Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Republicans no Longer Support Trickle Down Economics

8 States sue Bush over kid insurance:

Eight states are suing the "pro-life, pro-family", Bush administration over his veto of the bill which would have provided health insurance to lower and "middle" income children. The bill would call for an extra 60 billion dollars over the next 5 years; we spend over 100 billion a year in Iraq. The Bush administration is stating that one of the main reasons for the veto is because it would cover people making up to $83,000 per year and that it was too expensive. Apparently those people already have enough money and don't need the governments help.

That's as ironic as it is funny, didn't the Bush tax cuts mainly benefit rich people? When his tax cut plan becomes mature, the richest 1% of the population will receive 52% of the total tax savings? Don't federal oil and gas subsidies go to the most profitable companies in the world? Isn't the elimination of the Estate Tax something that only benefits the people who stand to inherit a net worth of 2 million dollars or more? Since when does Bush have any problems with the government helping "rich" people? Message: Only millionaires and billionaires need the governments help, not the working man; anything else would be socialism.

Isn't cutting expenses and or taxes for well to do people a way that Republicans always said would benefit the poor and the entire economy? Doesn't that supposedly create jobs thus putting money into the economy generating other sources of tax revenue? Didn't Reagan get elected on the concept of trickle down economics?

Apparently poor and middle class children don't have as strong of a lobby as Exxon and ADM.

And by the way, you will notice that besides Hawaii, these are almost all of the states in the US with a higher than average cost of living. For instance, if you live on a salary of $17,000 per year in Durham, NC you would need 39,221 in NYC. A salary of 50,000 in Austin, TX has the same buying power of 76,263 in San Jose, CA. California has the highest cost of living and it is 53% above the national average, Massachusetts is 3rd, and Illinois is 5th, New Jersey 6th, New Hampshire 10th.

I live on over $83,000 per year in Chicago and I am single with no wife and no children and I honestly don't know how much extra income I would have if I had a stay at home wife and 3 kids. Trust me, 83,000 is not a lot in those states and it's certainly less than the 36 Billion in profits that Exxon makes a year yet they still receive government hand outs.

By the way, a recent Washington Post poll showed that 72% of Americans favor an expansion of health coverage to children.

On the flip side, there are several Insurance / HMO lobbyist who will retain their jobs.


Mike V. said...

don't you know it's better to have a sick kid than be a "socialist"?

Toad734 said...

Right, my bad. Jesus will take care of them when they're dead anyway.