OK, I'll admit it, our friends on the left are correct; there IS a catch to the Trump tax cuts

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The middle class got lots of tax savings coming up, that you been duped isn’t our issue. The standard deductions went up, tax credits for the middle class went up and the percentage taxed went down, hater.

I said it is ridiculous for the rich to get big tax cuts -none of that

Hey dipstick, you can't get a big tax cut unless you're paying big taxes to begin with. Your IQ seems to be dropping by the second.
.

Those 47% who pay no federal income taxes should get at least double amount of money they paid in.

Why? So they can have money that I earned?

I said, "double of money they paid in".

How much money they paid in? Zero...

Touche!

 

[The Derp]

o such animal exist dumb ass. That phrase is part of the taxing and spending clause and is limited by the remainder of the Article. I guess comprehension isn't your strong suit..

How is the general welfare clause limited? Explain.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's right on point. Google it.

Trump was born on the basepaths between 3rd and home and thinks he hit a home run.

And you keep watching a replay over and over. You'll get used to it for the next seven years.

 

[The Derp]

nd you keep watching a replay over and over. You'll get used to it for the next seven years.

So, what happens when you turn out to be wrong and Trump doesn't even finish his first term?

 

[Ame®icano]

Yes, it says usually measured in money--not usually measured from capital or labor. It's always measured in capital and labor. Usually measured in money means it could be from stock options given to a CEO or perhaps in profit sharing.

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

The government doesn't create money--it only creates the notes that represent wealth. Wealth is created by the individual which gives currency it's value. Without people giving those notes value, they are nothing more than worthless pieces of paper.

The government is what controls the money supply and enforces property rights. Without that, you'd see any wealth associated with the money go down the toilet.

So now somebody dies in your family and leaves you with a 300K house. Should government force you to give them 100K in order to keep that house?

It should be taxed, yes.

Thank you for admitting that Comrade. All property should belong to the government.

You're an illiterate moron, which is why you keep attributing comments I never made to me. For example, here you imply that I said all (100%) of property should belong to the government, when all I said was it should be taxed (in response to a 33% tax question).

In a way, that's your goal, as proposed in Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. You want now only 33%, but it's never enough, since rich are getting richer, right?

Why are you asking me? You're the one posting about communism, Lenin.

Let's see number one: "Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose." Isn't that what you lefties are living for? You can read rest of them on the link above. I'm not sure is Democrat platform written to mimic Communist Manifesto or National Socialist Platform of 1932.

Because that's what you lefties want. Redistribution of wealth, open borders, basic income, etc.

 

[Ame®icano]

Not sure what this has to do with our discussion. Like I said, I did not say what Trump did was illegal, just that he is a deadbeat. What does any of this have to do with whether or not I support bankruptcy law?

What exactly makes him a deadbeat?

I answered it already, and you quoted it. I guess you're dumb AND illiterate.

You said he's deadbeat, I asked what makes him a deadbeat.

 

[The Derp]

Because that's what you lefties want. Redistribution of wealth, open borders, basic income, etc.

Y'all have been waging class war with your trickle-down economics for the last 40 years...now that the chickens have come home to roost for your shit policy, you want to attack the left? Fuck you.

 

[Ame®icano]

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

He's not wrong. You are.

The problem is how to explain to leftist something that is self explanatory, when leftist wants it to mean something else.

Commas are not there because gain or recurrent benefit is usually measured in money.

Except the sentence doesn't end there, dumbass. It's usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. Usually, but not always. It could also be measured in money that derives from unemployment compensation or alimony, as your average 1040 would tell you. Didn't your ESL teacher teach you to read the entire sentence? Sentences in the English language are made up of words. You have to read all of them, not just up to the point where you exhaust all of your mental abilities.

Next year, I'm sure she'll get into more complicated concepts like context.

Except, you cut the rest of my post that explains where you're wrong, soyboy.

And what is unemployment compensation and alimony but payments that derived from capital or labor?

You proved nothing, shitstain.

 

[Ame®icano]

State and local taxes and fees are higher than they would be without the Republicans cutting federal aid to the states so they can give the rich a tax break. Everywhere.

the non Rich get all the tax breaks now. The mega rich and the giant corporations have been getting all the tax breaks 35 years and it has s never helped

Who should, in your own opinion, get the tax breaks and why?

The non rich should get all the tax breaks now until the damage of the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich has ended.

You keep saying "last 35 years of GOP" like it means something.

OK, tell us how long in those 35 years GOP was not in power?

 

[Ame®icano]

Yes, it says usually measured in money--not usually measured from capital or labor. It's always measured in capital and labor. Usually measured in money means it could be from stock options given to a CEO or perhaps in profit sharing.

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

The government doesn't create money--it only creates the notes that represent wealth. Wealth is created by the individual which gives currency it's value. Without people giving those notes value, they are nothing more than worthless pieces of paper.

The government is what controls the money supply and enforces property rights. Without that, you'd see any wealth associated with the money go down the toilet.

So now somebody dies in your family and leaves you with a 300K house. Should government force you to give them 100K in order to keep that house?

It should be taxed, yes.

Thank you for admitting that Comrade. All property should belong to the government.

You're an illiterate moron, which is why you keep attributing comments I never made to me. For example, here you imply that I said all (100%) of property should belong to the government, when all I said was it should be taxed (in response to a 33% tax question).

In a way, that's your goal, as proposed in Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. You want now only 33%, but it's never enough, since rich are getting richer, right?

Let's see number one: "Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose." Isn't that what you lefties are living for? You can read rest of them on the link above. I'm not sure is Democrat platform written to mimic Communist Manifesto or National Socialist Platform of 1932.

In a way, that would be the b******* no evidence crap way LOL!

Put all three side to side and read them. It's soooooo funny how similar they are.

 

[Ame®icano]

Best to have Democrats protecting the water...

apparently not

the city council in Atlanta is almost exclusively run by democrats

I mean sure, the white folks in Buckhead send a few republicans, but the city is certainly run by democrats

nice try though

Democrats love clean water. Just ask people of Flint.

That had nothing to do with republicans?

You tell me. Who decided to switch the water supply source?

Or better, who is in power in Flint for the past 50 years?

The Republican governor and the people he appointed to the emergency Administration. Great job GOP!

The city planned to switch the water source before the emergency admin. Admin just approved the deal.

 

[Ame®icano]

You're an idiot because you think Trump didn't screw his creditors. You're also an idiot because you think I don't understand the difference between personal income and business income.

Creditors know the rick going into business. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

Were you one of those creditors? If you're not... well, of course you're not... so why do you care if one rich guy screw another rich guy. How that, other than having satisfaction of saying "Trump bankrupted" (and he didn't), is affecting your little life?

He also screwed many of his employees and suppliers... A scumbag

And I should take your word for it.

 

[Ame®icano]

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

He's not wrong. You are.

The problem is how to explain to leftist something that is self explanatory, when leftist wants it to mean something else.

Commas are not there because gain or recurrent benefit is usually measured in money.

Usually. But not necessary. They can be measured in other values that derives from capital or labor.

If I were you, I would sit someplace in the corner where nobody can see me, and pull my ears over my face to hide shame from being THAT stupid.

But that's me. Knowing leftists, you are gonna continue posting here and prove to us over and over why you should go and sit in the corner with your ears pulled over your face.

I was trying to explain it to him but you know how the left is. It's like trying to talk to a brick wall.

I was trying to explain that "usually" is in reference to the type of compensation--not the word income. The words "capital" and "labor" are the reference to what income actually is. It has nothing to do with commas, it has to do with understanding what words mean. When he tries to Clintonize it in his response, you can try again, but I gave up.

You're dodging this question:

You can spin it any way you want. The bottom line is everyone else pays money on their income. It doesn't have to be from labor or investments. Line 10 on the 1040 lists income from "Taxable refunds, credits, or offsets of state and local income taxes." Line 11 is for Alimony. There's also Unemployment compensation. Are you going to tell me these are all either from investments or labor?

You earn unemployment benefits while you are working. So yes, that is income, you just didn't get paid for it until you filed.

Years ago I got laid off from a job and went to unemployment. They refused me because I worked so much I hardly took any time off of work. I did good work for the company so they paid me for all the sick days I never took, vacation, personal days, layoff compensation, and it amounted to 9 weeks of pay.

Of course I had to file that as income because I earned that pay while working. Unemployment seen it the same way. I have no idea what alimony is about.

And what about taxable refunds? You don't know what that's about, either? Christ! Why do I bother? If you don't know what alimony is, then you're far too stupid to discuss income taxation.

For your info, you're also supposed to report gambling winnings on line 21 (called "other income"). Is that from labor or capital?

Do you know what alimony is? Where does it come from?

 

[Ame®icano]

apparently not

the city council in Atlanta is almost exclusively run by democrats

I mean sure, the white folks in Buckhead send a few republicans, but the city is certainly run by democrats

nice try though

Democrats love clean water. Just ask people of Flint.

That had nothing to do with republicans?

You tell me. Who decided to switch the water supply source?

Or better, who is in power in Flint for the past 50 years?

The Republican governor and the people he appointed to the emergency Administration. Great job GOP!

yep
Rick Snyder Republican
Flint Water Crisis 'Series of Government Failures' to Blame | Time
time.com › U.S. › cities
Mar 23, 2016 - Michigan state agencies overseen by Gov. Rick Snyder and a series of emergency managers appointed by the governor are to blame for allowing contaminated water into Flint homes, according to a report released Wednesday. The findings—the most sweeping indictment to date of the role state officials ...

You're missing the timing.

When emergency was appointed by the state, plans to switch the water source was already in place.

From your text above: "Gov. Rick Snyder and a series of emergency managers appointed by the governor are to blame for allowing contaminated water into Flint homes" you assume that State switched the water and did everything knowingly. City switched the water, city lied about contamination, city didn't sample the water properly, now they blame the State. Watch the movie Flint, it's pretty close to the truth.

 

[Ame®icano]

Best to have Democrats protecting the water...

apparently not

the city council in Atlanta is almost exclusively run by democrats

I mean sure, the white folks in Buckhead send a few republicans, but the city is certainly run by democrats

nice try though

Democrats love clean water. Just ask people of Flint.

Rick Snyder Republican
Flint Water Crisis 'Series of Government Failures' to Blame | Time
time.com › U.S. › cities
Mar 23, 2016 - Michigan state agencies overseen by Gov. Rick Snyder and a series of emergency managers appointed by the governor are to blame for allowing contaminated water into Flint homes, according to a report released Wednesday. The findings—the most sweeping indictment to date of the role state officials ...

Decision to switch water source was all Democrats to save the money, or to fill their pockets.

The Republican fault is they didn't prevent Democrats from making a mistake.

From your link: "The report did find one bright spot: the determination of Flint residents, who repeatedly questioned officials about the water supply even after the city told them it was OK to drink."

When they said "city" you know who that is, right?

The decisions that lead to this tragedy we're all made by the new Republican governor and the administration he appointed.

Sure, there was a collusion to poison the people of Flint. If you say so.

 

[Ame®icano]

Best to have Democrats protecting the water...

apparently not

the city council in Atlanta is almost exclusively run by democrats

I mean sure, the white folks in Buckhead send a few republicans, but the city is certainly run by democrats

nice try though

Democrats love clean water. Just ask people of Flint.

Rick Snyder Republican
Flint Water Crisis 'Series of Government Failures' to Blame | Time
time.com › U.S. › cities
Mar 23, 2016 - Michigan state agencies overseen by Gov. Rick Snyder and a series of emergency managers appointed by the governor are to blame for allowing contaminated water into Flint homes, according to a report released Wednesday. The findings—the most sweeping indictment to date of the role state officials ...

Decision to switch water source was all Democrats to save the money, or to fill their pockets.

The Republican fault is they didn't prevent Democrats from making a mistake.

From your link: "The report did find one bright spot: the determination of Flint residents, who repeatedly questioned officials about the water supply even after the city told them it was OK to drink."

When they said "city" you know who that is, right?

How can you read that article in skip over all the stuff about the Republican governor and the jackasses in his emergency administration of Flint?

The article is not giving you whole picture. Switching the water supply doesn't happen overnight. The plans to switch were in place for years, city just didn't have money to do it. They don't tell you that in article, do they, because you can't blame Democrats for destroying everything in that city for the past 30-40 years. I live nearby, I tend to know what's going on around me.

 

[Ame®icano]

You're mistakenly under the impression that I would object to that. There's no reason for money to be laundered through federal bureaucracies just to send a portion of it back to the States. Unconstitutional welfare bullshit account for 70% of federal spending and a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that's not sustainable.

So you think Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are unconstitutional? Why do you think that?

Why do you think it is?

 

[Ame®icano]

You're mistakenly under the impression that I would object to that. There's no reason for money to be laundered through federal bureaucracies just to send a portion of it back to the States. Unconstitutional welfare bullshit account for 70% of federal spending and a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that's not sustainable.

So you think Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are unconstitutional? Why do you think that?

Feel free to quote the Article, Section and Clause that authorize them and I'll be happy to prove you wrong. Hint, if you come up with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 you're already a loser.


.

I think I'll go with the Supreme Court decisions and basically just consider you a brainwashed functional moron.

You mean you'll point to the decisions that Supreme Court reversed to after being threatened... yeah, do that.

 

[OKTexas]

o such animal exist dumb ass. That phrase is part of the taxing and spending clause and is limited by the remainder of the Article. I guess comprehension isn't your strong suit..

How is the general welfare clause limited? Explain.

If you bother to actually read Article 1, Section 8, you will discover the it is a single paragraph with phrases separated by commas and semicolons. What's referred to as the Taxing Clause, which explains how the government can raise revenue and the two legal spending categories that money can be spent on, Common Defense and General welfare. The remainder of the paragraph, AKA the limiting clauses, spell out specifically what items congress can legally spend on within those categories, they also call these clauses enumerated powers.

This is how James Madison, the man that wrote the majority of the document and Thomas Jefferson explained it. my b/u/i

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)


These were the declarations of the founders and the public understanding of the meaning of the Constitution at the time it was written, those portions have not been amended, so the meaning is still the same. I chose the understanding of the people that were there, not 9 unelected lawyers that unconstitutionally expanded the power of the feds and thereby their own power more than a hundred years later.


.

 

[buckeye45_73]

They could get the money back into the economy by taxing the inheritance. Then they wouldn't have to worry about wasting goods and services on some good-for-nothing lazy rich deadbeat.

You don't put money back into the economy by giving it to government. They'll just waste it.

The government can just give it to people in the form of tax cuts to the middle class. You're grasping at straws.

They can, but it should be taxed like regular income at the very least.

Why? That money was already taxed when it was created. Do you understand the term INCOME TAX? It means tax on income. Inheritance is not income.

If you GET money from inheritance, it is income, just exempted from tax. Don't be an idiot.

income? no it was already earned. Next you'll tax allowances.....omg.... get over, people earn their money and they can do what they want with it (with legality being the only point)

Why can't everyone else pull themselves up by their bootstraps and "work" by investing their spare $10-20 million they have laying around?

Well what do you think they do with it, have it in between their mattress and pull some out when they need it?

You mean poor people? They don't have it.

They don't, no shit, maybe because they work to get it, then leave it to their kids......what a concept!

The reality is that inheriting something is not "work."

Who said it was?

Someone said Trump got rich by working.

I did, his dad loaned him some cash, he worked to increase his money and did even better than Clinton did (funny I never heard you guys complain about her cattle futures...it was all above board to you lefties!)!!!