Members KCTigerChief Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Sex Panther So it's 48% when it's an increase, but 2% when it's a cut. I see how it works now. Not sure if this was directed to me or not, but I called it a 2% increase and cut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KCTigerChief Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Sex Panther So it's 48% when it's an increase, but 2% when it's a cut. I see how it works now. Not sure if this was directed to me or not, but I called it a 2% increase and cut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sleewell Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Gary Cohn I don't mind the high taxes really. My fianc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sleewell Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Gary Cohn I don't mind the high taxes really. My fianc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeloAngelo Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 that -2% was never going to last forever, how in the actual {censored} did anyone think it would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeloAngelo Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 that -2% was never going to last forever, how in the actual {censored} did anyone think it would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ovid9 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by NeloAngelo that -2% was never going to last forever, how in the actual {censored} did anyone think it would? You mean, it should never have happened in the first place right? Instead Congress should have passed a law saying the SS surplus cannot be touched. But no, why would they do that? It'd only make sense and keep SS perfectly solvent. Can't have that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ovid9 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by NeloAngelo that -2% was never going to last forever, how in the actual {censored} did anyone think it would? You mean, it should never have happened in the first place right? Instead Congress should have passed a law saying the SS surplus cannot be touched. But no, why would they do that? It'd only make sense and keep SS perfectly solvent. Can't have that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SexWithRobots Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SexWithRobots Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PurpleTrails Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by Mesa/Kramer So what exactly were we saved from with this last minuete stopping of the Fiscal Cliff? This "avoiding the fiscal cliff" deal, which really didn't for more than two months, did keep most of the Bush personal income tax cuts intact. Getting rid of those would have increased most folks' taxes by a fairly substantial amount (I think I would have had to pay around $300 more a month), as well as raised the amount of income it takes to qualify for the AMT, which would have hit individuals making more than something like $75000 with a fairly major tax increase. OTOH, it did nothing but delay by two months dealing with debt reduction so that the incredibly stupid sequestration bill provisions don't go into effect, as well as approving an increase to the national debt limit so we don't go into default and really cause the {censored} to hit the fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PurpleTrails Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by Mesa/Kramer So what exactly were we saved from with this last minuete stopping of the Fiscal Cliff? This "avoiding the fiscal cliff" deal, which really didn't for more than two months, did keep most of the Bush personal income tax cuts intact. Getting rid of those would have increased most folks' taxes by a fairly substantial amount (I think I would have had to pay around $300 more a month), as well as raised the amount of income it takes to qualify for the AMT, which would have hit individuals making more than something like $75000 with a fairly major tax increase. OTOH, it did nothing but delay by two months dealing with debt reduction so that the incredibly stupid sequestration bill provisions don't go into effect, as well as approving an increase to the national debt limit so we don't go into default and really cause the {censored} to hit the fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hotcakes Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by KCTigerChief Social Security has been doomed long before that 2% tax cut buddy... Bull{censored}. SS has low administrative costs, is forbidden from borrowing, can meet all of it's commitments until 2036 and has a substantial surplus. The only thing wrong with social security is that is represents the threat of a good example, and all of that money isn't being stuffed into banker's pockets. That'll change. If we cared about "fixing" ss, we'd be focused on jobs. Attacking it under the guise of deficit reduction (it doesn't add to the deficit) is moronic, as is all of this {censored} about the deficit. All they're doing is prolonging the recession, and cutting public services. Reagan championed the idea of running up a deficit as an excuse to do that, and it has just become standard operating procedure since. Why else would Dubya piss a surplus up a tree, and Obama do the stupid {censored} he has? Slick Willy got his surplus in exchange for {censored}ing us in so many other ways, like free trade agreements and deregulation, but that was a very brief bump in that road... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hotcakes Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by KCTigerChief Social Security has been doomed long before that 2% tax cut buddy... Bull{censored}. SS has low administrative costs, is forbidden from borrowing, can meet all of it's commitments until 2036 and has a substantial surplus. The only thing wrong with social security is that is represents the threat of a good example, and all of that money isn't being stuffed into banker's pockets. That'll change. If we cared about "fixing" ss, we'd be focused on jobs. Attacking it under the guise of deficit reduction (it doesn't add to the deficit) is moronic, as is all of this {censored} about the deficit. All they're doing is prolonging the recession, and cutting public services. Reagan championed the idea of running up a deficit as an excuse to do that, and it has just become standard operating procedure since. Why else would Dubya piss a surplus up a tree, and Obama do the stupid {censored} he has? Slick Willy got his surplus in exchange for {censored}ing us in so many other ways, like free trade agreements and deregulation, but that was a very brief bump in that road... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by Sex Panther So it's 48% when it's an increase, but 2% when it's a cut. I see how it works now. Bro... out of everyone here... you're good with math... come on, he is saying the deduction itself went up 48%, not that they're taking 48% of his paycheck. here.... imagine you make $100.... 4% deduction = $4.00 6% deduction = $6.00 it's a 2 dollar increase so the deduction itself went up 50%, since 50% of 4 is 2 work with me bro. work with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by Sex Panther So it's 48% when it's an increase, but 2% when it's a cut. I see how it works now. Bro... out of everyone here... you're good with math... come on, he is saying the deduction itself went up 48%, not that they're taking 48% of his paycheck. here.... imagine you make $100.... 4% deduction = $4.00 6% deduction = $6.00 it's a 2 dollar increase so the deduction itself went up 50%, since 50% of 4 is 2 work with me bro. work with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by NeloAngelo california raped itself after voting in the terminator. CA does like NY does and votes in people who are {censored} with money. Had nothing to do with the terminator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by NeloAngelo california raped itself after voting in the terminator. CA does like NY does and votes in people who are {censored} with money. Had nothing to do with the terminator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ovid9 Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by guitarbilly74 Bro... out of everyone here... you're good with math... come on, he is saying the deduction itself went up 48%, not that they're taking 48% of his paycheck. here.... imagine you make $100.... 4% deduction = $4.00 6% deduction = $6.00 it's a 2 dollar increase so the deduction itself went up 50%, since 50% of 4 is 2 work with me bro. work with me. Right, but that's not what sex panther is saying. He's saying when things go up, people tend to use the percent of the increase. Cause its usually a big number. When things go down, you use the actual number it decreases. Which is often a small number. Up, 48% OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG! Down. {censored}, it only went down 2%. (The 2% being the numerical difference between 2 and 4. Instead of saying "Oh it went down 50%!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ovid9 Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by guitarbilly74 Bro... out of everyone here... you're good with math... come on, he is saying the deduction itself went up 48%, not that they're taking 48% of his paycheck. here.... imagine you make $100.... 4% deduction = $4.00 6% deduction = $6.00 it's a 2 dollar increase so the deduction itself went up 50%, since 50% of 4 is 2 work with me bro. work with me. Right, but that's not what sex panther is saying. He's saying when things go up, people tend to use the percent of the increase. Cause its usually a big number. When things go down, you use the actual number it decreases. Which is often a small number. Up, 48% OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG! Down. {censored}, it only went down 2%. (The 2% being the numerical difference between 2 and 4. Instead of saying "Oh it went down 50%!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kenny Powers Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by guitarbilly74 Bro... out of everyone here... you're good with math... come on, he is saying the deduction itself went up 48%, not that they're taking 48% of his paycheck. here.... imagine you make $100.... 4% deduction = $4.00 6% deduction = $6.00 it's a 2 dollar increase so the deduction itself went up 50%, since 50% of 4 is 2 work with me bro. work with me. {censored} your logic niqqa {censored} your logic!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kenny Powers Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by guitarbilly74 Bro... out of everyone here... you're good with math... come on, he is saying the deduction itself went up 48%, not that they're taking 48% of his paycheck. here.... imagine you make $100.... 4% deduction = $4.00 6% deduction = $6.00 it's a 2 dollar increase so the deduction itself went up 50%, since 50% of 4 is 2 work with me bro. work with me. {censored} your logic niqqa {censored} your logic!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by Ovid9 This. {censored} Congress. Can we send them on a slow boat to China? They all seem to love China. I laughed. {censored} we keep voting these idiots in, the way I see it we deserve every piece of {censored} legislation that comes our way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by Ovid9 This. {censored} Congress. Can we send them on a slow boat to China? They all seem to love China. I laughed. {censored} we keep voting these idiots in, the way I see it we deserve every piece of {censored} legislation that comes our way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ovid9 Posted January 6, 2013 Members Share Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted by nerol1st I laughed. {censored} we keep voting these idiots in, the way I see it we deserve every piece of {censored} legislation that comes our way. Well, we've allowed them to pretty much rig it that unless they get redistricted its almost impossible to vote them out. We be {censored}ed. We be {censored}ed hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.