It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Liberal policy wonks -- and even some who aren't so liberal -- did a double take when they read the new tax plan floated by the Bush administration in the Washington Post on Thursday. Was the White House really suggesting eliminating incentives for employers to offer their employees health insurance plans? Was it really proposing to shift the country's tax burden even further onto states that didn't vote for Bush, like New York and Massachusetts?
It was.
[Economist Max Sawicky states]: "The attitude is that everyone who is working 40 hours a week doing an average job at a construction site, or is a store clerk, or me sitting in an office doing economic analysis, is feeding off the people who are the real successes. The attitude is that the economy should be geared to benefit the people who are business owners, who are rich, who are giving us the benefit of jobs. That's what you really see in the tax code."
Yes, Marg, regular working people will have to live on their faith.
Originally posted by marg6043
Mr.Bush want the poor to eat and live with faith, we are not going to see any health programs in the near future do to the cuts, and I see more promises broken.
Originally posted by sleeper
What we really need to keep on eye on is the neo-Bolsheviks (left-wingers), they won�t be happy until the rich are all gone and everyone is in poverty.
Originally posted by elaine
You sound like one of the rich who think all the "nasty" poor people hate them.
Originally posted by sleeper
What we really need to keep on eye on is the neo-Bolsheviks (left-wingers), they won�t be happy until the rich are all gone and everyone is in poverty.
Originally posted by marg6043
Right now we are facing here in my back of the woods the problem with the children that can not afford to pay for lunches in the schools, we all ready have to many children that recieved reduce meals and the schools are worry that is not going to be funding to support the programs.
That means more children that can no pay for food.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Yeah, but I'll bet that Mommy has enough money to buy her pack of butts for the day, or Daddy (who? if you can find him) manages to score a six-pack each night. But don't worry about feeding junior - that's the government's job, don't you know?
Maybe they should have made sure they could afford babies before they made babies.
Originally posted by marg6043
That is right and guess what they are here in earth and even when they are a burden to society we have to provide for them and take care of what their families can not.
And because of religious believes we just going to get more of them and they all going to be poor, and needy.
And more social programs will be cut.
[edit on 20-11-2004 by marg6043]