Someone here explain please Dean and Middle Class Taxes.

[deminflorida]

The one issue that I have been trying to come to grips with is how Dean is going to address his intentions of rolling back the current entire Bush tax cut which is paramount to raising taxes on the middle class of this country. Here is the official Dean statement from www.deanforamerica.com

"Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans."

Note here on his official web site he does not say ALL the Bush tax cuts, but I have heard him say it myself during debates and in public during stump speaches.

From the Clark web site: www.clark04.com

"We must help every capable and willing American get back to work. To do this, we need to repeal President Bush's tax breaks for rich households making more than $200,000 per year - and use the savings to create jobs for American workers."

I believe that this is the key difference between Dean and Clark at this point in time. What I want to know is how do DU posters think that this issue will play out among middle class registered American Democrats, and independent swing voters (most of which are middle class) during the primaries following Iowa and NH. No I am not inviting flames....I just want everyone's honest opinion. I know that many think that the middle class did not receive significant tax cuts during the Bush Administration but they did get a tax cut, period. Also please note I am aware that this was nothing compared to the fat-cat cuts that went to the top 1% of this country, but to raise taxes on the middle class is a very significant issue, for any candidate.

Even if the thread is locked, which it should not be...this is an issue that requires an honest look by all democrats if Bush is to be unseated in 2004.

[arewethereyet]

1. didn't sit well with me

but its his belief that we don't care about that little break we got because we don't object to taxes.

Not me bubba...

[tritsofme]

2. We all saw how well this strategy worked in 1984....

nt

[_Jumper_]

3. If we nominate someone who will raise taxes on the middle-class

We will be trounced in the general election. Remember Mondale?

[Hep]

5. Freeper arguments

Are we really that willing to buy into the right wing premise that repealing Bush's tax cuts is tantamount to raising taxes? It's almost like some people in their disdain for Dean are willing to defend Bush's economic policy. That doesn't sit well with me.

[_Jumper_]

6. Relevance?

In your view, is reducing the scheduled rate of increase in spending a spending cut?

The fact of the matter is that middle-class Americans will pay higher taxes as a result of Dean's economic policy. That simply will not work. What happened in 1984?

[Hep]

11. well

In your view, is reducing the scheduled rate of increase in spending a spending cut?

By definition, no. Reducing a rate of increase is still an increase in spending. A cut is a net REDUCTION in spending.

The fact of the matter is that middle-class Americans will pay higher taxes as a result of Dean's economic policy.

The premise being I'm willing to pay more in taxes if I can have some semblance of Clinton's economic boom as a result.

What I take issue with is this idea that americans are supposed to HATE taxes and LOVE tax cuts in all their forms. Liberals are supposed to be smarter than that.

[_Jumper_]

30. You didn't answer the question

Do you consider a reduction in the schedule rate of increase in spending a spending cut or not? What would your reaction be to Bush reducing the rate of increase in Social Security or Medicare spending?

"The premise being I'm willing to pay more in taxes if I can have some semblance of Clinton's economic boom as a result."

That is not going to work with Joe and Jane Sixpack. They simply will not accept higher taxes at a time they are struggling to make ends meet because Dean's policy MIGHT result in a net gain of income.

"What I take issue with is this idea that americans are supposed to HATE taxes and LOVE tax cuts in all their forms."

The vast majority of middle-class Americans will not support paying more taxes. They will assent to repealing taxes on the rich, but they will not like the idea of them having to pay more taxes.

" Liberals are supposed to be smarter than that."

Liberals are less than one-fifth of the population. If liberals want to win elections we must realize what will and will not sell with moderate middle-class voters.

[Hep]

36. I did answer the question and don't know how to make it more clear

Do you consider a reduction in the schedule rate of increase in spending a spending cut or not? What would your reaction be to Bush reducing the rate of increase in Social Security or Medicare spending?

A reduction in the rate of increase is NOT a cut. It's still an increase. I already said that. What part was unclear?

If Bush reduced the rate of increase, I'd have to ask what the motivation is. The fact is that the budgets of programs like medicare can NOT be allowed to increase an an uncontrollable, exponential rate. This was asked to Edwards in a recent debate and NOT answered by anyone. How do you keep medicare solvent if you don't control the rate of increase? How do you pay for it now, and how do you pay for it three years from now? Ten years from now?

The difference between the agendas of Bush and Dean are clear. I believe that the Bush admin wants to allow the costs of social programs to increase to the point where we can't possibly support them and ultimately have to do away with them. Medicare is VITAL to Dean's health care plan. The last thing he wants to do is undermine it. PLEASE tell me what's wrong with the idea that in order to keep it solvent, we might have to control the rate of increase of medicare. I've been waiting for months for an answer to this.

That is not going to work with Joe and Jane Sixpack. They simply will not accept higher taxes at a time they are struggling to make ends meet because Dean's policy MIGHT result in a net gain of income.

We'll have to agree to disagree about that. My belief, and it's shared by the likes of Joe Conason and Howard Dean, is that Americans are willing to sacrifice paltry tax cuts in favor of health care, education, and job opporunities. The fact is that the ultra rich get the bulk of the benefit of Bush's tax cuts. Repealing them would still affect the ultra rich FAR more than it will affect the middle and working classes by default. And my understanding is that Dean would introduce new tax breaks for the working class and middle class ON HIS OWN TERMS, not based on the framework of Bush's tax policy. Am I wrong?

The vast majority of middle-class Americans will not support paying more taxes. They will assent to repealing taxes on the rich, but they will not like the idea of them having to pay more taxes.

My job is to help people understand that Bush's tax cuts, particularly the tax code and how it relates to the middle and working classes, has resulted in a NET LOSS. My state has raised sales tax a whole point since Bush took office. No raises for state employees for THREE YEARS. Higher property taxes. Add it all up and I've LOST money on Bush's tax cuts, regardless of what's taken out of my check. The same goes for MOST people in my state. I think people can be convinced that repealing this tax cut and replacing it with BETTER tax policies will result in a NET GAIN for people like us. Ordinary working folk. People have been VERY receptive to the idea thus far.

Liberals are less than one-fifth of the population. If liberals want to win elections we must realize what will and will not sell with moderate middle-class voters.

And I think that if you give people the bottom line, they will understand.

[Emoto]

9. Premise???

Higher taxes are higher taxes no matter how you color them. Dean thinks we don't pay enough taxes. Frankly, I think that working until, what is it, MAY just to pay your taxes, is way too much. God forbid we should cut spending.

[Hep]

15. The point is

We're liberals. We're supposed to be willing to pay taxes so that EVERY american can have a shot at achieving that American dream.

I have always looked down on republicans who believe that any increase in taxes = BAD. We're supposed to take a broader approach to this issue. We're supposed to believe, as liberals, that if we bear a burden, our whole society benefits.

When did democrats start calling other democrats "Tax and spenders"?

That's my point. I feel that some people are willing to set aside their liberal ideals to attack other democrats for doing things that democrats do. It bothers me. Note that I get $4 per paycheck from my "middle class tax cut". I'm willing to be taxed more so that my fellow man can get health care, education, and a job. I thought that's what our core ideals were. How am I wrong?

[AP]

20. Dean wants to conflate the middle class and the upper middle class.

The fact is the middle class has been bearing a bigger and bigger percentage of the income tax burden over the last 30 years. It's time to let the pressure off the middle class and ask the people reaping the biggest benefits from society to pull their weight.

Dean wants to pretend that the (overburdened) middle class is treated the same as the upper middle class and the super wealthy, and he wants you to think that if they're going to be asked to pull their weight, you should be too.

I say taking the burden off the middle class a little bit is going to allow the middle class -- the enginge of the economy -- pull us away from the cliff that we're about to fall off of.

[Hep]

26. Edwards made the great point

that the tax burden has shifted to the wrong groups of people. And I agree, and I don't think any democrat disagrees.

PLEASE don't tell me what Dean wants to do without backing it up with a statement from the man. As a member of the middle class, I'm willing to pull my proportional weight, but I would like for you to give me a detailed explanation of HOW his tax policy results in his treating the middle class the same as the super wealthy.

[AP]

32. Dean is the least interested in progressivity of all the candidates.

Someone here was at a fundraiser at whcih dean was asked, "why not give teh middle class their tax cuts?" His reply was that he couldn't give the "UPPER middle class" a tax cut or he'd be accused of helping the rich.

WAITAMINUTE! Whos said anything about the upper middle class? Dean, that's who.

He wants the debt-heavy middle class to think they're in the same boat as the asset-laden rich so that you don't complain about being asked to pull your weight, even though your weight is relatively much heavier than the upper classes.

Go through Dean's proposals. He doesn't really have any concrete proposals which would increase progressivity in the tax code. He doesn't see a difference between the way the middle and upper middle class experience the tax burden. (Well, I'm sure he does. But he doesn't want you to see it.) And he has that Cato Inst quote about vehemently disagreeing with Democrats who like to use tax policy to achieve policy goals.

[Hep]

38. Seriously

Unless you are clairvoyant, I wish you'd stop trying to tell me what DEAN is interested in. It's really presumptuous. I don't see the point.

He wants the debt-heavy middle class to think they're in the same boat as the asset-laden rich so that you don't complain about being asked to pull your weight, even though your weight is relatively much heavier than the upper classes.

Do yoiu take into the account that a surprising number of middle class folks actually THINK they're upper middle class? I mean, here you are, a Dean critic, tell me, a Dean supporter, what DEAN wants and what DEAN thinks, yet you never demonstrate it. Don't you think that might be a little offensive? I mean, I've been on the phone with him, I've never heard him convey the thoughts you claim he has.

Go through Dean's proposals. He doesn't really have any concrete proposals which would increase progressivity in the tax code.

Please, you're obviously more well versed at this than I am. Why not go through his proposals and SHOW me where he is lacking. I mean, you expect me to take your word for it without and specifics.

And he has that Cato Inst quote about vehemently disagreeing with Democrats who like to use tax policy to achieve policy goals

WHICH quote? "That quote"? Put it in context.

[AP]

50. Confusing and conflating class loyalties is a trick as old as the hills.

I am being totally honest with you (as always) when I tell you that some pro-dean DU'er came back from a meeting and posted here that Dean said that. She was fooled. She thought it made sense.

Talk to anyone who knows a little about political history and they'll tell you what dean's doing when he says that. You don't have to take my word for it.

As for "that quote" it's the famous weekly standard article that I know you've seen.

Google "Howard Dean Cato Instititute" and It'll be one of the first three hits.

[Hep]

57. Once upon a time you felt so fine, threw the bums a dime in your prime,

DIDN'T YOU?

Sorry. I hate the format of this board sometimes. Anyway, here, from the weekly standard:

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

The parts of this that aren't paraphrased really don't bother me. I don't know the specifics of the "hyper-entusiasm for taxes" that Dean is referring to. For all I know he means that you don't have to raise taxes to provide for the people.

But he never had the debacle of Bush's tax cuts to deal with as governor of Vermont.

As for the Dean comment, I don't know. I've seen a ton of his speeches and read a ton of his statements and NEVER walked away with that impression. Nothing like it has even been discussed. And I'm not detached. Close comrades of mine have stayed up until the wee hours talking policy and strategy with Trippi, and I've not once seen it. Second or third hand, I don't know how much water any claim like that holds. I could easily be wrong, and I don't mean to imply that you are trying to maliciously deceive me or anything. I just have not heard it.

[_Jumper_]

46. So why not shift it more to the rich by not raising taxes on the...

...middle-class?

[Hep]

49. Because it doesn't work that way

The only way we can shift it more to the rich in the framework of Bush's tax cuts is to give another middle class tax cut and tax the rich more. My point is that I don't want to have to work within the Bush tax policy. I want to do away with it and replace it with something more fair.

[AP]

52. It works exactly that way. Dean has set up this false dichotomy

of you having to reject all the Bush tax cut or whatever remains is tainted.

The tax code is always changing. large bills are passed. parts are tossed. parts remain. you pass new laws, big and small.

There's no logical reason you need to toss the middle class tax cuts.

But dean wants you to think there is, because he wants to give you somethign that's crappier than you deserve and then tell you it's something good.

[Hep]

59. I think he's right

I think that Bush's tax cut is ridiculous and can be replaced. Whatever remains may not be tainted if you don't do that, but it also doesn't mean that any part of it is vital to the cause.

There's no logical reason you need to toss the middle class tax cuts.

Again, were the middle class tac cuts part of BUSH'S tax cuts, a separate democratic tax cut, or a democratic amendment to Bush's tax cuts? And exactly why can't they be tossed and replaced with something better, something that has an actual effect on ME?

And again, you can discuss this issue with me without throwing in your interpretation of what Dean wants to do to me. You know I don't subscribe to that. It's superfluous, and makes me want to focus on THAT instead of the issue at hand.

[_Jumper_]

33. Some of us want Bush to lose

If so, we need to look beyond the one-fifth of this nation that is liberal. We need to craft a message that will sell with middle-class, moderate voters, not just angry liberal voters--who will vote Democratic anyway.

[Hep]

39. Tell them what they want to hear?

What's this we stuff? I already subscribe to a message that I think will sell with middle class voters. I mean, I explain his policy to my middle class, moderate friends,family, and colleagues, and they're all intrigued by Dean's ideas. Are YOU middle class or moderate or both? Exactly what part of his message do you not agree with?

[_Jumper_]

44. Do you honestly believe middle-class voters will accept a tax hike?

?

[Hep]

48. Yes to an extent

I believe that middle class voters who I will try to appeal to are well meaning, intelligent, educated people who are seriously willing to pay more in taxes if it ensures that as many americans have health care, job, and educational opportunities as possible. And I think that people understand that if we can give states more money, it means more tax savings in the long run. I know that my tax cut comes nowhere NEAR the money I've lost in increased sales taxes and lack of cost of living increases. What I'm saying is that i'm WORSE off now than I was before any middle class tax cuts took place. The only part ofthe tax code that I see as an improvement is a tax break for people like me who make little money but still invest in a Roth IRA. And I don't believe that Dean has any vested interest in taking that away from me.

[bearfartinthewoods]

88. not just accept a tax hike....VOTE FOR a tax hike. that's the problem

[Quill Pen]

83. Bush can still lose, even if we vote for a real mensch

"We need to craft a message that will sell with middle-class, moderate voters, not just angry liberal voters..." Yeah-huh.

I get so tired of being told that I need to put my support behind go-along-to-get-along candidates, so I can help pander to mouth-breathers who think the American flag makes a nifty bumper sticker. Yeah, I guess that makes me part of the "angry liberal intelligentsia" identified by the Cato Insititute, but you know what? I'm not voting for anyone who has to shape-shift himself (or herself) into a different soundbite for every whistle stop. Gore tried to do that, four years ago; he sucked at it, and even die-hard, card-carrying Dems looked at each other while he was on TV, asking each other, "What the @#$% is he doing?"

Get beyond the sales pitch, and the "messages." Get beyond the idea that the American President is a consumer product, and must be marketed and focus-grouped like snack chips. Most of all, get over thinking that we're all doomed unless we eat your particular brand of vanilla.

I recently heard Michael Moore speak live, and he made some very compelling points about the growing liberalization of America. This is a lousy time to believe we must convert the populist momentum of this party to a cowed, fearful Republican Lite -- all the pandering with half the hatred of women and the poor. On the contrary, Jumper, we all want Bush to lose -- some of us just happen to know that we won't have to sell out to see that happen.

As for tax-raising plans, I hope the middle class will not choose their tormentor GB over the prospect of paying a few more bucks in taxes for a better safety net and a better standard of living.

I can't recall where I saw this (NOW with Bill Moyers perhaps?) but some time ago, I watched a civic leader in a Colorado suburb as he walked around a neighborhood of average, cookie-cutter subdivision homes. He spoke of the community's taxes, which were among the lowest of any in the U.S. Indeed, here's where the rubber met the road of trickle-down economics. As he walked, and one saw boats and jet skis in the driveways, he said there was no money for school improvements, period.

In my own state, WA, a corrupt Freeper named Tim Eyman successfully campaigned to strip away property tax increases, public transportation money, and car tab revenues. Of course, as a well-to-do suburbanite with a shiny new SUV in his McMansion's driveway, the poor fellow was groaning under the weight of oppressive taxation.:nopity:

As a combination of Eyman's initiatives and federal cuts continue to gut our state's economy, it's rather clear that charity does not begin at home, as Bush's faith-based beneficiaries would have us believe. Those who have benefited the most from the tax cuts are those who would have spent the most in property taxes and car tabs (er, those with big houses and big, expensive, new cars). Their windfalls don't go to charity. They went to luxury items. They went to driving the wedge that divides the living standards of rich and poor ever deeper.

BTW, if you're wondering what happened in WA, we've got the 3rd highest unemployment rate in the nation. Thanks to public transportation cuts, it now costs $20 for one car and driver on a round-trip ferry ride. It's three buses and over 2.5 hours of wait time for me to commute to the nearest city center (a 20-minute drive), thanks to busing cuts. Social and health services began printing pink slips the day after Eyman's "tax revolt" took the polls. Programs for AIDS treatment, daycare and low-income housing withered and dropped off the vine. King County has had to close or privatize most of its public pools; it could no longer afford to maintain them. You can fall into some of the potholes on Seattle streets -- a problem that Seattle's cops, firefighters, nurses and teachers really don't have to deal with once they're off the clock, since they can't afford to live in the city in which they work, on their salaries. Grounds maintenance and garbage collection in county parks had to be cut to less than half. Our university professors are among the lowest paid in the country, and so are our public school teachers. Government buildings damaged by the earthquake here almost three years ago are still in disrepair, including the capitol building in Olympia. Yet, as one article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer pointed out recently, new and increasingly opulent mansions continue to sprout up in once-sleepy retreats like the San Juan Islands.

This is what happens when taxes are cut. People don't suddenly run out and buy the Cratchit family a giant turkey -- they go out and buy MP3 players and other digital detritus, Kate Spade handbags, and champagne-tinted Hummers, and tell their needy neighbors to go to hell. This, instead of a party-wide dumbing-down, is the message that needs to get carried to middle-class, fence-sitting voters who are still thinking Georgie looked pretty keen in his flight suit: the President's job is to build and preserve the long-term livability of this nation. To do that, the deficit has to go, and the safety net, along with the environment, and educational and job opportunities, must thrive. And to do that, we need taxes. If you personally dislike taxes, then I think it's time you stopped thinking exclusively of yourself, and "ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."

[tritsofme]

13. Does it matter if we buy it?

What matters is Mr John Q Taxpayer realizing that he is going to pay more in taxes than he does right now.

That just doesnt sit well, I thought we learned that lesson in 1984.

Eliminating tax cuts for the uber-rich, yes! Not for the middle class.

[Hep]

18. response

What matters is Mr John Q Taxpayer realizing that he is going to pay more in taxes than he does right now.

So? I thought we all agreed that Bush's tax cuts did no good for the common man. Yes it's true that democrats believe in higher taxes. but that's because we believe in social programs being GOOD for our society. I must not havbe gotten the memo that our party has moved so far to the right that we must now believe that ALL tax increases are BY DEFAULT BAD.

That just doesnt sit well, I thought we learned that lesson in 1984.

And we learned after 1988 that promising "no new taxes" was a faulty premise and a lie. Now that SOME democrats admit that at least for some time taxes might have to go up, I'm supposed to think that is bad by nature? Sorry. I'M A DEMOCRAT.

Eliminating tax cuts for the uber-rich, yes! Not for the middle class.

Well, I didn't know that repealing current laws means we can't have sensible tax codes that benefit the middle class. In fact, I don't begin to understand the logic.

[arewethereyet]

12. just one of dozens of reasons the Doctor is NOT the man

and you can bet your ass that it will be seen as a tax increase and not a rollback even if the right says narry a word about it. People can damn sure look at their pay stub and tell whats different and thats the extent of their interest in the matter.

[jeter]

53. Dean often talks about tax reform...

...he'll lower middle class taxes on the payroll side which will offset the rises on the general side.

It won't be as big of an issue as people think.

He has a plan.

[Hep]

4. A couple of things

My understanding was that the middle class tax cut was NOT part of Bush's tax cuts. I could be wrong. Please correct me if so.

Anyway, we can have sensible middle class tax cuts without Bush's tax policy. Dean wants to simplify the tax code, eliminating tax forms for many americans. It's not that he's against a middle class tax cut, as Vermont had several tax cuts with Dean as governor. My understanding is that Dean doesn't want to have to work within the framework of Bush's tax cuts, preferring to initiate a different tax code.

[deminflorida]

10. It that is true then that is what he needs to start saying

and he needs to start saying it now. No I'm not a Freeper, I'm a registered democrat in Florida, but you are right the Freepers will really spin this one if it is not re-addressed and soon. Hell the Freepers are already cheering Dean on based on this one issue, just turn on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN or any of the other right wing controlled media in this country. Dean's their guy, he's got it in the bag. He's the one that's gonna challange Bush in 2004.

[Hep]

21. Freepers

are silly. Dean's their guy because they think he's the most liberal in the race and therefore has no appeal to the common man. It's not true. Don't base your opinions on what idiotic freepers think.

I'm not saying anything about Dean that I didn't get directly from his campaign. It's just that people would rather SPECULATE his intentions and policies than actually RESEARCH them.

[AP]

25. Dean says he wants to impose 2000 rates on 2005 America. That's

wrong. The economy has changed since 2000 and will get worse next year. The rich are getting richer and the bottom quintiles are treading water or sinking. To superimpose the 2000 rate structure on 2005 America will be even more regressive than that structure was in 2000, which wasn't all that regressive (but nobody cared because we all thought we were getting rich).

Dean knows that he's proposing a world that is even more regressive than Clinton's. That he sells this as an ideal shows, in my opinion, that he's a nasty piece of work on the question of tax code progressivity. He knows what he's doing, and it's wrong for America.

[Hep]

27. I think that's his general premise

although I don't think he wants to stick with the tax codes of 2000. I never thought I was getting rich off of tax policies in 2000. I don't know who DID.

It wasn't that long ago that you were in the dark about Dean's specific tax plans. What specific information about his policy have you seen since then that leads you to draw these conclusions?

[AP]

73. We're all in the dark, 'cause Dean isn't clear.

But I'm reading the smoke signals, which I've cited, and I'm looking at his record as governor. Not only do I think I have it right, I think it's very telling that it's so hard to get Dean to be frank about his tax policy. The other candidates are very clear about theirs.

[Hep]

77. I don't see the others

as being all that clear on the issues. I've LIKED what I've seen on some websites, like Edwards (he's vaulted into #2 for me). I'm not up on my smoke signals.

[Yupster]

85. Three main middle class tax cuts in the Bush cuts

1. Raising the child care credit from $ 400 per kid (600?) to $ 1,000 per kid.

2. Carving out a 10 % income bracket from the 15 % backet.

3. Reducing the marriage penalty.

4. (?) Reducing the 28 % bracket to 25 %. This is for people making over 50k or so. Depends on what your definition of middle class is. To me, making 75k a year is iddle class so this would be a big cut for those people.

[jmags]

7. Not supporting Dean's tax plan is tantamount to being a freeper?

In my opinion, if he is to get the nomination and ends up losing, this will be his downfall. Even Gore ran on targeted middle class tax cuts in 2000, there should have been some tax cuts following that election. The issue was how much, and that is where Bush's tax cut veered into irresponsibility. Kerry and Clarke's plan for repeal of higher income tax cuts is a much more sensible, and electable, policy.

[Hep]

19. Why do people subscribe to the notion

that repealing the (useless IMO) middle class tax cut = no chance for sensible tax reform?

[FrenchieCat]

8. DOA

[sandnsea]

14. Go away

You're confusing me, head.. aches...

Dean, yeah,

:bounce:

[Fleshdancer]

16. Can someone tell me

the average dollar amount of the tax cut to the middle class due to bush's cuts? I'm having a hard time finding out.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

61. It's between 400 and 600 bucks

I believe. Anyway, if you liked Mondale, then Dean's your guy.

[AP]

17. Dean wants to do what Hoover did:

he wants to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class. They can't pull the economy up, if you're making them carry such a big percentage of the tax burden.

It's doomed to fail.

However, Dean wants his measure of success to be whether he balances the budget. It should be whether wealth spreads down to the middle class and whether the economy grows. But Dean isn't so interested in that stuff.

[w4rma]

23. Bull, AP. You do not understand history if you believe that.

…
The Great Depression brought an end to GOP tax cuts. Faced with a ballooning deficit, President Herbert Hoover proposed a major tax increase, including new excise taxes and a broader, somewhat steeper income tax. In a striking display of bipartisanship, Democratic leaders embraced the plan. They even went Hoover one better, trying to replace the regressive excise taxes with an even more regressive national sales tax. It was a major reversal for the party, which had long opposed any sort of sales tax. It was also a huge blunder, prompting a revolt among rank-and-file Democrats. When the dust finally settled, lawmakers agreed to a host of new excises, as well as steeper, somewhat broader income taxes. Widely considered both prudent and distasteful, these changes constituted the largest peacetime tax increase in the nation's history. For Republicans, the law brought an unhappy end to Mellon's long campaign for tax reduction. For Democrats, it established the regressive starting point for New Deal tax reform.
…
http://taxhistory.tax.org/Articles/1920s.htm

Tax cuts mirror era-Depression tactics
On Jan. 10, 1926, Will Rogers wrote:
"Now, when I tell you that if I was running the government, there would be no lowering of taxes, you know now a comedian is crazy .Š We owe more money than any nation in the world, and we ARE LOWERING TAXES. … All government statistics say that 70 percent of every dollar paid in the way of taxes goes to just keeping up our interest and a little dab of amortization of our national debts. In other words, if we didn't owe anything, our taxes would only be less than one-third what they are today."

Old Will Rogers was a pretty savvy dude. President Bush (or one of his aides who has a college education) should read his stuff. Do you know what happened in 1929?

On Feb. 1, 1933, Rogers wrote the following:
"The Reconstruction loaned the railroads money, medium and small banks money, and all they all did with it was pay off what they owed to New York banks. So the money went uphill instead of down. You can drop a bag of gold in Death Valley which is below sea level, and before Saturday it will be home to papa J.P."

So congratulations to the Bush administration on the $330 billion tax cut. Bush just skipped the part of dropping the gold in Death Valley and handed the money right over to the rich. I think they'll do just like they did in 1933 - pay off debts to other rich people and put the rest in the bank.

It took a Democrat to get us out of the hole dug by Republicans back then. I hope there will be another FDR to fix Bush's messes.
…
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2003/06/05/letters/letters3.txt

[AP]

28. I think you just confirmed my argument that Dean is like Hoover.

Both obsessed with balancing the budget. Both not willing to embrace progressivity in the tax code. Result: the middle and working class can't pull the economy out of the doldrums because they're being beaten down by the burden of financing the government. Without the abilitiy to accumulate wealth, they can't do what they do best: create social wealth.

[Hep]

29. Do you think

that Clinton's tax policies were off base?

[sandnsea]

31. It's not 2000 anymore

The tax cuts have already been put in place. People have already taken lower paying jobs. They've already created budgets around those tax cuts. It would hurt people to put the tax policy back to Clinton's. And if it causes people to have to spend less, it hurts the economy.

[AP]

37. And the top 1% have gotten somethign like 10% richer in each of last three

years.

The tax code, therefore, should ideally push out the top rate 30% higher.

And since the middle and lower quintiles are getting poorer (in terms of buying power), their rates should probably drop.

And since people are taking on incredible debt loads, there should probably be some targeted relief for mortage holders and people with student loans.

And the tax code should be encouraging savings, since savings are tanking.

See how 2000 doesn't make sense for 2005? 2000 barely made sense for 2000, but nobody cared because every aspect of American culture told us we were getting richer so we didn't care.

[Hep]

41. Well

a ton of people think they're getting richer NOW, so why should they care about ANY effort to repeal ANY part of Bush's tax cuts? I mean, people are getting $400 checks PER KID, and of course my $4 per check! I AM getting richer. So why should anyone listen to ANY democrat?

[AP]

55. This is one of those things that goes beyond perception. If we don't get

the tax code right, we'll be driving of a cliff soon. There's no gain in not being honest with people. When they're experiencing the second great depression they're going to know what's up.

The best part is that the truth is actuall the winning message. The middle class is overburdened. They need a break. The super-rich and big coroporations are over-benefited. They need to pull their weight. When everyone's pulling their weight equally, we're going to pull the economy away from the cliff and we're going to climb that mountain.

[Hep]

63. Man

either it is perception (people will view deans policy as a tax increase) or it's beyoind it, in which case I think people are smart enough to believe that this tax cut money can be spent in places that benefit ALL of us, not just people who have kids and/or investments.

I think that you're right saying that the message is the truth. I just don't understand how that paragraph is in direct conflict with Dean's policies. And I know it isn't because you're being unclear or purely derogatory, rather it's my limited understanding of the overall subject. Any time you get frustrated and choose to stop trying to get it through to me is fine.

[AP]

Dean is saying that the middle class and the upper middle class are in the

same boat. He's not giving anything to one that he isn't giving to the other. That's his argument for not letting the middle class keep their Bush tax cuts, and he's not promissing them anything more once he takes those cuts. He just tells them they have to pull their weight, and we'll wait an see. (He actually promises "tax simplification" which is really code for taking away tax breaks, some of which are meant to create progressivity).

The fact is, when you look at the code, there's a huge difference between those two groups.

Look at Edwards and Kerry. They get it. Look at Lieberman. He even gets it.

Dean has a different idea.

[Hep]

67. The same boat?

All I want is the statement or the policy that indicates that.

I think Dean is offering EVERYONE something that some people DON'T NEED. And I think that makes some difference.

[AP]

79. Yep. Not advocating progressivity in the tax code, and, as he said in

Philly, because he thinks the middle/upper-middle class are all rich, they should get special treament.

The fact is the middle class (not upper, but just plain middle) nead special treatment. They need a tax break.

Read through Trippi's web site and find for me any indication that dean takes middle class tax burdens as seriously as Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman and Kucinich.

[w4rma]

42. If the middle class doesn't need to use as much money on health insurance

then wouldn't that serve as a targeted tax cut?

[Hep]

45. That's part of my question

If parents don't have to worry as much aboutsay health care or college tuition, then how does that play in?

[fujiyama]

109. Though I believe...

Dean's health care idea is intriguing and that universal health care, while it may be a laudable goal, is still a proposal, a theory, an abstract. It's not concrete. Most people don't pay a whole lot of attention to the specifics, but they know when they've saved a few dollars. I would also venture a guess that they would rather save those few dollars, than make a bet on some "health care proposal". Many people will also be reminded of the '92 health care fiasco, rightly or wrongly. I'm sure most also know that health care proposals are not a definite.

Perception is everything in politics. But in this case, the truth is also important. That's the main problem with Dean and Gephardt's respective tax policies. It's much easier to explain to people that by repealing certain tax cuts (like the estate tax and income tax cuts for those making the most), that we will be able to balance the budget, but allow them as working people to keep their money.

I myself believe that universal health care is a must for this nation. The current system is an absolute mess, but I don't see how Dean's entire (pecieved) economic policy of repeal tax cuts and use that money for health care and balancing budget, will sell with a people that are skeptical of "bigger" government (as the GOP will spin it).

The ads have already started appearing BTW paid for by some anti tax group, which claim that Dean will increase just about every tax in existance. Ultimately it comes down to 1984. While it may be appealing to many primary voters when he says "we can universal have health but not both", I really doubt this will sell to many. It didn't sell with Mondale. I don't see why it will now.

[AP]

60. Perhaps. I don't see it working that way. Dean is still asking people to

pay for their health care. It may be cheaper than the insurance many are getting now. It may be more than some are paying. If he's asking people to pay for health care out of a crappy, regressive tax code which skews benefits and burdens, the pubic health care costs will just be one more thing weighing on the overburdened middle class taxpayer. Look, even planatatios had health care. Even Tory britain had health care. Health care isn't some promised land. You still have to alocate the benefits and burdens of society fairly, or society sputters and comes to a stop.

[Hep]

66. Health care, baby!

Dean IS still asking people to pay for health care. But I think his underlying notion is that if you provide people with cheap ACCESS to health care, educational opportunities, and education, people will not only have more money in their pockets, but also better jobs which also lead to more money.

Also, I know that that part really applies to people 150% of poverty and below. He also as strategies for helping businesses PROVIDE health care to their employees through tax incentives. One problem we discussed in our meetup tonight is that small businesses can't afford to offer good benefits due to the horrifically rising costs in health care. There's no break in the bottom line for them. So by making it easier for companies to OFFER it, more WILL and therefore even more people will be covered.

And I think this has a shot. At the very least, it's a policy that the pharmaceutical industry, to medical profession, and the insurance indistry can go along with.

[sandnsea]

80. He's guaranteeing coverage

To every American. Not just cheap (by whose standards I don't know) access. And he isn't even covering everybody anyway.

If people actually read instead of relying on retail marketing strategies... *sigh* More McPresidents creating more Mcjobs for people whose kids go to Mcschools and won't ever get educated so they'll keep voting for McPresidents. Ain't America grand!

[AP]

81. If poor people are bearing to much of the tax burden for paying for health

care they're going to have to get pretty sick before they get their money's worth.

[Hep]

40. So, uh

You're defending Bush's tax cuts? PLEASE explain this to me. I mean, you're being nice, and I appreciate it, but this sounds exactly like the argument I would get from a Bush apologist.

[sandnsea]

62. Oh of course, that's it

Please explain how you come to the conclusion that I'm defending Bush's tax cuts, because I just don't understand the logic you're using.

[Hep]

69. You said

that going back to Clinton's policies (not counting the other policies Dean would put in place that didn't exist in 2000), which is effectively doing away with Bush's tax cuts, would be bad. Isn't that a defense of Bush's tax cuts?

[sandnsea]

74. Oh gosh, I forgot

I'm talking to a Deanie who can't use logic or reason or they'd choose a different candidate in the first place.

When you talk about budgets and lower paying jobs, most people can use their reason and conclude you're not talking about the wealthy. So when a person talks about tax cuts hurting people with lower paying jobs and budgets built around those tax cuts, they kind of figure you don't mean the wealthy and their tax cuts.

This is sick that you'd go this far, because I highly doubt you really think that I'm defending Bush's tax cuts.

[fujiyama]

110. I can't speak for everyone here..

but some of us that disagree with Dean's tax policy, were dead set against the Bush tax cuts.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that all tax cuts are bad.

A middle class tax cut was pushed by Gore...and is pushed by everyone except Dean and Gephardt. I believe that Lieberman's plan is even more radical for it actually raises the taxes on higher income people.

After all, I really wouldn't have cared if Dean wanted to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts, but also wanted a reduction in middle class taxes. However I haven't necessarily heard that. Either way, I think the tax code could be written with the middle class cuts in mind. We could even add to it...

[AP]

34. 2000 was better than 1992, but it wasn't ideal. Even Clinton would say so.

He wanted more progressivity. He couldn't get it from the Republicans who controlled congress from 94 on. Why does dean make a tax code that was partly the product of 6 years of Republican control of congress his ideal? Why?

And you do realize that the economy has changed in the last three years, right?

Just as you couldn't superimpose 1992 rates on 1997 or or 1995 on 2000 and expect them to make economic sense, you can't superimpose 2000 on 2005.

The tax code isn't a feeling or a theory. it's a set of numbers and formulas. You can't just apply the same numbers and formulas on a different economic reality and get the same results (ie, tax fairness/equalized burdens). Dean knows that.

What he's doing is making an argument that he knows will result in a tax code that would be LESS progressive than 2000, but he's couching it in terms that make it seem like he's giving you something that's better. Obviously when contrasted to the intervening Bush years, it would be better than that. But 2000 rates and forumlas in 2005 would result in a more regressive 2005(ie less tax fairness) relative to 2000.

Please tell me you understand this.

It's very obvious.

When I hear Dean talk about this issue, I think he must have incredible contempt for the intelligence of his audience.

Please. You do understand, don't you.

(I might have greater faith in the intelligence of the average American than Dean. Maybe I'm wrong to have that faith.)

[Hep]

43. I'm going to start quoting songs for my subject llines

He wanted more progressivity. He couldn't get it from the Republicans who controlled congress from 94 on. Why does dean make a tax code that was partly the product of 6 years of Republican control of congress his ideal? Why?

I don't think the tax code is his ideal. I think the general economic climate is his ideal. The tax code as it was in 2000 couldn't reflect his plans in other areas. He might be talking about tax rates in 2000, but he's throwing in health care for everyone, educational opportunities, strong homeland security, childcare opportunities, and job opportunities.

Just as you couldn't superimpose 1992 rates on 1997 or or 1995 on 2000 and expect them to make economic sense, you can't superimpose 2000 on 2005.

I kinda think you freebased a bunch of Dean's policies into this catchall description and came to the conclusion that this is his plan. I don't think he ever referred to it in terms that simplified.

What he's doing is making an argument that he knows will result in a tax code that would be LESS progressive than 2000, but he's couching it in terms that make it seem like he's giving you something that's better. Obviously when contrasted to the intervening Bush years, it would be better than that. But 2000 rates and forumlas in 2005 would result in a more regressive 2005(ie less tax fairness) relative to 2000.

Please tell me you understand this.

Honestly, I don't. I'm a relative newbie when it comes to tax code. I mean, I've done my own taxes, some years having to include like *4* different chedules and all sorts of other shit, but I don't understand what specifically makes a tax more or less progressive. I'm very sorry that I'm not on your level of understanding, but I'm TRYING.

[AP]

65. I wish I had a chalkboard.

You know that a dollar today buys less than a dollar did last year, and even less than 10 years ago, right?

Well the tax code takes into consideration the value of a dollar when it sets rates and brackets (and it takes into account the value of an additional dollar as you accumulate more and more dollars -- it decreases, the richer you are, so, to equalize the tax burden, you pay higher rates on an addtional dollars when you have a lot of them in your pocket already).

Well, Dean is saying, let's go back to the 2000 code (ie, rates and brackets) without acknowledging that a dollar isn't worth the same today. Furthermore, people have totally different scales of wealth. Things cost more, People have more debt. Salaries are different. And the ease of making more money when you have a certian amount of money is different now compared to 2000. The tax code should accomodate for all those changes.

Republicans want the brackets and rates to stay the same for as long as possible because they know they don't match reality the longer you hold on to them.

That's also Dean's argumetn.

[Hep]

70. No doubt!

You know that a dollar today buys less than a dollar did last year, and even less than 10 years ago, right?

I know that it depends on what I'm buying. If I'm buying gas, yes. But if I'm buying a TV, no, as I recently found out.

I'm getting your description, but where I'm still stuck is that my taxes really haven't changed dramatically since 2000. My combined househols income is just over $50,000 for my spouse and myself. I mean, a lot has changed, bought and sold a house, itemize, etc, but when it somes to the amount of money taken out of my check, it's not changed much at all. I can't even call it significant. That may be my problem. I might not be able to identify with people who see more cramatic change with the policies we're talking about. All I know is that I'm willing for MY tax rate to go to where it was four years ago if it means I MIGHT get a raise next year.

And of course, the republicans aren't offering health care and all that other stuff I keep talking about when they talk of keeping rates the same. I think that that is important to note.

[AP]

76. Anecdotes don't reveal national trends. The rich are getting richer.

And the tax code is shifting burdens (and it's not just Fed Inc -- it's ALL taxes). And taxes are getting shifted to the future too, thanks to all the borrowing.

No economy has ever been static. And no two moments or years aren't ever going to be identical, and 2000 and 2005 aren't going to be the first identical twin years.

[Blue_Roses]

96. well said

With the unemployment rate as high as it is and lower wage jobs, the average joe and jane sixpack want to hang on to as much money as they can. To tell them that they will lose all of their newfound money from this tax cut will only dig their hills in deeper to vote for Bush, not to mention the wealthy 1% who also will dig in deep with Dean's suggestion of repealing the entire tax cut.

Dean's plan is political suicide at this point in the game. He needs to take this whole plan off the table and rethink how this could be more beneficial, especially to those of us who work so very hard for that dollar.

[w4rma]

35. I reread what I posted twice, just now, to figure out what you refer to

Where in there does Hoover place emphasis on balancing budgets? It says that he supported tax cuts, not balanced budgets.

[AP]

47. Historical fact. Why do you think they were desperately raising taxes?

They were trying close a budget hole.

Hoover was obsessed with balancing budgets.

And he's proof of what happens when you don't take progressivity seriously. You destroy the middle and working class.

[Hep]

51. Clinton balanced budgets

and I think the country benefitted. Am I wrong? I mean, for most of Clinton's term, I was in college, so...

[AP]

68. Actaully that's not true. Clinton ran surpluses. Clinton's goal

was to grow the economy. Naturally, running surpluses was the consequence. But balancing the budget wsn't Clinton's holy grail. In fact, when they went into surplus, the first think Clinton said he WASN"T going to do was give the surplus back as a tax cut.

Not only has dean campaigned on the idea that he would give back surpluses as tax breaks, but he's actually done that as governor.

However, Howard will be lucky to run surpluses if his goal is a balanced budget. He'll have the same chance Hoover had of achieving surpluses. Ie, nil.

[w4rma]

58. Hoover's tax cuts, then stock market crash, THEN Hoover got desperate.

…
As Mellon surveyed his seven years in office, he must have been pleased. The income tax had grown more central to the federal revenue system; Prohibition had dried up alcohol excise revenue, making the income tax even more important than it had been at the end of World War I.57 But rates had declined dramatically since 1921. And while Mellon never succeeded in his quest to eliminate the estate tax, he did manage to keep its rates relatively modest. All in all, taxes were less burdensome for many Americans, particularly those in the upper strata of society. These were happy years for tax policymakers of both parties. They had the pleasant task of choosing among various tax cuts, their deliberations buoyed by a fat and happy Treasury. As Franklin Roosevelt later pointed out, "it was all very merry while it lasted." But in 1929, the party came to a crashing end.
…
http://taxhistory.tax.org/Articles/1920s.htm

[sandnsea]

64. Bush's tax cuts, bad economy, then Howard gets desperate

And zealously attempts to balance the budget by raising taxes at the worst possible time? Does that follow?

FDR actually won on a balanced budget platform. But when he got into office, he realized it wouldn't work; or never planned to do that anyway. Still, unless the economy changes dramatically between now and next year, raising taxes to balance the budget isn't what we need. And you can trust Howard to put in a fair tax system. I look to Vermont and a Republican Congress and highly doubt it.

[Hep]

71. Maybe I'm just a gin and tonic over the line, but

are you saying we need to keep Bush's tax cuts in place? Or are we just talking about raising taxes for SOME people?

[sandnsea]

75. I'll give you credit for some brains

gin and tonic or not, and figure you know exactly what I'm talking about.

[w4rma]

72. The truth comes out. You support Bush's wealthy tax cuts, sandnsea. (n/t)

[sandnsea]

78. Yeah, that's right

That's why I support any candidate who's going to repeal Bush's tax cuts and keep the tax cuts the Democrats fought for in the first place.

It's a given the tax cuts to the wealthy need to go. Who would think anybody on this board would have to define that. Desperation, real depseration. :eyes:

[w4rma]

56. duplicate post (n/t)

[Hep]

22. I would like to know for the record

who actually thinks that Dean wants to SCREW the middle class on taxes.

[AP]

86. Then he started into dealing with slaves

And something inside of him died.
She had to sell everything she owned
And froze up inside.
And when finally the bottom fell out I became withdrawn,
The only thing I knew how to do
Was to keep on keepin' on
Like a bird that flew
Tangled up in blue.

--

I think it's pretty clear that he want's to make the middle class pay for everything they get, and that he's even going to ask them to bear a burden out of proportion to the burden the upper middle class and the super rich will bear.

[Hep]

87. So the thinking is that

Dean has it in for the middle class. Where do you think this scorn comes from?

[AP]

89. It's the libertarian in Dean.

And it's not scorn. It's a political philosophy. Make people pay for the things you give them. Progressivity means that some at the bottom pay less than the value of the beneifts they recieve, and people at the top pay more. But progressivity is what ensures a fair society -- that people who beneift the most, pay in proportion to the benefits they receive, and that there is social mobility.

I think Dean is also running a campaign covertly aimed at keeping the rich from disliking him. It's his bargain with them. Let him criticize Bush on Iraq, but he's not going to upset the economic status quo (although the defecit spending will end).

[poskonig]

24. Translation: Dean's doing well, so

we'll repeat GOP talking points to make ourselves feel better.

I'd personally rather leave some of the tax cuts in place, but factually, the vast majority of people got peanuts for tax cuts. Polling data also shows people prefering increased government spending on health care to tax cuts consistently by 65%/25% margins. The political risk is minimal, since the Republicans will call the nominated Democrat a tax hiker in anycase.

[madfloridian]

54. My opinion is that we don't care.

We are considered middle class, our taxes are just about the same. In fact, they went up a little last year. Two sons are a little up the pay scale, but still middle class.....they don't get enough of a cut to matter. One son does see a huge tax break, but he is in a higher category.

He is also beginning to see that the cuts he gets may really be hurting others soon. He really does not care that much about them.

On the whole, I think Dean is right about it. Not all agree, though.

[democratreformed]

91. My biggest problem is that,

while Bush is "cutting" taxes, states and localities are raising them. I find it very hard to imagine state and local taxes going back down even if they do get more help from the feds. So, if all the tax cuts are repealed, we will have higher taxes across the board. Eventually, we will just be taxed to death.

[AP]

92. The key is progressivity.

state and local taxes should be progressive too.

And progressive federal taxation will actually result in a growing economy, which will increase tax revenues.

That's the lesson Hoover didn't learn, but that America did learn from 45-60.

[janx]

82. What middle class tax cuts?

Are you kidding?

A $340 dollar bribe?

[windansea]

84. dazed and confused

I can add subtract multiply and divide...but if I give my 'middle class" bush tax cut ($450) to Dean, how is he gonna pay my $350 per month health insurance bill?

[ozone_man]

90. The deficit will kill us.

The tax cuts AND deficit spending cannot both exist. That is obvious. I think Dean understands this as he does understand that the tax cut went to the rich and it did not trickle down.

As Robert Rubin points out in his new book, we didn't get much bang for the buck with Bush tax cuts. We should have spent money in creating jobs like infrastructure improvements, etc. where the money feeds directly back to the economy. I think some of that was from an NPR interview that I heard, but here is a USA write up.

War spending and tax cuts to the rich vastly increase our deficit, while returning nothing. Bush probably LIHOPed 911 anyway to get out of the fiscal hot water (my own conspiracy theory).

Anyway, my point is that I think Dean and others know that you can't keep deficit spending like a drunken sailor and that national debt will kill us for sure. If any deficit spending occurs, it can ONLY be for the creation of jobs, etc. that feed back into the economy (trickle up economics). I think we are looking at an FDR situation here. Bring back the CCC days maybe, but only as far as the deficit does not explode much more.

Stop the Iraq war and save countless Billions, not to mention lives. Dean has been against this from the beginning. It's going to take someone with alot of common sense to get us out of this mess, and so far, the only one I see is Dean (and Kucinich).

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/benson101403.html

(snip)

But even a robust and long-running recovery will not produce enough revenue to erase the $5 trillion deficit that forecasters, including the Congressional Budget Office, say will accumulate over the next 10 years under Bush's policies. On that rising sea of red ink, interest rates will float upward, retarding economic growth and pushing the nation toward the brink of bankruptcy, critics warn.

In the face of these harsh facts, even some Republicans are beginning to suggest that Bush must reverse course on tax cuts.

"The deficit is clearly out of control," said former Rep. William Frenzel, R-Minn., a Bush backer who served in the House for 20 years and led House Budget Committee Republicans.

(snip)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-17-rubinbook_x.htm

(snip)

Which brings Rubin back to President Bush's tax cuts and the current federal deficits. He argues in his book, as well as in a recent interview, that the rising deficits will eventually boost interest rates and hurt the economy.

"If you cut taxes enough, raise the deficit, you'll undermine the economy and put the government in a position where it can't do what it wants to do," Rubin said last week.

Critics dismiss this theory as "Rubinomics," but Rubin argues that experts in the field overwhelmingly back the theory.

Even Greenspan seems to support it. In a recent speech, he said the deficits will eventually force the government to make "difficult choices, and the future performance of the economy will depend on those choices."

(snip)

[AP]

93. That's why we need a strategy aimed at growing the economy, and not

balancing the budgets. Eliminating tax breaks only gets you half way to closing the budget gap.

Progressivity in the tax code could grow the economy. Again this is the lesson of Hoover and Clinton. Hoover had the defecit in his cross hairs, but wouldn't use progressivity to close it. He drove American into depression. Clinton had growing the economy in his crosshairs. Closing the defecit was a consequence of an economy that produced more wealth, and his 94 tax bill was designed to be more progressive (and not to close the defecite). Clinton redistributed the tax burden. It didn't result in greater revenues untill the economy grew, partly as a consequence. (The people who fueled the tech boom were the children of the people who got a tax break in 94, which allowed them to put their kids in good schools, buy computers, send them to good colleges, and give them a safety net if their crazy business plans failed.)

[ozone_man]

94. Well, according to the first link,

"But even a robust and long-running recovery will not produce enough revenue to erase the $5 trillion deficit that forecasters, including the Congressional Budget Office, say will accumulate over the next 10 years under Bush's policies. On that rising sea of red ink, interest rates will float upward, retarding economic growth and pushing the nation toward the brink of bankruptcy, critics warn."

It is a potentially a runaway condition. The deficit is out of control and it may be that no amount of sustainable growth will be able to stop it.

I believe in a progressive tax code also. Dean supports a progressive tax. This recent tax cut was for the rich and Dean is exposing that.

The Clinton era was a different economic cycle than the Hoover era. I tend to believe in cycle theories of capitalism; growth, accumulation of debt, purging of debt, new growth, etc. The Clinton era saw growth and the accumulation of debt. The growth is done, but the accumulation of debt is still increasing. It will now have to go through a purging or "Kondratieff Winter" part of the cycle, probably bottoming by 2010. We are in a decay period in more than just economic ways (social).

We are running parallel to 1930's, not 1992, so we can't just grow out of it like Clinton. There will have to be a purge part of the cycle. Look at the number of personal bankrupticies and foreclosures. They've been growing at an exponential rate in the last few years. We really are headed into another depression IMO. Everyone is maxed out with debt at this point. We have to purge the debt, it's not sustainable. New growth can not occur with this much debt.

What to do? Yes, Dean can't just balance the budget indiscriminately (like Hoover), risking a worse depression, but he must play a balancing act and prioritize jobs, health care, and education. We spent 100's of billions on Iraq war that could have been spent on these critical things, but certain senators voted for the IWR, preventing that. Dean was against it.

There may not be an easy way out of this mess, but my confidence is with Dean.

[AP]

95. I don' t think a person who calls "middle class tax breaks" "upper middle

class tax breaks" thinks about taxation the same way I do.

Growth comes with invesment, and the government will almost definitely have to run a defecit to leverage growth. Of course, it will be much less than the debt we're running now.

I don't think a governor willing to make cuts to socially valuable programs, guided by the north star of balanced budgets, is the kind of guy America's going to need in 2005.

Just the fact that he barely talks about taxes in a way that you can firmly wrap your mind around suggest a great deal to me, and it isn't good.

If you look in the archives here at DU, long before Dean's name was ever posted here I said the demcratic nominee is going to have a really good chat on taxes. Dean has almost no chat on taxes, and what he says I can't stand.

[frustrated_lefty]

97. I have a lot of trouble with this argument....

Ok, on one hand, you can have $400-$1,200 in tax cuts if you fall in the right middle class spectrum (we'll forget some middle class folks don't get a cut). You get your cut, but your family which may include military veterans, well, they lose their benefits, your elderly relatives lose benefits, and you, in the meantime, are paying exhorbitant state taxes because states HAVE to balance their budgets! Yay, the feds gave you a break and raped your state, so your state now has to rape you.

On the other hand, you can say I'll skip my tax breaks if everyone else does, we want our kids to have health care, an education, we want Medicare and Social Security. I'll contribute something to the preservation of the community because that community includes my kids and their kids on down the line.

Or, you could be totally whacked and say, hey, really rich people are the ONLY ones who should pay taxes. And you can then bitch about why they outsource jobs to India.

For this nation to work as a nation, we ALL have to be invested in its success. The success of this nation will be measured by our children, and we all have to desire for future generations to live within a better world.

I'll take the middle road. Screw tax cuts just for the less-wealthy. I'll pay taxes, even though we struggle. Just make sure every child who wants it has an education, make sure medical help is there for those who need it, and make sure the elders of our culture can spend their last days in the comfort of their homes and families.

[AP]

98. You can keep your benefit without having to milk middle class for tax rev.

Give the middle class their breaks, and promise to make up the difference through progressive sources.

Also, two of the tax breaks, everyone gets -- the 10% bottom rate, and the drop in one of the middle rates from 28 to 25. If you have low income, those breaks make a big difference. (If you're rich, you barely notice them.)

The break for people with kids is good, because people at the beginning of their careers, when they're earning the least have kids, and it's good to make having kids easier.

The marriage break I could do without. It has no relationship to wealth or age or anything, and helps a lot of people who don't need it (at least, kids are a good argument for a break). However, at least John Edwards says that that break woudn't go to people making over 200K, which is the right way to treat it -- ie, make it income sensitive.

Bottom line: just because Dean says that the middle class needs to be taxed so you can get those other things doesn't mean it's true.

[frustrated_lefty]

99. I agree with everything you say.

Maybe it's my upbringing, but I think we all need to feel invested within this economy to make it work. I think attempts to place taxes MORE heavily on the highest earners is detrimental to the perception we're all in this together. And we all need to be in this together! That's an inherent flaw in capitalism, if you earn your wages, you feel entitled.

Why shouldn't they move to Bermuda?

I am happy to stretch budgets, make ends meet, as long as certain social needs are met and I hope my neighbors feel similarly. The travesty of the Bush administration is that it destroys communities, people that live with and care about each other. It feeds industries and policies which consume communities.

Higher taxes on the wealthy is not the answer. Balanced taxes are good. Social programs which benefit all are awesome. We need to re-invigorate the notion of community, we need to lose resentment at paying bills to keep our kids smart and safe.

The problem is, we can't do that with shrub, we can't do that blowing 87 billion overseas, we can't so that through wars that kill or wound 12,000 Americans. We actually have to be determined to build a better America, and I think targetting any segment of society (rich or poor) to pay the wages will only hurt us.

[Navy Deep Sea LT]

100. You trust them????

You actually trust someone else (the Government) with your kid's education, social welfare, and health care??? Look at what they do with our money!!!!

[frustrated_lefty]

102. I trust the people of America,

I do not trust the America of George W. Bush. This is what I am invested in, the America I grew up in. This is my country, the country of my family. So I can fix this, or I can move. I would prefer my kids learn democratic ideals in the US of A, but, if that opportunity is not there, we will move. Fortunately, we have the choice. We're lucky that way because of policies developed by FDR of all people. Imagine, a president wanted a people proud to be within America, proud to make America. And now we have this pitiful excuse. My kids are not growing up in Bush's America. Tax me to death, make the world better, I'm happy, but be damned if my kids will suffer an extra momnent in the tyrannical reign of this man. These criminals make a farce of our Constitution.

[Navy Deep Sea LT]

105. "The people" don't run america...

The government runs america.

According to our constitution the government represents the people. But how many people in the government are elected? How many are appointed by the elected? Not many. The majority of government functions are not chosen "by the people" or even their representatives. How many laws and relagulations are actually passed by our representatives? A miniscule portion. So you are trusting that your children will be receive education, health care, and social welfare from people whom you have never met and over whom you have no power. Your gamble.

[AP]

111. Nobody wants to squeeze rich until they squeak. However, middle class HAS

been squeezed and they are squeaking, We have to equalize the tax burden, and that means we have to lower taxes on the lower and middle quintiles and we're going to have come up with a little more progressivity and , because there's so much variation in wealth in the top quintile, we might have to break that top quintile into more brackets. and have more progressivity within that bracket.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

101. LOTS of BULLSHIT Flowing Here

Repealing all of Bush's tax cuts means a raise in taxes on the middle class. Period. It's indisputable math.

The counter-argument that repealing Bush's tax cuts would mean more SERVICES to the middle class is applicable ONLY if the increase in revenue to the government is not frittered away on increases in spending (or failure to decrease spending), as well.

Clark proposes keeping the middle class tax cut and lowering defense spending. In contrast, Dean proposes repealing the middle class tax cut and maintaining defense spending at current levels.

Clark's plan is more progressive, in that middle class folks pay less in taxes, proportionally, while rich folks pay more. He makes up for it by cutting military spending.

The Clark and Dean plans would result in similar benefits to the poor and middle class. But the middle class would pay more in taxes under Dean's plan, to the benefit of the military.

I prefer Clark's plan. It's definitely the more "liberal" plan.

DTH

[frustrated_lefty]

103. Repeal all of the tax cuts..

Do you think the people in Alabama or California are smiling more now with their tax burdens?

The Bush administration is pursuing a universal plan where they dispense with federal obligations and pass those duties on to states. Effectively, they're saying, we aren't paying but you have to. You have to balance budgets, but we don't have to. Dude, the federal government is raping us, there is no other term I know of.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

104. Soak the RICH, Not the Middle Class

Did you even read what I wrote?

You don't HAVE to repeal all of the tax cuts, specifically the tax cuts on the middle class AND the poor, if you cut spending elsewhere or increase even further taxes on the rich.

I would much prefer taxing the rich even more than they were before the Bush tax cuts. Failing that, I would rather cut defense spending and keep the poor and middle class tax cuts.

Everything else is sophistry. It's not necessary to repeal ALL of the tax cuts if you do it right.

I would appreciate even ONE intellectually honest Dean supporter to admit the (obvious) truth of what I'm saying.

DTH

[frustrated_lefty]

106. Yes, I actually read and thought about it.

I'll ignore you call me a Dean supporter, even though I haven't mentioned him in this thread.

What I have tried to stress over and over is WE ALL NEED TO FEEL INVESTED IN THIS COUNTRY. It's OURS. YOURS, MINE, HIS and HERS. It's OURS.

Maybe this will make more sense. I am saying this as a father, thinking about my relation with my wife and my children. It's not my relation, nor hers, nor theirs. It's OURS. And this is not a failing relation, we seem to be doing well. It's OUR relation and we're building it.

Perhaps I extrapolate too far. I think of a nation as a family. The nation is OURS. And that mean rich people and poor people and middling people along the way. For this nation to survive, all of these people have to have a reason to want it to be so. If you throw taxes on the top 5%, why should they play? They can find jobs elsewhere. We don't have leverage. They really can do what they want. What holds this nation up, in my opinion, is the true and genuine thought of good and honest men and women want a better world. We should, I think, help in that pursuit.

And if you try to cast this aside as the dishonesty of a Dean-supporter, I will really be disgusted. I am challenging you, let's make our world better.

[Navy Deep Sea LT]

107. Makes USA great

I think what makes america great is when I work my ass off and get what I deserve/want/desire. And then looking around me and seeing my neighbors and friends work their asses off and getting what they deserve/want/desire. Then we all party together and buy each other cool stuff for Christmas and birthdays and valentine's day and sit together in amazement at how well we all know what makes each other tick.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

108. The Poor and Middle Class Are ALREADY Invested in This Country

They ALREADY have a tough enough time, dealing with corporate greed and the increasing hostility towards workers and a government by and for the rich.

The rich are not taxed NEARLY enough in this country. I say this as someone who stands to lose quite a bit more than some, if what I advocate comes to pass. There is plenty of room for the rich to be taxed without them fleeing to other countries.

It doesn't look like any Democrat has the guts to truly tax the rich at the levels they should. But some Democrats have the guts to cut military spending and use that money to pay for programs.

THAT is the sensible, LIBERAL alternative to raising taxes on the poor and middle class.

And I am still waiting for one intellectually honest Dean supporter -- whether that's you or anyone else -- to admit the truth of my words.

DTH