Is Clark's tax plan "pandering"?

[Brian_Expat]

Sure seems that way to me. "Elect me and I'll balance the budget, pay down the debt, add new social services AND you'll never, ever, ever pay taxes again."

While it's a tempting short-term alternative to eat Clark's rockey-road ice cream plan, in the midst of the national stomach-ache called the Bush administration, what we really need is a return to the proven budget-balancing prowess of the Clinton tax and fiscal policy as advocated by Howard Dean, not by what I consider a "reverse supply side" pipe dream.

It might win Clark a few votes from people who think they'd "never have to pay taxes again," but ask yourself -- what kind of America do we get if the vast majority contribute little or nothing to it? President Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Yet Clark's plan is promising a huge too good to be true free-for-all, with most Americans collecting services without paying a dime in taxes. That's ironic considering his view on "national service."

Paying one's fair share in taxes is a major component of "national service" and contributing to the common good. Why disenfranchise Americans by taking away their contribution to America?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathleen04]

2. Are you for real? n/t

[Renew Deal]

4. Al Sharpton

would be real change.

[Kathleen04]

7. Yeah, it would be.

But, I think the poster might want to make that his sig line or something instead of ending every post with "Al Sharpton!!!!!!!!" ;)

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark Campaigner]

106. Clark's tax plan is the best since FDR

[Renew Deal]

3. Your first sentence is wrong and it makes the rest of it invalid.

"Elect me and I'll balance the budget, pay down the debt, add new social services AND you'll never, ever, ever pay taxes again."

Wrong

You will pay taxes if you are making over 100,000. You will pay even more if you make over $200,000 and 1,000,000. You will not pay if you make less than 50,000 and you have kids. When the kids grow up, you pay again.

You need to reword your opening or this is pointless.

[Brian_Expat]

5. So he's only pandering to parents? n/t

[Renew Deal]

18. No, he is helping American families.

It sounds more like you are jealous that your candidate doesn't care about families and less like you care about families.

[Brian_Expat]

23. He's not helping my family. . .

. . . or my working-class sister's family, who would lose their child credit payments from the government so that Clark can push through big payoffs to the middle-class conservatives he's pandering too.

He's also not helping America by growing the already massive Bush deficit.

[Renew Deal]

26. He is not helping your family...

because you don't live in the U.S.

What child credit payments are you going to lose specifically? How much money?

His plan is part of a larger plan that will actually reduce the deficit with a savings of 2.35 trillion over 10 years.

http://www.clark04.com/issues/economicplan/

You might want to get more familiar with Clark. You might actually like him.

[Brian_Expat]

35. Most of my family lives in the USA

Including my sister and brother in law, who would lose their child tax credits.

And if I lived in the USA, the Clark proposals still wouldn't help my family, because we both are "outies" rather than one "outie" and one "innie."

[Renew Deal]

38. huh

I really don't get the innie outie stuff. You didn't answer my question. Besides that, which credits would they lose and for how much money?

[tameszu]

101. You have misread the plan--Clark increases their child tax benefits

Clark's plan consolidates and increases the total amount of the 4 child tax credits into a single flat rate credit of $2,250 per child, which is more than the previous 4 combined credits could have been, whatever your sister and brother-in-law's income.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

94. Oh Lordy

We're not going to go through this again are we? :eyes:

[Bombtrack]

10. no, it's if you make 50,000 or less

you really need to get your facts straight

[Renew Deal]

17. fixed, thanks

Sorry. There is so much info to juggle. Thanks.

[Tweed]

14. Even that is wrong

Families of four who are making under $100,000 dollars will get a tax cut, not a full tax break.

[bearfartinthewoods]

109. and that isn't pandering?

100,000 and they need a tax cut? come on....

i have not reserched this but someone alleged that the clark plan would mean half the population would not pay taxes. i don't think that's healty.

[maddezmom]

6. are you asking a serious question?

or a soundbite?

[Brian_Expat]

11. A serious question, of course.

Howard Dean talks about his faith and is accused of "pandering," but Wes Clark comes out with a special-interest tax plan, and is hailed as a genius.

The definition of "pandering" is promising freebies to a specific group in order to gain favour in that group. Is this not what Clark is doing?

You'd figure after all the attacks on Dean, that the people making the attacks in the Clark camp could answer this simple question and explain why it isn't "pandering."

[maddezmom]

22. so where are the freebies?

point them out.

[Brian_Expat]

24. No taxes for CERTAIN families (gays and very poor need not apply)

Sounds like a freebie to me, at the expense of poor people who lose their government payment credits, which are converted into deductions.

[maddezmom]

28. again are you serious?

saying it doesn't make it true. Show me how Dean will do more for you than Clark. They are both tryng to do something better than the chimp.

[Brian_Expat]

46. Dean will balance the budget

And return us to the economy we had under Clinton.

Clark will pander to married middle-income families and leave the rest of us with a huge bill and continued swelling deficits.

Doesn't take much to figure out which is preferable.

[BobbyJay]

57. In his "6th or 7th year" huh?

Btw, does Dean want to raise the middle class tax cuts that Gore and Clinton championed?

[SahaleArm]

30. Filing married already gets a tax break...

If you adopt a child you get more of tax break. Sorry you are barking up the wrong tree.

[Brian_Expat]

48. How do I "file married" to get the magic Clark tax break? n/t

[SahaleArm]

68. Get the civil rights laws changed n/t

[Brian_Expat]

76. Oh, now that's easy. Too bad Clark decided to exclude us in the meantime.

n/t

[SahaleArm]

80. Why? He is for equal rights including tax benefits n/t

[BobbyJay]

97. huh? EVERYONE is excluded under Dean.

[Renew Deal]

45. Wrong again....

Gay families with children making less that 100,000 are included. No application necessary. There is a simplified tax form. That also goes for all "poor" families. BTW, the EITC is not being taken away.

[Brian_Expat]

49. LOL

"Gay families with children making less that 100,000 are included"

Ahhh. . . "with children." Those without need not apply under Clark's risky gimmick and will probably see their taxes soar to pay for this pandering plan.

[Renew Deal]

81. If you don't understand the details of the plan

you should:

a. find out what they are.
b. don't argue about things you don't understand.

I am still waiting for you to tell me what child credits your poor sister is losing. The EITC is not being taken away. Neither is Welfare or a any other program for single people. Did you know that?

[MR. ELECTABLE]

8. Clark hasn't made it to front runner status yet

Time to bribe voters with a FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE tax giveaway, when we should be trying to increase government revenues to pay down the national deficit. But then again Clark's health care plan is DOA, so we'll never be paying for that particular social service. I'll believe paying down the deficit when I see it.

[Brian_Expat]

16. The irony. . .

. . . is that once again, Bush and Clark are saying the same thing -- we can do a tax cut and spending increase and STILL balance the budget. Math doesn't work? Don't you worry your little head about it. Here, have a lollipop.

[Turkw]

27. We can cut taxes on some, raise them on others, increase spending in some

areas while at the same time cut waste and balance the budget. It is not a black and white issue. If we have someone who manages the economy, we can do a great deal. If Bush had pushed the right tax cuts, the economy would have recovered sooner. Lou Dobbs had an economist on today that was criticizing Bush for A) the wrong tax cuts and B) not managing the economy.

[Brian_Expat]

36. Cut taxes on most and raise them on a few and still balance things?

Sounds a lot like trickle-down to me.

[SahaleArm]

41. That few owns over 50% of America's wealth - Serious disparity n/t

[Brian_Expat]

50. Clark is taxing income, not wealth. Try again. n/t

[SahaleArm]

54. Top 2% of Americans generate a majority of income revenue

Dick Grasso's salary makes up for 1000's of lower income workers. The other major source is unearned income (dividends and cap-gains).

[Brian_Expat]

60. The top 2% of Americans will never pay under Clark's plan. . .

. . . billionaires will head to the Bahamas as they've been doing for a while.

Even assuming they didn't, to balance the budget you'd need marginal tax rates of over 50% on average on the remainder of society not covered by the freebies in order to make up for the lost revenue -- or be willing to run Bush-league deficits.

[SahaleArm]

73. That's a bogus argument - plenty of millionaires stay in the US...

Where's your source for those numbers?

[Brian_Expat]

78. Simple math proves your contention wrong.

You'd have to tax wealth to get at that income, NOT income.

Since the elimination of the capital gains tax, most of the wealthy's income will be tax free. You'd have to reinstate the CG tax in order to collect as well.

Billionaires interested in dodging the tax could either quit the country OR pay themselves dividends in capital gains tax free circumstances, or issue themselves loans collateralized by untaxed assets. This plan is poorly-thought-out.

[SahaleArm]

85. Cap-gains were not eliminated - Dividend was n/t

Unearned dividend income is another source that Clark's economic plan will roll back.

[Trajan]

105. Tax cuts for the middle class ...

Tax increases for the rich ...

Net zero sum game ....

Of COURSE we are concerned about the deficit, but NOT at the expense of working families ...

Your argument for fiscal resonsibility is misplaced and superfluous ...

Let's balance the books on revenues generated by the profits enjoyed by those benefit MOST from the system ... and let's STOP using our national treasures to support the cronies of the GOP at the expense of OUR poor and middle class ...

Any assertions that the middle class CANNOT receive a tax cut while the budget deficit is reduced ignores the fact that such money COULD be drawn from the very rich who have benefitted so handsomely under Bush ...

[Tweed]

9. Missing the point

Have you looked at the tax plan? The people who don't pay taxes are families that have more then four children. That vast majority of Americans are families with four children that are making less then $50,000? Could you show me show statistics to back that up? I'm having a hard time believeing that. Or maybe you just didn't read the actual tax plan: http://www.clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/ Check it out for yourself. Helping out the poor isn't pandering, it's building a nation.

[Brian_Expat]

12. Clark's plan doesn't help the poor. . .

. . . it gives away freebies to middle-class families who closely fit the profile of more conservative regions of the country.

Many poor people will lose their government payment credits for child care under Clark's proposal.

[maddezmom]

25. really..show me

[BobbyJay]

31. Really, link?

I can't wait for this one!

[deminflorida]

13. Actually...I was looking at the numbers today...

A person who makes under $50,000 and has four children, doesn't pay a hell of alot of federal income tax now. Not with the child tax credit, and if they work you add on the child-care write offs...vitually nothing. What he's offering is easily paid for by taxing the people who earn over a million dollars. He's just taking back what Bush gave away and allowing lower income and middle class people to get on their feet. Bush has been responsible for the largest job loss in this country since the Great Depression.

Middle Class families are looking for relief, and they don't see it in the message Dean is putting out.

[Brian_Expat]

19. The way to relief is a healthy economy.

The way to health economic growth is a balanced budget, not a huge pandering boondoggle that favors some "families" over others, mostly to gain votes for Clark.

[maddezmom]

52. nice rhetoric Brian

[Brian_Expat]

62. Just reiterating reality

A healthy economy comes with hard work, fiscal discipline, reasonable taxation and sacrifice, and a commitment to a balanced budget -- not pie-in-the-sky budget-busters.

[tameszu]

103. This is a canonical statement of Reagan's trickle down economics

Just so you know: it's normally right wingers who prioritize balancing the budget over providing more services or making the tax system more progressive anyway.

And Clark's plan is deficit neutral. Or do you oppose raising taxes by 5% on the very wealthy?

[maddezmom]

115. hmmmm

<<The question now, Dean advisers said, is exactly what form the tax relief proposal might take. It is most likely to be a targeted income-tax reduction for families with children, they said.>>>

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/07/dean_may_support_middle_class_tax_cut/

[hedda_foil]

15. It's not passable by any Congress of any party mix. Period.

it's totally unrealistic in terms of our debt level and monetary crisis. If Clark doesn't realize this, his advisors who wrote it certainly do. Of course it's pandering. And I'm disappointed that he'd be drawn into it. He's smarter than that.

[Brian_Expat]

20. It seems to me that the contrast between Clark and Dean grows clearer. . .

Dean is telling the truth about how hard we have to work to get out of the Bush mess, and is inviting us all to participate.

Clark seems more interested in telling us we can have it all, every one of us. Mere physics says that's impossible.

[Renew Deal]

29. Right

Dean is dumping the tax burden on all americans, family or not. Clark is shifting the burden off of families with children and also shifting it to the .01% of the population while still pulling in the same amount of revenue? How is that not passable, because Dean didn't think of it. Good luck getting Dean's tax hikes passed. It will not happen. 2 reasons, 1 is that we will not get any leverage in congress with him as the nominee and secondly, no one is dumb enough to vote for a large tax increase like he is proposing.

[Brian_Expat]

43. Clark is doing trickle-down. . .

. . . that the rich will magically make up ALL the difference. It's the same logic Reagan, Bush and Bush II did in order to run up the deficit.

America cannot afford risky gimmicks -- she deserved solid policies like balanced budgets which led to the biggest economic expansion in American history in the 1990s.

[SahaleArm]

59. Sorry your rhetoric is backwards - Taxing the rich is not a Reagan policy

The only gimmick is your flawed rhetoric.

[Brian_Expat]

67. Trickle-down is simple. . .

It's the doctrine that the rich are rich enough to save everyone and pay for everything. It was proven untrue in Reagan's day, and remains untrue. That isn't stopping people from WISHING it was true, but only broad-based taxation (sans huge budget cuts) can balance the budget and pay down the debt.

[SahaleArm]

77. You are wrong - Trickle down gave tax breaks to the rich...

Progressive taxation takes more from the rich to help redistribute burden.

[Brian_Expat]

79. Trickle-down = wealth from rich will "trickle down." Clark plan=trickle

[SahaleArm]

86. Continue to contradict yourself n/t

[tameszu]

102. OK, you really have got trickle-down completely backwards

Trickle down is a form of "dark Keynesian" economics, with the built in assumption that the rich are more productive, so the best thing to do to boost the economy is by targeting fiscal stimulus toward the rich by cutting their taxes, thereby increasing overall investment and productivity. Eventually, even though you have done little or nothing to direct benefits in the form of either social spending or tax reduction to the poor, the economic benefits of economic growth will eventually "trickle down" to the middle class and the poor.

I can't make it any clearer but to say that this is exactly the opposite of what a more progressive tax system intends to do...and in fact the intellectual cousin of one of the arguments you have already made on this board--the "new" trickle down economics actually concentrates on reducing social services, taxation and overall spending to produce a healthier economic environment, so that even though you have done nothing to directly help the poor...well, you know the rest.

[Trajan]

116. OK ... since your PREMISE is clearly wrong ...

It is understandable why your conclusions are also false ...

Supply Side Economics = "Trickle Down" = tax CUTS for the rich, who will then create economic activity that will 'trickle down' to the lower classes ...

DEMAND Side Economics = "Trickle UP" = tax cuts for the LOWER classes, which create a demand for products, thereby stimulating commerce from the bottom up, which translates into increased revenues for business as they fill that demand ....

Your problem is that your premisses are incorrect ....

Poor thing ....

[SahaleArm]

32. Taxing the middle class into oblivion will spur the economy? n/t

[Brian_Expat]

40. Clark's taxing the middle class too. . .

. . . at least those who don't have children.

And last time I checked, the middle class did quite well under Clinton's budget-balancing tax policy, which Dean's closely mirrors.

Repeating Republican talking points about "taxing the middle class to death" is, need I say, quite disturbing coming from the campaign of a Democrat-come-lately.

Fiscal responsibility is the only responsible course for America. Simple solutions designed to pander to certain economic groups are not responsible.

[SahaleArm]

44. No Clark is leaving the 2003 tax bracket in tact for < $200k

Above $200k you go back to the Clinton tax bracket with an additional tax bracket starting at $1-Million.

[Brian_Expat]

56. Hahahahahaha!

So we're going to take a budget that already is creating a $500 billion deficit, give a huge tax break to a bunch more people, and then make up that $1 trillion or so per year at the high end? Fat chance.

It would take rates higher than in "socialist" Europe to do that.

Unless, as is more likely, Clark's plan allows deficits to continue to swell until we're bankrupt.

[SahaleArm]

66. You've bought into Dean's Hooverian zeal to balance the budget...

Try something more than random numbers. You can't balance the budget purely through reverting taxes; even Dean is talking a minimum of 6-7 years. Middle class money spurs more economic growth than higher income brackets, hence the tradeoff.

[Brian_Expat]

69. I've bought into Dean's CLINTONIAN zeal to balance the budget. . .

Which is soaring out of control as we speak.

The people who advocate leaving my nephews 1/2 TRILLION per YEAR in debt are the Hooverians.

[SahaleArm]

75. Taxing the middle class even more saddles them with more debt now...

And won't spur the economy and won't balance the budget.

[Brian_Expat]

82. Taxing the middle class at an appropriate level. . .

Reduces the growth in the debt and strengthens the currency.

Everyone (yes, EVERYONE) should pay their fair share until the debt is paid off.

[SahaleArm]

88. Strengthens the currency how? The currency rate is closer to the fed rate

The debt should be reduced so we don't have to pay for it, indirectly strengthening government bonds. Greenspan has more control over short-term currency valuation.

[BobbyJay]

92. Raising taxes on the middle class has NOTHING to do with a balanced budget

You have really bought into Dean's double-speak, and it's unfortunate.

I really encourage you to visit:


www.clark04.com

[GR]

37. I Totally Agree....Dean Is Appealing To Altruism...Clark/Bush...

to selfishness..."Let people keep more of THEIR OWN money" ME ME ME ME ME ME...

We can never out bribe Bush...

[SahaleArm]

39. Dean is for a reverse progressive tax? n/t

[Renew Deal]

42. Selfishness???

How do you figure. This is a temporary break for people under 50,000. Believe me, it costs far more to have a kid than his plan is giving you. Besides that, the burden is shifted to the top. It is called a progressive tax plan. We usually support that around here.

[Hawkeye-X]

98. more importantly

Economic wonks like Clark do NOT make good presidents because they continue to try to apply the supply side (tried under Reagan, Bush I and Chimpy) economic theory without considering the people involved, and that is why the General will lose more and more support as they realize he's all hat, no cattle.

[GR]

33. Yes, I Feel The Same Way...Reminds Me Of Bush Too Much...

Of course it could never pass anyway.

[Brian_Expat]

51. Curious that a "Democrat" would advocate trickle-down, eh? n/t

[BobbyJay]

58. How does Clark advocate trickle down?

Do you even know what tricle down economics is?

[Brian_Expat]

71. "The rich will make up for my irresponsible tax cuts." -- Clark/Reagan n/t

[BobbyJay]

89. I'm sorry, but you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

[SidDithers]

96. Agreed

He's arguing, but has no idea what he's saying.

Trickle down reduces taxes on the rich, with the theory that they'll have more money to pump into the economy, which will "trickle-down" to the middle and lower classes. (Increased consumerism leads to more jobs and a larger tax base - or something like that.)

The rich do not pay more taxes under trickle down. They pay more under progressive taxation.

Sid

[BeyondGeography]

74. Get your terms straight

Trickle-down is a term that describes the hoped-for effects of supply-side economic theory. It was first used in connection with Reaganomics in the 1980s by Democrats who derided the Republican argument that flooding the rich with tax cuts would result in all that money flowing out and down through the economy. Hence, trickle down.

Clark's plan is the OPPOSITE of trickle-down. He's taking money out of the hands of the richest 0.1 percent of the population and cutting taxes for working families. It's a refutation of supply-side economics.

And, if you don't believe all that, watch how the supply-siders and the Republicans scream when President Clark gets this plan passed next year.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

95. Shhhh

Don't use facts...you know it only confuses them. :spank:

[tameszu]

100. Curious that a Dean voter would use a WSJ meme to attack progressive taxes

No one on the left should support the ridiculous argument that dropping poor folks off of the income tax rolls disenfranchises them. It is an utter excuse to maintain a regressive tax system.

[Clark4VotingRights]

34. Haa haa haa haa haaaa

The Dean desperation is showing.
This is lame.

[incapsulated]

47. Yeah!

Those bastards making less than 50k with kids have had it easy too long! Stop kissing their ass!

 
 

[Brian_Expat]

53. Whereas people making under $24K who got payments from the gov't. . .

. . . for their kids can kiss that money goodbye to pay for wealthier people's windfall. How is taking from the poor to give to the more fortunate a Democratic value?

[incapsulated]

87. Let's see...

If a husband and wife are both working and making 30k between the two of them, and have 2 kids as well, get a tax cut, that is a bad thing?

Oh, and where does it say that the tax on a couple making less than 24k is going UP? And doesn't such a couple, should they decide, despite their financial limitiations, to have children (which will cost them more over the years than any other expense), deserve a break from the government when they do?

 
 

[quaker bill]

55. Well, probably.

It does work well with the you can have your cake and eat it too crowd.

[Brian_Expat]

63. Sad how people who claim to reject trickle-down. . .

. . . now think it's going to work.

[SahaleArm]

90. Sadder that some people have no clue about t(r)ickle-down n/t

[Lefta Dissenter]

91. OK, Sahale,

just because I've had a really bad day and three glasses of wine, I'm going to ask how I can learn more about "tickle-down"?

:)

[SahaleArm]

93. I can't post that information in this forum...

;)

[robbedvoter]

61. Let's check, shall we?

--------
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clark6jan06,1,1854649.story?coll=la-home-politics


Clark Offers 'Simple' Yet Sweeping Tax Reform
By Eric Slater
Times Staff Writer

January 6, 2004
NASHUA, N.H.—Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark on Monday unveiled the most sweeping tax-reform plan of any of the Democratic presidential hopefuls, a plan he said would dramatically simplify tax returns and benefit 31 million families without increasing the budget deficit.

Under Clark's proposal, a family of four making up to $50,000 a year would pay no federal income tax at all, and all families with children making up to $100,000 would see a reduction in their tax bill. The retired four-star general says he would offset the loss in tax revenue by asking millionaires to pay more.

His proposal is a decidedly liberal approach, as well as one that clearly sets him apart from the Democratic front-runner, Howard Dean, whose call for repealing all of President Bush's tax cuts has been attacked by rivals as hurtful to the middle class.
snip
At the end, summaries of tax plans of other candidates:

Howard Dean

Wants to abolish Bush's tax cuts. Hopes to end corporate tax loopholes and eliminate tax shelters. Would boost Internal Revenue Service resources to help the organization collect billions of dollars in back taxes."

Wooptydo!

[Brian_Expat]

65. A plan that doesn't add up

Just doing the math demonstrates that Clark's plan would run Bush-level deficits indefinitely, slowing economic growth and hurting everyone.

[Trajan]

117. Ok ...

SHOW that math here ...

Prove it ...

[Philosophy]

64. No - it's eugenics

At some point giving ever larger tax incentives to have more kids starts becoming scary.

[Renew Deal]

70. So having a kid costs less than the amount you would not pay?

I am sorry, but there is no profit on children. (except for the Olson twins).

[Brian_Expat]

72. That's another issue entirely -- one with big-time merit

It looks like Clark's continued efforts to pander to the "family values conservatives" factor into here as well.

[arewethereyet]

83. its unpassable so whats the point ?

you don't honestly think the republican congress will pass that do you ? much less get it up for a vote !

[robbedvoter]

84. Here's a little story I wrote for ya:

http://chat.forclark.com/story/2004/1/6/114928/5850
And my favorite comment to it:



by digby



It sounds like some people have listened to too many Bush campaign speeches. He's the one who says "my tax plan doesn't pick and choose. Everybody gets a tax cut."
I guess these people figure that a winning message for the Democrats is "my tax plan doesn't pick and choose.  Everybody gets a tax HIKE." 
This is the Democatic wing of the Democratic Party all right. Circa 1984.

[tameszu]

99. Are you really recycling the WSJ's "luckie duckies" argument?

Geez, and I thought I'd seen it all. I knew that Dean supporters could be "centrist," but recycling Paul Gigot's editorial page argument about how paying income tax is a sign of virtue (really, a "class warfare"-type characterizations at attempts at progressive tax reform) is really something else.

For one thing, it's just false that removing lots of people from the income tax rolls means that those people "will never pay a dime in taxes ever again." Poor working folks will still pay highly regressive sales and payroll taxes.

And as for the argument that people will become disenfranchised because they aren't paying income taxes, I find that an amazingly silly argument. There are plenty of ways to contribute to the country, there are many ways to call for service, and there is no need to make any of them--certainly not paying income tax--one size fits all for the sake of national unity. Or do you think we should reinstate the military draft as well?

[adamrsilva]

104. Dean and Gephardt are the only ones who tell truth about this.

The rest off pie-in-the-sky tax plans like that one from Clark.

[maddezmom]

107. is Dean now pandering

in light of the recent news he's thinking of giving middle class tax breaks? hmmmmm

[kayleybeth]

108. I think the Dean supporters

are waiting for their talking points. Haven't heard much out of them on this one yet.

[maddezmom]

110. will be interesting to hear from the singles and married w/o children

<<The question now, Dean advisers said, is exactly what form the tax relief proposal might take. It is most likely to be a targeted income-tax reduction for families with children, they said.>>


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/07/dean_may_support_middle_class_tax_cut/

[kayleybeth]

111. Let the backpeddling begin! -eom-

[robbedvoter]

114. Ha!ha!ha! Retraction time? here's where I chronicle it:

http://chat.forclark.com/story/2004/1/6/114928/5850

[robbedvoter]

112. Here's a calculator for you to play with:

http://www.clark04.com/taxcalculator/

[maddezmom]

113. thanks robbedvoter

love the dancing banana :)

[maddezmom]

118. kicking

:kick: