Kerry and others are flat-out WRONG about tax cuts

[liberalcapitalist]

Anyone who supports any portion of Bush's tax cuts was obviously born with a silver spoon up their ass or they're simply 100% out of tune with middle-class and poor America. I am twenty-five and own my own business. My tax cut was something like $300. BIG FREAKING DEAL. Meanwhile, my student loan interest went up, effectively reducing my tax cut to ZERO. My property taxes went up another $120. The cost of living has gone up, and my business's profits have plummetted as the economy has. And of course, I have no healthcare. I broke my hand this summer and it still hasn't healed-- several thousand dollars later. Take my damn $300 and give me healthcare!

[HFishbine]

1. Me, Me, Me

Geez! You still have another good hand, don't you? Get back to work you lazy bum!

;)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. That silver spoon is so far up Deans ass it takes two hands to pull it out

[TLM]

53. Yeah because we know how many rich kids...

put themselves through pre-med at night school so they can be a doctor and work in the ER in the bronx then open clinics for the poor.

Dean has a total net worth of about 4 million... and I don't have a problem with a guy having money. My problem is when someone is so disconnected like Kerry, they think a family making 70k is the average example fo working poor.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salin]

2. we also had an increase in the state sales tax

other fee increases, decrease in local services etc. I think that for many there are net increases in costs - all directly related to the tax cut.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Good point in Kerry's favor here: Since you 'only' got $300

then it'll be very easy for Ken Lay and his ilk to come up with that $300 for you and several hundred others to make up the difference.

[maha]

4. So you disagree with Paul Krugman on this issue?

I don't have a link handy, but economist Krugman says there are reasons to keep the tax cuts in place for the non-wealthy at least for the short term. Considering that Krugman was the first person in print to call Bush's tax cut plans a flamng disaster -- he was doing so during the 2000 campaign -- and that Krugman is an internationally respected economist, one should not dismiss his opinion lightly.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. I Disagree With Him

My models show a different result than Paul's show him. I suggest that the small differences in middle class, lower middle class, and low income taxation would have less than 10% of the leverage on economic health than would massive and immediate reductions in borrowing by the federal gov't.

I respect Krugman, but i think he's wrong on this one. The negative impact of deficits on the overall macroeconomy, and the ancillary effects on markets and overall cash flow are far more injurious than marginal tax rates.

Krugman was right when he predicted disaster. So did i. But, i think backing off now is inappropriate. I already wrote him when that column was published. I have, in the past, shared some of my math with him, since i trust him to not disseminate my work.
The Professor

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. Get the money from the upper end. It's that simple.

leave the bottom and middle out of it. Get all the money we need back (and then some) from the high end.

[Hep]

I disagree

We need to reform the whole tax code. It is possible for everyone to get a reasonable break when times are good.

[maha]

37. OK.

I personally don't have a strong opinion about whether ALL the tax cuts should be rolled back, or whether just tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 should be rolled back, as several candidates have suggested. I do think that AT LEAST the latter must be done, though.

[ProfessorGAC]

45. Certainly There's Room For Compromise

You're correct. The rollback on high incomes is a necessity. The rollback on middle class could be a little "iffy".

However, i think it critical to get the markets to respond by targeting the equity markets again. That doesn't happen when people start getting 4% yields on guaranteed money. The risk premium is not sufficient to get the markets roaring when big money flows into notes from the gov't.

Also, remember that most bonds are tax deferred, so the interest accrued is not taxed for 3, 5, 7, 10, or even 30 years. Dividends on equity holdings is taxed yearly. This makes forecasting the federal budget more reliable as well.

Lastly, small tax cuts do nothing to stimulate the consumption component of GDP except in the short term. As a result, there is little more than a quick run up at retail, a short term inventory rebuild, and then the excess capacity goes right back to being excess capacity. No sustainble growth is fomented by tax cuts.

So, given the negatives of deficit spending, i'll stay with roll back the tax cuts. But, i could be potentially persuaded otherwise on middle income and down.
The Professor

[Julien Sorel]

44. Krugman's analyisis was based on politics, not

economics. He doesn't think that repealing all the tax cuts is politically a smart move, as it would allow Bush to go on the attack against tax raising Democrats, as Reagan did against Mondale in 1984.

[ProfessorGAC]

48. I Know That

And i disagree with him on that. I understand his approach and i agree with his economic philosophy. (We're very similar in our overall view of macroeconomics.)

I disagree that the complexities of taxes and economies are so profound that the positives of doing the right thing can't be sold as a political plus.

I know what he's saying. I disagree.
The Professor

[Julien Sorel]

62. You don't say why, either in your other post or this one.

If you're familiar with Krugman, then you know that economically, he prefers rescinding all the tax cuts; yet you made a post that implies he isn't.


Incidentally, this statement is incorrect:

Also, remember that most bonds are tax deferred, so the interest accrued is not taxed for 3, 5, 7, 10, or even 30 years. Dividends on equity holdings is taxed yearly. This makes forecasting the federal budget more reliable as well.

The interest from bonds is taxed yearly like all other income; this would include the 'interest' from debt instruments like zero-coupons.

[ProfessorGAC]

66. No It's Not

Most treasury certificates are accrued and taxes are paid at the back end, upon maturity. For short term notes, you're correct. But, long term bonds become the instrument of choice when the economy goes down. That's historical fact. Look at the SAUS. It'll show you the proportions of bonds and note types under different economic intervals.

Also, i did explain why. Krugman is now going against his own better economic judgment. That's why i disagree. I made that point specifically in another post. So, before you say i didn't say something, you should read all the posts. Because i clearly did.
The Professor

[Julien Sorel]

97. Long term treasury bonds pay interest semi-annualy.

That interest is taxed in the year it is payed out. 'Long term' treasuries these days are 10 year notes, by the by; the government stopped issuing 30 year bonds a few years ago, although the length of the note is hardly relevant.


Show me one debt issue of the federal government that is 'tax deferred.' Show me its name, show me where in the tax code it states that such an issue enjoys that deferred status. I'll save you the trouble: it doesn't exist. This is the business I work in, by the way; I know it from personal experience as well as educational background. But why waste more time on an anonymous message board throwing around qualifications, when there are more verifiable sources:

1. US Treasury Securities:
Us Treasuries are backed by the full faith and credit of The US Government; consequently, they are, by definition, risk-free securities. The market for Treasury securities is the most liquid securities market in the world. Interest paid on US Treasury Bonds is exempt from state and municipal taxation.

http://www.bondknowledge.com/introfaq3.html

Notice: Treasuries are exempt (thus, the interest is not 'tax-deferred') from state and municipal taxes, under the tradition (it isn't even a law) that one level of government does not tax another. They are not exempt, and neither is the interest they pay deferred, from federal taxation. As I stated earlier, this incudes zero-coupon bonds, which I suspect is the source of your confusion. To clear up that issue:

Interest from zero-coupon bonds may be taxable each year, although the accreted value of Treasury zeros may be exempt from state and local taxation. Many investors, however, have chosen to include them in tax-advantaged accounts. Please consult your tax advisor before investing in zeros.

http://investment-center.hrblock.com/invest_edu/invest_choices/public_11b2.html

'Interest,' on a zero-coupon issue, would be the accreted annual value, since such securities pay no actual interest to holders directly, as do traditional bonds. However, the accreted value must be calculated and added to income just as interest is. For example, a 10 year zero bought at $650 with a face of $1000 would be accreting at a rate of about 4.5%, and would be taxed as such -- $45 a year would be added to the holder's income for tax purposes.

[dkamin]

75. Elaborate

Apparently, you're not a Keynesian? Which, it appears, Krugman is.

Also, I've been looking for models/papers that argue that the deficit is having a huge negative effect on our macroeconomy. Do you have any out there?

Thanks.

[ProfessorGAC]

88. I Have Had Some Published

You're right in that i wouldn't call myself Keynesian. However, i don't believe Keynes would have suggested that leveraged spending is really an economic stimulus policy where no major national emergency is extant.

The Depression and WWII come to mind as true emergencies that would have fully validated Keynesian policies. That's why FDR implemented them and he communicated directly with JMK.

My models were published sort of "Pre-Internet" so i don't know if they're available in any way. I don't even have my own electronic version of the paper written to go along with the models, only paper versions. They've got copies in the Uni libraries as well, but i don't get that way very often anymore. (I was always a part-time adjunct prof at 3 different places. My teaching now is occasional and in highly specialized graduate courses. So, i don't spend much time at the unis anymore.)

The crux of my models are polydimensional, mixed surface, exponentially weighted vs. time, models that attempt to validate the existence of, and if extant, the leverage effect of various econometric inputs to 8 different economic indicators.

I used to have to run them on a mainframe, as the PC's of 10 or 15 years ago were too slow and the desirability analysis would take 15 or 20 hours. That's why i don't have PC copies of the models today. I have the code and the printouts, but no e-version. Wish i had.

The crux is that it can be established that at no time in U.S. history has deficit spending actually stimulated the economy beyond 10% above what would have happened due to population growth alone. The Reagan era is the perfect example. 88% of the real GDP growth was funded not by improved productivity and enhanced consumption but on the increase in Gov't spending funded by borrowing. The models show that the single greatest point of leverage is the excess in borrowing by gov't as being a net drag on economic growth over a time lag of 3 to 6 years. IOW, by the time you hit 6 years, you will be certainly creating a drag on the economy in excess of any benefit.

Sorry i can't give you more details than that.
The Professor

[chiburb]

16. Krugman, October 17...

I ain't paying for the archived version, so here is an abstract:

Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Bush administration's tax cuts are phony because government is now borrowing to make up for loss of revenue; says, however, that any Democratic candidate who proposes total rollback of Bush tax cuts will become easy target; says Bush forces would surely point to one 'sweet spot' in tax cuts--child tax credits that are supported by most Americans; says candidates should leave child tax credits and 'cutout' that reduces tax rates on some income, and call for repeal of all other tax cuts as good first step (M)

Sounds reasonable (and smart) to me...

[Code_Name_D]

25. Krugman makes a politcal argument.

Not an economic one.

Krugman is right that any one who opposes a full roll back of the tax cuts will become a target. But Krugman's artical gaives the impresion that some one who suports a partal roll-back will some how be less-target. This is just wrong-headed, and Krugman needs to stick to economics.

The dem debates on the roll backs is weather things like the child tax credit sould go with it, or be aloued to stand. The problem is that it was the Dems who put the child tax credit in there in the first place in order to get the bill to pass.

But the repugs could care less about the child tax credit. As they fought to keep the prevision out of the tax bill. What the repugs will protect, tooth and nail, will be the uper income provisions.

The only way to repeal the Bush tax cuts, is to focuse on thoes provisions. Not to focuse on keeping the weatner in the bill. It is also a fact that it will be far easer to craft and force through a full roll back bill, rather than a peace meal approch that will be filled with even more loop holes.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. Once Again, I Knew That

I just don't agree. I don't buy the premise that fiscal policy should be done in a "palatable" way when the economy is in crisis. Now, remember, he agrees that it's in crisis. So, i think harsh medicine is needed and it's up to the Dem politicians to find a way to sugar it so people will understand that it's the right thing to do and it THEIR best interests to roll back the cuts.
The Professor

[chiburb]

74. I found more from Krugman on tax cuts...

As I recall from the original column (Oct. 17), the child tax credits and 'cutouts' amount to about 10% of the problem. (Jeez I wish this thread had started earlier: I refuse to pay the 'archive' fee at the NYTimes.) His point was this:

"These middle-class tax cuts were designed to create a "sweet spot" that would allow the administration to point to "typical" families that received big tax cuts. If a middle-income family had two or more children 17 or younger, and an income just high enough to take full advantage of the provisions, it did get a significant tax cut. And such families played a big role in selling the overall package.

So if a Democratic candidate proposes a total rollback of the Bush tax cuts, he'll be offering an easy target: administration spokespeople will be able to provide reporters with carefully chosen examples of middle-income families who would lose $1,500 or $2,000 a year from tax-cut repeal. By leaving the child tax credits and the cutout in place while proposing to repeal the rest, contenders will recapture most of the revenue lost because of the tax cuts, while making the job of the administration propagandists that much harder."

[ProfessorGAC]

89. I Completely Understand

And i understand why you would share his concern. I just think that the political counters are fairly direct and straightforward and could be easily sold given the huge increases in unemployment and the net drain on middle class income buying power.

So, i understand why you buy his argument, i just still don't agree with him.
The Professor

[bearfartinthewoods]

5. Kerry's example of a family of 4 with income of 70 grand

hardly siver spoonish.

i can hardly wait to see the campaign ads announcing how much a vote for Dean will cost families like that.....</sarcasm>

[ModerateMiddle]

6. I read a comment on another site

where the poster asserted that anyone who thought a family who earned $70,000 a year was "middle class" had been in Washington too long. My mental response to his post (I didn't bother actually responding) was that he had no concept whatsoever about what "middle class" means, if he thinks a family of 4 making 70k is "rich".

[Hep]

7. Why

is the magic number 70G's?

My household income is more like $50G. I guess I'm just poor.

[ModerateMiddle]

15. 70k was the example Kerry used

last night in the debate.

[maha]

55. The numbers don't say much. Depends on where you live.

A family of four living in New York City on $70,000 is struggling to get by, unless they've lived in the same rent-controlled apartment since 1947. A family of four living in Foul Mouth Kentucky (not a real place) on $70,000 would be pretty affluent -- they could afford a nice house and annual trips to Disney World.

The trick is to find a job that pays $70,000 in Foul Mouth Kentucky.

[Hep]

64. The real trick

is to figure out how to LIVE in Foul Mouth KY.

[TLM]

65. It is not that 70k a year is rich...

it is that it is very dishonest to act like a married couple, with two kids, making 70k is and average example of working poor and middle class.

It is a very very small part of the middle class that sits right on the fence between middle class and upper middle class.

Kerry is using the same BS Bush using to make it sound like this cut helps the average family or working person, and that's bullshit. Most working poor and middle class are not married with two kids and making 70k.

[CWebster]

11. It might very well be silverspoonish

to a bearfartinthewoods with a junk of a car or the family in the dying factory town or the single mother in the inner city or the struggling farmer or the disabled veteran.

The part of the Democratic base left behind by DLC policy to remake itself as the party of the upper-middle class.

Does who Kerry clamors to represent converge with the broadbase of Americans who feel unrepresented and unlikely to vote on account of it?

Does who Kerry targets for tax relief, which may only increase the financial burden for those who didn't make enough to qualify, ideally represent who the Democrats should speak for exclusively?

[TLM]

60. In fact it was exactly silver spoonish...

Because the vast majority of working poor and middle class do not fit in that little tiny group of married couples, with two kids, making 70k-75k. Kerry is very dishonest in using Bush's BS about this tax cut... trying to act like this small demographic group represents the standard benefit to the middle class from Bush's tax cuts.


Why is Kerry defending this tax cut? Sharpton was right and Dean is right... this whole cut was wrong and flawed and needs to be repealed.

[WinstonChurchill]

8. Why didn't Your Business Provide Health care?

Most Democrats look to business to pay for health care. Why didn't your business provide health care for its employees, including you? Were you trying to make excess profits or something? Did you just make a bad business decision on this issue?

[ModerateMiddle]

10. VERY rarely so small businesses

provide health insurance for even the owner of the business. My sister owns a growing small business, and she only has catastrophic coverage (something like a 10k deductible) - she might also offer that to her employees, but it isn't much help for day to day needs.

[boxster]

20. No offense, but that's kind of an ignorant question.

Many, many small businesses are either single-employee businesses or have a very small number of employees. Most insurance companies will not write a company plan for less than 5 employees.

[WinstonChurchill]

26. There Are Plans For Very Small Businesses

Before my wife and I got married, my wife (who was a secretary) not only paid Social Security taxes but she paid for health care for the nanny she hired to look after her daughter. Plenty of small businesses provide at least some form of health care. There's a whole industry that exists solely to assist small business in doing so.

[maha]

39. It varies from state to state, I believe.

Some states have programs for small businesses and poorer people to get affordable health insurance, but other states don't.

[ModerateMiddle]

9. Families were the beneficiaries of the Dem tax cuts

The animosity towards the middle class tax cuts here and on other sites demonstrates the hostility of single tax payers to families. As a parent, I can attest to how very much it costs me in terms of time, money and emotions to raise kids. It is enormously expensive. In addition to having to pay for someone to look after the kids while I work, I have to plan for the days that the provider will "call in sick" and then I have to scramble for an alternative. Instead of just jumping in the shower, dressing and off to work, I have to make sure the kids also get ready and get off to wherever they are going.

I am going to make a statistically accurate, if not personally accurate, assumption that a single 25 year old might eventually be in the market for tax cuts for married couples with children. And perhaps even make use of the public school system for which those property taxes pay.

Single folks have a lot of other kinds of advantages. We absolutely need to help our families.

[Hep]

19. I didn't ask you to have kids.

I'm happy to help pay for your kids to go to school, for all kids to have health care, etc, because that's what being a responsible citizen is about, IMO. But I don't have to feel sympathy for a decision you made, hopefully knowing what costs lie ahead.

The fact is that I got practically NO tax cut. Yet sales taxes in my state went up one point. No cost of living increases for state employees. Higher property taxes. And on top of that I have to endure people claiming they deserve a cut more than I do because they made a different decision with their lives?

Here's my response. Shouldn't have had kids.

[ModerateMiddle]

32. "Shouldn't have had kids"

Oh, yeah, that works on a macro level. Who do you think is going to be supporting your social security checks and medicare when you retire?

MY KIDS.

[Hep]

34. Wrong

I won't be getting social security because there won't be any left.

[Julien Sorel]

47. Now there's a vote winning response.

[Hep]

49. Damn right

Write me in for pres in your primary!

[LeahMira]

24. Yes, but...

Single folks have a lot of other kinds of advantages.

Single folks have only one wage earner - themselves - to pay for the mortgage, the electric bill, and the normal household expenses. Even if you only depend on one wage earner, you are taking care of the needs of at least two people with that spending.

In addition, it has been my experience at least that single people have the time and energy to volunteer their services, whether it's coaching the little league team or driving seniors to their medical appointments. Most families simply don't have the time.

There are advantages and disadvantages on each side, but please don't try to claim that singles always have it easier.

[ModerateMiddle]

12. You'd need specifics, but

you said, "Take my damn $300 and give me healthcare!"

You would need to see the specific recommendations, but depending on how well your business is doing, you might not qualify for health insurance under anyone's plans except for those supporting universal health care. NONE of the candidates currently leading in the polls do that. DK and AS do, and I think CMB does. Dean's does not. Gephardt's does not.

[Eloriel]

13. Here's another reason Kerry's wrong

and as much as I admire Krugman, I don't agree with him on this.

No one wanted those freakin' tax cuts in the first place. Polls overwhelmingly showed that people vastly preferred using the money for other things, namely social spending.

Further, giving healthcare to people will free up a lot more of their money than their tax cuts did.

Eloriel

[JaneQPublic]

21. Recent poll on the subject

[killbotfactory]

76. American's aren't as stupid as Bush/Kerry think they are

The proof is in the pudding.

[onehandle]

23. Taking a tax cut back from anyone but the rich...

...equals a second term for Bush. When people get to the polls, they don't remember the logic of the crappy tax cut. They just remember that they could use another $300. That was the whole point of mailing the checks out.

The GOP is currently lying by saying that All of the Demcratic Candidates want to take back All of the tax cuts. I heard the head of their party say this on CSPAN yesterday.

They are firmly on message.

[boxster]

17. You apparently don't have kids.

The tax cuts made a big difference for "middle-class" families with kids. A friend of mine with 4 kids got a huge tax cut, several thousand dollars total, $2400 of which was for the increased child credit alone.

[Hep]

22. Great

So now the claim that poor people have kids so they can get more money from the government can be extended to ALL people.

Because what we need is more people having more kids.

[JaneQPublic]

27. Why didn't this family get a tax cut?

Single mother of two earning just under $35,000/year -- got zippo for a tax check. She could have used it a lot more than the families earing $70,000, but apparently she didn't pay in enough.

[Hep]

29. A friend

of mine is a single mother who makes less than that. She signed her $400 check over to the Dean campaign and wrote a press release about it. Just thought you might like the story.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. So does that mean she doesn't have a silver spoon up her ass?

Is it made of tin or something?

[Hep]

43. Interesting obsession you have

silver spoons up asses. Is that a website you frequent?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. So I'm supposed to have a 'discussion' about tax policy

that starts out with the assertion that I have a silver spoon up my ass?



It's rude, disgusting flamebait -- you don't start a discussion of issues with insults.

If you want to talk tax policy, I'd be happy to do so in a thread that doesn't start out with an scatalogical insult.

[CWebster]

50. interesting though

that all you can focus on is where the spoon is and not the policy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. Is it all the way up Dean's ass or does the end stick out?

There are plenty of threads that do discuss policy without this crap in it. But the Dean campaign can't win on ideas, so they have to stoop to insults.

Here is an insult that is true: Dean is a liar. You all know he's lied to you and you follow him anyway. THAT's disgusting.

[Hep]

56. prove it

I'd like to see one post where you don't talk about spoons up asses and where you DO show some proof.

Let's just say I won't hold my breath.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. Prove Dean is telling the truth when he says "I hate America"

[Hep]

73. Me too!

I also hate america, so don't you see why he is my guy? Child eating, america hating STUD!

You claim to have arguments somehwre. Apparently, you're a bit too sensitive to share them. S'ok!

[CWebster]

59. Ridiculous

and your shrill hysteria and juvenile posts only attest to the fact that you have no argument. The thread was not posted by the Dean campaign, but an independent poster, so your attacks on Dean are unfounded and misdirected, but demonstrative of your desperation.

[Hep]

54. Apparently

you are incapable of making a single post without talking about spoons up asses.

Look I don't know what you're capable of. Maybe you really do have a problem, a fixation on utensils and orifices. It's not up to me. But you certainly don't seem able to refute my point, which I stated three times. Oddly, you replied every time, not by addressing my point, but rather by bringing up spoons and asses.

But I think it's funny that you refuse to debate tax policy here because of how the first post reads. Sounds more like avoiding the topic than standing on principle. Expecially considering the rest of your posts.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. Why does Dean hate America? Is it true he funded the 9/11 attacks?

What about the malpractice deaths he's hushed up? don't they bother you?

Dean is a murderer.





In case someone out there is just too plain stupid to get my point, here it is:

It is possible to make a BS posting that doesn't break DU rules but that doesn't mean it should be responded to as if it were worthy of discussion. Like this thread. If you want to talk tax policy, do it in at thread that doesn't start with this kind of insulting, disgusting flamebait.

[Hep]

63. weak

You've had chances to discuss tax policy without resorting to childish antics. Start your own thread. My arguments are posted here.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

68. So you admit Dean murdered children in his medical practice?

[Hep]

70. Not only that

But he ate them! And whatever parts were inedible, he sent to the kids parents with a picture of him flipping them off!

Why do you even bother?

[TLM]

78. Hep this is good news....

when you consider that this is all the Dean bashers have left.

Kerry is over... Clark was a flash in the pan... Lieberman is a joke... Dean has already won.

It is no wonder these folks are freaking out.

[Hep]

79. True

They're really lsing their minds att his point. The question is, how much damage will they seek to do to Dean's campaign from here on out? To what degree will they undermine him?

[TLM]

86. It doesn't matter... the harder they attack

the worse they look and the more they are exposed as status quo loving repuke lites who want to keep bush's tax cuts, want to support Bush's war, like what Bush's no child left behind bill did to schools... etc.

The reason they are attacking Dean like this is that there is no way they can defend Kerry now openly supporting Bush's tax cuts... when they previously put so much energy into calling Dean a liar for saying Kerry supported Bush's tax cuts.

Once again Dean was right on the money, and thee people HATE him for it... they hate that they are in a position now of defending Kerry for using Bush's own BS to act like the tax cut was a huge help for middle class and working poor folks.

So they attack Dean.... because it is all they can do.

Their attacks won;t hurt Dean's campaign... if anything they help it by making Kerry and Clark and Lieberman look like the same gang of power elites who are freaking out at the prospect of their power base of special interests being rendered moot by Dean people powered campaign.

Dean represents a total change in the way the people's voice is heard in DC, and people like Kerry who have worked so hard to silence the people in favor of his big contributors, are very afraid to see this change.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

98. IGNOREance is bliss.

Bow down to Dean it you want, post insults about anyone with a differing viewpoint, ignore Dean's record in Vermont, pretend you haven't heard him lie repeatedly. Go for it.

[Hep]

102. Done!

I mean, despite the great job you've been doing of making a case.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Dean was obviously born with a silver spoon up his ass

I opened this thread in the hopes of having a discussion of taxes and what do I read?

"Anyone who supports any portion of Bush's tax cuts was obviously born with a silver spoon up their ass"


This is the essence of the Dean campaign. A cult of personality fueled by hate, insults and smears, and I'm sick of it.

[Hep]

30. And you?

You support certain parts of Bush's tax cuts by railing aginst the very campaign you decry for railing? Giumme an H! Gimme a Y! Gimme a P!

Lemme show you how to do this. I am all for repealing ALL of Bush's tax cuts, and the reason is because we don't need any part of his tax cuts to have fair and reasonable tax policy.

And the reason I'm still angry with Kerry is the fact that he abandoned that argument. He didn't ask, "Is this tax cut necessary?" He asked, "How big should it be?"

He granted the right's premise on the tax cuts and the war. And I hold him partly responsible for it.

[sandnsea]

31. This is just craziness

There were going to be tax cuts. For years the low-income and middle class paid in and helped create that surplus. The Democrats should have abandoned those people? If there had been no tax cut for them, Dean would just be adding that to his do-nothing slander list and all the Deanie's would be screaming about that instead.

Gimme an S Gimme an H Gimme an E

[Hep]

36. LOL

Get back to me when you get something right! Lemme say it again:

We don't need Bush's tax cuts to provide fair and resonable tax policy. We don't need any of Bush's tax cuts to give middle class and working class families a fair shake.

Tell me. Do you really think that ANY of Bush's tax cuts provide a working foundation to build a tax policy on?

Do nothing slander list? WOW! What in the hell are you talking about?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. We need the silver spoon removed from Dean's ass.

Maybe it will help his back condition.

[sandnsea]

87. Gosh, how generous

Back in 2001, when we were running a surplus, we should have just handed over the taxes WE paid to the wealthy. Wow, that's really great Democratic tax policy.

How is it that everybody supported the Democratic plan of giving tax cuts to working people in order to increase consumer spending and boost the economy, but now deny they ever said that? How is it that they now attack someone who is going to do the exact thing that Democrats said needed to be done all along? And how is it that people will complain about the added burden of new local taxes, but don't appreciate someone who understands that and isn't willing to add to their burden? Talk about voting against your own interests, this is wild.

And if there had been no cuts for working people, there is no doubt in my mind Howard Dean would have used it as an example of Bush-lite, status-quo Democrats who don't get anything done. His entire campaign has been slander and attacks since day one and he'll make up anything to fuel the hate and stay in the limelight.

[Hep]

99. interesting

Back in 2001, when we were running a surplus, we should have just handed over the taxes WE paid to the wealthy. Wow, that's really great Democratic tax policy.

Where on earth did you get this idea? I know I didn't say it. Maybe you need for me to speak with smaller words?

How is it that everybody supported the Democratic plan of giving tax cuts to working people in order to increase consumer spending and boost the economy, but now deny they ever said that? How is it that they now attack someone who is going to do the exact thing that Democrats said needed to be done all along? And how is it that people will complain about the added burden of new local taxes, but don't appreciate someone who understands that and isn't willing to add to their burden? Talk about voting against your own interests, this is wild.

I'd love to see you demonstrate that I fit into any of the categories you listed. I don't think you have a very clear understanding of what I'm saying because you don't actually address anything I said. At all. Using my post as a means of diving into your little rant here is truly "wild".

And if there had been no cuts for working people, there is no doubt in my mind Howard Dean would have used it as an example of Bush-lite, status-quo Democrats who don't get anything done. His entire campaign has been slander and attacks since day one and he'll make up anything to fuel the hate and stay in the limelight.

You can always tell a Dean basher because their posts are a bunch of incoherent, irrelevant tripe followed by an obligatory Dean Bash, based on NOTHING. Never any evidence. Never any substance. Pathetic, as usual.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. Middle class tax hike supporters have a silver spoon up their ass

Anyone who supports Dean middle class tax hike has a silver spoon up their ass. Taking food out of the mouths of children to make Dean's Wall street cronies happy is disgusting and immoral.

[Hep]

38. Who said it?

"People against Bush's tax cut are for raising taxes"

Is it the right wing? Maybe Rush LImbaugh? Sean Hannity? Ann COulter?

NO! It's real life democrats! Who can believe it!

I'll say it a third time!

WE DO NOT NEED ANY PART OF BUSH'S TAX CUTS TO PROVIDE TAX RELIEF TO MIDDLE AND WORKING CLASS FAMILIES!

To insinuate that repealing ALL of Bush's tax cuts is the same as taking food from mouths of children is exactly what I expect to hear when I turn on WPTF, talk radio 620 AM. From noon to three I expect Rush to say it (when he gets out of rehab), from 36- it's local repug Jerry Agar, 6-9 Sean Hannity. I expect it from them. It blows me away to read it from supposed democrats.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. Dean said the silver spoon up his ass is starting to itch.

Maybe the families who lose their child tax credit can give the spoon to their kids to lick.

[TLM]

71. Have fun in my ignore file.

Funny how those who hate Dean have such weak positions and argument that they must resort to this kind of garbage.

If this is what we're up against, we've already won.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

81. Garbage like:

"Anyone who supports any portion of Bush's tax cuts was obviously born with a silver spoon up their ass"

Is that the kind of garbage you mean?

Tax policies discussions without the insults:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=65174&mesg_id=65174
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=65781&mesg_id=65781
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=64506&mesg_id=64506

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. Garbage like:

"Anyone who supports any portion of Bush's tax cuts was obviously born with a silver spoon up their ass"

Is that the kind of garbage you mean?

Tax policy discussions without the insults:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=65174&mesg_id=65174
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=65781&mesg_id=65781
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=64506&mesg_id=64506

[Hep]

85. wow!

A statement you've been completely unable to rise above.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. So you think that is an appropriate way to begin a policy discussion?

[Hep]

100. If you don't like it

don't read it and don't post. Because as much protesting as you've done, not once did you SAY ANYTHING. And you've been prompted. You've been asked. You've been challenged.

That's all I see. The statement in the first post was something I just skimmed over. You took it personally (wonder why) and now you can't get off the subject. You don't want to talk about policy, as proven in this thread. You just want to act the victim.

[salin]

58. Wow. I am always so persuaded

by such ongoing crude expressions. There seems to also be a 'cult of personality' on the hater side of this candidate. Seems to be the case with several candidates' fans.

Going around with gross images while complaining that a thread that could have been about substance and debate - is - well rather ironic.

There are legitimate reasons on both sides of this debate (re the middle class tax cuts). To denigrate both sides is to shut out discussion. While this post may not have started the frame - it certainly has taken it further and further down the road and away from any discussion.

Regarding the family that you are describing - one has to look at increased costs and burdens as a result of the tax cuts and calculate than into the 'net gain'. And then a policy should address lowering those costs - so again the family ends up the same or ahead.

The issue that few talk about - with regards to the healthcare/insurance costs crisis - is how much is taken out of wages, due to escalating costs, and the impact this has on mid-sized and small employers as well as the impact on the families themselves. Take that bite out through policy - and incomes increase. Thus when different healthpolicies are considered the degree to which they alleviate costs (either or both for individuals/families and/or for their employers and passing on the savings through higher wages) to families - not just those at the lowest income brackets. I haven't yet studied the various proposals to weigh in on the degree to which these policies have a financial impact upon families.

The level of discourse in this country has gone so far down hill, and has begun to paint everything as simplistic binary responses (A or B) with a brush that demonizes the other perspective. When we view everything this way - how do we expect our leaders who are pandering to us to get our vote - to act in more constructive, delibrative, collaborative ways (that would lead to better policy formulation)?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. Starting out with the assertion that I have a silver spoon up my ass

doesn't exactly make me want to talk tax policy. It's rude, it's flamebait, and I don't understand why it hasn't been locked.


Here are some threads in which this issue is discussed without insults:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=65174&mesg_id=65174
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=65781&mesg_id=65781
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=64506&mesg_id=64506


As for this thread, it belongs up someone's ass instead of that spoon.

[salin]

91. I recognized

that you didn't start the ugly rhetoric - but was reacting to how much more crude levels you took it - and the irony that your complaint was about hoping to see discussion - while the approach takes things further and further away from any discussion.

Sometimes - one can retake over a thread - by starting posts that raise questions and discussion points rather than fueling juvenile baiting.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

92. The first post sets the tone

and this thread should be locked for violating rule #4

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.


if for some reason it is not locked, I want to make sure no one is fooled into thinking there is any real discussion of the issue here. It's total BS.

[salin]

96. point taken

re: the comment and the rule violation.

I still stand by challenging your escalating it - instead of challenging the notion (and phrasing) and providing an alternative way to approach the discussion. Just turning it around - so that those who do not agree with the opposite views - are the ones who SHOULD be attacked (which is the tone) does nothing different.

[sangh0]

84. Salin, I just don't understand you sometime

fear is complaining about the insulting tone of this thread, and instead of remarking about that, you criticize fear for his/her tone while ignoring the insulting tone of the thread's initiator.

[salin]

93. read my post more carefully

fear, I recognized, did not start the baiting. But in a series of posts raised it to a more and more crude level. Hurting the point being attempted to be raised, and further curtailing any chance for real discussion.

Then I tried to point out - that on both sides (expressed on this thread) there is a either/or quality and a demonization of those holding the differing view - which negates that there are a whole lot of other complex ways of approaching the debate. This approach (among our selves, the candidates, and current strategists) is narrow - and prevents some serious thinking that would lead to, imo, much better policy proposals - and due to that thinking would be more "packagable".

[killbotfactory]

72. TAX REFORM

Don't let republican's control the debate like they've always done. Start fixing the damn tax system instead of shifting tax cuts all over the place and pretending your helping the average working american.

Dean needs to take out an ol' Perot type infomercial to learn the Americans about the tax system and why Bush's tax cuts are screwing us.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. Why does Dean hate America?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=65174&mesg_id=65174
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=65781&mesg_id=65781
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=64506&mesg_id=64506

[Hep]

80. I know!

Because we have freedom!

[killbotfactory]

83. So that's why he was against the Iraq war!

Dean: The next Hitler

[Feanorcurufinwe]

90. Dean has his mindless supporters fooled.

His zombie like followers are unable to even admit that:

"Anyone who supports any portion of Bush's tax cuts was obviously born with a silver spoon up their ass"

is a disgusting, insulting, belittling attack on anyone who disagrees.

If Dean becomes President, that will be his legacy. A country where opposition is silenced with mockery and insults.

[jafap]

95. I was born with a brass spoon in my mouth

but I am the black sheep of the family - the only one who has fallen into the bottom quintile. I also have an MA majoring in economics. My $300 and everyone else's $300 is like .000001% of the total tax cut. So, letting me keep it is hardly going to kill the economy or explode the deficit.
Also, I am ambivalent about health insurance. I went to the hospital this summer where I paid $800 for a nitro pill. The fact that I did not have health insurance to pay this bill for me is only part of the problem. The other part is that the bill is a frigging rip off and should not be paid by anybody. In the first place, I was over-charged, and in the second place I was given unnecessary treatment (the ubiquitous insidious x-rays for $300). I think that the insurance/government payments system helps to perpetuate these rip-offs.
Also, I agree with Krugman that a total rollback is very easy to exploit politically. Ask Mondale if you do not believe us.

[Skinner]

101. I'm locking this thread.

It's inflammatory and it's got profanity.

Please review the rules for starting threads in the General Discussion forum. They are here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463744