Bush’s tax plan pads the wallets of his wealthiest supporters who did just fine, thank you, in the ’80s and ’90s

"AS THE president himself admits, the tax package is unapologetically tilted toward the wealthiest people in our society. It lowers their tax brackets by nearly twice as much as it lowers the brackets of middle-class taxpayers."

"When asked why no one from its main beneficiaries — the top one percent — was present, Bush joked that he had gotten a raise and was now representative. Ha ha. According to some excellent reporting in The Wall Street Journal by Jacob Schlesinger and Laura Heinauer, with the proposed abolition of the estate tax alone, if the president’s estate remains at least at its current value when he dies, Bush’s heirs could save between $6 million and $12 million; Dick Cheney’s would pick up an extra $10 million to $45 million."

Yeah, Bush is a "uniter, not a divider". S-u-u-u-r-e he is! Clearly he's a man out for HIMSELF and his rich buddies and to hell with the working peasants. This is one of the reasons he is villified by the *majority* populace. But hey....he's at least courteous so that somehow absolves him from pro-actively endeavoring to cash-in to HIS benefit. He makes Clinton's gift-gathering look amateurish.

-- Aint's (Nemesis@TitForTat.com), February 09, 2001

Answers

While this is all true, again it's not quite the whole story. We have a progressive tax structure, meaning the more you make, the higher your tax *rate*. In (liberal) theory, this places the tax burden most heavily on those most able to afford it. In practice, this approach penalizes success and rewards failure.

In any case, it means that the "rich" end up paying nearly all of the taxes. When 10% of the people pay 80% of the taxes, there's almost nobody left BUT the rich paying enough taxes for a tax cut to make any difference.

As for how being voted against by a tiny majority nationwide somehow became "vilified by the majority", this is a mystery. Nearly the same number voted against Gore, but does that mean they "vilified" him? Suuuure they did.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 09, 2001.

Reasonable, targeted tax cuts are appropriate, but they should not be approved while the nation's other pressing needs are ignored.

"With 42.6 million Americans still without health insurance and with a ragged education system jeopardizing the economy, we cannot afford to ignore the weak threads that endanger our strong fabric.

Even if Congress were to focus only on the needs of children, it would find much that requires attention. Despite years of promises, for instance, the Head Start preschool program now serves only 850,000 poor children - barely half of those eligible. Of those without health coverage, some 10.8 million are children 18 and under.

Also, the lack of mental health care for young people is a growing problem. Antidepressants and psychotropic drugs like Ritalin are being given to children with increasing frequency, but with little strategy. As Dean Jack Shonkoff of the Heller Graduate School at Brandeis says, ''the mental health system for children isn't broken - it doesn't exist.''

The costs of addressing such problems are not trivial. The Children's Defense Fund estimates it would take $3.3 billion a year to offer Head Start to all of those eligible. Health coverage would be about $15 billion, and a mental health system would add more.

Often, these are investments that make financial sense. One study of an intensive preschool program showed the cost more than repaid in increased earning power, while government saved an even greater amount in reduced demands for its services.

The bottom line should not be the only consideration here. It is disgraceful that such gaps exist during a time of such widespread affluence. It is even more disgraceful that Washington isn't talking about them."

-- Bush (Is@BlindAndStupid.com), February 09, 2001.

That's the spirit. The real riches are in space. Resources, raw materials, energy, living space, you name it. And here we are pissing away our dwindling earthly resources trying to make poor people's lives a little less miserable, and buying more poverty in the effort.

Let's stop this insanity, I say! Let's mount a gigantic space program, and get out there where our manifest destiny really lies. Where is our vision? Where is our lost sense of adventure? Why are we groveling here, idiotically trying to tax ourselves out of poverty? Unleash the spirit humanity is heir to before it's too late!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 09, 2001.

The backlash against Bushit is HUGE. He has the HIGHEST DISAPPROVAL RATING of ANY U.S. President since Gallop STARTED POLLING. He'll make a few backwater religious right changes, screw the populace, and be voted right out. And it'll never happen again because voting reform will make sure it doesn't. Bushit wasn't elected anyway. Gore was. Everyone knows that. Now we have to sit around and watch the media fawn over Bushit then watch them go apeshit when he goes too far.

Just watch. Bushit and Cheney will get their comeupance -- big time.

-- Bushit in trouble (big@big.trouble), February 09, 2001.

>>"AS THE president himself admits, the tax package is unapologetically tilted toward the wealthiest people in our society. It lowers their tax brackets by nearly twice as much as it lowers the brackets of middle-class taxpayers."

TeeHee. How those people do love to play with numbers. Today- highest bracket is a hair over 39.6% Proposed: 31% lowest, something like 15%. Proposed: 10%.

Now, a non-mathematician-- or someone with an axe to grind, and making no bones about being misleading-- might say that the high bracket drops over 8%, from 39+ to 31. And the lowest bracket drops only 5%, from something like 15 to 10.

The reality, of course, is that a drop from 39.6 to 31 mathematically is a 21.7% drop. And a drop from 15 to 10 is a 50% drop.

Seems like the lower bracket benefits much more from a drop.

Or are we not really interested in truth here?

-- Jonathan Sprightly (Jonathan@sprightsense.com), February 10, 2001.

Don't mind our little troll, he has peni....err....class envy.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 10, 2001.

Bushit, guess what. When Clinton was first elected he had the dubious distinction of having the highest disaproval rating of a new president in Gallup's history. Guess what, he was reelected. I'd suggest looking at Bush's approval rating instead.

-- gwibby (gwibby@locomotiveman.cci), February 11, 2001.