Pretty goofy posting, if you ask me.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , HeyBub wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
There were no Tax Cuts -- only Tax Deferrals.

Agreed. As long as the Democrats refuse to make the cuts permanent.

There is no such thing as a permanent tax cut if spending is not cut
enough to keep the national dept from outpacing economic growth.

If the purpose of the debt is to create an illusion, well, that's bad.

In general, though, debt is good, so long as the debt is paid off in
cheaper
dollars, or the debt is incurred as an investment which yields a greater
return than the accumulated interest, or furthers a compelling social
goal.

The current national debt, at about 65% of GDP, is about half its
historical
maximum. In fact, GDP has increased about five times faster than the
national debt.

Are you counting the WWII high in national debt, followed by a top tax
bracket of 90%?

The debt grew faster than GDP during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush I
administrations, grew less than GDP did in the fiscal years starting in
Clinton's first term, shrank in the set of 4 fiscal years that started
during Clinton's second term, and grew at a pace mostly outrunning GDP
growth starting with Bush II's first big deficit year.
When we have annual deficits around 6-9% of the national debt (which we
have had for about 3 years so far), the national debt is growing that
fast.
Most of the past 3 years non-inflation-adjusted GDP has grown at the
bottom end of this range. Most of the past 3 years the national debt has
grown faster than GDP did.

If the national debt continues to outpace GDP growth, we will eventually
need tax hikes or spending cuts unlike any since Eisenhower.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Homuth wrote:

Everyone does Not benefit equally from government. The more wealthy
benefit more than the less wealthy, clearly enough.

No they don't.

Don Homuth wrote:

The rich should pay more because they benefit more, and have more
money. Doesn't bother me in the least.


From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. Ring a
bell, Comrade?

Don Homuth wrote:

When individuals get refunds after
paying *NO* tax, it's pretty easy to tell who's money isn't.

So few do, and the amount is so small that it doesn't much bother me.

OH, will **** that's OK! Just a Little Bit Commie!! Just like a little bit
pregnant.

CJT wrote:

krw wrote:
snipSince everyone benefits equally from
government, everyone should pay equally.

snip

That's false. For instance, the more you have, the more the
police force protects on your behalf.

.... the more you use private security.

The more you drive, the
more benefit you derive from the road system. The bigger your
car, the more wear and tear it imposes on that system.

Collect it at re-registration time.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:23:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

Everyone does Not benefit equally from government. The more wealthy
benefit more than the less wealthy, clearly enough.

No they don't.

Yes, Lobby -- really they do, else they wouldn't spend Nearly so much
as they do trying to gain an advantage from it. The Not Rich don't do
anywhere near as much as that.

And your simple-minded negations don't matter.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:24:50 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

The rich should pay more because they benefit more, and have more
money. Doesn't bother me in the least.


From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. Ring a
bell, Comrade?

Nope -- not in the least. Did you ever actually Read Marx?

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:27:18 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

When individuals get refunds after
paying *NO* tax, it's pretty easy to tell who's money isn't.

So few do, and the amount is so small that it doesn't much bother me.

OH, will **** that's OK! Just a Little Bit Commie!! Just like a little bit
pregnant.

It is neither commie nor is it pregnant.

There are some matters that just aren't as important as others.

If you want to see a bad turn in capitalism
just look at South America ( or even Mexico )

Their societys have evolved into 2-class systems.
The very well off, and the very poor.

Any attempts by government to "redistribute wealth"
are opposed by the people in power ( the wealthy )

US society has done well, because supposedly
everyone had a chance at "a piece of the pie"
But even that seems to be changing.

re TAXES;
The wealthy shouldn't necessarily pay more,
but they should pay ( at least ) the same fraction of their income
as the average middle class working family.

It tightens my jaws to see the "very rich"
use loopholes that they've bought from legislators
in order to reduce their tax payments.

rj

Don Homuth wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:23:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

Everyone does Not benefit equally from government. The more wealthy
benefit more than the less wealthy, clearly enough.

No they don't.

Yes, Lobby -- really they do, else they wouldn't spend Nearly so much
as they do trying to gain an advantage from it.

Advantage from What?

Your simple minded babbling does not matter.

The Not Rich don't do
anywhere near as much as that.

And your simple-minded negations don't matter.

Don Homuth wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:24:50 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

The rich should pay more because they benefit more, and have more
money. Doesn't bother me in the least.


From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. Ring
a bell, Comrade?

Nope -- not in the least. Did you ever actually Read Marx?


If the kitchen gets hot, take everyone into the yard.

Lobby Dosser wrote in
news:Af8Ng.4440$Qb2.579@trnddc08:

CJT wrote:

krw wrote:
snipSince everyone benefits equally from
government, everyone should pay equally.

snip

That's false. For instance, the more you have, the more the
police force protects on your behalf.

... the more you use private security.

The more you drive, the
more benefit you derive from the road system. The bigger your
car, the more wear and tear it imposes on that system.

Collect it at re-registration time.





Some states set registration fees by vehicle weight.
IMO,that's a good idea.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:45:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:23:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

Everyone does Not benefit equally from government. The more wealthy
benefit more than the less wealthy, clearly enough.

No they don't.

Yes, Lobby -- really they do, else they wouldn't spend Nearly so much
as they do trying to gain an advantage from it.

Advantage from What?

Why gubmint -- it's what we are talking about.

Your simple minded babbling does not matter.

To you, perhaps.

But it does have the distinct advantage of being correct.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:46:42 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:24:50 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

The rich should pay more because they benefit more, and have more
money. Doesn't bother me in the least.


From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. Ring
a bell, Comrade?

Nope -- not in the least. Did you ever actually Read Marx?

If the kitchen gets hot, take everyone into the yard.

It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsky in snide.

Don Homuth wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:45:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:23:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

Everyone does Not benefit equally from government. The more
wealthy benefit more than the less wealthy, clearly enough.

No they don't.

Yes, Lobby -- really they do, else they wouldn't spend Nearly so
much as they do trying to gain an advantage from it.

Advantage from What?

Why gubmint -- it's what we are talking about.

Ah, well they don't.


Your simple minded babbling does not matter.

To you, perhaps.

But it does have the distinct advantage of being correct.

No, it is wrong. As usual.

Don Homuth wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:46:42 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:24:50 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

The rich should pay more because they benefit more, and have more
money. Doesn't bother me in the least.


From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.
Ring a bell, Comrade?

Nope -- not in the least. Did you ever actually Read Marx?

If the kitchen gets hot, take everyone into the yard.

It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsky in snide.


Clean over yer punkin haid!

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:12:56 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:45:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:23:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

Everyone does Not benefit equally from government. The more
wealthy benefit more than the less wealthy, clearly enough.

No they don't.

Yes, Lobby -- really they do, else they wouldn't spend Nearly so
much as they do trying to gain an advantage from it.

Advantage from What?

Why gubmint -- it's what we are talking about.

Ah, well they don't.

Whom do You think funds the K Street Mafia?

The Rich fund it. No one else can afford to do that.

Don Homuth wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:12:56 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:45:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:23:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

Everyone does Not benefit equally from government. The more
wealthy benefit more than the less wealthy, clearly enough.

No they don't.

Yes, Lobby -- really they do, else they wouldn't spend Nearly so
much as they do trying to gain an advantage from it.

Advantage from What?

Why gubmint -- it's what we are talking about.

Ah, well they don't.

Whom do You think funds the K Street Mafia?

The Rich fund it. No one else can afford to do that.


SO?