When the serious downturn in the economy occurred near the end of the Bush administration, he and congress bailed out "companies that were too big to fail" and also provided some bonuses to those whose company failed because they had a contract with the company beforehand.
My contention was at the time that they didn't have any contract because it should have negated their contract when the business failed and the government (the U.S. citizen) picked up the tab.
The Obama administration and the new congress did likewise in continuing bailouts.
Now the citizens who did the "bailing" need help. Would it be unfair for "the rich" making over $250,000 to pitch in with higher taxes? The common citizen helped the rich. Another group -- our military -- is paying an extremely heavy "tax" in life and limb. Some patriotism is due as they "the richest" among us live in this country also.
I feel the Tea Party did not say "no new taxes" to protect the rich. I think they wanted a balanced budget, but not in the way the Republicans and Tea Party elected are holding the line on the tax situation. We certainly need an overhaul on many programs, but as they say, "Rome wasn't built in a day," and sources of revenue need to be increased to help us get out of this mess.
The stimulus passed in 2009 was to keep the banks solvent and the rich who benefited from this are being allowed to get off "scott-free." -- Carol Strache, Frazee