The Job - Urine Test

desertrat

desertrat

0_0
(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)


Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I
pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I may be 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.

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 ass, doing
drugs, while I work. . . Can you imagine how much money the state would
save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could title that 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. . Some thing has to change!
 
R

retiredweaxman

Guest
desertrat said:
(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)


Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I
pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I may be 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.

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 ass, doing
drugs, while I work. . . Can you imagine how much money the state would
save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could title that 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. . Some thing has to change!
Click to expand...

I love your idea and would like to take it a few steps further:

1. Limit welfare benefits to one year to begin with. If after a year, the person does not have a job, that person will not have benefits either. The only exception to this would be if the person is not capable to work as exempted by a medical professional (sorry, depression, ADD, ADHD are not reasons a person can not work).
2. Once the person is back to work, if that person quits, they are not entitled to welfare (just like unemployment).
3. If the person is fired for cause (late to work, theft, etc), they are not entitled to benefits.
4. If the person is fired (released) due to lay offs, down sizing, etc, then the person would be eligible for 6 months of benefits in order to find a new job.
5. Limit access of use of food stamps to grocery stores. No more going to Sheetz (Wawa) and use the food stamps to buy subs (have seen it done in Pittsburgh - I assume it is also done here). Why pay 3 bucks for a loaf of bread at Sheetz when a person can go to Giant, Food Lion, etc and get a loaf for 2.

I would use the one year "rule' to begin the program as we are currently in a recession and jobs are difficult to find. However, most experts agree that we should be hiring again by the end of 2009.
 
T

toppick08

Guest
retiredweaxman said:
I love your idea and would like to take it a few steps further:

1. Limit welfare benefits to one year to begin with. If after a year, the person does not have a job, that person will not have benefits either. The only exception to this would be if the person is not capable to work as exempted by a medical professional (sorry, depression, ADD, ADHD are not reasons a person can not work).
2. Once the person is back to work, if that person quits, they are not entitled to welfare (just like unemployment).
3. If the person is fired for cause (late to work, theft, etc), they are not entitled to benefits.
4. If the person is fired (released) due to lay offs, down sizing, etc, then the person would be eligible for 6 months of benefits in order to find a new job.
5. Limit access of use of food stamps to grocery stores. No more going to Sheetz (Wawa) and use the food stamps to buy subs (have seen it done in Pittsburgh - I assume it is also done here). Why pay 3 bucks for a loaf of bread at Sheetz when a person can go to Giant, Food Lion, etc and get a loaf for 2.

I would use the one year "rule' to begin the program as we are currently in a recession and jobs are difficult to find. However, most experts agree that we should be hiring again by the end of 2009.
Click to expand...

We need both of y'all in Annapolis.........:yay:
 
sunflower

sunflower

Loving My Life...
retiredweaxman said:
I love your idea and would like to take it a few steps further:

1. Limit welfare benefits to one year to begin with. If after a year, the person does not have a job, that person will not have benefits either. The only exception to this would be if the person is not capable to work as exempted by a medical professional (sorry, depression, ADD, ADHD are not reasons a person can not work).
2. Once the person is back to work, if that person quits, they are not entitled to welfare (just like unemployment).
3. If the person is fired for cause (late to work, theft, etc), they are not entitled to benefits.
4. If the person is fired (released) due to lay offs, down sizing, etc, then the person would be eligible for 6 months of benefits in order to find a new job.
5. Limit access of use of food stamps to grocery stores. No more going to Sheetz (Wawa) and use the food stamps to buy subs (have seen it done in Pittsburgh - I assume it is also done here). Why pay 3 bucks for a loaf of bread at Sheetz when a person can go to Giant, Food Lion, etc and get a loaf for 2.

I would use the one year "rule' to begin the program as we are currently in a recession and jobs are difficult to find. However, most experts agree that we should be hiring again by the end of 2009.
Click to expand...

:clap:
 
awpitt

awpitt

Main Streeter
retiredweaxman said:
I love your idea and would like to take it a few steps further:

1. Limit welfare benefits to one year to begin with. If after a year, the person does not have a job, that person will not have benefits either. The only exception to this would be if the person is not capable to work as exempted by a medical professional (sorry, depression, ADD, ADHD are not reasons a person can not work).
2. Once the person is back to work, if that person quits, they are not entitled to welfare (just like unemployment).
3. If the person is fired for cause (late to work, theft, etc), they are not entitled to benefits.
4. If the person is fired (released) due to lay offs, down sizing, etc, then the person would be eligible for 6 months of benefits in order to find a new job.
5. Limit access of use of food stamps to grocery stores. No more going to Sheetz (Wawa) and use the food stamps to buy subs (have seen it done in Pittsburgh - I assume it is also done here). Why pay 3 bucks for a loaf of bread at Sheetz when a person can go to Giant, Food Lion, etc and get a loaf for 2.

I would use the one year "rule' to begin the program as we are currently in a recession and jobs are difficult to find. However, most experts agree that we should be hiring again by the end of 2009.
Click to expand...

These are good conditions. I'd take it a step further and add a condition that if someone is recieving welfare benefits, they agree to not to have any children while recieving welfare benefits. I realize there's all sorts of sticky points about this but it makes sense for someone not to add another mouth to feed unless they're on their own.
 
itsbob

itsbob

I bowl overhand
retiredweaxman said:
1. Limit welfare benefits to one year to begin with. If after a year, the person does not have a job, that person will not have benefits either. The only exception to this would be if the person is not capable to work as exempted by a medical professional (sorry, depression, ADD, ADHD are not reasons a person can not work)..
Click to expand...

I don't have an answer, but it's been proven that part of the problem is these so called "professionals" that will write up a disable for anyone that asks for it. They'll make up diagnosis to what ever SSI and the welfare office is currently on an apporoval high for, and it's even a known fact that some doctors have put entire families on disable for the infliction of the day... and what's worse, once some POS is on it, there's nothing you can do to get them off of it.

Instead of getting them a disable I think the Dr's should be required to send them to a job counselor and find a job they CAN do.. I bet less than 2% of people actually on disability actually can't do ANY job.. the rest? Yeah, you can be trained to do SOMEthing.
 
T

TotalEclipse31

New Member
I completely agree! You know I work at a bank and every day I see people depositing wellfare checks. The thing that pisses me off is that those same people are driving brand new $70K mercedez SUV's and wearing armani, guchi, prada...etc. Alot of them are drug dealers I think (alot of cash only transactions in small denominations going in and out of the bank)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top