lost highway Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 I agree that the number can be interpreted in several different ways. I don't see it as a windfall for Obama, it's really a fairly modest growth following a fairly linear trend for the last year. Modestly good news? Sure. Statistically interpretable? Of course. Big fat lie to get elected? You could do better. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Annnnnd Romney starts backing up certain claims made in the debate: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 This is good. It might have posted here before but I don't remember. Just to be fair in my attacks on the empty suits running for president... Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Is there any law that makes it a requirement to take a drug test before receiving government "help"? Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Is there any law that makes it a requirement to take a drug test before receiving government "help"? Are you just asking or are you worried about yourself? Anyway, there is no laws currently but there has been several purposed. Here is a good "debate" site which gives pros and cons of the issue: http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-welfare-recipients-be-tested-for-drugs Of course (like every issue) it really is divided down red and blue lines (Conservatives being for, Progressives being against). But you probably knew that. Florida has a Drug Test Welfare law and apparently it is costing more money then it saves. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html Link to post Share on other sites
Magnetized Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Is there any law that makes it a requirement to take a drug test before receiving government "help"? Maybe, if you're talking about, say, a drug rehab program. Not for unemployment insurance, which is the only federal "handout" I know about firsthand. But I would assume most programs don't require that. Let me guess--you think they should? Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 PHOTO: Would This Change Your Vote? This might help with the unemployment figures... How I Would Manipulate the CPI, If I Ran the BLS http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/10/how-i-would-manipulate-cpi-if-i-ran-bls.html Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 PHOTO: Would This Change Your Vote? This might help with the unemployment figures... How I Would Manipulate the CPI, If I Ran the BLS http://www.economicp...-i-ran-bls.html Obama looks awesome in that picture. Romney looks like an alien abduction survivor. Really are still on about the 7.8 rate was manipulated? The numbers were not manipulated, any suggestion that they are is absurd. Yes fine throw out the numbers entirely if you don't agree with the methodology. But the BLS has used the same method for years. Just because you don't like the numbers doesn't mean there is a conspiracy behind them. Suggesting such crazy. Link to post Share on other sites
The High Heat Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Obama looks awesome in that picture. Is that Ricky Ricardo? Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Stealing a U.S. election? Nothing's easier! Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Maybe, if you're talking about, say, a drug rehab program. Not for unemployment insurance, which is the only federal "handout" I know about firsthand. But I would assume most programs don't require that. Let me guess--you think they should?I think it makes good sense. I mean people have to take a drug test to get a lot of jobs. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I think it makes good sense. I mean people have to take a drug test to get a lot of jobs. What is the end game with the drug testing? Is it money saving? (which stated before in FLA is not the case). Is it a moral stance against what people do to their own bodies? Is it that you want government involved in another part of people's lives? What do you want to achieve? Why does it make "good sense?" Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Drugs cost money. A way to ensure tax dollars aren't being used to subsidize harmful addictions. I have mixed feelings on the topic, but the sense is pretty clear. Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Herion is on your system for 3 daysAlcohol 24 hoursCocaine 3 daysMarijuana 3 weeks If you know when the test is you can beat it every time.........................Unless you smoke pot Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 What I have a problem with those who have used the BLS in the past as measure of the economy and now are decrying its findings. By saying some group is manipulating those numbers to re-elect PBO is a conspiracy theory, and factually inaccurate. If someone or some group were manipulating the numbers wouldn't they manipulate the numbers better then 7.8%? If they wanted to manipulate the data wouldn't they make the unemployment rate 5% or 2%?Exactly correct, Kevin.First there was the "Birthers," then we had the "Skewers," and now we have the "Jobbers." It really is incredible.Next, if Israel attacks Iran, somehow Obama will get blamed because he has soooooo much influence with Netanyahu...it will just magically happen that way overnight, dontcha know. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Drugs cost money. A way to ensure tax dollars aren't being used to subsidize harmful addictions. I have mixed feelings on the topic, but the sense is pretty clear. Drugs are bad m'kay. If you want to ensure that tax dollars aren't being used to subsidized harmful addictions, then any person who is an employee of the government or receives tax breaks should be drug tested. Really who is to say that the money I get from my mortgage deduction I am not putting in up my nose. I mean if we are serious about the the use of tax dollars not being used for harm addictions then let's do this right. In fact why don't we send a urine sample with our taxes? If we are clean we an extra tax deduction. Welfare recipients are much maligned and an easy target for the ills of our government (see the welfare queen arguments of Reagan's day). I really like this argument from the Debate site I quoted earlier http://www.usnews.co...-the-unemployed. It really spells out what is wrong with drug testing of welfare recipients. Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 The whole, "control what people do with their body" thing is weak if you ask me. There are certain consequences with every action and if you're receiving welfare but screwing off your time and money doing dope instead of something that might be constructive, possibly aiding in you getting employment, then I think the government should be able to know and do something about it. Also, hypothetically couldn't someone receiving welfare refuse to take a job knowing they couldn't pass the drug test? Hey, if you want to do every drug under the sun then I think it's your business BUT once those drugs cause you to not be able to "handle your business" or even worse get ill, then I'm not sure it's the governments job to cover your ass. Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 PHOTO: Would This Change Your Vote? This might help with the unemployment figures... How I Would Manipulate the CPI, If I Ran the BLS http://www.economicp...-i-ran-bls.htmlHoly shit it's Henry Rollins vs. Al Sharpton! Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 The whole, "control what people do with their body" thing is weak if you ask me. There are certain consequences with every action and if you're receiving welfare but screwing off your time and money doing dope instead of something that might be constructive, possibly aiding in you getting employment, then I think the government should be able to know and do something about it. Also, hypothetically couldn't someone receiving welfare refuse to take a job knowing they couldn't pass the drug test? Hey, if you want to do every drug under the sun then I think it's your business BUT once those drugs cause you to not be able to "handle your business" or even worse get ill, then I'm not sure it's the governments job to cover your ass. So you never answered my question, why does it make "good sense" to drug test welfare recipients? BTW the "body" thing was a question to you, not an argument. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Drugs are bad m'kay. If you want to ensure that tax dollars aren't being used to subsidized harmful addictions, then any person who is an employee of the government or receives tax breaks should be drug tested. Really who is to say that the money I get from my mortgage deduction I am not putting in up my nose. I mean if we are serious about the the use of tax dollars not being used for harm addictions then let's do this right. In fact why don't we send a urine sample with our taxes? If we are clean we an extra tax deduction. Welfare recipients are much maligned and an easy target for the ills of our government (see the welfare queen arguments of Reagan's day). I really like this argument from the Debate site I quoted earlier http://www.usnews.co...-the-unemployed. It really spells out what is wrong with drug testing of welfare recipients.I'm subject to drug tests. I don't care. I don't really care if we drug test welfare recipients or not. I don't consider it a gross violation of privacy. Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 So you never answered my question, why does it make "good sense" to drug test welfare recipients? BTW the "body" thing was a question to you, not an argument. I gave some examples of why I think it makes good sense. It's not that hard to understand. Do YOU get tested for drugs by your employer? Why would anyone giving money to someone NOT want to make sure that person is doing everything they can to produce and/or be constructive....to make good decisions? Hell man, if a person is on welfare AND doing drugs isn't there a chance that person wouldn't try and find a damn job?! Especially if that job requires a drug test!? (I tried to present my point of "good sense" in other words)A moral stance? No. If you are receiving housing, food or unemployment welfare I feel like it should be your responsibility to not be on drugs and I'm starting to think its the right of the government to make sure you're not doing dope while receiving their funding. Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I would assume "productivity" would include not wasting time posting on a message board while on the clock. Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Maybe the debate should be about the reasons we need the government handouts in the first place and their contributions or the lack there-of to the restoration of a brighter economic future for those receiving them rather than the drug testing? If we could get these people back on their feet with real jobs in the private sector then they could spend their hard earned money on any drugs they wish. Just a suggestion. Since President Lyndon B. Johnson first declared a “war on poverty” in 1964, federal, state and local governments have spent roughly $15 trillion fighting poverty. Maybe it’s time to declare the “war on poverty” a failure and begin a new war on government spending, over-regulation, and impediments to economic growth? ‘Levels Unseen’: U.S. Poverty Rate on Track To Be Highest Since 1960s The Associated Press reportedly surveyed more than a dozen economists, think tanks and academics, both nonpartisan and those with known liberal or conservative leanings, and found a broad consensus: The official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent. Several predicted a more modest gain, but even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest level since 1965. http://www.theblaze....st-since-1960s/ Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I would assume "productivity" would include not wasting time posting on a message board while on the clock.Hahaha indeed! Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 PHOTO: Would This Change Your Vote? This might help with the unemployment figures... How I Would Manipulate the CPI, If I Ran the BLS http://www.economicp...-i-ran-bls.html\ Romney with the Short Fro looks like Matthew Fox and Obama with the pompadour looks like the homeless guy with the killer basso voice. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts