POST SCRIPTS

But if you read a little further down:

"However, the situation gets somewhat more complicated when income and wealth redistribution are mixed with more specific efforts to stimulate the economy. Consider the current tax rebates. They represent a clear case of income redistribution ... and they received overwhelming support across political lines when they passed in February."

It just all depends on how you put it to the people, because there is nothing "complicated" about the above. Poorer people pay less tax PLUS richer people paying more tax EQUALS income redistribution.

These ol' conservatives contradict themselves repeatedly.

Consider the current tax rebates. Consider the current tax rebates. They represent a clear case of income redistribution ... and they received overwhelming support across political lines when they passed in February."

This represents giving the people some of money their back...that the bill wouldn't pass without giving it to people who didn't pay it to begin with ot to people who probably paid too much and got nothing back is a result of liberal pressures and fairness BS once again. The congress folks would have been nuts to oppose giving money back in an election year even if they had to agree to the BS. People wanted their money back.

Let's try this again. If Andrew got a $1,500 tax refund and Benny had to pony up $30,000 in income taxes, and both received a $600 rebate, wealth was redistributed from whom to whom?

... "overwhelming support across political lines."

Now, deny it again.

I didn't deny it Libby. Yes, tax money was "redistributed" by the government but it was a program to give tax money back to the people...it was a credit back "scheme" that included "fudging" on reimbursement by cheating some and awarding others.

Under other circumstances that would be considered stealing but because it had the shiney stamp of approval of elected elites you don't mind. If they decided your neighbor could just help himself to a percentage of your groceries once a month because you had more than he you'd probably get darned tired of it.

Comparing this program, the purpose of which was to give the economy a kick, to the giant ever-increasing giveaway programs favored and lauded by the political left is laughable and doesn't in any way indicate agreement.

Besides, as I have said, conservatives are not the ones who refuse to cooperate and make compromises...it is liberals who stamp their little feet and say "No...it's my way or nothing...just get used to it!"

The original paragraph you quoted from the poll was a bone tossed to the left because the results of the poll are very damning to the left.

What is this "stealing"? These are taxes, you know, to pay for the war you thought was such a good idea, among other things.

TINA: "If they decided your neighbor could just help himself to a percentage of your groceries once a month because you had more than he you'd probably get darned tired of it."

This is exactly what your taxes have always done. And we know you don't like it. But for the sake of a stable society, we're doing it anyway. Tough noogies.

Your distinction between food stamps and economic stimulus is a distinction without a difference. If a fella buys his groceries with stimulus money or with food stamp money, it's all stimulating the economy, and it keeps the poor beggar from starving, too!

"This is exactly what your taxes have always done."

No Libby they have not. Taxes paid for those things that the Constitution actually called for...a military for the defense of the nation, a legal system, and limited federal legislative support.

If a fella buys his groceries with stimulus money or with food stamp money, it's all stimulating the economy, and it keeps the poor beggar from starving, too!

The original post was about a high percentage of Americans who do not support income redistribution: "even Democrats oppose it 77% to 19%."

So redistribution is frowned on in general. The truth is that most Americans are not the heartless dolts you paint them to be. Most don't mind charity for those who are truly in need and are willing to use the "help" to lift themselves up. We are not opposed to providing for those who are, through no fault of their own, unable to work to provide for themselves.

We do object strongly to those who fall into an entitlement attitude and who pass it on to future generations. We object to the fact that, at best, 15 -20 cents on the dollar actually goes to the individuals requiring "help". We object to the terrible fraud and waste. We object to the using of these permanently needy people as political fodder. We resent the constant demand for more when the programs have NOT made things better but instead have made things worse.

You are apparently in favor of the above which makes you incredibly ignorant or terribly insensitive to the real needs of poor people being willing to consign them to permanent welfare enslavement.

My argument wasn't about whether the "untaxed" person spending "his" refund stimulated the economy...it is whether, having not paid the tax in the first place, he deserves to receive the "refund".

Refund: to return (money) in restitution, repayment, or balancing of accounts *refund the excess on a tax*
3 : REPAY, REIMBURSE