Since there wasn't any surveillance that would even fall under the term as a euphemism, I don't see that it matters much.
Printable View
Maybe he was using a "euphemism".
No, we just threaten to sue them into bankruptcy.
No, you just give them lead-poisoning and poorly managed asthma :o
http://www.businessinsider.com/epa-s...r=US&IR=T&IR=T
Lmao at this embarrassing country.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...lphone-n732746
None of this applies if you're Muslim of course.
Even in a party full of idiots, Steve King's idiocy seems singular.
It pretty much is.
Twitter Link
Just put the tweet ID between the code blocks. So:
Twitter Link
Also, although it's never really used and the twitter API kinda sucks in what it delvers, there's the [tweetconv] tag:
Isn't everyone who isn't your sibling or child someone else's baby?
Can't we just get tax reform? All I want is tax reform. Once the GOP shoots its wad on that, there will maybe be an opening for constructive conversations about climate policy.
What We Already Know About Trump’s Ties to Russia Amounts to Treachery to the Republic
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-republic.html
We haven't moved on from defining treason have we?
She makes $26k, will pay $14k for health care
A new report by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 64-year-old making $26,500 per year would pay $14,600 under the proposed American Health Care Act.
$26,000 yearly wages
$3433.75 in federal taxes
$22566.25 after taxes (assuming you live in a state with no income tax)
$8566.25 after health care
$164.73 per week to survive
This party is insane
As long as she doesn't buy an iPhone. :o
Her salary will increase to $100K #dynamicscoring
OG, you forgot copays for visits and prescriptions. But not to worry, when she is sick enough she visit the emergency room on our dollar. We got her covered.
Wonder if the numbers included deductibles. I've seen plans that hit 8 grand before insurance kicks in.
Oh, I'm willing to entertain the idea that figures in the campaign have been/are being traitors (including Trump himself). I'm just not willing to accept declarations that anyone with a loud voice who supports Trump or denies the possibility has also committed treason. Being a deliberately blind partisan hack is not treason or grounds for declaring someone a traitor.
I haven't looked at the details of the plan but someone making 26K a year is likely not paying that much in federal taxes. When I was making just shy of 50k a year I had an effective federal tax rate of 2%. Granted I had a wife who didn't work but I doubt it is that far off.
Something about that example seems a bit off even though a 64-y-o is expected to have to pay much more.
Even if you cut those federal taxes in half thats still less than $200 a week to live off of. Completely ignoring taxes, that 60% of their income going to healthcare coverage (not actual healthcare expenses), compared to 21% of someone who makes $68k
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e4be3aa11e8a
On top of that, they want to claim HSAs will fix everything. How would that be feasible here?
Not really they're the same thing essentially. The same here too where National Insurance and Income Tax are essentially the same thing.
What you pay you get back? All of it?
Here what you pay has a bare minimum correlation to what you get back.
Typically what you pay into SS is substantially less than what you get back, obviously, since it's a pay as you go system - current SS taxes fund current SS benefits (though any excess is theoretically put in a SS 'trust fund' for future benefits). Since benefits scale upwards with time, typical amounts paid out over retirement will dwarf amounts you put in. But it will depend a lot on how long you live and the exact structure of your income during your earning years (and other obscure things like marital status changes, when you begin to claim benefits, etc.).
Regardless, that wasn't really what Lewk meant. He meant that the size of one's SS benefits will roughly correspond proportionally to the size of one's contributions. That is, SS benefits are calculated as percentage of SS tax-eligible income accrued over one's working years. There are a lot of sophisticated caveats, but it means that someone who generally earned higher amounts of income (and thus paid more SS tax) will also be eligible for higher SS benefits.
Now I'm not really sure I understand his logic about why this system should influence how it's viewed wrt to general revenue. It's true that the money is earmarked (theoretically, again, given issues with the trust fund) and that the tax is very different than typical income taxes (it's a highly regressive combination income/payroll tax), and the size of one's benefits do scale with the size of one's contributions, but at the end of the day it still is money that you don't have to spend on things like rent and food.