I have a beef. This isn’t a new beef. I’ve actually had this beef for quite some time, so I’m taking this opportunity to vent. I have worked at a handful of jobs in my day, and every time I was accepted for the position, the employer sent me off to the local clinic to have a drug test done. Obviously, as I’m sure most people are aware, this is done to ensure that you will be a responsible, safe employee with the capacity to efficiently do your job.
I wonder then, why people aren’t required to drug test in order to qualify for assistance? I mean, our tax dollars fund the programs that we had to drug test and work to make available for them, yet people can go in, file some paperwork, and if they qualify based on income, he or she is sent a check out of taxes we paid in. Why aren’t they required to provide evidence that they are responsible citizens just as we’ve had to? Isn’t there something wrong with that picture?
By the way, I don’t mind helping people get on their feet. We can all use some help from time to time. I have both paid in and drawn assistance, and I can attest to how vital it can be. I’ll also be more than happy to take a drug test at anytime.
That being said, let’s go back about 10 years or so, because in a country where so many jobs have now gone over seas, and with the economy reeling from a cornucopia of problems, it’s probably too late to set a program like the one I’m proposing into motion anyway. For argument’s sake though, I’ve speculated on reasons why this wasn’t a viable option at a time where it could have been a terrific idea.
No one thought of it? Nope. Not buying that one. I guess one could argue that it would cost too much money to drug test the applicants, but I’m willing to bet that the country would save enough from not having to pay those who’d test positive to compensate for it. Another argument might be that the government’s decided that many people are too dumb, lazy, etc. to become constructive citizens, and that if they’re not supported monetarily, there would be a worse crime wave of theft and vandalism than we already have now? Maybe the government is intentionally allowing people to become dependant on it so that if somewhere along the way it wants to control the masses, it would have an easier time of it. If you cut off people’s ability to shop for anything, they would certainly be at the government’s mercy.
Remember how the government in Egypt shut down the internet in an attempt to quell the rioting? Consider that nothing our government does is by accident, that they pay a lot of people good money to “predict the future”, make strategic moves and accomplish an agenda. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
What say you?
Livin' In The USA 