published Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

The Drug Test

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

122
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

As long as there is no drug testing on Wall Street.

May 9, 2012 at 12:15 a.m.
John_Proctor said...

The government has been pissing on the 4th Amendment for many years now. From the unpatriotic "Patriot Act" to the TSA's legalized fondling program, we have been urinating on the right to be left alone for some time.

May 9, 2012 at 12:26 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

FAIR IS FAIR

if government thinks you have to pass a drug test to earn money from tax payers, give a cup to politicians first.

I wonder where the over/under would be in Vegas?

The new dim-witted republican governor here in Florida passed a similar bill that's costing more money to administer than it actually saves. People applying for Welfare pay for the drug test up front. If they pass they get their $30 back. If they flunk they don't collect and the State keeps the drug test money

I guess republicans don't know that the cost of illegal drugs is out of the reach of most poor people. Turns out that only about 3% of applicants failed the test, while law enforcement estimates put illegal drug use statewide at somewhere between 7 to 10%

Going after Welfare recipients is another goofy example of republicans targeting the wrong people. Raising taxes on people living in poverty won't balance the budget. So why target the poor?

Come to think of it I guess there are two reasons:

First, the republian party is a wholly owned subsidiary of rich people.

Second, poor people have lousey lobbyists.

May 9, 2012 at 12:32 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

You Mean THAT Horace Cooper?

The lovely TQ is losing some much needed beauty sleep quoting Horace Cooper, former Labor Department official in the Bush administration (Thar y'all go blamin' everthang on Dub-yuh!). Horace was charged with felonies, copped a plea, and served time in federal prison. Apparently TQ's Constitutional go-to guy was caught up in the Jack Abramoff scandal along with lots and lots of other republicans.

You mean THAT Horace Cooper?

Going to prison doesn't make him wrong, but it doesn't make him right, either.

The republican party: making America safer for the filthy rich!

May 9, 2012 at 2:29 a.m.
joneses said...

As a hard working tax payer I am required to take random drug test by my employer. If I fail a drug test I will be terminated from my job. So if my money is going to support the people that need welfare and those that sit on their ass and mooch off us that choose to work for a living I have no issues with them being subject to drug test. I actually think all members of congress, the president, Supreme Court Justices and federal state and municipal employees should be drug tested if those of us in the private sector are required to be drug tested. The able minded and physically abled people that choose to mooch off the rest of us that are abusing drugs will not be abe to secure a job if they test positive for drugs by a potential employer. With this in mind the physically fit on welfare that use drugs have no plans to ever stop mooching off the government. Now Tennessee can wait for obastard to sue the state now for making his voting block take drugs and making them have a shred of accountability.

May 9, 2012 at 5:47 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

7 comments--7 comments!

Do Nashville and D.C. have to take drug tests before they can search for and seize my earnings to pay for worthless and evil programs?

Is power a drug?

May 9, 2012 at 6 a.m.
joneses said...

Did anyone read the article in this liberal rag, The Chattanooga Times Free Press, that says the pathetic Mayor Littlefield announced not tax increases in his budget? That is a flat out lie and this paper knows it. The tax increase comes in the form of 9% higher storm water fees from commercial businesses which will be passed onto us consumers through higher prices of the products we buy at places like Publix, Bi Lo, Lowes, Home Depot, local hair styling centers. Why are all liberal/dummycrats pathological liars?

May 9, 2012 at 6:18 a.m.
joneses said...

Chattanoogan.com's headline read "City's $209.3 Million Budget Includes No Property Tax Increase, But 9.7% Rise In Sewer Fee". Do you see the difference? Chattanoogan.com printed the whole truth not just half of the truth to make this POS mayor look like he is not raising taxes. Another reason I do not subscribe to this biased liberal rag called the Chattanooga Time Free Press. I encourage all to cancel your subscriptions to this POS newspaper until they decide to report all the facts. They could start by firing the biggest abuser of the whole truth, Clay Bennett.

May 9, 2012 at 6:46 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

And yet you come here so often, and every time you click that mouse you benefit the TFP. Here's an idea: why don't you boycott this site?

May 9, 2012 at 7:18 a.m.
dude_abides said...

"On the dust jacket of his new book, "The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas," best-selling conservative author and commentator Jonah Goldberg is described as having "twice been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize." In fact, as Goldberg acknowledged on Tuesday, he has never been a Pulitzer nominee, but merely one of thousands of entrants. When this bit of résumé inflation was pointed out by a reporter for msnbc.com, Goldberg said he hadn't meant to mislead anyone and removed the Pulitzer claim from his bio at National Review Online."

Drug test this GOP-POS.

tu_quoque: Keeping Eveready in business for longer than she cares to admit.

May 9, 2012 at 7:36 a.m.
bandmom said...

I am expected to submit to drug testing at my place of employment in order to be hired and keep my job. The taxes paid by my employer and by me on my earnings are directly supporting welfare recipients, so why should they not be expected to do the same?

May 9, 2012 at 7:44 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

SO IT COMES FULL CIRCLE

Band mom pointed out that she is "Expected to submit to drug testing at my place of employment," and that the, "Taxes paid by my employer and by me on my earnings are directly supporting welfare recipients."

Exactly true, but there's the rub. It might very well cost MORE tax dollars to drug test welfare applicants and recipients than the government will ever SAVE to 'weed' out the druggies.

Eliminating government waste is a great thing and I wish politicians were more sincerely dedicated to pursuing that end. On the natinoal level we could cut a ton of brass from the Pentagon, for instance, and not lose one ounce of military effectiveness. There are probably many examples of government waste at the local level that would actually SAVE money.

But drug testing for Welfare strikes me as political grandstanding that actually wastes more money than it saves.

May 9, 2012 at 8:03 a.m.
hambone said...

n the case of the drug testing in Florida, does the walk-in clinics Gov. Rick Scott's wife owns do the drug testing?

May 9, 2012 at 8:05 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

bandmom said... I am expected to submit to drug testing at my place of employment in order to be hired and keep my job. The taxes paid by my employer and by me on my earnings are directly supporting welfare recipients, so why should they not be expected to do the same?

Just because you gave up your rights, doesn't mean the rest of us should.

Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights

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. http://www.conservativeusa.org/historicdocs.htm

You have a choice whether you work for company A, company B, or not at all. What choice do these people have? You make it illegal to grow your own food, then make them cough up money for a drug test, just to eat. So tell me Bandmom, how do you fit your logic into the Bill of Rights?

Those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it!

May 9, 2012 at 8:22 a.m.
conservative said...

I miss yesterday's drawing by the loontoonist. I guess he took it down because he realized that he steped in something. Wonder why no attack on the North Carolina voters? Even he had to know the outcome.

Oh well, this one is surely to bring out the leftist loons as well.

May 9, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.
patriot1 said...

blackwater points out that it "might" very well cost the govt more to test welfare applicants than they would save....LBJ promised that the War on Poverty would not only help manage the pain of poverty but eradicate it....after trillions and trillions of tax payer dollars have been spent to that end, we still have as much poverty...should we end that effort as well? How many applicants would not even apply for benefits knowing that a drug test is requried for benefits? Notice how blackwater says it "might cost more" in essence admitting there is no way of knowing.

May 9, 2012 at 8:28 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than state saves, data shows

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html#storylink=cpy There are several, I just pasted one of many.

This is not about drug testing. It is about breaking our government piece by piece into bankruptsy, so we have little choices as a free people.

May 9, 2012 at 8:37 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I miss yesterday's drawing by the loontoonist. I guess he took it down because he realized that he steped in something. Wonder why no attack on the North Carolina voters? Even he had to know the outcome.

It's still here, and you left it with unfinished business. How about coming back and answering the question posed to you? Or is it that you simply have no answer? It would be more honest if you just admitted that.

May 9, 2012 at 8:39 a.m.
joneses said...

lkeithlu

Because I get to use their site to expose their incompetence and lies and it does not cost me one penny stupid.

May 9, 2012 at 8:49 a.m.
conservative said...

Unfinished business? Who do you think you are, a dictator, a heathen god?

I don't stay up at night answering questions from seethen heathens. You are one arrogant atheist (redundant).

May 9, 2012 at 9 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Deadbeats, panhandlers, druggies and all their enablers, you want free money, then piss in the bottle and shut up. If it's drugs keeping you from working, then you are worthless to society. Rather than free money, we should feed you habit until you take that big highball to the sky. Then no more welfare worries.

May 9, 2012 at 9:17 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Patriot1: LBJ's "War on Poverty" accomplished 2 things. wasted trillion$ Gained millions of Dem voters.

BTW, I think drug testing for teat suckers is a waste of time and moolah.

May 9, 2012 at 9:24 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

"So if my money is going to support the people that need welfare and those that sit on their ass and mooch off us that choose to work for a living I have no issues with them being subject to drug test."

OL' JONESES GOT TOO PERSONAL, DIDN'T HE BLACKWATER?

May 9, 2012 at 9:32 a.m.
hambone said...

Why do so many not get the point here? Its not about people on welfare doing drugs. Its about giving up one more piece of YOUR RIGHTS! Would you want the police coming in your house any time the want to. Without having to go before a judge and show probable cause? Would you want to have send in a DNA swab with your income tax return?

So many cry about big brother watching and yet will go along with this!

May 9, 2012 at 9:35 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

WOW!!! Since when do liberals care about the cost of anything? You libs with your socialist president are spending money hand over fist with NOTHING to show for it ($5 trillion and counting)!!

Now all of a sudden you're a bunch of penny pinchers?

Forget about $500 million to Solyndra, Forget about $800 billion for a fraudulent stimulus!

Now all of a sudden it's: OH MY GOD!! DRUG TESTING WELFARE RECIPIENTS COST TOO MUCH MONEY!! WE CAN'T DO THAT!!! Selective spending with you people!

May 9, 2012 at 9:53 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

When you allow yourself to become dependent on the government you give up rights and freedom. Leftists are not interested in liberty or rights, they are only interested in being taken care of at someone else’s expense. If you go on the dole you can expect there to be "conditions". Are you starting to understand the problem with advocating for a nanny state yet?

May 9, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
conservative said...

TOE... You go man!

Lieberal sheep (redundant) have been led to believe by bad shepherds that drug testing is against the Fourth Amendment.

Someone needs to inform them that drug testing has been going on for a long time and has already passed Constitutional muster.

May 9, 2012 at 9:58 a.m.
conservative said...

BRP... You go too! Well stated!

May 9, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

JustOneWoman: Really? You're sooo transparent!! Do you really expect people to believe that the reason you're against drug testing welfare recipients is because it cost too much?

It's more like you liberals just hate it when someone tinkers with a solidly democratic voting bloc!!

You're not fooling anybody, nice try!

May 9, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201205090053

You GOT to read this!! A terrible sign for the messiah! HAHAHA!!!

May 9, 2012 at 10:23 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

joneses-neither does cancelling subscription-your silliness is noted conservative-your dishonesty is confirmed. thanks

May 9, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
mymy said...

Toe: my post the same, but from Europe. The whole world know what a classless D A$$ he is.

May 9, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
mymy said...

All one has to do is look at the topic of this toonist, to know how broken our society has become.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299273/occupy-and-moral-infrastructure-thomas-sowell?pg=2

May 9, 2012 at 10:35 a.m.
conservative said...

Ditto mymy, Thomas Sowell is always a good read.

May 9, 2012 at 10:42 a.m.
ibshame said...

Rightwing nuts quote articles from the likes of papers owned by Rupert Murdoch and from wingnut magazines like the National Review and everyone is suppose to bow to their "superior" coverage of President Barack Obama.

As for the drug-testing for Welfare Receipients: If a potential receipient has a known past of drug abuse then the person should be required to take a drug test and if they pass it then there shouldn't be a problem for them to get the aid that is needed. However, if there is no evidence or suspicion of drug abuse then there should be no need for any potential receipient to take a drug test.

One has to wonder if these rightwing nuts who like quoting Drug addicted, pill popping, junkie Rush Limbaugh would object to him taking a drug test everytime he goes on the air to spew his venom and lies?

May 9, 2012 at 10:50 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

TOES02800 said... JustOneWoman: Really? You're sooo transparent!! Do you really expect people to believe that the reason you're against drug testing welfare recipients is because it cost too much?

It's more like you liberals just hate it when someone tinkers with a solidly democratic voting bloc!!

You're not fooling anybody, nice try!

Not trying to fool you toes! But it happens anyway.......

May 9, 2012 at 10:55 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

There is something rather perverse about the way Tennessee’s arrogant self-serving “representatives” continue to create these laws to persecute poor people. Indeed, if these so called "representatives" want to look after the taxpayer’s money as they claim, they should examine their own voting misdeeds – starting with their own “ghost voting” activities.

Clearly, since their “ghost-stick-voting” is such a well established practice, it will be far more productive in the big picture. A typical Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipient only receives about $140 a month in benefits. A typical representative on the other hand makes around $19,000 per year plus a per diem of $173 each day for the days present at a session.

May 9, 2012 at 10:55 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

Ibshame, They throw away the constitution like it was an old doormat. I can't wait for Viagra to be illegal. Let's see some of these conservative's heads spin!

May 9, 2012 at 11 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Not persecuting the poor mountainlaurel, Just persecuting drug addicts.

Tell me , why is just fine to drug test the people who earn money, and not fine to drug test the people who take the money?

Why are you only opposed to testing "poor" people? Yet you seem to have no problem with testing the working class.

May 9, 2012 at 11:06 a.m.

nooga: Sounds like a fine idea to me. But let's drug test posters to this site too. Or at least, test them for integrity. But it looks like AndrewLohr complained about it too. Give him credit for that.

Continuing on, the failed War on Drugs needed yet another boondoogle to waste money on. Thanks Republicans, your fruitless war is quite a boon to those in the corrections industry. Has the drug problem gotten better or worse since Nancy Reagan told us we needed to fight the scourge? Never think about that do you right-wingers? It's drugs. Drugs are bad. Must pour money into fighting it! (Obvious exclusion applies to the libertarian contingent who dogmatically insist the government should get out of that affair).

At least the War on Poverty has done some good. I'm sure you folks don't see it, since you can't be bothered to live the life of the poor, nor notice how many of them aren't suffering as badly as they would had they not had support. Then again, you do complain that they have TVs, Air Conditioners, and refrigerators, and aren't living as badly as the poor in a third-world nation. But that's not something you attribute to recovering them from poverty, just to them not being poor.

It's nearly impossible to notice when something is not happening.

Much like you don't notice how your roads have been paved thanks to the Stimulus, or how bridges have been repaired, or any of the numerous other things that didn't get ruined because things didn't go completely to heck. All you've got is your complaints.

Yet you defer on giving answers, as lkeithlu is getting from conservative right now.

Huh.

May 9, 2012 at 11:13 a.m.
mymy said...

ibshame: rather obvious you do not understand what real pain is and getting relief for the pain you can become dependent on a drug. Different! I'm in a cronic pain situation and fighting the use of relief drugs 24/7. I sit here in pain refusing to take something except when I have to do something. Want to come clean my home, go the grocery store, do some yard work, etc. for me. You Fool. In time I may have no other choice just to be able to get out of bed!

Do away with welfare. It is out of control. The war on poverty (vote getter) has made the problem worse. We need to get rid of give-a-way politicians both parties, get this country turned around and force those lazy A$$'s collecing out tax dollars to get and education and work for their living! If government could run something right, start another program for the truly needy.

You libs are the nuts.

May 9, 2012 at 11:14 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

That welfare needs reform is obvious. People who cheat the system should be discovered and dealt with. Welfare should be limited in both time and scope. But being poor is not a crime, and violating their privacy without cause is simply wrong. If there are suspicions, evidence of past use, etc. fine. But wholesale testing? No. I am tested because I hold a commercial drivers licence and driving is part of my job. Federal mandate from 1991, so my employer has no choice. It does not bother me all that much-safety first.

May 9, 2012 at 11:20 a.m.

mymy: Obviously you missed the 1996 reforms. They do have requirements for education and work requirements. Look at the name:

"Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act"

Who named it? Who wrote it? Have you seen the content?

I'd suggest you refrain from deriding other people when you're only showing your own ignorance.

Or is this going to be like when people were complaining about fathers not paying child support, but I pointed out that the law required them to be identified, and yet everybody kept demanding the same thing?

May 9, 2012 at 11:24 a.m.
mymy said...

happy: No matter: It is not working! The Tea party is getting rid of some old, longtime politicians. What is your side doing? Voting for the same old destructive bunch. One of these day, when not too late, I hope you wake up.!

May 9, 2012 at 11:30 a.m.
ibshame said...

"conservative said... Ditto mymy, Thomas Sowell is always a good read."

No small wonder someone like Sowell would appeal to right wing nuts. Fortunately you are the only ones he appeals to because most Blacks have never heard of him and the Great Majority who have share the opinion below.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/thomas-sowell-idiot-emeritus-hes-an-uncle-tom/question-1458639/

May 9, 2012 at 11:35 a.m.

mymy, You were completely oblivious to it, and now you say it's not working?

That's a good indicator of the value of your analysis.

And no, the Tea Party is not doing any better, at best, it's voting for a new, even more destructive bunch. Even Richard Lugar knew that.

I honestly hope you wake up. Especially since the Tea Party are nothing more than a paid propaganda group dedicated to the interests of a select few that is deceiving a larger group into following their line...off a cliff.

I'll discuss their other problems some other time. Kinda straying off the point here.

We should at least stick to welfare reform related topics. So anyway, can you show your analysis is correct, have you looked it up?

May 9, 2012 at 11:35 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Here we are with yet another "crisis" that the Repubs are so good at manufacturing. Just like we had to do something to stop the massive, runaway voter fraud (all .0002 - .0004 percent of it) now we gotta do something to put an end to the deficit-adding government waste that those lazy no-good druggies on welfare (all 2-3 percent of them) are contibuting to. You have to give those teabagging Repubs credit- they're masters at creating tempests in teapots and making their gullible bootlickers believe there is cause for alarm.

So now we're 4 years into this recession, with millions of Americans still unemployed and hurting, and those conservative goons in the White House can't come up with anything better than things like pissing in a cup, enforcing photo ID for voting, defunding Planned Parenthood, squawking about the "sins" of the gay lifestyle, etc. They whine about the huge deficit but the only solutions they can come up with for reducing it are to nickel-and-dime the inidigent to death and leave the "poor maligned over-taxed" rich folks alone. Lord knows, we don't want to do anything to hurt the "job creators." Piss on the poor and the middle class (or worse yet, make them piss on themselves - and pay out of their own pockets to do it!) but make sure that the good stuff keeps trickling up to them that already have it. Forget the American Dream. We are now living in the age of the American Scheme...and that scheme is a scam.

May 9, 2012 at 11:35 a.m.
ibshame said...

"mymy said... ibshame: rather obvious you do not understand what real pain is and getting relief for the pain you can become dependent on a drug. Different! I'm in a cronic pain situation and fighting the use of relief drugs 24/7. I sit here in pain refusing to take something except when I have to do something. Want to come clean my home, go the grocery store, do some yard work, etc. for me. You Fool. In time I may have no other choice just to be able to get out of bed!"

I kind of expected this kind of response when I labled Rush Limbaugh a pill popping, drug addicted, junkie. Your kind always seeks sympathy for pain but you give none for any one else. That's suppose to excuse the fact he sought out illegal drugs and sent his maid out to buy his drugs when he nor you would offer any such sympathy to some welfare mom. You want your house cleaned? Get the phone book and look up Merry Maids they might be able to assist you, I don't clean houses.

May 9, 2012 at 11:44 a.m.
mymy said...

happywithnewbulbs: even more destructive bunch!

Oh, you mean those that want to keep this country from becoming Europe? WOW!

Ricka: Did you hear the comment by a democrat comedian, forgot his name? The American Dream-go for it. You go for it/make it and Goverernment says FU I want more than my fair share. Bet he will not vote for O again.

Good day to the braindead here!

May 9, 2012 at 11:51 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

It's almost like Obama running around the country scaring college kids about the "student loan crisis"! As it turns out, this "very important bill" that "must be passed" saves the average student four dollars a month! Good job Obama!!! That'll get us back on track!!

And who pays for the thousand dollar tattoos that these "helpless poor people" have all over themselves? As long as they vote democrat, they can have everything they want, right?

If these "poor" people voted republican, you libs would be throwing temper tantrums until they got tested!

And the American dream is living on welfare? Talk about setting the bar low.

ibshame, at least limbaugh wasn't using taxpayer money for his habit. I don't care who does drugs as long as they don't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill.

May 9, 2012 at 11:51 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

ibshamed: Why is it you southpaws fear black conservatives like Sowell?

May 9, 2012 at 11:59 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Of course the American dream is not living on welfare, TOEjam. It is government programs and policies that have enabled people who might never have a chance to realize it. It is about having steps in place that help people scale what would otherwise be an insurmountable wall. Today's conservatives are doing everything they can to take those steps away.

May 9, 2012 at noon
hambone said...

I sure am glad they have not started drug testing us on social Security yet. With all the RX 4 doctors have got me taking I would have to take a sack full of bottles with me to the test!

I dare say that before I retired that I whizzed in a bottle more than any of those posting here. Anyone thats worked consruction knows what I'm talking about. But that was a condition of employment and my choice. When the money is good you do whatever it takes!

Once again I say, if you complain about government intrusion in your life?

May 9, 2012 at 12:01 p.m.
ibshame said...

"TOES02800 said...

ibshame, at least limbaugh wasn't using taxpayer money for his habit. I don't care who does drugs as long as they don't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill."

Oh but you see he was using TAXPAYER MONEY. He was under investigation for THREEE YEARS using taxpayer money. In the end they had the goods on the fat, pill popping, drug addicted junkie but he agreed to go to one of those fancy rehab places in lieu of going to jail. You see that's the kind of sympathy his kind can get they don't have to worry about losing anything.

"WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A three-year investigation into drug use by Rush Limbaugh ended abruptly when the conservative commentator was booked on a single charge of prescription fraud in a deal his attorney says spares him a trial.

The charge will be dropped if Limbaugh continues treatment, attorney Roy Black said Friday.

“He feels that a great burden has been lifted from his shoulders,” he said. “What he told me is that this is the first day of the rest of his life.”

Limbaugh surrendered at the Palm Beach County Jail and was booked on a warrant charging him with “doctor shopping,” when a patient illegally deceives multiple physicians to receive overlapping prescriptions.

Under the terms of the deal with prosecutors called a pretrial diversion, to be filed Monday, Limbaugh will be cleared of the charge if he stays clean for 18 months and doesn’t violate any laws, Black said

May 9, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.
ibshame said...

"Jack_Dennis said... ibshamed: Why is it you southpaws fear black conservatives like Sowell?"

I don't fear "Black conservatives" like Sowell or any one else for that matter. I certainly don't fear Colin Powell, Condelezza Rice, Harold Ford Jr.,or some others. What I do see as the difference between those Black conservatives and what I like to refer to as the trio of hypocrites: Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Clarence Thomas is the fact the trio of hypocrites would destroy the very programs that put them in the positions they are in today. Sowell, Williams and Thomas cowtow to the right wing nuts because somehow they think by doing so they have "left the plantation" but in reality they have just moved from the field to the big house.

May 9, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Toes02800 said: "Not persecuting the poor . . . Just persecuting drug addicts. . . Why are you only opposed to testing "poor" people? Yet you seem to have no problem with testing the working class."

I believe you’re totally ignoring the reasons why some occupations require drug tests, Toes02800. Clearly, there are “safety” issues associated with certain types of occupations, which makes the drug test requirement understandable. Applying for TANF assistance in the State of Tennessee can hardly be compared to piloting an airliner full of passengers.

As for Tennessee’s lawmakers, they revealed their real intent by requiring TANF recipients to pay for the drug test, which I understand will cost about $30 per test. I suppose the $30 fee doesn’t seem like much to a lawmaker making $19,000 per year plus a per diem of $173 a day, but for families who will only receive about $140 a month, the amount is rather steep.

And if the intent of Tennessee’s lawmakers is as you claim to “persecute drug addicts," there are other groups that could and should be tested. But they have money, which means our politicians will not be interested. In fact, I was just reading about one of these groups today:

“The rate of substance use disorders among physicians (nurses too) is as high or even slightly higher than among the general population.”

“What Happens to Addicted Physicians?

For decades, what generally happened to addicted doctors is easy to summarize: Nothing. . . ”

“What is addiction among physicians like. . . ?

“Benny was a friendly, well-liked, surgical resident whose heavy pot use was the subject of humour rather than concern among the medical staff, who considered it a harmless hobby in which he engaged off duty. Unfortunately Benny was called into surgery at a time he didn’t expect and went into the procedure still under the influence of cannabis. Everything seemed to go well until afterwards, when Benny couldn’t find his hospital locker key. Still a bit foggy-headed, he assumed he’d dropped it somewhere in the halls and it would eventually turn up. He went home in his scrubs to get some sleep. The next day he got an urgent telephone call from the attending surgeon. The patient had developed a high fever and begun vomiting uncontrollably. The medical team felt a hard protrusion at the surgical site and feared that a clamp had been left inside the patient. Emergency surgery revealed that the object was in fact Benny’s locker key.”

More examples and discussion at:

http://www.samefacts.com/2012/05/health-care/helping-and-learning-from-addicted-physicians/

May 9, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.

mymy: Becoming Europe? But wait, wait, I thought Europe was engaging in the pattern of austerity and spending cuts that we were supposed to enact! They were getting rid of the socialism! Not to mention adopting anti-immigrant laws!

Oh wait, their austerity programs are causing MORE economic collapse?

No, I don't want to follow that particular European model, thank you very much. But keep using Europe as your punching bag, if you want, we can become more like China instead, apparently their economy is doing great. We just need more authoritarian controls on society!

BTW, guess who just got Swiss Citizenship? Tea Party heroine Michele Bachmann.

Apparently becoming a citizen in Europe is ok!

TOES02800: If you actually check voting demographics, you'll see "those poor people" are voting Republican. And yes, many Democrats are quite aware that they're voting against their own interests, but any suggestions of sanity checks are tongue-in-cheek not serious.

This is not true of the GOP, for example, at the American thinker, Matthew Vadum, who suggested that registering the poor to vote was Un-American.

May 9, 2012 at 1:15 p.m.
hambone said...

I see the resident TROLL has arrived!

May 9, 2012 at 2:19 p.m.
Exusiai said...

To those of you quoting the Bill of Rights you may want to actually look at the wording there

Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights

"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."

Persons, Houses, Papers and effects. this does not cover Government buildings.

JustOneWoman said... "You have a choice whether you work for company A, company B, or not at all. What choice do these people have? "

They have a choice to apply for welfare and take a drug test OR to get a job OR to move in with family or friends OR to go to a community kitchen... I could go on with the list, but as you can see they have several options as I just listed four.

And while I'm on the subject, How is it illegal to grow your own food? Where on God's green earth did you get that crack head conspiracy theory statement?

What is every farmer in America breaking the law?

If you as a private citizen walk into a building and apply for Government Assistance, and it is a requirement to pass a drug test to get said assistance, then it is not a violation of your rights to ask you to pee in a cup. Since you knew walking in the door what would be required, by signing the paper you are agreeing to submit to that test.

Anyone that thinks this policy is in violation of the 2nd amendment needs to actually take and study a civics course, or in some cases retake it.

Let me tell you why. It does not affect the subject's "Persons, houses, papers, or effects" it is collecting and testing a sample of their waste, and Waste is in effect public domain. It is theoretically possible for them to just sit in the sewer outside your house and collect the sample, and its legal.

It is not an unreasonable search or seizure. It is perfectly reasonable to ask an applicant to submit to a drug test. If it was illegal my employer and thousands of employers across the country would be in violation of this law. Most people today expect to be drug tested when applying for a job, and if it is an expectation it is not unreasonable.

There is no warrant involved.

So in closing, arguments that it is in violation of the 2nd amendment is an invalid argument.

Thank you for shopping though, Have a nice day.

May 9, 2012 at 3:15 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Hmmmm, though I never said it was illegal, I still think it is wrong and a violation of privacy.

May 9, 2012 at 3:28 p.m.
EaTn said...

Copied from my comment on a similar article on this site:"I think to require pee drug tests from all on welfare is totally absurd, especially those like a 90 year old grandma. However, to require drug tests from those who have been convicted of a drug related offense the past five years is not out of the question. There is a big difference."

May 9, 2012 at 3:44 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Too many Tolstoys on here. Keep it pithy.

May 9, 2012 at 3:49 p.m.
Exusiai said...

There is a difference between the 90 year old lady on Social Security and a person applying for Food stamps and government cheese (I really miss Government cheese that stuff was awesome).

The Food Stamp / Welfare program is funded by tax payer dollars. Social Security is something you pay into and get back when you retire in payments.

If I were an employer I'd require drug testing. And in theory I as a taxpayer am employing those on welfare to sit on their rear end and do nothing. I Want them drug tested.

I've known people who got food stamps and sold them so they could have drug money. How does that feed their children?

Sorry no this law needs to be implemented nationwide.

May 9, 2012 at 3:52 p.m.
Exusiai said...

nooga said... "Seems kind of funny that your all in favor of drug testing for welfare recipients, but only lil jonnie and Blackwater suggested drug testing the biggest leechs of tax payer money, the politicians "

I agree whole heartily. As their employer I want them tested. As their employer I want them docked a days pay if they miss a vote.

May 9, 2012 at 4:02 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

Exusiai said... Let me tell you why. It does not affect the subject's "Persons, houses, papers, or effects" it is collecting and testing a sample of their waste, and Waste is in effect public domain. It is theoretically possible for them to just sit in the sewer outside your house and collect the sample, and its legal.

So let me get this straight......It is theroretically possible to father a child if we catch the waste spilt and place it accordingly. Would you then be responcible for that child, or should we go for reckless endangerment?

I would argue that waste is indeed an effect. I find that it is silly for you to think anyone can have "any" pc of my, or your being, waste or not. You may be totally correct about the law. But right is right and wrong is wrong. Wonder who is doing the testing. Follow the money, everytime

I looked for the information about the 10" vegetable restrictions. It has been a few years back. So I will agree that without proof it is an invalid argument. But just look at the ordinances. If they can control your grass height, they control what you grow.

May 9, 2012 at 4:14 p.m.

Exusiai, this drug test isn't about searching government buildings, they're welcome to do that. Even searching people to some extent going in the buildings, though that has been abused as well. They are also not collecting waste, but explicitly and deliberately requesting evidence in a controlled fashion.

It's about a reasonable search and that standard it does not meet. Nor is it cost-saving. It's a wasteful boondoggle. It certainly won't help stop the fraud you allege, as the testers won't catch tobacco or alcohol, and those are more common than anything else.

But we can't go banning them, that'll hurt businesses. Can't just provide food kitchens either, that'll keep them out of the stores!

Btw, there are many elderly on food assistance programs, Social Security doesn't necessarily cover your expenses. SNAP does have special rules for them.

Yet they will need tested too. How pleasant.

Besides, most of the positives where for marijuana. As a drug, it's no worse than tobacco, so why is out criminalized? I know! To feed the corrections industry.

(PS, 2nd Amendment? I think you mean 4th)

May 9, 2012 at 4:51 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Well, I see that the Annointed One came out with a position on same sex marriage. After his gang of thugs did extensive polling. What a punk.

May 9, 2012 at 4:56 p.m.

Well, I see the first right-wing troll has decided to bring today's obsessive Obama screed to this discussion.

Why not post it on the previous cartoon?

May 9, 2012 at 5:02 p.m.
hambone said...

Note to whoever: There are many elderly people not eligable for Social Security that are on welfare.

Not many 75+ pot smoking grannies around!

May 9, 2012 at 5:27 p.m.
mymy said...

Happy: Cause the Preeze did announce until today! Had to send his thugs out first to break the ice. Watch some decend news. Then you might learn something.

May 9, 2012 at 5:40 p.m.
Exusiai said...

happywithnewbulbs said...

Typo, oops my bad.

May 9, 2012 at 5:49 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Hambone said: There are many elderly people not eligable for Social Security that are on welfare. Not many 75+ pot smoking grannies around!

Indeed, Hambone. According to Meals on Wheels, 17.57% of people in Tennessee over the age of 60 were at risk of hunger in 2010. Needless to say, Tennessee is one of the top ten hunger states. The Meals on Wheels Research Foundation says America is failing its seniors:

“One in seven seniors in America -- some 8.3 million people -- faced the threat of hunger in 2010, a 78 percent spike since 2001, according to a study released today by Meals On Wheels, the nonprofit that delivers meals to the homebound.”

"There is no question that we are failing our seniors, some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens,” said Enid A. Borden, CEO of the Meals On Wheels Research Foundation, in a statement. “The numbers spell out our failure with clarity, and at the same time they call us to action. No one in this, the richest nation on Earth should face the threat of hunger, no one. And seniors, who have little power to change their circumstances, deserve our special attention.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/threat-of-hunger-hunger-risk-food-insecurity_n_1475367.html

May 9, 2012 at 6:15 p.m.
moonpie said...

As long as toe, BRP and conservative continue to misrepresent liberal perspectives to try to strengthen their own arguments, why don't we call this idea what it is: Regulation.

This is another piece of Regulation for those with the fewest means.

Why are Republicans so keen on deregulation for companies, and so pro-regulation for people?

I thought you guys hated regulation. North Carolina proved that wrong.

Oh well.


With that being said, I'm not sure this is a terrible requirement. Before we run headlong into it, I do think we should study whether it is cost effective. Where it has been tried, does it work? At what cost?

I also think that this type of legislation needs companion legislation such as:

If we are going to require Welfare recipients pass drug tests, we need to step up drug rehabilitation efforts and treatments.

Offer parenting classes and support groups to help new mothers who never had adequate role models. Where these have been tried, we are beginning to see many children break free from the shackles of poverty even though their parents never will.

Legislation to require that food stamps be used for certain staple foods. No junk food.


Conservative, joneses et al.

You and others continue to say President Obama's stimulus package didn't work. We were on the brink of global economic collapse. The line in the sand of 8 million unemployed was a stupid promise, in my estimatation. When LB fell, it was utter chaos. What would have happened if CB, BOM, AIG, GM and others collapsed? Our economy was a hosue of cards built on credit default swaps and commercial paper.... and his policy prevented the real possibility of global economic collapse.

You now have the luxury to claim his policies didn't work because you never had to live through the misery that his actions prevented.

May 9, 2012 at 6:29 p.m.

mymy, you misapprehend my remark. I'm quite aware of it, that was why I was wondering why it took so long for somebody to broach that subject here, even though it has nothing to do with the subject of today's cartoon, it is part of today's agenda of postings by right-wing trolls. They're supposed to be posting about it everywhere. Maybe they used up all their material yesterday.

Want to provide any backing to your analysis of the 1996 welfare reforms? Just to try to stay on topic.

Moonpie, it'd be even more cost-effective to provide the meals directly, or even just set up shops for them. The reason it's not done is because that would cost the free market its share of the money. If ADM actually had to produce healthy meals, they'd have to cut their profits.

May 9, 2012 at 6:36 p.m.

Actually, that case was not drug tests, but home visits, a different set circumstances from drug tests, and that opinion explicitly narrowed its coverage. And the dissent commented how the majority's conclusion that the visit was not a search was specious.

Sorry, but your case law is not controlling.

May 9, 2012 at 6:51 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Goofball mentioned minimum wage should be made into a living wage. I'll tell you that these people can't even get a fast food order right. Minimum wage was never intended as a living wage, It was intended as a stepping stone to the betterment of oneself.

If people could comfortably live from working at burger king, where would the incentive be to better themselves?

I see a lot of liberals on here chiding the "big, mean millionaire corporate bosses". But at least they create or produce products we use every day. Why not deride the millionaire actors out in hollywood? They are filthy rich too and yet offer absolutely NOTHING to society. I'll bet it has something to do with the fact that they're lock step liberals, and therefore get a free ride.

May 9, 2012 at 7:06 p.m.

I see a lot of conservatives on here adopting the idea that the way to cure poverty is to make life insufferable for the poor, as if they were all lazy and just needed a good kick to to the rear as motivation. Strangely this is not always true. Not everybody can achieve great things on their own, and sometimes people can try very very hard and achieve little while another effortlessly gets what they want. (And I expect some conservatives to interpret that as Darwinian, but that only applies when you want them to suffer for it).

Nor do those corporate bosses really create those products all on their own. Sometimes they know how to do it, but sometimes they just own the factories that do. In any case, they do rely on the labor of many others to get it done.

But if you want criticism of millionaire actors, you can find it across the spectrum. But have you ever noticed that liberals don't go out of their way to say that we should all be like those actors? He same cannot be said of conservatives who want us all to worship and pander to the corporate overlords. Which includes Hollywood and their accounts in many ways.

But do you really want the person serving you your food to resent their job?

May 9, 2012 at 7:19 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Somebody has to own the factories, do they not? That's just the liberal jealousy coming out. That's a big sticking point with you liberals, you just HATE success! And just how in the world can a large business owner pay million dollar salaries to the labor which he/she employs?

bulbs, from your comments prior, I conclude that you are in fact a communist. Have you ever been hired by a poor person? I very much doubt it.

May 9, 2012 at 7:42 p.m.
rick1 said...

moonpie, BOA,CB, AIG, and even GM received TARP money which was signed by Bush. GM received a $14 billion bailout which was voted on in December 2008 before Obama took office and GM and Chrysler received approximately $77 billion in TARP money. These funds were not from Obama's stimulus. These companies should not have received any type of bailout from the government. They should have filed bankruptcy and reorganized. If you remember GM saif they needed the money so they would not have to file bankruptcy and they ended up filing bankruptcy anyways. The only difference was Obama took control and screwed the bondholders and took care of the UAW. We here how good GM is doing but they still have not paid back all of their TARP money and their stock is at $22.40 a share. The government still owns 500,000 million shares, which would have to sell at $53.00 a share for the govt to break even.

When Obama signed the stimulus he promised that it would "create or save up to 3.5 million jobs, and that a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed across America. The stimulus, would,ignite spending by businesses and consumers and bring real and lasting change for generations to come."

In October 2010, Obama "there's no such thing as shovel-ready projects."

Here are some other facts on the stimulus:

Unemployment is still above 8% after Obama said it would not go above 8% with the signing of the stimulus.

Over 5 million people have given up looking for work.

Civilian labor force continues to shrink.

According to Sentier Research Household Income Index The median annual household income is about 7% below where it was in February 2009.

According to the Treasury Department's monthy report the latest figures put the nation debt at $15.4 trillon, which is up $4.5 trillion, or 41%.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Gross Domestic Product has climbed just 6% between Q1 2009 and Q4 2011.

The original estimate cost of the stimulus was $787 billion. The CBO is now saying tt will have a cost of $825 billion.

Moonpie, politicians created this problem and then they tell us they are the only ones who can fix it. That is the problem, they make the situtaion even worse when they try to fix what they broke.

May 9, 2012 at 9:22 p.m.
rick1 said...

Ibshame, said Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Clarence Thomas is the fact the trio of hypocrites would destroy the very programs that put them in the positions they are in today. Sowell, Williams and Thomas cowtowto the right wing nuts because somehow they think by doing so they have "left the plantation" but in reality they have just moved from the field to the big house.

Wow you should be ashamed making a racists statement like that. Thomas Sowell is 82 years old and Walter Williams is 76 years old. Both of them had their college degrees and became successful before the civil rights act of the 1960’s. Are you saying that blacks could not become successful before the civil rights act? So what programs are they destroying? Are you saying since Clarence Thomas and other blacks who went to college after the civil rights act are not allowed to have free will and think for themselves? Or are you really saying blacks are not smart enough to make it to college on their own and are not capable of thinking on their own and are expected to be in debt to the democrats for the rest of their lives? What do you mean they have moved from the field to the big house?

May 9, 2012 at 9:50 p.m.

TOES02800, using derogatory labels like that won't get you very far. They just show you have been indoctrinated in your anti-communist mindset. You'd probably say "Better Ned than Red" if they told you. And you'd probably think that the Soviet Union or current China and North Korea was actually communist, when they're no more communist than they are Democratic. The autocrats just co-opted both terms.

In regards the division of salaries, the current CEO salary is about 400 times that of the average worker. I don't see a need to demand a million dollar salary for the average worker, when just a couple thousand dollars would make a huge difference. Is that so unfathomable?

But no, factories don't have to be owned by one single person who takes the lion's share, and the dog's share, and the tiger's share, and the eagle's share, and the mouse's share, and leaves the tick's share for the people who actually do the lion's share of the work. They can be owned and operated in a variety of ways.

Besides, do you think a rich people are only source of employment? Not so for me, but even when they do, where does that rich person get their customers that feed their wealth? How many rich people sell solely to the already wealthy? I can't think of any single rich person who garners their wealth solely from their own labors. And I really can't think of many who sell solely to the rich. I think a lot of them are rich because they're making money off the labor of others, both directly(as customers) and indirectly(as producers of what is sold to customers).

Me? I work directly for my clients, so actually, yes, my salary has come far more from average people than rich. I know my clients, usually they're people of average income, and often enough, they work just like I do. The rich ones don't make up a huge proportion of the customer base I have.

Though I have found the rich do try to avoid paying if they can. So they make up more of the bother. It's strange, a poorer person can feel ashamed of not paying you on time if they have a real difficulty in paying, while a richer one can get indignant if you tell them their check still hasn't arrived.

tu_quoque, your own citation indicated that they were as concerned with the nature of the "search" as they were with the purpose. They spent quite a while pontificating how it wasn't actually a "search" but just a visit. Which as I said, the dissent didn't buy.

And a home visit is quite different from production of a sample of bodily fluids. If you can't tell the difference, I suggest you work harder.

It also doesn't live up to the cost-savings claimed. Especially when you consider that most of the positives were for marijuana. Really, for 45,000 extra dollars, they could just produce marijuana for a ton of people and prevent a lot of crime far more cheaply.

May 9, 2012 at 10:37 p.m.

rick1: Too bad you've not driven on any of the newly paved roads that have been constructed in this county. You might appreciate the stimulus that paid for them. Or the numerous other things that were done. Obama was certainly a bit more optimistic, and he got frustrated that things didn't happen as quickly as they could have, but is that really a lie, or is it honestly admitting that things didn't go perfectly? I know the Republican Mantra is to continually claim that it's all perfect and never admit fault, but I appreciate Obama's take a good bit more. It's genuine, not phony. I suppose it makes it easier for you to seize on it as somehow being a complete failure, but I guess that's the price of actually trusting people to accept that you're not perfect. Some won't.

BTW, if we're going to complain about CBO estimates, what's the number on the Iraq war, you know the one that Obama is paying off while Bush kept it out of the budget?

May 9, 2012 at 10:39 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Everything you say is communism!! You don't hear anything but what is humming in you head! Re-read your posts!! It's exactly what the communists want! I'm certainly glad that you people are a tiny minority of the population! Man, was mommie a hippy? You have absolutely NO clue how free market works! Poor lost commie.

May 9, 2012 at 11:04 p.m.

Everything you just said is an indication that you've been indoctrinated to believe communists are evil and wrong. You don't hear anything but what's been brainwashed into your head. It's probably in the form of a song. Heck, you probably just call anything you're trained to disagree with communist. It's convenient when you don't have to think for yourself, isn't it?

I wish people like you were a smaller portion of the population. You have no clue how the free market has been corrupted, how klepto-oligarchs take advantage of the system you claim to enjoy, how the labor of people is taken from them by those with power and influence, or what genuine communists actually want. Namely for people to be treated right and paid fairly for their work, as opposed to slaving away all day so somebody else can enjoy the fruits of their labor. In other words, the exact same thing you've already claimed to want yourself. Yet it's terrible for them to want that. Terrible you say! You're just a poor little deluded victim of a bunch of expert con-artists, taken in by a bunch of lying thieves who have convinced you that they are to be esteemed even as they fleece away everything you've earned.

I bet if you were a cookie maker, and walked into the room where the CEO of the bakery was, and he took ten of the 12 cookies you just made after hours of labor, you'd believe him when he said the other workers wanted to take your cookies. But for the price of only one cookie, he'd protect you!

May 9, 2012 at 11:19 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

DimBulbs likes the sounds of his own keystrokes.

May 9, 2012 at 11:32 p.m.
328Kwebsite said...

Perhaps we should drug test some Republican elected officials and their staff. Breathalyzer included. Since they are in office for their entire term, the surprise drug test should be conducted at any time of the day or night while they are in office. If they fail, we can have them pick up trash on the side of the road wearing a sign that says, "I am a drunk legislator."

May 9, 2012 at 11:41 p.m.

Jack_Dennis: Guess you like petty insults over actual constructive commentary? Your failure to offer any meaningful response says a lot more about you than me.

Of course, the inaction of this site's moderation to do remove your posting will say a lot about them. But that's another problem.

328Kwebsite: Better yet, we must test them before every vote, every speech, and ever committee meeting.

Can't be too careful.

May 9, 2012 at 11:44 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Like I said, bulbs is a rabid communist. And a very stupid one at that!

May 10, 2012 at 6:52 a.m.

Like I said, TOES02800 can offer no constructive discussion, just what is believed to be insults, but only proves his own lack of information.

Thanks TOES02800, you've just proven yourself incapable of actual dialogue and discussion. All you can do is try to harangue others.

I appreciate it when people reduce themselves to nothing more than insults, it helps convince me that I'm at least closer to being correct than they are.

Though really, the TFP should remove such comments as yours anyway, since they do not contribute to improving the quality of discussion, but only serve to show how debased this site is.

May 10, 2012 at 10:32 a.m.
chet123 said...

RICK1....WE ARE GOING TO REMEDY THAT PROBLEM.....NOV WE ARE GOING TO VOTE OUT THE DO NOTHING REPUBLICAN CONGRESS....AND VOTE FOR JOB BILLS...HA HA HA HA

May 10, 2012 at 4:09 p.m.
rick1 said...

chet123, the House has voted on and passed over 20 jobs bills, but Harry Reid refuses to bring them up for a vote in the Senate.

Stop reading your liberal talking points and try to educate yourself.

May 10, 2012 at 7:56 p.m.

Rick1, stop reading your conservative talking points, and try to educate yourself.

There's no House jobs bills, there's just pork to the defense industries and tax cuts to people who aren't hurting anyway, well, not themselves, they surely are hurting the American people.

May 10, 2012 at 8:24 p.m.
rick1 said...

Bulbs, you are refusing to face the truth that the House has presented over 20 jobs bills to the Senate and Harry Reid refuses to bring them up for a vote. If these bills are just pork to the defense industry and tax cuts to people who are not hurting as you say then Harry should not be worried about them passing. If they do pass and it as all of this in it then Obama does not need sign it into law. Harry Reid is the one who is obstructing not the Republicans.

May 10, 2012 at 8:58 p.m.

No, rick1, you are refusing to face the truth that your so-called jobs bills will do nothing to improve employment to this country.

I commend Harry Reid for saving us the trouble of not having to spend money conducting votes rejecting such nonsense.

You should appreciate his thriftiness instead.

May 10, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.