question for kerry fans.-didn't kerry vote against both bush tax cuts

[virtualobserver]

in the Senate.

[ModerateMiddle]

1. Yes

What Dean has alleged about the Dem Senators is that because they voted to with the moderate Republicans to limit any potential tax cut to 1/2 of what Bush wanted - $350bn instead of $700bn over ten years - that they voted FOR the President's tax cuts.

It's a mischaracterization of their positions.

[virtualobserver]

2. but did Kerry vote for or against the $350 billion version?

n/t

[sfecap]

3. Against.

n/t

[Cha]

4. Well that's good!

[virtualobserver]

so then the tax rate that would exist now

if Kerry's two NO votes had been on the winning side would be the exact same rate that Dean's "repeal" would leave us.

So Kerry's MTP criticism of Dean's "raising taxes" was criticizing Dean for raising taxes to the level that they would already be if Kerry's NO votes had been sustained.

Plus, Kerry criticized Bush's tax cut as "irresponsible", and now he criticizes Dean for eliminating it.

Apparently it isn't higher or lower taxes that Kerry is against, merely change.

[Cha]

8. Oh , I get what you are saying! which is not easy with

everything flying around here!

[ModerateMiddle]

10. Mischaracterization

We are talking about the second tax cut now (700 v. 350). Dems were in favor of targetted tax cuts, so if there had been a democratic majority or a democratic president, there would be tax cuts in effect right now to stimulate the economy.

[virtualobserver]

13. and if there had been a democratic majority or a democratic president

then Dean wouldn't need to repeal the President's tax cut either.

But the fact remains, by voting against both tax cuts, Kerry voted for keeping the tax rate at the exact level that Dean would raise it to.

[ModerateMiddle]

19. I don't understand your logic

You are acting as if those were the only two options.

[virtualobserver]

21. I'm not saying that....

It's just that The intentions of the candidates are nothing more than intentions.

If Kerry was allowed to pass exactly what he wanted, he would have done something far superior to anything that was actually voted on.

And any repeal of the tax cut by Dean would not be an exact repeal of the Bush tax cuts. It would be a shaped piece of legislation just like any other and it would be unique.

It would not contain a massive tax hike for families making $40,000.

[ModerateMiddle]

23. And yet, if he repeals the tax cut

as he has said that he would, and criticized John Kerry who said he would not, it would indeed result in a significant tax increase for many middle class families - which could be disasterous. Remember, these middle class families, many of which live paycheck to paycheck, will have had a full two years worth of the tax cuts prior to a new President taking over and implementing a new plan. It will not be seen as a "repeal of tax cuts". It will be perceived and felt, as a tax increase.

Fiscal sanity does not require that we force our federal budget to be in balance immediately. Efforts to do so could very well be devastating.

[virtualobserver]

26. if the information is properly presented , the people will see it for ...

what it is. I happen to be in the income bracket that we are discussing. The tax cuts were barely noticeable. Interest rates, fuel prices, and insurance costs have a far greater impact.

We have a gigantic national debt, and as the yearly deficit grows, rising interest on that total debt is the true danger.

Every percentage point in interest paid costs an extra $60 billion a year and if that rises significantly our economy could go into a death spiral.

[AP]

31. Every little bit helps when you're in the middle class.

And making the income tax structure more productive (by taking weight off middle class) will do more than you think to reduce the defecit.

In fact, lack of progressivity is one of the reasons were so fucked in America.

[virtualobserver]

33. controlling interest rates is the most important thing.......

but most people would trade that tax cut for health insurance for their kids.

Kerry and Dean have different approaches. I just agree with Dean's.

[ModerateMiddle]

34. Might I humbly suggest

that you take a look at some of the historical data, say 1930, 1931, and what was going on in the economy? Read about Hoover's near obsession with the federal debt, interest and balanced budgets.

Here's one place to scan:

http://www.geocities.com/mb_williams/hooverpapers/budget.html

[virtualobserver]

35. Hoover wanted to cut spending.......

Dean is proposing restoring the tax revenue.


Bush's policies are like Hoover's.

[ModerateMiddle]

36. Hoover wanted increased revenues

and kept proposing tax increases (along with spending cuts) because the previous increases hadn't done enough.

[virtualobserver]

37. dean wants to increase spending on infrastructure.......

which will create jobs and stimulate the economy.

[AP]

40. Hoover REGRESSIVELY taxed Americans. Why don't the Dean people acknowledge

that the issue is progressivity vs regressivity in the tax code.

A progressive tax code which, in the current atmosphere, means lowering taxes on the overburdened middle class, will do more to improve the economy and therefore increase tax revenues and lower the defecit than what Dean proposes. (And note there's some similarity between this and the allegations about Deans approach to taxes in VT -- cutting taxes accross the board rather than advocating for a more progressive tax cut allocation).

I don't know my Hoover all that well, but I'm pretty sure that he was very business friendly. I wouldn't be surprised if he raised taxes regressively -- in a way that burdened the middle class much more than they burdened big business. And FDR's New Deal was the opposite -- it was progressive in the sense that it spread wealth among the middle and working class in every way possible, from taxes to programs which gave money straight to the middle class.

Hoover raised tax revenues perhaps. But the economy doesn't rise and fall on how much tax revenue is raised so much as HOW the tax revenue is raised. If it's raised in a way that burdends the middle class way more than the rich, forget about it. The economy will never recover.

[virtualobserver]

43. Dean' Aug 22 statement- in the Wall Street Journal

No program for economic recovery and growth can ignore the tax system, particularly the bizarre collection of tax expenditures, preferences, credits and deductions which has directed revenues away from the federal treasury and into uneconomic tax avoidance schemes. Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet -- not those whose needs are well provided for

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_economy_wsj_oped_we_can_do_better

I guess Kerry didn't read this before he went on Meet the Press.

[AP]

44. So easy to say, so hard to do?

Why can't he agree with Kerry's strategy for taking Bush's regressive tax cuts and making them progressive by revoking everything but the middle class breaks? Why in VT didn't he argue for a progressive reduction in the tax rates (instead, he gave everyone the same reduction accross the board)?

Also, I have to say that I don't like the characterization that the tax code is a complicated mess with bizarre credits and deductions.

I'm still not sure what Dean REALLY things of tax burdens and progressivity (although, the clues are suggesting something that isn't good, and the Dean Defense League clearly doesn't really get progressivity in the tax code). However, I do know that the "complexity" argument about the tax code is usually the argument that leads closer to simplified flatter regressive tax codes. My opinion is that credits and deductions, when the tax code is controlled by liberals, are a great way to promote great outcomes for the middle class (remember Clinton's tax credits for educatin, and Edwards proposes credits for working families to make having children less of a burden). Get the picture?

[virtualobserver]

47. the picture that I get is that Kerry's attack on Dean was bogus...

on Meet the Press.

Your psychic impressions of Dean's positions are not relevant in this discussion.

[AP]

49. Strangely familiar ring to that post. "Who cares what you think"

Now, where have I heard that before.

Look. Unburdening the middle and working class is just about the most important issue for me. Clearly burdening those same people is Bush's raison d'etre.

I think candidates will line up along this axis: either they think business has the answers, and therefor, business needs to be undburdened, or they remember Keynes, and FDR, and Kennedy and Clinton and want to help the middle and working class.

If the candidates aren't going to come out and tell me how far they want to tip the balance in favor of small business and the middle/working class or big business and wealthy individuals, I'll have to read the tea leaves instead.

[virtualobserver]

51. I'm not saying that your thoughts are unimportant

Just that they couldn't be used as evidence of Dean's position.

[ModerateMiddle]

58. I dare say that

the picture you got was one you were predisposed to "get". You'd already made up your mind about Kerry and were specifically looking for things that you could criticize.

Why didn't Kerry "read" Dean's op-ed piece? Perhaps he had. But the man Dean has been VERY clear about repealing ALL of the Bush tax cuts if he were elected President. An op-ed with nice sounding words doesn't undo that.

[virtualobserver]

61. if you can't accept Dean's stated positions as his positions

I don't know how we can even have a conversation.


I'm sorry that the facts don't match your viewpoint.

[ModerateMiddle]

72. Source: Deanforamerica.com

My economic policies for America are based on four fundamentals:

• 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.
  
• Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget, recognizing that we cannot have social or economic justice without a sound fiscal foundation.
  
• Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation.
  
• Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees.

You said, "if you can't accept Dean's stated positions as his positions"

Where else might I find Dean's positions OTHER than his official website?

[virtualobserver]

78. yes and it also says on the same site that he also intends

to revise the tax code for fairness for the middle class in addition to repealing the bush tax cuts. I posted the link for the tax code revision and now you have reprinted the tax cut repeal. So we can state absolutely that they are both his stated positions. .

It is possible to cancel the tax cuts and then revise the tax code. You do realize that, don't you? Do I have to walk you through it step by step?

Even in your reprint step 1 is "Repeal the Bush tax cuts" and step 3 is "Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation"

they are separate steps

Dean simply gave more detail about the benefits to the middle class in his WSJ article.

I would not have to explain it to you if you were not hell bent on proving that Kerry's criticism on Meet the Press was correct.

[Nicholas_J]

54. So was my girlfriend in that bracket

And she went nuts for a month trying to figure all where all of the extra money was coming from in her paycheck, it was not massive, but enough to make a differnce for her in not having to scrimp and save on stuff. She called payroll and asked where it came from and they said, the tax cuts, The 2001 cuts were significant enough for her on that low salary to at least start not having to budget anything like as much and to always have extra to do little things she wanted to do.. so it is correct. If you noticed the gain, you will notice the loss.

P.S>

You are making a very, very incautious assumption here...That repealing the taxes will cause businesses and the local governomtes to LOWER your increases.

THAT RARELY if ever happens, and even with the increases in taxes, not every state and localoty will repeal their increases, which will require month upon month, even year long discussions in local governments. Epsecially since the states are in deepdeficits. If the federal goverment starts sending more moey to the states, they will still have to keep taxes high in order to try to pay off their deficits.

NO matter what. If the Bush taxes on the middle class are repealed, the states will not all meet the same day and then say, O.K. lets lower our taxes to PRE-Bush Tax cut levels.

Government moves slow and it grinds exceedingly slowly

And the grist for this slowly moving government mill will be the middle class if the cuts are comprehensive.

There is not justification for the idea that the middle class will not be harmed by repealing the taxes.

It is a simple raise in income taxes pure and simple, they will still have to pay the higher local taxes anyway. Just the fedds will also be taking a bigger bite.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

63. Why that sounds absolutely...what's the word....oh yeah....

"Republican."

[AP]

64. Actually, not having any compassion for the fact that a little

money makes a big difference for the American middle class, who are, on the whole, in credit card dept, is actually the right wing thing to do.

I was just listening to extreme right wingers complain about the Alabama governor's plan to make their state income tax code more progressive, and they were making some of the same arguments people here are making against Kerry.

[blm]

79. Why did Dean say they voted FOR Bush's FIRST taxcut

for the wealthiest when NONE of the Dem candidates voted for it?

Why does Dean not tell the truth about that?

[virtualobserver]

80. quote?

so I can know what you are referring to?

[blm]

81. Here's some good ones.

BTW...Dean is also saying that the Dem candidates want to RAISE taxes on people in NH. Funny, how they all twist themselves to come up with SOME angle to scare people, heh?

March 2002
http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/2794665.htm
Dean, a medical doctor, describes himself as "a bit unusual" for a Democrat. For one thing, "I'm very conservative about money," he said. Also, he pointed out, he has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association.

"I have trouble with the liberal wing of my own party," Dean said.

Other things working in his favor, he added, are: "I'm not from Washington. I'm very direct with people. I say what I think. People always know where I stand. ‘.‘.‘. I think people are ready for that."

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml

I can't wait for those four guys from Congress to come up here and explain to us why they wanted to raise your property taxes after they supported a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America," he said.

Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.

"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."

[ProfessorPlum]

11. Very good points

calling the repeal of a tax cut a "tax increase" is Republican style debate, and Kerry should not use it.

[Cha]

14. Yeah! And that's what bush was going around spoutin' about

during the 2002 election cycle, no?

[ModerateMiddle]

20. He most certainly should use it

if he is NOT in favor of the effective increase, he should call it as he sees it. Dean doesn't want him to call it that, but it's not "Republican Style Debate". It may very well be political style debate, but no candidate out there is innocent of that, eh?

[blm]

82. Dean told audiences the others wanted to raise their taxes

in NH last January. He also said they voted for Bush's taxcuts for the wealthiest. NONE of them did.

Dean lied.

[AP]

30. See my post below.

As spin, I'll give this a B- for effort, and a D for logical coherence.

[CWebster]

32. This illustratesKkerry's liabiliy and

the apprehension some have for his candidacy. He is too much the political tapdancer in times demanding a straightshooter.

[burr]

6. I am clueless with or without your input.

:grouphug:

[ProfessorPlum]

5. Did any of the congressional Democratic candidates vote

for either of these tax cuts?

[burr]

7. Some of the incumbents did...

Senators Lincoln and Breaux both voted for the first round of tax cuts.

[ProfessorPlum]

9. my apologies - I meant Democratic presidential candidates

.

[ModerateMiddle]

12. I don't think so (nt)

[Cha]

15. Excuse me, Professor Plum, but who is "Jane Wagner"?

[virtualobserver]

16. lily tomlin's significant other.....

she's brilliant

[ProfessorPlum]

18. Correct

She wrote Tomlin's one-person show, The Search for Intelligent Life . . .

[Cha]

22. Oh! Cause I saw it contributed to Lily Tomlin in another's sig

line on the old DU and I got confused how two People could have the same quote! Now it makes more Sensical! :-)

[burr]

17. If you vote against tax cuts, then you must give a reason why.

Karl Rove will have fun with any Democrat who once voted against against the tax cuts, while standing up and stating that they now oppose repealing parts of shrub's tax cut. The neocon attacks will be simple, but effective. If you supported the lower rates on low income people, these rebates that are "lining the pockets of the working class", and if you opposed "the marriage tax" then why vote against these taxcuts?

This is the perfect weapon to paint an opponent as the indecisive, johnny come lately fool on taxes. Any candidate that does this will be spending too much time defending those votes against the tax cuts, while rationalizing to the voters why some of the tax cuts were not a mistake. Politically, it's a formula for disaster!

[ModerateMiddle]

24. I don't think Americans will have a hard time

distinguishing between tax cuts for Ken Lay, Dick Cheney and Bill Gates and their neighbor, or themselves.

[burr]

25. I don't know anyone who doesn't have trouble with the tax code.

The political debate on taxes is taken even less seriously by most people, and people have good reason to tune this out. When they here doublespeak regarding the taxcode, they know it is BS! For example Kerry will sometimes begin a speech by attacking tax loopholes for corporations, and later he will discuss the importance of tax credits to corporations for investment and hiring..which he suggests will "jumpstart our economy."

The loyal Democrats who support this idea will not have trouble with it, and the neocons who buy the Kemp-Roth myth will continue to back the taxcuts. But there are independants and many angry Democrats who know that all of these taxcuts do more harm than good, and are paid for at their expense. And they are the ones who will be disillusioned, and therefore would be less likely to vote.

[DrFunkenstein]

27. Kerry Is Brilliant On This Point

There is a difference between a tax giveaway (no strongs attached) and a pin-pointed tax credit. The airline bailout of 2001 was a giveaway, which is why it created no jobs and instead padded the golden parachutes of the CEOs bankrupting the companies well before 9/11. Kerry is bloody brilliant in creating a positive economic climate and JOBS through credits with strings attached.

"I think we should excite the capital markets by eliminating the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it’s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should encourage the measurement of the real value of companies by ending the double taxation of dividends.

You know politicians are always talking about the importance of small business. How they create 90% of the jobs and are the engine of job creation. I say it’s time we did something to really help them.
During this credit crunch, we should let every rapidly growing small business defer up to $250,000 of federal taxes if they are reinvested in the business. I can think of no better single idea to stimulate the economy - it would create more than 600,000 jobs within three years at little cost to the Treasury.

You know, one of the things I learned in the military...you live and die by your preventative maintenance and equipment investment. The same is true for bridges, rail, highways, buildings, and water and sewer systems. Ask Jane Campbell or Jack Ford - ask any mayor of a city or any small town in rural America -- and they will tell you that long overdue in this country is an investment in our infrastructure - especially transportation.

It’s how you create jobs. It’s how you move products. It’s how you make our cities work. And it’s how you help people spend time with their families instead of in traffic jams."

[burr]

38. It's easy to be "brillant" on borrowed money.

A growing amount of our budget will be used for nothing more than paying interest on the National Debt. This percentage goes up with every additional budget, leaving less money for defense, discretionary, and opening up Social Security for more monetary theft. It is more important to reduce deficit spending, while cutting back on the use of the Social Security surplusses to fund general spending. But keeping taxcuts in place is not as essential as this.

"Our projection of $4.1 trillion in deficits over ten years includes within that figure $2.6 trillion in surpluses in the Social Security trust funds. Outside of Social Security, our figures show ten-year deficits totaling $6.7 trillion.

Higher deficits cause higher debt and thereby increase the level of government interest payments on the debt. Under our projection, interest payments would total $3.1 trillion over the 2004 – 2013 period. Both debt and interest would double by 2013 as a share of the economy. In contrast, in January 2001, OMB and CBO expected interest costs to net to approximately zero over this period as a result of the projected elimination of the debt."
<http://www.cbpp.org/7-15-03bud2.htm>

Secondly..the idea of zeroing out the capital gains tax for high tech industries sounds brillant, but would blow another hole in our government's revenue base. Zeroing out any taxes should not be considered until the deficit is "zeroed out", and surplusses are being generated to pay down the debt. I have no problems with cuts in wasteful spending, I think the best example of this waste was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security..when we already have the Attorney General, FBI, and the Defense Department that should be handling this job. Neocons used to rail against bureucracy and discretionary spending, but now use this as their favorite new tool to increase spending!

If you want to see an end to double taxation, while having lower taxes for those who are having the most trouble...it will not happen by first cutting taxes and then hoping for fiscal discipline. Fiscal discipline is what will bring us a more friendly taxcode and the end of double taxation. However, we must first take the caster oil in order to get the sugar pill!

No pain...no gain! Time for play..hell to pay.

[virtualobserver]

39. that is the scariest thing of all to me........

with the enormous national debt, if interest rates rise the cost of maintaining that debt could skyrocket. Since we are already at $500 billion or more, if that occurred, we could see trillion dollar yearly deficits.

[AP]

45. At it's core, the issue is progressivity and not gross receipts/defecit

More progressivity will mean a better economy, which means more reciepts, which means lower defecits.

Remember how Clinton created a great economy by making sure lots of wealth flowed to the middle class. Jobs, social security, tax code...they're all ways to achieve this (and Clinton did try to make the tax code more progressive).

[burr]

48. But he did not do this by lowering rates on the middleclass...

he just raised them on higher income earners. And this helped to produce a long string of surplusses, the largest of which came during his last two years in office!

The only people who saw a tax reduction were those receiving the Earned Income Credit, and this did little to reduce longterm costs passed on to these people in the form of Medicaid reductions and other cutbacks in government assistance.

[AP]

50. How many times do I have to say it. This is not a question of absolute

numbers. It's a question of relative burdens.

Whats his name out in Nebraska made this point in his business-man way: the government needs a certain amount of money to run. What matters the most is how you allocate the burden of paying that bill. If you cut some taxes, unless those cuts make the economy bigger, you're just going to have to raise other taxes. So the key is allocating the burden in a way that makes the economy work well.

Right now, that means unburdening the middle class and making the rich pull their weight (in exchange for the rewards they're reaping).

If Clinton raised revenue to pay that set bill by getting from the rich, but not touching the middle class rates in a growing economy, that's progressivity.

The act of cutting middle income taxes isn't the magic. The overall picture -- the overall distribution of the burden, and the relative burdens -- is the magic.

Bush lowered taxes on lots of people, but he lowered them most on the rich. There is a moment now when there might be a political will to say lets go backwards. Lets raise taxes (which always so hard to do, unless you can make it work within a bigger picture). And in this moment, we can say, but wait a minute, lets not change those middle class cuts.

Voila. You get a little of that very hard to achieve progressivity, and it's almost like a gift. The Republicans hate progressive income taxes more than almost anything els. And they're the ones who got the ball rolling by overreaching on the upper income breaks at a time when the democrats could take advanatve of a rare mood in America when we might actually be for raising taxes.

I'll take my progressivity almost any way I can get it and it whatever small increments are possible. It really is the most important issue for the economy.

[burr]

53. When Clinton changed the taxrates, he just added two new brackets.

He didn't try to lower the existing three rates. The basic point is that the rate reductions that were passed under shrub are not set in stone, and would eventially phase out. It would be a mistake to even argue that any of these rates were legitimate or should continue, without being accused of supporting a large tax increase. But this is not a tax increase, just an early end to a failed tax scheme.

[AP]

55. I'm going to repeat myself. Progressivity can be achieved sevral ways.

You can add new brackets with new higher rates. You can take the brackets that exist and lower rates in lower brackets relative to higher brackets. Different ways make sense in different economic realities.

Do you see that you should take progressivity any way you can get.

"Legitimate"??? What does that have to do with the fact that Kerry is making an argumen that will result in having middle class people bear a relatively lower burden and upper income people paying a relatively higher burden?

This is crazy how people are trying to spin this as being wrong. Whenever a Democrat argues for progressivity in the tax structure, nothing can be more right. You're really getting into some dangerous territory by trying to make this sound bad or inappropriate.

[burr]

57. I agree...

I support returning to the progressive rates that were established by Clinton, not the temporary rates which shift this tax burden to future generations. If these rates are not permanent, then why consider them legit? They are a mistake, and thank the lord they are not set in stone.

If you support lowering the rates for the working class and the middleclass, let us do it by first following the road of fiscal discipline. The argument that you can lower taxes by lowering the rates is just as flawed as the argument that people would be richer, if more dollar bills are printed. People will have more dollars, lots of worseless green slips of paper.

Not what I would call progressive.

[AP]

59. I'm going to try this one more time.

I know what you're saying. Let's fix the economy so that we can give people progressive taxation. You're not following me though. Giving people progressive rates is how you fix the economy. The problem with the economy is that the middle and working class are so overburdened by everything including taxes, that they can't effectively and efficiently apply their energies and genius to improving the American economy.

Progressive taxation is when, the more you make, the higher the taxes you pay on an additional dollar in income.

Clinton was facing fiscal crisis and a tax rate that was written for entirely different scale of income. He incorporate progressivity by making new, higher rates on higher income brackets.

Now, we have a chance, temporarily, perhaps, to get a little progressivity by giving back only the tax breaks for the rich. No matter how you got there, it's still a good idea to have middle class people paying lower marginal rates, and getting a little bit of a brake relative to the wealthy. If that doesn't work to fix the economy, then let's add another bracket or two with higher rates on higher income, or lets rejigger the rates in the existing brackets. But, why in the world does anyone want to give back the break that the middle class might get to keep now? Why give up a chance at little bit more progressivity than might otherwise be politically possible?

[AP]

60. At least, if you keep the middle class tax rates,

you can build in the variation in the rates between middle and high income people when you talk about changing them to accomodate shifting policy.

Think of it this way. Say the middle third of tax payers paid 25% and the top third paid 35%. Say Bush's plan lowered the middle rate to 22% and the top rate to 29%. Now, you have this mood that says you have to undo this. Dean says lets go back to 25/35, which means the degree of progressivity is a 10 point difference. Kerry is saying, wait a minute, lets leave the middle third at 22 and take back the cuts on the top third. That gives a 13 point swing in progressivity. I guarantee you that the rich are doing so much better than the middle class that they're still benefitting hugely with the 13 point difference. None the less, the 3 point difference in progressifity is going to help the middle class a ton, which is going to help the economy a ton, and if we ever talk about having to raise all the rates, at least we have this new starting point of 13 points rather than 10. E.g, maybe the new rates could be 22.5 and 37.5, which is way better than if it were changed from 25 to 26, and from 35 to 36.


Bush's policy wasn't wrong because it lowered the rate on the middle third. It was wrong because he flattened the rates, and lowered the differences in tax burdens, which gave the top third a very large advantage. The only reason he did anything for the middle class was because he was buying off their silence over the outrage of giving super rich people 100s of thousands in tax breaks, and he was buying their silence with a 100 dollar bill here and 400 dollars there.

[burr]

62. Nice try....

but no cigars. :smoke:

My view is that taxes do drag down the economy, and that deficit spending in the long run will drive all of the rates higher. Even worse, continuing this trend could eventially lead to increases in the payroll tax in order to keep the trust fund solvent. I would only support this if the income cap was raised, but why should it be done at all?

Social Security has provided huge sums of money for the general fund, shouldn't general funds someday be made available for Social Security if this trust fund does run dry?

The only way to do this is to produce long term surpluses and to retire most of the debt. Our economic troubles are caused in part by large deficits, and can be solved permanently by ending this recklessness. The money that will be freed up for tax relief and lowering the bottom tax rates, will be the longterm economic gain from following a fiscally responsible budget policy.

[AP]

65. Then you are the proof that Democrats have a huge hurdle to clear in 2004

Too many people who consider themselves Democrats don't understand the role tax policy plays in the big picture. If you don't understand how it works, you can't see what the Republicans are doing. If you don't understand what the Republicans are doing, we'll never create the sense of urgency among the huge number of American voters who need to understand why it's so important they vote Democratic.

As for your post, I think, above, Hoover is the example of why your view doesn't work. Hoover raised revenues by raising taxes. But he wouldn't raise them progressively. He just kept hurting the working class more and more. You can help business all you want, but there comes a point when there's nobody who can buy their goods because everything you've given them has come from the backs of people you're impoverishing. Sounds a little like today, eh?

And you do know that retiring the debt with money generated from the middle class is part of the plan. It's not going to help the economy, but it's part of the plan to shift money from the bottom and middle to the top.

Remember the savings and loan crisis. We retired (and are still retiring) a lot of the debt created by that fiasco by taxing people and running surpluses when Clinton was president, and that was pretty much a shift in wealth to the rich.

[AP]

66. I know that a lot of you think Iraq and Aschcroft are all

Dems need to win 2004. But that's like saying, if it weren't for Iraq and Ashcroft, Bush would be a passable president. Now, that's not the case, is it?

The truth is that Bush is a very bad president because his entire raison d'etre is to transfer wealthh from the middle class to the rich. This issue, which Kerry is introducing into the debate is crucial to creating the sense of outrage that the Democrats need to win. Because this is the core truth and the core issue, you people would be much wiser to become conversant with the issue, rather than spinning Republican-friendly anti-progressive taxation arguments which you think you need to protect your favorite candidate. If your favorite candidate isn't down with this (and this is forcing you to make arguments like rasing revenue is more important than having a progressive tax structure) then your candidate isn't worth saving. Your candidate needs to come up with a message which taps into the notion that it's middle class opportunity which is going to get us out of this spot were in (remember FDR???).

[burr]

67. This is not what I think...

I still remember the tax debate of 2000. Shrub wanted the large scale slashing of the tax rates, while Gore wanted to target his cuts to the working class. Those who voted for Gore did not support him because they wanted taxcuts, and Gore's lame attempts to win those backing taxcuts hurt him in the last election. People who wish for taxcuts over a solvent government are going to choose the Republican before the Democrat.

As I stated earlier, cutting the tax rates does not equal a cut in what people pay in taxes. In the long run more borrowing would be the result, meaning in higher taxes for everyone in the future. The worse possible increase would be in the payroll tax. But if the money is not made available for the future to bail the S.S. trust fund, then this would become more likely to happen.

I feeling is that more people would rather pay the same rates which they were paying under Clinton, than pay higher payroll taxes for less Social Security benefits in the future.

"If your favorite candidate isn't down with this (and this is forcing you to make arguments like rasing revenue is more important than having a progressive tax structure) then your candidate isn't worth saving"....I never made the argument that raising revenue is more important than having a progressive tax structure, this is why I support returning to the rates set by Clinton.

Thanks for the debate, but I think we can agree to disagree on this.

[AP]

68. Gore trying to appeal to middle class was a joke.

Clinton had a visceral appeal on middle class issues because of his biography. Gore was a Senator's son, and Bush did a great job of making the two of them look like they came from the same place.

I remember reading after the election that people in the party thought that Gore's turn to populism at a late stage was a problem. The only part of that sentiment with which I agree was that Gore did not try to be a populist at all at first. But I don't think he tried to become a populist ever in that campaign. The guy ran almost entirely on ethics, which have zero to do with class and economics, and then, for the last two weeks all I heard about was a prescription drug plan for senior citizens. That ain't populism, that ain't middle class opportunities, and that ain't anything about unburdening the middle class and asking big corporations and wealthy individuals to pull their weight.

Now, if Gore had stoked those class concerns, I say he would have won (and Kevin Phillips says the same thing in Wealth and Democracy).

[AP]

69. Gore trying to appeal to middle class was a joke.

Clinton had a visceral appeal on middle class issues because of his biography. Gore was a Senator's son, and Bush did a great job of making the two of them look like they came from the same place.

I remember reading after the election that people in the party thought that Gore's turn to populism at a late stage was a problem. The only part of that sentiment with which I agree was that Gore did not try to be a populist at all at first. But I don't think he tried to become a populist ever in that campaign. The guy ran almost entirely on ethics, which have zero to do with class and economics, and then, for the last two weeks all I heard about was a prescription drug plan for senior citizens. That ain't populism, that ain't middle class opportunities, and that ain't anything about unburdening the middle class and asking big corporations and wealthy individuals to pull their weight.

Now, if Gore had stoked those class concerns, I say he would have won (and Kevin Phillips says the same thing in Wealth and Democracy).

[burr]

70. In his Congressional elections and Senate races he was...

he was elected in the same anti-incumbent wave that elected Carter, and in 1976 ran as the populist Democrat. In 1984 it was this approach that elected him, even as Reagan carried Tennessee by a landslide. And in 1992 Gore was the populist that made winning in states like Kentucky, Tennessee, and even Georgia possible. In 1995 and 1996 it was Gore's re-inventing government, and his support of balancing the budget which energized embattled Democrats in the south.

It was during Clinton's second term that Gore turned away from populism. He treated 2000 as a re-election campaign rather than a populist appeal to the working class. He shredded Bill Bradley on healthcare reform, avoided issues like the minimum wage and problems with the Millenia Act, but instead ran as Diet Taxcut. He allowed shrub to choose the battlegrounds on which to fight. Why did Gore still win the popular vote? Because swing voters could tell Gore had the only brain of the two, and clearly the majority of voters opposed shrub's agenda.

Gore's ultimate problem, he lacked the electoral strategy and comman cause needed to unite this majority. He finally recognized this in 2002, when he came out in favor of single-payer healthcare and against the war. Too bad this didn't happen in 2000.

[AP]

Do you agree with Kevin Phillips? If the Dems had run a candidate

who was the embodiment of middle class opportunity, they would have won. What do you think?

[AP]

71. Do you agree with Kevin Phillips? If the Dems had run a candidate

who was the embodiment of middle class opportunity, they would have won. What do you think?

[burr]

73. Who knows???

Do u...

[burr]

75. Who knows?

fool me once..

[AP]

77. I think Clinton sort of proves Phillips is right.

[ModerateMiddle]

74. The real test will be

when Dean's position on the tax cuts "evolves" and he starts to be in favor of keeping some of the middle class tax cuts - how much some of the Dean folks suddenly support it as the "brilliant" thing to do.

[burr]

76. I hope this doesn't happen.

I'm still looking for a candidate, and this is a top reason that I favor Dean over Kerry. Another reason, Kerry's stupid votes for the Patriot Act and the Iraqi War resolution. Is three a magic number?

[Nicholas_J]

28. Voted against...

Bush cuts. voted for Democratic amanedments trying to hamstring the Bush cuts by stating that most of it goes to thee middle class. This is typical politics to make the public aware that the Bush tax cuts were slated to go to the rich and so REMIND the public who the cuts were really going to go to, knowing that the amendments will NEVER pass a Rspublican dominated congress. It is just politics to show that DEms favor giving money to the working class, not the rich, and make the Republicans look like rich pigs trying to take it all.

[AP]

29. Senators don't have a line item veto or vote. Obviously you'd vote

against the entire package.

The point now is whether you accept this gift of potential progressivity the Republicans have laid in your lap by saying thank you very much for all these tax cuts you've given us. However, we're going to give back all the breaks you gave to the rich (I hope you saved your receipts, Mr Bush), and we'll be keeping all these lovely, albeit insusbstantial, breaks you gave the middle class. I know you were just throwing us a bone so that we wouldn't bark about the upper-income breaks, but we're going to get the last laugh, thank you very much.

Get it?

[genius]

41. Kerry's voting record is pretty good with three exceptions

He's a really good candidate. I just happen to prefer someone else.

[burr]

42. let me guess...

Gramm-Rudman and the second Gulf War Resolution are two of the votes.

Is his vote for NAFTA the third?

[Nicholas_J]

46. AS A matter of fact he has enfuriated the America Conservative Union:

FOR:

KERRY CLAIMS HE’S FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, BUT VOTES FOR HIGHER TAXES, AND AGAINST TAX CUTS

Kerry Has Voted Against A Balanced Budget Amendment At Least Five Times. Other fiscally irresponsible votes include at least three key votes against lowering overall spending.

Kerry Voted Against President Bush’s Tax Cuts, At Least The Tenth Key Anti-Tax Relief Vote Of His Senate Career.

Kerry Voted For The Biggest Tax Increase In American History Under President Clinton.

Kerry Has A Lifetime Rating Of 26% From Citizens Against Government Waste And Is A Long-Time Supporter Of Federal Funding For Boston’s “Big Dig.” Former Senate Government Affairs Chairman John McCain called the project “the biggest, most costly public works project in U.S. history.” The “Big Dig” was estimated to cost $2.6 billion when it was approved in 1985. The cost to date has totaled more than $13.6 billion. (“Congressional Ratings,” Citizens Against Government Waste Website, www.cagw.org, Accessed January 7, 2003; Natalie M. Henry, “Senate Commerce Investigates Overspending On Boston’s ‘Big Dig,’” Environment And Energy Daily, May 3, 2000)

http://www.crnc.org/resources/issues_detail.cfm?issuesID=13

Kerry is the leader in all attempts to raise taxes on the rich aqnd create a progressive tax code.

He voted to block the current Bush tax cuts TEN TIMES.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. This isn't really a question you're asking is it?

It's really just a way to present your spin. However, I don't think there are many voters who are waiting for your analysis to understand what Kerry's voting record means. It speaks for itself.


Kerry's voting record:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103


Kerry's vote on Bush's tax cut:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3262&can_id=S0421103

[virtualobserver]

56. no, I wasn't sure how he had voted.

and I assumed that Kerry supporters would know, and they did tell me.