Government Shutdown

[sc281]

No, that would be the logic of an educated person. I have literature to back this up. Do you?

So you have literature stating that if you say something, that the rest of humanity should interpret an ENTIRELY different way than you said it, and if not they are stupid?

Yes, I'd love to see this riveting insight into the psyche of Durantula.

[Durantula]

Lol! Go back to liberalforums.com if you want to skate by with that logic, Loozer.

No, that would be the logic of an educated person. I have literature to back this up. Do you?

[sc281]

What I meant was they have an income less than 150% of the poverty line. Poor choice of words on my part. If anyone here had any semblance of intelligence they probably would have understood what I meant and instead discussed it, rather than attack it. Not that I expect that kind of debate here.

I'm wrong, but you guys are the idiots because you understood what I said instead of what I meant to say.

Lol! Go back to liberalforums.com if you want to skate by with that logic, Loozer.

[Vertnut]

I'm not going to play your rhetorical question game. Please continue to derail the thread so I can confirm you have nothing of substance to add to the debate.

You mentioned me not having a "semblance of intelligence"? You're probably better off letting us assume you're wrong, than opening your mouth and proving yourself wrong.

[Durantula]

Just answer the question.

I'm not going to play your rhetorical question game. Please continue to derail the thread so I can confirm you have nothing of substance to add to the debate.

[Vertnut]

I already admitted I used a poor choice of words. What are you trying to get at here besides going completely off-topic?

Just answer the question.

[Durantula]

I didn't "attack" you, but that can change. Your phraseology makes no sense at all. Please tell me what is left in your pocket if you have $100 and spend 150% of it. Pretty simple question.

I already admitted I used a poor choice of words. What are you trying to get at here besides going completely off-topic?

[Vertnut]

I think you need to take a gander at the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act.



What I meant was they have an income less than 150% of the poverty line. Poor choice of words on my part. If anyone here had any semblance of intelligence they probably would have understood what I meant and instead discussed it, rather than attack it. Not that I expect that kind of debate here.

I didn't "attack" you, but that can change. Your phraseology makes no sense at all. Please tell me what is left in your pocket if you have $100 and spend 150% of it. Pretty simple question.

[GSRGuy94]

I was being a smartass.

Gotcha

[Durantula]

Your pocket, that is where.

Under Paul Ryan's budget proposal, ederal taxes would be lower for the richest ten percent, and higher for all other income
groups, than they would be if President Obama’s proposals were enacted.

[Durantula]

Right, so show me, in our Constitution (which is our founding document and the only thing that matters) where the federal government can do anything with 'discretionary spending' that isn't counted in the 18 enumerated powers. I'll wait. Article and Section

Article 1, sections 8 and 9

section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises,”

section 9: "No Money shall be drawn from the
Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

Also, I think you need to take a gander at the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act.

I'm sure that was what was meant to be said. I wasn't defending his use of that statistic, just saying that you can use percentages larger than 100 in some cases. And you can use it to describe decline too, as long as it's not a percentage of the TOTAL of whatever it is you're measuring. For example, if your business is having a bad year and you expect to lose money, and end up losing MORE than you expected, it can be described using a 100%+ number. But yeah, I see what you're saying.

What I meant was they have an income less than 150% of the poverty line. Poor choice of words on my part. If anyone here had any semblance of intelligence they probably would have understood what I meant and instead discussed it, rather than attack it. Not that I expect that kind of debate here.

[Sean88gt]

I was being a smartass.

[GSRGuy94]

Measuring growth, yes. Decline, no. You only have 100% of something. Therefore, you can't go less than 100%. If the poverty line is $20k a year (for the sake of argument), how would you subtract 150%? I think he meant to say "50% below the poverty line", which would be $10k a year, and makes perfect sense.

I'm sure that was what was meant to be said. I wasn't defending his use of that statistic, just saying that you can use percentages larger than 100 in some cases. And you can use it to describe decline too, as long as it's not a percentage of the TOTAL of whatever it is you're measuring. For example, if your business is having a bad year and you expect to lose money, and end up losing MORE than you expected, it can be described using a 100%+ number. But yeah, I see what you're saying.

According to one of my professors, the white board sucks knowledge out of a person. It would be like breaking A-rod's knee after he signed a contract that was 150% higher than the average player. He goes down and you lose 300% of your investment, twice.

If the average contract size was $1,000,000, and A-rod signed a contract that was 150% larger, that was be $2,500,000. If his contract was 150% OF the average player's contract size, it would be $1,500,000.

[exlude]

I just heard the military is getting a 150% pay cut!

Haha, does that mean I have to pay to work?

[347Mike]

I really hope the market bounces up a little bit Monday morning and I can take my earnings and run..