Bush Budget Unpacked

[Dardedar]

Maybe We Deserve to Be Ripped Off By Bush's Billionaires

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted February 20, 2007.

While America obsessed about Brittany's shaved head, Bush offered a budget that offers $32.7 billion in tax cuts to the Wal-Mart family alone, while cutting $28 billion from Medicaid.

(Very, very doubtful this passes. But is nice to notice that Miss Blanche Lincoln is the largest recipient of Walton money and has pushed elimination of the the estate tax to save "family farms." As it now stands our poor farm families can transfer $10 million tax free. So let's get real here. Will someone call Miss Blanche's hand on it this week when she's sucking up to the Walton's in Fayetteville? --L. Woodall)

Other findings in Bush's plan:
-Mars candy corporation will receive about $11.7 billion in tax breaks.
-Cox family (Cox cable TV) receives $9.7 billion tax break
-family of former Exxon/Mobil CEO Lee Raymond would receive about $164 million in tax breaks.

Cut from the VA budget ($3.4 billion) over the same time period.
Education would get $1.5 billion in cuts
Community Service Block Grants would be eliminated, a $630 million cut (used to revitalize older housing)

Quote:
"Sanders additionally pointed out that the family of former Exxon/Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, who received a $400 million retirement package, would receive about $164 million in tax breaks.

Compare that to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which Bush proposes be completely eliminated, at a savings of $108 million over ten years. The program sent one bag of groceries per month to 480,000 seniors, mothers and newborn children."

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I've argued with Senator Lincoln more than once on the estate tax issue. To be fair to her, she wants it replaced with another kind of tax - which I don't remember because I didn't understand how it was supposed to work - so we wouldn't lose the income for programs the estate tax is currently funding. I don't know if she really believes the "death tax" nonsense (if she does, she a little naive to be in Washington), or she just thinks it "plays well in Peoria" - it's never played well with me, but I don't count, not coming from a class of people who have anything to leave anybody. Of course, I'd be perfectly happy to have everything be taxed as income, no matter where you got it - no estate tax, no capital gains (short- or long-term), no interest or dividends tax - just income tax.

But yes, it's time to call our Senators (even our congersman, just to make him waste his time writing one of his sincere letters saying why he isn't supporting what we want him to support) and remind them that as the good christians they profess to be they should be feeding the hungry, not starving them.

[Hogeye]

I can't believe you guys! The politics of envy. Rip off anyone wealthier than you, huh?

If the State reduces its plunder, that is cause for celebration!

(As for your little redistribution programs, might I suggest voluntary charity rather than brute force by State?)

[Doug]

If the State reduces its plunder, that is cause for celebration!

DOUG
So if the rich get huge tax breaks, that is OK with you? That hardly seems equitable.

[Hogeye]

I have an entitlement theory of justice, not an end-state theory. (We have a thread on this.) It is better to reduce robbery than to rob everyone equally.

(The only equality I'm interested in is the equality of rights.)

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hogeye is so into entitlements for the wealthy, it's a wonder he's an "anarchist" instead of a "monarchist". Some of the equal rights I'm interested in is 3-squares a day and a sound roof over the head at night. I had to tap into some of those programs paid for with taxes when I was a single parent and if the choice is between theft and welfare (which it was), I support (and am thankful for) welfare.

I also use, daily, some of the other services supplied by the "state" and paid for with taxes - and used more of them when my children were young, even when I wasn't on welfare (schools, for example). While I am exceeding angry about the money - borrowed money I, my kids, and my grandkids (at the least) will have to pay back - spent militarily to threaten and bully any non-nuclear oil-bearing nation on the planet, I am quit happy to pay my taxes for governmental services (including having a military in the first place, for defense).

[Dardedar]

DAR
Reminds me of this comment in this article:

Please Don't Make My Grandchildren Pay for the War That Killed Their Father

Stephany Kern

"Every time I hear George Bush talk about his determination to make those tax cuts of his permanent, it makes me so upset. In reality, he is setting up for us this scenario: military families' grandchildren will be part of the population paying for this war.

If these tax cuts are made permanent, it won't be George Bush's or Dick Cheney's grandchildren who will pay for it. It will be your grandchildren and my grandchildren who pay. Yes, my grandchildren, who lost their father in this war, will pay for the war that killed their Dad."

[Hogeye]

Hogeye is so into entitlements for the wealthy, it's a wonder he's an "anarchist" instead of a "monarchist".

Fallacy of equivocation. "Entitlements" in the sense you use, government-bestowed benefits, has almost the opposite meaning from "entitlement" in "theory of entitlement." I am for people, both rich and poor, not being forcibly deprived of their rightful property, i.e. they should be able to keep all they are entitled to. I am against all government looting and subsequent dispersal of loot ("entitlements") to favored people or groups, rich or poor. I.e. I am against govt welfare, for both the rich and poor, corporations or unions or whatever.

Darrel, I predict that military families' grandchildren will not have to pay in taxes for the profligacy of the USEmpire. The empire will disband and be but a memory by the time they grow up. The profligacy will be paid for by a reduced standard of living and a rough transition period after the inevitable breakup.