Some questions for a potential Newbie

Is it at all possible to get off your trainers truck early to get your own I understand that if you need the training you need it but when it comes down to a decision of your trainer going to let you off early because your doing great and all sudden he needs money so he says he's going to keep you longer so he can make more money that's sounds like the decision of a democrat doing what benefits him and not carring about anybody else and the fact they have worked so hard to get where they are and need to make money as well I have bills to pay to and him holding me to his benefit because I'm doing well and he gets to take home 3000 to 6000 a week starts discuriging you as a TNT trainee you don't get to make much and he was telling me how great I'm doing and that he's going to let me off early because he thinks I'm ready but then his daughter calls and ask if they can take a cruis this summer so then he decides he's guna keep me longer for his benefit while in the mean time the money factor is killing me and I want to get out there and make myself some real money rather than working so hard to pay his bills please give me some input on this thank you

 

Where did I say that? We are discussing the fact that it costs more money to drug test welfare recipients than the money it saves. Welfare recipients already exist. So you want to add more government and raise taxes by drug testing them now? I already cited the fact that is cost Florida 177 million to test the 2% that were positive. That's a huge waste of money for a false assumption that welfare people are lazy drug addicts. Now imagine if we did that in every state. That would add over 8 BILLION in taxes.

 

Does Prime help or do they have a board for you to look for a team mate if you want to run teams. How is the pay and miles set up if I want to be on a team

 

I am not sure but U2 will be on here later and might be able to answer that question

 

Well allow me a guess: You are for Ron Paul. Awe-inspiring.

 

Maybe you could find a legitimate thread to post your question on. This one started its life as a slime eating slug and has since devolved.

 

I don't believe anyone ever said they assume that people on welfare are all drug addicts. Do you assume that I am a drug addict? Does my employer? Using your logic, apparently so. It costs them money to drug test me, I have never used drugs or had a positive drug screen, yet every employer I have had in the last 10 years has drug tested me. Why? Because they want to be absolutely sure that none of their employees are using drugs. Does it cost them money to always test people? Of course. It is an investment they make to protect the integrity of the company and in some cases to protect the general public.

I believe if the government is doling out money, it is the responsibility of the government to do their best to ensure not a single cent of that money is going for illegal purposes and to help protect the integrity of the system. Why should someone in the welfare line not be expected to comply with the same requirements I have to in order to be gainfully employed? If they aren't willing to take a drug test, they shouldn't receive benefits.

As to your claim of $8 billion in new taxes, I believe these programs should be handled at a state level, so it certainly would not increase federal taxes in the way you indicate. Furthermore, you continue to cite Florida as an example, but I would be interested in reviewing numbers from other states where a similar program has been implemented and functioned over a period of time. You're asking people to assume that Florida is representative of the country as a whole, and I believe more data would be necessary in order to
substantiate those claims anyway. From my limited knowledge of the Florida data, I believe that program was in place for less than six months. Cite data from a program that has been in place for several years and I would find it to be more credible and truly representative of the current state of affairs.

 

Nope. Ron Paul is a racist and should never be POTUS.

 

I would, except Florida was the only state to implement such a program until it was found unconstitutional. I know you didn't say it, but calling all welfare recipients lazy, is like calling all truckers dumb scumbags with missing teeth and tattoos.

 

See, and that's my problem with the data. Michigan tried quite a few years ago and it was similarly struck down. Its actually in the works again up here, but rather than the old system (which I believe was similar to Florida's in that it tested regardless of suspicion ), the thought is to require testing based on some type of documentable suspicion. Its an interesting issue, and I would like to see data on a larger scale. Maybe in a few years.

The stereotype certainly is that welfare recipients are lazy drug users. I've known some of them. I also know some really great, honest, hard-working folks who have fallen on some hard times and had to rely on the system to help pull them through. I agree that there is no one-size-fits-all answer and that there is no single stereotype that is accurate.