This was forwarded to me by my sister-in-law. Kind of an intriguing idea:
To Pee or Not to Pee
Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes & the government distributes 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 check because 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 save if 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”!
P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!
i proposed this in a sociology class once… the professor said the benefits are for the children, not the fuck-up parents, so piss-tests would unfairly discriminate against under-privileged children.
whatever… give them all the rest of my money. i’m gonna be on welfare myself, if this fuckin economy doesn’t pick up- might as well put it in the pool.
OOPS- that’s right… i’m a working man. those of us who’ve actually worked our asses off our whole lives are the only ones who cant collect. my bad.
How bout we just cut the entitlements out except for those who cannot physically take care of themselves? If you are able bodied enough to work no welfare for you.
If the parents cannot support their kids because they are too doped up or lazy to get a job then the state should take the kids away. If you do not, and you give them welfare then the kids are just a paycheck, and the money is not going to get spent on them anyways. At the very least these people should get mandatory health and welfare checks as a condition of receiving welfare, and if their kids are not living right then take them away, and cut the welfare from the parents.
I’d support that. Ive had that mindset since I was a wee lad. Growing up in eastern KY you see alot of pill popping trash on gov. checks for back problems and then see them out scrapping metal through the week. Then you have people like my uncle who found he had MS and got fired, 3 kids and a wife and he couldn’t get assistance for about a year and a half. Even then it was only for a predetermined amount of time. Now he cant hardly stand or walk and its still like pulling teeth to try to get any type of financial help.
I worked with my father renovating houses (Nice and bad, just depended) in Lexington Ky. for quite a while. In the course of my time there we maintained some section 8 rental property as well. There wasnt one section 8 house I went to that was occupied that they didnt have flat screen tv’s and 12 pairs of NICE shows for their kids. Or fourwheelers, stainless steel grills and nice furniture. And I dont know how you could know for sure but most looked and acted like druggies. So yeah, I’d like to be the one to force them to piss in a cup, and the one given the honor of revoking their checks
Fuck those who leech off the system. They should be put to work hard labor chain gang style for 5 years and then set back out and told to get a job within a year or its back to breaking rocks with a pick axe. Oh wait, jee I forgot, we can’t do that it would be racially discriminating.
my counter idea was to eliminate ALL food/cash benefits entirely, and offer child-care vouchers ONLY, and to anyone who qualifies financially, regardless of gender or marital status. this way being married isn’t a penalty. the liberal consensus is that women sit around all day on welfare because they can’t afford babysitters to work- but otherwise want to work and be self-sufficient. well, pay their fuckin babysitters, then.
obviously this’ll do nothing to contribute to the problem of kids not actually getting raised, but professional child-care workers are probably better at it than fucked up mom anyway.
Thats the thing, I cant tell you how many people were on disability or some other gov. check for back problems. Its hard to prove weather someone has a bad back I guess. But you’d sure as shit see em out scrapping steel all the time. And your right, the money doesnt go for the kids, it goes to drugs. Then the kids either grow up in shit or get into drugs too and become another leech. Its a perpetual cycle unless its broken by somebody on the outside
The only argument I have seen was people claim it is an invasion of privacy, and assumed guilt. My previous employers would have asked me if I wanted the job or not, and hired the next guy in line who was willing to adhere to the rules.
I think that if you’re receiving gov’t assistance, you should be working for the government. If you have training in something, then do that, and if not, go clean litter and whatever else it takes to keep the infrastructure going. It shouldn’t be welfare, it should be a paycheck.
Government jobs don’t do anything good for the most part (outside of police, courts, and military of course) because they drains the tax funds but contribute nothing. Everything but what I listed above and the legislators can and should be privatized.
No I mean disability like the person is a quad, mentally ill, etc. Not someone who has a sore back.
My wife has a couple relatives like you describe though. One is obese, and collects disability because he’s too fat to work. The other is a faker, and tries to slip in stores to sue them for money. These types should not get one red cent. They can work. They just don’t want to.
No shit! Those are the folks who should have to take random tests. If you have passed a law stating that a person is too drunk to drive at .080 or greater, then you are too drunk or stoned to legislate when you reach a comparable level of impairment.
