25th July 2010, 3:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 25th July 2010, 3:45 PM by Sacred Jellybean.)
I'm pretty sure legislation for low mortgages costs only a small fraction of the deficit-spending involved in extending the tax-cuts for the wealthy that Bush put in place. If you can demonstrate that this is not the case, please do so. If republicans were really concerned about financial responsibility, they wouldn't want to extend Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy without making it budget-neutral -- which most of them do. And really, extending unemployment benefits is a pittance compared to the tax cuts. The tax cuts would cost 3.7 trillion (with a T) over 10 years, compared to the 34 billion of the extended unemployment. I won't argue that the irresponsibility on Wall Street was also a driving-force behind the recession, though.
And really, why should the wealthy be rewarded with tax-savings over people who are struggling to buy a house? They're already being rewarded by having a higher income than others -- and that's fine, that's the way it should be, but they must also be taxed at a higher rate, given that they can spare more money.
You really can't defend the assertion that Republicans care about poor people as much as wealthy people. The attitude is basically: "Poor? Get a better job, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, ANYONE can be rich if they're smart or hard-working, you're just lazy. Rich? Contratulations, welcome to the club, here's some tax cuts, you obviously deserve every penny." I'll admit that's hyperbole, but it's the general sentiment.
It reminds me of a Slaughterhouse Five passage:
And really, why should the wealthy be rewarded with tax-savings over people who are struggling to buy a house? They're already being rewarded by having a higher income than others -- and that's fine, that's the way it should be, but they must also be taxed at a higher rate, given that they can spare more money.
You really can't defend the assertion that Republicans care about poor people as much as wealthy people. The attitude is basically: "Poor? Get a better job, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, ANYONE can be rich if they're smart or hard-working, you're just lazy. Rich? Contratulations, welcome to the club, here's some tax cuts, you obviously deserve every penny." I'll admit that's hyperbole, but it's the general sentiment.
It reminds me of a Slaughterhouse Five passage:
Quote:While the British colonel set Lazzaro's broken arm and mixed plaster for the cast, the German major translated out passages from Howard W. Campbell Jr's monograph. Campbell had been a well-known playwright at one time. His opening line was this one:
America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, "It ain't no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be." It is in fact a crime for Americans to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is poor himself, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" There will also be an American flag no larger than a child's hand - glued to a lolipop stick and flying from the cash register.
...
Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue, the monograph went on. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknewledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say, Napoleonic times.