BREAKING: U.S. Senate REVERSED Major Obama Law. He’s Reportedly FURIOUS!

[LonestarDream]

The Senate has now passed some legislation that will see a rule from the Obama administration reversed. As a result, states which are trying to stop unemployment benefits from going to drug users will have the power to do so returned to them. (via Washington Examiner)

The Obama law was closely repealed by a Senate vote of 51-48.

...

Now that this silly rule has been repealed, there is now scope for the Labor Department to redo the rules so states will actually benefit from this type of policy.

Democrats are worried that there are going to be too many hurdles put in place for people to receive unemployment benefits.

Though they are claiming that people legitimately looking for work are going to be effected, there’s just no evidence to support that. If these people are doing nothing wrong, then they will get what they are entitled to.

Welfare fraud is too big of an issue in our country to ignore. Tens of thousands of people on a daily basis defraud the system. This sees taxpayer money go to people who don’t need it and don’t deserve it. These people become lazy and do not push themselves to find new work, especially if they also abuse drugs.

We the People should not be forced to foot the bill for people so they can load up their stash and get high all day. This reversals in the first step in ensuring this will no longer happen.


https://www.teaparty.org/breaking-u-s-senate-reversed-major-obama-law-hes-reportedly-furious-223937/

[LonestarDream]

More winning!!!!

On substance!


@Right_in_Virginia
@truth_seeker
@TomSea
@Emjay
@Sanguine
@don-o

[LMAO]

The Democrat party needs to go out and fight for this. They need to state loudly and proudly to the public that those who choose to abuse drugs should receive unemployment benefits

[Jazzhead]

Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?   

[LonestarDream]

Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?

Special pleading for here for gov waste?  Disappointing.

@Smokin Joe
@INVAR
@roamer_1
@txradioguy

[EC]

Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?

If they are incapable of holding a job because of it - no. Next stupid question?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?

Yes, if entitled.

[Cripplecreek]

Yes, if entitled.

Yeah, if they've earned the benefits they should get them.

After all, this is unemployment not lifelong disability payments.

[Jazzhead]

If they are incapable of holding a job because of it - no. Next stupid question?

The question wasn't stupid.   The purpose of the law appears to be punitive -  drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits,  not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job".    Why should an individual who lost his job for economic reasons - laid off because the employer's sales are down - have to satisfy a drug testing requirement to receive unemployment benefits?   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yeah, if they've earned the benefits they should get them.

After all, this is unemployment not lifelong disability payments.

I never particularly agreed with the GOP being stingy with ue benefits. I believe the argument back around 2009 or so was extending them from 6 months to 1 year. Ue benefits are for people who have worked, unlike other types.

[LonestarDream]

Yeah, if they've earned the benefits they should get them.

After all, this is unemployment not lifelong disability payments.

Up to two year in the New York State during the 'financial crisis' .  And that is before regular welfare benefits kick in....

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The question wasn't stupid.   The purpose of the law appears to be punitive -  drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits,  not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job".    Why should an individual who lost his job for economic reasons - laid off because the employer's sales are down - have to satisfy a drug testing requirement to receive unemployment benefits?

It's up to the states to decide. As they are paid for by taxpayers/businesses we have a right to put stipulations on them.

[EC]

The question wasn't stupid.   The purpose of the law appears to be punitive -  drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits,  not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job".    Why should an individual who lost his job for economic reasons - laid off because the employer's sales are down - have to satisfy a drug testing requirement to receive unemployment benefits?

Goalposts moved. However ...

Why should an employee have to satisfy drug testing to keep their job?

[LonestarDream]

The question wasn't stupid.   The purpose of the law appears to be punitive -  drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits,  not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job".    Why should an individual who lost his job for economic reasons - laid off because the employer's sales are down - have to satisfy a drug testing requirement to receive unemployment benefits?

Not punitive.  Drug and alcohol use causes laziness.  They are also luxuries that beggars should not be choosing .

[LonestarDream]

Goalposts moved. However ...

Why should an employee have to satisfy drug testing to keep their job?

Heavy Metal.  Mining, trains etc.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Drug and alcohol use causes laziness.

Debatable. Do you drink coffee?

[LonestarDream]

Debatable. Do you drink coffee?

More like common sense, which is apparently uncommon. 

Very telling that the conservatives on this board are being told that we must pay for others drug and alcohol abuse. 

You force 'society' to provide charity- and 'society' gets veto rights in your lifestyle choices. 

[DCPatriot]

I never particularly agreed with the GOP being stingy with ue benefits. I believe the argument back around 2009 or so was extending them from 6 months to 1 year. Ue benefits are for people who have worked, unlike other types.

Obama lengthened it to TWO years....and then after that, inflated the Medicaid and Social Security Disability Insurance rolls...to keep the peasants from lighting their torches and storming Washington.

...in the meantime, they changed the manner in which they figure the 'Employment Rate', to mask the 95 million who collected for 2 years and exhausted said UE benefits.

[EC]

Heavy Metal.  Mining, trains etc.

Exactly. There are good reasons for making sure people on the job are not impaired by various substances.

Now, since the goal of the person I was replying to is a "fair" society - surely it is unfair to have one standard for the employed and another standard for the unemployed. That would, after all, be prejudice.

[LonestarDream]

Obama lengthened it to TWO years....and then after that, inflated the Medicaid and Social Security Disability Insurance rolls...to keep the peasants from lighting their torches and storming Washington.

Thank you.  I guess because Trump is going to sign this Senate bill, we will have special pleaders on the board to subsidize drug and alcohol use.

If there were ever an obvious way to filter out 'free rider' problem on an over taxed society, then this is it.

[LonestarDream]

Exactly. There are good reasons for making sure people on the job are not impaired by various substances.

Now, since the goal of the person I was replying to is a "fair" society - surely it is unfair to have one standard for the employed and another standard for the unemployed. That would, after all, be prejudice.

Sarcasm here ?  I hope so!   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Thank you.  I guess because Trump is going to sign this Senate bill, we will have special pleaders on the board to subsidize drug and alcohol use.

If there were ever an obvious way to filter out 'free rider' problem on an over taxed society, then this is it.

I don't disagree with trump/senate on this. The more the states decide the better.

[Jazzhead]

Exactly. There are good reasons for making sure people on the job are not impaired by various substances.

Now, since the goal of the person I was replying to is a "fair" society - surely it is unfair to have one standard for the employed and another standard for the unemployed. That would, after all, be prejudice.

Oh c'mon.   Why would I object to an employer's ability to require its workers to be sober on the job?    After all,  it's the employer's ass that risks getting sued.   But a rule that requires drug testing as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits?   That's arbitrary and punitive.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Oh c'mon.   Why would I object to an employer's ability to require its workers to be sober on the job?    After all,  it's the employer's ass that risks getting sued.   But a rule that requires drug testing as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits?   That's arbitrary and punitive.   

It's a form of social engineering.


This action is just saying it's up to states to decide btw. It's not mandating drug testing.

[EC]

That's arbitrary and punitive.   

It's completely fair. Everyone is held to the same standard, employed or not.