Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (143052)	10/24/2008 5:41:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 173976

Sorry the budget just doesn't bear this out. Really? I must have missed the law that made tax rates on the rich negative. The 5 trillion that bush added to the debt came from Iraq, Kindof hard for it to have done so, when we haven't spent anything close to $5tril on Iraq. Also since deficits are only a fraction of spending, not 100%, the deficit from Iraq is only a fraction of the spending from Iraq. And in any case even if we had spent $5tril on Iraq, and if all federal spending was from borrowing, then your point would be correct but it would still be entirely irrelevant to your "reverse robin hood" assertion. All your other points (to the extent they are true and some of them are not) are just as irrelevant. The bottom line is simple. The poor under Bush (and before, and presumably after) receive more money from the government than they give to the government. The rich give more to the government than they get from the government. Therefore there is no "reverse robin hood" situation. This is esp. true in Bush's case because the rich pay a larger percentage of government's cost now, but it would be true even if they paid a smaller portion than in the past, unless they where net receivers of money from the government rather than net payers. But at least in modern times they have always been net payers.