Dean supporters don't really oppose more progressive taxation, do they?

[tameszu]

I assume not, but now I'm not so sure. Over the past day, I have seen anti-Clark posters make some of the most outrageous right wing arguments against reducing the tax burden on poor and lower class families with children and paying for it entirely by increasing the tax burden on corporate tax evaders and the super-wealthy. Some folks have whinged "but what about ME? Why should breeders benefit so much more" even though it doesn't hurt them at all, either in comparison to the status quo or to the fiscal plans offered by the other candidates. Some have stuck to the hadcore Washington Consensus balanced budget line--the same sort of thinking that have helped precipitate the fiscal and social services crisis in all of the states that have enacted their irresponsible balanced budget legislation. Others have brought up the Wall Street Journal's ridiculous argument that the working poor "lucky duckies" who are exempt from paying income taxes due to their low income are in jeopardy of losing their sense of citizenship because they will somehow become less invested in the affairs of the nation.

And then there's bizarre argument that making the tax system more progressive is somehow trickle-down Reaganomics. I don't understand that one at all.

I have weathered many dark insinuations that Clark supporters have moved DU to the center, but now when he comes out with one of the most ambitiously progressive schemes of the campaign, I find it amazing that a great number of Dean supporters have used blatantly right wing arguments against them. Clark has redefined political gutsiness by challenging Rove to "bring it on" and call him an "old style" (read: liberal) Dem, because the General believes that he can articulate a more progressive tax system in terms that will make it seem consistent with heartland family values, rather than "class warfare." But I bet he didn't expect to be taking right wing fire from supporters of the primary campaign's self-defined candidate "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Paul Wellstone would be ashamed and appalled.

[Rowdyboy]

1. I always thought progressive taxation

was a 20th century cornerstone of American democracy. Obviously, things have changed on the left.

[hellhathnofury]

2. No. We oppose Cowboy tax cuts.

www.bushtax.com

[Mattforclark]

6. It's not a tax cut, it's a tax shift

Clark wants to shift the burden away from lower-to-middle class taxpayers (especially those with children) and over to the wealthiest .1% of Americans.

If a plan has no net loss of revenue, it makes little sense to call it a tax cut.

[BootinUp]

8. Good talking point n/t

[HFishbine]

13. "no net loss of revenue"

I was wondering about that. What's his plan for reducing the defict?

[maxr4clark]

21. I believe it consists of cutting Defense spending and job growth

[hellhathnofury]

24. Your trying to get a cut in defense spending?

That's dumb at this point. "You can't trust Clark to keep you safe from OBL"-Rove

[mouse7]

71. You think there's 500 billion to cut from that?

You're kidding, right?

[tameszu]

39. Clark's plan to roll back Bush's tax cuts for people earning $200K+

is independent of this newer plan.

Everything in this new plan is revenue neutral--but this new plan doesn't take into account for the previous policy of rolling back the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $200K a year. That plan is still in effect and comes with the familiar $1.1 trillion savings that Clark has in common with Kerry, Lieb, etc. So yes, this means that folks earning over $1 million have to give back the Bush tax cuts and pay another 5% more on top of that.

[hellhathnofury]

14. I agree. But it sell's better as a working class tax cut.

Just some friendly advice from your fellow Dem's.

You can call it a tax reform plan.

I should edit my above to Bush Tax Shift. I bought the line. Damn.

[tameszu]

9. Cowboy cuts: the kind that are balanced by increasing taxes on the rich?

What makes them "cowboy"? That they redistribute money from corporations and the super-rich to middle class and poor families? If so, then giddy up!

[hellhathnofury]

22. I only skimmed the text. I apologize.

We support progressive taxation. Oppose Cowboy Tax Shift. Your shift isn't "Cowboy," shrubs is though. Don't assume we automatically oppose other candidates platfroms.

I like Clark's plan. Good luck getting it through a GOP congress.

[tameszu]

26. Thanks! I knew I could trust most open-minded Dean supporters!

I think most of you folks are great. I am just worried at those who have become so caught up in the primary competition that may have warped their liberal principles.

[hellhathnofury]

28. Your thread title is a little misleading.

It's phrased as an attack thread whereas your actually pitching Clark's plan in the body.

[tameszu]

37. Well, it is sort of a counterattack to a lot of bad arguments

by some Dean supporters that I've been disappointed to see on DU recently. Of course, I assume that Dean has more sense than to make such attacks.

[hellhathnofury]

40. But we haven't attacked Clark's plan yet, I think.

So why single the Deanie's.

Just admit it's somewhat misleading.

[tameszu]

49. Dean supporters on DU (although not Dean) certainly have

Just go skim some of the original threads on Clark's tax plan. In fact, you can just check out the comments of the Dean supporters on this very thread.

[hellhathnofury]

51. I don't see any direct attacks on the plan itself in the thread.

We are saying his policies are becoming pie in the sky (not me, i don't think you can get it through Congress but it ain't bad). I still wouldn't have singled Deanies without Dean himself attacking Clark for it. We are after all only anonymous internet denizens and as you stated yourself there's alot of partisanship.

We all don't think alike anyways.

[tameszu]

53. Sorry about the misunderstanding--I should have said Dean supporters on DU

I didn't mean Dean supporters in general.

But a lot of the Dean supporters on these boards have reacted to Clark's plan with an amazing amount of negativity.

For one example on this thread, see #15. Other threads were much worse--such as the one accusing it of pandering and inexplicably accusing it of being Reaganism (I think that poster badly misunderstands what Reagan was about).

[hellhathnofury]

54. I can't answer to that (never saw). Doesn't excuse it.

It's about individual behavior, retaliation is never in the best interest of the group as a whole.

15 BFD. We get to advocate too. Are we really expected to know all the inn's and out's of everyone's plans?

[tameszu]

56. Not retaliating

Just trying to restore some (progressive) sanity to the discourse.

As for #15--that's the only one on this particular thread, but you should go find the original thread on this topic. There were a whole gaggle of Dean supporters who spilled many sprites trying to argue that tax cuts mainly for families with children (paid for entirely by the rich) is wrong, because "why should singles have to pay for the choice of people who decide to have children? What about ME! (and my dog)."

Anyway, I'm willing to stop, once when everyone understands what's really at stake here: Clark's plan is not a bad plan for progressives to support; just as we should all be happy if Dean really does propose reducing or eliminating payroll taxes.

[dsc]

69. As one of those evil singles

who incidently makes around 1/4 of these families, I am sick to death of being portrayed as selfish. I never have money for extras. I don't have insurance. And yet I am supposed to pay around $400 in taxes and see people with significantly higher standards of living pay none. That isn't progressive.

[Mattforclark]

27. Thank you

for your courteous replies. It is a simple pleasure to talk to fair minded people like yourself. You give me hope that we can unite behind the nominee, whoever it may be.

[hellhathnofury]

30. The best way is to shut down the serial attackers.

I've noticed it's the same folks over and over. On all sides. We can all work together and tone down the flame fest. It will spillover eventually into the mass media.

Merci.

[madfloridian]

3. Dean is pragmatic, and he will compromise for what is right.

I have watched that about him. He has a sense of what is fair, and he will do it. I won't agree with all of it, but most will do.
I have not argued against anyone's policies, because I am a pragmatist as well. They have to have something they can get throught and then maneuver later.

[sandnsea]

67. The Presidency is about leadership

Supposedly Dean's campaign has been against the Democratic Party compromising in order to get those tax cuts for working people. Now he's being supporter because he's a compromiser, which means more of what he's supposedly against.

I want a President who says what he thinks and sticks with it. I want a leader. Any of the other candidates fits that bill, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with their positions.

Howard Dean clearly does not. And now the "revolution" is all about compromising. Good grief.

[slinkerwink]

4. I also find it amazing a great number of Clark supporters use right wing

arguments against Dean, especially from right-wing articles and newspapers that used to be banned here on DU as citations.

[tameszu]

7. Tu quoque--take care of your own house first

When I have ever used a right wing source against Dean?

And the key question is: do you support progressive taxation or not? If so, then maybe you should consider doing something about all of the Dean folks who seem to be attacking it.

[slinkerwink]

15. I don't mind taxation on the wealthy, but I do mind taxation on single

people like me. Why should I have to pay more in taxes so a family of four with two parents that earn $100,000 to my $50,000-$70,000 income get off tax-free?

That's why if Dean floats that payroll tax cut plan, it'd make me even happier than Clark's tax plan for families.

[tameszu]

35. Clark's plan proposes lower taxes on singles than Dean's

Did you miss the bottom line that Clark's plan preserves the middle class tax cuts the congressional Dems tied to Bush's tax cuts and pays for them by taxing the very wealthy, whereas Dean would roll back those cuts?

In real terms, you and other childless persons wouldn't pay a dime more in taxes than you do now under a Clark Administration, but you would pay more in a Dean Administration. So the statement "Why should I have to pay more in taxes so a family of four with two parents that earn $100,000 to my $50,000-$70,000 income get off tax-free?" is incorrect--you won't pay a cent more in taxes so that poor and working families can get those benefits; only the super-rich will.

But furthermore, the simple fact is that the family of 4 making $100K simply needs it more. One person earning $50-70K has much, much more disposable income than each member of a family of 4 earning $100K total. If we assume that poverty line expenses are $10K a year, then the family of 4 has $12K per person in "disposable income," whereas the single would have $40-60K. This is basic math.

Of course, for this equation to make sense, then you have to accept that children are not simply a choice like having a dog, as they are necessary to continue of society and to pay for our future social security and medicare. And it is just that the tax system treats them as not an optional expenditure, but a necessary cost for a common good, whose price society should help bear when doing so becomes painful for poorer individuals. Almost everyone on both the left and the right agree on this idea. You certainly won't find Dean himself criticizing Clark's plan on these grounds--and he will be committing political suicide if he does.

And for the record, I will praise Dean to the heavens if he does float the payroll tax plan! I will even concede that it is a masterstroke, as the payroll tax is incredibly regressive.

But that doesn't mean that you cannot support BOTH plans--especially if both are deficit neutral and have different income streams.

[flaminbats]

5. No more than the Clark, Kerry, or Edwards supporters do..

I guess that I'm no lucky duck! :evilfrown:

[BeyondGeography]

10. Dean didn't propose it

so it can't be good.

They're also buying into the Rockefeller Republican fiscal conservative soul of Howard, which stresses fidelity to a balanced budget. I don't think they realize how long it took for Clinton to balance the budget (almost all of his 8 years), and that it will that it will take at least as long for any Dem to re-balance going forward. Even Howard's not saying he'll balance the budget until year 6 or 7.

And then what happened when the budget was finally balanced? The economy was 1 or 2 years shy from falling apart anyway, for reasons that had nothing to do with the government's fiscal health. Point: A balanced budget is not a magic elixir that guarantees eternal economic health.

I agree with the Dean crowd that we shouldn't pander with irresponsible tax cuts, but Clark's tax cut is fully funded, another point they seem to miss.

[hellhathnofury]

38. You contadict yourself there...

"I don't think they realize how long it took for Clinton to balance the budget (almost all of his 8 years), and that it will that it will take at least as long for any Dem to re-balance going forward. Even Howard's not saying he'll balance the budget until year 6 or 7."

I think we would realize since that's Howard's own words. We got laughed at during the debate for it.

"I agree with the Dean crowd that we shouldn't pander with irresponsible tax cuts, but Clark's tax cut is fully funded, another point they seem to miss."

Have we attacked Clark's cut yet officially? Your cronies above insist it's technically a "tax shift."

[SharonAnn]

11. Here's where I need help, WSJ article 1-1-04?

I received this today, from an otherwise respected friend. I'm going to need to answer this to him and the rest of his distribution list. I'm researching the Dean website right now but could use some help.
-------------------
Interesting figures from a usually reliable source. KIM

From the WSJ, Friday, Jan 1, 2004 by Stephen Moore:

WHAT THE DEAN TAX MEANS FOR YOU.

• Current Law Dean Tax
  
• Capital Gains Tax 15% 20%
  
• Dividend Tax 15% 39.6%
  
• Income Tax Rate (highest) 35% 39.6%
  
• Income Tax Rate (Middle) 25% 28%
  
• Income Tax Rate (lowest) 10% 15%
  
• Per Child Credit $1,000 $500
  
• Marriage Penalty Tax Eliminated Reinstated
  
• Death Tax 0$ 55%
  

[pasadenaboy]

17. anything that calls the estate tax the death tax

has to be an accurate description!!!

Good source for democrats to use!

[slinkerwink]

18. isn't Stephen Moore a part of that Club for Growth group that's attacking

Dean?

[pasadenaboy]

12. Of course we do

we are all republicans

We will never be able to accomplish all that the current generation of congressional democrats and the DNC have. That's why we are afraid of Clark's institutional candidacy. We now how much change will happen if we keep the same cast of characters in charge of the party.

[tameszu]

25. I don't really understand this

What do you mean by "Clark's institutional candidacy" other than that he doesn't shout "you have the power" a lot? Do you know how many draft people are working on Clark's campaign? Or the degree to which the Clark campaign relies on the Internet and grassroots donations and volunteers?

And what is more institutional/establishment than getting endorsed by Al Gore? Don't you folks usually brag that you are leading in superdelegates? One day, the Dean people say that he is winning over the Dem "establishment" and kissy-kissy with McAuliffe and that he won't split the party; the next day you argue that his candidacy is revolutionary and that he'll clean house. You can't have it both ways.

[Dookus]

16. Yes, it's sad...

to see supposed liberals opposing progressive taxation, open government and reasonable gun control.

Luckily, I can keep my principles and support a winning candidate at the same time: Wesley Clark.

[Jerseycoa]

19. Straight Talk - Good for you

:toast:

[Printer70]

46. It's not straight talk

I'm sorry but the General must think poorly of us if he thinks that he can tell us he'll cut taxes, create new programs such as subsidizing college tuition, and balance the budget. It might sound good at first, but the numbers don't add up. On further scrutiny, Clark's "plan" will melt like snow in the March sun (or April, whenever the general election will effectively begin).

[tameszu]

48. The numbers add up because he has the courage to propose tax increases

for the wealthy--increases that no other serious Dem contender has proposed, because they are politically risky. That's how you afford more for those below. This is a basic tenet of progressive thinking.

I could have expected right wingers to make all sorts of objections, but I'm astonished by the opposition from progressives.

[Printer70]

58. Dean is increasing taxes on the wealthy too

Clark is not going as far as Dean- not by a long shot. He will not collect nearly enough federal revenues for improving health care or education. If Clark wants to balance the budget, forget it. The tax cut will cut into whatever revenue is gained from the tax increase, and all the promises Clark makes for social programs will not be deliverable.

[depakid]

20. Oh please-

Everyone here supports progressive taxation- but a lot of us are also smart enough to know that you can't pay for all of the things that Clark (or any of us) wants to see done by relying entirely on an increased tax burden on corporate tax evaders and super-wealthy. The money just isn't there. That's not an attack on Clark, that's just a criticism of suspect policy.

[Dookus]

23. the superwealthy

gained enormously and disproportionately over the last 20 years. It's time to fix that disparity.

[clarknyc]

32. Good luck.

Countering the "class warfare" shitstorm of attacks that attitude invites will be difficult, at best. Bear in mind that roughly 20% of the income earners in the US think they are in, or associate themselves with, the top 1%.

[depakid]

34. Agreed-

wholeheartedly. I think we're all for placing the tax burden on those with the most ability to pay, who enjoy a disproportionate amount of the fruits of what America has to offer and for whom the money has a much diminished marginal utility. However, it's important to realize that income tax is only one of many taxes- and some, like FICA for instance and many state & local taxes, are much more regressive. You also have to figure in basic needs expenses like health care (and I would add tuition). The whole complicated package needs to be taken into account before you can figure out the fairest way to levy taxes based on the big picture.

[tameszu]

44. Uh, so which Dem prez candidate has a plan for fixing state and local

taxes? Isn't that kind of, you know, not relevant to a campaign for the Presidency of the Federal Government?

Come on: the tax system is very complicated, but are you really saying that it's a bad thing that Clark wants to move in the other direction from the last 4 decades and make income taxes more progressive? As for those other taxes--yes, we should deal with them too. But the income tax system by itself is messed up.

And are you doubting that Clark's plan is revenue-neutral? Achieving revenue neutrality in fiscal policy isn't really that hard--you just have to put the screws in the right place. Predicting the impact on the broader macroeconomic picture is what's really tough. But if we all agree on the basic progressive point that we can probably tax the rich quite a bit more without wrecking the economy, then there is no reason to oppose this.

[depakid]

52. It's called federal revenue sharing

and it's been a cornerstone of economic policy in every administration (up until this one) since the Great Depression, especially when the states are in fiscal crises. The fact that even Republican Governors were practically grovelling at their conference last year tells you how vital it is- and why Dean refers to the drastic cuts and tax & fee increases as "the Bush tax." Because, as someone who has paid more than his fair share of it, I can tell you that's exactly what it is. Dean has proposed increasing aid to states (though there's a caveat- he stated flat out that he would limit this for states that have gone on irresponsible tax cutting frenzies). He announced a plan to do just that late last spring.

Also- who said that Clark is wrong for wanting to make the tax system more progressive? Certainly not this kid. All I'm saying is that the tax proposal I read- as well as certain posters' interpretations of it- aren't going to generate the kind of money needed to deal with all of the issues that General Clark- or almost any of the other candidates- want to tackle, such as personal needs expenses & increased revenue sharing that would result in better services (like public schools) and lower (or at least not increased) state & local taxes.

[IndianaGreen]

29. You are not talking about Wes Clark's flat tax proposal, are you?

Clark's flat tax proposal is nearly identical to the one proposed by Steve Forbes in 1996.

The current tax system is a fraud and should be scrapped altogether. Our politicians love it because it is a means by which they dispense favors to their campaign contributors.

We need a good debate in this country on replacing the tax code. The Presidential campaign in 2004 is not the proper time or the place to discuss an issue that is easily demagogued.

[slinkerwink]

31. good post....

:toast:

[tameszu]

42. If it's so good, then why don't you explain it to me?

As I don't understand it.

[Dookus]

43. "I don't know who Walter Mondale is"

A direct quote from Slinkerwink. She probably also thinks Clark's call for a more progressive tax system is a "flat tax".

[Dookus]

36. Umm...

Clark has never proposed a flat tax. I don't know how you could be more wrong.

[tameszu]

41. Clark is doing the OPPOSITE of a flat tax

He is in fact creating fourth tax bracket (40%) for persons making over $1 million or more, as opposed to reducing all of the brackets into a single one.

[Mattforclark]

50. I think it is a sarcastic post?

Ironic that some people took it seriously, and think it is a good post. It's really quite a shame.

[AP]

33. I have had similar questions after listening to rationalizations

of, for instance, not giving the middle class tax breaks. Some of it doesn't sound very Democratic.

I've also noticed in the child tax credit arguments some of the same rhetoric the right wing uses to make people think welfare is an issue about sexual promiscuity, rather than about a society which requires unemployment and which drives down wages and opportunities in its effort to upwardly redistribute economic, cultural and political power.

[dsc]

70. Why should I pay more in taxes than those with a higher standard of living

That is what happens here. I don't care how long and hard you try to argue the case you won't convince me that a family of four making 50k doens't have a higher standard of living than a single making 12k. Yet the single pays more. That is utterly unfair.

[Printer70]

45. Clark is offering false promises to the masses

He is telling them he can cut their taxes, institute all kinds of new programs (ie: subsidized college tuitition), improve healthcare and education, and balance the budget. The problem is that most American know this cannot be done. You cannot have everything and any politician that tells you that you can is untrustworthy. One of the reasons Dean has been so successful is that when you listen to him, you get the sense he's leveling with you. It's refreshing, it's honest, and ultimately, in the long run, it's good politics.

[tameszu]

47. He is not telling everyone that they can have everything

He is telling those making over $200K straight out that he is going to raise their taxes to what they were before Clinton. He is telling people who make $1 million+ that they are going to have to pay even more. And he is telling corporations that he is going to make it harder for them to avoid paying their fair share.

He is not telling everyone that they can have everything. But most progressives believe that a lot of people could have a lot more if politicians didn't allow the system to be so skewed toward the rich few as opposed to the much less wealthy many. Or is this another piece of liberal thinking to which you're willing to make an exception for Dean?

"One of the reasons Dean has been so successful is that when you listen to him, you get the sense he's leveling with you."

This is not an argument about tax policy; this is your personal intuition about Dean. Others who feel differently about his various moves sealing his records, the way in which he seems to talk down on southerners, and his shifts on affirmative action will feel differently I'm sure.

[Printer70]

60. Tax cut for the Middle Class cancels Tax Hike for Rich

Clark will leave the state of federal revenues in the same sorry shape it is in today- unable to balance the budget and leaving 40 million uninsured. In the face of our economic crisis and healthcare crisis, Clark is offering another petty tax cut (which doesn't even poll in the top 5 issues that people care about). Is that a "higher standard of leadership"? I don't think so.

[Dubyawatchers]

55. Reality sucks

I agree with you 100% Printer70

I wonder how many house seats we'd have to pickup in 04 to be able to get a tax plan like this passed?
40?
Only 20 - 25 are even considered competitive.
You couldn't just have a simple majority because there are too many "dEMOCRATIC" house members that might oppose it.
How many would be needed in the senate?
4? (that's keeping all the ones we have now, which won't be easy)
We'll be very lucky to get either the house or senate back before 06 or 08.
Unless "he has a plan", maybe he plans on putting soldiers in the chambers during the votes with guns to the members heads.
(joke)
So the plan is all blow and a no-go from the start. clark
is just showing off his inexperience in politics, once again.

Reality just sucks sometimes.

[tameszu]

57. My moderate Republican roommate thinks that this is doable

If the Dems follow Clark and hold the rhetorical higher ground by casting such reforms in terms of "family values," Clark style.

And why do you think that this proposal is any less politically feasible than many of the other big plans that other candidates have? Roll back all of the tax cuts of the last 3 years, including those that the Dems supported? Redo the medicare bill (which also passed with Dem help)? Revise NAFTA to implement labor standards? Do you not think that a Repub Congress wouldn't fight any of those like screaming cats?

The reality is that it is all about leadership and political will.

[Printer70]

59. The reason is support from the people

We have 40 million uninsured. With a roll back of the Bush tax cuts, we can cover every American. The American people don't want another tax cut- it doesn't even poll in the top 5 issues people care about. Health care does. If Dean promised that every American would have health care if we went back to Clinton's tax plan (under which we gained 22M jobs compared to the 2M lost under Bush's plan), there would be political pressure to pass the bill.

[Mairead]

63. Check your facts.

Depending on how he plans to do it, he COULD deliver all that. Your objection is based on the idea that some things --such as the obscene war-industry, prison-industry, and health-industry budgets-- are sacrosanct, therefore anything given the people must be at the expense of a tax increase.

We need to change the distribution patterns in this country. I don't know whether Clark would do it, but I'm sure Dean would not because Dean has already said he would not.

Kucinich and Sharpton, on the other hand, would. As would, to a much lesser degree, CMB.

[Padraig18]

61. "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

:eyes:

[quaker bill]

62. Budget deficits are not a progressive value

Properly and permanently funding social spending is a progressive value.

Taking responsibility for your own expenses is a progressive value.

Tax cuts create budget deficits. Budget deficits are used as the excuse to cut funds for social spending. Eliminating a budget deficit removes the 'we can't afford good schools' excuse.

The budget deficit takes the social security contributions of the minimum wage worker to fund illegal wars and military expansion.

Budget deficits build a debt that my kids and grandkids will have to pay.

There is nothing progressive about any plan that leaves the budget deficit in place a single day longer than required. Any plan that does not aggresively address this issue is a sell out to the conservative 'we can't afford it' meme.

I am sorry, but I prefer a more radical change than your logic offers.

[Hep]

64. Look kids, we have a new buzzword.

n/t

[Clark Campaigner]

65. Dean supporters support whatever Dean is saying that day

And change their justifications as quickly as Dean changes positions.

[Hep]

66. There's that great show of respect from a Clark Supporter

that just warms the cockles of our hearts! Clark my take the high road MOST of the time, but many of his supporters have missed the exit.

It's OK to stop and ask for directions you know.

[mouse7]

72. That's WAY outta line. n/t

[dsc]

68. I guess it depends on how you define progressive

I don't think it is progressive for people making less than 13k to be paying more taxes than families making 50k. That isn't progressive.

[redqueen]

73. See post #35

Sounds like you've absorbed one too many right wing talking points.

[dsc]

76. The poster in post 35 needs to use honest figures

I am certainly not saying that a family of four making 100k has a higher standard of living than a single making 40 to 50k. That is absurd. But I am saying, and stand behind, that a family of four making 50k does have a higher standard of living than a single making 12,500. And yes, under Clark's plan money which could and should, be used to shore up SS for them is instead being used to give the first group a tax cut. That is both unfair and not progressive.

[poskonig]

74. I support progressive taxation.

Dean will likely introduce a payroll tax cut, which is an item I find much more important than income tax changes.

More libertarian than most Democrats, I argue against corporate taxation. I diverge from the libertarians when I assert balanced budgets should be a priority in ordinary economic circumstances. Dean is not going to do away with corporate taxation, so I am making a personal compromise on a small issue of little weight.

Everyone believes, with exception to extreme conservatives, that tax evaders should be punished.

[KaraokeKarlton]

75. Not when we have the largest deficit in the history of the world

and our domestic programs are on the verge of falling apart because of tax cuts. You don't fix a problem caused by tax cuts by giving more tax cuts. That's the Bush model, and we know how well that works.