The $686 Billion Difference

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Dems aren't defining themselves on domestic issues

For the past year, Iraq has dominated the Democratic presidential race like no other issue. Now, three months before the Iowa caucuses, the unanswered question is what domestic issue will best define and separate the candidates.

<snip>

As Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer said over coffee Thursday morning, ''You would think that there would have been more distinctions drawn on health care. But there is unanimity among the candidates that there has to be a big push for universal or near-universal health care coverage. As a result, voters figure: 'Now that's over with, let's get on to other issues.' ''

<snip>

Instead, the focus was over whether to rescind all the Bush tax cuts (the position taken by Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt) or whether to preserve those tax reductions that benefit the middle class (John Kerry's and John Edwards' stance).

<snip>

In dollar terms, this is far from a minor political scrap. The liberal Washington-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the federal government would take in an additional $2.5 trillion from 2005 to 2012 if all the Bush tax cuts were rolled back. The middle-class provisions (the child-care credit, the new 10% tax bracket and the elimination of the marriage penalty) account for about $686 billion of that total. So, in essence, the Democratic presidential candidates are squabbling over this $686 billion, or 27% of the overall Bush tax cuts.
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031017/5599034s.htm

[Kolesar]

1. And that is the thesis of Paul Krugman's Friday column in the NY Times

The Sweet Spot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=16805

[papau]

2. the child-care credit, the new 10% tax bracket are neeed and Dean Must

change his opinion - soon

The the elimination of the marriage penalty is not critical but it is not that costly.

If Dean would redefine repeal ALL of the Bush tax cuts - as just being ALL in dollar amount ONLY, then some slight tinkering with the upper tax brackets, say a new bracket at $1 million of income, would cover his previous statements.

His Tax proposal was jumped on by the whore media as derivative of other folks proposals, and at the same time not specific enough! ?!.

These are the same media assh*les that gave us Nixon's "I have a plan to end the war in VietNam, but it is secret and I just can not tell you about it" without any criticism in 68 when the dead were in the low 30,000 area, and these same media folk never felt guilty as the dead approached 60,000.

But they demand more specifics from Dean. Or any Dem - indeed in 2000 the Bush "fuzzy math" zinger that he threw at those that noted he was a liar regarding what he would - could - do with the budget was enough to stop media requests for details.

One could easily hate the right wing GOP controlled - or if not controlled, they just act that way - media.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. "I was promising a root canal."

1984 election: Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I

With the nation facing huge deficits, Mondale told the voters that a raise in taxes was inevitable. "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I," he said. "He won't tell you, I just did." It was a disastrous strategy. Reagan promised prosperity, a strong defense, and balanced budgets without raising taxes. On election day, he lost forty-nine states and carried only MN and DC. Assessing the results, Mondale commented, "Reagan was promising them 'morning in America,' and I was promising a root canal."
http://ontheissues.org/Economic/Walter_Mondale_Tax_Reform.htm

[sandnsea]

4. This is having gum disease after the root canal

I just feel like we already paid all those taxes in the 90's only to have Bush turn around and give them to the wealthiest people. We had all of our local taxes and tuitions and everything else raised. Now Dean and Gephardt want to come along and make us pay for the Republican insanity all over again. NO. If we're ever going to get back to the kind of tax policy we had before the 80's, we need to do it now.