Dumb/Sometimes LOL Political Pictures

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,977
31,180
1,743
oklahoma city
TO PEE OR NOT TO PEE
I have a job.
I work, and they pay me.
I pay my taxes and 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 Bottom----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!
Oh, and also, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!
I wonder how many would be left in power?




As a taxpayer, the last thing I want to add to an expensive government program is more layers of expensive government program. I would need to see data that this lowers the rate of drug use and/or saves money for the taxpayer. That has not been the case from what I have seen where these programs have started. These government programs to test cost more in bureaucracy than they save in stopping benefit payouts. Anyone actually for small, efficient government would not be for such a program until one could show actual benefit.
 
Last edited:

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,908
2,106
743
Where else but Stillwater
I see the difference between by all accounts the worst president in modern American history who’s AG let Clinton off without a scratch and a President who is exercising his right as head of the executive branch.
Then make no doubt about it, whatsoever, you pretty strongly think that Bush II was one of the best damned presidents America ever had, not just in modern times. Am I right with you?