IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Evidence
of you drinking the koolaid.

1) He said as much in his budget address...listen to it again.

2) Benefit means exactly that. YOU are adding proportionality to it, not I. If you took home more, regardless of how much...you benefited. And it was a couple grand in many cases for "middle class".

3) We all, rich, poor, middle, corporations...you know...everybody...and cuts will need to be made...everywhere (including defense..which Obama seems to have left alone in current proposals...more "change")

Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New Re: Evidence
1) "he said as much" is your interpretation. It's not what he said.

2) Meh. In other words, you're changing the meaning. $10 more a week at the beginning of a period of inflation and no raises by the end of the period doesn't leave you better off. Being stuck in place in the economy isn't a benefit. Federal tax policy has an impact on these things.

3) See my reply to Jake.

Cheers,
Scott.
New No sir, you are changing the meaning.
and also ignoring that for a huge number of people..they either stopped paying all together, or received significantly more back that 10.

You are "qualifying" the term benefit. Def 2..a payment or gift. By changing the code, you paid less. Thats a benefit.

http://www.thedailys...011-ricky-gervais

Even Jon heard it...5:30

He just called it "cutting spending in the tax code".

35% of filers itemize. 45% don't pay.

Hmm. How's that math degree?
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New You're still no Amazing Kreskin. <sheesh>
     Flashback time - (lincoln) - (24)
         question, by taxing at 100% of any money made over 250k - (boxley) - (23)
             <crickets></crickets> thought so -NT - (boxley)
             Not very long. -NT - (folkert) - (20)
                 wrong answer - (boxley) - (19)
                     Of course... - (S1mon_Jester)
                     There is no short-term "spending problem" - (Another Scott)
                     I gave you the answer you wanted. - (folkert) - (16)
                         IOW - (beepster) - (15)
                             Re: IOW - (Another Scott) - (10)
                                 About number three - (jake123) - (5)
                                     I was too terse. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                         So riddle me this - (beepster) - (3)
                                             Re: So riddle me this - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                 so? - (beepster) - (1)
                                                     You're not the Amazing Kreskin. <sheesh> -NT - (Another Scott)
                                 Evidence - (beepster) - (3)
                                     Re: Evidence - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                         No sir, you are changing the meaning. - (beepster) - (1)
                                             You're still no Amazing Kreskin. <sheesh> -NT - (Another Scott)
                             Re: IOW - (folkert)
                             More on 2) - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 shocker - (beepster) - (1)
                                     he is one of Patrick's lesser brother's followers - (boxley)
             Nobody claims that alone will solve the deficit problem. - (Another Scott)

Houston, we have positive capillary pressure.
42 ms