Re: Evidence

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #341,779 by Another Scott 4/21/11 4:55:02 PM Reply	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.
Post #341,800 by beepster 4/21/11 9:37:45 PM Reply	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.
Post #341,802 by Another Scott 4/21/11 9:51:23 PM Reply	You're still no Amazing Kreskin. <sheesh>

Flashback time - (lincoln) - (24) - April 19, 2011, 08:18:14 PM EDT

question, by taxing at 100% of any money made over 250k - (boxley) - (23) - April 20, 2011, 08:03:29 AM EDT

<crickets></crickets> thought so -NT - (boxley) - April 21, 2011, 07:52:09 AM EDT

Not very long. -NT - (folkert) - (20) - April 21, 2011, 08:08:07 AM EDT

wrong answer - (boxley) - (19) - April 21, 2011, 09:33:11 AM EDT

Of course... - (S1mon_Jester) - April 21, 2011, 10:20:44 AM EDT

There is no short-term "spending problem" - (Another Scott) - April 21, 2011, 10:22:55 AM EDT

I gave you the answer you wanted. - (folkert) - (16) - April 21, 2011, 01:45:29 PM EDT

IOW - (beepster) - (15) - April 21, 2011, 03:08:45 PM EDT

Re: IOW - (Another Scott) - (10) - April 21, 2011, 03:49:43 PM EDT

About number three - (jake123) - (5) - April 21, 2011, 04:09:28 PM EDT

I was too terse. - (Another Scott) - (4) - April 21, 2011, 04:43:21 PM EDT

So riddle me this - (beepster) - (3) - April 21, 2011, 04:53:21 PM EDT

Re: So riddle me this - (Another Scott) - (2) - April 21, 2011, 05:05:03 PM EDT

so? - (beepster) - (1) - April 21, 2011, 09:18:37 PM EDT

You're not the Amazing Kreskin. <sheesh> -NT - (Another Scott) - April 21, 2011, 09:28:01 PM EDT

Evidence - (beepster) - (3) - April 21, 2011, 04:50:47 PM EDT

Re: Evidence - (Another Scott) - (2) - April 21, 2011, 04:55:02 PM EDT

No sir, you are changing the meaning. - (beepster) - (1) - April 21, 2011, 09:37:45 PM EDT

You're still no Amazing Kreskin. <sheesh> -NT - (Another Scott) - April 21, 2011, 09:51:23 PM EDT

Re: IOW - (folkert) - April 21, 2011, 06:33:02 PM EDT

More on 2) - (Another Scott) - (2) - April 22, 2011, 12:47:20 AM EDT

shocker - (beepster) - (1) - April 22, 2011, 07:46:38 AM EDT

he is one of Patrick's lesser brother's followers - (boxley) - April 22, 2011, 02:42:22 PM EDT

The cancers of the tank come!
43 ms