Will Dean give a tax cut to people with no kids?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

Just curious. Since Clark is getting criticized for not lowering taxes on single people with no kids, I'd like to know Dean's plan on cutting taxes for single people with no kids?

Thanks in advance! :)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. LOL!!!

:yourock:

DTH

[BeyondGeography]

2. It'll be the anti-breeder initiative

aimed at selfish Americans, an admittedly enormous market.

[dave29]

3. dude

you'd think with overpopulation being the worlds biggest problem, non-breeders would get the biggest tax-cut ;)

[maddezmom]

5. how bout folks that adopt?

would he give them tax breaks?

[BeyondGeography]

6. Yes, and single parents too n/t

[Bread and Circus]

36. Actually, we already get a huge tax credit for adopting...

but it is so ungodly expensive it still costs a lot.

My wife and I are working on adopting and it is no easy
process.

[maddezmom]

40. OT: familydoctor

Congrats to you and your wife, we've been thru the process 2X. Good luck to you both. :)

I was responding initially to the "over-population" argument.

[liberalhistorian]

68. Good for you and

Mrs. Familydoctor, that's a wonderful thing you're doing. Yes, you're correct, it is indeed horrendously expensive, but you'll find that it's more than worth it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. "overpopulation being the worlds biggest problem"

Utterly false. There are too many cars, not too many people.

[KittyWampus]

99. I Thought You Typed "Too Many Cats"

and that is kind of true :(

[Jerseycoa]

23. Heh heh

:D

[Gretchen]

7. everyone looks in the mirror when looking for tax cuts

the rich just take it a couple of steps further

***perhaps this would further help the gay community as well as heterosexual singles???

[HFishbine]

9. Just so I have this straight...

You're insinuating that people who choose not to have children are somehow more selfish than those who do?

[BeyondGeography]

13. No, some single Dean supporters were

railing at "breeders" earlier and having what most impartial observers would term a childish (no pun intended) reaction to the Clark tax plan. There was a "woe is me" quality to their outbursts, hence my post.

Kids, no kids, makes no difference to me. However, I do think working families take precedence over working singles for tax cuts.

[SahaleArm]

18. Paying for dependents (young and old) takes money

Why aren't single people complaining about the current tax brackets which are made to ensure dependents can be supported? This just looks like a thinly veiled attack by making a specious *breeder* argument.

[liberalhistorian]

72. Believe me, singles do

complain, it's just that no one hears them or they get called "selfish."

[KittyWampus]

100. I Think DEPENDANTS Is What Should Get The Tax Break

People who are taking care of their elderly parents or relatives should benefit as well.

Better for individual and society and it takes ALOT of time and money and emotional input to take care of a praent.

I've known several women who took care of their Mom's and Grandmom's. They couldn't even go on vacation.

[Woodstock]

66. Single people have as much of a burden

if not more than couples. Couples have two incomes. That is more buying power. And if one loses a job, the other is still there.

Also you compare working families to working singles - some singles are also "families."

How about just giving everyone a break? Sounds like the American way to me. Or how it should be.

[tameszu]

103. Why is it that we only give welfare to poor people?

Here is the clearest way to put it: 2 parents (or 1 parent) + children have a much, much higher cost-of-living burden than 2 people (or 1 single person) without children.

This argument clearly depends on children having a special status that doesn't reduce them to being just another lifestyle choice or equivalent to other things we love, like pets. And they do, because society would be impossible to continue without a future generation, and because they will end up becoming productive workers who pay for the current generation's social security and medicare costs.

I also note that your argument that "we should give everyone's money back to them" is pretty much equivalent to that justify across-the-board tax cuts (like Bush's) and even the flat tax.

Maybe it shouldn't surprise me that Dean supporters are opposing principles of progressive taxation and targetted benefits, given his record in balancing the budget in Vermont, though. :roll:

[Woodstock]

104. Not that you deserve a reply after what you said, but

Having children IS a choice for most people. There is no danger of the world having no future generation - we are in the midst of a population explosion, and people are dying every day because there are not enough resources for the life we already have on earth. So the "selfish to not have a child"/"noble to have one" arguments are quite simply, absurd. For people who have chosen to have a child, or who had a child not by choice but by circumstances, yet are having trouble feeding and housing the child, they should get help. I'm all in favor of that - no child should ever suffer for something adults do (or something the world the adults have made has brought about.)

A married couple who both work with a child can most certainly have a higher standard of living than a single person living alone - I see it all the time.

And you're also not accounting for single parents in your statements - why should they be left out?

I have never been a proponent of the flat tax - and you misquoted me. When you put quotes around something in a reply and say it's someone's argument, please take care to actually quote what they said. It's easy - on Windows, control C and control V, on Macs, Apple C and Apple V. Stick this in between quotation marks and voila, you've quoted someone. Stick something else you make up between quotation marks, and you've lied about what they said.

And since there's a lovely little dig at Dean supporters (from the "if you can't prove your point, insult someone" school) at the end of your reply, I see no reason why I should give you any more of my time.

[liberalhistorian]

109. I'm getting a little tired of

continually repeating myself on these threads, so here goes yet one more time: Just because you're single does NOT AUTOMATICALLY mean you have less expenses and no major financial burdens.

There are plenty of married couples with kids with far more income than many singles, and there are plenty of singles who have the financial and emotional burden of caring for a sick/elderly parent or parents or other family member. Because someone has kids doesn't automatically mean they're worse off than someone without kids.

And I'm a single parent who's getting a little tired of not being considered a "real" family because I'm not married, and I know plenty of struggling singles with major responsibilities who are getting tired of the same thing.

[Woodstock]

111. Amen

Right on! We are all Americans and we all have unique situations. Assuming works both ways, and does the same thing it always does.

[liberalhistorian]

70. Oh, really?

And does it not occur to you that working singles may also have expenses and major financial obligations, such as caring for ill/elderly parents, illness, etc., etc.? And does it also not occur to you that just because someone's single does NOT mean that they have a whole lot of money? There are more than enough struggling working singles who would not at all appreciate that attitude, I know plenty of them myself.

Of course, they always have to take up the slack when families are being pandered and kowtowed to, they've NEVER gotten any kind of break proposed for them, but what the hell, who cares, anyway?

[BootinUp]

16. Stop! I was drinking milk

you want it to go out my nose?

[liberalhistorian]

67. Excuse me, but

as a single parents who's been single my entire adult life and who knows many, many singles, I'm a little tired of the word "selfish" being applied to us. Most of them also have obligations, such as caring for ill/elderly parents or another family member, or they're foster parents, etc., etc. Most of them volunteer their time and knowledge to help others in their areas who need it.

They may even be ill themselves, or be unable to find a decent-paying job. And most of them don't at all mind paying for education, health care, public services, and other social programs/services even though they don't have kids, because they recognize that when people, especially children, are taken care of, everyone in society benefits, and they know the importance of children getting decent education, proper health care, proper nutrition, etc., etc., etc. It's when they NEVER get any breaks, and are always taken for granted, that they get a little tired of it.

When taxes on one group are lowered, the burden is always shifted to another group, and that group is usually singles and single parents. I know my taxes haven't had any break at all, even though I'm a single parent. So please, spare me the "selfish" bullshit.

[democratreformed]

4. I think we went through this last night

NO TAX CUTS FOR ANYBODY. And I was told that the majority of Dean supporters feel that way.

Off to meetup. See ys later!

[BeyondGeography]

8. Glad you all agree

it will seal your defeat.

[democratreformed]

52. Oops

Just so you know - not a Dean supporter here. I was relaying what I was told by a Dean supporter on this topic.
I couldn't let you go on thinking the wrong thing.

Clark all the way!

[SahaleArm]

10. Dean Plan - Increase the middle to lower class tax burden...

to balance the budget. Somehow strapping people with more debt will spur economic growth?

[dave29]

19. It's all smoke and mirrors

you give someone a tax break here, they get screwed somewhere else.

Repeal the whole darned Bush tax package and start from scratch. Please. Restore Clinton level tax fairness and I assure you, it won't sink the country. Balancing the budget is so much more important than a couple thousand dollars in my pocket to put towards my wife and I's $50,000 dollar college/credit/miscellaneous debt. These are like Christmas bonuses. You go out and pay off debt, or buy a new scooter, briefly pumping the economy - but you are still saddled with 50k in debt. Why don't we hand out healthcare for a majority of our citizens instead? And start working towards restoring the solvency of some of the programs we have fought so hard to guaruntee for the future.

As we make progress on the national debt - then we look at targeted tax cuts. It's just plain more responsible.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

27. Nonsense

I would rather have even greater fairness than we had under Clinton.

Clark cuts the defense budget and taxes the rich and super-rich, rather than taxing the poor and middle-class, AND he provides more benefits to families with children and also pays down the deficit.

How can any Democrat be opposed to that?

And you act like paying down debt is some kind of bad thing. So it's a worthy goal to pay down debt if you're the federal government, but not a worthy goal if you're an individual?

:crazy:

DTH

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

29. Some Democrats - Neo-Dem? - are opposed to that

While I've never been a fan of Clinton's you won't hear me complaining about his tax policy. He raised taxes on the upper middle class to balance the budget and get America out of debt - I fully support that.

Clark's tax plan is just FINE - raise taxes on the top 1% and get the deficit down. The only reason people are complaining is because it will help Clark.

There are plenty of things of concern about Clark - this tax policy is NOT one of them.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

30. Indeed. Hey, I Have a Question.

You've said numerous times that if Clark adopted a populist economic policy, he'd win in a landslide. I happen to agree.

IMO, this is the start of a populist economic policy. Now he just needs to take better positions on trade, but I was really excited to read this. I was wondering what your thoughts were, and whether you consider this tax plan "populist" or not.

Thanks!

DTH

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. Yes, I still believe that

Clark should look to Edwards - who has impressed me greatly the more I hear about his economic and trade policies. He's still "mainstream" enough to get away with it.

On trade Dean is now saying the right things about how investor's rights have become protected in international law like NAFTA and GATT but regular people - people without property - have NOT had their rights protected in the new global law. At the best we get afterthought "side agreements" - which people pay attention to about as much as they do UN resolutions.

If Clark can come up with a simple, straightforward way to say that and propose how to fix it, he's in.

But see Clark is smart enough to know this - it's not a matter of opinion. It's just a matter of which side he's on. Does he remember his roots or not? Time will tell...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. oh, and one more thing and here's a tricky part

We all need and want independent, local business owners on our side, and their employees and family.

They are in the same boat as we are and should always be included when you talk about "us". You want to make sure they know that Democrats want to cut their taxes too, and that we want them to thrive along with the rest of us. That's how we get tripped up on things like living wage proposals.

If anyone can figure out how to do it, Clark can.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

45. Totally Agree on Small Business Owners

I think Clark's plan for a tax credit of $5,000 per new full-time position created is a good one, although I'd like to see even more support of small business (as opposed to big corporations).

DTH

[liberalhistorian]

73. Of course it's a worthy goal if

you're an individual, but not if singles, single parents, and childless couples get saddled with the extra burden just because they're not part of what the government considers a "real" family.

[SahaleArm]

28. Why doesn't Dean increase the higher tax margins by greater than Clinton?

He can achieve the same affect without asking for the middle-lower class to foot the bill. Balancing the budget without spurring the economy won't balance the budget unless you cut social spending. Placing the burden on the middle class today to balance the budget in a shorter window will only increase credit-card debt.

[maxr4clark]

34. No, I think it is like the Kucinich supporter said

Everybody looks in the mirror when thinking about tax cuts. Dean's mirror shows a top 0.1% guy, so he doesn't see why he should be the only one getting a tax increase.

Clark isn't so rich as that, and most of his friends were downright poor before they got into the Army (and aren't rich yet). So when he looks in the mirror, he sees the rest of us.

[Bread and Circus]

37. So, you are admitting that Dean is a "tax and spend Democrat" then..

it's fine as long as we are calling it as it is.

[robbedvoter]

12. I was caller a jerk for not wanting to vote for increases by the same

people who bitch because other people will get cuts!
Glad someone else noticed.

[SahaleArm]

15. New DU Lobby - Leave No Millionaire Behind! n/t

[Justice]

14. He Should Because People With Kids Can't Handle A Tax Cut

As many posts discussing Clark's tax plan state, people with kids can't handle a tax cut -- they have no self restraint, no ability to manage spending or make choices about where to spend, and if given a tax cut, would rack up credit card bills or go to disneyland.

Never mind that the kids will grow up and be looked to to keep our economy going - so as to provide healthcare and social security benefits to all of us who are now old and/or retirement.

But no, it is all about me - forget about the next guy who may need a little help to bring up a family.

I bet these are the same folks who belly ache about software jobs going to India, but stood by and collected big money in the 90s when manufacturing jobs were going to heck (and worked on technology projects to send jobs to India so we could all go 24/7 on development).

I see a trend. A very selfish, non-empathetic, its all about me trend

[Buffler]

60. Can't handle it?

Where in the world do you get off saying that people with kids "can't handle" a tax cut? I guess you are of the mentality that has often lost us elections that people are too stupid to be trusted with their own money and that government knows best how to spend it.

[maddezmom]

62. it from an earlier thread

folks that weren't a fan of the taxcut for married with children. I think the poster is being facetious. :)

[Buffler]

65. This poster

may be being faceious, but the attitude I spoke of exists, and it exists in far to many people.

[robbedvoter]

17. Last night Simpsons had this debate - the childless vs families

The childless obtained an ordinance banning kids from public places. Any child who would have a public outburst "shall be lightly tased". In the end Marge returns things to normal with a referenum. The childless are stopped from voting by kids who overpower them with their cuteness. The entire debate mirrors the one here on DU - only much funnier.
Especially funny were the political adds: if you love kids, you'll vote AGAINST the family referendum....Reminded me of AARP and Medicare.

[leftyandproud]

20. I'd like to tell everyone to stop bitching about YOUR selfish interests..

who cares if you don't get a tax cut? Is it really that important that you have a few extra pennies in your paycheck, or that we fully fund the social safety net? We chastise the pukes for being greedy...Now it looks like we need to do the same to each other. Keep the big picture in mind folks. You should be willing to pay more taxes to advance the cause.

That will be all.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

31. That's OUR interests

Sorry, I want my taxes cut - but I especially want the taxes of some of the people in my family - who barely make enough to live - a tax cut - a lot of tax cuts. Why the hell should they be paying federal taxes anyway?

Yes, look at the big picture. Clark should be calling for a tax cut for the working class - we all should. Whoever wins, when they actually get to proposing a tax policy - is going to have to compromise anyway.

The Democratic Party - the Party of Tax Cuts for Regular Americans. If the rich don't like it they can vote Republicans (they do anyway).;

[Buffler]

61. Why?

Why should your family members be paying federal taxes? How about because they are Americans and as such should be required to make tax payments toward its function.

If not, why the hell should I or anyone else pay federal taxes?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. federal income taxes are for rich people

not regular Americans. That's what the system was supposed to do, until it became corrupted.

[Buffler]

74. Rich people?

At what point does one become rich? At what income level should one start paying federal income taxes and why that amount. And why should someone earning $1 less not pay any?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

81. if you have to ask

it's not you. :)

[Buffler]

82. In other words

you either can not answer the question, or prefer not to look like an idiot doing so.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

85. not going to waste my time

with a 9-post wonder complaining about rich people being overtaxed. Frankly, I couldn't care less if it isn't fair to rich people. Life isn't fair, deal with it.

[Buffler]

87. Back up your absurd claim

complaining about rich people being overtaxed.

Find me a single post where I did such and I will donate $100 to the candidate of your choice in your name.

[leftyandproud]

21. I'd like to tell everyone to stop bitching about YOUR selfish interests..

who cares if you don't get a tax cut? Is it really that important that you have a few extra pennies in your paycheck, or that we fully fund the social safety net? We chastise the pukes for being greedy...Now it looks like we need to do the same to each other. Keep the big picture in mind folks. You should be willing to pay more taxes to advance the cause.

That will be all.

[Justice]

22. Kick

Because This Thread Is Important.

[SahaleArm]

24. The me first crowd...

I wonder which taxes are next... Will Social Security and Medicare taxes be considered discriminatory? I'm waiting for the anti-Elderly crowd to get going.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

25. Subjective Progressiveness, Based on Who Proposes It

It boggles my mind as well.

DTH

[SahaleArm]

26. Progressive as long as I get mine screw the rest - What a joke n/t

[arewethereyet]

32. have not heard about ANY tax breaks

its his contention that there were no tax breaks.

sure could have fooled me. but I suppose some states that were already disasters could be viewed that way if you ignored their status prior to the changes.

[mzmolly]

38. Yes...

Because your property taxes will go back down. ;)

[SahaleArm]

39. In what dream will that happen? My assessed value is going up.

And the state won't be repealing any of those taxes. The federal government doesn't charge me property tax.

[mzmolly]

46. Here's a bit of schoolin for you...

Bush cut $$ to the states for various needs. Police/Fire etc... The states then pass that burden on to you and me via increased property taxes etc. Additionally, in my State they cut medical programs and many other essentials.

See here for more information, be sure to click on your state to find out how the Bush tax cut effected you.

www.bushtax.com

[BootinUp]

48. What if your state isn't there?

And what if the state gov doesn't follow through on Dean's "promise".
Seems a little wishful. Generally State taxes are affected by many things not just just Federal funds.

But I do not deny that cuts in federal funding made things more difficult for states. Its just that the economic downturn had a lot to do with states problems too in the last couple/three years.

[mzmolly]

49. Bush perpetuated the economic turndown?

Which is why were in shambles. A few States like "Vermont" ;) are not struggling because of rainy day funds.

If your states not there, check the other links at www.bushtax.com for more information.

There are some search results here as well.

http://www.overture.com/d/search/p/netzero/?Partner=netzero_nzaddressbar&Keywords=cost+of+the+bush+tax+cut

[BobbyJay]

89. Dean's platform is based on raising taxes and creating hypotheticals

DEAN LANDSLIDE 2004!!!!!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

43. Absurd Claim

Dean would have nothing to do with state taxes if he were to become President, and even if federal rolls go up, states are so underfunded that there is no way they're going to lower property taxes, unless they're forced to by the electorate in a referendum state.

DTH

[mzmolly]

47. Absurd?

www.bushtax.com

[Buffler]

84. Property taxes went up

My property taxes went up more during Clinton's presidency than they have under Bush. Do I blame Clinton for this? No. I blame the county commission who controls my property taxes.

[dansolo]

51. But at least then they may be able to balance their budgets

Even if the states don't lower their taxes, they will at least avoid having to continue to cut services, which has been a big effect of the Bush tax cuts. A lot of services are provided by the states, and they have been massively cut all across the country over the past few years.

[BobbyJay]

88. When? When Dean loses 30-60 to Bush? lol

Dean is OBSESSED with losing the general election. I have to question the sanity of a candidate that thinks a platform of raising federal taxes on all in this economy will make him a winner.

[Cheswick2.0]

41. will Clark go back to lobbying for the Corporate whores

when he's lost the nomination?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

42. Yawn

See ya.

:eyes:

DTH

[Cheswick2.0]

44. yawn right back at cha babe

:7

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

50. Red Herring

Why am I not surprised?
:boring:

[Hep]

53. NOT THE POINT

as if the hourse we spent discussing this yesterday have had NO impact on you. It isn't that Clark isn't offering us anything. It's that Clark is offering one group of people something and another group of people nothing. And both fall within the same socio-economic range. A couple with two kids making 90,000 dollars per year get a tax break while a couple without kids making $50,000 a year get nothing.

Seriously, what about that is so hard to understand that you had to start a whole new thread about it?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

55. groups of people

the fact that Clark's plan is "unfair" to people without children doesn't concern me in the slightest bit, really. Raising taxes on millionaires is good policy.

[Hep]

56. Why am I not surprised?

It doesn't concern you that when trying to come up with good policy your candidate sets the bar this low. He could have really tried to come up with something that looks good for everyone who works hard for a living, being the economics expert that he is. But he didn't. And that's just fine by you.

Well, at least now you know why it isn't fine for me.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

57. you want to raise taxes on the middle class

That's a pretty lame principle to lose an election over, don't you think?

First, you people complained that it excluded gay people - which it didn't - and now you complain that it's excluding people without kids - but YOU want to raise their taxes.

Face it, it was a total bullshit reason to bash Clark over, and there are plenty of good reasons to bash Clark over.

Do you hear me bitching about Dean's "gaffes" or "anger"? No.

[Hep]

58. I want to raise taxes on the middle class?

Nah, that's just a narrow minded interpretation of what I want, but I'll forgive you for it.

I want to get rid of Bush's tax cuts so we can once again have sensible fiscal policy in the US, and that includes SENSIBLE and FAIR tax cuts for people WITH OR WITHOUT children. I'm just not in favor of forcing people to meet a child bearing criterium in order to get som tax relief.

Hope that helps.

First, I never said a damn thing about gay people. Get your facts straight about who you are talking to because these kinds of memory lapses are silly.

I wonder if a post with less factual information about me and the person I support can be composed.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

59. sorry, I should have said "you people"

as in Dean supporters. You People want to raise federal taxes on the middle class, because You People seem to want your candidate to be the anti-Bush more than you want to win.

"I'm just not in favor of forcing people to meet a child bearing criterium in order to get som tax relief."

What a joke. You are offering ZERO relief and you justify it because people won't have to meet a "child bearing criterium" to NOT get a tax break? Yeah, that's fairness dude!

Can you people hear yourselves? Get out of the bubble and start living in the real world that 95% of Americans do. We're not electing the mayor of Santa Cruz, this is for the presidency remember?

Then again, the sooner the anti-child people die off and remove themselves from the gene pool, the better for the rest of us.

Please tell me you don't have one of those "Humanity is a Sexually Transmitted Disease" bumper stickers? Or a prepared speech about overpopulation (as you drive around in your car)?

Out of touch, and hell bent on losing. Why would I bother with the Dems, if I wanted to lose at least I'd do it with dignity like the Greens?

/rant

[Hep]

63. You people cuts the same way

When you constantly make this claim, you advertise the fact that you don't really understand what Dean is talking about. I mean, it's fine. Well meaning, intelligent people all over the country have seen through the silly misinterpretations and oversimplifications, and more see through it every day. It's actually only the right wing and select Dean opponents who get stuck in this little spider web of misinformation.

I'm offering plenty of relief by the way. I'm offering relief in the form of affordable health care, good affordable schools, social programs that work, jobs, AND a tax policy that makes sense and offers something for EVERYONE, not just those who he deems worthy of relief through outdated litmus tests.

And if you think I'm anti-child, then you just have no idea what you're talking about. I should not have to repeat it so many times, as I expect people here to be able to read, comprehend, AND remember over the course of a 24 hour period, but I will for you. I'm happy to help pay for education, health care, social programs, job training and whatever else. But I draw the line at handing out cash to people just because they have kids while ignoring people who chose NOT to have kids and still live paycheck to paycheck. Defend it all you want. But it makes no sense.

Finally, the insults, while expected, and while I'm sure you're proud of them, aren't really funny. I'd like to be able to laugh it off and say, "Thats just politics", but frankly, the ridiculous amount of disrespect you show me, fellow Dean supporters, and Dean himself continues to amaze me. I have no idea why you have such a problem with us.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

78. Simple, here's the problem:

Dean spent his life fighting against us. Dean spent his entire career shilling for rich people and fighting AGAINST democracy by pimping things like Nafta. Dean spent his entire career doing deals for "free trade" and carrying water for outsourcers and CEOs.

But Dean DID show loyalty to some people - Dean DID show loyalty to certain factions of the Dem party. Those factions never showed me ANY solidarity, so why should they expect it in return? Those people were perfectly willing to trade away my safety net for a notch up the social ladder. Dean hasn't done SHIT for me or my family.

And you want me to buy into his new identity he invented because you like his speeches? I may be young but I wasn't BORN YESTERDAY.

YOU PEOPLE sold us out.

But don't worry, I'll laugh at all the dumb suckers when President Dean tells us to "hold the course" and "finish the job" in Iraq, you know, the war that he SUPPORTS and wants to continue for YEARS.

I know *exactly* what Dean is talking about. I've seen it happen a bunch of times before, and there are always suckers that believe it. Won't Get Fooled Again.

[Hep]

92. Here come the old memes

Dean fought against us yet we kept voting for him. He suported NAFTA, which I also support, and I support it because I know that it wasn't borne from nefarious intentions. I guess I'm just not cynical enough to see it the way others do.

We people sold no one out, and won't sell anyone out, that much is pretty simple. The nature of your argument is your GENERAL disdain for Dean, nothing specific.

I'll tell you though, it will be a lot easier to laugh than it will to actually consider his position, and I don't fault anyone for taking the easy way out. Who am I to tell people to think?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

97. you support NAFTA

enough said. You're not on my side.

"I support it because I know that it wasn't borne from nefarious intentions"

That would be hilariously funny if it wasn't so naive. Do you remember NAFTA I - called MAI. No? Do you remember the arguments they made in public for the FTAs? Did you read the business press at the time?

Enjoy President Dean's 8 year occuption of Iraq, and working for slave labor wages.

If I had realized it was so easy to sucker people, I would have gone into politics myself.

[Hep]

101. I suppose maybe you should have gone into politics

then perhaps you could provide explanations for all of your assertions and predictions! Our loss.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

105. if you don't think destroying democracy is nefarious

I think you're nefarious, how's that? Because destroying democracy is what FTAs are all about. You support it, glad you're honest about where you stand.

[Hep]

107. You have point A and point B

But you don't seem interested in sharing the route you took to get from one to the other.

You say NAFTA=Destroyed Democracy, yet you don't explain how, and you don't show any evidence whatsoever of the ultimate intentions of those behind it.

Basically, you seem to be trying to convince me that Clinton supported some dastardly attempt to overthrow our government. I'd like to know how you reach that conclusion if this is the case.

[liberalhistorian]

80. Excuse me, but, you know,

I'm getting just a little bit tired of hearing the term "anti-child" applied to anyone who doesn't have kids. Most childless singles I know not only like kids, they may be a surrogate parent to nieces, nephews, or other youngsters in the family, or they may be foster parents, or they may provide child care for their married friends so that they can get a break once in awhile, or they may work with children at their church or community agency, etc., etc.

Where the hell do you get off calling childless singles "anti-child?" And where the hell do you get off calling people who've decided not to have children for whatever reason (and that's a helluva lot more responsible than someone who has kids when they can't/won't/don't want to care for them) "anti-child?"

The prejudice against singles and couples without children on this board just astounds me beyond belief!

[Hep]

93. PLEASE don't tell my god son that I'm anti child!

n/t

[liberalhistorian]

76. Well, pal, it better

concern you if you want your candidate to win, because that is one of the largest demographics in this country, not the "real" families who are the only "worthy" ones according to your and the government's attitudes.

Sure, just brush off almost 80 million people, that's the way to get your candidate elected.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

83. Will Dean propose ending tax credit for kids?

No? Than what are you complaining about. Dean SUPPORTS discrimination against people with no kids. Deal with it.

[Buffler]

86. Yes, he will

To say that Dean will not propose ending the tax credit for children on its face is technically a correct statement, it is misleading.

Dean wants to REDUCE the child tax credit from its current $1,000 back to $400.

But since he doesn't want to eliminate it totally, saying he doesn't want to end it is a correct statement.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

90. Great, so Clark and Dean agree

Both want to discriminate against the childless. I like Clark's plan better.

[Hep]

94. Actually, no

I don't mind the tacx credit for children. It's offering thousands of dollars of tax relief ON TOP OF THAT which bothers me. Odd that you can't think in more nuanced terms.

[liberalhistorian]

91. Who said I'm a

Dean supporter? What makes you automatically think I'm for Dean?

[Larkspur]

54. I support Dean's repeal of the Bush tax cut since I didn't get one that

mattered. In fact, I can't find a tax cut in my paycheck. Citizen for Tax Justice says that I got a $50/year tax cut. Whoopee!

I prefer Social Security to be strengthened as well as Homeland Security funded adequately and initiating affordable healthcare for everyone. I also want the deficit to be reined in and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

The big difference between Dean and Clark is that Dean has a proven record in the civilian political world of taking a state's deficit and turning it into a surplus. Dean knows how to balance budgets and promote social justice issues. Clark has theories but no civilian political leadership experience or skills.

Clark should have run for governor of Arkansas to prove he could make the transition from military to civilian political realm, but he didn't and the doubts keep growing about Clark. He smells like a political opportunist, who knows that he had no chance to win as an Independent, so he entered the Dem Prez race as a faux-Dem hoping to ride on his military credentials, like Ike did on his. Like the other Dem contenders, Clark underestimated Dean and what it takes to win a major Party's primary.

Dean is the hardest working Dem candidate that I've seen. Andrew Stern said that Howard Dean was the only Dem candidate to follow his suggestion on winning SEIU's endorsement -- winning over SEIU's grassroots. Not even Dennis Kucinich, the supposedly more progressive candidate, put as much effort at winning SEIU's endorsement as Dean did. With Dean, I feel as a taxpayer, that I'd get more than my money's worth of work out of him if he was President. Clark prefers to ride the hype.

Dean has worked his butt off during this campaign and it's paying big dividends because he's balanced hard work with smart decision making. He and Joe Trippi grasped what MoveOn.org was doing and when MoveOn offered their consulting Internet services to each Dem candidate, Dean immediately took them up on it. Clark may have also, but Dean did it early in his campaign.

[Yavonne]

64. can't speak for singles but for married/no kids w/25,000 income

ours will go up approx 13% if he totally reinstates the marriage penalty to clinton era levels.

[BobbyJay]

69. Dean's plan: lose the general election by raising taxes on ALL

It's a brilliant strategy

[Buffler]

75. He's not raising taxes!

or so many of his supporters say. How they can come to that conclusion is beyond me.

[BobbyJay]

77. He is raising taxes (and it will do him in)

The media and Bush will spin Dean as a "tax raiser and big spender who wants to tell you what to do with your money". I don't understand why Dean is so passionate about losing in the general election. It's almost like he's doing it on purpose.

[Buffler]

79. I know

I know that Dean is proposing raising EVERYONES taxes. There is no logical or reasonable way to suggest otherwise. But a load of his supporters will be here in a minute to proclaim that Dean is not going to raise taxes.

Repealing a tax cut is a TAX INCREASE! Period. End of story. Thats the fact, Jack.

[Hep]

96. As long as you stop there

the theory holds up pretty well. But then you're ignoring the rest of his policy, which is pretty darn unfair if you ask me.

To each his own.

[Hep]

95. WOW!

What an incredibly simplistic view of a very complex issue!

[BobbyJay]

98. Right, because the general populace will just scour over every bit of it

Like you do :eyes:


Dean = taxes up

Bush = taxes down

[Hep]

102. The general population is not stupid

And they are for good public schools and affordable access to healthcare. And they can be shown how Dean's programs = a net positive for everyone.

Not everyone is bitter and cynical.

[BobbyJay]

106. "They can be shown" lol

You are in for a RUDE awakening if Dean is the nominee.

[Hep]

108. It;'s funny to you

and that's fine, but I find it funny that you leave out the explanation for how that is funny. I am getting the impression that you think people are stupid. I find that hard to believe. I'd like more information on your views and you seem more interested in one liners.

[BobbyJay]

110. No, just tired of arguing with NBDers

Who think Dean is the greatest thing since sliced bread and can't see beyond February.