Have Wall Street bailouts disproved that rich should be taxed less since they rely on gov't less?

[yurbud]

Poll question: Have Wall Street bailouts disproved that rich should be taxed less since they rely on gov't less?

This is probably in the top two of the conservative arguments for protecting the wealthy from taxes, right up their with us being able to fish through the vomit and excrement that ''trickles down'' from their bachanals and orgies to find a bit of undigested food to feed our families.

Far from being self-reliant though, the wealthy, wring every penny they can out of the government, and are only libertarian and conservative when it comes to holding onto their profits, but are entirely communists when it comes to sharing their losses.

If we get such a big share of their losses, we are entitled to an equally big share of their gains--and we should get it with equal speed.

[doc03]

1. It's not so much the Wall Street bailout that got their panties in a

bunch it's the GM bailout because it saved Union jobs.

[msongs]

2. Rich people benefit MOST from a system set up to help them avoid contributing to the common good nt

[Lorien]

4. Even Warren Buffet said that it's unfair that he pays 17% in income taxes while

his secretary is forced to pay 26%. The entire system is set up to make the rich richer and move money from the bottom up.

[tk2kewl]

3. I think that "they rely on gov't less" is a falsehood without even considering the bailouts

rich disproportionately benefit from government investment in infrastructure that supports commerce.

[starroute]

5. Not just infrastructure -- almost all aspects of government

Police protection is weighted towards protecting property -- and the wealthy have far more property to protect.

Government money goes into areas that benefit the private planes and yachts of the wealthy.

Even much of the Defense and State Department budgets goes into making the world a comfortable place for the rich to get richer.

If the rich think they don't get "handouts," it's only because they're the beneficiaries of government expenditures on a regular basis and not just when they fall on hard times. But if all that spending was suddenly taken away, they'd certainly feel the pinch.

[yurbud]

6. the bailouts just made it undeniably obvious