I don’t want this to get in to bickering. I have been looking but I can’t find any. Their must be a GQ answer.
Has Bushco ever come down on the side of the consumer or the common man in any of their policy decisions?
lowering taxes?
So, who is the “common man?” Dub’s economic policies right now are reminiscent of those of Reagan; i.e., he’s pulling us out of the Clinton economic nose dive as Reagan pulled us out of the Carter nose dive.
And that is, I think, good for the “common man.”
Whether or not I agree with his approach to a whole bunch of other things is not germaine to your question.
C’mon folks, he asked for facts, not ridiculous falacious agiprop.
Bush repeatedly stated that the majority of his tax cuts would go to the lower half income people. Data clearly shows that the richest got almost all of it. To see what he said vs. what he did, read Al Franken’s latest book. This aspect only covers one chapter, but there’s a lot of other worthwhile facts you should know. Esp. if you still have fantasy’s about the Reagan era.
The regular Joe Sixpack. Makes 25-35 K a year. Two kids. Worried like hell about his job.
If “coming down on the side of the common man” means, in your mind, “robbing from the rich and giving to the poor”, then no. Thankfully.
Short answer: nope.
Has Bushco ever come down on any side but the corporate side in any policy decisions?
Houston Chronicle, January 13, 2003
% Share of Income Average
Group Total Taxes Split Point Tax Rate
Top 1% 37.4 >$313,469 27.4%
Top 5% 56.5 >$128,336 24.4%
Top 10% 67.3 >$92,114 22.3%
Top 25% 84.0 >$55,225 19.1%
Top 50% 96.1 >$27,682 16.9%
Bottom 50% 3.9 <$27,682 4.6%
That’s from a year ago, before, I think, the Bush tax cuts took effect. It doesn’t look like there was too much you could cut out of the bottom half’s tax burden. It’s a socialist state already.
Its interesting, because in this day in age, whats good for the rich is usually good for the poor (more investment in activities, more luxeries, which provide more jobs). Its not like the old days when people would keep vaults of gold for the hell of it.
Also, what is “rich” these days? 200k+ a year before tax? Thats how I define it.
Also dont forget, 50% of people pay 96% of US’s income tax. Tax cut to the poor doesnt affect very many people it would seem.
Ringo, so if Mrs. Sam Walton (a nice lady, so I am told) earns 100 billion dollars, she’s left with only about 72 billion to scrape by on for the year? (I really don’t know what her earnings were last year. Maybe she has only a few billion.)
Damn Socialist state!
From what you have said, I assume that the share that a wealthy person pays has gone up since President Bush’s tax cut? The percentages can’t go down for everybody.
May I ask why you would put the worst possible twist on the OP? It seems to me that the scenario has been just the opposite lately with CEOs and corporate executives cleaning out the wage earners and people farther down the ladders, setting up bogus offices to do business, getting contracts without bidding for them, overcharging, etc.
And where is Ken Lay anyway?
Oops. I took the bait.
My apologies for political comments in GQ.
You posted this in GQ? You had to know that this doesn’t belong here. Anyway, Ringo’s stats merely show the widening disparity between the rich and the poor in this country. And the worse that it gets, the worse it will be for the poor AND the rich. So ironically, Bush’s policies are not only against the best interest of the common man, they are also against the best interest of the upper class man. The upper class man just doesn’t know it yet.
So Ringo, apparently you haven’t studies much Economics. Since this is GQ, it’s probably best to stay away from nonsensical economic theories like “Supply Side” and “Trickle Down” economics. No economist in his or her right mind would agree with your statement. Cutting taxes while increasing spending is like selling your soul to the devil. Clinton and Bush I saved us from Reagan. And someone’s going to have to save us from Bush II.
I seem to recall getting a rebate check from the government, thanks to Bush, that I would not have otherwise gotten. How’s that?
The OP’s question has no factual answer, as there is no universally accepted idea of what is most beneficial to the common man, or even what a common man is.
Some people believe lowering taxes helps everyone, common man included. Of course the rich get the greatest financial benefit from most tax cuts, as they pay a larger share of taxes in the first place. Others believe that lots of social programs would be more beneficial to the common man. It’s just a difference of opinion; there is no right or wrong answer.
To demonize those whose opinion differs from yours is ignorant and counter-productive. Probably the best way to help the common man is to put partisan bickering aside and try to find workable solutions that are agreeable to everybody. Like that will ever happen :rolleyes: .
Cheesesteak said:
I seem to recall getting a rebate check from the government, thanks to Bush, that I would not have otherwise gotten. How’s that?
The government has a huge debt. That debt has to be paid pack. The goverment increased its debt to give you a check. That increased debt has to be paid back.
You were given a loan that you will pay back later with interest. Astonishingly enough, there is no such thing as free money. What a surprise!!!
Furthermore, rich people were given a tremendously bigger loan than you. But guess who is going to have to pay back the rich people’s loans? (Hint: three letters, starts with “y”, ends with “o”.)
Government borrowing has had an immense negative impact on our taxes. If the Reagan-Bush I borrowing had not happened, our federal taxes would fall by over a third. All promised tax cuts in the last 25 years pale in comparison.
Giving rich people money has never helped any economy ever. The table given by Ringo is an infamous misleading example. If you look at how much people pay in taxes based on their wealth, it’s an entirely different story. Poor people have no wealth to pay taxes on, but still pay taxes. (Esp. pay attention to sales taxes and indirect taxes like property taxes included in their rent.)
The US economy is consumer driven. Rich people are a drag on the economy. Rich people do not care about the interests of the common man. The Bushes are rich. They put the interests of rich people first. Hence the huge favoritism towards rich people in the Bush tax cuts. Remember that famous cabinet meeting quote that just came out- didn’t we already give the rich a tax cut?
You know what, I bet the little guy who’s struggling to make ends meet is pretty happy to get that loan, no? Or should he just eat more ramen, since we wouldn’t want the gov’t to be in debt, now would we?
Nice to know that even though the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country that they somehow won’t pay back the ‘loan’ at all. Interesting conclusion.
I love this one:
Sorry to say, rich people generally EARN their income, they don’t need the gov’t to give it to them. The fact that the gov’t might decide to TAKE less of it away is not remotely similar to charity.
Not to hijack this thread… but, Ringo: Is the use of <code> insert tabled item </code> all you need to do to get that table to show up in columns like that? I’ve been wanting to know how to do that for a long time…
What do sales tax and property tax have to do with anything? They are state/local taxes. Bush can’t lower sales tax or property tax for poor people because he doesn’t set the rates. That is a state issue.