To Have and Have Not.

A headline on the Oregonian Front page on 2/6/07 stated that the new Bush Budget plan would short-change domestic spending in favor of the "war". I contend that the Bush budget shortchanges domestic spending, (thats you and I and our kids) in favor of continuing his massive tax giveaways to the super wealthy.
Many argue that tax cuts stimulate the economy because rich people supposedly create jobs. I suppose they do, but they can only hire so many pool cleaners and gardeners. The truth behind tax cuts is that the poor are most likely to spend their tax cuts right away, flushing that money into the economy and actually creating jobs locally, where they do the most good. Rich people tend to invest their tax cuts, which do create jobs on Wall Street and at hedge funds, but not necessarily on a local basis, say at the corner grocery store. The rich can only eat so much after all.
In the mean time, tax cuts drain the treasury, forcing state and local entities to cut services, such as subsidized health care. It is a proven fact that universal health coverage encourages people to obtain preventative health services, rather than wait until they are really sick and then go to emergency care which ends up costing all of us more in the long run.
I have heard various business pundits on TV and radio wondering why there are so many hedge funds and investment groups buying up real estate and businesses. Just how do you get to be a pundit these days? It's obvious that these investment entities are flush with Bush tax cut cash from rich investors. Again this kind of investment is bad for the economy in that in many cases, to make even more money on these investments they lay off workers before flipping these investments for a profit.
When all is said and done, tax cuts for the rich are a bad overall investment for the economy, while tax cuts for the lower 80% actually flushes more money through local economies and can actually create jobs instead of resulting in layoffs.