Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
The point I thought you were making was that the lower-and-middle-classes got screwed out of a tax break that only the rich ended up with. This shows that the "rich" ended up paying a higher portion of the taxes collected than they did before. Sort of contradicts your repeated cries that no one but the rich got a break, doesn't it?
This makes me think that you don't really care about the numbers, or the reality, at all. As long as you can find some statistic that seems to let the "rich" "get away with something", you are incensed. Or, more accurately, you can find a more acceptable reason to be incensed than the real one - your party lost to the hated Bush.
If all the Kerry people simply put their hated tax break into an envelope and sent it in to their own choice of charity, I'm betting we could have wiped out poverty. But, no, that wouldn't be possible, because the fact that the enemy is getting away with something is far more important than the facial excuse of "we love the disadvantaged, and you hate them".
|
No. The point I was making was that the Bush tax cuts were sold as lower and middle class tax relief. There was some tax relief at those levels. However, the elimination of the highest income tax bracket and the dividend tax break were the single highest tax cuts in Bush's plan and those almost entirely benefited the wealthy.
I don't hate Bush. I think he's a shitty President. There's a difference. I do hate Dick Cheney, but that's because he has the scruples of a pit viper.
And I'm not really incensed. I'm simply debating who I feel is worse candidate. I can't debate who I feel is the best candidate because he or she isn't running. Yet again, our system has delivered up two choices who are mediocre on their best days. And once again, come November, I will find myself voting against the lesser evil instead of for the greater good.
