dapokerbum 0 Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 he's complaining that employers do drug testing.keep voting republican, mdm. they care about your privacy and don't at all want to legislate your personal choices for you.Ah. My thoughts on that are that if you do any kind of work that is Safety Regulated by the Federal or State Governement, then you should be drug tested in order to perform your job. The reasons should be obvious. One example that I used last time was the transportation industry (Pilots, Bus and Truck Drivers, etc). However, if you are not in that field and you are not working for the government then it is up to the company. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 I read an article in the Sunday paper yesterday about the State of New Jersey and City of Camden in the last decade 2000 – 2009 the state has sent 1 billion dollars support to the city government. That is 100 million dollars a year. Care to guess the population of the City of Camden NJ? According to the paper it is 80,000. Staggering math. For the last 10 years they have spent 1.25M per resident (many not citizens) each and every year. In return there is a city in shambles, no tax base left, drugs are rampant, and the police and the fire company are being forced to lay-off up to 30 percent of each department, why? Because the State is going to cut back the funding and there is mass protest in the city…1.2 million per person for 10 years and they have a deficit!?!? How? Why? Is there any question now as to why they elected a fiscal conservative for governor in the bluest of states? Crazy. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jers...n_s_crisis.html Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Your math is a bit off. It's 12,500 per resident, not 1.25 MM. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Your math is a bit off. It's 12,500 per resident, not 1.25 MM.But, your honor, that's devastating to my case! Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Your math is a bit off. It's 12,500 per resident, not 1.25 MM.LOL my head almost exploded!! damn zeros!! Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted December 14, 2010 Share Posted December 14, 2010 Your math is a bit off. It's 12,500 per resident, not 1.25 MM.maybe so but the point is still valid. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted December 14, 2010 Share Posted December 14, 2010 maybe so but the point is still valid.Possibly. It works out to be $1,250 per person, per year. I am not sure what the money went to/for. I would need to see that to make a final determination. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,320 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Possibly. It works out to be $1,250 per person, per year. I am not sure what the money went to/for. I would need to see that to make a final determination.Here in Ontario the Provincial Government transfers to Municipalities a lot more money than that. There are many programs that the local government administers but the Provincial Government either partly or wholly funds. Things like Welfare, Public Transit, and major infrastructure projects for example. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now