Tea Party Gov Scott - MORE bureaucracy, trash Contstitution, picks winners & losers

Bfgrn

New member
Tea Party Gov Scott - MORE bureaucracy, trash Contstitution, picks winners & losers

63898288-11054650.jpg


New Florida Law Requires Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

This law creates MORE bureaucracy, trashes the Constitution rights of people with little or no voice in government, is vile and ignorant stereotyping of all welfare recipients and government infiltration into private lives.

BUT, these are the Tea Partiers, the people who 'claim' to support less government, strict adherence to the Constitution and free market economics...

Florida taxpayers should be highly suspicious that this whole drug test law is designed to funnel taxpayer's money into Scott's pocket, the pockets of his wife and the pockets of his political backers. This IS a man who was forced to resign as the head of a company that pled guilty to massive amounts of systematic fraud, including 14 felonies, leading to a historic $1.7 billion fine.

But, tea partiers are too smart for that, right?

But, of course, THIS is DIFFERENT; you are just concerned about taxpayer's money, that is ALL you are in it for, right? Even if it ends up costing more than it saves. Other states have tried this and found that it was costly and worthless in reducing drug use. They found that welfare recipients are NO MORE likely to use drugs than the rest of the population. They found that a simple questionnaire could detect most drug users.

AND, of course you are for less government, even if THIS law creates MORE government.

And there is always conservative's concern that bureaucrats are given the ability to make decisions that affect people's lives. But THIS is DIFFERENT. These bureaucrats are of impeccable character.

And we don't trust scientists to tell us what is happening to our planet, but THIS is DIFFERENT. These tests are 100% reliable, and the company administering these tests is 100% reliable, and of COURSE, the people deciding what do do with these results are beyond reproach...they are GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Tea Party Scott is not done...

Bureaucrats to Tell Employees Which HMO to Use

Florida Governor Scott Reduces Choice and Competition in Health Care

So much for choice and competition, which opponents of the Democrats' vision of reform, including Scott, claimed would vanish if "Obamacare" were enacted. It seems as if one of the leaders of the anti-reform crowd wasn't a true believer in the value of choice and competition after all.




It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson
 
Naturally the Detroit Drunkard has no concerns about Scott's company Solantic - which performs drug testing.


Shortly before he was inaugurated, Scott's lawyers met with attorneys at the Florida Commission on Ethics. Subsequently, they moved his Solantic holdings into a revocable trust in his wife's name, making her the controlling investor in the privately held company. No public records were created from the ethics meeting.

During the election campaign, he had estimated the worth of his Solantic holdings at $62 million. Jacksonville-based Solantic has 32 clinics statewide, including two in Palm Beach County, and plans rapid growth and an eventual initial public offering, according to company documents.

Suffolk University Law Professor Marc Rodwin, author of several books on conflicts of interest in medicine, said the movement of Scott's ownership to his wife's trust was insufficient to eliminate the ethical issues.

"He owned the company and transferred it into his wife's name," Rodwin said. "It's a conflict of interest."

But while it may rise to the level of impropriety, Florida legal experts said, it likely does not rise to the level of illegality.


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html


Is this included in the nature of police property, you drunken asshole?
 
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a losing issue for you socialist asswipes. Even my left-wing family members and friends support this. It's a position that the vast majority of Americans hold.
 
63898288-11054650.jpg


New Florida Law Requires Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

This law creates MORE bureaucracy, trashes the Constitution rights of people with little or no voice in government, is vile and ignorant stereotyping of all welfare recipients and government infiltration into private lives.

BUT, these are the Tea Partiers, the people who 'claim' to support less government, strict adherence to the Constitution and free market economics...

Florida taxpayers should be highly suspicious that this whole drug test law is designed to funnel taxpayer's money into Scott's pocket, the pockets of his wife and the pockets of his political backers. This IS a man who was forced to resign as the head of a company that pled guilty to massive amounts of systematic fraud, including 14 felonies, leading to a historic $1.7 billion fine.

But, tea partiers are too smart for that, right?

But, of course, THIS is DIFFERENT; you are just concerned about taxpayer's money, that is ALL you are in it for, right? Even if it ends up costing more than it saves. Other states have tried this and found that it was costly and worthless in reducing drug use. They found that welfare recipients are NO MORE likely to use drugs than the rest of the population. They found that a simple questionnaire could detect most drug users.

AND, of course you are for less government, even if THIS law creates MORE government.

And there is always conservative's concern that bureaucrats are given the ability to make decisions that affect people's lives. But THIS is DIFFERENT. These bureaucrats are of impeccable character.

And we don't trust scientists to tell us what is happening to our planet, but THIS is DIFFERENT. These tests are 100% reliable, and the company administering these tests is 100% reliable, and of COURSE, the people deciding what do do with these results are beyond reproach...they are GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Tea Party Scott is not done...

Bureaucrats to Tell Employees Which HMO to Use

Florida Governor Scott Reduces Choice and Competition in Health Care

So much for choice and competition, which opponents of the Democrats' vision of reform, including Scott, claimed would vanish if "Obamacare" were enacted. It seems as if one of the leaders of the anti-reform crowd wasn't a true believer in the value of choice and competition after all.




It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson

There's also a possible conflict of interest here too as Scott's wife is a principle in a medical testing laboratory.
 
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a losing issue for you socialist asswipes. Even my left-wing family members and friends support this. It's a position that the vast majority of Americans hold.

Pea brains tend to nest together. YOU'RE definition of left-wing family members is highly suspect. They probably don't support the death penalty for J walking like you.

SO tell me, when our founding father's authored the Bill of Rights and the 4th amendment, WHERE do they add an exception that would allow depots like Scott to enact this fascist law? You right wing scum who supports this crap have ZERO understanding to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You only USE the Constitution when it can be wielded as a weapon and IGNORE it when it doesn't harm or punish fellow Americans you demonize and dismiss.

Write this down for you're 'left wing' family members, then crawl out from under the house and give it to them.

4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There is ZERO probable cause pea brain. Studies show that welfare recipients use illegal drugs at about the same rate as the rest of the population.


"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465
 
Sounds logical. I used to work at the welfare office. People drive up in nice cars, nice clothes, tattoos, cigarettes, high on drugs, etc. If they can afford all that and can't afford to buy food then they need to get their priorities in order. Hopefully, this will help do just that.
 
SO tell me, when our founding father's authored the Bill of Rights and the 4th amendment, WHERE do they add an exception that would allow depots like Scott to enact this fascist law? You right wing scum who supports this crap have ZERO understanding to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You only USE the Constitution when it can be wielded as a weapon and IGNORE it when it doesn't harm or punish fellow Americans you demonize and dismiss.

Write this down for you're 'left wing' family members, then crawl out from under the house and give it to them.

4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

People who are on welfare voluntarily seek a government service provided by taxpayers. If they don't want to be subject to a drug test, they are free to seek assistance elsewhere. Do you also believe random drug tests for government employees are unconstitutional, even in positions where public safety is a concern?

There is ZERO probable cause pea brain. Studies show that welfare recipients use illegal drugs at about the same rate as the rest of the population.

I could give two shits what studies show. Government has a responsibility to ensure that tax dollars are being used appropriately. What you fail to realize is that welfare dollars do not belong to the recipients, but to the taxpayers. It is OUR money. And while I support a public safety net, I'll be damned if anyone should be getting a blank check. I support a hand up, NOT a hand out.

Tell us, Bfgrn, what do you do for the poor?
 
People who are on welfare voluntarily seek a government service provided by taxpayers. If they don't want to be subject to a drug test, they are free to seek assistance elsewhere. Do you also believe random drug tests for government employees are unconstitutional, even in positions where public safety is a concern?



I could give two shits what studies show. Government has a responsibility to ensure that tax dollars are being used appropriately. What you fail to realize is that welfare dollars do not belong to the recipients, but to the taxpayers. It is OUR money. And while I support a public safety net, I'll be damned if anyone should be getting a blank check. I support a hand up, NOT a hand out.

Tell us, Bfgrn, what do you do for the poor?

No, the problems is you right wing scum don't give two shits what the Constitution says. So tell me, WHERE did our founders write exceptions to the 4th amendment? You right wing 'Constitutionalists' are full of shit. You trash the Constitution whenever it fits your fascist social agenda.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393
 
Sounds logical. I used to work at the welfare office. People drive up in nice cars, nice clothes, tattoos, cigarettes, high on drugs, etc. If they can afford all that and can't afford to buy food then they need to get their priorities in order. Hopefully, this will help do just that.

Looks like you drank the reagan kool-aid.

In response to Reagan's use of the term, Susan Douglas, a professor of communication studies at the University of Michigan, writes:

"He specialized in the exaggerated, outrageous tale that was almost always unsubstantiated, usually false, yet so sensational that it merited repeated recounting… And because his ‘examples’ of welfare queens drew on existing stereotypes of welfare cheats and resonated with news stories about welfare fraud, they did indeed gain real traction."[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen
 
Because they're employees. It's no different than drug-testing employees by corporations, service providers, etc. A benefit recipient is just an ordinary citizen who's fallen on hard times.

Its the same principle. Why should the government be supporting an illegal activity (rich in irony, I know)? I can think of numerous examples that I know personally. While entirely anecdotal, you cannot say it does not happen.

For the record, I have no problem with drugs or people wanting to get bombed out of their mind. But if you are in hard times, you cannot afford that. If you want to use your EBT card to buy steaks instead of cheaper food fine, that's your perogative, but you shouldn't be able to use cash assistance to buy booze, cigarettes, or drugs. That's an ite you don't need and I don't want to support you staying in a bad situation, because then you have no on to blame but yourself.
 
Get rid of what? Mandatory tests? Or military persons?

You know my mantra, we need to greatly reduce our military, start with nuclear weapons and the cost to maintain and protect them. Do it at a rate that does not drastically impact the economy, but our military is just far too large! And since I am reading another Michael Parenti book about the subject, I am on fire with it like a saved sinner, born again!
 
Because they're employees. It's no different than drug-testing employees by corporations, service providers, etc. A benefit recipient is just an ordinary citizen who's fallen on hard times.

It is another case of bigger government, I thought we were trying to reduce government not grow it, but see, it just depends on your politics...
 
Back
Top