[No Truce With Kings]

"Unemployment is skyrocketing and Bush's only solution is a windfall for the rich."

Welcome to Free Republic.

I've read the Bush tax plan, and I am going to benefit by it. After all, I have kids, and he increases the child credit. My parents and in-laws, both retired, will benefit from the proposals, because their retirement plans benefit from the elimination of double-taxation of dividends.

As will every couple where both the husband and wife work, due to the elimination of the marriage penalty.

While I am earning more than $50K, I -- and my in-laws and parents -- are all earning well under $100K/year. So is that fireman husband, teacher wife couple pulling in $75K/year. Now, I never though of myself, my parents, in-laws, or that working couple as rich, but, I guess we *must* be. After all we are all benefitting from Bush's "windfall for the rich." So by your definition, I guess, by golly, I am rich.

But if you cut taxes, then only the "rich" are going to benefit, because only the "rich" pay taxes. (This is a tautology, btw, because according to the Democrats, you have to be rich to benefit from tax cuts.)

If you make $30K or less, the EIC pays back more than what you pay in payroll taxes, so only households making $50K or more a year "pay" taxes. So if you *are* going to give a tax cut, by that logic, only those paying taxes -- the rich -- can get a cut.

Even if the "rich" were truly rich, why does that matter? If your fear is unemployment, you want to create jobs. And as Phil Gramm use to say, "I never got a job from a poor man."

Unless your definition of quality jobs is leaning on a shovel, employed in a redistribute-the-money public works position.

[fight_truth_decay]

Those few words say it all: Even if the "rich" were truly rich, why does that matter? If your fear is unemployment, you want to create jobs. And as Phil Gramm use to say, "I never got a job from a poor man."