More relief for struggling millionaires....

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.

Folks, if you live in the U.S. and aren't independently wealthy, you really want to keep an eye on the Bush administration over the next 4 years.

[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."

The full article is at:
www.salon.com...

I found this paragraph to be quite interesting.

�Beyond these proposals, he says, "The more general problem is the administration's policy, which is to blow holes in the tax system and let the deficit go to hell." He expects this to lead to a financial crisis that will force the government to slash social programs -- what right-wing operative Grover Norquist calls the "starve the beast" strategy.�

It would appear that the government has decided that the best solution to our financial crisis is to make it worse so that our economy breaks and they can then eliminate all social programs.

This administration is solely for the rich. The working class (mayority) can take a back seat and be screwed.
What else is new?

Is nothing more and nothing else that increasing the gap of our social structure, the deficit is going to come down to the inner city poor and struggling, the cuts to more programs is going to be like never before but the government wants us to seek help from the church to get by let see how long the churches are willing to take over the gap, we are going to see the down fall of our society.

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.

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.

The legacy of the last 4 years are going to hit us all very soon actually already has but most people are to blind to see it.

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.

Yes, Marg, regular working people will have to live on their faith.

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 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.

You sound like one of the rich who think all the "nasty" poor people hate them.
I work for for a few extremely wealthy people. From my experience they like buying 200 dollar designer baseball caps to throw on their closet floor and then trying to pay the lowest wages possible to some of their employees. I'm not saying all of them of like that. But quite a few are.
The most generous people I work for are the one's who aren't rich. I guess they appreciate hard work more and most of the time they're nicer too.

Originally posted by elaine

You sound like one of the rich who think all the "nasty" poor people hate them.

I struggle like everyone else to make the monthly payments---I am the average working stiff who spent most of my life in poverty.

Most people who hate the rich are children of the rich---spoiled brats. Or those who envy them.

The rich are no worse than the poor when it comes to human qualities, but there are people who wish to create hate in order to promote a Socialistic or Communistic agenda---and could careless about the poor.



[Edited on 20-11-2004 by sleeper]

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.

Hahaha,

Actually the "neo-bolsheviks" just want to make sure the rich are in check so they can't actually begin taking over governmental operations and starting wars as you see at the moment.

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.

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 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.

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]

Lets face it,

If you make that much money, you become responsible for the people who want to make a better life for themselves, but just can't win in the boardroom. When you have so many millionairs running around, that means they have a lot of slaved working for them. It's all about leverage, big box stores can leverage their stores into communities displacing hundreds of workers from higher paying jobs to work at their low wage places. All while the CEOs are pulling in enormous salaries and the money does not flow down. So don't bring up that trickle-down economic S***. When people make a lot of money, they throw some money into the street, but they pack away millions where it's not flowing through the economy. I don't despise the rich, we need capitalists to promote growth and prosparity. But when they hord riches and not put it back into society either in taxes or local economic development, then thats just greed and immoral. It's something that burned a lot of butts during the Clinton Paradise years that more money flowed down to the masses, it behooved the elite to see the masses with a little bling of their own. Do the elite decided to shift the field back to the top and trashed the economy.
We are now at the bottom of the list of industialized nations on healthcare and education.
We depend on the rest of the world, yet we S*** on them when we don't agree with their ideals.
The oceans have not been much of a protection since WWII, so we need the rest of the world to survive.
We waste money on unnecessary wars in places that are none of our business.
We will continue down this abyss until we realize it has nothing to do with the color of a state but the actions of it's people and what morals really are.

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]

I'm the most generous person you will find when it comes to helping someone in need, but I believe in personal responsibility. You believe in letting people act irresponsibly and then creating a government agency to pay for it. And it is a giant monster that you have created - the more mistakes you make, the more you can get for free from the government. And this monster is always hungry - it wants to be fed from my wallet. Soon it will consume us all.

Religious families are more likely to provide for their offspring. Then there are those who won't practice any form of birth control other than abortion, and blame the religious people for their misfortunes. I am not a bible-thumper but I also cannot understand why you like to put down other people who believe in God.

.

I don't blame religous groups but religious pushers, and like I say this children are here and we will have to take over what the governemnt is going to take from them because our government is over expended.

So get ready to become more generous that you have ever being.



[edit on 20-11-2004 by marg6043]

No, because my generosity is voluntary. What you want is more government programs, more taxation. More extortion and thievery. You are trrying to kill my generosity by increasing taxes so much that there is nothing left over for me to give to charity.

What about the mommy and daddy that made these welfare babies? Why are you afraid to hold them responsible?

Obvously our government don't have the funds to go after their families and find out what they are doing.

So while the government cut more funds in programs we have children at school that have to go hungry because they can not afford meals.

So we still have to feed them or let them go hungry. At school our motto is better one meal a day than none all day.

After all faith is good for the soul but does not fill a hungry child stomach.

The topic and many of the posts in this thread inspired me to write a reply that ended up becoming a thread in itself: The Left: Advocates For Poverty.

The thread is intended to examine the inherent deceit and hypocrisy of current leftist ideology in the United States, a slightly different thesis than the one which apparently inspired this thread.

Thanks to all the left-wing sloganeers and idealogues for contributing to the impetus for my posting it!

First off I do think that removeing that tax credit is a bad idea. Second I do not feel the rich should be punished for being rich.
I also cant help but wonder who would want to push this through congress. The bunsiss owners would not want it, the ceo, cfo would not want it, they would pay more taxes, the poor certenaly dont want it. So could it be true this is the Feds trying to squeeze a few more nickles and dimes from the poor working stiffs?
This sounds like the time to call and write your representive. First I need to find the wording that is in consideration.

.
While i am no big fan of social programs, most of the right wing commentors think that corruption in government contracts and corporate welfare are GOOD things.

If you say end excessive social programs, I say fine, just make sure you eliminate the handouts to the rich and corporations too.

They don't call it the 'cesspit on the potomac' for nothing.
.

While i am no big fan of social programs, most of the right wing commentors think that corruption in government contracts and corporate welfare are GOOD things.

Mind sharing an example of where anyone defended corruption in government contracst?