Fact Check: Dean criticize ad saying he's for tax increase. Is it right?

[AP]

This post seemed to stop another thread in its tracks, so it must be saying something interesting:

Dean calls the ad "false," but Club for Growth TV ad -- saying he's called for a big tax increase -- is mostly right

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=113

Howard Dean is firmly on the record in favor of repealing both tax-cut bills signed by President Bush in 2001 and 2003, and returning to tax rates that prevailed under Bill Clinton.

That would do more than just canceling some scheduled tax cuts that haven't yet taken effect -- it would clearly require raising taxes from where they are today. The table below, from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Institute, calculates how the Bush cuts are affecting families in various situations for the current tax year. Clearly the affluent gain most, just as they currently pay the most taxes. But a total repeal of the Bush tax cuts would also cost $350 for a single taxpayer making as little as $15,000 a year. And for a typical middle-income family making $50,000 a year, with two children under age 17 qualifying for sweetened per-child tax credits, total repeal would amount to a tax increase of $1,773.

[seixon]

1. Yeah...

Taking away tax-cuts means raising them... yes...
Most tax-brackets received a 2% drop with the Bush tax cuts, the upper bracket receiving a 3.5% drop ("tax cut for the rich"). These are the tax cuts already in place I believe.
Taking those away, would in effect raise the taxes again... raise it 2% for most taxpayers, and 3.5% for the upper portion of the taxpayers, the ones who pay for most of the taxes.

I don't know why Dean would say that he says this is false, removing tax cuts is raising taxes. Just another flap from Dean I guess...

[TrueAmerican]

3. It's call spin

Dean is the master of it.

[Hep]

4. *cough*

considering everyone spins, that's a great compliment. Thanks!

[mouse7]

9. Eliminating Bush tax cuts isn't "spin"

Dean says return to the tax structure when the economy worked right. Seems reasonable. Don't break what wasn't broken under Clinton.

The Bush tax cuts were passed right after 9/11. Bush used a national tragedy to allow the filthy rich to get filthy richer. I refuse to allow those who are responsible for using a national tragedy to loot the treasury to set the language of the discussion on this issue.

If YOU allow Karl Rove to set the language of the discussion, you are serving the interests of the neo-cons.

[ModerateMiddle]

68. You should have your facts right

if you're going to be stating "facts" to defend anyone's positions.

You said:

The Bush tax cuts were passed right after 9/11. Bush used a national tragedy to allow the filthy rich to get filthy richer.

Wrong. There were two bills that passed reducing taxes. One passed at the end of May/early June in 2001, and the last act Jeffords performed as a Republican was to vote Yes on it. Before 2001.

The second bill passed in 2003. Hardly "right after 9/11".

[bearfartinthewoods]

32. he'd better be.......... considering

"Are you more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who wants to keep the recent federal tax cuts in place, or for a candidate who wants to reduce or repeal the recent federal tax cuts?" Options rotated

..........Keep.... Reduce or Repeal...No Difference....No Opinion
12/03 ....49................... 41 ................5 .............5

[StClone]

8. So

I am hungry and need to eat.

I plan to go to the store to buy bread.

By not going to the store to buy bread, I have decreased my need for bread.

I have saved money!

[papau]

30. Dean is correct - net all tax effect is increase for most - as Fed cut the

state raises to replace cut in Fed aid.

These Bush tax cuts have in general only helped the rich and corporated.

But Krugman has a nice responce:

"So if a Democratic candidate proposes a total rollback of the Bush tax cuts, he'll be offering an easy target: administration spokespeople will be able to provide reporters with carefully chosen examples of middle-income families who would lose $1,500 or $2,000 a year from tax-cut repeal. By leaving the child tax credits and the cutout in place while proposing to repeal the rest, contenders will recapture most of the revenue lost because of the tax cuts, while making the job of the administration propagandists that much harder."

[Hep]

2. Those tax and spend democrats

Never mind getting rid of middle class tax cuts that don't benefit large portions of the middle class. Any attempt to fix it will be deemed by DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE to be tantamount to raising taxes. How FUCKED UP is that? Instead of admitting that a "middle class tax cut" that benefits such small pockets of the middle class needs to be done away with to make room for better tax policy, some people are hell bent on repeating this tired meme that all some democrats want to do is take more of your money. Remarkable similarity between this meme and the long running RW argument against D's in general.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

19. Why eliminating tax cuts will "raise" taxes

The states are in major financial trouble...a lot of mandates, very little to no federal funding for any of them.

What do states do when in financial trouble?

RAISE TAXES/CUT SERVICES/BOTH

My state sales taxes have increased and it has added a tax on services that didn't exist before.

Our auto license fees have gone up.

Property taxes are increasing.

Municipalities that never had an income tax are asking (and in some cases getting) income tax initiatives for their cities.

Funding for libraries, state parks, police & fire departments have declined.

Prisons are being closed and inmates transferred to other locations that are already over crowded.

If all the tax cuts are eliminated the resultant effect is...MY TAXES HAVE BEEN RAISED.

There's no way to spin that fact into anything but a TAX INCREASE.

I realize the middle class got next to nothing compared to the fat cats, but since these state & local tax increases have already eaten up any tax "savings"...you do the math.

edited to correct tense.

[Hep]

20. You don't need to tell me about states in crisis.

I work for a state that hasn't given me a raise in three years. My taxes have gone up. I've LOST money with this middle class tax cut. In fact, the tax cut only saved me $8 per month in the first place, and that was before the property tax increases, the increase of sales taxes, and the loss of any hope of cost of living increases. So you don't need to tell me to do the math.

You know how it isn't a tax increase? If you didn't save shit from the tax cut in the first place. Welcometo MY middle class world. Will you take note? We'll see.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

22. So what are you saying?

Sorry if I'm a bit dense this morning, but I've got to admit I'm not getting your point here.

Are you saying that we should retain the middle class tax cuts or are you imagining that if they are rescinded the state and it's municipalities will rescind the tax increases they've enacted so you will come out ahead?

We all know how unlikely that is, but I'm not sure just where your going...please elaborate...if you don't mind.

Peace.

[Hep]

24. Repealing Bush's tax cuts

would provide revenue needed to help suffering states out. Such a thing is NOT UNCOMMON. And you're still looking at these alleged middle class tax cuts as if they exist. For a lot of people in the middle class, they don't. Can you explain to me the logic in defending a "middle class tax cut" that doesn't even benefit the middle class fairly?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

35. Got ya'

Ok, now I see what you're saying...and it seems to be, because only some folks actually got a few bucks ahead with the "middle class part" of the tax cut, and since some of us weren't among them they aren't "fair", hence on the unlikely chance that the states MIGHT rescind some of their tax increases everything will be "fair" again.

Please don't misunderstand me...I'm not speaking of "you" in particular, just trying to explain how I'm understanding the point you are making.

As has been pointed out repeatedly...our national debt is astounding and growing more so by the day. The deficit NEEDS to be worked on in order to keep us out of bankruptcy...soooo, do you really think that average $300 (just to have a figure to work with) from the middle class tax payer will cause a huge influx of our federal tax dollars being returned to the states?

And in a way, even more to the point, some folks keep saying those tax cuts "don't exist"...so if they "don't exist" that equals nothing being returned to the states from the middle class...so why ask them to return what "doesn't exist"? After all...if you have a couple growing kids who each need 2 pair of shoes during the course of a year that "nothing" isn't going to help you buy them...let's take that "nothing" back and with the added state and local taxes tell your kids not to grow so they only need one pair of shoes while you wait for the state to actually see any of the money the feds took.

I find no logic to your point of view, but will defend to the death your right to have it.

Peace

[Hep]

37. You make good points

and I'm glad we're discussing this. I want to point out that we don't need THIS middle class tax cut to have fair tax policy in this country. I operate under the belief that most people would be willing to sacrifice in order to provide more opportunities and a more level playing field for the have-nots in this country. I believe that our whole society benefits when we accept our responsibility to look out for the suffering among us. So it's not just about me getting a raise, it's about changing the nature of our socio-economic stratification.

The tax cuts don't exist from my perspective, so right, the govt wouldn't be getting anything back from me. My point is simply that we don't have to fix our tax code based on the framework of Bush's tax cuts. We can do away with the middle class tax cut and replace it with a more fair tax policy. In the long run, I think it is unfair, oversimplified, and a bit cynical to simply look at repealing Bush's tax cuts as a tax increase. It's just not that simple.

It's an argument the RW makes against all democrats, and considering the number of people who mistakenly think they are in the upper class, it's particularly messed up.

This society is becoming increasingly infautated with the accumulation of wealth. As long as we are making our political arguments by appealing to that infatuation we are doing the people of this country a great disservice.

[HFishbine]

5. As your source acknowledges, yes, Dean's right

The part you're not supposed to read:

The Club for Growth ad is misleading in some ways. The "average" figure it mentions is not an average at all, but a calculation of how much repeal of the Bush cuts would cost a $40,000-a-year married couple with two children under 17. That calculation is from the Bush administration's own Office of Tax Analysis, but it's roughly in line with the figures calculated independently by the Tax Policy Center for families just above and below that income level. Still, most families are not getting that much of a tax cut now and would not see their taxes go up that much under repeal. Roughly one in four workers get no benefit at all because they now earn too little to pay any federal income taxes at all, for example.

The ad is also misleading when it claims that Dean would "bring back the death tax." In fact, the estate tax is still on the books and won't be phased out until the year 2010 even under the Bush tax cuts. You can't "bring back" something that's not gone.

In fairness to Dean, he has promised not only to repeal Bush's cuts but also to "strive for greater tax fairness for middle class working families" through such things as closing corporate loopholes, ending "unfair tax preferences" and cracking down on tax cheats. But so far those vague promises lack any specifics -- not even a definition of "middle class" -- so it's impossible to calculate who would benefit or whether anyone would gain enough to offset what they would lose through Dean's promised repeal of cuts now on the books.

[LuminousX]

6. Estate Tax

And anyone who supports getting rid of the estate tax doesn't understand what the estate tax is.

[Hep]

7. And anyone who uses sources that use the term "death tax"

Is trying to mislead you.

[mouse7]

10. As is anone who uses sources saying Dean/Gephardt will raise taxes

The neo-cons are trying to set the language of the deabate and we cannot allow that to happen.

[papau]

31. Deficit is a "birth Tax" - this sells - let the GOP explain any theory

that says it is not an increase in taxes - or cut in benefits if the GOP is in power - for our kids.

[Hep]

34. I never looked at it that way!

What a great way to put it! We have to get that out.

[HFishbine]

41. Great point!

All the candidates whould adopt that term. "Birth tax" -- brilliant!

[democratreformed]

40. Could you explain

your understanding or experience with the estate tax? I posted a long story about how it has ruined my family and the business that my dad worked so hard to build. It is a very long story and I don't know if anyone read it.

I sometimes think there is a problem with laws made for giant corporations being applied to small family businesses. Ofentimes, these laws help to destroy the small business.

[Tadah]

12. Dean whines when others use his tactics..

In fairness to Dean, he has promised not only to repeal Bush's cuts but also to "strive for greater tax fairness for middle class working families"

Why would Dean complain when he used misleading ads in New Hamshire? He made the claim that he was the only candidate against the war from the start.

He was neither against the war or the only candidate to question the war.

With regards to the tax cuts, the commericials misrepresent Dean's past since he implemented tax shelters for companies like Enron. Dean favors giving the upper class more and will disappoint those who want fairness.

[diamondsoul]

15. It cuts both ways, though.

"With regards to the tax cuts, the commericials misrepresent Dean's past since he implemented tax shelters for companies like Enron. Dean favors giving the upper class more and will disappoint those who want fairness."

If you and others can use Dean's past record against him, then they can use Kucinich's past PL position against us. I'm not playing that game right now.

I look at Dean's tax plan, and it fits with his stated priorities, end of story. My own policy these days is call them out when they're less than honest and defnd them when they are honest. That's the case here. His tax plan is perfectly legit by the standards and priorities he's set for his Presidency.

BTW, there are two huge threads about the brochure. I don't think it's right to hijack this thread over an unrelated issue.

[Hep]

17. Saying Dean wasn't against the war

is blatant misrepresentation and reflects a lack of understanding of the issue, imo.

[diamondsoul]

25. It's another semantics game, Hep.

Although, imo, Dean started the ball rolling on that one when he made the claim he was the "Only Candidate to oppose the war from the beginning.".

The semantics comes in with Biden-Lugar. Dean didn't actually fully oppose war with Iraq, he just opposed the terms being set. I can't even say I disagree with his proposed terms, however it's a bit misleading to just say "I opposed the invasion of Iraq." when there was a bit more to it, don't you think?

[Hep]

27. He opposed what Bush did and what Kerry gave Bush the power to do

but one thing you're right about is Dean's "only one" crap. I'm really turned off by that.

[diamondsoul]

13. And once again, I'll chime in

to defend Howard Dean on this one. They need to quit playing the semantics game.

Will repealing cuts result in an increse for some? Of course! Is it the same thing as "raising taxes"? Technically, yes, and SO WHAT??

Dean has placed a priority on not cutting the Pentagon budget and on balancing the Federal budget. Those are positions a great many people believe are right. I don't personally agree, but again, SO WHAT? Howard Dean presents his plan in language that people will understand and not balk at. BOTH assertions are essentially technically correct.

I dislike Howard Dean intensely, but this is just petty BS. He's laying out his plan in terms that won't scare the bujeezus out of the voters, something that seems to be escaping the media's grasp and that of some other candidates as well.

Folks the bottom line is this, we have the biggest deficit we've ever seen right now. For Dean to maintain military spending at the current level, maintain the troops currently deployed, AND reduce that massive deficit, he has no choice but to raise taxes across the board. Anyone who says differently is full of cow dung, and probably has brown eyes to prove it. This ain't rocket science, folks, just look at the still climbing number of our current deficit and ask yourself how the hell anyone is going to start it falling.

[Hep]

18. You have every right to dislike Dean

but thank you for keeping your standards for debate high. You've really impressed me.

[diamondsoul]

23. Funny! I just got hit with a revelation-

I'd gone back and linked to an unfavorable (in my view) debate statement by Dean in the most recent brochure thread. In doing so I started thinking about Kucinich's speaking up against Dean. Did you ever notice he hasn't ever brought up Dean's Gubernatorial decisions? I hadn't until just now. He sticks to the policies and statements Dean is making NOW as a candidate for President.

It appears I'm taking more lessons from my Hero than even I realized, and that is very cool.

[Hep]

26. If only we could get him to back off the whole

doctor is out attack, we'd be a happy bunch. Too bad he's just as evil as Kerry and Gep in that regard.

[diamondsoul]

60. But he did back off that, Hep.

There is nothing on the Kucinich site or Lit making that comment anymore. It was pulled within days of angry Dean supporters letting people know they took it as a personal insult.

[AP]

46. Real issue: allocation of the tax burden.

To allocate it fairly, you have to raise taxes on some, decrease taxes on others.

I think the last 30 years have been all about raising burden on middle and working class (ie, on EARNED income) and lowering burden on wealthy (specifically, on unearned income and inheritied wealth).

A fair allocation of the burden will HELP the economy grow. I've never heard Dean say anything to indicate he appreciates this distinction. He tells people who work for a living that they're going to have to pull their tax weight.

Better candidates talk about allocating the burden in a way that helps the economy grow and work better.

[wtmusic]

11. Not again

Yes, he is in favor of taking away that $390/household (average) refund to help relieve that $5000/household (average) debt. Understand?

[lurk_no_more]

14. Taking away a tax cut that allows you to pay lower tax

is a tax increase (pay more) to what you would pay had the tax cut not been taken away (pay less), for the mathematically challenged, or those that thought there would be no math today, this is an increase in the amount of taxes you would pay or in tax structure language, a tax increase.


” JAFO”

[Hep]

21. I didn't get squat from this alleged tax cut

So take it.

And someone tell me how in the world democrats justify defending Bush's tax cuts?

[lurk_no_more]

54. I am not defending bush's tax cut

but I am not blind enough to view taking away my tax cut as not increasing the amount of tax I pay.

I get an additional $225 per pay check since bush's tax cuts went into effect, if that gets taken away, I will pay an additional $225 in taxes, how does this not equate to a tax increase?

Can I live without this extra $225 per paycheck? Yes, Would I be willing to? Maybe, Should dean be honest and tell it like it is and admit it is a tax increase? Yes, Is there a better alternative than an across the board tax cut/increase? Oh hell yes.



” JAFO”

[Hep]

56. Term it however you want

Dean doesn't have to say a damn thing about it. He doesn't have to admit anything, and attempts to box him in with selective terminology are weak. Weaker coming from democrats than from republicans.

[burning bush]

69. $225 Per Check Increase?

Congrats.

I've been unemployed for over 1 year. My wifeworks part time at a bowling ally. Your increase is more than her entrire paycheck.

I've tried everything I know, but can not land a damn job.

Fast food places, though they seem to hire anyone, just don't seem to be interested in hiring a 40 year old guy with no fast food experience. I can't even get hired at freaking Taco Bell. My family survives on my student loans right now, plus any bit work I can get painting houses and repairing computers.

Times must be tough all over, because I used to be able to double my income with side jobs. Now I'm lucky to bring in $100 a month cash.

Mostly, I work off our rent, painting apartments for our landlord.

I'm glad you get that extra $225, but figure you must be doing pretty damn well anyway, to have such a large increase.

Meanwhile, our local sales tax keeps going up, tuition keeps going up, and health care is out of the question.

I hope you wont be offended when I say that I don't give a damn if you lose your tax cut. It's not personal. I just want my old economy back.

[AP]

70. Your middle and working class customers are paying for your services

with whatever is leftover after taxes and expenses from their decreasingly valuable pay checks.

You better hope that middle class and working class people don't have outrageous, unfair tax burdens.

[KaraokeKarlton]

16. must see

www.bushtax.com

[TexasPatriot]

28. you know...

If Un-lowering taxes is not raising taxes, then the pubs are going to have a field day asking Dean to define "is".

[Hep]

29. When repubs and D's make the same argument

we're all in BIG trouble.

When D's have the same difficulty understand nuance. When D's insist on lowering the level of debate to where RWers want it, we're in BIG trouble.

Ladies and gents, we're in BIG trouble.

[TexasPatriot]

45. i'll play

i understand the nuance... i understand the redistribution of the load from the federal to the state books, and the political results: in Cali where they lost a gov, Nev where they're trying to lose one, and Alabama where one had to resort to God to try and squeeze the electorate for money to make up the difference.

I would suggest you look at Alabama. Schools near the bottom, prisons at double capacity, threats to shut down hospital hours, eliminate police/fire protection, everything except a threat to get rid of high school football (that one might have worked btw)

Telling people you're going to take their money is a non-starter. The alabama initiative lost 68-32, and they had immediate and tangible results looming if the initiative failed.

Now - if an extremely conservative republican invoking God cannot get 1/3 of the voters to support a modest tax increase to offset the results of the 'bushtax' - what do you think Roveco will do to a Vermont governor who wants to do the same? And not calling it a tax increase absolutely exascerbates the problem in my opinion - because it cuts right to the issue of trust.

Look at Arnold. There was no plan - there were balloons and happy feelings. California has a very real problem - and he had nothing... well, nothing except half the votes (including half the votes from Union Households).

This issue is a nuke. Dean should backtrack now, take the heat for it, and try to move on.

[Hep]

47. Dean should stand for his principles

because I sincerely believe that Alabama is not a microcosm of the US.

[TexasPatriot]

49. and california isnt?

a state split between ideological camps - faced with a choice between a technocrat democrat and a bumbling republican goofus with charisma... If you add in the 15% of the 'principled right' who voted McClintock, there was a pretty big mandate against the concept of paying more at the state level for state services.

this isnt about Dean's principles (and we're talking about a guy who's splitting hairs with 'major candidate' brochures here) - it's about a bad policy, a bad strategic decision by the Dean campaign, and a bad mistake by Democrats to consider someone who will be portrayed so easily as a 'tax and spend' democrat. Again, I understand Dean's record etc etc... But in the land of soundbites where those casual voters who might go vote and pick up their dry cleaning tomorrow, the moms who are already shopping paycheck to paycheck at walmart because it's all they can afford - this issue will stick.

I do not want to see my party marginalized downballot at the polls, we have little enough power as it is. This isnt just about Dean - it's about what a stance like this will do to everyone else.

edit grammar

[Hep]

50. If you don't want to be marginalized

it's up to you to fight against it. Dean's policy is strong. I'mnot worried about it.

[AP]

66. The thing is, this isn't a Dean "mistake." This is what Dean believes.

He does not believe that the tax code should be used to pursue typical Democratic policy goals. That's what he told the Cato Institute.

Dean wants to give people a health care plan and convince them that he has given them somthing significant so that they don't complain about the fact that America exists for the purpose of making the rich richer on the backs of the poor and the working class.

If you look at his policies, he doesn't propose much that would lift wages (and it's my opinion that his education plan drives down wages). And he doesn't care much about shifting the tax burden from people with earned income (ie, wealth created by labor, which is all you have to offer, unless your parents give you lots of capital) on to forms of unearned income.

[TeacherCreature]

33. no, it's bullshit

anything else I can clear up for you?

He is for rolling back the tax cuts, as I am sure you know. However I am just as sure you will start this same thread again in a few days.
BTW, how is Edwards doing? Sucks to be him doesn't it?

[AP]

67. Since 'how's Edwards doing?' seems to be a popular response to any...

...criticism of Dean, I'd like to clear this up once and for all:

I LOVE being an Edwards supporter, win or lose. I can't tell you how wonderful it is to NEVER get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach because the candidate I support says something stupid. If Edwards loses, it won't be his fall or my fault. I will feel sorry for America for not chosing wisely. I will be upset that people were so easily manipulated by the media. But I will be happy that there are, in fact, good people, motivated by goodness, like Kucinich and Edwards, whose ideas about politics perfectly reflect mine.

Win or lose, I already feel like a winner for being able to support Edwards.

And it's important to note: if Edwards had never been born, Dean would still be an atrocious candidate with horrendous politics (on taxes, race, middle class opportunity, and on the role of the corporation and wall st in society, and with a terrible biography).

[quaker bill]

36. The reich-wing is critical of Dean?

This is the sort of cherry-picking Krugman stated would occur. If you are precisely in the "sweet spot" (to use his terminology) the changes Dean proposes sound substantial.

Once again, it fails to take into consideration that even the most favorable analysis of the Bush plan suggests in the middle class you get about $1000 cash in exchange for $5000 of additional debt.

[mmonk]

38. Repealing any already enacted

would be raising taxes (not that that is bad).

[maddezmom]

42. personally like repealing above 200K a lot better

leave the other tax cuts in place.

[Hep]

44. Why?

Why do you want to leave tax cuts in place that aren't even fair to the people who should receive them?

You just said you're fine with me, a middle class citizen who pays taxes, to not get a tax break. I want to know what you have against me as a person.

[maddezmom]

59. I'll try again

The tax cuts for those making above 200,000 should be repealed.

That's JMO...nothing against you. :)

[Hep]

61. No

My household income is $50,000. I got no noticeable tax break. None. Why are you OK with that? I'm in the middle class. Don't I deserve a cut of those alleged middle class tax breaks?

[maddezmom]

62. Hep

sorry you don't get a noticeable tax break, but what is your solution? You want it all repealed, is that correct?

[Hep]

63. I want it replaced

with a tax code that's fair. I think we can repeal the current tax laws and put back something better.

[maddezmom]

64. hey we all want that to happen

:)

[Hep]

65. I hope so!

It seems an awful lot like people here are in favor of keeping the current middle class tax cuts, which do not benefit the middle class equally, in place.

[Fleshdancer]

39. interesting.....

So Bush's tax cuts were suppose to help Americans? And yet the increase in poverty rate in 2001 was the first year-to-year increase since 1991-92*?

Yep. That tax cut sure helped the poor. It sure helped the middle class. We sure are better off with the tax cuts because that Clinton guy was horrible for the economy. :eyes:

*according to the US Department of Commerce Economcs and Statistics Administration: Poverty in the United States 2001.

I guess if the ultimate goal was to beat Dean, then sure, using the devisive term like "increase taxes" would work. I prefer to call it by what it really is, fiscal responsibility, but that's just me.

[rucky]

43. How Do the Other Candidates Intend to Pay for Healthcare?

[AP]

48. Other candidates believe a fair allocation of the tax burden will grow...

...economy.

When the middle class can't save enough so that they can educate their kids, have more options for themselves, stop spending 40% of income on financing debt, they can't help grow the economy.

Like Edwards says: the working and middle class are the engine of the economy. By overburdening them with taxes, they can't work hard in a way that grows the economy.

You can take a lower percentage of the middle class's income, but give them much greater incomes, and then there will be more tax revenue with which you can pay for health care.

It's all about DISTRIBUTING THE TAX BURDEN FAIRLY.

[poopyjr]

51. Dean is DOOMED because of this.

I'm telling you right now, he is ABSOLUTELY DOOMED on this issue.

You think no foreign policy experience will do him in? That's nothing compared to this.

[Hep]

52. Doomed, DOOMED I tell ya!

Toil and trouble toil and trouble!

[poopyjr]

53. Laugh now

cry later

[Hep]

57. How about I laugh now AND later?

How does your crystal ball feel about that?

[TexasSissy]

55. Yes, that's a tax raise. One of the big reasons he won't win a

general election. Hey, you and I both know the tax cuts were really a tax shift from the federal to the state and local level.

Problem is.....the shift occurred, so our local & state taxes HAVE BEEN RAISED to compenste for the federal cuts in spending.

So if federal cuts are taken away, we're stuck with higher federal taxes AND higher state and local taxes ('cause you and I both know those are not going to be lowered).

People do not vote for people who raise their taxes, as a rule. Remember "Read my lips"?

[ozone_man]

58. Except that we are paying "taxes" on our debt

that are cumulatively greater than the "tax cut". Get it? There is no free lunch, unless you care for a Bush sandwhich. :-)

You don't think that all those credit card companies out there are loaning us all that money just because they have our welfare in mind? Of course not, it's so they can bleed us dry like vampires.

Dean will teach the American public some economics, having balanced his budget every year for 11 years. He is quick to point out that Republicans are irresponsible with money. Even many fiscally responsible Republicans are disappointed with Bush, and will be voting for Dean.

On edit: Changed deficit to debt (the cumulation of deficits)