PDA

View Full Version : House panel okays $33 billion in food stamp cuts



Qtec
04-19-2012, 04:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A U.S. congressional panel approved about $33 billion in cuts over 10 years from food stamp benefits, in a largely symbolic and highly partisan vote opposed by committee Democrats and by anti-poverty groups.

The cuts advanced by the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee on Wednesday would reduce spending on food stamps that help 46 million people buy food by $7.7 billion in the first year, by $19.7 billion in five years, and the balance in the next five years.

The cuts are expected to die in the Democratic-controlled Senate. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But the vote by voice underscored Republicans' preference for domestic spending cuts over defense cuts or tax hikes <u>as they try to avoid automatic cuts that take effect in January.</u></span>

Rep. Jean Schmidt cited recent press reports of a Michigan lottery winner who remained on food stamps as an example of faults in the program. "There are those that have benefited from this that may not truly need it," said Schmidt, a Republican.

The committee's proposal to tighten rules for qualifying for food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, and repeal a 2009 increase to the program's funding instead of reducing subsidies for farmers also could show Republican priorities for the next farm bill.

"I would contend this entire process is a waste of time," Representative Collin Peterson, the committee's top Democrat, said in opening remarks.

"Taking a meat ax to nutrition programs that feed millions of hard-working families in an effort to avoid defense cuts is not a serious way to achieve deficit reduction," he said.

AUTOMATIC CUTS LOOM

Food stamps and other federal spending are on the table <span style='font-size: 14pt'>as budget writers try to craft a plan that avoids about $98 billion in across-the-board, automatic cuts triggered by the failure of the debt-reducing "supercommittee" last year.</span> </div></div> link (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/18/us-usa-agriculture-stamps-idUSBRE83H16320120418)

IOW,the GOP made a deal and now they are trying to wriggle out of it. Obama's not having it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Obama To GOP: Abide By Debt Limit Deal Or Else Face A Govt Shutdown Right Before The Election </span>

In a major escalation of a slowly building fight over funding the government, the White House has warned House Republicans, in no uncertain terms, that the government will shut down in September <span style='font-size: 14pt'>if the GOP does not adhere to an agreement they cut with Democrats in August during the standoff over raising the nation’s debt limit.</span>

“Until the House of Representatives indicates that it will abide by last summer’s agreement, the President will not be able to sign any appropriations bills,” writes Jeffrey Zients, acting director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, in a letter addressed to congressional appropriators Wednesday.

The message is simple: The government will shut down just ahead of the 2012 presidential election <u>if Republicans break faith with the debt limit deal.</u> </div></div>

More GOP style 'shared sacrifice'. Cut food stamps, spend more on the military and more tax cuts for the rich.



Q

Gayle in MD
04-19-2012, 06:52 AM
<span style="color: #CC0000">Republicans only represent their wealthy bribers, and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court now, thanks to Bush/Bush.

This current pack of RW crooks and idiots are the worst we've seen so far in our history. Their voting record proves their inhumanity.

John Dean's predictions were right on! Republicans have skewed our American principles beyond recognition!

</span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reviews for Conservatives Without Conscience....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the heels of his national bestseller Worse Than Watergate, John Dean takes a critical look at the current conservative movement

In Conservatives Without Conscience, John Dean places the conservative movement's inner circle of leaders in the Republican Party under scrutiny. Dean finds their policies and mind- set to be fundamentally authoritarian, and as such, a danger to democracy. By examining the legacies of such old-line conservatives as J. Edgar Hoover, Spiro Agnew, and Phyllis Schlafly and of such current figures as Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and leaders of the Religious Right, Dean presents an alarming record of abuses of power. His trenchant analysis of how conservatism has lost its bearings serves as a chilling warning and a stirring inspiration to safeguard constitutional principles.


Preface

Chapter One: How Conservatives Think


Chapter Two: Conservatives Without Conscience


Chapter Three: Authoritarian Conservatism


Chapter Four: Troubling Politics and Policies of Our Authoritarian Government


"A penetrating and highly disturbing portrait of many of the major players in Republican politics and power ... riveting."


"A fierce indictment of Republican politicians ... the sheer outrage in Dean's book has power of its own."
-Chicago Tribune


</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">Sheer Outrage against Republican policies is precisely what we need at this time. It's out there, and it's growing.

G.

</span>

eg8r
04-19-2012, 07:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A U.S. congressional panel approved about $33 billion in cuts over 10 years from food stamp benefits, in a largely symbolic and highly partisan vote opposed by committee Democrats and by anti-poverty groups.
</div></div>Judging by the excitement over some inflated employment gains as of late it this would make sense. LOL, the Dems try telling us people are flooding back the workplace and quitting jobs to get better ones that are available and now you are upset the gravy train is coming to an end. LOL, it has always been true that a man working to support his family isn't so interested in the Dems because he doesn't need their handouts anymore.

eg8r

LWW
04-19-2012, 08:27 AM
You are aware that there are no actual "CUTS" involved?

sack316
04-19-2012, 08:55 AM
If jobs are created at the rate that has been advertised for years, and the economy gets back on track as promised, then a 4% "cut" to food stamps shouldn't matter.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-19-2012, 09:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If jobs are created at the rate that has been advertised for years, and the economy gets back on track as promised, then a 4% "cut" to food stamps shouldn't matter.

Sack </div></div>


I think it will matter a lot, to a lot of people, regardless, Sack.

The Bush Recession was far worse than anyone knew at the time President Obama took office, and we continued to hemmorage jobs, for the first few months, at soaring rates, as we had seen for over a years previous to the crash.

While President Obama never "Promised" to keep unemployment under eight percent, his goal following Bush, who had one of the worst job performance numbers in history by the time he left, and which was going on even before the crash, was to try to get unemployment down under eight percent, within a certain amount of time, with the stimulus money.

That was a goal, not a promise, and he didn't know at that time, nor did expert economists from both sides of the isle, how deep the recession actually was, nor that the Republicans would display the worst obstructionism we've ever seen, while the country teetered on the brink of a Depression.

But the fact is, Bush's policies created more poor and hungry people than we have seen since The Great Depression, percentage wise, and the president has tried since being in office, to ease the problems of our poor and hungry, of our single mothers, the ill, and the old, ever since he took office, and Republicans have voted over and over again, against helping any of these Americans.

Painting our fellow Americans who are suffering from the near Bush Depression, as lazy, while blocking jobs investments, and trying to remove all of our safety nets, and social programs that help so many Americans, at a time when the wealthy top three percent, have been enjoying huge tax breaks, and advantaging loopholes, that the rest of our society cannot access, is what the Republicans have done, AFTER they spent years claiming that their trickle down economics, would build jobs, and a strong economy, as they spent and borrowed more money than all previous administrations, combined.

The Government in our country has traditionally invested in our people, and in our economy, in order to re-build it when we have faced devastating economic consequences, and when we have had to rise up from deep recessions.

Republicans have blocked those efforts, focusing on deficits, after eight years of their own, and Bush's tax policies as they promoted the theory that the Deficits didn't matter.

I think your own state is among one of the top ten worst states for number of needy people, and hungry children, and any Republican efforts at this time to take away what help the disadvantaged will have access to getting, like women who go to Planned Parenthood for their Mamograms, and other cancer preventive imaging, and for birth control pills for the illnesses which the pills are often taken to assuage, will have a horrible impact at thes time, on the disadvantaged, and even on many Middle Class women, and many of them, also, are Veterans.

Mitt Romney has vowed to destroy Planned Parenthood.

Republicans are fighting to maintain loopholes for the wealthy, and the polluters, and target social programs, the poor, the old, and the hungry,more no bid contracts for defense contractors, and greater tax cuts for the wealthy, and now, suddenly, everything is all about deficits, and they must be paid on the backs of the suffering, that's their plan to decrease the deficit.

Not only that, but they have put forth 1100 HR's since they took the majority, which seek to remove women's rights, and weaken laws against rape.

While they have done that on The Hill, Republican Governors across this country, have passed over 900 pieces of legislation, also aimed to invade women's privacy, destroy their access to birth control, remove their Constitutional right to control their own bodies, avoid paying equal pay for equal work, remove access to any abortion clinics, destroy planned parenthood, and even do away with food programs at our schools for hungry children.

One state, Arizona, I think, passed a bill that says a doctor is allowed to lie to a woman about her own health, and the health of a fetus she carries, if a doctor so chooses, according to the doctor's personal beliefs about abortion, religious or otherwise, or his personal opinions about birth control, or the Doctor's own personal misogynistic views about women, in general, and dictate as the doctors so wish, as regards a woman's right to control her own life, and her own body.

REPUBLICANS ARE LEGALIZING REMOVING A WOMAN's (Patient's) RIGHT TO EVEN KNOW HER OWN MEDICAL CONDITION OR THAT OF THE FETUS SHE CARRIES!

Many are suffering in our country, and IMO, there is only one political party that has proven they don't care about those who are suffering, and they don't care about recovering from the Bush Recession, and they surely don't care about pollution, or safe food, or public education, or even protecting us as consumers of goods.

We had these tax cuts for eight years, and we had job losses, and a greater void between the wealthy, and everyone else, growing for eight years.

It's time to invest in our country, and to help our people who have most been hurt by failed Republican Policies, and its time to get rid of the sort of representatives who block a recovery, for political goals for taking back power, and the White HOuse, as Republicans admit, is their main goal.

IMO, they are a disgrace. IMO they are not Christians, and far from it.

G.[color]

sack316
04-19-2012, 08:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...I think your own state is among one of the top ten worst states for number of needy people, and hungry children, and any Republican efforts at this time to take away what help the disadvantaged will have access to getting...</div></div>

Come to work with me for one day... just one single day and see the "need".

Now I'll preface by saying (and you know) that I do firmly believe that those who are IN NEED should get it and be afforded every opportunity possible to sustain a decent standard of living.

But daily I see so many people pulling their food stamp cards (SNAP/EBT) out of WADS of $100 bills. I see them leave in expensive cars. I see them purchase $1500 TV's. I see them talking on their I-Phones.

A local bar had a Food Stamp night promotion where your cover charge was waived if you showed your EBT card!

One of my own employees took a few weeks off. Reason being was that we made our bonus for last quarter. The bonus check would throw his income up high enough to affect his "help"... so he couldn't work for a few weeks to offset it. He has also been offered a full time position before, because he is a very good worker. He has turned it down each time for the same reasons.

I don't think benefits should be cut at all for those that need them. But I personally see so much damn abuse of the system that it sickens me. And we try to solve it by throwing MORE money into it, rather than solving it by fixing the system itself. It should sicken everyone, because the abusers leave less in the pot for those that truly need assistance. They become the face of the program, and become the reason why everyone on it becomes stereotyped as it is.

Fix the problems in the system itself, and you'll never hear me complain about a dime spent into such a program.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-20-2012, 12:04 AM
While the issue of Republicans suddenly destroying programs which many of our needy rely on, in favor of more corporate welfare, has been lost in translation, the way to fix the program, is for all of us to report abuse any time we find it.

Why don't more people do THAT!???

G.

sack316
04-20-2012, 07:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
While the issue of Republicans suddenly destroying programs which many of our needy rely on, in favor of more corporate welfare, </div></div>

Well I'm not in favor of that, either. Actually, it's a yes and no for me on that. Could be a lengthy explanation, but I'll try to sum up my thought with one example. Should corporations get "tax cuts" or subsidies (etc.) intended to create hiring? Sure, especially right now I think it's helpful... as much as I hate to say that because I really don't like it.

BUT, should they get that in advance in hopes they will create said hiring? NO! Because we simply can't just trust everyone to take this money and use it with the same intention it was given for. I think they should do the act that was hoped for (such as hiring, cleaning up emissions, whatever) and THEN be rewarded on the back side for it. That'll keep that "X" amount of money from being taken and then running overseas.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
... the way to fix the program, is for all of us to report abuse any time we find it.

Why don't more people do THAT!???

G. </div></div>

Because we're jerks if we do. Or we're racist if it's a person of a different race. Or we hate poor people.

The way to fix the program is to fix the program. Why accept being reactive and reporting abuse (which who knows how long abuse has been going on once it is reported?). How about being proactive and make such programs work as intended for those it is intended for?

Obviously it would be completely unrealistic to expect there to be no abuse of the system and for it to run 100% perfectly. I'm definitely not saying that. But the sheer amount and volume of blatant abuse I see every single day just in my own store located in a fairly small central Alabama town is amazing. I love numbers and working statistics, but I wouldn't dare even begin to try to extrapolate those numbers out to estimate how much must be wasted statewide/nationwide.

And it saddens me to think that it's very likely that somewhere there's a hard working family that may sit just above the poverty line that could use some help... but they make just enough money to not be qualified because so many other people claim poverty.

Sack

eg8r
04-20-2012, 09:50 AM
Can't tell that to Dems, they get their votes from these people.

eg8r

eg8r
04-20-2012, 09:54 AM
This type of common sense, real world experience is something the dems on this board know little about. LOL, gayle and sofla are probably the wealthiest on the board yet they seem to have this crazy idea they understand what poor do and think. They ignore the fact that McD's, flat screen tvs, etc have all done fair enough throughout this downturn in our economy and that isn't because the rich were forced to tone down their dinner expenses. I haven't heard about any alcohol or cig companies struggling too much either.

Now I did hear that some strippers are going to be a few dollar's short because the poor can't use their food stamps at the strip club anymore but hey that pissed the left off also. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

sack316
04-20-2012, 10:15 AM
I've never applied for such assistance before (although I probably should have)... but I wonder what all it takes to get on it?

I mean you go through all kinds of things to get a job. You apply, there are reference checks, prior job verification, accounting for any time spent not working, background checks, drug screening, sometimes credit screening, verifying citizenship, and even checking out your social networking pages in many instances.

What, if any, measures similar to the above are used to verify assistance is needed?

Sack

eg8r
04-20-2012, 12:47 PM
LOL, I am sure the process is streamlined with little to prove, the lefties don't even want an ID to be required to vote.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-20-2012, 01:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This type of common sense, real world experience is something the dems on this board know little about. LOL, gayle and sofla are probably the wealthiest on the board yet they seem to have this crazy idea they understand what poor do and think. They ignore the fact that McD's, flat screen tvs, etc have all done fair enough throughout this downturn in our economy and that isn't because the rich were forced to tone down their dinner expenses. I haven't heard about any alcohol or cig companies struggling too much either.

Now I did hear that some strippers are going to be a few dollar's short because the poor can't use their food stamps at the strip club anymore but hey that pissed the left off also. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

I've had money, and I've been broke, sequentially. I've had to worry if I had any room on a credit card to buy some food, and sometimes found that I didn't. I've had an already bad interest rate jumped from 18% to 29.95%, approximately doubling my minimum monthly payment, and meaning I was probably never going to pay down what was then more than I made in a year sitting on several ccs all at the penalty/usury rate of charge.

Yes, I agree that was all at a middle class level of poverty, and at least I still had some income, but by the time I was missing meals for lack of money and no room on a credit card, that's close enough to real poverty to understand part of it at least.

Gayle in MD
04-21-2012, 09:18 AM
Tap, Tap, Tap. So true. Those who have been there, have a whole different view of what is and isn't "Fair" as regards our national conscience. Experience, is the best teacher.



G.

LWW
04-22-2012, 06:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If jobs are created at the rate that has been advertised for years, and the economy gets back on track as promised, then a 4% "cut" to food stamps shouldn't matter.

Sack </div></div>

The left ignores that food stamp use has risen 70% under this regime.

Soflasnapper
04-22-2012, 01:20 PM
You ignore the fact that more people got on food stamps in the prior administration, most during non-recessionary years, than during this administration, in the aftermath of the worst economic disaster in generations. And that 32,000 fewer persons received that benefit, in the last month or so reporting period.

Most likely, your number is bogus. If it is true, it still ignores the trend started, and was worse, in the prior presidency, without the reason of the severe economic downturn until the final quarter of that presidency.

Soflasnapper
04-22-2012, 01:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tap, Tap, Tap. So true. Those who have been there, have a whole different view of what is and isn't "Fair" as regards our national conscience. Experience, is the best teacher.</div></div>

I came from modest origins, and wore hand me downs and Goodwill clothing. Worked before adulthood at hard labor on farms, at animal slaughterhouses, barely minimum wage or less (as agricultural workers were exempted), lowly maintenance jobs, groundskeeping, warehouse work and temp agency jobs. Always have worked, my entire life, as necessary to support myself and help support my mother. Most of my life, if I had $500 in the bank, that was it. Drew food stamps for about 6 months one time, and drew unemployment benefits about 10 weeks once during that time. Been there, done that, so I'm not guessing about how things are.

eg8r
04-22-2012, 09:01 PM
Thanks for responding...that means gaylio is able to open her mouth. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Glad you have turned around. Is it true you take as many taxes advantages as you can?

eg8r

LWW
04-23-2012, 03:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You ignore the fact that more people got on food stamps in the prior administration, most during non-recessionary years, than during this administration, in the aftermath of the worst economic disaster in generations. And that 32,000 fewer persons received that benefit, in the last month or so reporting period.

Most likely, your number is bogus. If it is true, it still ignores the trend started, and was worse, in the prior presidency, without the reason of the severe economic downturn until the final quarter of that presidency.

</div></div>

You believe the silliest things.

Got any back up for those claims?

We both know you don't.

Soflasnapper
04-23-2012, 10:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for responding...that means gaylio is able to open her mouth. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Glad you have turned around. Is it true you take as many taxes advantages as you can?

eg8r </div></div>

Already answered this question, quoting your statement that surely I must do so. Perhaps you didn't see it? My reply was 'evidently, not.' Based upon my effective tax rate over 36%, although AGI was lowered by a total of about $50k+ in charitable donations, which I did itemize instead of taking the standard deduction.

Soflasnapper
04-23-2012, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You ignore the fact that more people got on food stamps in the prior administration, most during non-recessionary years, than during this administration, in the aftermath of the worst economic disaster in generations. And that 32,000 fewer persons received that benefit, in the last month or so reporting period.

Most likely, your number is bogus. If it is true, it still ignores the trend started, and was worse, in the prior presidency, without the reason of the severe economic downturn until the final quarter of that presidency.

</div></div>

You believe the silliest things.

Got any back up for those claims?

We both know you don't. </div></div>

Ha ha! Short term memory problems?

This was discussed and debunked back when one of the GOP primary participants (Mr. Hyberbole hisself, Newt Gingrich) claimed Obama had seen more new food stamp recipients than any other president. You didn't see that? Or remember it now?

Not to worry. That's the classic confirmation bias at work. You look for things that appear to support your positions, and then ignore both things that do not support your position, or things that refute the things you thought support your position.

Here's a two by four (http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm) upside your head to (pun alert!) SNAP you back to reality:

Notes: average participation (in thousands) means we're talking millions. Figures are average participations measured in terms of fiscal years.

FY 2001 started Oct 1, 2000, ended Sept. 30, 2001. This is the baseline of food stamp participation inherited by W.

2001......17.318 million

Note the average participation went up each and every year thereafter (most years non-recessionary years, as someone once recently noted).

What did it get to, and when should we peg a final number for W's administration?

FY 2009, by parallel reasoning, and by which we give W a full 8 years of record. FY 2009 started on Oct. 1, 2008, and the FY 2009 was the last budget for the W years, lasting 3 quarters into 2009, and what Obama inherited.

2009.... 33.490 million

33.49 - 17.318 = 16.172 increase (millions), and a 93.4% increased number, for the fiscal years Bush had his hands on.

What has Obama's inherited figure grown to, so far?

33.49 million in FY 2009 went to 44.709 millions as of FY 2011.

This is a difference of 11.219 millions, and amounts to a 33.5% increase.

Now back in '77 when I got my degree in mathematics, 16.(anything) is greater than 11.(anything), and 93.4% is more than 33.5%, and 33.5% does not equal 70%. Maybe things are different in your world? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

PS-- You should stop setting booby traps that you then walk into to your embarrassment. You ALWAYS say I can't back up statements, and then, I mainly always prove you wrong.

LWW
04-23-2012, 04:32 PM
Good point ... except your figures are bogus, but you already knew that.

My source? The regime. (http://http://cbo.gov/publication/43173)

eg8r
04-23-2012, 06:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">although AGI was lowered by a total of about $50k+ in charitable donations, which I did itemize instead of taking the standard deduction. </div></div>I get it, do what you can to save a few bucks. Just quit telling others they have to pay their fair share when you aren't paying yours.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-24-2012, 03:31 PM
This may be your most ill-informed comment of all times.

If I'm paying more than the current top marginal rate of 35% on ALL MY INCOME (my effective rate was 36.5%), which I am, I am paying more than my fair share, and am actually making some mistakes to accomplish that. Which would be blindingly obvious if you understood the terms top marginal rate and effective rate, as you apparently do not. It's fairly hard to pay MORE than the top marginal rate on ALL YOUR INCOME. Taking the standard deduction, someone at my earning level would typically pay more like 31% effective rate.

Soflasnapper
04-24-2012, 03:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good point ... except your figures are bogus, but you already knew that.

My source? The regime. (http://http://cbo.gov/publication/43173) </div></div>

The CBO is a kind of accounting agency of Congress. It is not the agency in charge of SNAP. That agency is the USDA, and my linked source was... http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm. Completely definitive, from the horse's mouth, as it were. If USDA says one thing, and CBO another, the USDA is right.

Not that what you linked to contradicts my numbers in the slightest. You've probably mistaken dollar output for persons participating or something.

Very nice cover up, however. Most people won't read through to the source, and if they do, they'll see a GRAPH without the annual numbers, that if you squint at it, might appear to somewhat support what you've claimed. But it doesn't.

eg8r
04-24-2012, 04:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If I'm paying more than the current top marginal rate of 35% on ALL MY INCOME (my effective rate was 36.5%), which I am, I am paying more than my fair share, and am actually making some mistakes to accomplish that.</div></div>LOL.

eg8r

sack316
04-24-2012, 10:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Now back in '77 when I got my degree in mathematics, 16.(anything) is greater than 11.(anything)</div></div>

Not negative numbers /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Qtec
04-26-2012, 06:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This may be your most ill-informed comment of all times. </div></div>

I doubt it!

eg0r is the biggest hypocrite on the planet.

Q

eg8r
04-26-2012, 09:49 AM
LOL, you might want to look up the definition of hypocrite. While you will see your picture next to the word it appears you don't know what it means.

eg8r