Your 100th lame attempt to change the subject. In my opinion the rates will go up, but that is not the issue. I did not say they 'must' go up as you continue to spin a new lie about. I was very clear on numerous posts that was not the issue. But on a funnier note, let's see what you said in post 267
Pigdog post 267: The import of my quote is that should the costs of these two entitlements continue apace with their present growth, the FairTax rate will eventually be revised upward to accommodate the costs....
LOL, so you admitted before that these rates will probably go up. But let's not get sidetracked. You continue to spin and lie about what the bill says and then deny what have said about what the bill says and then lie about what others have said. It is just one lie after another with you.
In #267 the operative word is should, a conditional word as used in the sentence. That certainly does not say that I believe the entitlement proportions Will increase,
I'll not bother to explain it further to you (though I could) since you don't wish to understand.
"... so you admitted before that these rates will probably go up ..."
Nope - no such thing nor is that what #267 says. You're merely too ignorant to understand it apparently and far too eager to try to call others a liar - when they aren't. As I told you we can go on with this forever as far as I'm concernet. I'll not admit to lying about something when I haven't and the sooner you realize that the better off your frustration level will be ... but suit yourself.
"Your 100th lame attempt to change the subject. In my opinion the rates will go up, but that is not the issue. I did not say they 'must' go up as you continue to spin a new lie about. "
Your #464 certainly says otherwise by the parenthetical expression you tried to leave out to show the opposite. Despite your attempt at deceit, you have ceertainly said by that post that "upward only" is the only way - just like Looey.
Looey - please answer #518.