It seems that that line is usually given as an excuse for a policy that will help some people at the expense of others, or will provide government protection for a specific group. We'll artificially increase steel prices by raising tariffs, to "help working families" - - no, to protect a few steel companies and steelworkers' unions who donated to your campaign, at the cost of higher prices for everyone else.
I mean by that definition the Gambinos "helped working families" - they were a family, they worked, and they helped themselves.
2007-07-26 05:31:55 · 10 answers · asked by truthisback 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
NO Al Cracka we are NOT "all one car wreck away from being them" - - -
That's the POINT - - - over the last generation what has changed is the rapidly growing proportion of this country that is NOT one, two or three car-wrecks away from them, that is basically financially independent of government.
For decades the New Deal gave scraps to those who fell through the cracks but the tax burden it entailed kept most people near enough to the cracks that falling through was a real risk. Every 10 steps you took forward they kicked you back 7. You couldn't get ahead. THAT WAS BY DESIGN!
Now people ARE getting ahead.
They've given up on reversing this - that's why the issue is "health care" - as financially independent as you may be, you can still get sick - - they've all but given up on ever holding the electorate financially hostage again.
Unless they can make voting citizens out of the poor Mexicans who've come here to replace the poor Americans....
2007-07-26 05:41:27 · update #1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229294/posts
http://www.nytimes.com/specials/downsize/21cox.html
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1988/05/art1full.pdf
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html#winners
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/economy/millionaires/?cnn=yes
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1773.cfm
2007-07-26 05:41:46 · update #2
Evan every shred of data refutes you on that - - the share of the taxes being paid by the top 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50% has gone up dramatically. The tax burden has shifted upward.
2007-07-26 05:42:42 · update #3
Like the Bush family?
2007-07-26 05:35:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Yeah they use lines like this all the time. Whenever you hear someone talk about they money they want to take "for the common good" it should scare you. They take money from everyone and give it to a few who probably either provided money or votes to a campaign. Is short their all whores going to the highest bidders.
And as for the guy who says the tax burden is being shifted to wage earners by conservatives. I would like to know if he has seen Clintons tax policies on the "middle class" as defined by him. Didn't he raise the taxes on middle class wage earners. And if it's about money hasn't the low tax rates produced more tax revenue than times with a higher tax rate because people are more willing to pay taxes instead of deferring gains untell their grandkids finally sell their stock? Think about it. I don't agree with taxing income either, we should tax consumption and do away with the IRS and all it's wastes of money.
2007-07-26 12:58:21 · answer #2 · answered by John Galt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The best way to "help" "working" families is to leave them alone. They have already demonstrated that they can take care of themselves. 'Working' is not a dirty word. I work and gladly pay for the privilege. I don't need help.
The non-working families should be dealt with according to the reason they are not working.
If they choose not to work, they should be incentivized to do so either therapeutically or punitively.
If they can't work, they should be assisted in some way because if we don't assist them, we diminish ourselves and put our own right to work in jeopardy.
2007-07-26 12:42:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we are not all 'working families.' There are single persons who have no family. There are families in which everyone is chronically unemployed (perhaps due to disability), thus are non-working. And there are families that are rich enough that they don't need to work (even if they might engage in some 'work' just to have something to do or acquire even more money just for it's own sake).
2007-07-26 12:38:11 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush's tax cuts mostly helped people who don't work. Similarly, people who wish to abolish the estate tax aren't working either. Shifting the tax burden onto wage earners is the policy of the neo-conservative aristocracy.
2007-07-26 12:36:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Speaking as one of two working halves of a two member family, I don't think we working families need "help" so much as we need the government to leave us the 'ell alone.
2007-07-26 12:38:15 · answer #6 · answered by open4one 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hiltons.
2007-07-26 12:35:08 · answer #7 · answered by John F 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't need help, but I support helping those Americans who do. We are all one car wreck away from being one of them.
2007-07-26 12:35:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
working family. that term implies that people who have done well or are wealthy dont work. is classic liberal class warfare.
2007-07-26 12:43:41 · answer #9 · answered by vituperative facetious wiseass 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. If you are working!
If you are sitting at home playing x-box, voting democrat you are not 'working'.
2007-07-26 12:34:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋