Ask not......

[Redfish]

Unfortunately, they do not spend a lot of money. It is stashed away and untaxable

The working class spends their money......on things like housing, healthcare, education, transportation

untaxable???? we tax income, money saved has already been taxed. Yes, the working class spends money, that's why they like having more of it though the tax cuts, raises, and bonuses, none of which would have happened without the tax cut bill.

Now you are getting it

Working Americans have relatively little personal wealth. Their money comes from labor which is fully taxed

The wealthy have untold reserves of personal wealth which is untaxable.

Hard to tax wealth

What I would like to see is a one percent fee on every stock transaction
That way, when the wealthy move their money around they pay into our revenue stream

so you want double taxation. tax it when earned and tax it again when invested. Do you have a 401K? You must not if you advocate such a tax.

Consider it a sales tax
I already paid tax on money I earned, yet pay seven percent when I bu6 something

What is so hard about expecting people to pay one percent when they buy stocks?

Why not do away with income tax completely and put a national sales tax on everything, then those who spend the most pay the most. that sounds fair. But you really are not after fairness, you want to punish the "evil rich", right?

 

[rightwinger]

Now you are getting it

Working Americans have relatively little personal wealth. Their money comes from labor which is fully taxed

The wealthy have untold reserves of personal wealth which is untaxable.

Nice chart, but so what? we do not tax wealth, we tax income. The tax code that exempts some classes of income was written by the congress that has been controlled by democrats for most of the last 80 years, so if your bitch is with the tax code, bitch at the democrats that wrote most of it. How about posting a chart showing how much of government revenue is paid by the various income groups? Post that if you dare.

Absolutely

Working Americans like you and I have little opportunity to shield our money from taxation. But then again, we provide little input to the tax code. Our income is fully visible. We have fewer and fewer deductions we can take.
That tax code was written by the wealthy. In the new Trump tax code, exemptions were reduced for working Americans. Exemptions for the wealthy were maintained.
The wealthy know not to take added wealth as income......we have no choice

I guess the answer is to become one of the wealthy, or to get the wealthy out of congress. Have you noticed how many of democrat senators are multi millionaires? Ever wonder how they do that on a salary of around 200K? Maxine Waters went to congress with no money, now she lives in a 4 million dollar mansion outside of her district, any idea how she manage that? Do you care?

Let’s look at that..

Yes, there are wealthy Democratic Congressmen. But they vote to raise their own taxes and provide more services to the poor

There are also wealthy Republican Congressmen. They vote to slash their own taxes and cut services to the poor

See the difference?

meaningless claim. they all vote to help themselves financially, both parties. did the dems vote for the 2018 tax cuts that are helping middle class blue collar americans? duh, no. They voted against it because their only interest is their party's power.

The dems showed their true colors on the Kavanaugh hearings fiasco that they created. Its about to bite them in the ass next Tuesday.

85 percent went to the wealthy

Dems voted against cutting their own taxes

 

[Harpy Eagle]

.

I did back up my claim. I gave you all of the substantial changes to NAFTA.

How else could I back it up?


If you think I am wrong then feel free to list the substantial changes


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

you said there were no changes, that is a lie. So either put up or shut up.

I said there were no substantial changes, that the changes were so small calling them tweaks was not
even correct.

And then I listed all of the substantial changes. The list was empty.

What more do you want?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

something more than your personal claim. Some proof, sorry but you word does not carry much weight here.

How does one prove a negative?

What is telling is that you keep harping on me instead of listing even one substantial change, which would prove I was wrong.


Why can you not do that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I guess you could post an unbiased analysis comparing the previous NAFTA rules to the renegotiated rules. You made the claim that there were not changes, the burden of proof is on you. If there were no changes why did Mexico and Canada fight so hard against the new deal?

There is no such thing as an unbiased analysis.

Here a link to the agreement, read it for yourself instead of wanting a talking head to tell you what it says.

Then point to the significant changes

United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Text | United States Trade Representative


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Redfish]

.

you said there were no changes, that is a lie. So either put up or shut up.

I said there were no substantial changes, that the changes were so small calling them tweaks was not
even correct.

And then I listed all of the substantial changes. The list was empty.

What more do you want?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

something more than your personal claim. Some proof, sorry but you word does not carry much weight here.

How does one prove a negative?

What is telling is that you keep harping on me instead of listing even one substantial change, which would prove I was wrong.


Why can you not do that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I guess you could post an unbiased analysis comparing the previous NAFTA rules to the renegotiated rules. You made the claim that there were not changes, the burden of proof is on you. If there were no changes why did Mexico and Canada fight so hard against the new deal?

There is no such thing as an unbiased analysis.

Here a link to the agreement, read it for yourself instead of wanting a talking head to tell you what it says.

Then point to the significant changes

United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Text | United States Trade Representative


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

since that's only the "after" half its impossible to know what changed. and yes, there are some unbiased sources of information, YOU made the claim that no significant changes were made, its up to you to prove that claim, or admit that you made it up.

 

[Redfish]

Nice chart, but so what? we do not tax wealth, we tax income. The tax code that exempts some classes of income was written by the congress that has been controlled by democrats for most of the last 80 years, so if your bitch is with the tax code, bitch at the democrats that wrote most of it. How about posting a chart showing how much of government revenue is paid by the various income groups? Post that if you dare.

Absolutely

Working Americans like you and I have little opportunity to shield our money from taxation. But then again, we provide little input to the tax code. Our income is fully visible. We have fewer and fewer deductions we can take.
That tax code was written by the wealthy. In the new Trump tax code, exemptions were reduced for working Americans. Exemptions for the wealthy were maintained.
The wealthy know not to take added wealth as income......we have no choice

I guess the answer is to become one of the wealthy, or to get the wealthy out of congress. Have you noticed how many of democrat senators are multi millionaires? Ever wonder how they do that on a salary of around 200K? Maxine Waters went to congress with no money, now she lives in a 4 million dollar mansion outside of her district, any idea how she manage that? Do you care?

Let’s look at that..

Yes, there are wealthy Democratic Congressmen. But they vote to raise their own taxes and provide more services to the poor

There are also wealthy Republican Congressmen. They vote to slash their own taxes and cut services to the poor

See the difference?

meaningless claim. they all vote to help themselves financially, both parties. did the dems vote for the 2018 tax cuts that are helping middle class blue collar americans? duh, no. They voted against it because their only interest is their party's power.

The dems showed their true colors on the Kavanaugh hearings fiasco that they created. Its about to bite them in the ass next Tuesday.

85 percent went to the wealthy

Dems voted against cutting their own taxes

in terms of actual dollars, that is absolutely correct, the people that pay the most got the biggest reduction, 5% of one million is more than 5% of 10 thousand.

dems voted against it because republicans voted for it, dems don't give a shit about you, all they want is power and the ability to tell YOU how to live.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

.

I said there were no substantial changes, that the changes were so small calling them tweaks was not
even correct.

And then I listed all of the substantial changes. The list was empty.

What more do you want?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

something more than your personal claim. Some proof, sorry but you word does not carry much weight here.

How does one prove a negative?

What is telling is that you keep harping on me instead of listing even one substantial change, which would prove I was wrong.


Why can you not do that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I guess you could post an unbiased analysis comparing the previous NAFTA rules to the renegotiated rules. You made the claim that there were not changes, the burden of proof is on you. If there were no changes why did Mexico and Canada fight so hard against the new deal?

There is no such thing as an unbiased analysis.

Here a link to the agreement, read it for yourself instead of wanting a talking head to tell you what it says.

Then point to the significant changes

United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Text | United States Trade Representative


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

since that's only the "after" half its impossible to know what changed. and yes, there are some unbiased sources of information, YOU made the claim that no significant changes were made, its up to you to prove that claim, or admit that you made it up.

I have backed up that claim. I have listed every significant change, that is all that I can do.

I need to do nothing more, you can either accept my claim or prove that it is false, as I have given all the evidence possible that it is accurate.

 

[Redfish]

.
something more than your personal claim. Some proof, sorry but you word does not carry much weight here.

How does one prove a negative?

What is telling is that you keep harping on me instead of listing even one substantial change, which would prove I was wrong.


Why can you not do that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I guess you could post an unbiased analysis comparing the previous NAFTA rules to the renegotiated rules. You made the claim that there were not changes, the burden of proof is on you. If there were no changes why did Mexico and Canada fight so hard against the new deal?

There is no such thing as an unbiased analysis.

Here a link to the agreement, read it for yourself instead of wanting a talking head to tell you what it says.

Then point to the significant changes

United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Text | United States Trade Representative


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

since that's only the "after" half its impossible to know what changed. and yes, there are some unbiased sources of information, YOU made the claim that no significant changes were made, its up to you to prove that claim, or admit that you made it up.

I have backed up that claim. I have listed every significant change, that is all that I can do.

I need to do nothing more, you can either accept my claim or prove that it is false, as I have given all the evidence possible that it is accurate.

saying there were no changes is not listing changes, WTF is wrong with you? give us a before and after comparison or admit you lied.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How does one prove a negative?

What is telling is that you keep harping on me instead of listing even one substantial change, which would prove I was wrong.


Why can you not do that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I guess you could post an unbiased analysis comparing the previous NAFTA rules to the renegotiated rules. You made the claim that there were not changes, the burden of proof is on you. If there were no changes why did Mexico and Canada fight so hard against the new deal?

There is no such thing as an unbiased analysis.

Here a link to the agreement, read it for yourself instead of wanting a talking head to tell you what it says.

Then point to the significant changes

United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Text | United States Trade Representative


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

since that's only the "after" half its impossible to know what changed. and yes, there are some unbiased sources of information, YOU made the claim that no significant changes were made, its up to you to prove that claim, or admit that you made it up.

I have backed up that claim. I have listed every significant change, that is all that I can do.

I need to do nothing more, you can either accept my claim or prove that it is false, as I have given all the evidence possible that it is accurate.

saying there were no changes is not listing changes, WTF is wrong with you? give us a before and after comparison or admit you lied.

I listed all the significant changes, there is nothing more I can do for you.

It is not my fault that your party masters lied to you and you are too stupid to know they lied.

 

[Redfish]

I guess you could post an unbiased analysis comparing the previous NAFTA rules to the renegotiated rules. You made the claim that there were not changes, the burden of proof is on you. If there were no changes why did Mexico and Canada fight so hard against the new deal?

There is no such thing as an unbiased analysis.

Here a link to the agreement, read it for yourself instead of wanting a talking head to tell you what it says.

Then point to the significant changes

United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Text | United States Trade Representative


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

since that's only the "after" half its impossible to know what changed. and yes, there are some unbiased sources of information, YOU made the claim that no significant changes were made, its up to you to prove that claim, or admit that you made it up.

I have backed up that claim. I have listed every significant change, that is all that I can do.

I need to do nothing more, you can either accept my claim or prove that it is false, as I have given all the evidence possible that it is accurate.

saying there were no changes is not listing changes, WTF is wrong with you? give us a before and after comparison or admit you lied.

I listed all the significant changes, there is nothing more I can do for you.

It is not my fault that your party masters lied to you and you are too stupid to know they lied.

"1________________ " is not a list of changes, idiot. Please go back sleep under your rock, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is no such thing as an unbiased analysis.

Here a link to the agreement, read it for yourself instead of wanting a talking head to tell you what it says.

Then point to the significant changes

United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Text | United States Trade Representative


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

since that's only the "after" half its impossible to know what changed. and yes, there are some unbiased sources of information, YOU made the claim that no significant changes were made, its up to you to prove that claim, or admit that you made it up.

I have backed up that claim. I have listed every significant change, that is all that I can do.

I need to do nothing more, you can either accept my claim or prove that it is false, as I have given all the evidence possible that it is accurate.

saying there were no changes is not listing changes, WTF is wrong with you? give us a before and after comparison or admit you lied.

I listed all the significant changes, there is nothing more I can do for you.

It is not my fault that your party masters lied to you and you are too stupid to know they lied.

"1________________ " is not a list of changes, idiot. Please go back sleep under your rock, you are embarrassing yourself.

It is a list of all the significant changes, because there were none. You keep asking me to provide something that does not exist.

You have now taken to claiming I lied, so the onus is now on you to prove that I am lying.

 

[Redfish]

since that's only the "after" half its impossible to know what changed. and yes, there are some unbiased sources of information, YOU made the claim that no significant changes were made, its up to you to prove that claim, or admit that you made it up.

I have backed up that claim. I have listed every significant change, that is all that I can do.

I need to do nothing more, you can either accept my claim or prove that it is false, as I have given all the evidence possible that it is accurate.

saying there were no changes is not listing changes, WTF is wrong with you? give us a before and after comparison or admit you lied.

I listed all the significant changes, there is nothing more I can do for you.

It is not my fault that your party masters lied to you and you are too stupid to know they lied.

"1________________ " is not a list of changes, idiot. Please go back sleep under your rock, you are embarrassing yourself.

It is a list of all the significant changes, because there were none. You keep asking me to provide something that does not exist.

You have now taken to claiming I lied, so the onus is now on you to prove that I am lying.

Ok

let me try to make it easy for you, for each category of trade commodities give us a before and after, for example

dairy products--------------before----------after
cars-------------before--------------after
oil----------------before----------after
natural gas-------------before-------------after
wheat------------before-----------after
soy beans------------before-----------after


etc etc etc.

again, you say nothing changed, prove it, just making the claim proves nothing.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have backed up that claim. I have listed every significant change, that is all that I can do.

I need to do nothing more, you can either accept my claim or prove that it is false, as I have given all the evidence possible that it is accurate.

saying there were no changes is not listing changes, WTF is wrong with you? give us a before and after comparison or admit you lied.

I listed all the significant changes, there is nothing more I can do for you.

It is not my fault that your party masters lied to you and you are too stupid to know they lied.

"1________________ " is not a list of changes, idiot. Please go back sleep under your rock, you are embarrassing yourself.

It is a list of all the significant changes, because there were none. You keep asking me to provide something that does not exist.

You have now taken to claiming I lied, so the onus is now on you to prove that I am lying.

Ok

let me try to make it easy for you, for each category of trade commodities give us a before and after, for example

dairy products--------------before----------after
cars-------------before--------------after
oil----------------before----------after
natural gas-------------before-------------after
wheat------------before-----------after
soy beans------------before-----------after


etc etc etc.

again, you say nothing changed, prove it, just making the claim proves nothing.

Now you are lying about what I said, which is your only recourse because you are devoid of any information on the subject.

I am done here, if you have something of substance to add, just let me know.

 

[Crixus]

The same question could be asked of any Repub, you included?

What have you done for your country?

Served in its armed forces and paid taxes for forty plus years.

No, no, that doesn’t count. You OWE the country your ass and wallet. That’s the thinking of the leftards.

 

[McRocket]

what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, JFK


what dem of 2018 would say that?, what dem of 2018 even thinks that way?

the answer, I think, is none. It is very sad that the once great democrat party of Kennedy and Truman is dead and has been replaced by the far left party of Marx and Alinsky.

You have not a clue what most Dems think/say...so I suggest you stop looking like an ignoramus and pretending you do.
But your daily attack on tens of millions of people whom you do not even know aside:

I have NEVER liked that saying. All it basically means is: 'do whatever I tell you and don't EVER complain about it.'

Fuck that.

Only an idiot thinks that the country gives a shit about them. If you let them, the country would gladly take everything you own and all of your freedoms as well.

I try to follow the Golden Rule and the the rule of honor...which are greater than ANY country.

If that goes along with the country - great.

If it doesn't - than the country can go and fuck itself.

Blindly following unjust laws and doing unethical/immoral things in the name of 'patriotism' is pathetic and for weak and/or the ignorant and/or the desperate (same as those who passionately follow major religions, btw).

And BTW - I served in the military (reserves) and paid my taxes as well.

 

[McRocket]

The same question could be asked of any Repub, you included?

What have you done for your country?

served in the military, paid taxes for my entire lifetime, stood for the flag, honored those who sacrificed their lives for this country, and obeyed the laws of this great nation. But this is not about me, its about what the dem party has become.

So, give us the name of one democrat of today who would say what Kennedy said, give us one democrat of today who would have ended WW2 like Truman did. Just one name-------------------------------------

I cannot name one person in power that fits that bill, be them Repub or Dem.

There is not a single one.

Disagree. I think Trump is a lot like Truman, a total pragmatist.

You know/knew neither man personally...AT ALL.

So saying what you think they are personally like is based totally on the biased hopes/guesses of a Trump-loving, nameless/faceless nobody on a chat forum - and is thus probably worth nothing of substance to someone with common sense and average/above average intellect.

Have a nice day.

 

[fncceo]

You OWE the country your ass and wallet

They can have my arse, I'm not really using it.

They can't have my wallet, my library card is in it.

 

[Crixus]

You OWE the country your ass and wallet

They can have my arse, I'm not really using it.

They can't have my wallet, my library card is in it.

Yup.

 

[rightwinger]

Absolutely

Working Americans like you and I have little opportunity to shield our money from taxation. But then again, we provide little input to the tax code. Our income is fully visible. We have fewer and fewer deductions we can take.
That tax code was written by the wealthy. In the new Trump tax code, exemptions were reduced for working Americans. Exemptions for the wealthy were maintained.
The wealthy know not to take added wealth as income......we have no choice

I guess the answer is to become one of the wealthy, or to get the wealthy out of congress. Have you noticed how many of democrat senators are multi millionaires? Ever wonder how they do that on a salary of around 200K? Maxine Waters went to congress with no money, now she lives in a 4 million dollar mansion outside of her district, any idea how she manage that? Do you care?

Let’s look at that..

Yes, there are wealthy Democratic Congressmen. But they vote to raise their own taxes and provide more services to the poor

There are also wealthy Republican Congressmen. They vote to slash their own taxes and cut services to the poor

See the difference?

meaningless claim. they all vote to help themselves financially, both parties. did the dems vote for the 2018 tax cuts that are helping middle class blue collar americans? duh, no. They voted against it because their only interest is their party's power.

The dems showed their true colors on the Kavanaugh hearings fiasco that they created. Its about to bite them in the ass next Tuesday.

85 percent went to the wealthy

Dems voted against cutting their own taxes

in terms of actual dollars, that is absolutely correct, the people that pay the most got the biggest reduction, 5% of one million is more than 5% of 10 thousand.

dems voted against it because republicans voted for it, dems don't give a shit about you, all they want is power and the ability to tell YOU how to live.

Democrats voted against it because it make no sense to borrow money to give tax breaks to billionaires

 

[rightwinger]

I have backed up that claim. I have listed every significant change, that is all that I can do.

I need to do nothing more, you can either accept my claim or prove that it is false, as I have given all the evidence possible that it is accurate.

saying there were no changes is not listing changes, WTF is wrong with you? give us a before and after comparison or admit you lied.

I listed all the significant changes, there is nothing more I can do for you.

It is not my fault that your party masters lied to you and you are too stupid to know they lied.

"1________________ " is not a list of changes, idiot. Please go back sleep under your rock, you are embarrassing yourself.

It is a list of all the significant changes, because there were none. You keep asking me to provide something that does not exist.

You have now taken to claiming I lied, so the onus is now on you to prove that I am lying.

Ok

let me try to make it easy for you, for each category of trade commodities give us a before and after, for example

dairy products--------------before----------after
cars-------------before--------------after
oil----------------before----------after
natural gas-------------before-------------after
wheat------------before-----------after
soy beans------------before-----------after


etc etc etc.

again, you say nothing changed, prove it, just making the claim proves nothing.

Inflation is up 2.9 percent

 

[rightwinger]

I have backed up that claim. I have listed every significant change, that is all that I can do.

I need to do nothing more, you can either accept my claim or prove that it is false, as I have given all the evidence possible that it is accurate.

saying there were no changes is not listing changes, WTF is wrong with you? give us a before and after comparison or admit you lied.

I listed all the significant changes, there is nothing more I can do for you.

It is not my fault that your party masters lied to you and you are too stupid to know they lied.

"1________________ " is not a list of changes, idiot. Please go back sleep under your rock, you are embarrassing yourself.

It is a list of all the significant changes, because there were none. You keep asking me to provide something that does not exist.

You have now taken to claiming I lied, so the onus is now on you to prove that I am lying.

Ok

let me try to make it easy for you, for each category of trade commodities give us a before and after, for example

dairy products--------------before----------after
cars-------------before--------------after
oil----------------before----------after
natural gas-------------before-------------after
wheat------------before-----------after
soy beans------------before-----------after


etc etc etc.

again, you say nothing changed, prove it, just making the claim proves nothing.

Inflation is up 2.9 percent