I’m being a bit too snarky here, maybe I should rephrase. If giving millions of average american tax payers money back in the form of a check isn’t good for the little guy, what is?
There are a few posters in GD (where this thread belongs, BTW) who constantly talk about how federal income taxes are unfair because the total tax burden sometimes disadvantages the poor. It’s a ridiculous argument on the face of it. The states should align their tax policies with the feds, not the other way around.
Reeder:
One would hope that the responses you got here will help you realize that your political beliefs are not facts. I think what you are really asking is has Bush ever supported a policy which screws the rich or screws corporations. But you need to realize that if a policy helps everyone, rich included, it is not the same as screwing the poor. It’s only the politics of class warfare that insists that one must always pit the interests of the rich against those of the poor, and that the groups never have interests in common.
Very simple, the money has to come from somewhere.
Let’s take the issue of federally mandated programs. By federal law, everyone who meets basic requirements gets Social Security, Medicare, their veterans pensions, etc. Only Congress can change the rules, and they haven’t.
So the President convinces the Congress to cut taxes, or pass a budget that reduces federal spending. By law, those programs have to be fully funded.
But there are other federal laws that mandate things that states provide. Special education services, to name one. Traditionally, the federal government has helped the states pay for these mandated programs.
But in the scenario above, the federal government has less money to put toward funding these mandates, so the state has to pick up the slack. To pay for it, they either have to cut funding in other areas or raise taxes.
The “healthy marriage” initiative and prescription drug benefit will both probably benefit lower-income groups if they ever get off the ground. That’s it really.
Not putting the government deeper into debt to give them a one-time payoff?
I think John Mace nailed it, screwed it, and then glued the sucker down.
Reeder, you really need to get a life. No one’s paying attention to your BS anymore.
I did rephrase it. Whatever you want to read into it.
Has the Bush admin ever said no to anything a corporation wanted? When it was in their power to give it to them?
This is a straight up and down question. Either they have or they haven’t.
I asked everyone not to get into a discussion.
Here. Are you going to say this doesn’t count?
Moderator’s Notes: Reeder, you are hearby warned against littering the various fora here with your political crap and the egregious displays of your loathing of Bush and his administration. You will keep your comments about “Bushco” (and whatever other epithet has currency with you) to either the Pit, or to Great Debates where that is appropriate (As an example of what’s inappropriate to GD, this is an excellent example.) What you’re doing is not in the least bit different from what caused us to ban december. Your OP here is in no way a legitimate GQ - and you know this well - to claim otherwise is disingenuous. You’re not that ignorant.
Horseshit. Reeder courted “ridiculous falacious agitprop” the very second he submitted the OP as evidenced by his use of the term “Bushco.”
Reeder, I want to make this perfectly clear. You have now been officially warned about this type of behavior. Further pursuit of your rather obvious agenda will be dealt with harshly and lead to a review of your continued membership here.
This thread is closed.