Drug testing the unemployed

[Harold Mansfield]

I'm sure by now you have heard Sen Orrin Hatch's proposal to drug test people receiving unemployment benefits...it's all over the news.
Basically he is saying with a straight face, that unemployed Americans are taking their unemployment checks and spending them on drugs and we can save money by testing them all and cutting off the ones that fail.

I obviously have some opinions about it, which I needed to write down or else I would have exploded and you can see where I stand here (http://blabbit.nyblogs.net/2010/06/23/is-it-possible-that-sen-orrin-hatch-the-biggest-idiot-in-washington/)
but this statement pretty much sums it up:

Are there people receiving Unemployment benefits that take drugs? I am sure that there are. But there are also Congressman and Senators in Washington that are alcoholics, aides and assistants that are hooked on prescription meds, and Government employees who smoke pot.

It’s not ALL of them. It’s not even a majority. It’s the same subsection of society that you will find across any industry or demographic. Just because people are out of work doesn’t mean that now the crack man is their best friend.

I propose that if we are to drug test people merely because they have their hand in the Government cookie jar, then we test EVERYONE.

* Defense Contractors
* Congressman and Senators and everyone in their offices that is paid by tax dollars
* Everyone with a Government service contract
* Government Suppliers.
* Doctors who bill Medicare and Medicaid.
* Research and other Grant Recipients
* College administrations who receive Government funds
* Student Loan Recipients
* and everyone in every company, organization , or administration that has received any Government Bailout or Stimulus Funds.



Just wondering if anyone sees the cost justification or has any data at all that supports this wild claim, because as of yet, he has not presented any.

Or is the old man completely out of his 1975 mind?

Something a little more than "I know a guy" or "A buddy of mine".

[vangogh]

Don't get me started on this. I think the drug policies in this country are completely out of touch with reality as is Sen Orin Hatch on most things.

Something tells me that testing will actually cost much more than the unemployment benefits that Sen Hatch would like to save. Which drugs would you test for? You'd have to test for all of them wouldn't you? What are we going to do with the false positives? What happens to all those people who now no longer have any money to pay bills? If we assume they're all taking drugs I wonder what occupation we leave them with for making money.


It’s the same subsection of society that you will find across any industry or demographic.

Completely agree.

[Harold Mansfield]

Yeah the joke about this situation is , Where do you think all of these supposed drug addicts are going to go for money if you cut them off?
Upside our heads, that's where.

It's like he's saying people are going: "Woo Hoo, I'm outa work. Where's the crack man?"

[KristineS]

I've got to agree with you, that's an insane idea. The amount of money that would have to be spent to do drug testing would far outweigh any savings. Not to mention, as Vangogh pointed out, sorting out false positives and treating a lot of people who just happened to be unlucky in their employment like criminals.

Plus, as you pointed out, people who are unemployed are worried about buying food and making the house payment. They're not cashing their unemployment checks and buying drugs. If you're that far gone, it's likely you didn't have a job in the first place.

You have to wonder on what planet some of these people are living.

[Harold Mansfield]

If you're that far gone, it's likely you didn't have a job in the first place.


I KNOW, right? He doesn't even know how the system works. You have to have had a job, in good standing, not have gotten fired or quit and have been there for a certain period of time to even qualify.

How many junkies can pull that off?

[Business Attorney]

I KNOW, right? He doesn't even know how the system works. You have to have had a job, in good standing, not have gotten fired or quit and have been there for a certain period of time to even qualify.

How many junkies can pull that off?

Maybe the ones that work for us in Washington???

[Steve B]

And don't forget talk radio hosts.

[Harold Mansfield]

And don't forget talk radio hosts.

Oooh, nice burn :)

[billbenson]

How much cash do unemployed people get? With an average household income of $52k (and thats probably 2 people working per household in most cases) how much are these people getting from the government in cash? I assume the only cash income from the government is unemployment. And these people probably have been paying into unemployment for years.

[Harold Mansfield]

How much cash do unemployed people get? With an average household income of $52k (and thats probably 2 people working per household in most cases) how much are these people getting from the government in cash? I assume the only cash income from the government is unemployment. And these people probably have been paying into unemployment for years.

It's not the same for everyone. It depends on how much you made at your last job. and how long you get it was usually dependent on how long you worked there.
I have a friend in Florida that is getting $208 a week and some friends here in NV that get $393 a week.

I hear it's more in states like New York, but I'm not sure.

Most of my friends that are still looking for work have families and a mortgage. $393 a week (before taxes) with 2 kids and a $1700 mortgage doesn't exactly leave enough for the local pot dealer...actually you'd have to be a pot dealer to make it on that.

[Patrysha]

Not to mention that the harder/more damaging/addictive drugs (meth, crack) are hard to test for cuz they leave the system quickly...so if the addict hasn't hit the "gotta have it all the time screw the world" stage, they'd test clean in just over 72 hours...so all you'd really catch with drug testing is marijuana users. Oh woo hoo...saving the world there...

[vangogh]

The maximum you can get in any state isn't all that much. A few hundred a week at most. That $393 a week sounds like it's pushing the hight end. Years ago I was on unemployment for a time in Connecticut and it maxed out at $295/week for me. I'd guess you can't get over $400/week anywhere now, though I don't know for certain.

I'm sure there are individuals who are doing exactly what Sen Hatch is saying, but I think it's silly to make policies for the exceptions. No matter what rules you put in place some people will always find a way to abuse the system.

And does anyone think it would be that hard to fool the drug testers? Are they going to strip search you and watch you pee? 5 minutes after they start testing word will get out about how to defeat the test.

[billbenson]

The maximum you can get in any state isn't all that much. A few hundred a week at most. That $393 a week sounds like it's pushing the hight end. Years ago I was on unemployment for a time in Connecticut and it maxed out at $295/week for me. I'd guess you can't get over $400/week anywhere now, though I don't know for certain.

I

So if I work for 20 years and over that time pay thousands into the unemployment fund, what business is it of theirs to say what I do with the money if I become unemployed?

[Harold Mansfield]

So if I work for 20 years and over that time pay thousands into the unemployment fund, what business is it of theirs to say what I do with the money if I become unemployed?

It only works in increments of like 18 months or so, but yes, we all have paid, or pay into the system from our very first job. A good point. It's not like we are talking about bail out funds or welfare..It's something that we earned the right to collect if needed...so how dare he try and come up with away to screw people out of it.

I agree, what does he care what people spend it on ?

[phanio]

Just shows how out of touch they all are. Why waste time on the unemployed and what they do with the money - why not work on ways of getting them back to work.

[vangogh]

It's not even 18 months usually. Unemployment generally lasts 6 months. It sometimes gets extended when the economy is worse than usual. What they do is look at your last year's worth of earnings. The eliminate the top and bottom quarter as far as what you've earned and average out what you earned a week during those other 2 quarters. Then you get half of that or the maximum allowed, whichever is lower each week.

[Harold Mansfield]

It's not even 18 months usually. Unemployment generally lasts 6 months. It sometimes gets extended when the economy is worse than usual. What they do is look at your last year's worth of earnings. The eliminate the top and bottom quarter as far as what you've earned and average out what you earned a week during those other 2 quarters. Then you get half of that or the maximum allowed, whichever is lower each week.

Actually they have extended it a lot. I have friends that have been on unemployment since Dec of 2008, and have just exhausted all of their benefits.

It was actually extended 4 times, plus the state benefits..they call them 99ers...people who have been on for 99 weeks (the max). Congress did not pass the new legislation yet to extend it again until Nov., so people started getting cut off beginning of June. Couple of my buddies are freaking out because they still don't have anything and are not getting checks anymore.

It actually goes in tiers and since the new legislation wasn't passed, even if you were approved and were in the middle of your tier, you still got cut off.

So while some people started in 2008 and just exhausted everything, others just started beginning of the year and still got cut off.

Yeah, it was hefty this time and while no one who has been on since 2008 can complain, it's still not exactly a job fair out there. I know 2 or 3 people that just sat back and could make it on $1200 a month, but anyone I know with a family wasn't able to make it..some lost their homes, cars, had to move back into apartments.,,all kinds of sob stories.

Funny thing is (not that anyone wants to hear "I told you so") I saw the writing on the wall back in June of 2008 when Countrywide went down and we all discussed that it was about to get bad and change forever...It was time to do something completely different and no one listened to me...been riding the Vegas wave for too long.

So I started doing this and now they are all scrambling, asking me to "set them up with something online" as if I'm running some kind of conglomerate or something...or that it was that easy.

[vangogh]

Right, but we're in one of those down economic times. When things are normal it's 6 months and then they extend it from there when necessary.

At least you took the smart route. That's kind of how I got started on my own too. It was after the bursting bubble in 2001. I was let go from a company that was on the way down and eventually found one more job. The market was rough, but I took some continuing ed classes in web development and programming and taught myself the rest. When the second job also let me go after IBM bought the company and didn't need our office, I set up on my own and here I am.

I feel bad for your friends who lost houses and cars. I feel bad for those who didn't too, but they were given an opportunity that they didn't take so I don't feel quite so bad for them.

[bizjunkie]

I really have to disagree (not with the drug testing, that is silly) – but with some of the logic here.

I realize that there are people in need but I also think that people should take responsibility for themselves and not just put their hands out. Let me explain:

I am living penny to penny to provide for myself and my family. I am working a job that I don’t like. A job that is well below my skill and education level. A job that is very demeaning to me and what I have accomplished in my life to date. And, I am barely making it. Yet, I now have to pay more for others who are unwilling to do what I am doing. They want to take money away from me and my family – food off our table – just so that they do not have to work.

Not only am I working a job that is below my skills and dignity – but, whatever spare time I have, I am attempting to start and run a business with no capital. But, I am again willing to put myself out there and sacrifice – take responsibility for myself and my family – try to improve my life myself and expect others to do it for me. I don’t expect the government to bail me out or for other workers to pay for me and my family. I will do whatever it takes.

This morning I looked at our local paper. There are over 250 jobs listed. Most are in the service industry and pay minimum wage – but, they are there. Why are these jobs not filled immediately? They may not be the jobs you want – but, you are asking me to suck it up and pay for you to sit at home so I am asking you to suck it up and take what you can get!

My opinion is that they are not snatched up because it is easier to collect $200 + a week and sit at home – or standing in line to buy the new iPhone (or in this case, maybe going out and getting drugs).

The real sad thing is that there are people that will use these benefits (regardless if they paid in or not) to buy drugs. They are taking money away from my family for this. While I am sure that there are not that many doing this – in my opinion (since it is my money they are using) one is just one too many. But, having them take drug tests is a silly way to stop this. Why not just create an environment that businesses will hire or that people can start and grow their own businesses?

You might not think that it is my money they are using – but, the amount of money that people paid into the system (in fact, employers pay – not employee) was calculated out for 20 weeks of benefits – when those same people go over 20 weeks (I think it is up to 99 weeks now that they get benefits) that additional money has to come from some where. Part of it comes out of state budgets and the rest come from the federal government. Yet, neither one (the states or the federal government) have the money – they are operating in deficits. Thus, they either have to borrow money, cut other benefits to other people like those on SS (who actually do pay in) or raise taxes. I think that in the end, to pay for all of this they will (both the states and the federal government) will have to do all three.

It was stated that if this new extension does not get passed, some 400,000 people will lose these weekly payouts but this extension is expected to costs some $35.5 billion dollars – that’s $88,750 per person expected to lose benefits. Moreover, with approximately 170 million taxpayers – that’s $209 dollars per taxpayer - $209 that I can’t afford - $209 taken away from my family.

My real problem with all of this is, per the New York Times – “The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has insisted that the bill not add to the deficit. Democrats argued that they had found ways to cover the entire cost of the $112 billion measure, with the exception of the $35.5 billion extension of unemployment benefits, which some Republicans said they could accept.”
If this is an unemployment bill – then why $112 billion in additional measures – why not just focus on the $35.5 billion extension. Plus, if this is about unemployment – then why is the $35.5 billion not deficit neutral – why is all the pork deficit neutral? It is because they cannot get you to agree to the additional spending for pork projects – but, they can easily convince you that our nation will collapse with we don’t extend unemployment. It comes down to the easy sell – extending unemployment is an easy sell (just like the bailouts and the stimulus bills) – they know you will vote for them blindly – thus, they don’t really have to worry about or account for those programs.
This is where I think the true disconnect is. And, it is not a republican thing or a democrat thing or even an independent thing – it is a politician thing. Politicians do not know how to manage for a bottom line. Politicians whose only vocabulary is spend, spend, spend – and not to spend for the good of all of us Americans – but to spend for a select few just to ensure that they stay in their cushy jobs with their “Golden Parachute” retirement, pension, healthcare and payment packages (not unlike the Wall Street crooks they constantly criticize).
I believe in tough love. Provide unemployment for up to 20 weeks (that is what your employer pays for). But, let people know that after 20 weeks – they are on their own - period. Give them a helping hand, to get back on their feet – not a hand out for the rest of their lives.
20 weeks is enough – regardless of the economy – to find some way, any way (like the rest of us) to provide for yourself – even if that includes working for minimum wage, in a job you don’t like and cutting back your spending, your habits and your lifestyle.
My wife and I have made so many cut backs it is un-believable. It have been over two years since we have watch a movie in a theater or when we go out to eat once a month (a treat to ourselves) we only go for the $1 menu. We skip birthdays and holidays for ourselves (we still try to take care of our kids the best we can – it is not their fault). We keep our air conditioner at 80 degrees (we live in Texas by the way) – where most have theirs at 72 degrees. Last winter – to save costs, instead of raising the heat (we keep it at 60 degrees) we made it a game to see who could wear the most clothes. We eat cheaply with items like non-name brand pasta and oatmeal. We don’t buy meat products – we can’t afford them. I don’t even take or buy a lunch at work – I would rather my kids eat. What I am trying to say is that I am willing to sacrifice and check my pride and fend for myself then stick my hand out (actually demanding that someone else fills it up). It is just not right! I hear people bitching about not being able to pay their $1,700 monthly mortgage if their unemployment runs out – that they will lose their house or stave. But, what about the rest of us that schlep out each and everyday to a job we can’t stand to barely make it – we don’t have houses that cost $1,700 per month – yet, you expect us to continue to pay for your. It is not right.

[vangogh]

I can understand where you're coming from, but I think you're bringing up some issues outside of the topic of this thread and I think you're making conclusions about people without necessarily understanding their motivation.

With the drug issue I think we can all or mostly agree that some people are taking an unemployment check and buying drugs. I think those people are the exception, not the rule, and I don't think you can ever enact policies and laws based on the exception. That only punishes the people who aren't the exception.

As far as the greater issue I don't think it's fair for you to judge what everyone based on some job listings. You have no idea how many people might have applied and been rejected for those jobs you see available. Maybe some of those jobs require working at a certain time when the person can't work due to some other obligation. Maybe some of those listings aren't even legit.

It's not always about laziness, though at times it certainly is. Taking any job that's available is not always the answer. Say unemployment will send you $300/week. Your bills (rent, utilities, food, etc) probably come out to more than $300/week. A minimum wage job might pay you $250/week. Why would you give up $50/week and all the time you could be looking for a better job or increasing your skills. It depends on your situation, but sometimes it's more logical not to take one job to help you get a better job.

I've been out of work in the past and most of those times I wasn't collecting unemployment. I spent a part of my week looking for work and another part of the week improving my skills. I could have taken any job that was out there paying minimum wage, but I didn't see how they would help me beyond the immediate situation. It would mean giving up all my time to make very little money. At times I really needed that money, but I felt taking the job would only tie me to having to work at that same low level job forever or be back in the same situation. It would never get me ahead. I'd be living from paycheck to paycheck, barely managing to pay bills.

Instead it made more sense to me to live off savings, which admittedly put me in a worse financial situation at that moment in order to use the time to make me more qualified for a better job that did get me ahead. Yes, for a few months that meant things were very hard on me. It also meant that a year down the line they weren't when they still would have been hard had I taken the minimum wage job.

It depends a lot on your situation. I didn't have any mouths to feed other than my own and I did and do know how to give up a lot of expenses in order to survive.

I just want you to understand that not everyone collecting an unemployment check instead of a paycheck is automatically doing so because they're lazy. Many people are using the time to better themselves to get off the cycle of working one low paying job after another. Some are absolutely abusing the system, but again I think it's the exception and not the rule. Don't blame everyone for the actions of a few.

I can also tell you that while you may see hundreds of jobs listed, those jobs aren't always available options. I've applied for jobs, not been hired, and still saw those jobs listed months later. How many times should you keep applying for the same job? I can also tell you their are ads listed when there really is no job. I've seen listings on Craig's List for example that I know aren't real listings. The same company has been hiring for the same job for 10 years now with the exact same listings every week. I know people in the company who have let me know the company isn't hiring.

I've even applied for and gone on interviews for jobs that didn't exist. The company was looking to fill jobs they knew would become available 6 months down the line.

A lot of listings you see in any classified section are also scams. I can't even count the number of times I called a number in a classified ad about a job only to receive a recorded message trying to sell me some scheme about how to find a job.

[bizjunkie]

I agree with a lot that you said - there are jobs that are not legit or listed but not available. That is fine. Unemployment has been extended for up to 99 weeks - you tell me in 99 weeks someone cannot find a job or improve their skills in that time. Plus, most of the people that have worked in the past - paid into a system (or their employer did) only covered 20 weeks. Thus everything beyond 20 weeks is coming out of my paycheck just so they can look around for a better position because this one or that one does not work on their schedule. I just don't buy it. I understand unemployment - help someone get back on their feet - but for 99 weeks? And they want more. They haven’t use the past 99 week or how much they received to doing anything to date – who say the next 99 weeks will be any better.

You state "Many people are using the time to better themselves to get off the cycle of working one low paying job after another." That is not the purpose of unemployment. I have never been on the system but I thought you had to be actively searching for a new job - not honing your skills? Why not use the one low paying job to build your skills and use it as a stepping stone to something better - like working up in that organization. That is what I have done. Plus, I find that it is so much easier to get a new, better job if you are already working.

I have no problem with people trying to better themselves - but when it takes food off my table - like all these extension have (for years to come) - it is not right - regardless if it is one person or many.

They get to improve their skills while collecting $300 a week yet I have to work a low paying job for $250 a week just to pay for them. That is not right. If you pay into the system - get that amount out and that is all - period. If you can't better yourself (regardless of the economy) in that time - then you should make other plans - like socking away some into your own savings. I don't care if its one person or many - they are taking away my money - to feed my family - so that they can wait for a better job than I have to come along.

I guess I am just a different person - someone who does not think that the rest of world owes me a living or owes me the ability to wait until the perfect job comes along. I don't demand entitlement nor expect someone else to pay my way. I will do anything that I can to fend for myself - including moving my family to where the jobs are or working two or more minimum wage jobs and using any and all spare time I have to improve myself or find something better – I don’t need a system or other people to pay so that I have a full day or a full week to search the classified. Fending for myself and my family is my responsibility as a human being and a member of this society - it is not your responsibility to take care of me or my family and it definitely is not the government's jobs.

If I was taking out of the system more than I put in - I would not be able to live with myself - knowing that my actions (honorable or not) could essentially be forcing someone else (those who have to pay as someone has to pay - money does not grow on trees) to either not pay their mortgage or rent or not be able to feed themselves or their children.

It is easy to tell someone else how to run their own lives and that everyone else should pay for it - until you are the one that is doing what is right and getting screwed for it!

[vangogh]

You make some good points as well. I hope we can agree that this is one of those issues with no clear and cut answers or easy solutions.


you tell me in 99 weeks someone cannot find a job or improve their skills in that time.

In normal times I completely agree. Unemployment is set at 26 weeks during normal times. It gets extended at times when the economy is particularly poor. I don't think it's unreasonable that some people haven't been able to find jobs in 99 weeks given the economy the last couple of years. Admittedly some of them may not be looking, but I would think those not looking make up the minority.


Thus everything beyond 20 weeks is coming out of my paycheck

Again under normal conditions unemployment lasts 26 weeks at maximum. I would think most people aren't even on the system the full 26 weeks and other than economic times like we have now, the majority find work in less than 20 weeks.

Also consider that while I may collect unemployment for 26 weeks I might also have been contributing into the system for much longer. If I work 20 years and then collect unemployment for 6 months I probably paid more into the system then I'm taking out. Let's say I only did contribute the 20 weeks. Those other 6 weeks aren't being paid specifically by you. It would be paid by everyone working. If 10% are unemployed then 90% are employed. Unemployment taxes are a % of your income so if you're working a minimum wage job you aren't having to pay much at all.

I'm sorry, but this isn't taking food off your table the way you believe. You could make the same argument for every program you pay taxes for that you personally don't like. We all contribute and we all derive benefits from some programs and not from others.

You have kids I don't. So I'm paying school taxes to help your kids while it takes food off my table. Why should I have to pay for your kids to go to school? I really don't mind paying school taxes, just using it as an example.


I have never been on the system but I thought you had to be actively searching for a new job - not honing your skills?

Why can't you do both. I wasn't trying to imply that people who were improving their skills weren't also looking for jobs. I know when it was me I did both. Job seeking doesn't have to take up 40 hours a week. It could. There's no limit to the amount of hours you could look of course, but beyond a certain point there's diminishing returns. What if someone spent 20 hours job seeking and 20 hours building skills. I'd even argue that building skills is part of job searching. In the past I've looked and didn't see jobs that matched my given skillset. So I looked to improve my skillset in areas where people were looking to hire. Isn't that doing something to help myself get a job. If you've spent 20 years working in the autoplant and the autoplant closes and other autoplants aren't hiring you probably need to acquire new skills to get a decent job.


They get to improve their skills while collecting $300 a week yet I have to work a low paying job for $250 a week just to pay for them.

You could have done the same thing. You chose the job. I'm not saying that's a bad choice, but saying you have to do something while someone else gets to do something else isn't fair. You both made choices. Neither choice is necessarily better or worse, but both were choices. You're also assuming the person collecting the unemployment check isn't looking for work. Maybe they just haven't been able to get hired.


If I was taking out of the system more than I put in - I would not be able to live with myself

Why is it that someone on unemployment takes more out of the system than they put in. Maybe for those months on unemployment that's true, but you have to look at the lifetime of the person. Again if I work for 20 years and then need unemployment for 6 months, please don't tell me I'm taking more out of the system than I put in.

One more point about trying to improve your skillset. Minimum wage jobs have an extremely high turnover rate. The cycle is you work for awhile and then find yourself without a job. It's nearly impossible to save money in a minimum wage job so during those non-working cycles you probably need more help. If you take one of those times when you aren't employed and while still job searching using some of the time to improve your skills and get a better job you're no longer on that same cycle. Instead of being out of work every year or two you can keep the same job for longer. In essence you might have collected unemployment for a few months in order not to have to for the rest of your life.

[Dan Furman]

I don't demand entitlement nor expect someone else to pay my way.

But you do. We all do. Workers and the unemployed both.

Because the taxes you pay, on a dollar for dollar basis, do not come close to actually fully paying for the services you use.

I don't have kids - why should I have to chip in even one penny for other people's kids to attend school? Why do my property taxes pay for the high school football team? Why can't the parents of the team - and those people only - foot the entire bill? Or the choir, for that matter? Hey, I have an idea - maybe since freeloading parents are definitely expecting others to help pay for their kids, we should drug test all parents?

Here's another thing: I'm a big, strong guy w/ a gun permit - I'd like some of my police money back. I don't need need them as much as some other people do. Let the people who use them the most pay for them.

Obviously, I am kidding on the above. The fact is, we don't get to pick and choose where our tax money goes, and we all pay for each other. From school to unemployment insurance, etc.

If the unemployed guy down the street wants to smoke a joint, I truly couldn't care less. In fact, I hope he shares.

[Dan Furman]

You have kids I don't. So I'm paying school taxes to help your kids while it takes food off my table. Why should I have to pay for your kids to go to school? I really don't mind paying school taxes, just using it as an example.

I guess I should have read the whole thread before posting :)

[vangogh]

Great minds think alike :)

[billbenson]

Well, taxes are really a socialized concept. So is insurance. We all throw money into a pool so those that need it can have some when they really need it.

Why should anybody that pays in, be excluded.

If I had a job and was fired in this economy, my first stop would be the liquor store.

[Patrysha]

That's what the boys next door did when the layoff hit their company last summer. It wasn't actually the guys who lived there but 18 of their co-workers...everyone...those who kept their jobs and those who didn't hit the liquor stores and congregated in the yard next door...but that wasn't EI money that was spent that night.

[Dan Furman]

Well, taxes are really a socialized concept. So is insurance. We all throw money into a pool so those that need it can have some when they really need it.

Why should anybody that pays in, be excluded.

If I had a job and was fired in this economy, my first stop would be the liquor store.

Hell, that's a regular stop whether I have a job or not :)

[Dan Furman]

Great minds think alike :)

indeed they do!

[Harold Mansfield]

As far as the greater issue I don't think it's fair for you to judge what everyone based on some job listings. You have no idea how many people might have applied and been rejected for those jobs you see available. Maybe some of those jobs require working at a certain time when the person can't work due to some other obligation. Maybe some of those listings aren't even legit.

It's not always about laziness, though at times it certainly is. Taking any job that's available is not always the answer. Say unemployment will send you $300/week. Your bills (rent, utilities, food, etc) probably come out to more than $300/week. A minimum wage job might pay you $250/week. Why would you give up $50/week and all the time you could be looking for a better job or increasing your skills. It depends on your situation, but sometimes it's more logical not to take one job to help you get a better job.


This is an issue that I hear from my friends that are looking all of the time. Sure there are ads in the paper for $8hr, but unemployment is $10r. Not only is it less money, but now you are locked into 40hrs a week where you cannot look for another job.

Not to mention, I have seen and heard a lot of scams. Pretty much all of the "work from home" ads are scams. There may seem to be a lot of listings in the paper, but when you get right down to them, many are not feasible or are continuous ads that run for places with a high turn over rate.

I agree with a lot that you said - there are jobs that are not legit or listed but not available. That is fine. Unemployment has been extended for up to 99 weeks - you tell me in 99 weeks someone cannot find a job or improve their skills in that time. Plus, most of the people that have worked in the past - paid into a system (or their employer did) only covered 20 weeks. Thus everything beyond 20 weeks is coming out of my paycheck just so they can look around for a better position because this one or that one does not work on their schedule. I just don't buy it. I understand unemployment - help someone get back on their feet - but for 99 weeks? And they want more. They haven’t use the past 99 week or how much they received to doing anything to date – who say the next 99 weeks will be any better.

The reality is that unemployment is getting better, but it's till pretty high in some places. (http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm). Who can find what job largely depends on where you are. I'm sure in a larger city your chances are better than in a smaller town, but I can look at places like Flint, MI or Youngstown OH and look at the limited options and have to wonder where are those people going to find work ?
As far as paying into the system that only covers 20 weeks...I have been working since I was 16 and I'm now 40. So how many weeks of unemployment have I paid for and never used? 480. 99 weeks is a mere drop in the bucket in comparison of a 24 year tax paying work history

It's coming out of your paycheck anyway whether everyone gets it on no one gets it. Even if Congress doesn't pass an extension, it still won't stop the part of the taxes that come out of your paycheck.

The same "logic" that people apply to "why should I pay for someone else to sit on their ass and do nothing" is the same logic that people receiving benefits have but in reverse.
For years they have been paying into a system that they have never benefited from personally, how dare anyone say anything to them now that they actually need it.

The truth is, that most programs are built that way, you are paying now, for people that need it and when you need yours, say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or whatever, it's the people that will be working at that time, that will be paying for yours.

With every system there are going to be people that know how to exploit it...take the mortgage industry that got us here in the first place.

But I agree, whenever I hear the argument against social programs, people are usually arguing the worst case scenario, not the more common reality.
As I pointed out in my article /rant they usually start with "I know a guy", "A friend on mine" or "What about that guy...?"

People always want to argue against the programs that they aren't using and don't want anyone to else to get them, but seem to embrace the ones that they take advantage of.
If you used home buyer tax credit, cash for clunkers, dependent benefits and breaks, and all of the other benefits and programs that most Americans take advantage of, those are all great programs that are paid for by tax dollars and I never see anyone complaining about them, but the programs that they don't personally use are all of a sudden a waste of money and are only being taken advantage of by a bunch of lazy people.

I could make the same argument, "Why should my tax dollars be used for someone else to buy a home or new car?" I didn't get that break when I purchased my last car. You can't pick and choose to only want the ones that benefit you and screw everyone else. It's the balance of programs that cover all Americans that make this whole thing work and they are spread evenly across all demographics.

Sure, 10 mill Americans my be getting unemployment, but 100 million Americans are getting a Home Owners tax credit, or 20 million Americans got a few thousand off of a new car purchase...same tax dollars. Who needs it more, people who are out of work barely paying the rent, or people that already own homes?

Bottom line. the picture of unemployed people leans more towards middle America families trying to stay afloat than it does a couple of homeboys sitting around smoking weed and drinking 40's.

And even so,are the homeboys any less entitled to benefits? They had money taken out of their check just like everyone else who works in America.


Why should anybody that pays in, be excluded.
If I had a job and was fired in this economy, my first stop would be the liquor store.
It's tradition isn't it?


I would understand the logic if we were talking about welfare or some other straight hand out, but unemployment is not a hand out. It's an insurance program that we all pay into, that very few of us ever actually collect on...so I don't see how it's anyone's business what people use the money for.

I'd say the number of college students receiving Government assistance through Pell Grants and Gov backed student loans that are sitting around drinking, using drugs, skipping class, and eventually flunking out and wasting that money is far grater than the number of people receiving unemployment benefits that are doing the same thing...and no one ever argues against that social program.

When companies like AIG, GM and Fanny Mae, came looking for a straight hand out of tax payer dollars, I didn't see anyone suggesting they they take a drug test first. And they continued paying salaries that were far higher than unemployment benefits and bonuses as usual...now you want to turn on the American people and try to scam a way not to pay them their measly stipend?

It's a clear cut Government stab in the back. We accepted shoveling billions to Wall Street, now they want come up with a way to not help the average citizen who needs it, and humiliate people like dogs begging for scraps.
It's not fair.

[vangogh]

Pretty much all of the "work from home" ads are scams.

True. Also when dealing with online classifieds seo comes into play. It used to be that a link from Craig's List was weighed pretty heavily. I don't know if that's true anymore, but there was a time where people filled up Craig's List with useless ads just for the link back to their site. I suspect that still happens and also happens at other online classifieds.


'm sure in a larger city your chances are better than in a smaller town

Also true, though you also have to consider which industries were most affected by the economy. For example this time out the automakers were having trouble. Detroit and Michigan probably have more unemployment than other areas. huggy mentions a lot how he doesn't see things picking up in his area yet. He's not in Detroit, but probably near enough for it to affect him in Wisconsin.

Back in 2000/2001 when the bubble was bursting on the .com area tech heavy areas were hit especially hard. Here in Boulder a big part of the economy is tech. It took us about a year longer than much of the country to recover. This time around I don't think it's been as bad.

[KristineS]

What it all comes down to is that all of us are probably paying for something that we'll most likely never use. Like the others on this thread who don't have kids, I'm paying taxes on schools for which I will never personally have a need. Now I can be grumpy about that, or I can look at it as an investment in the future. I've paid in far more unemployment than I could ever take out, but someone is getting use out of it, and they most likely need it. There are always going to be people who will game the system, but most people are just trying to make it through the day, and having that safety net is helping them.

I guess it's all in how you look at it. My view is that I'm fortunate to have a secure job right now and if I can help people that don't have that luxury it's a good thing. What goes around comes around, and someday I may need the help. Besides, the only one I can control is myself. Why waste time worrying about what other people are or aren't doing?

[Harold Mansfield]

What it all comes down to is that all of us are probably paying for something that we'll most likely never use. Like the others on this thread who don't have kids, I'm paying taxes on schools for which I will never personally have a need. Now I can be grumpy about that, or I can look at it as an investment in the future.

Yeah really. Who wants a bunch of bored, dumb kids running around?
I'll gladly pay to keep them off of the street.

[nealrm]

Because the taxes you pay, on a dollar for dollar basis, do not come close to actually fully paying for the services you use.
That is true only for the short term. As with all forms of debt, the full amount will come due with interest.

One thing I due find intesting, many of the unemployed will be required to take a drug test as a condition of employment. All non-elected federal or state governement positions have drug testing policies, as do goverenment contactors and almost all large companies. So isn't in the pulic benifit to get drug users off drugs so they will be eligible for employment?? Unfortunatly, I don't think that is the point of the bill. But it is an interesting concept.

[Harold Mansfield]

That is true only for the short term. As with all forms of debt, the full amount will come due with interest.

One thing I due find intesting, many of the unemployed will be required to take a drug test as a condition of employment. All non-elected federal or state governement positions have drug testing policies, as do goverenment contactors and almost all large companies. So isn't in the pulic benifit to get them off drugs so they will be eligible for employment?? Unfortunatly, I don't think that is the point of the bill. But it is an interesting concept.

You, just like Hatch, would be assuming that just because people are out of work that they are on drugs. You are also assuming that everyone isgoing to be working for some Government job.
Drug testing is not a condition of employment for everyone and being that there is nothing else proposed that includes any treatment or rehabilitation, leads me to believe that this has nothing to do with actually wanting to help people.

They weren't on drugs before, why would unemployment all of a sudden turn normal hard working people into crack heads?

There is no documentation to back the claim. No statistics. No polls, Surveys. Nothing.

This has nothing to do with public benefit. It's a cheap, sleazy ploy, singling out citizens because of some deep seeded prejudice and paranoia.
I don't think that anyone who envisions this, is imagining a young pretty white widow of a war veteran trying to raise 2 kids on her own who has lost her job, Or, an Investment Banker who was downsized after the mortgage crash...standing in line in the hot sun waiting to pee in a cup.

They (Hatch) would never ask those people to pee in a cup for benefits. That's his constituency. But that is also the face of unemployment.

[nealrm]

You, just like Hatch, are assuming that just because people are out of work that they are on drugs.
They weren't on drugs before, why would unemployment all of a sudden turn normal hard working people into crack heads?

That was not what I intended to imply nor do I think I did. However, I edited my orginal post to make my thoughts clearer.


I don't think that anyone who envisions this, is imagining a young pretty white widow of a war veteran trying to raise 2 kids on her own who has lost her job, Or, an Investment Banker who was downsized after the mortgage crash...standing in line in the hot sun waiting to pee in a cup.

Why not, they would have very likely been subject to random drug testing at their former positions and at any postion for which they apply. IF they are addicted to drugs, it would be best if they were treated for their addition now instead of when they apply for employment. As for standing in line in the hot sun, don't be so dramatic. The tests are done in medical offices. You sit in chairs in the AC. It takes about 30 minutes.

Just so that you know, the last company I worked at had EVERYONE being subjected to random drug test. That included everyone from the company president down. (I know as a fact that a senior VP was tested and so were several of his priers, and almost all the engineers)

[Harold Mansfield]

Why not, they would have very likely been subject to random drug testing at their former positions and at any postion for which they apply. IF they are addicted to drugs, it would be best if they were treated for their addition now instead of when they apply for employment.
This is all missing the point. IT would cost more to test everyone than it;s worth.
Second, the Gov is not in the drug testing business. Singling out people just because they lost their jobs is humiliating, unfair and without any rhyme of reason.
If we are going to use this as a determiner to who gets Government funds then we need to test everyone:

* Defense Contractors
* Congressman and Senators and everyone in their offices that is paid by tax dollars
* Everyone with a Government service contract
* Government Suppliers.
* Doctors who bill Medicare and Medicaid.
* Research and other Grant Recipients
* College administrations who receive Government funds
* Student Loan Recipients
* and everyone in every company, organization , or administration that has received any Government Bailout or Stimulus Funds.

I still haven't heard why we should single out people just because they are out of work?




As for standing in line in the hot sun, don't be so dramatic. The tests are done in medical offices. You sit in chairs in the AC. It takes about 30 minutes.


Sure, when there are a few people waiting for their test, but how would that work when there are thousands (in many cities hundreds of thousands) that need to test every week?

Have you ever taken a drug test at a clinic that could accommodate 30- 80 thousand people a week? or more?

[nealrm]

Drug testing does not have everyone show up at one time to be tested. They use a random method of selecting who gets tested. So only a small fraction gets tested each week.

Also, on your examples of who would need to be tested. There are some things you are missing.

* Defense Contractors - are subject to random drug tests
* Congressman and Senators and everyone in their offices that is paid by tax dollars - Most non-elected government employees are subject to random drup test.
* Everyone with a Government service contract - subject to random drug tests.
* Government Suppliers. - subject to random drug tests
* Doctors who bill Medicare and Medicaid. - Depending on the company, may or may not be subjected to testing.
* Research and other Grant Recipients - Depending on the company, may or may not be subjected testing. However, based my experience in the 90's most require testing.
* College administrations who receive Government funds - most colleges have drug testing policies.
* Student Loan Recipients - Not tested.
* and everyone in every company, organization , or administration that has received any Government Bailout or Stimulus Funds. - All the large companies have drug testing policies and I suspect that many of the smaller one do also.


Sure, when there are a few people waiting for their test, but how would that work when there are thousands (in many cities hundreds of thousands) that need to test every week?

There were clinics in place that could handle all the testing that was required of the private sector when they were testing thier employee. So those same clinics could handle this load.

[Harold Mansfield]

Still missing the point. It's a ridiculous idea.

By the way, Colleges do not drug test students, and for everyone else, I'm not talking about whatever their company does, if they do anything.. I mean mandated, like Hatch is suggesting here with people who have lost their jobs. I know plenty companies that give drug tests and broadcast them in plenty of time for any one to pass.

If you really think a Nationwide Gov drug test is going to be as calm and organized as sitting in an air conditioned clinic on a Tue afternoon reading old magazines and listening to muzak....you haven't spent much time around our Government.

If we even begin to entertain this idea, we are heading down a path that is going to cause some serious unrest and open the flood gates for all kinds of lawsuits.
Where does it stop? Will you have to take a drug test to qualify for your homeowners tax break? For your kids education loan? For your social security? Your Veterans benefits?

What else will they institute if you let this old man get away with this? Credit checks? Criminal Background checks?
Will you really be OK with the Government coming up with any new rule they want to when it comes time for you to get yours...what ever it is?

Not to mention the cost is not even close to justified just because some old 80 year senator thinks Unemployment operates like welfare in the 1970's?
He has provided no proof of anything. He is just accusing and assuming.

It's not about the test...it's about the invasion and assuming that they have the right to make that invasion on the people. We don't work for them, they work for us.
How dare any of them sit in that seat that we gave them with votes, and pay for with taxes, an turn around and start wagging the judgmental finger back at us and suggesting actual policy that rivals McCarthyism.

The whole thing is out of whack. Hatch is out of whack.

[nealrm]

Let see - To get unemployment benifits you are required to check in every week and state you have contacted x number of employeers. At any time they can ask for a list of contact and verify your search. Plus you have to show up at the unemployeement office and check in once a month. Neither of these checks are setup on the premise that everyone on umemployment isn't working hard to find a job. They are setup to catch those that are abusing the system. The same goes for drug testing.

As for mandating drug testing - that IS mandated for all defense contactors and those doing governement research.

[Harold Mansfield]

Let see - To get unemployment benifits you are required to check in every week and state you have contacted x number of employeers. At any time they can ask for a list of contact and verify your search. Plus you have to show up at the unemployeement office and check in once a month. Neither of these checks are setup on the premise that everyone on umemployment isn't working hard to find a job. They are setup to catch those that are abusing the system. The same goes for drug testing.

As for mandating drug testing - that IS mandated for all defense contactors and those doing governement research.

First of all, none of that is true. It used to be, but most states are not staffed enough, nor have the budget to run it like that anymore.
You file online or by phone, and get paid via ATM card. You NEVER have to go into an office.
Here in NV, they don't even have offices anymore, and it's been like that since I filed in 2003.

There is no abuse of the system. I paid into it. I need to collect. It only lasts so long...if I want to use that time sitting on my ass, I'm the one that has to deal with those consequences when it runs out.

Abusing implies that they Gov is giving me something. They aren't giving me anything. They are giving it back.

We aren't talking about welfare here.
You seem to be arguing from the same viewpoint that most people don't need it and are taking advantage of something that they have no right to.
Are all of your unemployed friends lazy and sitting on the couch?

[nealrm]

First of all, none of that is true. It used to be, but most states are not staffed enough, nor have the budget to run it like that anymore.
You file online or by phone, and get paid via ATM card. You NEVER have to go into an office.
Here in NV, they don't even have offices anymore, and it's been like that since I filed in 2003.
The above is complete true here and per the NV unemployment site the weekly checks also apply.


There is no abuse of the system. I paid into it. I need to collect. It only lasts so long...

If this was true, you would have an account with a balance to draw from. When it ran out, that would be the end. Congress could not extend the benefits. The simple fact is that we are taxed to support the unemployment system. Most that apply will justly need the benefits, a few will abuse them. Systems must be in place so that those abusing the system will not take resources that should go to those that rightly need them. To do otherwise means that you reward the abusers and penalize the just.

[Harold Mansfield]

The above is complete true here and per the NV unemployment site the weekly checks also apply.


If this was true, you would have an account with a balance to draw from. When it ran out, that would be the end. Congress could not extend the benefits. The simple fact is that we are taxed to support the unemployment system. Most that apply will justly need the benefits, a few will abuse them. Systems must be in place so that those abusing the system will not take resources that should go to those that rightly need them. To do otherwise means that you reward the abusers and penalize the just.

Dude, I am telling you the weekly checks are you filing by phone or website and answering a few questions. Yes, Or No.

When the extensions are passed, your account is reloaded with what ever you qualify for, if anything and you continue to file via phone or online.

There is no office to go to. the only time that you talk to a real person is when you first open a claim, or if you have any problems.
It is all completely automated.

Those that rightly need them are people who have benefits coming based on how long they have worked and paid into the system. You can't double dip, once you get a job your wages are reported instantly and penalties apply, including criminal if you continue to file while working.

There is no rule in place that says you must use this money for your Gas, Power and Mortgage...sure that may be the intent, but it's not the law.

[nealrm]

I beleive you. It just appears that the system is slightly different here. MO requires a monthly visit to an office, NV apparantly does not. MO also does the weekly check in online with a general yes/no response. You are required to enter the number of employeers you contacted, if you did any self employment work and if so how much was made. You are also required to state you could work the entire week. Adjustments to your payment are made based on your response.

[Dan Furman]

That is true only for the short term. As with all forms of debt, the full amount will come due with interest.

I doubt that very highly. I don't think my lifetime of taxes would fully pay for even a small part of the bridge I drove over his past week. Maybe one concrete footing - maybe. So I paid for part of it... but I definitely use more than I pay.

That's what I meant by all of us collectively being on the dole. We all help pay for each other. So in terms of "they're getting my tax dollars", I really have no more cause to demand UI receivers be tested than I do everyone using my little part of that bridge.



One thing I due find intesting, many of the unemployed will be required to take a drug test as a condition of employment. All non-elected federal or state governement positions have drug testing policies, as do goverenment contactors and almost all large companies. So isn't in the pulic benifit to get drug users off drugs so they will be eligible for employment?? Unfortunatly, I don't think that is the point of the bill. But it is an interesting concept.

It is interesting in that regard. But I agree, that's not the point of it.

[billbenson]

Well lets talk about drugs dudes:

Most illegal drugs including alcohol if abused significantly impact your performance at work. They can be highly adictive, give you hangovers, people don't eat right so they don't get nutrition and look like ****. Pot would be the one exception. But there, even the heavy pot smokers in college that I'm still in touch with have quit.

I know a guy who was a heavy crack and meth user. Lost his job. He says he quit I bet he still falls off the wagon here and there. Becausse of his drug habit he does side jobs that are paid under the table. He's not paying into or taking money out of the system.

I know another guy that is addicted to pain killers. He has a prescription for them but buys more on the street. No testing will work on this guy because he is allowed to have the drugs.

I'm sure that there are people who take drugs with regular jobs paying taxes etc. I bet not many though. I have not seen a job that doesn't at least say they do random drug testing.

I read an article a while back that said that alcohol consumption actually decreased because of the economy. Alcohol is probably the most abused drug, but unemployed people can't afford it.

I really doubt that very many people get fired and become drug adicts unless they were adicts before.

The bottom line: I really doubt the testing will catch very many people. People that have been paying into the system for years are very unlikely to be drug users in unemployment.

I bet the cost of the testing is at least 20 times the revenue saved in unemployment checks. I pay to much in taxes right now because of stupid laws. I have no desire to pay more.

[Spider]

Let me see if I got this right -- If you are a drug abuser, you cannot collect unemployment insurance benefits. Does that mean, if you are a drug abuser, you don't have to pay unemployment insurance premiums?

'Cos it seems to me, if you pay the premiums you can collect the benefits - or they have to repay you the premiums!

[Dan Furman]

I don't know drug testing stats, but I would guess that when we say "drug testing", we're talking about testing for pot more than anything. Because that's (as far as I know) the only drug that stays in your system for any real length of time. You could snort line after line friday night and test clean Monday. But smoke a joint last Saturday.... you might flunk a week later.

Which is really somewhat silly.

[billbenson]

WHAT DO THEY TEST FOR?
The first thing to know about drug testing is what the standard test looks for. What is being tested for varies greatly based on testing company, expense, expectations, federal requirements, etc. Following is a description of what to expect from the standard tests.

The SAMHSA-5 #
Federal government guidelines (by SAMHSA-the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) require that companies which use commercial class drivers licenses for employees must have a testing system in place. Among other things, this required testing program must test for 5 specific categories of drugs (referred to as the "SAMHSA 5", previously called the "NIDA-5"). Because of this federal requirement, most drug testing companies offer a basic drug test that checks for drugs in these 5 common categories. Click on the substance name for a description of the laboratory method for detecting the substance.

1. Cannabinoids (marijuana, hash)
2. Cocaine (cocaine, crack, benzoylecognine)
3. Amphetamines (amphetamines, methamphetamines, speed)
4. Opiates (heroin, opium, codeine, morphine)
5. Phencyclidine (PCP)
The above is a piss test that costs about $45 to $100 from what I could find. Other drugs require a more expensive type of test. I bet most businesses do the above.

Seems like the only one that stays in your system (up to 30 days) is pot. The others above will show a negative after 1 to 5 days depending on the drug. Particularly for the casual user. Crack for the casual user will stay in your system for about a day.

[Steve B]

I don't think there are too many casual crack users. It's kind of the nature of the drug/delivery system.

I was an HR guy and ran random drug testing for 3 different companies over 15 years. We caught people on all kinds of drugs. I'm sure we didn't catch a lot of casual users if they had enough self control to only do it at the beginning of three day weekends - but I wouldn't know how many were in that category. I would just tell you that pot was probably not the category that nailed the most people. I think it was cocaine.

I worked in the chemical industry and we tested everyone from the top down. I've pulled the plant manager out of meetings to get tested. It was very fair.

All that is just an FYI - the concept of testing the unemployed is crazy for so many reasons (all stated above).

I'll also add some anectdotes from recent experience. In the last few months I've been trying to hire someone for my businesses. I've had 3 different people that would only work "under the table" because they were still collecting unemployment and didn't want to mess it up. This really doesn't support one argument over another because I only had a part-time / low wage job and it could easily be argued that they needed their time to find better employment more suited to their skills (although in one case I know the person is really not trying to find work and will retire as soon as the unemployment runs out).

Dan, I like your bridge analogy. I wonder with all the taxes I've paid over my entire life just how many hours of a fully equipped military person I've paid for to go to a foreign land and protect me. It feels like I might owe some more.

[Harold Mansfield]

Let me see if I got this right -- If you are a drug abuser, you cannot collect unemployment insurance benefits. Does that mean, if you are a drug abuser, you don't have to pay unemployment insurance premiums?

'Cos it seems to me, if you pay the premiums you can collect the benefits - or they have to repay you the premiums!

Amen to that.
If they can use that for a reason not to pay people who have paid in and qualify, they can use anything..all of it just as unjust and unfair.

[vangogh]

Let's see. If we extrapolate a bit and suggest anyone who's every smoked marijuana doesn't pay taxes since people like Orin Hatch don't think they should get benefits…

Hey, no taxes for the majority. Now everyone can afford to buy more dope.

[nealrm]

Sorry this is a little off topic, but I had to reply.


Originally Posted by nealrm
That is true only for the short term. As with all forms of debt, the full amount will come due with interest.

I doubt that very highly. I don't think my lifetime of taxes would fully pay for even a small part of the bridge I drove over his past week. Maybe one concrete footing - maybe. So I paid for part of it... but I definitely use more than I pay.

I have to say that comments like this make me really scared for the financial future of this country. The amount that the governement pays out must match what the public pays in taxes. So while your personnel taxes may not pay for the bridge, they should cover your portion of the bridge. Any debts that we don't cover get passed onto our children with interest.

[Harold Mansfield]

Let's see. If we extrapolate a bit and suggest anyone who's every smoked marijuana doesn't pay taxes since people like Orin Hatch don't think they should get benefits…

Hey, no taxes for the majority. Now everyone can afford to buy more dope.
Hooray Orin!


Sorry this is a little off topic, but I had to reply.


I have to say that comments like this make me really scared for the financial future of this country. The amount that the governement pays out must match what the public pays in taxes. So while your personnel taxes may not pay for the bridge, they should cover your portion of the bridge. Any debts that we don't cover get passed onto our children with interest.

Yep that's pretty much the tab we've been running since the 60's. Had it balanced once, but it was short lived. Back on credit again.

[Spider]

Yeah - it's about time this thread changed topic!
...I have to say that comments like this make me really scared for the financial future of this country. The amount that the governement pays out must match what the public pays in taxes. So while your personnel taxes may not pay for the bridge, they should cover your portion of the bridge. Any debts that we don't cover get passed onto our children with interest.So, what's the problem? They can pass it on to their children, and they to their children, ad infinitum. The whole point of using debt is that costs are paid with cheaper dollars. And that works for government just as it works for personal debt.

Of course, the debt has to be kept under control, and most governments (and people) manage to do that. It's only when the debt service payments take a disproportionate amount of current expenditure that problems arise.

There's another important thing that people easily forget about the debt service payments. The government doesn't borrow from a bank, as you and I might - the government borrows from the people in the form of selling Govt. bonds, Treasury bills and the like. True, much of that is purchased by foreign governments - which seems to upset a lot of people - but a great deal of the debt is purchased by the American people and the interest they receive serve as retirement income, and such.

[Dan Furman]

Any debts that we don't cover get passed onto our children with interest.

Doesn't bug me much at all. I don't have kids. :)

[nealrm]

But it may bother you when you are 80 and it takes half your savings to buy a lunch.

[billbenson]

I kinda think retirement may become a thing of the past. Hell, Orrin Hatch is 80 and working. Senile perhaps, but still working.

[Harold Mansfield]

I kinda think retirement may become a thing of the past. Hell, Orrin Hatch is 80 and working. Senile perhaps, but still working.
Yeah but he doesn't continue to run for office for the money. He is obviously a millionaire at this point:
Orrin G Hatch (R-Utah), 2008 | OpenSecrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00009869&year=2008)

Or maybe he does. I'm sure Senators get financial opportunities that the rest of us will never see or know about...especial ones that have been in Washington over 30 years.

[Blessed]

between a couple of annual big projects, my garden, a wedding, a funeral and the craziness of having two kids - I'm late to the party here. Great discussion.

A couple interesting (and basically unrelated :D )points - from personal experience.
Last year Hubby was laid off effective 1/1/09 - there was a dispute over hours worked and final compensation with the previous employer so we filed for unemployment benefits immediately and started receiving them a couple weeks later - he collected unemployment for 8 weeks total. A couple of weeks after he started his new job he and the previous employer reached a settlement (we had to get a lawyer - it was yucky) and he received his severance package. Fast forward 18 months - this month we get a letter from the unemployment office and have to pay back some of the collected unemployment because the severance package counted as wages paid in the first couple of weeks of January Hubby was out of work - when we received unemployment benefits because he hadn't received his severance package yet. I've argued with the Unemployment people, but we still have to pay it back.

Fact #2 - a good friend of ours who worked as a supervisor in the printing industry lost his job about 3 months before hubby - he was out of work until May of this year, and he was looking hard. He did pick up some minimum wage jobs around the holiday season but those ended when the holidays ended. He applied for several low wage jobs that he wasn't offered because he was "over-qualified." Unemployment benefits, along with his stay-at-home-mom wife with no real recent "work experience" working whatever she could find, kept them from loosing their house and going hungry.

And #3 - I think most companies do pre-employment drug tests and then random drug tests these days. At Hubby's current job they just let 4 people go after they flunked drug tests. One of the guys is from Iran or some other Middle Eastern country where pot is legal and had just returned from visiting his dying father over there. While there he smoked some weed, when he got to work and was sent for the drug test he told the HR people what had gone on and they said "oh well - you know we do random drug tests" and fired him - even though he was one of the top producers on his shift. However... they also told him that if he had come in and told them immediately that he had smoked weed while he was out of the country, before his name was pulled for a random drug test, that it would have been noted in his file, he would have had to attend some sort of drug abuse education/rehab class(es) and he could have kept his job.

finally - Retirement? What's that? Everyone I know who has "retired" is still working somewhere, doing something to supplement their retirement income.

[vangogh]

#3 is ridiculous. It's not like the guy did anything illegal and he fully opened up about it. Ridiculous policy by the company. Quite honestly I think random drug testing by your company is wrong. You should be fired because of your job performance, not what you do in your spare time. If you come to work stoned sure you deserve to be fired. If you smoke a joint over the weekend you don't

This country really needs to rethink it's policy on marijuana. It's on par with alcohol and most people that have tried both will tell you alcohol affects them in more adverse ways.

[Blessed]

#3 is ridiculous. It's not like the guy did anything illegal and he fully opened up about it. Ridiculous policy by the company. Quite honestly I think random drug testing by your company is wrong. You should be fired because of your job performance, not what you do in your spare time. If you come to work stoned sure you deserve to be fired. If you smoke a joint over the weekend you don't

This country really needs to rethink it's policy on marijuana. It's on par with alcohol and most people that have tried both will tell you alcohol affects them in more adverse ways.

Exactly.

Just think of the additional sales tax revenue and the new jobs that would be created by a new industry if we legalized marijuana use

[billbenson]

#3 is ridiculous. It's not like the guy did anything illegal and he fully opened up about it. Ridiculous policy by the company. Quite honestly I think random drug testing by your company is wrong. You should be fired because of your job performance, not what you do in your spare time. If you come to work stoned sure you deserve to be fired. If you smoke a joint over the weekend you don't

This country really needs to rethink it's policy on marijuana. It's on par with alcohol and most people that have tried both will tell you alcohol affects them in more adverse ways.

Completely agree

[vangogh]

I think marijuana is the #2 cash crop in the country, behind tobacco. It could easily be regulated the same as alcohol. No driving while stoned. 18 and over, etc. Sales tax galore and less crowded prisons.

I do actually think we're moving in that direction. Look at all the states that now allow medical marijuana. More and more states will likely join in the coming years and eventually the Federal laws will reflect those of the states.

The drug policy in this country is unrealistic. We can probably all name a dozen legal drugs that have more adverse effects than some illegal ones. It's also nuts that I have to show id in order to buy over the counter allergy medication and I can only buy 10 pills at a time, because some people figured out how to turn it into methadone(?). What it really comes down to is the drugs that the people who make the rules use are legal and the ones they don't use are illegal. it's a case of what I do is ok, but what you do isn't.

[Steve B]

Actually - drug testing also tests for a lot of Legal drugs also. At least the ones that are legal with a prescription. If they can't verify that you're taking them under the care of a doctor - then they are treated just like the illegal drugs. I.e. - if you test postive for a prescription pain killer - and don't have a doctor prescribing it, then you are just as fired as the guy who gets caught doing crack. Since cocaine leaves the system so quickly - those guys actually have an advantage over the other drug users. Of course, pot stays in the system the longest (up to 30 days with a heavy user).

I also agree #3 is ridiculous, but from the other extreme. First of all, I seriously doubt his story. I heard a lot of similar stories in my past life. Second, he likely received a written copy of the company policy and they usually are very clear that having illegal substances in your system while at work will be grounds for dismissal. The substance must have been in his system or it wouldn't have triggered a positve result.

It's a free country - he didn't have to take the job if he wasn't prepared to follow their rules. He has the right to work elsewhere and do all the picketing and letter writing he wants about legalizing whatever drug he wants - but, he knew if he got caught with that drug in his system at that company that he would be fired.

[billbenson]

Steve B, I believe you said you worked in the chemical industry. Certainly a lot of industries need to test for the other drugs like Xanax etc. Those prescription drugs are more expensive to test for from what I could find and not in the "level 1" testing.

In my last real job the company had about 50 employees with say $2M in sales per month. They had me tested when I was employed and I passed even though I had taken one of the prescription medications in the tier 2. I had a prescription for it, but they didn't test for it.

The owner interviewed me. During the interview he said they do random drug testing but implied that the random employees were the ones that really didn't matter or they wanted to get rid of anyway.

I would guess that happens a lot in smaller companies as long as the employee isn't driving a vehicle or doing something that really required the drug testing. It certainly is what was happening in this company.

[vangogh]

Actually - drug testing also tests for a lot of Legal drugs also. At least the ones that are legal with a prescription. If they can't verify that you're taking them under the care of a doctor

My point being why are you allowed the doctors note on some drugs and not others? Some of the ones you can get a doctor's note for are worse for you to take and more addictive than marijuana. Why are you allowed to go out after work and down a case of beer, but not smoke a joint?


First of all, I seriously doubt his story.

Certainly possible. The story is coming to us a few generations later and none of us know if the guy in question was being honest or not.

[Blessed]

Certainly possible. The story is coming to us a few generations later and none of us know if the guy in question was being honest or not.

I know my initial reaction when Hubby told me the story was "really?? are you sure??" :) He assured me that it was probably true, but still - I think that if it is what really happened the guy definitely should have reported himself as soon as he got back to work, then he'd still have a job.

[Patrysha]

I've never had a job that required testing. Which is a good thing because I am absolutely certain that there would be many failures in every job I've ever held

Hubby on the other hand, has had jobs where they had on employment testing (had to pass a full physical including drug test, hearing test, eye test and more) and random drug testing was on the books (though we only ever saw it administered after an accident/safety incidents). Those were all industrial type jobs (oil/gas, trucking & sawmill)...there's nothing as far as I know for teachers, certainly not at any of the school boards hubby has taught for.

I've known accountants, lawyers, doctors and other professional types who all toke up at least occasionally and some much more often than that.

I've never known an active crack addict, but I know a few in recovery.

I don't know if we have more of a drug culture (at least as far as things like marijuana, mushrooms and acid go) in Canada or whether Americans are more likely to sweep it under the carpet and try to hide it. It seems (from the outside anyway) that it is much more of a subculture there where it's nearly mainstream here...despite the (current) illegality of it. Everyone knows someone, even if they never do it themselves...

[billbenson]

Well, as the years go on, your circle of friends gets older, have kids, have jobs that require security clearences etc. I've been to Mardi Gras. It was fun at 25. I have no desire to go back. If somone brought coke into my house I'd kick them out. Not because I care, I've just managed to stay out of jail this long, and I'd like to keep it that way.

The trend today is for companies to hire ambitious 32 y/o's. They probably snorted coke in college, but they are ambitious. Starting lives. I don't see many of them risking their jobs.

Steve B - what was the profile of the people you fired? Young? Old? Professional jobs or hourly?

[Patrysha]

I highly doubt anyone I know well enough to invite into my house would be as rude and disrespectful as to bring their drugs into it...should they be the type that do them in the first place.

[Harold Mansfield]

I highly doubt anyone I know well enough to invite into my house would be as rude and disrespectful as to bring their drugs into it...should they be the type that do them in the first place.

I'm not sure which is ruder, that, or changing the radio station in someone else's car. I have strong feelings about both.

[Harold Mansfield]

Last year AIG received over $70 billion to pay 96,000 individual employees an average salary of $60,000 a year each ( or $1,153 a week). That’s not counting the millions in bonuses and salaries that were paid to top executives AFTER the bailout. Yet, passing $34 billion bill that would extend benefits for over 10 million families (at an average of $393 a week) is met with complete resistance and insults from Republican senators.
Bailout List: Banks, Car Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica (http://bailout.propublica.org/list/index)

Here are the 17 senators from states with double-digit unemployment who are willing to leave their constituents without a safety net:
Table 3. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and selected area, seasonally adjusted (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.t03.htm)

[vangogh]

Crazy isn't it? People often vote according to party lines over the way something is framed, instead of really digging into the issue and thinking about what makes sense to do. I do understand why the bailouts happened. I didn't like that we were giving AIG and others money, but I did understand the idea was to keep something worse from happening.

However I'd much rather money like that be used to protect ordinary citizens who are basically finding themselves in the same situation as the companies we bailed out.

[Harold Mansfield]

Yep, it's like if you crash the car (or the economy), we'll buy you another one..but if you get hit by the car, you are on your own.

[vangogh]

That's a good analogy. By the way speaking of cars and crashes, I've never understood how in some states if my car is parked in my driveway and someone else careens off the road and crashes into it, I'm somehow partly responsible for the accident, but virtue of owning a car. Really? What exactly did I do wrong in that scenario.

[Harold Mansfield]

That's a good analogy. By the way speaking of cars and crashes, I've never understood how in some states if my car is parked in my driveway and someone else careens off the road and crashes into it, I'm somehow partly responsible for the accident, but virtue of owning a car. Really? What exactly did I do wrong in that scenario.

Do you live in a no fault state? That's the way it was in MI..everyone pays for their own car.

[vangogh]

I'm not really sure. It's been such a long time since I was in an accident. Now that I think about it the last time I was involved in an accident I was sitting at a light. 2 guys behind me crashed and the impact caused one of them to hit the rear of my truck. Not a big deal for me. Mostly dents and a cracked taillight. I didn't have to pay for anything. The insurance company of the guy who caused it all wrote me a check. The total was under $1,000. Close to it, though I forget the exact amount.