WILL COST A FORTUNE". Yeah? Well we just socialized healthcare so it'll be dirt cheap.

More to the point, why liken unemployed folks to the food stamps for crack crowd in the first place? Seems to me there's a pretty clear distinction there.

Agreed - I guess hatch just liked the sound bite of it.

Basic unemployment is administered by the government, but it is paid for by the employees (payroll taxes the employer pays).  I have no problem with people collecting unemployment.  It is a part of their wage when they are employed, so testing them is stupid.

I do have a problem with people on welfare that apparently have enough disposable income to be buying drugs.  If they have that much money, they do not need welfare, so testing them is just one string attached to the money they did not earn nor do they merit.

I'm sure it's going to be nothing but cricket chirps from the alleged 'small government' types.

Why?  You seem to think there is an all or nothing attitude for those who do not agree with you.  But I doubt those who do agree with you, do so (or you with them) 100% of the time.

on Jun 18, 2010

Why?  You seem to think there is an all or nothing attitude for those who do not agree with you.  But I doubt those who do agree with you, do so (or you with them) 100% of the time.

 

What exactly is there to disagree on here?

Look, if you're one supposed small government conservatives, you ought be pretty pissed off about the idea that the government should be drug testing unemployed folks. Let's be honest:  It'll cost a shitload, it's not really going to be effective at anything more than kicking people when they're already in a tough spot, and it's a gross violation of privacy.   Moreover,  if you're something resembling a human being and know anybody who's caught up without a job right now (or are unemployed yourself) you should be flat out insulted that this dick is likening your friends/family/ or you to a crack addicted wellfare recipient. 

The latter is a little advanced for what's left of the republican party.  The former should generate some pretty substantial outrage on it's own.  FWIW, I just checked a couple of the known Reagan blowers, and as predicted:  thus far it's just crickets chirping.  Nada.  Nothing.  Zip.  

 

 

 

 

 

on Jun 18, 2010

Come to think of it: 

 

Rand Paul says doesn't have to sell shit to black people

Rank and File Response:  Because Rand is so 'businessy'. 

 

Sharon Angle says 'okey dokey lets have that armed revolution now" followed by 'lets take Harry Reid out'

Rank and File Response:  Ohhhhh she didn't mean 'take him out' like "armed revolution take him out".  Anyway, it wouldn't matter even if she did say that, because JEFFERSON SAID IT FIRST, BITCHEZ!

 

Orrin Hatch: Let's screw the bajillions of unemployed Americans even they happen to enjoy a little ganja now and again. 

Rank And File Response:  ?????

 

 

on Jun 18, 2010

What exactly is there to disagree on here?

Your article said you would hear nothing but "crickets chirping" in regards to Hatch's proposal.  I am saying that just because he is a republican, does not mean a lock step agreement from conservatives who believe in small government.  I being an example of one who thinks he is barking up the wrong tree on the issue (yes, I agree with your position on this, no I do not think you will hear crickets chirping).

Moreover, if you're something resembling a human being and know anybody who's caught up without a job right now (or are unemployed yourself) you should be flat out insulted that this dick is likening your friends/family/ or you to a crack addicted wellfare recipient.

I have been unemployed twice now in my career, so I do know about the unemployed (at least the ones making an honest effort - not the ones looking to take an extended vacation).  SO yes, I think the drug testing - based more on the fact that it is not a "handout" - is stupid as I stated in the original post.

FWIW, I just checked a couple of the known Reagan blowers, and as predicted: thus far it's just crickets chirping. Nada. Nothing. Zip.

Perhaps you are talking about the "pundits", not the "little people" like myself.  In that case, you could be right.  It is politics after all.  Republicans are only marginally better than democrats.

on Jun 18, 2010

Sharon Angle says 'okey dokey lets have that armed revolution now" followed by 'lets take Harry Reid out'

She did not say that.  She said we are in danger of an armed revolution based upon congress legislating against the will of the majority.  Her "take Reid out" is a stretch for moonbats and lefty loonies as she was clearly saying to defeat him at the polls.

Rand Paul says doesn't have to sell shit to black people

So does Dr. Walter E. Williams - you know who he is?

Rank And File Response: ?????

Ok, I freely admit I have never been nor will ever be a republican.  So I guess I am not rank and file.  But you heard me peep and I am on the right, so there is static coming for Hatch, just perhaps not within his own party at the moment.

on Jun 18, 2010

Well that's really tough criteria if you need unemployment or welfare... don't be wasted when you apply.  With 5 thousand barrels of oil pumping into the gulf everyday and with it already reaching the level of 3 Exxon Valdez disasters with no end in sight and a totally clueless President with no executive experience, I doubt most folks care about Orrin Hatch.

on Jun 18, 2010

Perhaps you are talking about the "pundits", not the "little people" like myself.

Yes. 

 

 

So does Dr. Walter E. Williams - you know who he is?

Yes.  You're not seriously trying to justify the statements of one loon with the opinions of another, are you? 

 

 

on Jun 19, 2010

She did not say that. She said we are in danger of an armed revolution based upon congress legislating against the will of the majority. Her "take Reid out" is a stretch for moonbats and lefty loonies as she was clearly saying to defeat him at the polls.

 

Wait a second.  You're telling me that saying "take him out" in the same breath that she's waxing poetic about the violent over throw of the United States government doesn't even register a red flag for you?

 

on Jun 21, 2010

Yes. You're not seriously trying to justify the statements of one loon with the opinions of another, are you?

Dr. Williams is not a loon.  He is not passing a value judgment on the practice.  He is talking strictly economics, and that is how he is correct.  I do not agree with the issue (seeing some things as being necessary for the minimal functioning of a society).  But his reasoning, from a scientific standpoint, is sound.  I do not think he is advocating a return to retail discrimination, only demonstrating, from an economic standpoint, how it cannot succeed.

on Jun 21, 2010

You're telling me that saying "take him out" in the same breath that she's waxing poetic about the violent over throw of the United States government doesn't even register a red flag for you?

If it is someone who has shown a propensity for violent resolution of problems, yes it would.  As such, I see no red flag with her statements given the context and her point.  Again, clearly, a dramatic pause would probably have been more politically correct (say of a day).  But then that is why they have 30 second sound bites.  To bring together 2 un-related comments into one inflammatory commercial.  sometimes the candidate does it for you.