Latest Hard Metal Pricng

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Urine or You're Out - To Pee Or Not To Pee...VERY TRUE!‏

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"! 


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!

 oh, and by the way,.. town councilors also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Submitted by: Gordie 


Plans to drug test welfare recipients gain momentum


CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Conservatives who say welfare recipients should have to pass a drug test to receive government assistance have momentum on their side.
The issue has come up in the Republican presidential campaign, with front-runner Mitt Romney saying it’s an “excellent idea.”
Nearly two dozen states are considering plans this session that would make drug testing mandatory for welfare recipients, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. And Wyoming lawmakers advanced such a proposal this week.
Driving the measures is a perception that people on public assistance are misusing the funds and that cutting off their benefits would save money for tight state budgets — even as statistics have largely proved both notions untrue.
 More here.

No comments: