If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Regardless of who wins in November, prepare to say goodbye to the payroll tax cut   (nytimes.com) divider line 164
    More: Sad, fragile state, Senate Budget Committee, tax cuts, Capitol Hill, Christine Lagarde, wage earners  
•       •       •

2845 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2012 at 11:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



164 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-01 06:43:37 PM  
I just have to make this analog about the people who call letting temporary tax cuts expire "a tax hike."

It's as if they call their favorite aunt Mabel "Aunt Mabel, we're having a little trouble making ends meet, can you help us out."

Aunt Mabel, bless her heart, sends a $50 check every month. Finally Aunt Mabel dies and the checks stop coming.

So you sue her estate for restoration of the $50 it is now stealing from you every month.
 
2012-10-01 06:45:16 PM  

skullkrusher: Even in the incredibly unlikely scenario that this is true, it is not reason to ban smoking. It's reason for your neighbor to not smoke in conditions you can smell. Which is apparently a vacuum sealed bubble made of kryptonite on the moon


a negative pressure air filter is neither exotic, nor particularly expensive these days. it just means an air filtration system that filters the air in a building by sucking air into the filter from inside the building, and exhausting the filtered air to the outside - keeping the inside of the building at a lower ambient air temperature than the surroundings. this ensures that all exhaust air has gone through the filter

now.. in a perfect world i would support this technique (it is legal only when used in a building with suitable filtration). however realistically people would still be poisoning their neighbors - because they wouldn't listen to the regs, and i'm not OK with ceding my rights. I would think someone who claims to be a libertarian would understand not wanting to cede their rights.
 
2012-10-01 07:11:51 PM  
1.) Nobody is getting any credit for it so....
2.) (because) few even know it's happening
3.) (because) few are actually seeing bigger take home pay since the insurance companies increased rates and/or business owners (probably with the guidance of the US Chamber of Commerce) adjusted the employee's contribution proportionally.

In short, the payroll deduction stimulus was stolen. I lived it.
 
2012-10-01 07:13:23 PM  

bdub77: BMulligan: It sucks for me personally, but it is clearly the right thing to do from a policy perspective.

My family will pay probably 3-4K more next year from this. Good. I want to receive SS when I retire.


How do you know one will cause the other? I'd rather bank that money myself, rather than wonder if they're going to raise the retirement age to higher than I'll live to.
 
2012-10-01 08:14:47 PM  

Kazan: lower ambient air temperaturepressure



ftfm
 
2012-10-01 08:37:25 PM  

AcneVulgaris: How do you know one will cause the other? I'd rather bank that money myself, rather than wonder if they're going to raise the retirement age to higher than I'll live to.


Even if they change nothing at all on retirement age nor benefits, you'd receive about 70% of the benefits you'd otherwise get if funding was no issue.

Really, they should raise the retirement age by one or two years again - it should track life expectancy, so that on average people will spend the same percentage of their lives working. That would easily solve the sustainability problems of SS indefinitely.
 
2012-10-01 10:03:06 PM  

Kazan: I would think someone who claims to be a libertarian would understand not wanting to cede their rights.


oh, I completely understand. I am completely supportive of non-smoker rights and concerns. I just don't believe that you can smell someone smoking from their own closed house in your closed house. See the issue?
 
2012-10-01 11:18:04 PM  
I don't get why this is sad. That was the stupidest thing Obama ever did and it needs to go away. I WANT my dollars to be taxed for that so there might be some farking money in Social Security in 20 years when I become eligible.
 
2012-10-01 11:19:25 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: "Presidebt" OBrokenpromises once again lives up to his name. On one hand he says taxes won't go up... and then he SIMPLY NEGLECTS TO MENTION THAT A TEMPORARY TAX HOLIDAY IS EXPIRING under HIS WATCH.


And you are too farking ignorant to realize that a temporary tax holiday expiring does not equate to raising taxes.

/how the fark do you get so far off on reading comprehension?
 
2012-10-01 11:20:47 PM  

Cletus C.: I read this to say Obama wants to tax the middle class more.

Thanks, Obummer.


Then you too fail at reading comprehension.
 
2012-10-02 09:27:10 AM  

skullkrusher: oh, I completely understand. I am completely supportive of non-smoker rights and concerns. I just don't believe that you can smell someone smoking from their own closed house in your closed house. See the issue?


your disbelief of something that happened doesn't mean it didn't happened. and as i pointed out - a house build now probably wouldn't leak enough for it to happen. both houses involved were 40 years old (as of this year) in iowa.

ignoring this silly argument - what about the summer when we both open our windows. are they not infringing my rights (health and property) when their cancer cloud wafts onto my property?
 
2012-10-02 10:11:42 AM  

Kazan: ignoring this silly argument - what about the summer when we both open our windows. are they not infringing my rights (health and property) when their cancer cloud wafts onto my property?


sure
 
2012-10-02 02:28:45 PM  

Kazan: a) no known lower limit threshold for harm [cited]
b) nose is far less sensitive than scientific instruments [obvious]
c) if can smell, being harmed [a+b=>c]
e) can smell neighbor being a skank ass in my house [direct observation.. not the only person to report this. could get EPA concentration numbers to back it up]
f) therefore being harmed. [c+e=>f]



Newsflash: there is no known lower threshold for harm with cannabis.
DoubleNewsflash: There is no known upper threshold for harm with cannabis.

/If only weed were legal so we could conduct research and ... you know... find out these unknowable truths.
//Maybe don't hinge your argument on ignorance reinforced by the conclusion of your argument?
 
2012-10-02 04:49:46 PM  

BeesNuts: Newsflash: there is no known lower threshold for harm with cannabis.
DoubleNewsflash: There is no known upper threshold for harm with cannabis.

/If only weed were legal so we could conduct research and ... you know... find out these unknowable truths.
//Maybe don't hinge your argument on ignorance reinforced by the conclusion of your argument?



you replied before reading my elaboration - it isn't a lack of knowledge, it is knowledge of lack of threshold. that same knowledge is true for cannabis, and despite claims to the contrary extensive research has been done on the subject.
 
Displayed 14 of 164 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report