>
> About 50%% of employees are tested.
> So to pay tax you get tested.
> So what would be wrong with welfare recipients being tested to
> receive government money?

> "SMITH29" comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:yJudnaGEdrtDNgbanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> About 50%% of employees are tested.
>> So to pay tax you get tested.
>> So what would be wrong with welfare recipients being tested to
>> receive government money?

>
> How much in additional taxes are you willing to pay to test these people?
>
>

> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>> "SMITH29" comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:yJudnaGEdrtDNgbanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...

>>> About 50%% of employees are tested.
>>> So to pay tax you get tested.
>>> So what would be wrong with welfare recipients being tested to
>>> receive government money?

>>
>> How much in additional taxes are you willing to pay to test these people?
>>
>>

> xxxx
> Costs would be offset by the reduction of eligible welfare recipients.
> Fewer welfare construction sites.
> Reduced crime.
> Looks like a win win situation.
>
> 29 :-)

> SMITH29 wrote:

>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>>> "SMITH29" comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:yJudnaGEdrtDNgbanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...

>>>> About 50%% of employees are tested.
>>>> So to pay tax you get tested.
>>>> So what would be wrong with welfare recipients being tested to
>>>> receive government money?

>

>>> How much in additional taxes are you willing to pay to test these people?

>

>> xxxx
>> Costs would be offset by the reduction of eligible welfare recipients.
>> Fewer welfare construction sites.
>> Reduced crime.
>> Looks like a win win situation.

>

>> 29 :-)

> ...

> "Soupy Sales" whitefang.net> wrote in message
> news:AdCdnZ7hc9Z5XAHanZ2dnUVZ8v2vnZ2d@giganews.com...
> | SMITH29 wrote:
> | > Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> | >> "SMITH29" comcast.net> wrote in message
> | >> news:yJudnaGEdrtDNgbanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> | >>> About 50%% of employees are tested.
> | >>> So to pay tax you get tested.
> | >>> So what would be wrong with welfare recipients being tested to
> | >>> receive government money?
> | >>
> | >> How much in additional taxes are you willing to pay to test these
> people?
> | >>
> | >>
> | > xxxx
> | > Costs would be offset by the reduction of eligible welfare recipients.
> | > Fewer welfare construction sites.
> | > Reduced crime. ...

>"SMITH29" comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:yJudnaGEdrtDNgbanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...

>>
>> About 50%% of employees are tested.
>> So to pay tax you get tested.
>> So what would be wrong with welfare recipients being tested to
>> receive government money?

>
>How much in additional taxes are you willing to pay to test these people?
>

> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>> How much in additional taxes are you willing to pay to test these people?
>>
>>

> Costs would be offset by the reduction of eligible welfare recipients.

> Fewer welfare construction sites.
> Reduced crime.
> Looks like a win win situation.
>
> 29 :-)

> SMITH29 wrote:

>>> How much in additional taxes are you willing to pay to test these
>>> people?
>>>

>> Costs would be offset by the reduction of eligible welfare recipients.
>> Fewer welfare construction sites.
>> Reduced crime.
>> Looks like a win win situation.

>
> If you test welfare recipients and the result is fewer welfare recipients,
> crime will increase, not decrease. You lose. When we get a