Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Government could probably run a 1-2% deficit in perpetuity.

My cat could probably fly in perpetuity, after one good jump.

If the economy grows at a 3-5% clip and the deficit is 1-2% of GDP ... the debt/GDP ratio will constantly be shrinking.

Now running deficits to fund operating costs is foolishness -- too many people want the goodies government provides but are unwilling to pay the taxes.

The people who want the goodies are not the ones paying taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Government could probably run a 1-2% deficit in perpetuity.

My cat could probably fly in perpetuity, after one good jump.

If the economy grows at a 3-5% clip and the deficit is 1-2% of GDP ... the debt/GDP ratio will constantly be shrinking.

Now running deficits to fund operating costs is foolishness -- too many people want the goodies government provides but are unwilling to pay the taxes.

The people who want the goodies are not the ones paying taxes.

You're right, I'm pretty pissed that I pay 35%+ in tax while Mitt Romney pays an effective rate of around 10%.

Too bad I didn't buy a yacht or some dressage horses - I could really use the tax break.

yup--taxes are no problem as lng as someone else is paying them or paying more, and of course obly rich republicans tax advantage of current tax laws...

As my childhood pastor told us on Sundays:
"Offerings are not about equal giving. No one should feel bad about giving $1, if that's all they can afford. Nor should our wealthiest feel boastful about giving $100. It's not about equal giving; it's about equal sacrifice."

Mitt should pay 35%. So should Warren Buffet. They don't need to pay more. But they should be paying less - percentage wise - than a middle class person.

Equal sacrifice.

Yeah no I disagree. We're a nation of laws and that means equality before the law, and that includes taxes. They pay too much as it is.

Okay, you're off your rocker. No reasonable Republican actually thinks this way. It's the New World Order Thinking that the ueberrich have somehow pushed through into the American mind via Rush Limbaugh, Faux News, and whoever else is the crazy right winger du jour. Trickle Down doesn't work, we know that now. So the new Right Wing order of the day is... fairness to corporate America and the billionaire class? It's not "fair" to tax the rich? They pay too much? Jeezus, this is really screwed up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Government could probably run a 1-2% deficit in perpetuity.

My cat could probably fly in perpetuity, after one good jump.

If the economy grows at a 3-5% clip and the deficit is 1-2% of GDP ... the debt/GDP ratio will constantly be shrinking.

Now running deficits to fund operating costs is foolishness -- too many people want the goodies government provides but are unwilling to pay the taxes.

The people who want the goodies are not the ones paying taxes.

You're right, I'm pretty pissed that I pay 35%+ in tax while Mitt Romney pays an effective rate of around 10%.

Too bad I didn't buy a yacht or some dressage horses - I could really use the tax break.

yup--taxes are no problem as lng as someone else is paying them or paying more, and of course obly rich republicans tax advantage of current tax laws...

As my childhood pastor told us on Sundays:
"Offerings are not about equal giving. No one should feel bad about giving $1, if that's all they can afford. Nor should our wealthiest feel boastful about giving $100. It's not about equal giving; it's about equal sacrifice."

Mitt should pay 35%. So should Warren Buffet. They don't need to pay more. But they should be paying less - percentage wise - than a middle class person.

Equal sacrifice.

Yeah no I disagree. We're a nation of laws and that means equality before the law, and that includes taxes. They pay too much as it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Government could probably run a 1-2% deficit in perpetuity.

My cat could probably fly in perpetuity, after one good jump.

If the economy grows at a 3-5% clip and the deficit is 1-2% of GDP ... the debt/GDP ratio will constantly be shrinking.

Now running deficits to fund operating costs is foolishness -- too many people want the goodies government provides but are unwilling to pay the taxes.

The people who want the goodies are not the ones paying taxes.

You're right, I'm pretty pissed that I pay 35%+ in tax while Mitt Romney pays an effective rate of around 10%.

Too bad I didn't buy a yacht or some dressage horses - I could really use the tax break.

yup--taxes are no problem as lng as someone else is paying them or paying more, and of course obly rich republicans tax advantage of current tax laws...

As my childhood pastor told us on Sundays:
"Offerings are not about equal giving. No one should feel bad about giving $1, if that's all they can afford. Nor should our wealthiest feel boastful about giving $100. It's not about equal giving; it's about equal sacrifice."

Mitt should pay 35%. So should Warren Buffet. They don't need to pay more. But they should be paying less - percentage wise - than a middle class person.

Equal sacrifice.

Yeah no I disagree. We're a nation of laws and that means equality before the law, and that includes taxes. They pay too much as it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Government could probably run a 1-2% deficit in perpetuity.

My cat could probably fly in perpetuity, after one good jump.

If the economy grows at a 3-5% clip and the deficit is 1-2% of GDP ... the debt/GDP ratio will constantly be shrinking.

Now running deficits to fund operating costs is foolishness -- too many people want the goodies government provides but are unwilling to pay the taxes.

The people who want the goodies are not the ones paying taxes.

You're right, I'm pretty pissed that I pay 35%+ in tax while Mitt Romney pays an effective rate of around 10%.

Too bad I didn't buy a yacht or some dressage horses - I could really use the tax break.

yup--taxes are no problem as lng as someone else is paying them or paying more, and of course obly rich republicans tax advantage of current tax laws...

As my childhood pastor told us on Sundays:
"Offerings are not about equal giving. No one should feel bad about giving $1, if that's all they can afford. Nor should our wealthiest feel boastful about giving $100. It's not about equal giving; it's about equal sacrifice."

Mitt should pay 35%. So should Warren Buffet. They don't need to pay more. But they should be paying less - percentage wise - than a middle class person.

Equal sacrifice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Government could probably run a 1-2% deficit in perpetuity.

My cat could probably fly in perpetuity, after one good jump.

If the economy grows at a 3-5% clip and the deficit is 1-2% of GDP ... the debt/GDP ratio will constantly be shrinking.

Now running deficits to fund operating costs is foolishness -- too many people want the goodies government provides but are unwilling to pay the taxes.

The people who want the goodies are not the ones paying taxes.

You're right, I'm pretty pissed that I pay 35%+ in tax while Mitt Romney pays an effective rate of around 10%.

Too bad I didn't buy a yacht or some dressage horses - I could really use the tax break.

yup--taxes are no problem as lng as someone else is paying them or paying more, and of course obly rich republicans tax advantage of current tax laws...