Florida Corruption, Making Mexico look Better By The Day

[JC5123]

Call me jaded.  Call me wrong.  But I am willing to accept the sketchy practices of a governor's wife making money off of drug tests for welfare recipients if they can successfully implement them.  Is it wrong that she get the bid:  maybe, probably.  Is it a step in the right direction: in my opinion, you dang right.

The water district example is nepotism at its finest.  That should probably be dealt with.

I'm all for testing welfare recipients. However, is that what this is? Reading FQ's post I am under the impression this is to get a state job. Not to collect welfare.

[tombogan03884]

I'm all for testing welfare recipients. However, is that what this is? Reading FQ's post I am under the impression this is to get a state job. Not to collect welfare.

To collect welfare, State, and Federal employees have been tested since Reagan was in office.

[mkm]

I'm all for testing welfare recipients. However, is that what this is? Reading FQ's post I am under the impression this is to get a state job. Not to collect welfare.

From FQ's original post.

Our fearless leader has vowed that he will make all state employees and welfare recipients be drug tested across the board. Not for cause or in certain jobs, but everybody.

I'm not 100% on why FQ is mad, but I think it mostly has to do with the governor's wife making money off the process of testing everybody.  I could be wrong with my interpretation of that, but I was mainly working off of the posts since the first one.

For me, I'm pissed off enough with welfare that I don't care who makes money doing drug tests if they can finally cut back on the fraudulent lazy people taking advantage of the system.  (There are people who legitimately need welfare and are trying.  I just haven't met many.)  If they can afford drugs, fancy cars, and nice toys, they don't need welfare.

As far as drug tests for jobs in general, I'm mostly of the opinion that as long as you don't do it at work and it doesn't affect your job; why should I care.

[fightingquaker13]

From FQ's original post.
I'm not 100% on why FQ is mad, but I think it mostly has to do with the governor's wife making money off the process of testing everybody.  I could be wrong with my interpretation of that, but I was mainly working off of the posts since the first one.

Bingo and end of story. I have issues with drug tests in general on 5A grounds. But here I am leaving that aside. Lets conceed that they are totally legit. The question is why start them, when they weren't there before, using my tax money to line your wife's wallet. This isn't about piiss tests, it's about moving money from the pockets of the tax payer to the pocket of the governor and that ain't right. Granted other firms will benefit as well, good for them. But you cannot deny that the Scott household will pocket tax payer money due to this plan. And I defy anyone to tell me that's not wrong. Want to make it right? It's easy. Divest all shares in Solantic (the drug testing firm). Just sell them and you have zero profit motive. Do that and I have zero issues with you on moral grounds. Its just a gentlemanly dispute about policy. That's ok. Stand to make millions, its not ok. Why hasn't he done that?
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Something for FQ to think about.
The Founding Fathers never "divested" themselves. It was common sense that after they left Office they still needed to support themselves.
When George Washington was President the major industry was agriculture, he owned and operated a large plantation.
When he legislated on the "Whiskey tax" his operation was one of the largest distillers in America.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

Something for FQ to think about.
The Founding Fathers never "divested" themselves. It was common sense that after they left Office they still needed to support themselves.
When George Washington was President the major industry was agriculture, he owned and operated a large plantation.
When he legislated on the "Whiskey tax" his operation was one of the largest distillers in America.

Are even being serious when you ask that question? Should a politician be able to benefit directly from a policy they pass? Yes or no. It's an easy question.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

If it is a pre existing business, and not a monopoly why not ?
Are you against policies that protect jobs in health care ?