Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.conspiracy.new-world-order    |    You will own nothing... and be happy    |    25,344 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 24,750 of 25,344    |
|    BeamMeUpScotty to nickname unavailable    |
|    Re: why don't red states drug test wealt    |
|    27 Feb 15 11:14:39    |
      IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.ObamaCare.gov       XPost: alt.politics.economics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.prisons       XPost: alt.revisionism, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy       XPost: alt.politics.immigration, alt.true-crime, alt.politics.guns       XPost: misc.survivalism, soc.culture.usa, alt.survival       From: I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.       BI.NSA.CIA.EPA.ObamaCare.gov              On 2/26/2015 8:19 PM, nickname unavailable wrote:       > why don't red states drug test wealthy recipients of tax breaks? What 7       States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare       Recipients       >              Good idea.... ;) drug test tax payers.                     Have the IRS make sure that tax payers aren't high when they are given       their own money back in their own pocket. ;)                     If the money was taxed away and in the hands of the government... it       would then be a subsidy but since they "owe" the tax to the government       and a tax break is NOT a return of more money that you owe, why would       you be under any government mandate to prove you're qualified to receive       NOTHING? All you get is left alone.              Now any business or person that receives more tax refund than they owed       should be tested for drugs since they must be on drugs to think they       deserve more money back than they owe in taxes.              That's NOT a refund/break when you get more back than you owed, that's a       subsidy and anytime the Federal Government attempts redistribution or a       subsidy it should be proven that the person receiving the stipend or       subsidy is qualified to receive it and that should include things like       health and addictions and parental/criminal DNA and so forth.              Why should taxpayers be supporting rapists and drug/child abusers living       on government subsidies when the criminals should be in a jail cell       rather than supported by other law abiding tax payers.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca