I Visioed my new place and laid out my current furniture in it. I may even have posted to LJ for opinions. But not a poll. That'd be going too far.

Okay, I've been trying to figure out how the rebate works and I found this, which, if correct, is a pretty good explanation of why we won't owe something next year (which is what I just heard confirmed on CNN but they didn't really explain why).

This comment is at the end of a bunch of comments here: [link] so there might be eventual confirmation of this. But don't read the rest of the comments unless you want your blood pressure to increase exponentially.

"Okay, I did some more checking around and discovered this. The balancing element to the rebate bill is that they’re eliminating the 10% tax bracket which applies to the first $6,000. of your 2008 income. Soooo, this means that if you normally get a $1,000 refund, you would now be due a $1600 refund for 2008, $600 of which they are advancing to you now. And you’ll still get you normal $1000 refund in 2008. Of course, it’s all chatter and hearsay. I haven’t found one single comprehensive explanation of it from the government itself. The only thing I find is the bill itself, but no explanation of how it will work as far as next year goes.

Can anyone confirm this?

So "leverage" in marketese is "see where we can use"? Huh.

That's what I'm seeing as well, megan, but I think I'm going to wait and see what the IRS has to say.

I am going to cash it and put it straight to a CC (3.5 months payments). If we end up having to pay it back in 2009, I will (hopefully) socked that much away over the course of the year in an interest bearing saving acct, that I can retrieve it (angrily).

If I hear more definitively saying it will have to be paid back, I might put half of it into the savings and half toward the CC, just to start the pot faster.

The idea of $900 is happy making though.

Oh, the Keira Knightley pictures are making me despair. She just isn't the lush, bouncy, bosomy Georgiana that someone like Winslet so easily could've been.

And still way too young to pull off the sheer misery of the worst period of the Duchess's life, and the extreme aging-and-ravages-of-illness makeup could be cringe-inducing.

Bah.

Friend emailed back and apologized for the Supremes crack, then answered a rhetorical aside I made about people who think the last 8 years would have been no different with Gore in the White House with, "Well, sure, it would've been different, but only marginally. And don't hand me that Nader-as-spoiler crap either."

I'm breathing deep and just stepping away from the entire conversation before I lose my shit and forget that, after all, this is the guy who, when I was stranded in San Francisco on a rainy night in the middle of moving, drove across two cities to pull my clothes (and Hec's, and Emmett's) out of a laundromat dryer in Berkeley, took it all home, and folded it (he said at the time, "I got worried and thought maybe I'd grabbed the wrong stuff when I saw the little boy clothes, but then I saw the large man's shirt with Flannery O'Connor on it and I knew it was fine; of course you'd marry a man who owned a Flannery O'Connor t-shirt.").

but then I saw the large man's shirt with Flannery O'Connor on it and I knew it was fine; of course you'd marry a man who owned a Flannery O'Connor t-shirt.").

he has redeemed himself a little bit in my eyes with this

JZ, that so sounds like my GOP brothers, only I'm sure they're happy enough with McCain that there's no way they'd vote for either of the Democratic options. But obnoxious political opinions combined with "would move heaven and earth for a friend in trouble," check.

I am sad that no one answered my belt question. Maybe we should have a fashion thread.

shrift, I may have accidentally written Torchwood/Life porn that I just e-mailed you.

Please please tell me this is going to be posted somewhere.