Does Dean Really Want to Reverse all the 2001-2003 Tax Cuts?

[valniel]

including some helping the most needy, like (there might be many more):
raising the lowest tax bracket for low income earners back to where it was before;
scale back the tax credit for children to its earlier level;
eliminate the tax-credit for education; and
reinstate the marriage penalty tax.

These tax reductions are mostly targeted toward the lower income taxpayers, and were not the big budget items. To me, they are all worth keeping, or at least worthy of a debate before stating that they should be eliminated

[Egnever]

1. Yes

He wants to repeal all of the bush tax cuts.

And if I am not mistaken all of the cuts you talk about expire in 05 anyway.

[caledesi]

2. Yes, he does and with good reason.

Because the tax cuts have been a f*cking shell game. Give people $1000 and meanwhile their property taxes go up and tuition for school goes up.

Dean's stance is this: Would you rather have a tax cut, or guaranteed health insurance? Any sane American would want the latter.

[valniel]

10. No, Dean flipped again!

The Wall Street Journal's Jackie Calmes reports that Dean "plans a 'tax reform' plan preserving middle-class taxes at current levels. That's a switch from his call to repeal all Bush tax cuts and fund health care.

[sandnsea]

11. Oh no! Don't go there!

He's been waffling on this for at least a year. There's interviews and quotes. No matter. He's either evolved or it just isn't true. Run! Spare yourself the agony!

[dsc]

15. and we know the press always tells the truth

about politicians since they told the truth about Gore, Clinton, and Bush. Right?

[janx]

26. Was Jackie's piece, by any chance, on the EDITORIAL page?

?

[AP]

20. Presumably, when Kerry says he wants to keep middle class breaks

he means that he wants to renew them when they expire, He's making a general statement that he believes in making the tax code more progressive, and a specific statement about the existing tax breaks.

[gmoney]

3. He'll do the right thing.

He might have to repeal the bad tax cuts in their entirety, then do a new tax bill cutting taxes that need cutting.

Of course the republicans will howl like banshees the second a penny in new taxes are proposed. "Oh Jebus, it's the end of the world... communists will be raping our wives and daughters at sun-up... tax-and-spend democrats have driven up the deficit to over $400 Trillion!"

[sfwriter]

4. Yup... You do know...

That they aren't permanent anyway, right? They are a backward form of "stimulus" that results in a massive drain on the economy as most of the benefit goes to a class of people who will invest it in Indian call centers and the like.

You'll do better without the $1000 and a job in two years.

-Sandy

[w4rma]

5. Yup, and use the money saved on health insurance for the uninsured

Which will obviously give more money to the middle and lower classes than Bush's top-heavy tax cuts.

[ModerateMiddle]

6. Yes, he does

because he considers a balanced budget the epitome of economic policy. See his record in Vermont.

[dsc]

16. I don't know about you

but when Clinton was in charge, and was balancing budgets I made around 35k a year and now with the profligate son in charge I am making 19k but I did get a $300 check so I should be estatic. Right?

[AP]

21. Have you read The Clinton Wars?

There's a whole section on what Clinton wanted to do with the surplus. They ruled out giving it back as tax cuts right off the bat as being too conservative. Dean is on record as saying he'll give it back as tax cuts.

So if you were doing so well under Clinton becaue of his economic policies, you might want to think twice about whether Dean's your candidate.

[dsc]

31. are you nuts?

Where is Dean on record discussing surplusses? There are no surplusses. Now I honestly have heard it all.

[AP]

43. Dean is on record as saying gov't shouldn't run surpluses or defecits

The balanced budget is the thing for Dean. If you go over, give it back in tax cuts, if you go under, increase tax revenues or cut programs, or both.

The balanced budget was the consequence for Clinton. Clinton created a competitive economy so that they US could have a balanced budget, which then created a better economy. He didn't balance the budget so that the US could have a competitive economy without regard for whether the policies were helping the economy.

According to anothe poster here, Hoover's thing was the balanced budget too. He kept raising taxes (regressively, I'm going to guess) withou regard for whether he was actually doing things with the money that helped the economy.

I'm not saying that Dean doesn't have plans to help the economy (if he does, I'm not up to speed on what they are). I'm just saying that if your soul mantra is that balanced budgets will cure all, you just might paint yourself into a corner which makes things worse. An economic plan which results in growth (with the goal of paying down the debt through economic growth and increased revenues) is the way to win Democratic votes.

[ModerateMiddle]

24. Clinton did way more than

"balance budgets" and he didn't do it immediately, either. It was ONE of the goals his economic policy shot for, but not the penultimate that Dean makes it out to be. Economic policy at the federal level is quite complex. Reducing it all to "balancing the budget equates economic prosperity" is quite simplistic.

Ask those who felt the pain of Herbert Hoover's insistence on balancing the budget at all costs.

[dsc]

35. Oh please

If you think Dean means that he will balance the budget the first year he is there then you are just plain silly. If you don't and you posted that claptrap then you are dishonest. But, like it or not, the next President had better have a blueprint for a balanced budget or mortgages will go up to 80's levels. The have gone up 1.5% in just six weeks.

[burr]

7. The point of repealing the tax cuts is to eliminate mistakes of shrub.

Any actions that may be forced due to increased deficits, such as reducing necessary spending programs or heartless adjustments made to Social Security to keep it solvent, would be made unlikely by immediately moving to correct these lasting destructive actions made by the neo-cons. Secondly it would be impossibly to increase federal funding for education and to fund a universal healthcare program, without repealing all of these taxcuts. What Dean, Gephardt, and Kerry do not mention is that in addition to these actions, the cigarette and alcohol taxes would need to be increased to prevent these proposals from increasing the National Debt. Finally only Kucinich talks about the cuts in military spending, which would be necessary to reduce deficit spending. But without repealing shrub's taxcuts how could he hope to lower the retirement age to 65, completely fund the No Child Left Behind Act, while creating a new WPA to create jobs in America.

These things would mean more to working families and to our children, than shifting our presently increasing tax burden to the future. They will also be better helped when they can receive healthcare that will not bankrupt them, and an education policy that will produce a growing, high income job market for future generations. This security means much more than child tax credits or continuing shrub's tax cuts. And now shrub is pushing to dump parts of the earned income tax credit, but I suppose you consider this a welfare program!

[DJcairo]

8. Yes he does and it would inflict pain on the middle class.

Dems fought to include substantial tax cuts for the poor and middle class and Dean proposes to get rid of those. This is not a good solution as it would suddenly inflict a much greater tax burden on the middle class at a time of economic uncertainty. In addition, Dean's proposal would provide fuel to Republicans who contend he is a tax and spend liberal.

In contract, Kerry's plan would raise rates for only the top two income brackets and would keep taxes low on the middle class and the child care credit and would not put back the marriage penalty. Thsi follow Clinton's model of raising rates at the top to pay for things all Americans benefit from. In light of the recent Bush cuts, the rich are saving money they don't need and it is inflicting damage on the social services provided by the dfederal and state government as they try to make up for the shortfall in revenue.

[burr]

9. Only 6 or 9 DINOs voted for shrub's tax cuts in the Senate...

and fewer than this percent supported them in the House, mainly because the tyrannical GOP leaders did not allow Democrats to introduce amendments or changes to the legislation.

[dsc]

17. I lost over 16k thanks to these tax cuts

Thanks Kerry I really liked that. I'll take the Clinton taxes and the income I had under him thank you anyway.

[stickdog]

18. Oh, my Lord!

Dems fought to include a middle class bribe in Bush's huge treasury giveaway for the rich?

Well, here's a giant no prize for them!

[sandnsea]

22. I guess they don't pay attention

Don't know what Democrats have been doing for them, but bitch to high heaven about those spineless DINOs. :eyes:

[MercutioATC]

23. "substantial tax cuts for the poor and middle class"? What planet

are YOU living on? The working poor got little if any relief. Most middle class families got a pittance. The only people who got "substantial" cuts were the wealthy (upper 5% or so) who will, most likely, not even spend the money locally because of the lousy economy.

Ask the "poor" (let's say those making $25k per year or less) whether they'd rather get free health care or the Bush tax cuts. I'm betting on the health care, because Bush didn't GIVE them any tax cuts.

If you're really concerned about the poor, you'll support programs that help them, not those that ignore them.

[sandnsea]

25. FREE health care?

Only people on Medicaid will continue to get free health care. For a family of 4, that's more around the $15,000 range. In Vermont, everybody else has some sort of contribution to make, small and affordable, but something. I think there are co-pays as well.

And with Kerry, the choice isn't health care or tax cuts. He's offering both. The reason is he's been in the Senate long enough to know exactly where the pork is and can make some real progress in getting it out of the budget. And, with Kerry's plan everybody benefits because his plan addresses costs much more than Deans which drives everybody's premiums down.

[MercutioATC]

27. Ok, I'll amend to "low-cost" health care...

...health care that becomes free (and stays in force) even if you lose your job. My point was that it's worth one hell of a lot more to the poor than the tax cuts they never saw.

Kerry does have some good ideas too. That's not what I was responding to. I do, however, fail to see how he'll "make some real progress in getting out of the budget". He's been a Senator for quite a while and there's still plenty of unnecesary spending. Why will he suddenly become successful?

[sandnsea]

28. A President has more influence

That's why. And 18 years of seeing this stuff go in, getting it out, only to see it go back in again. He knows where it is and can use the Presidential 'bully pulpit' to bring every piece of it to the attention of Americans.

And people did see some tax cuts and the ones Kerry is talking about keeping amount to something like $15 billion of the annual budget, if I recall correctly. Corporate welfare is something like $150 billion. Not only do these corporations get massive tax breaks and incentives, but alot of them owe their business to government contracts in the first place. If we didn't have this terrorism mess right now, I'd probably be supporting Edwards because I actually believe he has been the strongest against corporations. But that's not the case today, so we'll have to see how the next few months unfold.

[MercutioATC]

29. I'm related to some statistically "poor" people, and they got nothing.

This tax cut gave a pittance to anybody but the wealthy (well, the upper-middle class saved a few bucks, too). Forget the press for a moment. Do YOU know anybody who doesn't make a decent living that saw an appreciable benefit form the cuts? Do you know anybody that needs affordable health insurance but makes just too much to qualify for Medicaid and is left without ANY affordable option?

I'l' grant that the Predident has a higher profile than a Senator, but I haven't seen ANY Senator really working to "bring every piece of it to the attention of Americans". A Senator does have the power to do that...

Again, I'm not a "corporations are evil" person, so we very well may not see eye to eye on many issues. I'm all for legislation which creates a level legal playing field, but I'm also all for modernization and the productivity gains it brings.

[sandnsea]

36. That's the point

The amount we get back from these tax cuts won't help the budget as much as keeping the money in the economy will.

And I'm one of those people who doesn't qualify for Medicaid and has NO health care at all and live in the state of Oregon with the wonderful 'Oregon Health Plan' which is alot like Dean's and is as broken as Vermont's will be in a couple of years.

And if you don't think multinational corporations are evil, well, I heard it said somewhere, you're just not paying attention.

[burr]

37. What money in the economy???

You must be seeing things...

Shrub's policies have only taken jobs and money out of the economy thanks to his discretionary and healthcare spending cuts.

[sandnsea]

38. It's what Democrats supported

Through every tax cut debate, every Democrat or Democratic politician I heard supported tax cuts for low-income and the middle class. If we wanted to boost the economy, that was the way. Give the money to the people who will spend it.

Suddenly, everyone forgets.

[MercutioATC]

39. Thanks for the prediction, oracle, but Vermont is one of the few states

that's doing fine.

I don't understand two things:

1) "The amount we get back from these tax cuts won't help the budget as much as keeping the money in the economy will." WTF does this mean? It seems to support my statement that the cuts could be easily forgone in lieu of health care benefits. I take it you meant it differently. How?

2) How, exactly, are all multinational corporations "evil"?


I eagerly await your response...

[sandnsea]

40. Well, read more I guess

1) The 2003 Vermont State of the Budget. Numerous news articles that clearly state Howard Dean has been well aware of deficits in budget and serious deficits in the medical program. Google them up, it's not that hard.

2) I put this together in a letter to my Congressmen about the war, it's just the teensiest fraction of what corporations get away with all the time, only to turn right around and be rewarded billions of more dollars:

War Profiteering - lack of a bidding process, reputability of contract awards in light of claim of need for security clearances, principals' ties to Bush Administration, represent nearly $2 billion in Republican party donations 1999 - 2000, many are among corporations that have moved offshore to avoid taxes,

i) Bechtel – International contractor
(1) George Schultz, Board of Directors
(2) USAID oversight by Andrew Natsios, formerly oversight of Boston Big Dig hwy prjt
(3) Riley Bechtel, Export Council, trade policy advisors
(4) Ross Connelly, former exec, named COO Overseas Private Investment Corp., supports US global investments
(5) Over billing, mismanagement, $49 million San Francisco project, later cancelled
(6) Bolivia water privatization, 300% rate increases, taken back by community
(7) The Big Dig - $10 billion over runs
(8) 720 spills recorded by the EPA between 1990 – 1997
(9) 3 Mile Island cleanup – workers’ safety violations, fined by Nuclear Reg. Comm.

ii) Halliburton, KBR, Boots & Coots, Wild Well
(1) $80 million to $7 billion
(2) Over billing Kosovo contract
(3) 2002 Fined $2 million, Pentagon IG
(4) SEC Investigations inflated revenues
(5) Off shore subsidiary moves, avoiding $200 million taxes (under VP Cheney)

iii) Fluor Corporation
(1) All donations to Republican Party
(2) Fluor Corp., Martin County Coal subject fined nine times, dam collapsed creating “one of the worst-ever environmental disasters” in the Southeast, according to an EPA official.
(3) Subject of "a multibillion dollar lawsuit claiming that it exploited and brutalized black workers in apartheid-era South Africa” filed by the NGO Khulumani Support Group on Nov 18, 2002. Part of the claim includes accusations that "Fluor hired security guards dressed in Ku Klux Klan robes to attack unarmed workers protesting against poor pay and conditions."
(4) Listed as a major U.S. labor law violator in GAO Worker Protection Report to the Honorable Paul Simon, Oct 1995
(5) Fined $3,200,000 for padding Hurricane Andrew repair bills, Docket #91-CV-704, US DC SC, one of 19 incidents resulting in $70 million in fines/penalties, restitution, settlements. Project on Government Oversight

iv) Raytheon
(1) SEC Sanctions 2002, current SEC accounting probe
(2) Gulf War, 1991, Patriot Missile misrepresentations to Congress; House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security
(3) October 14, 1993, Raytheon paid $3.7 million to settle allegations that it misled the Defense Department by overstating the labor costs involved in manufacturing Patriot missiles
(4) Listed as a top six Government Contract Recipient and consistent U.S. labor law violator in GAO Worker Protection Report to the Honourable Paul Simon, Oct 1995
(5) Settlement of $86,000,000 for dumping alleged toxic substances in the Tucson water supply, one of 24 incidents resulting in $128.7 million in fines/penalties, restitution, settlements. Project on Government Oversight

[MercutioATC]

41. I see, so ALL corporations are bad because of the abuses of a few?

I'll wholeheartedly agree that there have been corporations that have abused the system. To expand on this to claim that all corporations are evil, devious entities seems a little "tinfoil-hat" to me, though. There's nothing about a corporation that makes it inherently evil just as there's nothing about a mom-and-pop operation that makes it inherently good. Both have their places.

[sandnsea]

44. Okay sure

It's just that every major corporation that's investigated always comes up with the same kinds of illegal or unethical actions. But maybe it's just a coincidence. And it's a coincidence that every corporation that I looked into who got Iraq contracts just happened to have illegal actions against them. I mean, I do have to work. I can't spend all my time investigating everything every one of them has done.

[molly]

12. That's what he said - or wait - did he change his mind again?

[valniel]

32. Given time, he will come full circle.

I guess that is a good thing. With time his campaign will learn to think through their various proposals!

[dorktv]

13. I think he does...And I hope he does...I liked getting my

annual fat check from the Gov.

[poskonig]

14. We're 87 billion in the hole in Iraq right now.

The American people understand this.

[stickdog]

19. Sounds good.

Do we have the money for this?

Or are we just gonna be like Bush and not worry about trivialities like that?

[Mass_Liberal]

30. In return they will get free healthcare

healthcare costs a hell of lot more than $100.


I call that a could deal.


Peace

[burr]

34. Who will get free healthcare???

In return for what??? :shrug:

[MercutioATC]

42. The poor will get free and/or low-cost health care.

And the middle class will have the option to buy into a program that does not deny treatment based on pre-existing conditions. Both are pretty important to people who can't afford health care.

[burr]

33. Dean clearly hasn't taken a different position in the last two debates...

Dean has been enthusiastic in presenting this choice of a balanced budget and universal health insurance over shrub's sorry tax cuts to the voters. I have yet to see any article or independent news source spell out that Dean is backing away from this position.

In light of the fact that troops in Iraq require additional funding, and that social services are now being slashed...the last thing middle and working class families need are higher deficits and future tax increases. What makes the difference is fiscal responsibility, a dependable healthcare safety net, and electing the President for a change. Otherwise who cares?

I don't.