Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Staff Contacts | Affiliates | Home RSS
 
 
 

Should people who use illegal drugs be denied unemployment benefits?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(31)

BallsDeep

Oct-18-13 11:20 AM

It's kind of weird seeing the words "unemployment" & "benefits" right next to each other.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shlort

Oct-19-13 3:23 PM

BD, why is that weird? It is not like welfare where tax dollars are paid to people. It is an insurance paid by employers to both the state and the feds. It is a benefit like SS and medicare.

I know people get confused when the feds have to pass a law to fund unemployment. In reality, there should have been a couple trillion dollars or so in that fund. The real reality is that those funds (like all funds) go into the general fund and are misused by the government.

On topic, I can't beleive that there is any percentage that would vote no. If someone is offered a job but fails the drug test, they should not get unemployment insurance payments.

A liberalized society would think it is alright to do drugs even if it meant the person doing them would not be employable.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Oct-20-13 1:13 PM

The new social insurance program the Committee on Economic Security (CES) was designing in 1934 was

DIFFERENT than WELFARE

in that it was

a (voluntary) contributory program in which workers and their employers paid for the cost of the payouts or repayments to those who paid into the system.

--with the government's role being that of the fund's administrator,

rather than its payer.

This was important to President Roosevelt who signaled early on that

he did not want the federal government to

subsidize the program

--that it was to be "self-supporting."

He would eventually observe:

"If I have anything to say about it,

it will always be contributed, both on the part of the employer and the employee,

ON A SOUND ACTURIAL BASIS.

But, and this is an important part,

our government has sought to deviate from this original intent, and sought to approve payments to other than people who have paid into the system...

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Oct-20-13 1:22 PM

Shlort,

I have to agree with most of what you write,

except for but one thing,

here is the original concept of “social security”.

Social Security “benefits”, is really a misnomer, and prostitution of the founders first intent.

It is not a “benefit” in the normal sense,

but rather social security payments as originally intended,

was to be a payment of money, paid back to contributors,

from a source of revenue derived from an employees employer and the employee himself.

Thus, as conceived,

it would be a “wash”,

no money taken from the treasury,

no money taken from income or other tax payments, but really the financing would come

from “voluntary”

(what ever that means)

contributions from employers and employees.

The only involvement by the government was its role as a

"fiduciary", (look up the term)

a prudent "administrator", of these funds entrusted

in trust,

by citizens to

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Oct-20-13 1:24 PM

.... importantly, this part left out....

The only involvement by the government was its role as a

"fiduciary", (look up the term)

a prudent "administrator", of these funds entrusted

in trust,

by citizens to

its government....

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shlort

Oct-21-13 2:58 PM

Whiz, I don't need to look up words to know what they mean. I get what you are talking about as far as the difference. I simply used one as an example to make it a little easier to comprehend. Not a whole lot of differemce between SS and Unemployment Insurance really. They are very similar in the sense that the government has voted itself the abiliy to take funds from both and spend them however they please. They are also similar to the point where these funds are put in trust of the US Government for future dispersal. Either way, it is a shame that the government can't manage the peoples money a little better than they have been over the past few decades.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Oct-21-13 3:49 PM

The obama admin tried - unsuccessfully to enact a law requiring ANYONE having the ability or entrusted to work with a retirement account to be a Registered/certified fiduciary...

the law wasn't passed but axed...

guess who?

the spoilers were?

NONE OTHER THAN OUR FAVORITE PARTY

the republikans.

Thanks but NO thanks, we (republikans) like the system the way it is...

If the law passed, those people working with retirement accounts would have certify/guarantee they were working for the "BEST INTEREST" OF THE ACCOUNT holder.

Today, ONLY, less than 15% of the people who are "entrusted" to work with retirement accounts, are register/certified fiduciaries!

The remainder are 'brokers' a fancy word for salesman!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Oct-21-13 3:52 PM

too bad the government cannot be FORCED to make ALL decisions regarding SS accounts in the BEST interest for ONLY those who contributed into the system!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shlort

Oct-22-13 2:05 PM

Whiz, a lot of the problem with things like SS and medicare is that there will always be a certain amount of people suckling from the program who should not be. These folks include the rich and the lazy. The people who abuse these programs do so knowing full well that they hide behind the protection of others. Namely, those who should be receiving these payments. No one will dare talk about removing a benefit from anyone because there are people who will cry for those affected by the move as everyone is lumped into one group by the media. So, we will never rid our system of fraud and abuse because there would be too much whining about it. The media spin would destroy any efforts to reform anything in this country. Wait til this immigration reform debate starts and then watch the media ruin any hopes of there being even the most casual discussions about it in DC. Divide among the masses increases market share for the media.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EStacey

Oct-23-13 4:32 PM

I don't mind reading about some 'rich' and 'lazy' person 'suckling' on something they may have paid taxes for. I'm with Balls on the idea that unemployment and benefits have a funny ring to them.. There really should be NO benefit to being unemployed.. Without a doubt this country needs 'unemployment' reform.. Right now, there is 'incentive' to be unemployed.. Folks can make more money NOT working than they can many jobs they might be able to find. I only have an opinion on what 'reform' might look like.. but one item would be, 'unemployment' compensation only pays for BASIC living expenses.. Food and Shelter - if you owe money to a creditor, or cable television.. you'd better have a job cause 'unemployment' won't cover that stuff..

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dropthehammer

Oct-24-13 6:03 AM

un-enjoyment just wouldn't be the same without a big bag of weed and a bunch of pills to highlight a three month session of video games and pizza delivery. those people are entitled to their share of obama money, it's free.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ralphing

Oct-24-13 5:52 PM

Unemployment compensation is a benefit. Every cent your employer pays on your behalf is factored in to the wage he pays you. Of course the drug test is again mainly for pot users since its the only drug that stays in your system for any significant period of time. And I'm sure no one has a problem with anyone spending their checks on legal "drugs" like alcohol. By the way, unemployment compensation was around long before Obama took office.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rasmsa13

Oct-25-13 11:52 AM

We don't go around asking people what they spend their paychecks on. Many people work in jobs where the test for pot. People can still get past those tests. I don't consider marijuana a drug, especially not one that should be considered a schedule 1. I don't care who's smoking weed. I do care about the percentage of people who go to the bars and drink alcohol regularly, then get into their vehicle and kill someone. Alcohol is a way worse drug in my opinion and the only way it's controlled is after the fact. If you go sit at home with a case of beer and drink until your hearts content then do it. The same with people who get high.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rasmsa13

Oct-25-13 11:55 AM

Everyone needs to stop bringing Obama into every discussion. Come on people we need to care more about who our local and state representatives are. They're the ones who are making the majority of these laws.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Oct-25-13 7:53 PM

Pot can be just a deadly as alcohol when mixed with driving. If you think otherwise you are misinformed.

Pot just like alcohol while consumed in the home can not be guaranteed to be kept in the home.

The question really in my mind is should anyone doing anything illegal be denied any entitlement?

The answer is yes. To the specific question if you willfully make yourself unemployable, given current law, then I as your "benefit" provider repectfully decline to help you out.

Help yourself before you ask for help from others. At least make an effort.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shlort

Oct-26-13 12:00 PM

EStacey, I would hardly consider unemployment payments to be a lot of money. The way it works is not that a person receives the same amount of money as when they were working. It is a fraction of that, and I can't imagine there is a problem where people would rather get 1/3 of their usual income than to work. It is Probably close to what you want. Pays the rent and buys some food and people probably cancel their cable and extras out of neccessity.

Here is something else. That money is paid in by employers on the chance that they may need to reduce hours or employees for a time, or permanently. It costs you nothing. Not a dime of taxpayer money is supposed to be paid to unemplyment insurance. Of course it looks like taxpayers are footing the bill, but that is only because that money goes into the general fund these days and must be distributed from there.

How about SS and medicare? Are those people just too lazy or too stupid to be able to live without? Same basic thing if we look

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Oct-26-13 9:37 PM

Shlort, unemployment as originally designed is not really the problem. Unending unemployment, 99 weeks, is. Also, in gaming the system once unemployment benefits are running out people are flocking to disability for continued support.

There are also many stories where people are turning down positions because they make more on unemployment.

Unemployment cost me a ton. It prevents the economy from improving. It increases dependency on other entitlement programs. Contrary to what Pelosi says you can not stimulate an economy with unemployment benefits.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Oct-26-13 9:59 PM

As for social security, yes many are lazy. They claim disability and con the system into supporting them. No, these are not the seniors so please don't go there. The seniors actually lose out because there's people on SS that shouldn't be.

Medicare is for seniors and they have nothing to do with the regulations other than they freak when any reform is talked about. As it is it can't keep going there are just too many people coming of age and with fewer and fewer working the money will run out.

Now Medicaid, that's different. Now there's a program full of lazy people. No not all but a large percent are capable of work but see no need to.

Again, it isn't necessarily the programs (SS should go away though for future generations, those 40-45 and younger, my opinion). It's that they are being turned into a lifestyle that's the problem.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EStacey

Oct-28-13 12:15 PM

Gee Shlort, Thanks for the lesson. Y'now, here I was thinking that the UIA was a STATE regulated, STATE funded system of taking care of those folks finding themselves out of work.. For more information on the UIA, visit Michigan dot gov slash UIA.. Since when has any Michigan Government function not cost TAXPAYERS in this STATE?...I dunno,

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ralphing

Oct-28-13 5:59 PM

Why is the question just about illegal drugs? People take illegal drugs to alter their mind. People use legal drugs to get the same effect, especially when mixed with our good friend alcohol. Things that can be purchased over the counter can get you just as messed up as any illegal drug. Even vending machines are packed with liquid "speed" drinks. How can the hypocrisy be ignored?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ralphing

Oct-28-13 6:07 PM

The comments show how polarized this country has become. To some people, NO ONE can need help and EVERYONE that does need help must be "scamming" the system. Never mind the unbelievable number of people living under the poverty level working full time.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shlort

Oct-28-13 7:27 PM

Anyone who wants to argue with me over the reality and their misconceptions can save that argument for someone who is short sighted enough to agree.

Estacey, the UIA is not funded by the state. It is funded by employers within a state. These same emplyers also pay the FUTA to the feds for emergency unemplyment. Go do some more research and save the "go look at this" nonsense for someone else.

As far as the UIA costing taxpayer dollars, not even an issue. It is funded by the unemployment insurance tax. It is supposed to cost taxpayers nothing. No point in either of you two trying to elaborate your position further. I know all about the tax for unemployment and how much they take in. I also did some research on how much they spend. Anyway, keep pretending it is welfare or a gateway to something else. Honest hard working people will choose to work. Throw up some data on people going on disability from the unemplyment line. Otherwise, it is just your opinion or beleif.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Oct-29-13 3:55 PM

Here's a few excerpts for you from an article on businessinsider****. Take them how you will.

From Friends of Fermentation report, "In fact, they projected that nearly 25% of those not actively seeking a job had applied for, and been accepted, by disability - mostly Social Security."

From a report by JPMorgan, " As of January over 8.5 million individuals were receiving federal disability payments (an additional 2 million spouses and children of disabled workers also received disability payments). Since the onset of the recession and the subsequent slow recovery, this figure has accelerated and grown faster than the overall size of the potential labor force— currently 5.3% of the population aged 25-64 is on federal disability, up from 4.5% when the recession began."

"Thus a quarter of people who drop out of the workforce and come off the unemployment benefits, simply move to receiving disability payments. And most stay there until they roll into the social

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Oct-29-13 4:02 PM

Continued as it was cut off,

"Thus a quarter of people who drop out of the workforce and come off the unemployment benefits, simply move to receiving disability payments. And most stay there until they roll into the social security program when they retire - from their disability. The same source, a different program."

There's few more points in the article "ART CASHIN: The Unemployed Are Now Going On Disability And It's Costing The Government Billions".

So no shlort, nobody is saying ALL those on unemployment are or will abuse the system. We will however face the reality that there is a significant percentage that do. This percentage does cost us a great deal.

I will say though I commend you on your positive outlook of the American citizen. I wish I shared your optimism, unfortunately I see many of these folks in my line of work and can not share your point of view.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ralphing

Oct-29-13 5:08 PM

Of course people that are unemployed are the ones who will collect disability because if they were working they wouldn't be eligible. To say that those collecting unemployment benefits can just slide into disability when those benefits expire is absurd. I'll be the first to admit that there is plenty of fraud involved in our current system but it isn't as easy as you make it sound.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 31 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web