We've talked alot about tax policy here

[indigo32]

but an accusation I see is that Dean is "Not for progressive tax policy" and I don't know that I've seen anyone really try to oppose that statement (forgive me if I've missed it) and yet I've never felt that way about him. If I really believed that was a case I absolutely would not be supporting him. Sooooo I'm gonna throw this statement out from his web site (don't like the source... too bad)...

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

Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts and Reform the Tax Code

Financed by federal deficits and by shifting the burdens to states and localities, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts benefited the wealthiest Americans while doing little or nothing for the middle class. In fact, the Bush tax policies furthered the administration’s goal of shifting the federal tax burden from income derived from invested wealth to the shoulders of working Americans. For many Americans, increases in state and local taxes, cuts in services, and falling incomes outweighed any modest decrease in their federal tax rate. The tax cuts are part of the long- term Republican agenda to starve the federal government of the resources it needs to meet our commitments to public education, Social Security and Medicare.

The first step in reversing this agenda, balancing the budget and putting the US fiscal house in order must be the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and returning the tax code to rates that were in effect during the prosperous years of the Clinton-Gore administration.

The distribution of the income tax burden has changed dramatically. In 1973, corporations paid 40% of federal income tax revenues. Last year, the corporate contribution was down to 16.8%. Experts estimate that corporate tax avoidance schemes are costing the US taxpayers up to $100 billion a year. Senator John McCain claims that even a modest effort to eliminate unnecessary special interest tax preferences and loopholes would raise nearly $50 billion a year in increased federal revenues.

<snip>

The Dean economic program will strive for greater tax fairness for middle class working families. Closing corporate tax loopholes will help shift some of the burden off the shoulders of individuals. Ending unfair tax preferences will raise additional revenue to reduce the deficit and help set the federal budget on the road to balance.

[La_Serpiente]

1. The Senate Finance Committee

had a hearing on Corporate Tax Shelters on Tuesday. You can go to the website www.cspan.com and download the hearing. They had this guy who couldn't be seen out in the open and in fact had to use a machine to modulate his voice so that the companies wouldn't recognize him.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. Kerry on Corporate Loopholes

CLOSE CORPORATE LOOPHOLES

Restore Investor Confidence With Strong Enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission: John Kerry will fund strong budgets and assure strong enforcement by the SEC.

Stop Corporations From Keeping Bank Accounts in Countries like Bermuda to Avoid Paying Taxes. John Kerry believes that American companies should not be allowed to set up virtual headquarters in foreign countries that are hardly more than mailboxes just to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Assure Corporations Account for Disparities on the Books. A recent Joint Committee on Taxation report found that Enron claimed a $2.3 billion in profit between 1996 and 1999 in reports to its investors, while reporting a $3 billion tax loss to the IRS. John Kerry believes corporations should have to account these kinds of disparities.

Stop Giving Government Contracts to Corporations Breaking the Rules. The Federal government should not give lucrative contracts to companies that have a record of accounting fraud – like WorldCom – or are moving offshore.

End Unfair Protections for CEOs. Executives should not be walking away with millions of dollars in salaries and benefits while their workers are laid off their companies are defaulting on loans. Kerry would tighten the laws that allow corporations to take advantage of tax deductions for performance based executive pay – even when executives do nothing to improve productivity.
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/pr_2003_0915b.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Statements from his website

won't change the fact that raising taxes on the middle-class is NOT a progressive tax policy.

Yes, the burden of taxation has been unfairly shifted from corporations to working people since 1973. Is that a reason to raise taxes on working people?

A real progressive tax policy doesn't raise taxes on the rich and poor alike.

Dean may think the $686 Billion he wants to raise with his middle-class tax hike is needed to balance the budget -- he's shown in Vermont how important budget-balancing is to him as a priority.

John Kerry believes we can do better - and he has different priorities.

[indigo32]

4. Labeling it as a "Middle Class Tax Hike"

doesn't change the fact that that is not all it is. The benefits and pitfalls of that stand have been hashed and rehashed over the past few days. I'm not going to go into that with you. The fact is that rhetoric like "Doesn't care about Progressive Tax Policy" and "Middle Class Tax Hike" are spin and misleading.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Dean is going to explain to people that he is raising their taxes

and it isn't a tax hike.

It is awfully simple to anyone who doesn't live in the world according to George Orwell. When you pay more in taxes, it's a tax hike. How is that spin?

You are saying that the straitforward, non-spinning way to say it is:

'your taxes will go up, but it is not a tax hike, because some of the other taxes and fees you pay have also gone up'.

I don't think that kind of 'straight talk' is going to be very persuasive.

[indigo32]

7. It's spin to imply only the middle class will have their taxes raised

it's truth to say that unfunded mandates by the Gov have raised state and local taxes...mandates that he would be in favor of paying.
Yes lots of us are smart enough to understand that. No Orwell necessary.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. We are all in agreement here about eliminating the other part

of the Bush tax cut, on the wealthy. There is no reason for us to keep repeating something we all agree on.

The distinction is whether or not to raise taxes on the middle-class at the same time as raising taxes on the wealthy. Dean and Gephardt say yes, Kerry and Edwards say no. What about the other candidates? I don't know.

[indigo32]

16. Obviously we are all in agreement on that issue

but thats not the point. It's how you label it, that is the point I'm trying to make.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. How is it misleading to label a raise in taxes as a raise in taxes?

[AP]

22. I repeat: focussing on a balanced budget and promising that benefits will

flow down to middle class is about two baby steps to the left of trickle down economics.

The other democrats are arguing trickle UP economics. Take some of the burden off the people who are WORKING the hardest, and they'll work better and more efficiently and they'll pull us out of this economic slump.

[ModerateMiddle]

24. If there is some reason that you think that the

Repbulicans *won't* call what Dean wants to do a "Tax Hike", I'd like to hear it. If Dean can't adequately address why he wants ALL of the tax cuts gone in the primary, where the "attacks" are really pretty damn mild, and compared to the general, very underfunded - he'll never get past the Republican media machine of Karl Rove, et al.

It absolutely WILL be labeled a TAX INCREASE.

Cue: "Howard Dean thinks you have too much money. He thinks that is what is wrong with the economy. He'll solve it by RAISING YOUR TAXES".

It's a dumb position. At least Gep says he wants to use the money to fund universal health insurance - it's not a trade off I agree with because of how he is planning to do it, but I understand why he wants all of the tax cuts gone - so he can pay for it.

[ModerateMiddle]

23. Only Dean and Gephardt want ALL the cuts repealed

Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Lieberman want to repeal the tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 a year.

Um.. I'm sorry I don't know the positions of the other 3.

[AP]

5. And which corporate loopholes does Dean want to close? He's only

concretely talked about one: he wants to remove any tax breaks for job exporters.

There are hundreds of things he could do to shift the burden back to the rich and corporations, and this is the only one that he has concretely proposed. It's not enough.

In fact, unless we have more progressive taxation, he's not going to have to worry about exporting jobs because there will be plenty Americans willing to let their 12 year old drop out of school and sow soccer balls for Europeans, like they do in Indonesia.

Also, it's not JUST about corporate tax breaks. We have shifted the burden from both wealthy INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS and Dean won't say a thing about the wealthy individuals. Has he proposed a way to make cap gains income two-tiered (and thererfore more progressive) like Edwards has? Has he proposed tax credits for middle class savings?

Dean is doing a tiny bit of sloganeering on taxes (and mush less than he should) and he's not backing it up with policy proposals that address the problem.

I don't know why anyone is surprised. What did you think he was talking about when he said the following?

"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.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

The guy wants to balance the budget on the backs of the middle and working class, and he doesn't think tax policy is good for anything else but achieving that end. He's pretending that the last 30 years of a gradual, but steady shift of the tax burden to the middle class hasn't happened.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Could you tell us more about Edwards' two-tiered cap gains proposal?

I haven't heard about that before.

[AP]

11. It's a higher rate (25%) for cap gains over 300K I believe.

It's part of his plan to make sure that millionaires don't pay lower marginal rates on unearned income that their secretaries pay on earned income.

A person who works a whole hear to make 40K shouldn't be paying more in taxes on that income than a millionair makes on some insider no-risk stock sale that increases his his income from 1million to 1,040,000 bucks.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. That's an excellent proposal.

I hope Kerry steals it ;)

[AP]

17. Of course it's great. It's way to obvious though. And it's only a tiny

piece of the big puzzle of progressivity that Dean is assiduously avoiding putting together for his middle and upper middle class supporters.

Rather, he's trying to make them feel like their interests lie with the Bill Gateses and Dick Cheneys of the world.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. I think one of the built-in obstacles for Democrats

in a strange way, is 'the American Dream'. We all want to feel like we are getting ahead, that our lives are getting better, that we are making things better for our children. So everybody likes to think of themselves as being a little better off than they really are. A hundred shares in a mutual-fund and next thing you think you are one of the 'owners' instead of one of the 'workers'...

[AP]

21. Yeah. And ignore the fact that Merril Lynch is using your fund to buy

out shares owned by their big clients whenever it looks like the market is slipping.

[indigo32]

15. I've got to focus on work now...

I promise to address your statement and questions in more detail later this evening.

on edit... this was meant to respond to post #5

[indigo32]

9. See it's statements like this

"The guy wants to balance the budget on the backs of the middle and working class, and he doesn't think tax policy is good for anything else but achieving that." that drive me crazy. Isn't it wonderful that you know exactly that he thinks.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. Dean has stated his priorities.

And some of us think those priorities are skewed. Those are legitimate policy differences.

[AP]

14. I don't need to know what he thinks. I can see what his policy proposals

will lead to.

This, actually, is the essential difference I see between Dean supporters and every other group of candidate supporters.

They don't want to look at his policies because the supprters think they know how Dean thinks in his heart of hearts. For them, characterization is way more important that fact, and they ignore the facts which contradict they characterization they've created in their minds. That, incidentally, is how Bush got so many votes. People didn't need to think too hard about what his policies would lead to because they thought he seemed like a decent guy.

I get the sense that you think you know how Dean thinks. Well, what the hell are you basing that on? It certainly can't be his policy proposals. Because, if you were, you'd be coming to the same conclusion that I've come to.

[ModerateMiddle]

25. indigo, I know you believe in him

but that IS what he wants to do: balance the budget on the back of the middle class. He wants to repeal ALL of the tax cuts in order to balance the budget. The other candidates recognize that the middle class is having a REALLY hard time right now, and taking even a little bit of money from them is going to be too much of a burden.

Dean says that local costs and taxes have increased. But they are not going to go down just because the federal government does something to get its house in order. Those local taxes are going to STAY up, for quite a while - further burdening the over-burdened middle class.

I honestly believe that any "bump" the economy got from the tax cuts was because of the lower end cuts, not the upper end cuts. Taking those stimulative cuts back now could really do harm to an economy that's struggling to come back.

It's bad policy, as well as bad politics.

[AP]

26. The bump was so out of proportion to what was given back in taxes.

If I dumped 300 billion dollars into the economy this year (even if I were saddling future generations with debt) I could get a little bump. That the bump was as little as it was PROVES that trickle down doesn't work. So little of that money went to the middle class.

Also, it is extremely important to note the total absense of logic in the theory that the Federal Gov't can't have progressive taxation because local and state gov'ts don't have it.

The Fed Gov't needs progressive taxation desperately, and they should set an example that states and local govt's follow.

It's really shameful that Dean isn't leading that charge with an argument for progressive taxation in his campaign. Say Edwards (or even Lieberman) is leading the democratic charge next fall with this message. Don't you think voters are going to start looking at state and county taxes a little differently? Don't you think that states and counties and cities will change faster than if, say, Dean wins and people are left in the dark about progressivity?

[AP]

27. How Dean will be helping Bush by going back to '00 tax rates:

Perhaps Bush passed a tax code that he knew was overreaching. He will have given the rich 4 years of huge breaks to further consolidiate their wealth. They're getting 10% richer every year, while everyone suffers. To go back to 00 rates, you're putting the rich in even a better position than they were in in '00. It's like, if I were Bush and wanted to get that same outcome, I'd get myself a buddy like Dean to do the same thing -- take more than you'd think you'd ever get, spend 4 years consolidating wealth and power, and that get somebody else to take you back to where things started and pretend like you've turned the clock backwards, when, in fact, going back to the beginning is even better for the rich than it was back then.

[AP]

20. Dean is to the right of LIEBERMAN on tax policy.

I just wanted to make sure that people have a grasp of this.

Dean may be to the left of Lieberman in terms of criticizing Iraq. But he's to the right of him on tax policy. Lieberaman wants to add two new income tax tiers with higher rates.

[indigo32]

28. Ok the results here are as expected

People seem to think if they keep saying something enough times it makes it true (look how many messages there are here and the number of people posting them).

First of all regarding messages 24 and 19
I was not arguing in any way that a tax increase is not a tax increase. I was simply saying it did not apply only to the middle class and it is an unfair characterization to imply that his plan does.
Dick Gephart agrees with Dean about rolling back these tax cuts... I suppose he's anti-progressive taxation too?

My point is that Dean truly believes the best way to help the middle and lower classes is to
1. provide needed services... AND money to the state and local governments so they don't have to raise taxes

2. NOT burden their children with huge debt payments.

NOW... you can argue that this is the way or the wrong way to help the middle class till the cows come home... but I WILL MAINTAIN... that to paint him as some anti-middle class candidate is FALSE.

finally...
none of these complaints address the issue I raised in the first place...
WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT HE IS AGAINST PROGRESSIVE TAXATION?

[SahaleArm]

29. NM.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. We all agree about repealing the portion of the tax cut on the wealthy.

There is no difference between the candidates on that issue so why should we have to continually repeat it?

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

That is the issue here. That is the distinction. Dean and Gephardt want to raise taxes by $686 Billion more than Kerry and Edwards do. They would raise that sum by repealing the middle-class provisions of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Specifically the child-care credit, the new 10% tax bracket and the elimination of the marriage penalty. Calling this what it is, a tax increase on the middle-class, in no way implies that Dean doesn't also want to raise the same taxes that Edwards and Kerry do as well. And yes, this policy is no more progressive coming out of Gephardt's mouth than it is coming out of Dean's.

Dean believes that rolling back tax breaks for the wealthy is not enough. Dean believes the only way to balance the budget is with this $686 Billion dollar tax increase on the middle-class. Does that make him an anti-middle class candidate? That's just a label. The fact is he wants this tax increase and middle-class voters who want to pay it will vote for him. Those who believe we don't need to increase the tax load on the middle-class to balance the budget, who believe we can do better and protect our children now and for the future, will vote for someone else.

As far as 'proof that he is against progressive taxation' -- the fact is the policy he is promoting is not progressive. Take that for what it's worth. I might find it hard to 'prove' that Ariel Sharon doesn't want peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, but it's not necessary. I can just point to his actions and let them speak for themselves.

[indigo32]

32. Yes you'd like that wouldn't you

"We all agree about repealing the portion of the tax cut on the wealthy. There is no difference between the candidates on that issue so why should we have to continually repeat it?" Let's just ignore it. Except that
1. it nullifies your arguement that his actions prove he's against progressive policy
2. You and others like to call it a "middle class tax hike" Well it's NOT its a roll back (resulting in a tax hike)... for RICH and Middle class people.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. So

I always have to say:

"Dean's upper-class and middle-class tax hike as opposed to Kerry's upper-class tax hike"

instead of

"Dean's middle-class tax hike"



I guess to be most accurate I should just always say:

"Dean's plan to cut the child tax credit, the child care credit, rollback the 10% bracket, and reinstitute the marriage penalty."

because that is what we are talking about, specifically. That what Dean is proposing to do and no, it ain't progressive.

[indigo32]

34. Look Do you want to have a discussion about this or not?

If you want to back your arguement show me some tax rate comparisions that will prove it.... INCLUDING the upper tax brackets. You can go on and on focusing on the part of the plan you don't like... but frankly there are at least a couple other threads on the subject... and I'm just not gonna rehash all that with you.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. Are you claiming

that the child tax credit, the child care credit, the 10% bracket, and eliminating the marriage penalty weren't primarily middle and lower class benefits? I have to show tax-rate comparisons to prove these are middle-class tax benefits? :eyes:

If you don't want to 'rehash all that' with me, fine, but the facts aren't going to go away because you aren't willing to talk about them.

[indigo32]

38. I never said said any such thing

about the child tax credit, the child care credit, or any of that.
You know that.

Look obviously you don't want to discuss the actual premise of my post. This conversation is over.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. The premise of your post

is that Dean's plan to raise taxes on rich and poor alike is 'progressive'.

It just flies in the face of what progressive tax policy means.


A progressive tax takes more from the rich than the poor.

Dean's plan to cut the child tax credit, the child care credit, rollback the 10% bracket, and reinstitute the marriage penalty will take more money from the middle class than from the rich. Therefore it is not progressive.

[indigo32]

40. Wow took ya long enough

now actually back the statement up that OVERALL more money will come from the middle and lower classes than the rich... and I'm not just talking about the specific parts you don't like (Frankly I think he's offering a fair trade off...but that but again thats been discussed), I'm talking the overall plan. Make me eat my words... I dare ya. Of course I know what the premise of progressive taxation is. So can you show me that there will be an overall shift of wealth by completely rolling back the tax credits completely.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. I'm not going to try to prove to you that the sky is blue or that

the earth is round.

I will one more time provide this cite:

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

Dean and Gephardt's tax policy would raise taxes on the middle class by $686 billion more than Kerry and Edwards' tax policy.

If you want to call that progressive tax policy fine. You can call it a tax cut if you want. Call it a health care plan. Whatever.

[indigo32]

42. So you see

if they are squabling over 27% then 73% falls onto the rich...
sounds progressive enough to me. I'm not calling it anything but what it is. thank you very much.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. Let's make it a little simpler for you.

Under Dean's plan taxes go up for the middle class.

Under Kerry's plan, they don't.

Which of these two plans is progressive?

:eyes:

[indigo32]

44. The facts remain as they are

whether you roll your eyes or not.

73% burden on the rich
27% burden on the middleclass =
progressive.
again you might not like the tax hike... thats fine... but that doesn't change the fact that it IS progressive.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. Yes, they are

Dean's plan:

73% burden on the rich
27% burden on the middleclass

Define it however you like

Kerry's plan:

100% burden on the rich
0% burden on the middleclass

Define it however you like

[indigo32]

46. I wasn't talking about Kerry

I was talking about the language used in discussing Dean. EOM

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. We are talking about who has the best tax policy.Who should be the nominee

I realize the Dean campaign wishes it were already running against Bush, but that is not the reality of the situation

Dean's tax plan isn't progressive, it isn't fair to the middle-class, and it isn't the best one to run on in the general election.

[indigo32]

48. No that is NOT what I started this thread about

I specifically stated there were several threads debating the merits of the candidates individual tax plans. If you don't like the topic of this thread... then don't bother participating but I'm not gonna let you redirect. You have FAILED so far to prove that Deans tax plan isn't progressive.... and yet you keep repeating that. Why?
THAT is the subject of this post.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. Sorry but your premise is just nonsensical

you are trying to say that it is progressive to raise taxes on the middle class -- and as I said -- if you want to say that, fine.

Obviously there is no way to prove to you that raising taxes on the middle class is not a progressive policy anymore than you can prove to me that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Yes, the Earth does revolve around the sun. But could you 'prove' it to me in this thread if I wanted to deny it? No.

[indigo32]

50. umm yeah

again with the Earth thing... LOL. I'll just say one last time...
If all Howard Dean was doing was raising taxes on the middle class, and ignoring the rich, then you would have a point. But since that is not the entirety of his tax plan... you don't have a point.
73% 27% remember. This fits the definition of progressive.
Now since we are simply going in circles I'll say no more.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. What would a truly progressive tax policy look like?

Lowering taxes on the middle-class,
instead of raising them...

that's progressive tax policy.

A NEW TAX CREDIT TO MAKE FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE AFFORDABLE

Americans Must be Able to Afford Four Years of College. To be successful in the 21st Century economy, America’s workforce must be more innovative and productive than our competitors. More and more, four years of college is a necessity for Americans in order to meet the challenges of the global economy. John Kerry wants to make four years of college as universal as a high school education is today.

College is Becoming More Expensive. Because of George Bush’s mismanagement, states are raising taxes, cutting education, and raising college tuition as much as 40 percent – causing layoffs and undermining economic growth.

· South Carolina’s colleges and universities have raised tuition and fees between 15 and 22 percent due to budget cuts

· Almost 1,000 teaching positions have been slashed statewide. During the last three years, lawmakers have lopped $418 million from the Education Department’s budget.

· Students in South Carolina need help. In addition to increased investment in important programs that help people afford college, like Pell Grants and GEAR Up, John Kerry has proposed a bold new tax credit that will help students to afford college for four years.

College Opportunity Tax Credit: Kerry’s “College Opportunity Tax Credit” will make four years of college affordable for all Americans. He will provide a credit for each and every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition – the typical tuition and fees for public college tuition. The credit will provide 100% of the first $1000 and 50% on the rest. It will also make this credit refundable so that it helps the most vulnerable students.



PROTECTING MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUTS

Middle class families can’t catch a break. They’re getting battered by high taxes, high health care costs, high energy bills, high college tuitions, and a high cost of living that means they are working harder just to stay in place. But some Democrats want to eliminate all tax breaks – including those that go to provide relief to the middle-class. Repealing the tax cuts for the middle class would hurt those who have borne the brunt of the Bush bust, making it even harder for them make ends meet. John Kerry has pledged to repeal George W. Bush’s special tax breaks that go to the wealthiest Americans.

Keep the Full Child Tax Credit: Raising children costs is expensive and many working families are struggling to make ends meet. The child tax credit provides benefits to 431,000 South Carolina households and John Kerry believes we should keep it that way. He fought for this provision in the 2001 tax cut and worked to make the credit partially refundable. Kerry supported a further expansion of the child tax credit that could have provided benefits to an additional 172,000 children in South Carolina, but the proposal was eliminated by Bush and the House Republicans in a secret midnight deal.

Don’t Reinstate the Marriage Penalty: John Kerry will not repeal the reduction of the marriage penalty, which benefits 451,000 married couples in South Carolina.

Accelerate the 10-Percent Bracket Expansion: John Kerry will not repeal the expansion of the 10-percent bracket. This expansion benefits 870,000 married couples and single tax filers in South Carolina.
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/pr_2003_0912.html

[AP]

36. The marriage penalty helps rich people, not poor people. Take that one of

your list.

[AP]

35. What Dean 'truly believes"

1-I don't think you can say that he truly believes in providing services, other than health care. Didn't he cut services to close the hole in the VT budge? And he certainly didn't like public defenders, which is a service for the poor who are accused of a crime.

2-rasing taxes and not growing the economy won't close the deficit, and won't improve the economy, and your kids will suffer.

Also, Geps wrong about taxes too.

[SahaleArm]

30. What's the best compromise?

I'll throw out a cross-pollinated budget policy:

Revenue/Economic Stimulus:

(1) Roll back either the 33%+ tax brackets and/or > $200,000 earners
(2) Repeal the estate tax break
(3) Repeal the dividend tax break
(4) Move long/short term cap gains to 25%/30%
(5) Close down corporate loopholes (Bermuda, etc.)
(6) Cut SS to 3.5% while dropping the income cap
(7) Remove Pentagon Pork Spending
(8) Turn the Iraq quagmire around

Spending Priorities:

(1) SS and Medicare
(2) Healthcare/Insurance
(3) Balanced Budget
(4) Federal Debt Reduction