Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 08-01-2011, 12:17 AM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
It almost sounds like you're contradicting yourself here brother. One minute you're saying people on Welfare don't need computers at their homes to look for jobs because they can use the library. Then it seems like you're complaining if they do. You lost me a little on this one my friend.

The fact is our country IS in incredible debt but I'm not sure how much money it would save even if we adopted your suggestions with regards to Welfare. That seems like focusing on a small portion of a much, much larger problem. IMO.

Hmm, I thought PTM's arguments were perfectly compatible. On the one hand, he was answering Buzzard's concerns about a job-seeker not having a home computer; I think he's on board with that. I read his objection as having to support, with his taxes, a welfare recipient not using it for job search but for viewing porn - with the ACLU threat-of-lawsuit flag waving in the background.

As to the cuts, I'm sick of these pols - both parties - saying it's not enough, it's too much, blah, blah, blah. Have you seen this latest bill? That will cut 1 trillion in 10 years? Math isn't my strong suit but it seems to me that would work out to about 100 years to pay of our current debt, no?

I appreciate PTM having some concrete solutions to offer. I like to complain but my only workable solutions so far are to our border/illegal immigration problems. If I could be Queen, I'd start cutting federal departments completely - we could start with Dept. of Education and the EPA.
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-01-2011, 12:18 AM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,715
Default

Er, it took me so long to post, I see that PTM has already answered you, Chuck,
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-01-2011, 01:31 AM
Play The Man's Avatar
Play The Man Play The Man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flo View Post
Hmm, I thought PTM's arguments were perfectly compatible. On the one hand, he was answering Buzzard's concerns about a job-seeker not having a home computer; I think he's on board with that. I read his objection as having to support, with his taxes, a welfare recipient not using it for job search but for viewing porn - with the ACLU threat-of-lawsuit flag waving in the background.

As to the cuts, I'm sick of these pols - both parties - saying it's not enough, it's too much, blah, blah, blah. Have you seen this latest bill? That will cut 1 trillion in 10 years? Math isn't my strong suit but it seems to me that would work out to about 100 years to pay of our current debt, no?

I appreciate PTM having some concrete solutions to offer. I like to complain but my only workable solutions so far are to our border/illegal immigration problems. If I could be Queen, I'd start cutting federal departments completely - we could start with Dept. of Education and the EPA.
Thanks, Flo. I really think the entitlement mentality has gotten out of hand. My best friend's wife is a dentist. She doesn't own her own practice, she works part-time for another dentist. Apparently, in the area she works, there is some sort of program to help provide dental care for the poor. It covers basic dental care. She had a lady come in as part of the program - expensively dressed, smart phone, jewelry, french manicure, etc. The woman was receiving free dental care and mentioned that she wanted to make her appointment longer in order to get her teeth professionally whitened (for hundreds of dollars). My friend's wife questioned her use of a free dental program if she had hundreds of dollars to spend on whitening her teeth. Essentially, the patient became belligerent and my friend's wife feared for her safety. I think there is an attitude amongst many that the government owes them the necessities of life and because those necessities are covered, they can use their money as discretionary income for amenities/luxuries.
__________________
"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
--Hugh Latimer, October 16, 1555
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-01-2011, 02:04 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Play The Man View Post
Thanks, Flo. I really think the entitlement mentality has gotten out of hand. My best friend's wife is a dentist. She doesn't own her own practice, she works part-time for another dentist. Apparently, in the area she works, there is some sort of program to help provide dental care for the poor. It covers basic dental care. She had a lady come in as part of the program - expensively dressed, smart phone, jewelry, french manicure, etc. The woman was receiving free dental care and mentioned that she wanted to make her appointment longer in order to get her teeth professionally whitened (for hundreds of dollars). My friend's wife questioned her use of a free dental program if she had hundreds of dollars to spend on whitening her teeth. Essentially, the patient became belligerent and my friend's wife feared for her safety. I think there is an attitude amongst many that the government owes them the necessities of life and because those necessities are covered, they can use their money as discretionary income for amenities/luxuries.
Yeah, I know a guy who works part time for Walmart and it still collecting unemployment from the state. He says it's to cover for the wages that he's missing out on because he's not full-time. However, I don't believe that people are "entitled" to make a certain wage and unemployment should NOT be given out as some kind of "supplemental living allowance" from the government.

Actually I don't believe there should be such a thing as unemployment benefits in the first place; but if we must have it, then it should be limited solely to assisting those people who have no income whatsoever while they look for a job. Anything else is just leaching off of the government.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-01-2011, 02:20 AM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Play The Man View Post
Thanks, Flo. I really think the entitlement mentality has gotten out of hand. My best friend's wife is a dentist. She doesn't own her own practice, she works part-time for another dentist. Apparently, in the area she works, there is some sort of program to help provide dental care for the poor. It covers basic dental care. She had a lady come in as part of the program - expensively dressed, smart phone, jewelry, french manicure, etc. The woman was receiving free dental care and mentioned that she wanted to make her appointment longer in order to get her teeth professionally whitened (for hundreds of dollars). My friend's wife questioned her use of a free dental program if she had hundreds of dollars to spend on whitening her teeth. Essentially, the patient became belligerent and my friend's wife feared for her safety. I think there is an attitude amongst many that the government owes them the necessities of life and because those necessities are covered, they can use their money as discretionary income for amenities/luxuries.
That's creepy. If we could just cut back on fraud we'd be saving an incredible amount. I heard that a private contractor in Iraq has recently charged the DoD up to 1200% mark-up for many items. When questioned, they rationalize it "we won the contract through the bid process", as if that's an excuse!

PTM, you may have missed this link I left for you in previous comments but it perfectly illustrates the "what's in it for me" attitude you and Nate are talking about. I hope to heaven none of my family read this but...a very close family member, who is quite well off, was complaining a few years ago when they didn't get the $300 tax rebate. I told them "well, you make too much money to qualify!". And this is a kind and generous person!

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Yeah, I know a guy who works part time for Walmart and it still collecting unemployment from the state. He says it's to cover for the wages that he's missing out on because he's not full-time. However, I don't believe that people are "entitled" to make a certain wage and unemployment should NOT be given out as some kind of "supplemental living allowance" from the government.

Actually I don't believe there should be such a thing as unemployment benefits in the first place; but if we must have it, then it should be limited solely to assisting those people who have no income whatsoever while they look for a job. Anything else is just leaching off of the government.
I agree with you, Nate. But instead, we are RELAXING the requirements to draw as well as extending the amount of time one can receive benefits! Every study has shown that people will draw as long as the tax dollars are available and THEN look for work. But if you disagreed with the Congress's last extention (what is it now, 96 weeks?!?) you are a heartless/hobbit/extremist/teaparty/gun-toting/bible hugging/ oh heck, fill in the _____.
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-01-2011, 02:28 AM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,715
Default

Quote:
A U.S. government contractor in Iraq charged the Pentagon a whopping amount of money for inexpensive items, including $900 for a $7 control switch, according to a new report from a U.S. watchdog.

U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart W. Bowen Jr. said review found that Anham, LLC, which is based in suburban Washington, allowed its subcontractors in Iraq to also charge $3,000 for a $100 circuit breaker, and $80 for a piece of plumbing equipment worth $1.41.
Link here
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-01-2011, 03:03 AM
atomdanger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
My drug test figure came from an actual test I didn't know I was taking. It was screened by Quest Diagnostics. I'm having some health issues and along with other lab tests, he EDIT: (my GP) /EDIT ordered a (UA) urinalysis drug screen. I was on legal prescription pain meds due to a severe shoulder injury. He obviously thought I was on other drugs and didn't trust me when I told him I wasn't. He asked me, I was honest with him. With the amount of weight I have lost, I look like a skinny junkie, especially now with all of the bruises on my arms due to the many sticks I have had in regard to blood work etc.

Lucky for me I have insurance for now.

If your state did it as Florida does, then the positive tested drug user could just assign someone else to collect the money if the positive tested person had children, and you would be still out the welfare money, plus the money paid to process the drug screens.

I can't see how that would save any money.
Blood work? A lot more than a UA.

But a UA for drugs should NEVER Be more than 100, that's insanity.
(We over charge honestly, other places its 40)

I am not saying Florida's plan is perfect.
In Washington though, if you test positive for drugs, you go to jail.
(Possession by consumption)
So you get possession of whatever drug you popped for.

Then your kids would probably either be taken, or given to a family member that is not on drugs.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-01-2011, 05:48 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomdanger View Post
Blood work? A lot more than a UA.

But a UA for drugs should NEVER Be more than 100, that's insanity.
(We over charge honestly, other places its 40)

I am not saying Florida's plan is perfect.
In Washington though, if you test positive for drugs, you go to jail.
(Possession by consumption)
So you get possession of whatever drug you popped for.

Then your kids would probably either be taken, or given to a family member that is not on drugs.
I've had the random drug test at work, but never knew what their cost was. The blood work was all on a separate receipt, and it was 3x the cost of the UA. The UA was the only charge on the bill. I've got it in front of me right now.

The description of service is: Drug Screen, Single. Charge $228.00. After insurance I had to pay just under $30.00. I'm willing to scan my bill if anyone is doubting me.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-01-2011, 02:58 PM
Miss Foxy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Yeah, I know a guy who works part time for Walmart and it still collecting unemployment from the state. He says it's to cover for the wages that he's missing out on because he's not full-time. However, I don't believe that people are "entitled" to make a certain wage and unemployment should NOT be given out as some kind of "supplemental living allowance" from the government.

Actually I don't believe there should be such a thing as unemployment benefits in the first place; but if we must have it, then it should be limited solely to assisting those people who have no income whatsoever while they look for a job. Anything else is just leaching off of the government.
If your paying taxes into unemployment why should you not be able to reep the benefits of them? I know going from full time to part-time would KILL me.. I also see I pay a few hundred a month into benefits such as disability, umemployment, SSI.. The list goes on. I think if one rightfully has not put into it they aren't entitled, but if you have paid your dues whats wrong with collecting?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-01-2011, 02:59 PM
Miss Foxy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
I've had the random drug test at work, but never knew what their cost was. The blood work was all on a separate receipt, and it was 3x the cost of the UA. The UA was the only charge on the bill. I've got it in front of me right now.

The description of service is: Drug Screen, Single. Charge $228.00. After insurance I had to pay just under $30.00. I'm willing to scan my bill if anyone is doubting me.
Sounds about right. I pay on Quest, Sonora, and a few other labs...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.