It's not a zero sum game:

The rebate is dramatically redistributing wealth - from the highest earners to the lowest. As a previous poster has pointed out, the rebate is "progressive".

Notwithstanding that public spending provides both a physical and cultural infrastructure which lays the foundation for all earnings, or the fact that generating national debt through public spending usually leads to an increased tax base (if done wisely); teenagers would do better to object to the costs of quality education (and the general inefficiency of our "public" educational system - especially state schools of higher education).

OR, the general inefficiency of the Defense Department.

PERHAPS, they should take a look at general inefficiency Medicare/Medicaid?

MAYBE, those teens should take a look at the fact that giving earnings back to tax payers in the lowest income brackets isn't "burdening" them with debt; rather, it's applying pressure on the federal budget (and national economy) to increase efficiency.

The fact that many taxpayers are using the rebates to pay down debt, or just fending off ordinary expenses, speaks to the rebates efficacy.

The government that taxes least, taxes best. Let's not pretend that the beneficiaries of this rebate are incapable of spending their own earnings for their own best interests.

The article is utter, putrid, claptrappery in the form of unmitigated bullshit.