[rsj_hn]

So you're saying that you have difficulty converting letters to words in your mind and so will just invent a comment and then proceed to come up with your own take about it?

Is this is a good use of your time?

In that case, Why did you say that dogs should be forced to eat cats? I think that's a terrible take, and pretty irresponsible for you to advocate for it.

[specialist]

I'll agree that I'm not smart enough to divine your meaning. Apologies.

Although Warren is trying to play the same game here, people are not gonna be fooled again by the "only billionaires will be taxed" line.

I'll only add that I remain baffled when people support tax cuts for other people.

A preferential tax cut for me is a tax increase for you.

[rsj_hn]

Wow, there is a lot to unpack there.

Your assumption that opposing the introduction of a new type of tax is equivalent to advocating for a tax cut is false.

You assumption that the total tax base is constant over time and thus advocating a tax cut for you is equivalent to a tax increase for me is false. Easily dispelled by looking at historical data, which shows tax share of GDP is not constant.

Your assumption that the economy consists only of two people, you and the billionaire, so that a tax cut for one is a tax increase for you specifically is false.

Your assumption that it makes no matter whether something happens at the state or federal level is false.

Your belief that it doesn't matter whether a politician misrepresents a policy ('only Billionaires will get taxed to pay for my healthcare plan') as long as you agree with the policy is reprehensible. Truth is important in and of itself.

I could go on, but you are living in a completely different reality from me.

[specialist]

Still no answer about 2017 tax cuts.

Your "rebuttal" ignores debt over that time span.

You also add a lot of assumptions about assumptions. In the interests of discourse, we'll give you partial credit for participation.