Will the Republicans' $70B tax cut package backfire on them?

They passed this bill that mainly benefits the wealthiest and includes $5 billion more for Big Oil.

The Repugs think this will help Bush and save themselves in the mid-terms. Are Americans wise enough to see that this was a very inept move that will further endanger the country's stability?

Or just doesn't penalize?

The wealthiest will have a lower tax burden than middle income people.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Less war? That's true, many wealthy people benefit from war. Dick Cheney comes to mind. That's why I used the word "generally" when I said rich people use less gov't than middle-class and poor people. Also, it's important to remember that the military, and the wars it fights, has become an employer of last resort for many middle-class and poor people. So I guess you could say that the military (aka: the government) fights it's wars just to keep them busy.

I really don't know what you mean by national debt. Do you mean what the government owes the tax-payers? Shouldn't gov't just lower it's costs to pay their debts - rather than taking it from other taxpayers?

... and enjoy your short stay, dumbass.

Even if they did not, progressive taxation is moral & fair.

Should someone making 15k/year (and barely able to afford food & shelter) pay the same percentage as someone making 100M?

...and I like that you recognize taxation as a moral issue.

Yes, corporations use the courts more. Mostly because they are bogged down with so many rules and regulations. But those rules and regulations aside, if they used them more, they should pay more for them. As for the commons, I don't believe in commons, so... But since we do have commons, one has to recognize that the "corporations" that use them are actually individuals that work for those corporations. Since those individuals contribute more to society, they should be entitled to more of society's treasure.

As for progressive taxation. Like I said, people should pay for what they use, regardless of how much of a percentage of their overall income that ends up being. Yes, it's true that extremely poor people in a free society wouldn't always be able to do this. That's where the wealthy, since it is in their own interests to have a society free of crime and chaos, would step in. They just shouldn't be forced to.

Cheers.

EVERYTHING about the american system (plus luck, plus parents - like Paris Hilton).

The air is a common, as are the airwaves, the roads, public parks & waterways. Your are ignorant or lying if you claim you do not benefit from or use "the commons". I'm sure you support the idea of a centrally funded army, police, etc.

The rules and regulations you mention were made by the PEOPLE'S representatives. You must to acknowledge that the PEOPLE and the CORPORATIONS want different things. Corporations would be happy with monopolies, unlimited right to pollute, unlimited right to defraud & or kill/maim/poison customers (hey, shit happens), etc.

So, are you a corporation or a person? Corporations don't have to breathe filthy air, drink/recreate in contaminated water or get cancer. They have no morals. They have no mortality (in the conventional sense until we enact a "corporate death penalty" very egregious behavior... think Enron).

Should the president have a zero$ salary? If not, shouldn't the people he represent pay him? :evilgrin:

"use less Government" than the middle class.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

NOT

Wealthy spend more in a day on lobbyists than most working people EVER get in benefits. If that isn't "using the government" then what is?

the US systems and the taxes that created/support them.

"Shouldn't gov't just lower it's costs to pay their debts"

Not necessarily. It's the same as a personal budget. You wouldn't lower your costs if it mean't not buying medicine to pay your debt. You'd find a way to get more income. Some purchases would be foolish to forego.

Some things we pay for through our government are good for us, like the military. Few would think it's a good idea to stop funding the military so that we can pay back debts.

So you see, lowering costs is only one option. Other situations call for higher taxes.

...but the military is much too large. I would be comfortable with a 50%, if not larger, decrease in the military budget. YOu probably don't need to hear my opinion about social programs.

... but I don't think so.

Are the police and fire protecting the $1000000 estate of the average american? Is the SEC protecting the net worth of the poor? Are we going to court to settle business disputes. Are the police protecting the businesses owned by the poor and middle class? Are the poor obtaining permits to build their new larger estates?

Certainly there are poor and middle class people who do some of these things but most of us don't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"It's not protecting the net worth or the rich either"

The SEC protects the integrety of the market.

"I don't support public fire fighting"

Then your values are so far off from mine that I suspect a dialog is not possible.

"Police are pretty evenly distributed throughout all areas of the country"

Not true at all. Poor East Cleveland has far fewer police than affluent Cleveland Heights, where I live. There are some areas of Cleveland Heights I can go to and look up and down the street and see more than one cop walking around on patrol.

I think there's a lot you don't know.

"People have the right to spend their money howver they want"

Well, as I suspected, your values are not my values.

Have a good life.

Most material wealth is generated using the commons - the infrastructure that those who've benefitted from it the most are now currently paying for the least. Government (as nominal representatives of the people writ large) built that commons (roads, much of the electrical grid, airwaves, the sewers, etc...), and government maintains it, but the poor shoulder most of the burden of paying for it now, and that burden on those who can least afford it increases with every tax cut for the rich, and when social services are cut to make up the shortfalls, the poor are hurt even further. It's a destructive upward transfer of wealth, flat-out. We are royally and viciously fucking our most vulnerable citizens.

... but talking to a libertarian type about anything is like talking to a 3 year old about nuclear physics. They just don't have that much going on in their puny little minds.

I didn't see the poster's other comment about being against the fucking Fire Department before I posted, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Libertarians are such intensely myopic idiots it makes my head swim.

There would be no property rights without a police force, judicial system, county land registry, standard currency, a foreign policy designed to protect American business interests etc. etc.

navigational aids maintained by the Coast Guard.

They fly more, using the airports and air-traffic control run by the FAA.

They tend to have larger, heavier vehicles that beat up the roads more; roads maintained with tax money.

They litigate more, using courts paid for by taxes.

"Use less government?" Hah.

Redstone

Gasoline is the first and foremost financial topic on most people's (read voters) minds, not tax cuts for a privileged minority.

Also, now that it's after April 15th, the average voter has forgotten about income tax.

$141G MORE per year on their returns...(on average)

The average family would get back about $20 a year under this provision.

I am amazed that people think that this is a benefit to them...I have several RW acquaintances that still believe the fiscal policies of this administration will benefit them directly. Capital Gains tax cuts does nothing for the wage earner...but those who speculate and have the financial means to sit at a computer or on the phone to make vast sums of money in minutes. For some absurd reason, the average worker that supports tis legislation believes they will benefit from it; guess they will....for $20 per annum....:eyes:

posted above.

It should be understood however, that that $41,000 is on top of the already in place tax cuts! It is a gift to the wealthy, and a slap in the face to those of us who actually have to work for a living.

while the poor are being robbed at the gas pump.

Assbackwards Robin Hood.

That along with the NSA phone surveillence... The house of cards is tumbling down.

5 billion bucks and gas prices go up 7 cents a Gal in 24 hr. here in central Ohio from 2.89 to 2.96 a Gal. :wtf:

From 2.79 to 2.99.

We have such an ignorant and stupid public that this tax cut is not going to have a negative impact on the repugs.

Didn't learn a thing from the Ray-gun years. Remember "trickle down?" Isn't this the same thing?

A clever little inclusion I think. The relief from AMT may help the GOP retain some upper middle class families perhaps. Americans other than those families are paying no attention to this bill whatsoever as they are too busy working hard to pay for gas, health care and college.

they're pretty much bullet-proof, thanks to their media monoply

the media monopoly. When the cronies in the FCC allowed mass centralization of our media that set the stage for all that followed.