Lola wrote:And since they're not eligible, Scrat, let's just let their children starve and their elderly suffer........let's do that. Makes a lot of sense........if you want a class war on your hands. The progressives of the country must work together to stop Rove (via Bush) from destroying democracy.
I'll be back in a minute with the link to the Bill Moyers speech Tartarin posted yesterday.
Really, what a completely ridiculous argument you make! They're not eligible............have you ever heard of compassion? Or just try "long term self interest." They aren't incompatible, you know.
Lola - A couple of points...
1) You completely ignore the fact that these people just got help from the Bush tax cut you like to pretend only went to the "rich". Again for the closed-minded: many of these people are not eligible for a tax refund because Bush cut their taxes to the point where they now pay NONE. (Why didn't compassionate Clinton do that?) This isn't a question of whether these people need help, but a function of the fact that they have already received 100% relief from federal income tax.
2) If these people are impoverished, they should be eligible for help through other programs. If that help is not sufficient, is making a gift through the income tax system the right way to help them? Nobody is arguing that these families couldn't use a few extra bucks, what I and others are arguing is the logic of your complaint that they are being denied something they deserve.
3) My question to D'art was: "...do you think that someone who has paid NO income taxes should be entitled to a refund from income tax receipts?" That's a simple and genuine question. I asked it because it sets the dividing line on this issue.
This is not about "whether" low income families could use some help, it's about "how" to help them, and what help is appropriate.
We have welfare programs to help those who need it. If you think these people genuinely need more help, work to get those programs expanded. Pretending that they are being denied a refund when the facts don't support that claim may be a convenient political tool, but it is either disingenuously or ignorantly made.
Now, if I may, I will assume that your answer to my question is: "YES"; you do think the government should give these families a "refund" despite their having paid nothing to refund to them. Fine. New question...
There are certainly many individuals and couples without children who live at or below the poverty line in this country. Why not argue for giving them the child tax credit as well? If your only real consideration is need, why not advocate giving this money to all who are in need, whether they have children or not? Or would you hard-heartedly argue that these poor starving citizens be denied this boon from the federal coffers?