While your response could be a combination of the choices (or none of the above), which group will benefit the most - or be most likely to benefit at all - if the current Congress' fiscal and tax policies go through?

Wow - someone said middle-class families? Now that's a case I'd like to hear argued!

I have a question about the "wealthy investors."

Do you mean those who have invested money in politicians through campaign donations or just wealthy investors in general (meaning they didn't necessarily invest their money in politicians)?

As I fall under the Middle class bracket there are a few areas i will benefit: The increase in per child deduction from $600 to $1000. The removal of the marriage penalty.

But once again Wertz, your poll is skewed to garner an answer as to alienate any other given group on your poll.

Everyone on your poll will benefit in some way. Yes, even friends of Dick Cheney. Would you prefer that we pass a tax relief that says every one gets a reduction except friends of Dick Cheney?

Sleeper

The latter - those with healthy (or at least hefty) stock portfolios. I was trying to indicate general class distinctions, but, as everyone knows, this is a classless society. As I couldn't very well refer to our aristocracy or our royalty, I chose "wealthy investors" and "friends of Dick" instead.


Okay, one of us is taking this a bit too seriously.


That would work for me.

Wertz, you put this in a serious debate forum. If you meant this to be fun, should I move it to casual conversation?

I did not intend it to be "fun", but I did not expect it to be utterly humorless either. I think that serious debate can take place even when one's tongue occasionally makes its way toward one's cheek. For those who believe that the Bush administration is all about cronyism, the "Cheney" option is there - but not to "skew" the poll, for heaven's sake. I could as easily have actually called it "the American Royalty" or "Bush's major campaign contributors", but I thought I'd go with something a little lighter, that's all. Had I known my choice of words would become the principle focus of the debate, I would obviously have made a different choice. There are four other options for those who think the administration has the interests of other groups foremost.

I would have voted "those paying taxes" if it had been on the list.

I am also picking at the choices (as usual) because I would have chosen "campaign contributors of any party" (not just Cheney's friends). Sure the tax cuts and budget process is being controlled by the GOP right now but I'd be floored if the Democrats weren't adding their pork projects on and using it as leverage to let the Republicans get what they want more easily.

I would have said it helps no one, because the regressive and frankly myopic agenda of the Republican party and in particular its unfailing support of neoliberal mumbo jumbo from Friedman and his short-sighted ilk will unfortunately in the long term cause the implosion of this nation, not to mention the global financial structure.

I suspect you're right, but Dick Cheney has a lot of friends. I mean, aren't most contributors to the Democratic Party also contributors to the Republican Party? I can see a major company failing to contribute to the Democrats, but doesn't any huge corporation that knows what's good for it not make at least a token contribution to the GOP? I ask this seriously. Are there many big, big companies that don't support the Republican Party (or Republican candidates)?

Huh? You point out that corporations are playing both sides of the aisle then finish with a sentence asking if this is only a Republican problem?

Sorry, I guess I was unclear. I was trying to suggest that there are many corporate sponsors for the Republican Party exclusively, many who play both sides, but few - if any - who sponsor the Democrats exclusively. My question remains "Does anyone know of any major corporations which sponsor Democrats, but not Republicans?"

I don't believe that I characterized this as a "problem", though. Corporate sponsorship in exchange for political favors is standard operating procedure, is it not? And even the GOP would agree that corporations who invest in them are much more likely to get a solid return on their investment than those who throw their money away on Democrats. Of course, I do see the purchase of political favortism as a problem for those who aren't in on the deal (like the American public), but for the corporate investor, it's just good business, which will at least benefit their major shareholders.

The wealthy will benefit the most, as they should, from tax cuts.

Absolutely, I voted for the wealthy investor. And though I am not wealthy, I have no envy or jealousy towards that group. The wealthy pay the most taxes, start businesses, hire people. The wealthy already shoulder too much of the tax burden in this country. They need some relief, before they start running off to Monaco, where there are no taxes.

What have you read by Friedman?

A monetary history of the United States 1867-1960, written with Anna Schwartz, and Free to Choose: a Personal Statement.

I also studied a bit of von Hayak's The Pure Theory of Capital in college.

My critique is mostly concerned with how these monetarist economic theories have been applied politically, particularly in the neo-liberal shifting of the agenda within the GATT, World Bank, and IMF, and as more particularly in the political policies of leaders like Thatcher and Reagan.

Why are you curious? Perhaps you believe it is my ignorance of these theories which leads to my crtitique of them? Friedman did win a Nobel Prize, but he is a very controversial economist, and I am hardly the first, nor the smartest, person to be very skeptical about them.

Or perhaps you are merely curious. I prefer to think the latter, as you presented no statements surrounding your question.

Who would you consider to be a less controversial economist?

And yes, assume the latter. I would be curious to see what economist a Green Party member would look to.

In order to keep from straying off-topic, I have started a new topic about this here.

None of the above. Since the question is on the Republican domestic agenda as a whole, and since in Mr. Bush's current version, it calls for a substantial increase in spending and in the size and pervasiveness of government, I see only federal bureaucrats as likely to benefit much.

That's the opposite of the approach I would take. I'd want to cut government down to size, and reduce both spending and taxes. Of course, that's not an alternative Democrats are offering either.