I’ll get my degree the same year your book is published. I GUARANTEE it.
Just saying you’re a lawyer doesn’t mean squat, Gerda. Try actually making a coherent statement and people might actually believe you.
i’m a lousy fan, which i guess is why i remain married for 23 years to such a second or third rate musician according to your personal stats mr. gunnar.and please tell me why you bothered to go and see my third rated musician husband recently with king smurf? nothing better to do i take it?
I’m not trying to get in the middle of this love fest (out of character I know)
But to gunnar’s credit he never said that Paul was a second or third rate musician. He merely said that Paul is only popular to a small sect of the population. Which is true, he’s no lady gaga when it comes to popularity.
I don’t think that means that gunnar is not part of that small population.
I’ll see myself to the door.
Late,
grmpysmrf
smurf, you are respected wildly .look back at gunnar’s posts. he does not like anything about me or my spouse. god bless.he can get all sorts of interesting details from al and angie. hahahahahhahaha.
smurf, you are respected wildly .look back at gunnar’s posts. he does not like anything about me or my spouse. god bless.he can get all sorts of interesting details from al and angie. hahahahahhahaha.
I know from personal conversation and just hanging out with gunnar that he adores your spouse…
That’s All I feel comfortable saying.
Late,
grmpysmrf
i’m a lousy fan, which i guess is why i remain married for 23 years to such a second or third rate musician according to your personal stats mr. gunnar.and please tell me why you bothered to go and see my third rated musician husband recently with king smurf? nothing better to do i take it?
I’m a fan of your husband’s work. I’ve never discredited his musicianship. But if you think he’s a celebrity, we may as well just give Samuel Powers (aka “Screech”) a star on the Walk of Fame, because a heck of a lot more people know who he is. I just don’t think you being married to him awards you Liza Minelli status.
Try stepping out of your weird ass bubble dome of a reality that you’ve created and you might just realize that you’re acting like a creep for no damn reason.
huh? i guess (according to your home schooled rationale)there is also no reason for this site to exist. noone mentioned here matters. go back to playing with your toys.my husband, not even al did a damn thing that affected your life. sorry for the interruption.
huh? i guess (according to your home schooled rationale)there is also no reason for this site to exist. noone mentioned here matters. go back to playing with your toys.my husband, not even al did a damn thing that affected your life. sorry for the interruption.
I think there’s a disconnect here…
Gunnar has no problem with AL or Paul however in the immortal words of YODA , “there is another…”
With whom he clashes with and that “other” may or may not be related to the great paul barker, but because he has a problem with that “Other” it is no reflection on the great paul barker… get my drift?
Ok I’m done for real with being in the middle of this.
Good day. Hope you two get it worked out.
Late,
grmpysmrf
huh? i guess (according to your home schooled rationale)there is also no reason for this site to exist. noone mentioned here matters. go back to playing with your toys.my husband, not even al did a damn thing that affected your life. sorry for the interruption.
I never said you affected my life, Lady. Please step out of your diva throne and try to actually read what people write on this board. You might actually realize that all the drama is created by you, for you and that the world does NOT revolve around you.
In the meantime, I’ll play the part of the cocky bastard because you can’t even attempt to answer serious questions that I (or others) propose, and instead lash out with non-sequitors each and every time.
I may not have a law degree, but I’ll still kick your ass in any argument you want to start. Put that in your book and write about it.
The results are IN!!
“Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.”
BOOOOOM!
Wow. Oppressing the masses is expensive. There’s got to be a better way.
$40000-$60000 a year will pay for a lot of hookers. Sounds like a good plan.
Actually, I just read the article. So the bottom line is we ARE saving money by implementing this policy (I thought from Wemp’s summary that we were spending $168 Million to get back $60,000).
So, I’m all for it. To be honest, even if it were a straight break-even on the cost analysis, I’d be all for it.
That $60,000 can go to helping someone who at least cares enough to stay off the junk (or is at least smart enough to fake the test).
Also, the article mentioned that 2% failed the test but that another 2% didn’t complete it. Call me a optimist, but I’m going to add those 2% to the savings columns too as they are most likely either people that KNEW they’d fail the test and abstained or chose to abstain for political reasons (though the chance of this is about 1/10000000).
Bottom line is, they tested people for drugs as part of a qualifying process for public assistance and they saved money doing it.
In the business world we call this a no-brainer. I hope they do the same program in California.
4% is 1 out of 25 people. That is actually a pretty significant number.
Actually it’s 1 out of 50. 2%, not 4% failed. You only assume that the 2% who didn’t take the test would have failed when in reality it could be that they are old, infirmed, or standing up for their rights. In any case, 2% is still only one quarter as many as would have failed a drug test under if the general public were all tested. Even 1 in 25 is still only half. IOW…Scott was wrong. And now, they’re hoping to save about $50k on a $178M program. So they saved .03%…but that doesn’t include the cost of staff hours and other resources…not to mention possible litigation fees down the road. It’s a boondoggle and an attack on the poor, plain and simple.
Actually it’s 1 out of 50. 2%, not 4% failed. You only assume that the 2% who didn’t take the test would have failed when in reality it could be that they are old, infirmed, or standing up for their rights.
Ironically, the author of the article can’t get his numbers straight either. In the title of the article s/he claims that 96% passed the test. Then in the body of the article it states that only 98% passed.
In any case, 2% is still only one quarter as many as would have failed a drug test under if the general public were all tested. Even 1 in 25 is still only half.
Based on what? How do you know what the results would be for the “general public”? Not that it’s relevant, I’m just curious.
IOW…Scott was wrong. And now, they’re hoping to save about $50k on a $178M program.
Yeah, we’d (according to the article) SAVE $50K. It’s politicians continuing to treat such figures as if they are NOTHING when, in fact, it’s $50K, that is a large part of why our country is in a retarded mess of an economic embarrassment. Oh, well . . . I guess we can always continue to raise the debt ceiling, right?
I’m my world $50K is a significant number. And to the guy who’s currently washing windshields at the AM/PM for a buck or two to try and scrape enough money for his rent it will also be a significant figure.
A hard working, tax paying schmuck like me sees the above and the article you’ve referenced and sees this ---- “We’re paying $176 Million Dollars a year to help people, and all we want is for them to have a small measure of accountability. Then when it is shown that that measure would actually SAVE money, the money is treated like dust in the wind.”
So they saved .03%…but that doesn’t include the cost of staff hours and other resources…not to mention possible litigation fees down the road.
Well, whether it ends up costing more in the long run is purely speculative (and highly political), but I’m not arguing the entire issue on strictly monetary basis anyway. Saying that this costs money so we shouldn’t do it is ridiculous, in my opinion. I mean, if we go back to my un-answered arguments with Gerda, we should be cutting LOTS of things that cost money (and seem to “unconstitutionally” assume guilt before innocence) such as checking in on foster homes, enforcing background checks and waiting periods on gun purchases, etc. etc. etc.
It’s a boondoggle and an attack on the poor, plain and simple.
It is NOT a simple attack on the poor. This is just inflammatory rhetoric.
It always irks me when people deny even the possibility of women having babies because of generous welfare support. As if a woman wouldn’t do such a thing. I’ve seen at least three cases of girls (they were still teens) having kids, moving into council apartments (which were quite plush), and going out every weekend getting planked, fat, and then pregnant all over again. Incentivising pregnancy is a gross misstep by any government and is utterly irresponsible. This is not to say that the mothers do not have the capacity to be good mothers but the system is all wrong.
Regarding the drug testing while I’m not up on the details as the rest of you I do think it’s not too much to ask for a drug test in return for welfare payment, even if only to ensure taxpayers money is not funding recreational drug use. However it would also make sense to expect the same tests of all gov. workers and, particularly, bankers who have done the most damage with yo dollah billz.
I’ve seen at least three cases of girls (they were still teens) having kids, moving into council apartments (which were quite plush), and going out every weekend getting planked, fat, and then pregnant all over again.
It doesn’t matter ‘what you’ve seen’. The only thing that matters are the facts. Welfare family are essentially the same size as other families here in the US and both types have been shrinking for decades. There’s also no real incentive to have ‘welfare babies’ for the payout. When New Jersey put a cap on the number of payouts for children nothing changed because it’s a myth to being with.
It always irks me when people deny even the possibility of women having babies because of generous welfare support.
Unless they are cheating the system you can only be on welfare for a total of 5 years through out your lifetime and there is a cap on children. what you go in with is what you get. You get knocked up with quintuplets while you’re on welfare, those babies will not be covered
As if a woman wouldn’t do such a thing.
Greed is not sexist
I’ve seen at least three cases of girls (they were still teens) having kids, moving into council apartments (which were quite plush), and going out every weekend getting planked, fat, and then pregnant all over again.
I would be welling to bet they failed math. Welfare is not enough to live on even with getting checks for dependents
I do think it’s not too much to ask for a drug test in return for welfare payment, even if only to ensure taxpayers money is not funding recreational drug use.
And that’s all we’re saying
However it would also make sense to expect the same tests of all gov. workers and, particularly, bankers who have done the most damage with yo dollah billz.
Been saying this since the start of the thread, homie.
I’ll tell you right now why people on welfare have a bunch of kids. It’s cheap entertainment. Not the kids but the fucking part that produces the kids.
sex is so cheap it’s against the law to charge for it.
So, you’re home, you’re bored, you got no money cause welfare only covers the bills (barely) what’s there to do that doesn’t cost any cash? “well, let’s fuck.” “ok.” only it does cost cash, cause the bill comes 9 mos. later. but people living day to day don’t think about the future. Unless it’s daydreaming about being rich “someday”
Late,
grmpysmrf
I forgot to state that I was not talking about U.S. welfare system. I’m from a welfare state where welfare payments are easier to secure and there is no 5 year limit.
I forgot to state that I was not talking about U.S. welfare system. I’m from a welfare state where welfare payments are easier to secure and there is no 5 year limit.
I think I knew that… don’t know why I answered as if you were in the US.
So ireland (I think is where you mentioned you were from) is a total wefare state? What’s yer unemployment like, as a nation?
Late,
grmpysmrf