@kellyclarkson the people salty in the comments she called the small business out: They responded with a version of events that deviates from facts.
If she's got the receipts, which she does - then call them on it.
@edzitron Yeah like when I tell my nagging fishwife that annualized i have 860k/year revenue from poker night with the boys.(counting that time I was up)
[Please help I'm about to lose the house]
@enfilading_fire They can simply reduce the number of beneficiaries by changing the criteria and driving the poors into poverty and the young over to australia.
DONT anyone dare create jobs for people to get into, thats rubbish
@Light42Lime or simply put: the threat of random testing IS in itself more of a cudgel to beat them with rather than addressing an actual problem (in large), there are edge cases.
@Light42Lime people don't support taxpayer funded drug taking beneficaries. it's more about the message and implication that all beneficaries are drug abusers, when largely they aren't.
the cost of the testing and extra administration simply does not pay off meaningfully
@SteveHWrathall@secondzeit It’s more about the implication around it.
Say for example how would you feel if you were randomly required to attended “don’t beat your wife classes” because you’re a dude? Oh don’t like it? You prefer to beat your wife?
@bighairynetwork so they cut off 18-19 year olds, make more beneficaries by laying off 9000 employees then introduce drug testing to remind us all how the poors are having a great time on drugs?
laser focused.