I have a job.
I work, they pay me.
I pay my taxes & the governmentDistributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, in my case,I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem).
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes To people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare checkBecause I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT----doing drugs while I work.
Can you imagine how much money each state would saveIf people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!
Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country - AND SOON!
P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!.... They should also have to pass an intelligence test, a common sense test and an understanding the constitution test!!!
<<Can you imagine how much money each state would saveIf people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?>.
You mean, by denying assistance to those who need it? yes, that would save money. until the more expensive social problems that would result come to bear... but hey, far be it from a social conservative to look past tomorrow ;)
I do not understand how anyone could have a problem with this. If people choose to make the 'lifestyle choice' of drug taking and drinking all day, that's fine, but why should people who actually contribute to society be expected to subsidise this lifestyle choice?
That's the thing about the left, isn't it? It's all rights, no responsibilities. Hilarious to read comments about 'denying assistance to those who need it'. We're talking about people who choose to drink and drug themselves to the point where they can't/won't work, not people who are physically or mentally incapable of work through no fault of their own. Here's a thought - maybe they wouldn't need so much financial assistance if they stopped spending other people's money on their own destructive habits.
I realise addiction is a complex issue but regardless, it's ultimately the addict's responsibility for the situation they find themselves in, it's certainly no fault of the often hard working taxpayer who are expected, by some, to fund the addiction. And maybe the threat of losing benefits for a positive test would be the impetus for some to try to get clean and actually contribute something to society, instead of expecting others to work on their behalf. To me, that is a good thing.
It's your choice to put up with it nobody else is forcing you to work at a place involved in that practice.
"Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?"
The cost of the bureaucracy to set up and to actually perform the tests would cost a lot more than the cost of the checks. But, hey, aren't you guys against more government regualtions??
Good for you...and Hal9000...I'm retired myself...
Guess what, they're trying this here in FL. It's ended up costing the state more than it saves....
"The rich pizza on the poor enough."
Poor people <piss on themselves.