[jficquette]

[quote=TheBreeze]Would you rather be in that group that pays taxes or in the group that doesn’t pay taxes? I know where I’d rather be.[/quote]

Me to but its not that, its how it affects the system.

If the group that doesn’t pay taxes becomes the majority then you lose control of government spending. Why should someone who doesn’t pay taxes care about the size of government if they preceive to gain benefit from it?

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

[quote=TheBreeze]Would you rather be in that group that pays taxes or in the group that doesn’t pay taxes? I know where I’d rather be.[/quote]

Me to but its not that, its how it affects the system.

If the group that doesn’t pay taxes becomes the majority then you lose control of government spending. Why should someone who doesn’t pay taxes care about the size of government if they preceive to gain benefit from it?

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

[quote=TheBreeze]Would you rather be in that group that pays taxes or in the group that doesn’t pay taxes? I know where I’d rather be.[/quote]

Me to but its not that, its how it affects the system.

If the group that doesn’t pay taxes becomes the majority then you lose control of government spending. Why should someone who doesn’t pay taxes care about the size of government if they preceive to gain benefit from it?

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

[quote=TheBreeze]Would you rather be in that group that pays taxes or in the group that doesn’t pay taxes? I know where I’d rather be.[/quote]

Me to but its not that, its how it affects the system.

If the group that doesn’t pay taxes becomes the majority then you lose control of government spending. Why should someone who doesn’t pay taxes care about the size of government if they preceive to gain benefit from it?

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

[quote=TheBreeze]Would you rather be in that group that pays taxes or in the group that doesn’t pay taxes? I know where I’d rather be.[/quote]

Me to but its not that, its how it affects the system.

If the group that doesn’t pay taxes becomes the majority then you lose control of government spending. Why should someone who doesn’t pay taxes care about the size of government if they preceive to gain benefit from it?

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

Of those 40% who don’t pay taxes 90% are democrats.

[jficquette]

Of those 40% who don’t pay taxes 90% are democrats.

[jficquette]

Of those 40% who don’t pay taxes 90% are democrats.

[jficquette]

Of those 40% who don’t pay taxes 90% are democrats.

[jficquette]

Of those 40% who don’t pay taxes 90% are democrats.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.

[Author]

Posts