home bbs files messages ]

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