Ummmm, that's kinda weird ...

[Thumper]

I did some updates on my computer this morning and shut it down (to reboot later) to hit a few estate sales. I just got home and went to log on to my wifi (router). When I pulled up the screen showing my available connection, I saw the usuals ... Smilin' Jan is my next door neighbor, the Woods Family lives right behind me, etc. etc.

BUT ... the one at the bottom of this list is one I've never seen before. Hmmmmm ....

(I just took a snapshot of my screen with my digital camera ... those lights are reflections from my ceiling fan)

4887

[Big Skyz]

Obummer is after you.

[Thumper]

He might be after posting that Nixon/Obama pic yesterday and all the bad-mouthing we've been doing about Homeland Security! :D

[LJ3]

It's a popular thing to do these days. It started as a meme.

[Thumper]

Ha! Yeppers, I guess so. I mentioned it to my buddy and he sent me this from the net:

4890

[BaseballCoach (Rev A)]

Ours has been CIA Survalience Van since we installed it years ago.

[DeputyDog]

An even better one now would be NSA cell phone tracker

[BarryBobPosthole]

Name it 'Free Obama WiFi' and somebody would have your picture on facebook by the end of the day wanting to make surecyou were drug tested before you got it.

BKB

[Captain]

Name it 'Free Obama WiFi' and somebody would have your picture on facebook by the end of the day wanting to make surecyou were drug tested before you got it. BKB

Mock all you want to Posty, but mandatory drug testing should be done to ANYONE I mean ANYONE that pulls off the government teet....

[BarryBobPosthole]

Well I guess as opposed to most conservatives I know, I'm for less government in our lives instead of more. And testing my pee isn't something I want my government to do.

As for the testing itself, I never saw any evidence in business that pee testing ever did anything to keep drug addicts out of the business. Especially sone they had prescriptions most of the time.

BKB

[No-till Boss]

Well I guess as opposed to most conservatives I know, I'm for less government in our lives instead of more. And testing my pee isn't something I want my government to do.

As for the testing itself, I never saw any evidence in business that pee testing ever did anything to keep drug addicts out of the business. Especially sone they had prescriptions most of the time.

BKB
I think 70 plus billion in the food nutrition fund says you're wrong about the pee test .

[LJ3]

Where I worked in the Army I can guarantee you the pee test kept people from doing drugs. Pretty much every single person. Darn near everyone. It was fairly effective. Um... nevermind.

[Thumper]

Where I worked in the Army I can guarantee you the pee test kept people from doing drugs. Pretty much every single person. Darn near everyone. It was fairly effective. Um... nevermind.

Ditto here. BUT ... I happened to be very close buds with the dude at Headquarters who formulated the "random" testing list. Heck, without connections, our Company Commander would have been one of the first to get busted! Awww, what's a little Thai Stick gonna hurt anydamnway? :biggrin

[Captain]

As for the testing itself, I never saw any evidence in business that pee testing ever did anything to keep drug addicts out of the business. Especially sone they had prescriptions most of the time. BKB
Wrong, wrong and extremely wrong...
Well on edit I must say I cannot say (if) YOU never saw where it helped. You sorta have a unique way of seeing things anyway, So I suppose your statement of YOU not seeing it could be correct. But it would lead to way less government in the long run by getting a bunch of folks off government assistance.
It should be done ASAP

[BarryBobPosthole]

Sorry Larke but there's plenty of evidence already in the states that have already passed the law. We've had the law here in Oklahoma since 2012. It only netted a very small percentage of recipients and is costing us a lot of money. Not a cost effective program at all.
And I've dealt wth more serious addicts in the work environment than you can shake a stick at and i'll tell you the drug screening at work was totally worthless. Sure, we caught a few college interns. But the addicts that costed us the most money were the pain pill poppers, amd there were many, and those aren't screemed for.

Its a good thought, but its a lousy way to do things. Its a feel good measure for conservative who think everyone on welfare is worthless.

BKb

[Thumper]

We tore down the old dilapidated housing projects in town and built new ones. The city decided to make regular drug testing mandatory for any of the residents there. They busted very few people on the program and it ended up costing the city more money than the program was worth. They finally shit-canned the idea.

[BarryBobPosthole]

The problem is....I of course agree with the fact that we shouldn't be giving benefits that are going to be used to buy drugs, alcohol, pussy, whatever. What I disagree with is that there's any data to show what the real percentages are of people who do that sort of thing. The Oklahoma law has netted infintesimal results. At its cost more than its netted.
There's other states though that have the law. How are they doing with it? Maybe they have a better way of doing it than we do. I doubt it though.

BKB

[DeputyDog]

I'm not as smart as a lot of you around here, so I don't know if it's the right way to go about it or not, but there needs to be something done to give people some incentive to get off of the government programs. When it's better to be a single parent than an intact family, and the more kids you have without fathers the more you get paid so that people continue to have kids with multiple combinations of parents, and not try to improve their own position in life, something is fucked up with the system.

[Thumper]

Couldn't agree with you more Deppity.

[Captain]

Well how about this Posthole. Cross reference arrest/conviction records with the handout programs and anyone convicted of drug offenses, or fraud, theft, dealing in stolen property, robbery and other like and similar offenses be ineligible for handout programs? Really no problem or need to add "bigger" government program as all the information is already available...

[Thumper]

Short (I hope) Thump story. Back in the mid-70's, I was working with my dad and we had just started up a company building custom cars. As a start-up business, we were operating on a shoestring budget. One thing we'd learned over the years is that the first thing we wanted to do was to pay our employees well. Training costs a LOT of money .. not only in salaries, but time involved. That was one of our priorities, to hang on to our employees. BUT ... as a small start-up, we simply could not afford an employee insurance plan at the time, but figured if they were getting paid better than they could at any other similar company, they could buy their own if needed. (many had working spouses who'd put them on THEIR plan)

Anyway, we had one young employee (Dave) who was one of those exceptional types. He was young, maybe a couple years out of high school, but he was a super fast learner, a concientious employee and just a general all-around great guy/employee. I remember the day he came into my dad's office and said he was going to have to resign. It was a total surprise and we asked him why. He told us his wife was pregnant and they couldn't afford to have the baby if he was working. WTF???

Turns out, she didn't work and he didn't have insurance. If neither of them were working, the state would take care of the hospital expenses. He actually laid a spread sheet out on my dad's desk and compared what benefits they would receive if NOT working, compared to income/expenses if he continued with his job. Even if we'd have given him a nice raise (to his already higher than comparative salary), there's no way we could even come close to matching it! He was super nice about it, told us how much he loved his job and the employees there, but he simply could not afford to continue working with a new baby on the way!

I was only in my mid-20's at the time ... but it was a lesson learned that I've never forgotten. He was a REALLY good guy and a hard worker ... I can imagine how some worthless scum-bucket could work the system ... probably for a life-time.

[DeputyDog]

Good thing we have Obamacare now so that scenario isn't still happening. ;)

[BarryBobPosthole]

Well how about this Posthole. Cross reference arrest/conviction records with the handout programs and anyone convicted of drug offenses, or fraud, theft, dealing in stolen property, robbery and other like and similar offenses be ineligible for handout programs? Really no problem or need to add "bigger" government program as all the information is already available...

That is the current federal law. The law allows rapists and murderers to get TANF support, but not anyone convicted of drug offenses.

BKB

[HideHunter]

Along those same lines, Thump. We had a young girl in town who got married too young - had a kid - husband left.. She and the kid were living in a rented trailer and she was working part time as a hair dresser.. Nice kid and she was really "trying". She went to the county ask if there might be any help available. First thing they did was tell her to quit her job. They then put her on assistance.. gave her insurance. paid her rent.. bought her a car. The *good* thing is she was able to "break out" a few years later.. I guess you can say this one has a "happy" ending - but - I can also tell you about another family just down the street that is now on their *5th generation* of welfare.. some have broken away but many are boozers and druggies... and thieves.

I am just not a fan of my taxes paying people to do nothing.. and even worse, abusing the privilege.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Those are good examples of the terrible ways that people can game the system. And it pisses me off too. But I have yet to see anyone come up with a system where there isn't a small percentage of people who do that stuff. Anecdotes are fine but they aren't the majority, and that's probably where I will be in disagreement with you guys. I also can't get past the notion that if we're such a great christian nation with high ideals, how can we not take care of our veterans who served our country, our poor folks and elderly, and those people who are a bubble off plumb and can't care for themselves. I guess its okay to bitch about pulling out too soon from those poor fuckers in Iraq who don't have the backbone to stand up for themselves, and call for sending more money, more people, and more shit to them. But it is wrong to give folks who need it here anything. I ain't a bleeding heart but I sure do think inthe grand scheme of things there's stuff we need to clean up a lot worse than TANF welfare.
BKB

[Buckrub]

Some things are just right to do, whatever they cost.

Like, ensuring valid and proper voting by citizens only. Or eliminating food from sales tax.

Or ensuring that folks that pay taxes to be given away to those 'in need' can be assured that it only goes to clean living individuals. How few it catches is immaterial. Arguing cost effectiveness of essential programs is a smokescreen.

What's right, is just right.

[No-till Boss]

Some things are just right to do, whatever they cost.

Like, ensuring valid and proper voting by citizens only. Or eliminating food from sales tax.

Or ensuring that folks that pay taxes to be given away to those 'in need' can be assured that it only goes to clean living individuals. How few it catches is immaterial. Arguing cost effectiveness of essential programs is a smokescreen.

What's right, is just right.

So you think doing away with the grocey tax here in Arkansas was a good idea ?

[Buckrub]

We didn't do away with it. The Democrats tried to, but couldn't bring themselves to do away with all of it because it 'cost too much'. So, they left 'some'!~

It's wrong to tax groceries or medicine. It just is.