I wasn't bragging about my income -- I was simply pointing out that personally, I will derive a huge financial benefit if Dubya pushes through an across the board tax cut of the kind he is promoting. The implication in your (and other posts) was that all liberals are leeches who are looking to redirect wealth from the rich and hard working people of this country to the poor and lazy people through the federal tax system. But that is demonstrably untrue - I am just one example of a hard working and successful taxpayer who does not inflexibly vote his pocketbook.
From where I sit, lower interest rates (which derive from fiscally responsible policies -- i.e., budget surplus and federal debt reduction) and a strong economy (ditto) will provide as much or more financial benefit to me personally as a check from the IRS that might return us to the Reagan/Bush era of deficit spending and higher "real" interest rates (i.e., adjusted for inflation). My bet is that Dubya's economic policies will return us to economic shambles of the Reagan/Bush era, where economic stimulation was achieved by mortgaging the future (thorugh massive deficit spending) for the benefit of the wealthy. In my case, I will have enough income to be insulated from the harsher effects of those policies. But many working class and middle class people will not, and the pittance they receive from the IRS under Bush's proposed tax cut will not make a dent in the inflation, higher interest rates, and other adverse consequences that flow from the supply side approach to economics.
In my view, the GOP consists of two main groups: Social conservatives -- such as the religious right, the NRA, etc. -- who in many cases have economic interests that align with the democrats, but whose views on key social issues (abortion, separation of church and state, gun control, affirmative action, environmental protection, etc.) make alignment with the democrats intolerable to them; and Economic/Historical conservatives - those who either benefit (or who think they benefit) from the elimination of federal regulation, federal government, federal taxes, etc., or who believe philosophically in states rights as that term has been traditionally understood and who simply oppose any activity by the federal government (short of national defense) on philosophical grounds. The latter, who tend to be wealthier than the average citizen (though not always), often are able to promote these views because their personal wealth insulates them from the harsh effects that flow from the right wing policies that one major constituency in the GOP (the social conservatives). Dubya is somewhat of a hybrid of the two camps -- a little of both, who clothes himself in language intended to convey the impression that he is personally opposed to the harsh effects of such policies, and empathetic to those who are adversely affected by them, and that, therefore, he can be trusted to implement them in a way that will ameliorate those harsh effects. The problem is that he is completely full of it -- it is all rhetoric, used mostly to bring about his election and silence his detractors. His personal "compassion" will do nothing to bring the working poor out of poverty, or to help the homeless cope, or to protect the environment from those whose self-interest precludes them from policing themselves, but they will NOT be uinsulated (as he is) from the harsh effects of his right wing policy agenda. Which is to say that the BS he spouted to get elected will bear little resemblence to the harsh conservative policies he will pursue once inaugurated, and the fact that he lacks a mandate will not reduce by one iota his zeal to pursue the right wing agenda that more than half of those who voted for him are deeply committed to. The appointment of right wingers like Ashcroft and Norton tell us exactly who Bush is and what he stands for, at least on domestic policy.
All I can say is that it is a good thing he has Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld to deal with national defense and foreign affairs. At least it reduces the likelihood that Dubya would blunder us, through inexperience, into a major international crisis, in addition to havoc he will inevitably wreak upon the social fabric of this nation over the next four years. |
