Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:16:39 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:46:01 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 5:59:26 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:4569d0bf-2976-437f-9be0-b5328c8d20a8@googlegroups.com:

And you still have this obsession with calling folks disagreeing
with you 'a lib'.

That decidedly makes you... "a child".

I don't call people who disagree with me libs, unless they are, well, libs.

But rabid right-wingers see the 99% of the population who are less right-wing than they are as a homogeneous mass of liberals.

Totally irrelevant, of course. And just like leftie loons view anything
to the right of them as a similar mass of conservative wingnuts.

There is political gradient up from the extreme right up to middle of the road after which it goes downhill a bit to the extreme left.

Thank you again, Captain Obvious.

There's also another more or less orthogonal gradient from totalitarian (communist/fascist) to democratic (socialist/libertarian) that no American seems to understand.

I have no idea where you fit on the political spectrum,

Largely because you don't know much about politics.

There you go again, making wild leaps that are totally unsupported by what
I've said. I was talking about DL, how do you know what I know?
I've only watched him in action for a limited amount of time and he's
all over the place, but always on the stupid and wrong side. So, IDK
where he fits, but if you insist that I guess, I'd say that part is
consistent with a lib.

but we do know where
you are on the intelligence spectrum and correctness. Always wrong.

An opinion you share with krw, which isn't exactly exulted company.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

K isn't the point. Are you trying to tell us that you think DL is intelligent?
He's always wrong, so much so that maybe we should get him to pick stocks for
us to buy. Then we could short them and make a lot of money. I've never seen
anyone so consistently wrong on so many things.

 

"are like to be"

ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f249fb61-d5d4-4b0d-a241-ae46801cfd4d@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 5:59:26 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:4569d0bf-2976-437f-9be0-b5328c8d20a8@googlegroups.com:

Yes, I figured since you claim to know so much about the US,
you would know that the poverty rate has been measured for 50+
years by the Census Bureau. Or that if you didn't you could
find out with an easy Google search that would show hit after
hit, that it's the most common and widely used measure.
Obviously I made an error in judgment, I should have known libs
are helpless and need others to do things for them.



The census bureau... right. ONCE every ten years.

As K says, always wrong. You actually think the Census Bureau
only does the one constitutionally mandated census of the US
population and we have an entire bureau with thousands of
employees that sits on it's ass for nine years? They perform
many other functions, one of which is the YEARLY update on
poverty, which they do EVERY YEAR.






We live in the information age, and you want to rely on numbers
only gathered once every ten years, and only data where the
respondents answered truthfully, which oh yeah... we know is
never the case.

No, you're just wrong again.




And you still have this obsession with calling folks
disagreeing
with you 'a lib'.

That decidedly makes you... "a child".

I don't call people who disagree with me libs, unless they are,
well, libs.

They have a name for fucktards like you. You are a goddamned
pidgeon hole retard.

I have no idea where you fit on the political
spectrum,

The fact that you subscribe to the thought that there is one is
quite a tell. The fact that you think you have the capacity, much
less the qualifications to assess another person is as well.

but we do know where you are on the intelligence
spectrum and correctness. Always wrong.


So you are saying that your weight is not north of #300?

Bwuahahahahahaha!

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:98471856-6cdf-43db-8b33-e61467a6c781@googlegroups.com:

May be? Google broken again? Amazing how libs don't care about
the facts and just proceed to pontificating.

You say that...

Then you spout off about 'your guess'...

My guess is that the Asian students who do well

Hypocrite much, child?

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:4eb47cd3-42da-4f2b-957c-
d53fbc690b3f@googlegroups.com:

> Are you trying to tell us that you think DL is intelligent?

There this piece of shit goes with that 'us' crap again.

Hey, fucktard... the only 'us' that could possibly be, where it
relates to you, are the minions of e. coli you have in there with you.

After all, there is no such thing as sterile shit, despite what you
want the rest of the world to think you are.

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:ada89238-ddd7-4296-88d7-37cb9319a977@googlegroups.com:

Wow, I thought the expression "Trump Derangement Syndrome" was
endemic to a certain other (private) group I'm in.

The derangements the syndrome moniker given refers to are those
attached to all of the idiots following him, not those making remarks
about him and his behaviors and those of his followers.

Nice try though, fucking punks.

 

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 12:57:17 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:16:39 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:46:01 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 5:59:26 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:4569d0bf-2976-437f-9be0-b5328c8d20a8@googlegroups.com:

And you still have this obsession with calling folks disagreeing
with you 'a lib'.

That decidedly makes you... "a child".

I don't call people who disagree with me libs, unless they are, well, libs.

But rabid right-wingers see the 99% of the population who are less right-wing than they are as a homogeneous mass of liberals.

Totally irrelevant, of course. And just like leftie loons view anything
to the right of them as a similar mass of conservative wingnuts.

I'm sure that there are lunatic lefties who are just as nuts as lunatic right-wingers. For some reason they don't post here, while we seem to get a lot of lunatic right-wingers.

There is political gradient up from the extreme right up to middle of the road after which it goes downhill a bit to the extreme left.

Thank you again, Captain Obvious.

I am trying to inform an element of the audience which is remarkably slow on the uptake.

There's also another more or less orthogonal gradient from totalitarian (communist/fascist) to democratic (socialist/libertarian) that no American seems to understand.

I have no idea where you fit on the political spectrum,

Largely because you don't know much about politics.

There you go again, making wild leaps that are totally unsupported by what
I've said.

It's more supported by what you haven't said. anything that makes much sense, for a start.

I was talking about DL, how do you know what I know?
I've only watched him in action for a limited amount of time and he's
all over the place, but always on the stupid and wrong side.

Technically he contributes a lot more than krw, which isn't saying much, but at least he seems to think about what other people post which puts him streets ahead.

So, IDK where he fits, but if you insist that I guess, I'd say that part is
consistent with a lib.

Or consistent with somebody who thinks that you are half-wit, which is probably the correct formulation.

but we do know where
you are on the intelligence spectrum and correctness. Always wrong.

An opinion you share with krw, which isn't exactly exulted company.

K isn't the point. Are you trying to tell us that you think DL is intelligent?

Definitely more intelligent than krw, and probably brighter than you are.

He's always wrong, so much so that maybe we should get him to pick stocks for
us to buy.

That's a very silly idea. C.Northcote Parkinson used the joke a few decades ago in one of his books, but the counter example is that a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Then we could short them and make a lot of money. I've never seen
anyone so consistently wrong on so many things.

You come close.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wed, 1 May 2019 02:21:29 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote in
news:qquhceh8cri6u1s6isek1071dttstfmk2i@4ax.com:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:53:46 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 3:56:22 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com
wrote:

Don't have to go back that far. The Democrats were the party of
the KKK, right down to their leadership. Senator Robert Byrd
wasn't called "Sheets Byrd" for nothing.

Not the fault of the Democratic party, though; the Byrd machine
was referred to as 'Virginia Democrats' because they were
completely OUT of touch with the rest of their party.

Oh, stop the bullshit! The Democrats loved him.

Byrd's son went to the Senate as independent, but always voted
Republican.

Only a lefty could believe that the sins of the father are the
sins of the son. You are some piece of work! ...but you are a
Democrat.


You are a real piece of SHIT. You are NOT a Republican.

But you're _always_ wrong, AlwaysWrong. Today is no exception.

 

On Wed, 1 May 2019 22:17:21 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:ada89238-ddd7-4296-88d7-37cb9319a977@googlegroups.com:

Wow, I thought the expression "Trump Derangement Syndrome" was
endemic to a certain other (private) group I'm in.


The derangements the syndrome moniker given refers to are those
attached to all of the idiots following him, not those making remarks
about him and his behaviors and those of his followers.

But you're AlwaysWrong.

> Nice try though, fucking punks.

 

On Wed, 1 May 2019 22:14:09 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:4eb47cd3-42da-4f2b-957c-
d53fbc690b3f@googlegroups.com:

Are you trying to tell us that you think DL is intelligent?

There this piece of shit goes with that 'us' crap again.

But you're AlwaysWrong.

Hey, fucktard... the only 'us' that could possibly be, where it
relates to you, are the minions of e. coli you have in there with you.

After all, there is no such thing as sterile shit, despite what you
want the rest of the world to think you are.

You're also known as ScatMan, but you knew that, too.

 

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:00:24 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:34:10 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:51:13 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:05:35 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 3:24:56 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:41:56 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:08:31 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:35:10 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee..org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 6:12:28 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl..org wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

They might go in for affirmative action as well, but it doesn't look like it.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/18/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-american-students

The court case suggests that Harvard doesn't let in as many Asian-American students as it ought to ...

Silly lib, that's what the freaking suit is about. That Harvard is making admission decisions on race and favoring blacks and other minorities over Asians.

That may be what the suit is trying to argue.

May be? Google broken again? Amazing how libs don't care about the facts and just proceed to pontificating.

Your insight into the legal facts being argued would be remarkable, if you had a clue what you are talking about. The Guardian report wasn't all that specific.

Like I asked, is Google broken? Your browser stuck to that one website?

Why would I care what some right-wing lunatics are suing about?

You invent your "facts" then complain that other people aren't inventing the same "facts".

That's a lie. I used the facts of the Harvard case.

The ones that you noticed. You do suffer from selective vision and a certain lack of mental acuity.

My guess is that the Asian students who do well are doing well in part because their families are getting them to concentrate on their studies to the exclusion of everything else, and the Harvard interviewers are after a better-balanced student intake, and don't actually care what kind of racial mix they end up with.

Again, if you bothered to even look at the facts, you'd see that Harvard does not deny that they take race into account. As do many other, probably most colleges.

They don't admit it either.

Yes they do, as have many other, probably most universities in the US.

Where?

They take it into account for everything from affirmative action to claims
of wanting a diverse student population.

They may check that their student population is diverse enough, but unless it was wildly unrepresentative they wouldn't bother doing anything about it..

Selecting students who are likely to do well is difficult enough. Coping with essentially arbitrary race quotas just gets in the way.

They may not even monitor the racial mix they end up with - it can be a wise precaution if you expect to get sued.

snip

Anything else you want to wildly speculate on today?

You seem to think that what you post is based is all soundly evidence-based, but your comprehension of what constitutes "evidence" isn't great, and you aren't in a great position to complain about other people's "wild speculations" when what you post reflects an imperfect comprehension of what's gong on filtered through some remarkably stupid right-wing prejudice.

This from the dope that has his browser stuck to one UK source for a case
that's been widely covered in the USA.

It may be a cause celebre in the US, but it's still nonsense.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 6:08:00 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:98471856-6cdf-43db-8b33-e61467a6c781@googlegroups.com:

May be? Google broken again? Amazing how libs don't care about
the facts and just proceed to pontificating.


You say that...

Then you spout off about 'your guess'...

My guess is that the Asian students who do well


Hypocrite much, child?

Like K says, always wrong. This time you've done a remarkable job of
mixing up what I posted with what your buddy Bill posted. He's the one
that posted the "My guess" sentence about the Asian students, not me.

Anything else I can help you with?

 

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:39:06 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 12:57:17 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:16:39 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:46:01 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 5:59:26 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:4569d0bf-2976-437f-9be0-b5328c8d20a8@googlegroups.com:

And you still have this obsession with calling folks disagreeing
with you 'a lib'.

That decidedly makes you... "a child".

I don't call people who disagree with me libs, unless they are, well, libs.

But rabid right-wingers see the 99% of the population who are less right-wing than they are as a homogeneous mass of liberals.

Totally irrelevant, of course. And just like leftie loons view anything
to the right of them as a similar mass of conservative wingnuts.

I'm sure that there are lunatic lefties who are just as nuts as lunatic right-wingers. For some reason they don't post here, while we seem to get a lot of lunatic right-wingers.

Look in the mirror.

There is political gradient up from the extreme right up to middle of the road after which it goes downhill a bit to the extreme left.

Thank you again, Captain Obvious.

I am trying to inform an element of the audience which is remarkably slow on the uptake.

That would be DL and he's hopeless, always wrong.

There's also another more or less orthogonal gradient from totalitarian (communist/fascist) to democratic (socialist/libertarian) that no American seems to understand.

I have no idea where you fit on the political spectrum,

Largely because you don't know much about politics.

There you go again, making wild leaps that are totally unsupported by what
I've said.

It's more supported by what you haven't said. anything that makes much sense, for a start.

Typical.

I was talking about DL, how do you know what I know?
I've only watched him in action for a limited amount of time and he's
all over the place, but always on the stupid and wrong side.

Technically he contributes a lot more than krw, which isn't saying much, but at least he seems to think about what other people post which puts him streets ahead.

Oh please, you're just too funny.

So, IDK where he fits, but if you insist that I guess, I'd say that part is
consistent with a lib.

Or consistent with somebody who thinks that you are half-wit, which is probably the correct formulation.

I see. DL is not only always wrong, but behaves as an uncontrollable,
totally vulgar half-wit, but no, the lib says the problem is with me.
Thanks for representing for libs.

but we do know where
you are on the intelligence spectrum and correctness. Always wrong.

An opinion you share with krw, which isn't exactly exulted company.

K isn't the point. Are you trying to tell us that you think DL is intelligent?

Definitely more intelligent than krw, and probably brighter than you are.

Excellent, keep representing for the libs.

He's always wrong, so much so that maybe we should get him to pick stocks for
us to buy.

That's a very silly idea. C.Northcote Parkinson used the joke a few decades ago in one of his books, but the counter example is that a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Thanks for proving my point. The stopped clock is wrong 99.99% of the time.
Following the stock example, if you placed bets based on that clock being
wrong, you'd win 99.99% of the time! You'd make a pile of money!
And you call me the half-wit?

Then we could short them and make a lot of money. I've never seen
anyone so consistently wrong on so many things.

You come close.

Why do libs have to lie so much?

 

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 3:03:23 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:39:06 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 12:57:17 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:16:39 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:46:01 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 5:59:26 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:4569d0bf-2976-437f-9be0-b5328c8d20a8@googlegroups.com:

And you still have this obsession with calling folks disagreeing
with you 'a lib'.

That decidedly makes you... "a child".

I don't call people who disagree with me libs, unless they are, well, > > > > > libs.

But rabid right-wingers see the 99% of the population who are less right-wing than they are as a homogeneous mass of liberals.

Totally irrelevant, of course. And just like leftie loons view anything
to the right of them as a similar mass of conservative wingnuts.

I'm sure that there are lunatic lefties who are just as nuts as lunatic right-wingers. For some reason they don't post here, while we seem to get a lot of lunatic right-wingers.

Look in the mirror.

I know plenty of people who are both more left-wing than I am and not remotely lunatic. If you are silly enough to think that you can characterise me as a lunatic left-winger, you've merely confirmed your own lunatic status.

Not that it needed an confirmation.

There is political gradient up from the extreme right up to middle of the road after which it goes downhill a bit to the extreme left.

Thank you again, Captain Obvious.

I am trying to inform an element of the audience which is remarkably slow on the uptake.

That would be DL and he's hopeless, always wrong.

Not true. You would be closer to the core of the target audience.

There's also another more or less orthogonal gradient from totalitarian (communist/fascist) to democratic (socialist/libertarian) that no American seems to understand.

I have no idea where you fit on the political spectrum,

Largely because you don't know much about politics.

There you go again, making wild leaps that are totally unsupported by what
I've said.

It's more supported by what you haven't said. anything that makes much sense, for a start.

Typical.

But obviously correct.

I was talking about DL, how do you know what I know?
I've only watched him in action for a limited amount of time and he's
all over the place, but always on the stupid and wrong side.

Technically he contributes a lot more than krw, which isn't saying much, but at least he seems to think about what other people post which puts him streets ahead.

Oh please, you're just too funny.

The problem is that you are much too stupid to appreciate that recycling cliches isn't evidence of intelligence.

So, IDK where he fits, but if you insist that I guess, I'd say that part
is consistent with a lib.

Or consistent with somebody who thinks that you are half-wit, which is probably the correct formulation.

I see. DL is not only always wrong, but behaves as an uncontrollable,
totally vulgar half-wit, but no, the lib says the problem is with me.
Thanks for representing for libs.

I'm not actually a "liberal". In Australia that denotes a member of the right-wing major party, who are currently running the government. With any luck they will be voted out on the 18th May.

DL certainly uses vulgarisms, and posts more often than he should. You go lighter on the vulgarisms. but you do come across a quite bit more half-witted than he is.

but we do know where
you are on the intelligence spectrum and correctness. Always wrong.

An opinion you share with krw, which isn't exactly exulted company.

K isn't the point. Are you trying to tell us that you think DL is intelligent?

Definitely more intelligent than krw, and probably brighter than you are.

Excellent, keep representing for the libs.

Not so much the libs as the inhabitants of the real world.

He's always wrong, so much so that maybe we should get him to pick stocks for us to buy.

That's a very silly idea. C.Northcote Parkinson used the joke a few decades ago in one of his books, but the counter example is that a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Thanks for proving my point. The stopped clock is wrong 99.99% of the time.
Following the stock example, if you placed bets based on that clock being
wrong, you'd win 99.99% of the time! You'd make a pile of money!
And you call me the half-wit?

But who'd be silly enough to take such a bet?

Then we could short them and make a lot of money. I've never seen
anyone so consistently wrong on so many things.

You come close.

Why do libs have to lie so much?

You seem to use "lie" in the same way that krw does, to mean "say something I disagree with". You clearly don't realise how much you get wrong, which is why I call you stupid, but that doesn't make pointing out your defects any kind of lie, even if you'd like to think it did.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:060970c0-ac9f-4f11-9184-9af2e022bec2@googlegroups.com:

Thanks for proving my point.

You are about to prove ours. You constantly spout bullshit
statistics.

The stopped clock is wrong 99.99% of
the time.

So hep on whether folks use google or not, yet you cannot even
make use of a calculator. Your self spouted number is wrong.
And anyone with any math aptitude can see that, yet you, TRADERTard4
cannot. Yeah, I would really want to count on your stock picks...
NOT!

Following the stock example, if you placed bets based on
that clock being wrong, you'd win 99.99% of the time!

So blatantly wrong, yet there you are, you and all of your e. coli
infestations... your "we" all think you are right.

You'd make a
pile of money! And you call me the half-wit?

You don't even rate half wit, you are a fucking fool twit.

 

[amdx]

On 4/29/2019 7:25 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 6:59:10 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 4/22/19 9:24 PM, amdx wrote:

I don't want more from govt, I want LESS.  The taxes to pay for all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and even the
libs know it.  The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd.   Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea.  It was as fraudulent
and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.


  The problem with Obamacare was after the Obamacare regulations went
into effect, my families private healthcare plan had increases of 18.2%,
19.4% and 24% the following 3 years. We had a 67% increase in 2 years 3
months. Thanks Obama, what happened to my $2,500 reduction you promised?
 I prefer a high deductible, I think it lowers overall costs.
 In 09 i raised my deductible from $2,500 to $10,000 and lowered my
premium from $9,900 to $4,300. Then I opened a tax deductible HSA that I
now have about $48,000 in.

 Another problem, as I see it, the FIRE community (Financially
Independent Retire Early) loves it. They retire with about $1,000,000
(or more) live frugally on about $40,000 a year and get a full
healthcare subsidy, even though they are millionaires.
I don't think that is what was envisioned with the legislation.
                                  Mikek


The boomerz all want less from the government. once they took it and
society at large for all it was good for back in the 60s and 70s.

Fuck You

Got Mine

Wrong again. You just accepted the totally faulty premise. Obamacare
subsidies are based on income and not only don't you get full subsidy
at $40K, the subsidy is gone for a single person if their income
exceeds about $45K.

I followed and used the website a lot in the first couple of years,
finding out what the subsidies were. I'm not accepting any faulty
premise, I did the work and had actual numbers from the Obamacare website.
What you say was not true then, the numbers were much higher, and my
family of four would have got a heavily subsidized premium even at $80k.
It is possible that the income limits have changed but I don't think
so, I havn't heard anyone complaining about getting their subsidy
reduced, and they would complain!
Why don't you get on the website and come back with actual numbers of
a family of four making $80k MAGI.
Mikek

 

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:39:24 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

On 4/29/2019 7:25 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 6:59:10 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 4/22/19 9:24 PM, amdx wrote:

I don't want more from govt, I want LESS.  The taxes to pay for all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and even the
libs know it.  The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd.   Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea.  It was as fraudulent
and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.


  The problem with Obamacare was after the Obamacare regulations went
into effect, my families private healthcare plan had increases of 18.2%,
19.4% and 24% the following 3 years. We had a 67% increase in 2 years 3
months. Thanks Obama, what happened to my $2,500 reduction you promised?
 I prefer a high deductible, I think it lowers overall costs.
 In 09 i raised my deductible from $2,500 to $10,000 and lowered my
premium from $9,900 to $4,300. Then I opened a tax deductible HSA that I
now have about $48,000 in.

 Another problem, as I see it, the FIRE community (Financially
Independent Retire Early) loves it. They retire with about $1,000,000
(or more) live frugally on about $40,000 a year and get a full
healthcare subsidy, even though they are millionaires.
I don't think that is what was envisioned with the legislation.
                                  Mikek


The boomerz all want less from the government. once they took it and
society at large for all it was good for back in the 60s and 70s.

Fuck You

Got Mine

Wrong again. You just accepted the totally faulty premise. Obamacare
subsidies are based on income and not only don't you get full subsidy
at $40K, the subsidy is gone for a single person if their income
exceeds about $45K.

I followed and used the website a lot in the first couple of years,
finding out what the subsidies were. I'm not accepting any faulty
premise, I did the work and had actual numbers from the Obamacare website..
What you say was not true then, the numbers were much higher, and my
family of four would have got a heavily subsidized premium even at $80k.
It is possible that the income limits have changed but I don't think
so,

Google broken?


* Phaseout levels: For 2019, after earning an income of $100,400 or higher for a family of four, $83,120 for a family of three, $65,840 for a married couple with no kids, and $48,560 for single individuals, you will no longer receive government health care subsidies.


And no, those have not changed dramatically since inception.





I havn't heard anyone complaining about getting their subsidy

reduced, and they would complain!
Why don't you get on the website and come back with actual numbers of
a family of four making $80k MAGI.
Mikek

Google broken where you are? Better to pontificate and get it wrong,
without looking it up?

 

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:45:26 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:060970c0-ac9f-4f11-9184-9af2e022bec2@googlegroups.com:


Thanks for proving my point.

You are about to prove ours. You constantly spout bullshit
statistics.

The stopped clock is wrong 99.99% of
the time.

So hep on whether folks use google or not, yet you cannot even
make use of a calculator. Your self spouted number is wrong.

Do tell, dear. What is the correct number according to you?

And anyone with any math aptitude can see that, yet you, TRADERTard4
cannot. Yeah, I would really want to count on your stock picks...
NOT!

Obviously you have no math aptitude or you would have told us what you
think the correct number is. The silence is deafening. Like K says,
always wrong. At least this time, you didn't give a number so we'd
all see it's wrong.

 

[amdx]

On 5/2/2019 8:44 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:39:24 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 4/29/2019 7:25 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 6:59:10 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 4/22/19 9:24 PM, amdx wrote:

I don't want more from govt, I want LESS.  The taxes to pay for all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and even the
libs know it.  The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd.   Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea.  It was as fraudulent
and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.


  The problem with Obamacare was after the Obamacare regulations went
into effect, my families private healthcare plan had increases of 18.2%,
19.4% and 24% the following 3 years. We had a 67% increase in 2 years 3
months. Thanks Obama, what happened to my $2,500 reduction you promised?
 I prefer a high deductible, I think it lowers overall costs.
 In 09 i raised my deductible from $2,500 to $10,000 and lowered my
premium from $9,900 to $4,300. Then I opened a tax deductible HSA that I
now have about $48,000 in.

 Another problem, as I see it, the FIRE community (Financially
Independent Retire Early) loves it. They retire with about $1,000,000
(or more) live frugally on about $40,000 a year and get a full
healthcare subsidy, even though they are millionaires.
I don't think that is what was envisioned with the legislation.
                                  Mikek


The boomerz all want less from the government. once they took it and
society at large for all it was good for back in the 60s and 70s.

Fuck You

Got Mine

Wrong again. You just accepted the totally faulty premise. Obamacare
subsidies are based on income and not only don't you get full subsidy
at $40K, the subsidy is gone for a single person if their income
exceeds about $45K.

I followed and used the website a lot in the first couple of years,
finding out what the subsidies were. I'm not accepting any faulty
premise, I did the work and had actual numbers from the Obamacare website.
What you say was not true then, the numbers were much higher, and my
family of four would have got a heavily subsidized premium even at $80k.
It is possible that the income limits have changed but I don't think
so,

Google broken?


* Phaseout levels: For 2019, after earning an income of $100,400 or higher for a family of four, $83,120 for a family of three, $65,840 for a married couple with no kids, and $48,560 for single individuals, you will no longer receive government health care subsidies.


And no, those have not changed dramatically since inception.





I haven't heard anyone complaining about getting their subsidy
reduced, and they would complain!
Why don't you get on the website and come back with actual numbers of
a family of four making $80k MAGI.
Mikek

Google broken where you are? Better to pontificate and get it wrong,
without looking it up?

I looked it up before I saw your response, I didn't use google, I went
to the Marketplace Website.
I used a family of four, Father 63, mother 59, daughter 24, and son
21yrs old. I used my zip code 32405 (this is a low cost area, the
subsidy will be much higher in other zip codes)
Income $50,000-- Monthly subsidy $2,359-- Yearly subsidy $28,303
Income $60,000-- Monthly subsidy $2,231-- Yearly subsidy $26,772
Income $70,000-- Monthly subsidy $2,091-- Yearly subsidy $25,092
Income $80,000-- Monthly subsidy $1,972-- Yearly subsidy $23,664
Income $90,000-- Monthly subsidy $1,890-- Yearly subsidy $22,680
Income $100,000-- Monthly subsidy $1,808-- Yearly subsidy $21,696
Income $100,400-- Monthly subsidy $1,805-- Yearly subsidy $21,660

However, this is based on income not MAGI, in my case you could add
$35,524 to the above income numbers and still meet the MAGI number to
get the subsidy. So I could have an income of $135,924 and get a $21,660
Obamacare subsidy. (actually a little higher because, if my income was
higher I would have had higher deductions)

So, when you said,
"Wrong again. You just accepted the totally faulty premise. Obamacare
subsidies are based on income and not only don't you get full subsidy
at $40K".
Are you willing to admit, you didn't have the facts and you where the
one that was wrong?
Mikek
btw, what I have read of your posts, I would say I generally have the
same line of thinking.

 

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 11:03:32 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:c4cc9b5b-867e-40e7-98b9-d20c7c711f65@googlegroups.com:

Obviously you have no math aptitude or you would have told us what
you think the correct number is. The silence is deafening. Like
K says, always wrong. At least this time, you didn't give a
number so we'd all see it's wrong.


You did give a number and the group sees quite obviously that you are
wrong.

You are the one unable to perform math operations.

I gave you the number of 99.99%, without even needing to consult a
calculator, because none is required. YOU made the foolish assertion that time
has a granularity of one minute, which is wrong. But even if we accept that,
then the number is 99.861%, which is very, very close.

Wrong again, always wrong

And by relying on calculators, thanks for demonstrating why America is in
so much trouble educationally. If people like you didn't have a calculator,
you couldn;t do any math. Even with it, as demonstrated above, you're
clueless.