why does Dean want to repeal the entire tax cut

[Blue_Roses]

I was listening to Kerry yesterday on Face the Nation and he said Dean wanted to repeal the entire tax cut including the marriage tax and the child credit tax. If this is true then I think this is terribly wrong and I will be emailing Dean's campaign to get the facts on this. This troubles me.

For once I would like to get the truth on how he feels on some of these issues

[cavebat2000]

1. Find out for yourself.

www.deanforamerica.com And you can read it.

[Blue_Roses]

7. I've been to the site

a few times myself, but thanks for the link anyway. If you can't tell me off the cuff why he is repealing them, then do you really know for yourself. This is gonna be a big issue for him, especially if he wants to repeal the marriage and child credit.

I like Dean, but this is one thing that bothers me.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Because he's "not afraid to lose"

and this is one of the reasons he will.

[Blue_Roses]

8. and that's

what worries me.

[globoll]

18. I agree

he will lose :-)

[papau]

3. Dean wants folks to choose free health care - or the tax cut.

and he left himself an out - a statement by Dean that he wants to restructure tax code after the repeal of Bush tax cuts.

I thought at first this was a tough sell - but as I talk to folks, I am becoming convinced he is on the right path.

[gasperc]

44. they'll chose the tax cut, even if the former saves them tons more

by lower costs to employer's suppling health insurance who can then higher more workers.
For instance, my company provides me a $747 credit each month to purchase my $847/month health insurance. A national health insurance plan could better distribute these costs thus lowering the per person cost as well as providing health coverage for every citizen at a very affordable cost.

[paulk]

45. If he can sell the idea, then more power to him.

The problem will be defending himself against charges of raising taxes, and excuses aside, it will be seen as a tax increase by anyone getting those tax credits. And it will surely be characterized as a tax increase by the Republicans.

What I don't understand is his support for increased military spending. Why can't the money for health care come out of the (bloated) military budget? I can understand this position politically, as he needs to cover his foreign policy weakness by being strong on the military side, but if you're going to come out for a liberal idea like nationalized healthcare, why not go all the way and pay for it with military money?

[Rose Siding]

4. Because the govt is spending what it doesn't have

and without a balanced budget, social justice is unaffordable.

The trade off is a meager tax cut (I really didn't feel tax jacked in the Clinton era) for health ins that won't be in excess of 7% of annual income, and fed funding to HS and other VITAL services.

[On the Road]

5. Why? I Think It's:

(1) Dean's fiscal conservatism. The whole tax cut needs to be repealed to balance the budget and provide money for Dean's proposed new programs such as health care.

(2) Dean has a penchant for bold moves and confrontation. Proposing a complete repeal is different from prposing to keep some provisions and eliminate others.

(3) Dean always seems to have been looking towards the general election. It is simple and clear to say that Bush wants cuts, and Dean wants to repeal them and balance the budget.

Having said that, I think Dean will increasingly be on the defensive in the primaries on the two tax breaks you mentioned -- marriage penalty and child tax credit. It sounds bad to want to repeal them. He might even change his mind, which would be a good thing if it's done early enough.

[LuminousX]

6. I also believe it is his starting negotiating position

He has a history of staking out a position a bit far out and then negotiating with the legislature on the issue. He isn't afraid to be overruled and he isn't afraid to negotiate. Unlike Bush who feels his position has been etched into stone for eternity as if he were Hamarabi or someone.

[GreenArrow]

24. funny

I was just going to post a comparison to Bush myself. I think he is just like Bush in this regard; ask for more than you can possibly get, then when a "compromise" is reached declare victory, because you're getting what you really wanted anyway. Molly Ivins has mentioned this a couple of times, maybe even written an article about it way back before the 2000 election. It's been an effective strategy.

[Frodo]

64. But that doesn't work in reverse.

You can propose giving away all the money you want (and reap the votes of all the people who think they will get money) then compromise much of it away and not be blamed for it (you "tried").

But how can you be elected proposing raising taxes MORE than you really expect to?

There is political benefit to falsely telling people you will cut their taxes (I hate to say it, but Clinton...?), but there could be NO BENEFIT to falsely telling people you will RAISE their taxes.

Talk about political suicide...

[burr]

67. Proudly backing some of shrub's taxcuts must not be political suicide..

just national suicide.

And let's face it, Repukes in Congress will never repeal shrub's taxcuts..but at least the next President could veto any attempts to extent them into the future.

Which is why this is a defining issue in the campaign, which candidate would as President veto any bills which allow for the continuation of these taxcuts?

[Frodo]

69. You're missing it.

There's two different issues.

1) Tax cuts on the rich. Repeal them and you lose the votes of the rich... you hear sound of millions of rich people leaving the Democratic party to vote for Bush? Didn't think so.

2) The rest of the cuts - Tell the family of four making 60k to give back their $2,000-$3,000 per year? Especially by using the "top 1%" rhetorical blunder and tell them you think THEY are "the rich"? You won't win any more elections.


And I think the cuts are timed to run out at the end of Bush's "second" term. So they are designed to force the situation you call for and ensure a Republican victory in 2008. Families who didn't even HAVE kids in 2002 will be asked to increase their tax load by thousands of dollars? It forces our candidate to come out in favor of dramatic tax increases right in the middle of an election.

[burr]

71. you better hope for a Democratic Congress before 2008...

otherwise a repeal just won't happen.

And if Democrats retake both Houses...I find it very unlikely they would support a repeal of most of these taxcuts. This means that campaigning for the complete elimination is the only way to see that any are eliminated.

But your dream of keeping taxcuts may come true..that is until 2008 rolls around!

[Frodo]

72. Again - two different issues

One is tax policy and how to raise enough funds to run the country. The other is simple electoral math and a discussion of which issues you run on to have a chance at winning.

It was simple for Clinton to go back on "tax cuts for the middle class" when he got into office. It would NOT have been simple to run on "tax INCREASES for the middle class" and change his mind later - because there WOULD HAVE BEEN NO "LATER".

Even if we retake the House/Senate this is an issue that hurts us in 2008. It gives every Republican something to run on if we are arguing over the child tax credit and reduction of the lowest bracket to 10%.

We can take away the upper bracket cuts fairly easily if we control the agenda. But IF we control the agenda and try to take away the lower end cuts? (like making people who then would pay no taxes START paying hundreds?) We won't "control the agenda" for very long.

[burr]

77. do you always cast your vote based on simplicity?

It was simple for Clinton to go back on "tax cuts for the middle class" when he got into office. It would NOT have been simple to run on "tax INCREASES for the middle class" and change his mind later - because there WOULD HAVE BEEN NO "LATER".
<snip>

Lying is always simpler, but it is also immoral and self-destructive. Repukes took over Congress by bashing Clinton for promising a middleclass taxcut, and then not delivering. They would of had no ammunition if Clinton told the truth...as Paul Tsongas did in the primaries.

[FrenchieCat]

185. and as it looks,

With a Dean nomination, we can know that there are four Democratic Senate seats that we may lose. These four seats are all located in the South.

Zell Miller - Georgia
John Edwards - N.Carolina
John Hollings - S. Carolina
Bob Graham - Florida
There is a rumor that John Breaux may also retire. Since the LA Govenor's race has now been won by a Democrat, he has mentioned that he will decide within the next couple of months. So in adding that Southern Senate seat, we come up to five:
John Breaux - Louisiana

Currently we have 48 Democrats in the senate, and 1 Independent.

IMO, General Wes Clark is the only candidate, that has the military and Foreign policy experience needed to handle the wars that we are currently involved in, and is also a southerner.

If we lose any or all of these Senate seats, we can kiss what's left of our 2 party system goodbye for a long, long time. President Bush will be able to do whatever he likes, and we won't be able to do a doggone thing about it.

If Dean should miraculously win, he won't be able to do nadda, zippo, null set. The tax issue will be a "doa" issue.

However, many Dean supporters make the argument that the general election can be won without the South. Those who buy into that have this little tired article that is trotted out whenever the subject is broached. Yea, OK, you bet!

If Democrats can't see the problem with that logic, then prepare for massive exodus to Canada and Mexico the day after the election.

These are the cold hard facts. Period - even an exclamation point!

[Hawkeye-X]

9. Repealing *'s tax cuts

is a sound policy. Why?

First, he wants to repeal all of *'s tax cuts, so the wealthiest lose all benefits (as if they deserved it :eyes: )

Second, he wants to re-enact the Clintonian tax base, and re-write the tax laws to strongly benefit the poor and middle class. This is not a tax raise, per se, just trying to get things back on status quo.

Hawkeye-X

[genius]

10. Because he doesn't care about the middle class. He's rich

What an elitist. He wants to increase middle class taxes too.

[MercutioATC]

11. Completely false. Here are some of the benefits, devrc243:

Dean doesn't care about the middle class?

You mean the middle class that he's giving health insurance to? The ones who's schools he's giving adequate funding to? The ones who's communities will be improved by increased federal funds to the states for infrastructure?

Here's a (very short) breakdown of what "sacrificing" the middle clas tax cuts will mean to the middle class:

1) Universal health care scaled for income with a maximum premium of 7.5% of adjusted gross income. This healthcare is NOT lost if you lose your job (and the premiums go to zero) and does NOT deny benefits for pre-existing conditions. Read that last line again. NO exclusion for pre-existing conditions. That one thing alone would make the plan's benefits outweigh any loss of tax cuts for many families.

2) With universal health care, there are no uninsured people...and no expense to emergency departments for unreimbursed medical care expenses. If you're not clear on why this is a benefit, ask a middle-class nurse or administrator who lost their job because of the increase of unreimbursed medical expenses to emergency departments (a local hospital near Cleveland layed off 40 workers a few months ago because their unreimbursed expenses went from $8M to $12M in one year).

3) If the federal government adequately funds schools, three things happen: 1) the quality of education improves, 2) more teachers and staff can be hired and 3) schools don't need local levies passed with such regularity.

4) Increased federal money for infrastructure both creates jobs and lessens the need for local and state governments to raise taxes to pay for needed improvements.

Again, this is only a glimpse of the total impact of Dean's goals. Given that the majority of families saw less that $500 in cuts, don't the benefits outweigh the sacrifice?

As a disclaimer, I'm saving quite a bit in taxes uner the Bush tax "cuts". However, I realize that since these "cuts" my state sales tax has risen 1% and been expanded to include services never taxed before and communities around mine are beginning to pass large income tax hikes and are forced to ask for larger school levies. They weren't "cuts" they were tax "redistributions". Bush got to look like the good guy while most people saw state and local taxes increase.

We can't have tax cuts AND healthcare. We can't have tax cuts AND better funding for schools and infrastructure. We'll all be much better off, IMHO, giving up the pittance we "saved" and getting the benefits we really need.

[Andromeda]

26. That is so much horse hockey!

n/t

[nocreativename]

12. Repeal it ALL

I personal don't think we can afford any of these tax cuts. If anything, we need more taxes. And Kerry's vote and stance on the tax cuts is one of the biggest reasons I don't like him.

Remember Taxes = revenue for community services. I'm 28 I want to know when I retire I have ss and I have my meds paid for; I can't trust that my 401k, money markets, or any real estate I have will be ok. So I have to be able to trust that community services will be there to take care of me and my family.

I think everyone should have health care, and our school are falling apart. So, giveup on getting out of your taxes, take one for the team, and thank about the future of everyone else.

This is not to say, that I like where my tax dollars are going now.

Thought I'd add this quote from Thomas Jefferson
"I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican (not as we define it) virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared."

[cindyw]

23. I'm sorry, name Kerry's vote on tax cuts you don't like.

I'm beginning to think that someone is lying to Dean people about Kerry's record. Tell me who it is and I'll :spank:

[nocreativename]

51. Kerry said himself

Kerry wants to keep the tax cuts for the "middle class" and has tried to hit Dean for talking about removing all the tax cuts.

[AP]

13. We need a better economy. To produce more wealth, unburden middle class.

Here's what Edwards said:

MR. RUSSERT: Is this some evidence that the Bush tax cuts have worked in terms of stimulating the economy?
SEN. EDWARDS: Oh, absolutely not. I can tell you how strongly I disagree with this president’s tax policy. And I listen to some of the Democratic presidential candidates talk about this—and I do have sort of a slightly different perspective than they do because I’m against President Bush’s tax cuts for people at the top. I believe there’s something more dramatic and more radical than that occurring here because I think the president is in the process of actually shifting the tax burden in America from wealth into wealthy to work in the middle class. And what I mean by that is he wants to eliminate things like the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the taxation of large estates, all taxation of wealth or passive unearned income on wealth. That burden then gets shifted to the middle class. I think it’s wrong for at least two reasons. One is it violates our values. I mean, why should some investor be paying a lower tax rate than a secretary or a firefighter? I don’t believe that.
And, second, it also is bad economic policy because when you’ve had sustained economic growth in this country—in the last 50 years, when the middle class was strengthened and expanding—it happened after World War II, it happened in the second half of the Clinton administration. So what President Bush is doing is the opposite of what we should be doing. Instead of putting more burden on the middle class, we ought to be helping them, helping them buy a house, save, invest, all those things that would expand and strengthen the middle class.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Edwards is with Kerry on this

nice to see who the real Dems are.

[MercutioATC]

15. Providing healthcare, education and jobs does NOT weaken the middle class.

Dean is proposing using the money to pay for benefits that will directly benefit the missle class (and others). By providing affordable healthcare with NO exclusion for pre-existing conditions he IS helping people buy a house. By providing more money for schools, he IS helping them save. By increasing federal spending on infrastructure, he IS helping them invest.

The biggest issue is that the middle class generally won't be able to afford private schools and healthcare that covers pre-existing medical conditions with the pittance they saved in "tax cuts". The benefit outweighs the cost. To characterize this as burdening the middle class is intentionally misleading.

[AP]

28. Hiis health care plan will be very expensive, and, since he doesn't...

...propose a more progressive tax system, the middle class is going to pay through the nose for it. We'll be wage slaves, battered by an unfair tax code, we'll lose a little bit (or a lot) of social mobility. But we'll have OK health care. Just like the UK of the '80s.

You can have healthcare for all, and an unfair tax code. It's called Thatcherism.

Oh, and the literacy rate was pretty decent under Thatcher too. Didn't chance the fact that the rich got richer and the poor kept their heads above water.

[MercutioATC]

41. Expensive for the government, yes. For us? NO!

It IS expensive. That's why a complete rollback of the Bush tax "cuts" is needed. However, the premimum cost will be a maximum of 7.5% of adjusted gross income. That's less than many pay and Dean's plan has NO exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

[AP]

53. Expensive for you, yes. Because he doesn't argue for more progressive tax

code to pay for it.

The CATO Inst. commented on this. They don't mind his health care program because they think it's going to cost middle class voters about 2000 bucks per year, regardless of their income. They think that people will prefer to get their health care on the open market rather than be compelled to pay for it out of a practically flat tax.

They think it won't pass once people realize the costs.

[Andromeda]

30. The middle class will benefit...

under Dean. Guaranteed healthcare is worth its weight in gold. I wonder if the posters know how difficult it is for a lot of people to get healthcare if they should lose it when they suddenly find themselves unemployed and unable to pay the premiums for COBRA, which is not offered in every state.

There is usually a penalty to pay if the coverage is interrupted and sometimes an individual will be refused coverage at all if they go ninety days without insurance.

Pre-existing conditions limit a persons ability to get health coverage at a reasonable price---there is usually a waiting period attached to the policy so if the insured has another heart attack before the waiting period is up---too bad. Or, as in my ex-husbands case, his premiums soared to $1000---in addition to a 12 month waiting period.

Our financial advisor is a young man about 31 yrs. old. He was in an automobile accident and sustained a severe injury to his neck. He was going through a divorce at the time and was covered on his wife's policy. His coverage ran out and he tried to get an individual policy but they refused him because of his injury. And he's only 31!

There are a lot of stories like this, and worse. I believe it's everybody's right to have medical care and if the tax structure is changed back to the Clinton era rates then I think that's a bargain if we're getting healthcare in the package.

[AP]

33. The UK had national health AND they had Thatcher. NH doesn't solve all

your problems.

Dean has such a narrow focus, and he doesn't really seem interested in fixing the tax code. He could give you the equivalent of Thatcherism. Why aren't we aiming higher?

[burr]

34. wait a sec...

Ain't you a Kerry backer? :shrug:

[NNadir]

16. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It wasn't broke under Clinton. We paid our bills and secured our children's futures by paying down the Reagan-Bush I debt.

Brainless Bush came to fix what wasn't broke. Our future is now in serious jeapordy. My kids don't need a tax credit. They need a future. The most important thing for their future is to undo every pissant thing that the national village idiot has done while occupying the White House.

[burr]

17. For the same reasons Gephardt wants to repeal the entire taxcut...

time has shown that this entire shitball was a fucking mistake, the solution is to ditch it completely!

This year the deficit will be over $400 billion...over $100 billion more than the largest deficit that we had in the early 90's. Next year it is expected to be over half a trillion, and over the next six years if we do not repeal the tax cuts completely...we may add over three trillian dollars to our $6 trillian debt. Our government spends over half the amount which it spends on the military, just on interest for the national debt in a single year. Around $250 billion a year of our tax dollars goes to nothing but this form of wasteful spending. And those who wish to keep these taxcuts..will increase this share of government waste for future generations. And all they want in return is some short-term gain!

The amount of interest paid on the debt, when the "big spending" LBJ was in office was just 7% of what folks paid in taxes. Now that percentage of government waste is over twice that percentage, and this percentage will continue to grow until we return to balance budgets!

Do we want universal healthcare, a higher level of national security, and the best quality education for our children? Then the price will be steep. Especially since budget experts expect the complete repeal of shrub's taxcuts may not even eliminate the deficit. In ADDITION to doing this, the elimination of tax loopholes proposed by Kerry and Kucinich would be necessary just to minimize cuts in currently existing programs. The cigaritte and alcohol taxes would also need to be raised to fund universal healthcare.

You may find the repeal of such taxcuts troubling...but would it not be more troubling if we had a depression, and the government was too bankrupt to help? Would it not be more troubling if terrorists set off a bomb in the city or town that you lived near, but with sufficient funds it could of been stopped by the FBI? Would it not be more troubling that there shall be an exploding demand for healthcare as the babyboomers get older, and a crisis level shortage of needed healthcare services in our country? Worse of all, would it not be more troubling when all businesses start to fail as babyboomers retire and withdraw capital out of the stock market...leading to massive layoffs of the young and an unexpected large-scale economic collapse?

Do you want your children and grandchildren to grow up in a lawless society of despair and cruelty, in which the social order itself breaksdown...while the reign of murder and brutality becomes their destiny...but our legacy?

[bread_and_roses]

19. different figures float around

but if my memory serves me, the top 1% got about 40% of the tax cut benefit, the bottom 60% well below 10% of the benefit. Dean does not distinguish between the top 1-10% and the rest of the population. He does not take into consideration that for many of these wage earners even an extra $40 windfall is welcome. Treating the bottom even 80% like the rich is, in my opinion, a mistake, grossly unfair, and plays into the rhetoric that everyone benefited from the tax cuts in some egalitarian sense. I would also suggest that Dean's goals can be accomplished without the less than 10% of the tax break that went to the bottom 60%.

[burr]

20. then explain this....

how was it done with those brackets during the Clinton years? something must of been working right.. :shrug:

[bread_and_roses]

21. Extreme inequality

continued to increase in the Clinton years.

from http://www.cbpp.org/9-23-03tax-pr.htm

"Data the Congressional Budget Office quietly released the Friday before Labor Day show that the real average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population rose a remarkable $576,000, or 201 percent, in the 1980s and 1990s, while the average income of those in the middle of the income scale rose $5,500 and income gaps between the top one percent and the rest of the nation widened dramatically...
...“It’s been apparent for several years that those at the very top of the income scale have pulled away from other Americans, and the new CBO data, which show staggering income gains among the most well-off, confirm that trend,” noted Robert Greenstein, the Center’s executive director. “The very well-off have been big winners on two fronts,” Greenstein commented, “as they secured enormous gains in income in both the 1980s and 1990s and then received extremely large tax cuts in 2001 and again this ...
...Income growth was more widespread in the 1990s than in the 1980s, with low- and middle-income households faring better in the 1990s. Among the bottom fifth of the population, for example, after-tax incomes fell in the 1980s but increased in the 1990s. Yet while low- and middle-income households registered income gains in the 1990s, the most affluent households secured far more dramatic gains, and income disparities widened further."

The full press release is worth reading, as is the full report. I cannot understand the rationale behind rescinding the meagre tax cuts to wage earners when we have ever-increasing income and wealth disparity. The phrase "Banana Republic" used to be used to denote this kind of social structure. It is a recipie for the disintegration of the social contract we rely on to maintain a civilized society.

Leave the working class/lower middle class tax cuts in place. They do not remedy the situation, but if nothing else as a token to the working people in this country that their needs will have some consideration in a Dem administration.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. which is why a real Dem like Kerry or Edwards wants to keep part

the middle class and lower part.

[burr]

27. workers are pissed about being treated as "token" by politicians!

I want something more than a token agenda. As a taxpayer I will say that Clinton's rates worked, they were higher...but at least I was making more!

Most people I talk to are sick of deficit spending, and they would be willing to pay a little more just to have a better nation.

But what about you?

Do you want health insurance available for every working individual, or should we just stick with these taxcuts and deficits?

Do you want to fully fund our secondary and primary education systems, especially regarding broken promises on sufficient IDEA funding? Or do we just continue with these taxcuts and deficits?

Do you wish to completely fund Nunn-Lugar...allowing us to buy up dangerous nuclear and biological stockpiles? Or do we wait for the next terrorist attack...and say the money just wasn't there?

Do we begin to look at the changing nature of our economy and job market, and then provide the large sums of money necessary to retrain unemployed workers to work in those growing fields with a high demand for skilled labor? Or do we just allow corporations to outsource their skilled labor, while our revenue base continues to be laid off?

Do we bring in the revenue necessary to balance the budget and pay down the national debt? Or do we continue with taxcuts, and forget about the higher taxes and increased "token" spending which we shall be imposing 10 or 15 years in the future..as a result?

[AP]

29. Clinton begged Congress for more progressivity in the tax code. Repubs...

...wouldn't give it to him.

When the economy starts rewarding the rich a lot, it should be automatic...you should readjust the way income tax is apportioned. You need to add higher tax bands farther out, and you need to spread out the rates.

Clinton tried to do that. Republicans took the great economy he created, but refused to give America a fair tax code.

Had the code been made more progressive, the government either could have lowered taxes on low income earners, so they could have kept more money and invested it wisely, and/or, gov't could have collected more revenue, and could have invested it in things which would have created more social wealth which would have spread widely to all Americans. (Just imagine some of the infrastructure investments we could have made to nurture the next Einstein, or save the environment for the next generations -- high speed national rail system, investments in K-12 and public universities, revitalize neighborhoods and economies...). We could have done so much. Instead, we simply shifted a lot of wealth to the wealthiest, and we only have this crappy economy to show for it.

[burr]

32. Clinton could of pushed for a more progressive tax code....

just proposed eliminating some tax deductions and raising the higher tax rates!

Had this been done, and kept in place without taxcuts...we would probably have those surplusses and Social Security may of been kept solvent for the longrun.

[cindyw]

25. Clinton didn't start his tax system the first year and he didn't raise tax

on the middle class to do it. I for one will have serious financial problems in my family if you take my CTC away and the cuts that I got. I may have done ok with the Clinton tax system, in the Clinton years, but times have changed. All of my expenses have gone up. Why should I bear any more burden while we fix the mess that GWB created. Kerry is right to say that we can ask no more of the middle class while we fix this mess. And if Dean's argument is that he will give me back my tax cuts in a second bill after he takes them away, then why does he say that Kerry is wrong? If in effect he plans to do the same thing, why take it away in the first place. Also, if the amount of money I got was so miniscule then why does Dean want it to give my family health insurance? The rich got such a massive portion of Bush's tax cuts, that should be more than enough to do what we need. Leave me the little I have to stay afloat.

[burr]

31. Ohh yeah...guess what???

If ya think you have it tough now, just wait for another 10 years!!!

And let be clue you in on something...if it had not been for Reaganomics, Clinton's tax increase would not of happened!

Not only would we be paying lower taxes, but we would probably have national healthcare as well! If we keep any of shrub's taxcuts, we are only making the standard of living even harder for the future! Let me tell you, I don't want to be struggling even more when I'm older.

Time to use some logic...why has the cost of living been going up? It's not just inflation you know!! Every year that you pay less in taxes and have more spending...more of that tax money becomes valueless thanks to larger deficits. This means that the value of the dollar goes down in relation to other currencies...ultimately making more of these tax expenditures "valueless" due to deficit spending. To put this in simple terms, you can't get something for nothing. If you just reap...but stop sowing, then eventually you starve!

I'm not doing too well myself, in fact half of my income goes to Cobra payments. If it was not for Cobra, I would be seriously in debt right now!!! If Dean's plan were to pass, more like a 7th of my income would goto Cobra.

If you don't want health insurance...wonderful, but at least he makes it available and affordable if someone in your family suddenly needs it! So what's the problem, do you oppose this? If so, why are you even a Democrat?

[cindyw]

35. Your questioning my being a democrat?

I didn't know that disagreeing with Dean's ideas makes me a Republican. I simply thing Kerry's plans for health care are better. I also think it is a false choice to say that it is all cut or no health insurance. Cobra is a lifesaver, but also a budget breaker. We need to address the costs in health insurance if we are ever to solve the health care crisis. Kerry's plan does this and it insures that people who "suddenly need it" as is the case in an emergency, have it. And in the long run, we will do better if we take an extra year to balance the budget. You are arguing with me like I support the Bush tax cuts and deficits. I simply think that we should address fixing this problem the way Clinton addressed the problem. He opted to protect the middle class while he worked towards balanced budgets.

As to deficit spending. If Dean is saying that Kerry's plan is wrong because it calls for taking an extra year or two to balance the budget in favor of protecting the middle class in time of crisis and putting Americans back to work, then why not balance the budget immediately? Not even Dean is advocating that. Explain to me in economic terms the benefit of one extra year out of deficit to the jobs created, infrastructure improved and protection of individuals from debt of waiting the extra year.

[burr]

36. and it was a question...nothing more.

I'm glad you support Kerry's healthcare plan, he also subsidizes the cost of Cobra. However his plan adds this expense to the size of the deficit, something, Dean's plan does not do!

One other thing, neither Dean nor Kerry address what is driving the high costs of healthcare. Kerry claims it is malpractice suits and sorry computers records, which is all a load of bullshit! Dean claims it is lack of coverage...but this is not the reason for high costs, just the reason many people can't get those high medical bills paid.

But what drives the high medical bills and high cost of medical treatment? The answer is clear, supply and demand! The supply of Doctors and Nurses is short, and the demand for medical treatment grows exponentially with every passing year. As a result, the price of medicine and doctors visits is unaffordable to all except the insured and the very wealthy. And this cost will further boom when babyboomers begin having severe health problems 10-20 years down the road.

So what is the solution? My answer is this, have a government program that pays the unemployed, while they are retrained as nurses and medical technicians. This program would require alot of tax dollars, but it would effectively reduce both unemployment and medical inflation in the long run.

As far as Bill Clinton and budgets go, George Bush raised taxes on the middleclass before Clinton was elected. But Clinton had the sense not to turn this into a political issue when passing his tax increases. If He had cut Bush's rates in 1993 while passing his tax increases, he would have been seen as waging classwarfare and may of never had the surplusses that he got because of both tax acts.

[cindyw]

38. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

1) Unless the amount of the cuts that Kerry wants leave in the tax plan equal the exact amount that Dean's health care plan costs, then what you say about Dean's plan not adding to the deficit isn't correct.

2)Kerry clearly states in every stump speech that the high cost of medical care comes from the insurance companies figuring the most expensive cases into the pool. In other words, cost is based on grouping the average person, who sees a doctor, but once a year, to the person who has a catastrophic injury. Averaging these people makes everyone pay more even if they do not ever need the help. I have never heard Kerry champion the cause malpractice suits causing high costs. As far as sorry computer records. I would like a link to see what you are referring to.

As far as a nursing shortage, Kerry has been an advocate of fixing the nursing shortage for quite a while.

http://www.aamc.org/advocacy/library/washhigh/2001/01apr13/_5.htm

[burr]

40. here ya go...

"Medical malpractice insurance has become so expensive in some states that physicians are moving or giving up their practices, cutting access to care for their patients. The Kerry plan will hold down malpractice premiums by requiring an impartial review of a claim before an individual could file suit and by eliminating punitive damages except in egregious cases. Kerry's plan will not put a cap on legitimate damage awards."

<http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/healthcare/#>

This is bullshit. First, most states already cap malpractice damages...so even when the patient gets a hearing, they are unlikely to get re-embursed for the damage that the malpractice has caused them. Many of these people are unable to work, my uncle got a staff infection and died because of the hopitial's sloppyness. And this was caused during a minor operation, which should not of hurt anyone!!!

Many of these patients are unable to ever work again. But they often do not even get what they paid to the doctor because of these sorry state caps.. So putting another barrier between the patient and the court is stacking the entire system against the consumer.

"Kerry clearly states in every stump speech that the high cost of medical care comes from the insurance companies figuring the most expensive cases into the pool. In other words, cost is based on grouping the average person, who sees a doctor, but once a year, to the person who has a catastrophic injury. Averaging these people makes everyone pay more even if they do not ever need the help."

This is like saying...lets blame the sick and suffering people. Excuse me...but don't we have medical care to treat health problems? If we just ditch them, it might be cheaper..but why even have a healthcare program? Why not just make it a health program, and screw the damned cripples? Then he says that cost spreading is evil, that only the sick should bear this brunt not the healthy! Wrong...by spreading the costs we take turns, the young and healthy pay for the old and sick...and then they are paid for when they become old and sick. At least this is how a good healthcare system backed by Dean would work. Kerry doesn't approve!

Again, the demand on our healthcare system will increase as babyboomers age. How will this effect Kerry's objections to cost sharing between the sick and healthy? Should uninsured post-boomers really be paying for the healthcare of the more sickly babyboomers?

[cindyw]

48. Your interpretation is a misunderstanding of the statements.

Kerry is not blaming or punishing sick people, he stating a fact. It is the basis of a huge factor of his plan. If you take the most catastrophic cases of the insurance pool by creating subsidy for these cases by a national fund then you change the dynamics by which the insurance companies base their rates for insurance. He goes one step further and requires the companies to pass on this savings or pay a severe penalty. Kerry's plan is the exact opposite of what you are saying. He specifically takes the burden off of those who need little help, by targeting care to those who need it most. Your assessment of his plan is in a fact the exact opposite of what it does.

As far as the malpractice comment you are taking a comment he made in relation to the problem of the excess burden on doctors to practice medicine right now and assigning some interpretation that assigns Bush's view of the world. Kerry's understanding and fight over the years for health care have been the opposite of GWB. It may seem like a good argument to pit Dean against Kerry in this argument as if he is the representation of Bush, but it is flatly wrong. If you need to define Kerry as Bush to make Dean look better you are making a dishonest argument. Kerry supported the "Patients Bill of Rights" He fought with the democrats with this. You can't make up his history to make Dean look better.

[AP]

55. cindyw, you're good.

I'm only reading half of this argument, but, from what I can read, you're smart and informed.

[burr]

56. you're right about what his plan does...

but I disagree with what is driving the medical costs.

Also...Kerry is creating a "high-risk pool", and subsidizing just about every patient that enters the pool is the only way to keep it affordable. However it is not correct to state that this high-risk pool will effect businesses already covering their workers, because the high-risk people in the main pool will still be there until these businesses drop their coverage.

Finally, growing demand on the healthcare system is what drives only half of the high-costs. If more was done to increase the supply of medical workers, then this price will go down.

Kerry would not GREATLY slow the cost resulting by increased demand, he would simply shift it from businesses to the taxpayers. This is not wrong, in fact we need it. But it will require more taxes, hence my endless argument! The only real way to reduce costs for the long-run is to increase the supply, also requiring even more tax money in the short-run.

[cindyw]

58. Again, it is not high risk people. It is catastrophic occurances.

If you already have health insurance through a business, the cost of that health insurance would go down because the insurance would no longer need to cover the cost of catastrophic "incidences".

Also increasing medical workers is part of his plan.

Dean's plan requires more taxes in the short run, and Kerry's does not because it requires the lowering of the costs as soon as the catastrophic cases are out of the pool.

[burr]

59. and who is considered a catastrophic case...

a victim of a severe heart-attack, a diabetic in average health, a dying cancer patient, a person on kidney dialysis, or what about a person with Addison's disease?

It seems to me that this is a line which is very hard to draw. Finally, does this mean that Kerry is allowing businesses to not offer the same coverage to castastrophic cases..that they do to their other employees?

My understanding of Kerry's plan is that it reimburses insurance companies for covering catastrophic cases only in this new government pool people can buy into, but that it does not reimburse them for the catastrophic cases they insure outside of the government pool in normal business. Is this understanding correct? :shrug:

[cindyw]

60. My understanding is that catastrophic is anything over 50,000

I will have to check on the rest. What you are saying doesn't sound right to me. So I'll go to the horses mouth.

[DrFunkenstein]

37. Krugman Argues For Kerry's Plan

The Sweet Spot
By Paul Krugman

These middle-class tax cuts were designed to create a "sweet spot" that would allow the administration to point to "typical" families that received big tax cuts. If a middle-income family had two or more children 17 or younger, and an income just high enough to take full advantage of the provisions, it did get a significant tax cut. And such families played a big role in selling the overall package.

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

Purists will raise two objections. The first is that an incomplete rollback of the Bush tax cuts won't be enough to restore long-run solvency. In fact, even a full rollback wouldn't be enough. According to my rough calculations, keeping the child credits and the cutout while rolling back the rest would close only about half the fiscal gap. But it would be a lot better than current policy.

Will someone be able to find the political sweet spot, the combination of fiscal responsibility and electoral smarts that brings the looting to an end? The future of the nation depends on the answer.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/101803I.shtml

Sound familiar?

John Kerry believes that we should keep the middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for in 2001 and 2003, which increased the child tax credit, reduced the marriage penalty and lowered tax rates. He strongly disagrees with Democrats who want to repeal these tax cuts, which would cost a typical middle-class family with two children an additional $2000.

John Kerry is committed to balancing the budget. He has put forward a sensible plan that will at least cut the deficit in half in his first term, while investing in economic growth and investing in workers.

Powerful special interest groups make it hard to cut special tax loopholes and pork barrel spending projects. John Kerry supports a Commission that would recommend cuts and require Congress to vote on all recommendations, so no single special interest could fight for pet projects. Under Kerry’s plan, the President would identify wasteful spending items in the budget and submit the list to Congress to vote on in an up-or-down fashion – saving billions of dollars.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/pr_2003_0828.html

[burr]

39. this makes my point stronger!!!

I agree we need Kerry's plan to close loopholes in ADDITION to the complete repeal of the taxcuts.

"Purists will raise two objections. The first is that an incomplete rollback of the Bush tax cuts won't be enough to restore long-run solvency. In fact, even a full rollback wouldn't be enough. According to my rough calculations, keeping the child credits and the cutout while rolling back the rest would close only about half the fiscal gap. But it would be a lot better than current policy.

Will someone be able to find the political sweet spot, the combination of fiscal responsibility and electoral smarts that brings the looting to an end? The future of the nation depends on the answer."

Firstly, I am a PURITAN not a stinking purist...there is a difference!

purist - person who is very careful or too careful about purity in language. A purist dislikes slang and ALL EXPRESSION not "formally correct." (NOT ME!)

puritan - person who is very strict in morals and religion. Seeks simpler and more comman forms of worship and stricter morals. (ME!!)

First even Krugman points out we will only reduce the deficit with a complete repeal of Shrub's taxcuts. As far as funding universal healthcare, Kerry's energy plan, an expansion of the peace corp, fully funding Nunn-Lugar, funding Kerry's war on terrorism, and increasing funding for education...this is expensive stuff. If Kerry doesn't want to balance the budget..ok. But don't add the cost of these programs to the deficit by refusing repeal all of shrub's shitball taxcuts!

My kids and grandkids should not pay higher taxes, because we refused to carry a fraction of our grandparents tax burden. I could care less about purity, it is responsibility and sanity which I'm defending.

[Meshuga]

43. My fear...

I can't see Dean being able to sell a full rollback of the Bush tax cuts even if he had a great plan laid out stating all the consequences (which he does not). I fear that this is his doom against Bush and we can't have Bush f-ing things up for another 4 years.

Like Edwards said, which is similar to Kerry and even Clark, we should get rid of the tax cuts for people who earn over $200K a year (the top two income brackets), raise the capital gains rate from 15% to 25% for those in the top income bracket, work to close corporate tax loopholes and get rid of some subsidies (i.e., subsidies for millionaire corporate farming operations, subsidies to go to banks for making loans to students, etc).

That sounds more like a plan than "Let's rollback everything because it was wrong in the first place" and putting the burden on working people.

[burr]

46. are u proposing candidates lie about taxes, and then break this promise?

Honesty is an important virtual when campaigning on policy?

But how can anyone possibly argue that we should elect Kerry because he can win by lying, and then will do the right thing only after he wins?

Our greatest fear should be fear itself, not that which breeds fear.

[Meshuga]

49. I didn't say that.

I'm proposing that I like Edwards and Kerry's idea better than Dean's.

I don't remember saying that anybody have to lie.

[burr]

52. It was a question...not an accusation.

"I can't see Dean being able to sell a full rollback of the Bush tax cuts even if he had a great plan laid out stating all the consequences (which he does not). I fear that this is his doom against Bush and we can't have Bush f-ing things up for another 4 years."

It said that even Dean's plan was great, you still ask if it was right to support it given that you "can't see Dean being able to sell a full rollback of the Bush tax cuts."

Does this mean that even if Dean's plan is great..he should sell himself on Kerry's or Edward's message, and later switch to this "great plan" once elected President?

[bread_and_roses]

42. If such gross inequality

were not built into the current system, the proposal to repeal ALL the cuts might be equitable. But the system is so skewed that to treat tax cuts to the lower 80% or so (I am no mathmatician, do not ask me to determine the exact cut off point) actually promotes inequality.

http://archive.epinet.org/webfeatures/snapshots/archive/2001/0228/snapshots0228.html

"Real earnings rose steadily for more than two decades after 1947, flattened out in 1973, and began to fall after 1978. Real earnings declined, more or less steadily, through 1996, as shown in the figure below. Between 1996 and 1999, there was a small upturn in real earnings, but not enough to return workers to their 1978 real wage level. Real earnings flattened out in 2000, and actually declined again in January 2001"

http://www.local157.com/real_wages.htm
"The long decline in real wages finally reversed in 1996, as inflation levels dropped to record lows. But despite the growth in recent years, real average weekly wages in 1999 were still 14% less than than their peak value in 1972."

http://www.newsbatch.com/econ.htm
"In real dollars, the GDP has tripled since 1960 but wage increases have been stagnant…he gains that have occurred have been in the higher level occupations. Real wages for many occupations which do not require a college degree have actually decreased …and salary ranges vary significantly for various occupations. …But the income level of the upper 1% of families has almost tripled …and only the income levels of the top 20% of families have significantly increased in the past two decades…Today, the top 20% receive over half the country's income and their share is growing. The top 1/2 of 1% of the population has nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%. …During the past two decades, the imbalance has grown. The already substantial share of wealth owned by the top 1% of American families continues to grow..."

Dean's position on this is a tacit rejection of the concept of progressive taxation. It reinforces the fallacious notion that there is some sort of equality of burden in the current system. To be fair, I doubt that that is his intent. But I wish that those of his supporters concerned with social justice, as well as electability, would use the influence they claim to get him to re-think this one.

[burr]

47. I disagree with your assessment...

"Dean's position on this is a tacit rejection of the concept of progressive taxation. It reinforces the fallacious notion that there is some sort of equality of burden in the current system. To be fair, I doubt that that is his intent. But I wish that those of his supporters concerned with social justice, as well as electability, would use the influence they claim to get him to re-think this one."

First of all...the notion of repealing shrub's taxcuts is an effort to move back to the system under Clinton which was more progressive than what we have today.

Secondly, the notion of not leaving any of the taxcuts behind is an effort to reduce the gap between spending and taxation. Otherwise the tax system for our children may become brutally regressive with huge increases in the payroll tax, and increases in the sales tax on the state level. None of us must be afraid to sacrifice in order prevent this from happening. We all have a vested interested in paying more...both the millionaires and the middleclass, this land was made for you and me!

[bread_and_roses]

50. If you wish to persist

in believing that there is common ground between the "middle class" and those who control the wealth in the US, there is nothing I can say to persuade you. The data is out there, make of it what you will. You pose a false dichotomy: repeal ALL the cuts or forgo necessary services. I do not consider that accurate. We can have progressive taxation and a civilized society. The poor, the working class, the "middle class" have sacrificed enough. Let's see a little sacrifice from our corporate masters before we ask them for more.

[burr]

54. It is the wealthy who believe they are too good for such comman ground.

My belief has always been that wealthy need the poor and middle-class, but the poor and middle-class also need the wealthy. No group needs one more than the other...we are all essential to making this country work.

The wealthy person would not have a business without the paid employees, because the workers are the business. And the middle class and poor would be screwed if it was not for a progressive tax system, and anti-trust regulations that make the private sector competitive and free..and are funded through taxes on corporations and wealthy estates.

So I do disagree...the dream of most Americans is to become wealthy, and there is no crime in this. The only crime comes in moving up the ladder at the expense of future generations, and of others also seeking this same dream.

[bread_and_roses]

126. They can dream all they want

but 99% of them will not be in the top 1%; 94% will not be in the top 5%. Treating tax cuts to the working and middle class like tax cuts to those in the top 5% is unfair and unnecessary to the stated goals.

[AP]

127. It also perpetuates the misimpression that the interests

of the middle class lie with the super wealthy.

What Dean is saying that the middle class and rich are all in the same boat, so they're all going to be asked to pull their weight.

The last 30 years of America economic history has been the history of burdening the middle class and unburdening the wealthy.

And the Republicans have gotten away with it in no small part becuase they fuck up the heads of the middle class and make them confuse their class loyalties.

I was at a friends house recently. These people live a middle class lifestyle, and the spend money like there's no tomorrow, mostly thanks to refinancing their condo which is probably really worth about 220K but is mortgaged for over 320K. These people have huge credit card debt too.

The wife said something like, "I was a Democrat in college, but once I got some money I became a republican."

I nearly spit out my gormet pizza they were serving me. I thought, "Honey, being 360K in debt is NOT rich, and you have no business voting for Republicans whose corporate interests for whom you are now a wage slave."

I heard that Dean told a roomful of Philadelphia campaign donors when asked why he wasn't giving back the MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts, he replied that he couldn't give back the UPPER MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts because people would accuse him of helping the rich.

HoHo was doing exactly what Republicans do. Noboday said anything about upper middle class tax cuts, but there was HoHo trying to conflate the upper middle class and middle class, confusing middle class people into believing their class loyalties should be with the super rich. Meanwhile, his education plan is just a loan program which has the taxpayer serving as the guarantor of the profitability of the banks who make the student loans. There is connection between these two events.

[bread_and_roses]

130. Exactly

"It also perpetuates the misimpression that the interests of the middle class lie with the super wealthy.

What Dean is saying that the middle class and rich are all in the same boat, so they're all going to be asked to pull their weight.

The last 30 years of America economic history has been the history of burdening the middle class and unburdening the wealthy"

It bears repeating.

I'll add, AND demonizing the poor, ignoring the fact that capitalism relies on a large pool of disposable labor, and blaming the poor for not getting the jobs that don't exist.

edit for typo

[AP]

129. The crime is when you can't move up to a higher class

merely by your own efforts. Anyone who works hard should be able to reap the rewards of their labors.

This is exactly what Edwards's campaign is founded upon: our tax code no longer rewards labour. It taxes labor at the highest levels. It rewards having money already. It rewards passive investments and dividends, and corporate shenanigans and manipulating the equities markets both up AND down. If those are the things you reward, you're gonna get a lot of that stuff (from the small class of people who can do it). If you burden work, you're going to turn people who do that into wage slaves paying off incredible debt and having no options and few chances to jump up classes.

Wealth is a fine carrot for society. However, the crime is when it's only a carrot on a stick which one class can NEVER obtain. Yet their efforts to do so are all passed on to the wealthy. And that is exactly what our tax code does.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

57. Because he wants to balance the budget and provide health care

And there is only a certain amount of money unless you are willing to mortgage our future the way the GOP has been doing. These little sops to the middle class that were thrown into the Bush tax cuts are nice, but we can't afford them...the middle class would be much better off if they had health care. Dean is not going around promising everyone the sun, the moon and the stars because he knows we can't afford it...I give him and Gephardt credit for admitting that while there were a few nice sugarplums in the Bush tax cuts, we can't afford to keep them and balance the budget and have health care.

[peaceandjustice]

61. 3 reasons to campaign on repealing the entire tax cut

first, it increase government revenue which permits the federal government to do several things, some of which Dean has explicitly mentioned, some he hasn't (but I hope he will soon). It provides the funding for expanding health care and eliminates deficit-spending, spending that lines the pockets of the rich (the wealthist quintile of Americans account for over 80% of bond sales). The increase in revenues also allows Dean to fund federal mandates like the NCLB act. Dean has mentioned these. It also permits repealing the Bush cuts to MSHA and OSHA, which should be an issue Dean and all Democrats begin to talk about.

Second, it allows the government more leeway to give out other tax cuts, such as the cuts Dean has proposed for peripheral businesses to expand their health care coverage.

Third, such an absolutist position would give Dean a mandate after election to minimize what portions of the tax cut he allows to remain in place if he must compromise, and he almost certainly will have to. He might be able to cede ground on the marriage penalty and "death tax" only, or include not repealing the cut for households making $50,000 or less. If Kerry wins he'll have to concede to retaining a larger portion of the tax cut than he campaigned on too, but will not have as strong a mandate for repeal of cuts as Dean would. And he'll have his campaign position of retaining cuts for families making as much as 200,000 a year as his starting position.

[Frodo]

62. "The 3 REAL reasons to campaign on repealing the entire tax cut"

First - You get to take January off to watch the inauguration and don't need to deal with the stress of a "close one" like 2000.

Second - Secret Service details really cramp your style.

Third - Being the party out of power has certain perks - you don't get recognized in public places and have to sign autographs.

[burr]

63. And I thought those were reasons for keeping the taxcuts...

and shrub in office. :shrug:

silly me!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

65. Dean's position is disastrous

he won't lose by a lot but he'll lose for sure.

[burr]

68. sure..if you sure support shrub's taxcuts..

and make them into an idol which must be worshipped. If voters like you keep saying our candidates can't win...then they will lose. Especially if people like you oppose them in November!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

70. voters like me: Democrats who want fairness in the tax structure

and Dean's repeal of the entire tax cut is wrong and it is a loser.

[helleborient]

73. Those who really want fairness in the tax structure...

Really need to scrap the entire structure and start from scratch.

As far as fairness, one might even consider the fairness of deductions for having children in an over-populated world.

I don't have children, but I pay more taxes than those who do...and ultimately more to support public services for those children - education, welfare, and the rest, when it is questionable whether all of those children are really needed (in a country and global sense) in a nation where there aren't enough jobs and people are going hungry.

Why not simple exemptions for every person who actually earns the money? The child deductions are based on an assumption that it is beneficial to society to have more and more children.

Granted, I'm not going to run out and start screaming get rid of the deduction for children - but if you really want to start bottom-line talking about fairness - deductions for lifestyle choices (having children, paying for college, etc.) do raise serious fairness issues.

Those who don't want to repeal all of the tax cuts are taking that stance on some other point than fairness, in my opinion. A fairness argument does not hold up.

[AP]

74. Having children isn't a lifestyle choice. It's crucial to the viability...

...of the nation.

You better hope that people want to have kids if you don't want to die of starvation in your retirement. And you better hope that kids have every opportunity to achieve all their capable of achieving without being burdened by poverty or parents angry about having had them if you want a talented surgeon keeping you alive or a good lawyer suing your insurance company when they try to stiff you.

It worries me that people are making decisions about whom to vote for without having a basic grasp of how the tax code works.

[burr]

76. at least we agree on something...

"It worries me that people are making decisions about whom to vote for without having a basic grasp of how the tax code works."

This worries me too. It worries me even more when talking to a friend who is a CPA, he believes these taxcuts along with higher deficits will ultimately bring more complexity to our tax code..and that hidden taxes like the alternative minimum tax will only become more brutal with time as the commanly know tax rates are visably cut for "political reasons".

Too many people just don't know that when the government cuts one tax, eventually they get this money back by simply making the code even harder to understand!

This is why eliminating all these taxcuts is essential, because I don't want to be hit by some new strange tax which nobody has heard of! I would rather just pay income tax upfront..keep the code simple, progressive, and properly accessed to raise revenue. Then it will do the least amount of harm to the economy.

[AP]

78. You don't generate revenue by...

" by simply making the code even harder to understand." You generate revenue by levying a tax.

The AMT is wrong because it hurst the middle class the most, and because there's no AMT on corporate income.

Regressivity is what the tax code is all about. If it's complicated and is progressive that's good. If it's simple and regressive, that's bad.

Again, it worries me when people reveal a deep misunderstanding about how the tax code works.

[helleborient]

80. I understand how it works...

It's loaded heavily against those who are married, employed, and choose to not have kids.

The elimination of the marriage penalty in the tax cuts didn't benefit those of us who have no children since it gave even more benefits to those who have children, and then added more benefits for having those children be in college...or saving for college.

I'm still paying all of the same local taxes to benefit public schools, public universities, child-friendly recreation locally, federal education spending.

And...it's looking like the increases in cost of post-secondary education will continue to make it harder for those with children to pay - I would expect the solution proposed there will be more subsidies for higher education from those of us who are paying taxes - federally and/or locally instead of a policy that forces higher education to cut the increases -- starting with faculty salaries in excess of $100,000 a year.

I'm happy to pay the taxes such as they are now, but I really don't want to hear those who have children complaining that repealing these benefits to them would create greater unfairness...particularly if their income is in excess of $100,000 a year.

[AP]

82. Your anger is aimed at the wrong people. Tax code is loaded heavily...

...against the middle class.

While you're worried about the married people with 6,7 or 8 children who are every bit as burdened as you are if they're making middle class incomes, there's a man who lives up on the top of that hill in an mansion who makes millions of dollars a hear who just got unburdened to the tune of 40, 50 or 1000 times the difference between your tax burden and your married with children next door neighbor.

You're worried about the difference between two people who get 95% of their income from earning it?

You should be worried about the people who get 95% of their income passively, taxed at much lower rates that earned income is taxed at.

[helleborient]

85. I'm worried about those at the wealthy end...

And making the argument that "fairness" isn't a part of the tax code...and not a valid argument for keeping some of the Bush tax cuts.

Instead of going on about fairness, if someone talks to me about societal priorities, that's something different entirely.

I vote for increases in property taxes for schools out of a concern for societal priorities...not because of fairness.

So, basically, I think our collective priorities are what we should be debating...not fairness or unfairness. The tax code is not fair, and I don't see any of the Democratic candidates really promoting making it fair.

Flat tax proposals are about fairness, but I think they miss some important societal priorities.

[AP]

89. Tax unfairness is a BIG reason why the economy sucks.

Do you know that property taxes are now one of the most regressive taxes there is. Most companies -- ie, the richest taxpayers in America -- pay no property tax. When you vote for higher property taxes, you're voting for a higher burden being placed on the middle and working class.

I also vote for property tax increases to make schools better. But I also know that there's a much bigger problem that's killing the economy.

If you don't fight for tax fairness, we're all doomed.

And there is one candidate who is WAY out front of the other candidates on this issue -- it's John Edwards.

The flat tax is the least fair tax, by the way.

It's a tragedy that people don't understand the tax code.

[burr]

81. If shrub's taxcuts stay around, I bet the AMT will go up!!

Most people don't even care about it until it hits them, making it easy to raise without being hurt politically!

And let's face it, the AMT used to be insignificant. But after some bollweavel Demos got together and voted for Reaganomics, this mysterious tax began to slide upwards. Now it is a nightmare!!

So again, I would rather pay higher rates based on progressive taxation, than be hit with regressive hidden taxes which go up as more visable taxes are slashed!

[AP]

84. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

You care more about being able to "see" a tax?

AMT is capturing more middle class incomes because we're not bringing in enough revenue after unburdening the rich as much as we have. AMT is another way to shift the tax burden on to the middle class rather than add new, higher tax brackets and rather than ask corporations to bear some of the tax burden.

I don't why that's so hidden to you, or any more hidden than anything else Republicans are doing with the tax code.

[burr]

88. a hidden tax is one which most people are not aware exists, until payed.

A visable tax is one like the income tax in which all people know must be paid, and use a standardized form for reporting their income.

I do care about taxes people are unaware of. Not because I feel we can eliminate them any time soon, but because we should prevent the Government from relying on these taxes more and more..while slashing visable taxes for mere political gain.

That's the idea which I'm presenting. When taxes are raised, we should all know about it!

[AP]

92. I think making that distinction reveals a misunderstanding of taxes

No tax is any more visible than any other. There are no retroactive taxes triggered by unknown events. Every tax you will pay this year is already on the books.

Between your "visibility" test, and the antipathy towards tax fairness in the other active poster down below, I'm wondering where's the the meat?

Who supports Dean's chat on taxes and has a good understanding of tax policy? Nobody, that's who.

[burr]

94. So you like the AMT

great...you can count on it going up thanks to shrub's taxcuts.

congratulations!!! :toast:

[AP]

96. I DON"T like the AMT because it's REGRESSIVE (and not based on any

"visibility" criteria).

That I have to consistently repeat very obvious points to you reveals to me that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to tax policy.

Incidentally, one thing the AMT does it makes sure that you can't take too many deductions for, for example, having lots of kids. So, actually, it'd be something that fits well into the philosophy of the know-nothings who think that their in a battle with their neighbors rather than a battle with the people in the gated communities.

[dsc]

182. Yes there is

that is the whole reason it exists in the first place. Here is a link from the battle over removing the corporate AMT (which would be kind of dumb if it didn't exist).

http://www.cbpp.org/12-5-01tax.htm

[helleborient]

79. But 6, 7, 8 kids?

Where do you draw the line? A deduction for all of them?

I stand by my opinion on fairness.

If you are concerned about future doctors and lawyers...why not a requirement that they become educated?

[AP]

83. I'll draw the line between people who get most of their income from...

...passive sources (like investments, inheritance, etc) and people who make their money from earning it, regardless of how many kids they have.

[burr]

86. you have an excellent point...

the taxcode ought to be adjusted based on income and the ability of an individual to pay. But at some point people must decide for themselves what number of kids they can support with their current level of income.

We can help make the tax progressive based on income, but to reduce the tax burden for individuals who had more kids than they can support is wrong to families who have the same income, but choose to live within their means.

Raising kids properly is extremely expensive, and during tough times most couples know when to stop! Why make them pay higher taxes because some do not?

[helleborient]

87. I think trying to roll back large parts of the tax code...

And starting a serious discussion on societal priorities is a very good idea.

Strongly defending portions of Bush's tax cut to me sends four wrong messages:

1) Bush was partially on track with the tax cut package.

2) We're not serious about wanting Bill Clinton's budget surpluses back.

3) We're not serious about real tax reform based on real societal priorities. If simply having children and being married are the real priorities instead of taking care of the people we have (healthcare, care of the elderly, care for the homeless and jobless), I think we need to have some conversations.

4) We're not concerned about right-wing lifestyle choices (pro heterosexual marriage, pro-children) being pushed through the tax code.

[AP]

90. When you have Democrats arguing against tax code progressivity...

...we're closer to defeat.

[AP]

91. How big a break do you think these people are getting?

You're barking up the wrong tree. You need to focus your attention to the dispartiy between tax burdens where it's greatest, and it isn't between two people who get most of their income from working for a living (no matter how many more kids one has). It's bettwen those two income earners and the guy living up at the top of the hill in the gated community who's making money off of stock options, tax breaks, and inheritance (whether he has no children or ten).

[burr]

93. wait a taxable second friend...

forgive me for reminding you, but you first raised this issue!!!

You stated that taxation should be based on "passive sources (like investments, inheritance, etc) and people who make their money from earning it, regardless of how many kids they have."


An we're just agreeing..base taxation on investments, inheritance, and people who make their money earning it. And this should be done regardless of how many kids they have. AMEN BROTHER, preach on!!!

[AP]

95. Such firmly held opinoins, based on such striking misunderstandings!

I don't know where to start.

Taxation should be based on equalizing tax burdens. You shouldn't tax money that's hard to make at the same rate as money that's easy to make, and you should tax different income levels at rates that don't match the decreasing marginal valuation of an additional dollar as you have more dollars.

I'm also saying that the tax code can be used to creat incentives which are good for society. A tax break for driving a fuel efficient car is good. A tax break encouraging home ownership is good. A tax bread encouraging society to reproduce itself through having happy, healthy, well-educated children is good.

If what I'm saying isn't clear to you, do you really think it's sensible for you to have such firmly held opinions? Don't you think it's time, perhaps, that you do a little research and hard thinking about tax policy? Perhaps, less talking, more listening?

[burr]

97. what about a taxcut for obeying the law, and another for killing Muslims?

Who decides what is (good) behavior and what is (bad) behavior? But standards for good and bad change with the individual, and the primary behavior goverment should have a hand in is how your actions may wrong me in some way. Not in (encouraging me) to do what the majority wants me to do!!

The law is meant to protect one's life, liberity, and pursuit of happiness from those who attempt to take these things away. It is not to impose your quest of life, liberity, and the pursuit of happiness on me! Taxes exist to raise the most revenue, while doing the least amount of harm to the economy. Taxes should not exist to impose the majority's standard of good and evil on me.

"I'm also saying that the tax code can be used to create incentives which are good for society. A tax break for driving a fuel efficient car is good. A tax break encouraging home ownership is good. A tax bread encouraging society to reproduce itself through having happy, healthy, well-educated children is good."

A higher tax on gasoline would decrease the deficit, and have a greater impact. We already have tax breaks for home ownership...but not for those seeking to live in less environmentally destructive developments. And a "tax bread"? fuck that!! I make the money, government taxes my income...allowing me to keep some of what I work for is no tax bread. And I the day a tax break is something I consider a reward for being a good wittle boy..is the day I rot in HELL!

"If what I'm saying isn't clear to you, do you really think it's sensible for you to have such firmly held opinions? Don't you think it's time, perhaps, that you do a little research and hard thinking about tax policy? Perhaps, less talking, more listening?"

Most people who know me personally will tell you that I do almost no talking, but spend most of my time writing, reading, working, and thinking. So thanks for the "polite suggestion", that was very kind and thoughtful of you.

[AP]

98. What have you been reading about taxes?

Where do you get your information?

The democratic process decides the tax law. Thank heavens there are a few politicians who are still committed to making America a wealthy, fair, productive society. Thus we get tax breaks encouraging home onwership and allowing the deductibility of college loan interest, etc.

Your first paragraph up there about tax law not letting you be you is a little naive. It's not about good vs evil, it's about encouraging outcomes that are productive vs encouraging outcomes that aren't. This is SO OBVIOUS that I can't believe I'm wasting my time debating this with you.

If this were the only post you wrote on this matter, I'd keep going. However, we have a collection of post by you which are all over the place. I can't give you my time like this.

[peaceandjustice]

101. encouraging outcomes that are productive

having children is not the only way to meet our population needs. We could stop encouraging this "productive" outcome and compensate easily by expanding immigration opportunities. And how elitist is it to say that homeowners are more productive than rental tenants? And before you go off with some nonsensical statistics showing they are, I'm just going to ask now, couldn't that be because of the continuing stigma against those who rent?

[AP]

103. It is important for society's continuation that the reproduction of...

...society isn't too much of a burden.

If you're willing to make immigration easier, why aren't you willing to make having children easier? Politically, you have to admit, it's going to be easier to encoruage having babies than allowing immigrants. And anyway, what about when immigrants want to have babies?

And, you know what? There's an economist who says that unwantedness is one of the biggest causes of crime. When you have parents who are so economically burdened by having children that they can't hide their resentment (or they simply cannot care for them adequately) their kids grow up to cause lots of problem for society.

If a tax credit can reduce unwantedness, that's great for the parents, the kids, all of society, and you, because it reduces the chance that you personally will be a victim of a crime in the future.

Homeowning IS more productive for society than renting. That's just a fact. It spreads wealth broadly. If renting is encouraged, you're renting from people who have at least two homes, and maybe many more, or you're renting from companies which own tons of properties, and get low-taxed corporate profits which amass in the hands of a few.

Keynes, Stiglits, all sensible development economists say that if you have wealth spread out among a lot of people, you can have a much wealthier society. Stiglitz says that land ownership reform is the key to the end of poverty in the third world. If you own your land, you can leverage your own economic development much more effectively.

Set aside the fact that, politically, in the US, mortgage lending is unethical and out of control and many home owners are going to get screwed when the rates go up becuase Democrats haven't been able to (or, god forbid, haven't been inclined to) protect consumers from the banks. However, it's just as true in the US as it is in Zimbabwe that home owners have more wealth and can leverage their economic development and economic power through the home ownership.

This isn't about identity politics. This is about economics. Wise up.

[peaceandjustice]

137. the other side of the unwantedness coin, and more

Making it easier to have children, or encouraging it through a tax incentive, encourages people who haven't contemplated the serious social burden of raising children to have them. The result is unwantedness due to resentment over the social burden because the government is giving preferential taxation to alleviate the economic burden.

That 19-year old adopted in New Jersey who weighed 50 lbs. His parents still neglected him after being granted economic incentives.

The bottom line is, a tax credit doesn't make having children easier. It just creates an illusion that it is easier.

And yes, it will take bravery for a Democrat to stand up and say, hey, The INS is wasting time it could devote to preventing dangerous men and women with known terrorist group affiliations on keeping hard-working people who want to live the American dream out.

Now, it seems to me that reducing the cost of home ownership doesn't actually spread out home ownership because you're reducing the taxes on those wealthy enough to already own homes. Wouldn't a tax credit for rental tenants increase their ability to save enough money to own homes themselves sooner?

And when you make economic policies that benefit certain identity groups; parents, homeowners, the wealthy, whoever, it becomes about identity politics too.

[AP]

142. Some problems with your theory:

- The tax credit doesn't cover the full cost of having a child. It just takes some pressure off in the event that you have a child. I highly doubt that, if you're money conscious, you'd have a child just to get the tax credit

- The kids in NJ weren't natural children or adopted children. They were foster children. The foster parents got a lot more money than just a tax credit. In fact, it's the case that foster parents have an economic incentive to load up on the foster kids to make money. That's why there's an elaborate system of checks and balances to make sure that doesn't happen. Because the system was underfunded, this family got away with what they were doing. If the tax credit were a benefit as large as the foster parent benefit, I'd listen to what you were saying. It isn't. So I think you're way off base.

- The tax credit isn't supposed to make having children effortless. It's supposed to alleviate the pressure on parents. I'm gonna say, if you've spent a day in Manchester and a day in Stockholm, the significance of taking pressure off parents is going to be perfectly obvious to you.

- some states do have credits for people who rent. You can move to one of those states, if you'd like. However, it's still a great idea to encourage and reward home ownership.

- Policies which address economics are policies which address economics. Misunderstanding the economics and getting hyped up about thinking you're victimized because you mistakencly think you're not being benefited (because the cause and effect isn't direct enough) is selfish and misguided identity politics.

[burr]

102. I worked for a tax firm in Atlanta for many years...

most of my info comes from the CPA I worked with all those years, who also helps me with my tax returns.

most of my opinions are based on my knowledge of taxes and government, but there has actually been little discussion of specifics about the tax code in this thread. Most of the "facts" being discussed are tax generalities! This is why I'm puzzled about why I have been labeled uninformed for mostly stating my opinions.

Again, most of this discussion has focused on our personal views and general tax issues known by everyone, not specifics regarding the taxcode itself. Most would find those specifics extremely boring, and zone out after the first or second post! :boring:

[AP]

119. Which specific tax policy do you want to talk about?

As I talked about the lowering of the cap gains rate in 97 or 98, I'll talk about any specific policy you'd like to talk about.

Furthermore, I'm not sure what you mean when you say the discussion is too general and personalized. I don't think it is.

[burr]

121. I didn't say it was personalized...

nor did I say it was "too" general. I said a general tax discussion rarely goes into the fine details, but when it does...many will often zone out.

[AP]

124. I'll talk about this at any level you chose. And I'm not sure any points..

...have be lost in the haze of over-generalization.

What do you think, exactly, was misleading?

[peaceandjustice]

100. Is it sensible for you to...

post as if we can't BOTH tax passive income such as inheritance and stock dividends at a higher rate and cut the per-child tax credit? And the Best way for the next President to effectively argue for the tax policy they truly desire is to use the Clinton tax policy, which produced balanced budgets, as a starting point rather than Bush's deficit-creating tax policy.

[AP]

104. NOOOOO!

The Clinton tax code was regressive when it was passed. It was a compromise with the Republicans. Clinton wanted MORE progressivity.

In the last three years, the super-rich have gotten 10% richer each year, yet 4 million people have fallen into poverty just in the last year.

To superimpose the 2000 tax code on this income distribution today would be to have a tax code that was more regressive than it was in 2000.

Obviously, Bush's tax code is more regressive than that. However, arguing that we should go back to 2000 is missing the point. And it plays into Bush hands. His typical strategy is to take way more than he deserves and then fall back to a position that was better for the wingers than when he started, but make people feel like they got back to something good. It's like your 401K going from 1 million to 200K then up to 300K and you feel like you've gone up 50% when you've gone down 70%.

We should have a need-based child tax credit. We shouldn't get rid of it altogether. (Actually, with AMT, I believe that it is sort of need based, but AMT is really unfair to the middle class.)

[burr]

106. Clinton's tax code was a compromise with repukes!!!

then why didn't a single one vote for it in 1993??

I see, you must be talking about Lieberman, Kohl, and Feinstein.

[AP]

108. psst. That was the '93 budget bill. Tax laws are passed every year, and...

...there isn't just one "tax bill". Tax laws can be stand-alone or riders.

[burr]

111. so what???

that change in the tax law was made in the 1993 Reconciliation Act, and did not get a single repuke vote!

this is just a friendly observation, you have a tendency for stating the irrelevant and obvious in policy discussions.

None of the changes made in 93 were due to Repuke riders or compromises! So how was that point relevant?

[AP]

113. The tax code is the product of laws passed every year

Now, I don't know the circumstances, but one of the most REGRESSIVE tax code changes in the 90s was in 97 or 98 (if memory serves) when the cap gains rate was lowered. That opened the door for the stock option craze since it meant that people who used to get their money as earned income could not forego earned income for stock options, thus lowering their effective tax rate to 25% from 39% on the vast majority of the money they made from their employers.

That was a huge regressive change. It happened (I believe) when the Republicans were in control of congress. I bet Clinton didn't love it, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of a Bill that Clinton deemed was sufficiently important that he made the bad choice not to veto the whole bill.

I could be wrong. I invite you to do the research and prove me wrong.

[burr]

117. ok then...let's support bringing back the old capital gains rates.

But this doesn't mean you should oppose repealing all shrub's taxcuts.

[AP]

118. See, Edwards wants to return progressivity to cap gains rate...

...he wants a two-tiered cap gains rate that is income sensitive.

See, there are candidates who care about progressivity in the tax code.

Dean isn't one of them.

Yet the lack of progressivity is one of the biggest tools Republicans use to transfer wealth to the wealthy.

If Dean "gets" so much, why doesn't he 'get' that?

[burr]

120. we should go back to the old way of taxing capital gains.

40% of your investment would be included as earned income, being taxed under the income tax rates. 60% would not be taxed.

This makes the capital gains tax progressive, while making most of the capital gain tax deductable. But my breakdown would be 60% taxable gains...40% deductable gains.

Edwards does not repeal all of shrub's taxcuts, this is a serious problem...which will lead to higher and more regressive taxes for future generations.

[AP]

123. I think cap gains rates should be income sensitive (as Edwards says)

But I'd go farther than Edwards. I'd have more than two tiers.

Maybe some of the lower tiers might be lower than the rate you paid on your earned income. Maybe some of the higher tiers would be higher than the earned income rate you'd' pay (if it were earned income).

By the way:
- Your 40% would be excluded (not decucted).

- Not repealing the recent middle class breaks isn't a problem. It leaves sorely needed progressivity in the code.

- Nothing that's done now CAUSES regressivity in the future. Regressivity vs progressivity is a choice every legislature, state and federal, makes every time they pass a tax law. Nothing we do now MAKES anyone pass regressive codes in the future. This is why the Deaniac mantra makes no sense that if we leave the middle class breaks, you'll have to pay it in state and local taxes. No. The state and local government can chose to tax progressively or regressively. They can even chose to run defecits, which they'll pay off progressively or regressively in the future.

[burr]

131. it was reported therefore deducted...

a deduction is reported income that is not taxed.

an exclusion is income which is not required to be reported, like gifts.

"Nothing we do now MAKES anyone pass regressive codes in the future."

If Tennessee is forced to pickup the tab for sliced federal programs, they only have one tax to raise...sales tax. Sounds regressive to me!!

[AP]

132. The TN legislature can always pass a income tax or property tax

or whatever they want. They can ammend their constitution if there's a constitutional prohibition.

There are always choices legislatures can make. If there weren't, there'd be no point in running for office.

[burr]

134. Now we're getting somewhere!!!

"Regressivity vs progressivity is a choice every legislature, state and federal, makes every time they pass a tax law. Nothing we do now MAKES anyone pass regressive codes in the future. There are always choices legislatures can make. If there weren't, there'd be no point in running for office."

I agree with this, just as I agree there are always choices that the feds can make. And the choices of one shall always impact the choices made by the other!

Promising something for nothing must never be the purpose of running for office, inspiring support to accomplish something "not because it is easy but because it is hard" is the more worthy objective.

[peaceandjustice]

99. no more so than a more open immigration policy (n/t)

[AP]

105. Immigrants have kids too. n/t

[burr]

107. so do taxcuts and deficit spending....

the huge difference being that these two will reproduce by giving us an ugly breed of higher taxes, more government spending on interest, and less money available for addressing future needs. However, I suppose all human kids of the future must be given some dangerous friends to play with...right?

[AP]

109. the tax code has been the biggest tool Republicans use to transfer wealth

For Dean to pretend that it's more important to balance budgets than to fix the tax code is laughabel. It's downright Hooverian.

[burr]

112. Hoover followed in Cooledge's footsteps...

and Reagan's favorite example to give when pushing for taxcuts was Cal Coolidge. Coolidge and Hoover were absorbed by doin' the 1920's taxcut ritz...

Puttin on the ritz...and then, depression! Hardly Dean's style, more like shrub's kinda song and dance...

[AP]

114. Hoover had an obsession with balancing the budget, but he wouldn't

do it by raising taxes on the rich. He wanted to do it on the backs of the middle class.

Because a big part of the problem with the economy was that it worked for the benefit only of the rich, and worked by exploiting the working calls, Hoover's policies just made it worse.

There are some similarities between Dean and Hoover. Dean barely cares about progressivity at all, and he seems to admire Wall St.

[burr]

116. Do you mean as some admire shrub for his taxcuts?

I agree about Hoover, except he wanted to do it on the working class. In the 20's, the middleclass was almost non-existant. The income gap between haves and havenots was huge, with very little in between!

As far as reducing the deficit, we should do it before times get tough. Then we will have more money for depressions or other possible disasters to come! We must not waste any of our emergency funds on taxcuts and ritzy spending.

And I believe in addition to repealing all of shrub's taxcuts, we must raise taxes on the wealthy...this is the only way to fund new programs backed by Kerry and Dean without increasing the national debt.

[AP]

122. Times aren't tough because of the defecit. Times are tough because

we have a society which is piling all the burdens of finacing the government on the middle and working class (the people who actually create social wealth in America) and it's transferrring the wealth they create to the already wealthy.

Do the Hoover ritz. Balance the budge. But until you balance out the burdens we're going to have a crappy economy. And if you try to balance the burden on the backs of the middle class, you're going to find yourself in the midst of Great Depression II.

[burr]

133. FDR raised tax rates to record levels...

the main reason everyone benefited by this was because many were unemployed, and most did not make enough income in the depression to be wealthy or even middleclass.

However, the New Deal was largely paid for by higher not lower taxes rates. Deficit spending only went up significantly during WWII, when FDR was President. But much of this accumulated debt was paid off with the surplusses brought in during the 1950's.

One other point, deficit spending alone can provide more of a long-term drag on the economy than a boost..if not done wisely!

From a politician you would love...former Governor Joe Frank Harris "You can't borrow yourself out of debt, and you can't spend money you don't have. A business or a government can't do this either. I realized more than ever that the funds you borrow are, in a sense, spending today for our children and grandchildren to repay. When the government issues bonds for the funds that they are borrowing, the interest paid on that money sometimes actually costs more that the principle you are spending.

Another of our financial rules was not to spend money on projects that would not remain. I've seen attempts to borrow money for paving and repaving roads in which the asphalt would last maybe twelve years and you'd still be paying on it for twenty-five years.

Another principle that I tried to operate with was anytime you could reduce your debt and utilize additional or extra revenue to buy back or pay-off old bonds, there would be an additional savings beyond being fiscally responsible. It's awfully easy to go to the market and borrow money because the debt service that is required for repayment is only 1/20th of the total amount to be paid on that loan...Of course, it is easier to borrow money and spend, leaving a debt for future generations, than to be responsible and manage the available funds."

Add our unpaid tax burden to the burdens which the future middleclass will already pay, and you're going to find yourself in the midst of Great Depression II.

[AP]

135. It was never easier to make money in America than it was during the time

when we had high marginal rates. Which is the logic of high marginal rates. If the government is creating a society in which you can make money hand over foot if you have tons of money, you better be prepared to pay your fair share of the cost of creating that infrastructure. And the gov't better use that money to make sure that it can continue to build a society in which anyone willing to work hard can put their labor into that society, and get a reasonable financial reward out of that society -- which is exactly what the great society did.

Right now, we're asking the people who work the hardest, yet are still under crippling debt, who are transferring all the wealth they create to the bush family and to wall street, to bear the biggest relative tax burden, while the people making money hand over foot see that their share of the burden is getting smaller and smaller.

That's a recipe for financial disaster. Edwards realizes that. Kucinich realizes that. Sharpton realizes that. Clinton realized it. Even Lieberman realizes it.

However, Dean is trying to convince the people in the middle that, financially, they're in the same boat as the people at the top, and that they have to pull even more of the weight, while he doesn't ask the people at the top to pull even as much as they pulled during the Clinton years, which wasn't much, thanks to the Republican congress.

[burr]

136. Dean advocates the same rate increases backed by Edwards...

the only difference is that he repeals all the taxcuts so that future generations will not pay in taxes for any spending providing a minimum short-term gain.

In other words, any borrowing that we do must provide tangible benefits which are greater in value than the costs payed by future taxpayers in interest.

And I agree with most of your first paragraph. But guess what? In the late 40's more people began joining the ranks of the middleclass, and as they did they started to pay more in taxes as well...hence the era of large surplusses in the 50's. As a result, Kennedy ran on a pledge in 1960 that he would cut these rates..originally raised by FDR.

This was not a slap in the face of FDR, but a recognition that our nation could then afford taxcuts because it was not deeply in debt. But times have changed somewhat in the last 40 years!

[AP]

143. One question. One statement.

- Where does Dean say he wants more progressivity? Where's one example of him saying that the tax code needs to be more sensitive to income? (I'm looking for a concrete proposal.)

- Obviously when society gets richer, and more people creep up into the higher brackets, you lose progressivity, and the tax rates get, de facto, flatter. That's why you have to constantly adjust them, and move the bands out farther. And if money becomes harder to make, you have to lower the rates. You have to constantly adjust the code to keep it progressive.

Everyone knew the rates had to change, but the politicians knew they wouldn't be able to explain the math to the public. Eisenhower didn't want Republicans to be known as the party who cut taxes on the rich, so he left the increasingly regressive code in place, that was raising a lot of money from middle class people. Kennedy had nothing to lose, so he was the one who brought sanity back to the code. See, progressivity isn't always about rasing taxes. It's about lower taxes for some people some of the time.

By the way, this is a good example of why it doesn't make sense today to go back to Clinton's tax code. People in the middle and at the bottom or poorer, and more in debt and people at the top are richer. A tax code that wasn't all that fair then, would be even less fair today.

[burr]

170. I disagree with what I see as your central premise.

"- Obviously when society gets richer, and more people creep up into the higher brackets, you lose progressivity, and the tax rates get, de facto, flatter. That's why you have to constantly adjust them, and move the bands out farther. And if money becomes harder to make, you have to lower the rates. You have to constantly adjust the code to keep it progressive."

You left out one important line..when feasible. First of all, just because more people fall into the higher brackets does not mean the rich are paying a smaller percentage. It simply means that more people are paying a higher percentage. This is good in some cases because the debt accumulated to produce this growth, and to help boost these wages can now be paid down without additional taxation or spending cuts! Secondly if a government was unable to adequetely finance things like public education or universal healthcare, again this needed money is now available without spending cuts or tax increases.

Cutting these taxrates would make sense according to Keynes during an economic slowdown, or once the those who were unemployed have all been hired in public works projects. But they would not be a positive thing in good times until debt has been retired, and those basic programs are funded.

[AP]

183. What makes this hard to discuss with you is that you don't understand

progressivity. It's the marginal valuation of an additional dollar which justifies higher tax rates on higher brackets relative to lower brackets.

When you get richer, your marginal valuations change.

There's also the problem of having a de facto flat tax within a bracket.

You can say that you have ten tax brackets with progressively higher rates. But if 90% of the income earners fall into the top bracket, then you have a de facto flat tax. Alothough it's not that drastic with individual earners, that's still a pretty apt discription of corporate income tax -- it's de facto flat.

Is any of this sinking in?

[peaceandjustice]

139. no, it hasn't

When the government enters spending deficits, it makes up the difference in revenue through bond sales. The wealthiest quintile owns 80% to 90% of all bonds.

[burr]

141. exactly..

another reason for opposing deficit spending and all these tax cuts, it always lines the pockets of the very wealthy...while leading to future spending cuts that hurt the middle and working classes.

[AP]

144. The tax code is the BIGGEST way we shift wealth to the wealthiest

Everyone pays taxes.

Bonds are another big way.

How do you think the money to pay back the bonds is ultimately raised? Through (increasingly regressive) taxes.

The tax code is where it all starts.

Lots of bonds are bought by foreign governments, by the way.

[peaceandjustice]

138. and I'm not saying they should get a tax break for them either (n/t)

[burr]

140. I do not disagree...nor do I agree!!!

all the children of the future must have a lower tax burden imposed on their families for necessary government services. The way this is done is by beginning to pay off government debt and not adding our generation's tax burden to their's. :thumbsup:

[AP]

145. The adults of the future should also pay taxes progressively.

And they should be happy if today's government did some defecit spending which made their futures brighter. And they'll be happiest if we don't destroy today's middle class through an unfair distribution of the tax burden.

[burr]

75. fairness in the tax structure....really???

Higher payroll taxes and higher sales taxes for years to come, how fair!!

The dismantling of Social Security, Medicare and cuts in basic social services for years to come, how fair!!

Cuts in education, roads, and for basic law enforcement in our nation for years to come, how fair!!

And higher income taxes and funky "new" alternative minimum taxes on future generations pay for our deficits, how fair!!

Less money to help in the future for the increasing unemployed young people seeking work and for the aging babyboomers with unaffordable healthcare problems, how fair!!

Thanks for your fairness, your a real American hero. :thumbsup:

[AP]

110. see above

[burr]

115. sorry...yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone!

B-) nt

[AP]

125. see last point in post 123

thanks

[MrSoundAndVision]

66. Because government needs resources to function

And money is a good resource.

[The Commie]

128. We need to start with a clean plate.

We should go back to before all the Reagonomics supply-side BS fubarized the economy, back to when the income tax was truely progressive. The reaganomics butt-heads seen to forget that Demand is more important than supply, a surplus of goods with nothing to help demand is why supply-side economics is just a way to legitamise tax cuts for corprate buddies. Keynes would be horrified if he saw the tax code today, this same BS triggered the Great Depression. Bush = Hoover.

[bread_and_roses]

146. Does it occur

to the supporters of Dean's position that if his stance generates so much opposition here, among reasonably informed and thoughtful people, it is going to be one hell of a sell to the average voter who won't spend 1/100 of the time we have here on it?

[burr]

147. then join us, and the growing ranks of ...Gephardt, Dean supporters,

and together we shall win this battle as the united party! :grouphug:

[bread_and_roses]

148. burr, why would I "join you"

on an issue where I have major disagreement with not only the practicality but more important the policy implications of the issue at question?
Addition on edit because I was interupted: The real point though, is, what difference would my joining you make? Even if I were persuaded, which is not likely, how does that translate into an easier "sell" to the public?

[burr]

149. simple...

because we are more likely to successfully make the case, when we do it together as Democrats. Providing the needed $9.3 billion in family housing and barracks for our soldiers in uniform can only be justified, when this bill is not left behind for future generations to be paying. Especially since this military will likely be downsized even as our children are still paying this bill! They shouldn't inherit higher taxes and an insolvent Social Security system, because we chose to keep some of the taxcuts and be patriotic in the name of excessive military spending.

[AP]

150. If an investment today makes children in the future wealthier

than it makes sense to shift the payback to the future.

This is why people take out a loan to buy a house or get an education. They have their future selves pay the loan back when they're wealthier. Having your children pay down debt which made them wealthier is the same thing.

You talk about this in such black and white terms that it's a useless analogy. The problem is when we go into defecit today to do things that make us poorer tomorrow.

That's what a tax break for the wealthiest Americans does. It makes them wealthier and more powerful and allows them to further control society to make it an apparatus for shifting wealth from the middle class and working class creators of wealth to the people who aren't working hard to earn it at the top of the ladder.

The answer is not to shift all the costs of going into defecit to THIS generation. The answer is to stop the transfer of wealth, to make only wealth-creating investments in the infrastructure, and to return to a much more progressive tax code.

[burr]

151. one doesn't make many investments for their children if deeply in debt...

the only investment someone seriously in debt can make for the children is to pay off this debt. In reality other investments on borrowed money could be considered fraud and are likely to be reclaimed by the creditors in court, not passed down to your children.

As far as a house goes, banks issue a security deed. So if the loan has been hardly paid off before you die, the children must pay the remainder of this loan just to keep the house.

For many middleclass families this winds up being a huge nightmare, not an asset. The house is foreclosed on, and the house is sold for less than the value of the loan. This leaves the kids with the burden of paying this difference in addition to their own house loans.

Had this loan been paid down, the kids could of sold the property...and used the profit to pay off some of their own house loans. In other words, you can't borrow yourself out of debt!

[AP]

152. Demonstrably untrue.

Many parents with huge mortgages and credit card debt are living in communities with high property taxes that send them farther into debt, forcing them to finance more and more of their purchases on credit cards, so their kids can go to decent schools and get decent educations and go to good colleges, and then they willingly take on more debt (student loans) which the kids can't get rid of in bankruptcy, so that those kids can get better-paying jobs.

People in debt will go into debt for a bigger reward. Any reasonable individual would.

As I said, the black and white view of the world Deaniacs perpetuate -- all debt is bad, budgets must always be ballanced, surpluses need to result in tax breaks -- in unwise and demonstrably inaccurate. You only need to look at Hoover for proof.

[burr]

154. It is not my view, Dean's view, or Gephardt's view that all debt is bad...

Just because one may be colorblind, does not mean that one must accuse others of presenting the world in black and white terms.

A good form of borrowing is to acquire some investment or asset that should still be there after the debt is paid off, or at least have some value remaining. Another important principle of borrowing is to mainly rely on it during the worst years, and spend the better years paying as much of this down as possible. Finally, it is only logical to borrow money when those people can assume that they will eventually have the money to pay it down completely. Piling loans on top of credit card debt IMHO is self-destructive behavior!

I have a credit-card that I would love to use more often. But I pay-off everything I order with it by the end of the month. If I didn't..I would be paying interest on basics like food, medicine, and gasoline. Then I would be so deep in a hole I could never get out!

Credit cards are like fire, an effective tool when handled properly. But when it is not controlled or well managed, a fire gone wild can consume you and everyone you care deeply for!

[AP]

156. Credit card debt is bad, yes. But because you're in credit card (+)

debt doesn't mean you shouldn't go out and buy a car if a car is the only way that you can hold down job. Or it shouldnt' mean that you shouldn't go to college, if a college loan is the only way to pay for your education, and you wouldn't otherwise go to college.

See how that works?

America is in credit card debt. That debt went to buying a lot of things which didnt create and won't create wealth for society (it bought an eaiser life for rich people who were already doing well). That doesn't mean that America shouldn't invest in its future. Now, here's where I seem to disagree with many people here. I think 'buying' a more progressive tax code is an investment in the future.

If the tax code spread the burden more fairly, you could probably raise the rates for some people at the top just a little, and lower them for people in the middle and bottom a little bit more, and you'd see the economy grow enough so that new wealth would be created which would pay down the debt.

I think the economy has grown less than it could have in the last 30 years BECAUSE the tax code has been shifting more and more of the burden onto the middle class, making them -- the engine of economic growth -- work less efficiently.

Dean was asked about "middle class" tax relief. His reply was "I can't help the upper middle class or I'll be criticized for favoring the wealthy." He wants to conflate the middle class and uppoer middle class. He wants the two-income white collar family making 130K/year in earned income taxed at high rates to think they're in the same financial boat as the Cheney family which makes 95% of its income taxed at lower passive income rates. Why? Because he likes Wall St, and he wants to ballance the budget on the backs of the middle class rather than on the backs of the wealthy, like Hoover, who also liked Wall St.

[burr]

158. There is a limit to how much income we could "buy" with credit.

I agree with your point. My point is that the national credit card is (-). If the national debt was half of what it was today, I would probably be backing the tax proposals pushed by Kerry and Edwards. However, I would be willing to bet that shrub would have passed much larger taxcuts..and that Edwards and Kerry would be pushing to keep most of the taxcuts currently in place. But all of that is hypothetical.

One thing I would never do is buy a computer or some needed equipment with a credit card, without paying for this at the end of the month. Again..I use my credit cards as debit cards, not for credit!

The only reason I use loans is for long-term investments, and I never apply for one if I think I will be unable to pay the interest or have other debts I need to pay first. And with some of the people having medical problems in my family, having a good credit record has always been essential to me.

As far as middleclass tax relief, to me universal health insurance or funding needed government services would provide the best relief to middleclass families.

[AP]

161. Deans proposal to rescind ALL tax cuts makes about a 2 pt

difference in about a 25 point spread. It's the difference between cutting down income as a percentage of outflow to 87% rather than 85%. It's at something like 75% now.

[burr]

163. his healthcare plan also covers more people than Edwards.

meaning it will likely cost more as well, this 2%...although probably more, would make up for this difference in costs rather than adding this expense to the deficit. This brings me to another point.

It is absurd to think Dean is obsessed with surplusses, when it is still questionable that even the complete repeal of the taxcuts would balance the budget.

[AP]

165. Dean's VT record shows what he does with surpluses...

...he's gives them back as tax cuts, even though he could have done something to make either the VT code more progressive, or to shore up the state's finances or (ideally) both.

[burr]

167. more Governors will be raising regressive taxes if Edwards' plan passes.

Dean has not done this, nor does he want to make future Governors' jobs harder! :D

[AP]

168. I'm starting to remember why I put you on ignore...

You just spit out any old thing regardless of you unfounded the opinion or specious the logic is.

Dean had no interest in progressive taxes when he was Governor. He liked making people feel the hurt if he thought they were benefitting, but he didn't like spreading the tax burden to far up the income ladder, especially if it started to look like it was nipping at the heels of corporations like IBM.

If Edwards becomes president, you can easily imagine that he would take the progressive tax argument directly to the public, which will make state citizens ask their state governments why they aren't doing what the president is doing.

That, burr, going to result in progressive state codes way faster than a Dean presidency which aggresively avoids talking about progressivity and which tries to convince the middle class that their class loyalties should be with the rich and, therefore, they should not expect any special breaks which Dean isn't willing to give the rich.

[burr]

169. the feeling is mutual!

you should be displeased to know that I always clearout my ignore list after it gets too long.

States rarely do what a President wishes them to, unless that President works hard to make his party the dominate force in that state!

We do keep hitting the same points over and over. However, let me assure you I oppose a National Sales Tax, I support a progressive state income tax in states like Tennessee, and I do support making the capital gains tax progressive..as well as having higher corporate tax rates. So although we do not agree on repealing all shrub's taxcuts, I think we do agree on the necessity of progressivity in the tax code. We disagree on our candidates' actions resulting in this progressivity.

One final point, although Tennessee just elected a Democratic Governor..he was elected by defeating the Repuke who supported a state income tax. A progressive tax code was a worthy objective, but it died at the Democrats' hand...would you of voted Sunquest or Bredeson for Governor in 2002?

[AP]

153. Two more things:

- The phrase is "could have" not "could of" -- I know my spelling is awful, so I shouldn't talk. But you make this mistake frequently, and it's time to get it right.

- I'm not entirely certain that a mortage contract is binding on your children if they're not a party to it. The estate is responsible the deceased's debts. But if the estate doesn't have the money to pay off the mortgage, and the estate is tapped out, I don't think any state allows the bank to reach down to parties who weren't a party to the contract.

There would be lots of estragned children who'd be extremely surprised to find out they're on the hook for a house a parent bought whom they haven't seen in years.

It probably sucks for kids to see an estate dwindle down to nothing because a parent unwisely took on a fourth mortgage for an amount way greater than the value of the house. But, anything that isn't satisfied out of the estate is the bank's loss unless the children co-signed the mortgage.

But this hase nothing to do with my argument that sensible people in debt will go into further debt to secure the possiblity of greater rewards in the future.

[burr]

155. we all have debts to pay off, and high taxes...but what do we get back?

The government could help by helping students by giving them performance based grants, not loans. It could help by moving us toward universal healthcare. And it can help by paying down its debt so that our interest payments go down, and our taxes remain progressive and do not double in a generation.

But this will not be free..I believe corporations must pay, the capital gains rates must be made progressive, and yes..all the shrub taxcuts must be repealed. But with the right leadership, the longterm benefits will be worth the initial costs.

[AP]

157. But you don't disagree that defecit spending to leverage growth is good.

What's more important? Running a balanced budget every year, or going into defecit in some years to make valuable investments, and running a surplus without giving it back in tax cuts in other years so that you can firm up things like SS, and then having that strategy result in a larger, stronger economy which produces wealth to pay down whatever debt you have created.

Slavish devotion to balanced budgets isn't the key. Did Keynes think that was the key? No. Creating fair, competitive, large economies is the key.

Dean believes in balanced budgets. He doesnt' believe in the defecit/surplus swings.

Also, he seems to think that invesments into infrastructure should be made by private companies, rather than the government -- he likes energy deregulation and privitization and free markets.

It seems his philosophy is to not so much to worry about higher wages and accumulation of wealth among the middle class, but to give everyone health insurance, and give Wall St alot of stuff to make money off of, while making sure the poor don't get too poor, and he wants to make the middle class think their economic interests and loyalties should be with the super-rich. His vision of America isn't very far from Thatcher's vision of Britain.

[burr]

159. keynes is one of my favorities...

but many confuse his ideas with Friedman.

Keynes supported lower taxes and increased spending as government solutions taken to help remedy a depression. He thought that chronic unemployment often was the natural result of supply and demand, and the solution was for the government to make large expenditures on public works programs to employ these people. :thumbsup:

However, Friedman made the destructive case that deficit spending was not only good in bad economic times..but also acceptable in prosperous times! Hence..supply-side economics. :thumbsdown:

[AP]

160. K-e-y-N-e-s

Another person to think about: Stiglitz, or any economist who believes that building up wealth in a middle class builds up more wealth for everyone.

[burr]

162. or what about Kuznets...

He argued that GNP ignores working conditions and related hardships..along with most nonmarket activities, so Kuznets strongly opposed reliance on National Income date as sole indicators of economic performance. The irony is, he is still considered "the father of GNP" as an economic measurement.

[AP]

164. How can you know that much, but not care about progressivity in the tax

code and then rely on silly personal allegories to argue that debt is bad?

It just makes it look like you know better and that you're not being honest in your assessment of Dean's Hooverian fiscal conservativism.

[burr]

166. this argument is burning more wildly than uncontrolled credit card debt...

I haven't said all debt is bad. I have said that uncontrolled debt is bad.

I have never implied that I "did not care about progressivity in the tax" code. To the contrary, I feel that repealing all of shrub's taxcuts is necessary to have progressivity in our taxcode.

Hoover did not give a shit about National Healthcare or saving Social Security, Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt do.

[bread_and_roses]

171. I'll make a proposition...

...let's repeal tax cuts for the wealthiest, tax corporations fairly (close loopholes, etc), demand environmental and labor/human rights standards in trade treaties to make American workers more competitive (as well as improve the lot of workers in the Developing world), establish universal health care in US, and THEN, if we need to, we can look at raising taxes on the working and middle class. If we still need to, I'll be with you.

[burr]

172. raising taxes on working and middle class?

I want them to stay down where they were during the Clinton years, not be raised because of addition deficit spending.

And don't forget, Social Security will be under considerable strain when the babyboomers retire. Enormous borrowing will be necessary just to keep it afloat, which means we need to reduce our borrowing for unneeded taxcuts and Iraqi invasions now!

"let's repeal tax cuts for the wealthiest, tax corporations fairly (close loopholes, etc)" But let's also repeal the complacency regarding our nation's future challenges.

[AP]

173. The rich are richer and middle class are struggling more now than in '01

To tax those two groups the same as they were then is to tax them MORE regressively than they were taxed then. Furthermore, the economy isn't producing wealth now like it was then.

[burr]

174. what is the purpose of progressivity?

It is not meant to free certain income earners entirely of the burden of paying income taxes. Nor is it to free them of the burden of paying higher rates as their incomes increase.

The purpose is to tax lower levels of income at a lower rate, then to tax additional levels of income at higher rates. It is meant to be fundamentally fair to the wealthy and working class alike. It is also exists ensure that people never lose money just for earning more, the exact opposite of the neo-con myth!

If one married person makes just enough to be in the 10% bracket, then this is the most they will pay.

If another person make more than this, the lower levels of income will will be taxed by the 10% bracket and the higher levels of income naturally fall into the higher brackets. Some richer individuals have the misconception that once they are in a higher bracket, they are no longer in the lower bracket! The entire purpose of the taxcode is to insure that all people will pay the same percentages for the same levels of income.

Leading me to my primary point, we need more tax brackets, not less. And we will also need higher rates. We must adequately fund public education, not defund it! And we need to reduce borrowing now, because more borrowing is bound to be needed in the future. Therefore taxrates will go up, and the model of the 1990's is the model we should fallback on to raise this additional revenue.

Do not underestimate the challenges. Universal healthcare, federal aid for public education, dollars for developing renewable energy sources, additional public funding for needed medical research, finally providing dollars to fully fund jobs and training programs for the unemployed and disabled alike! And with the future challenges which our nation is facing, financing such crucial ventures will not come cheaply. Rich and middleclass people will have to pay more, but the benefits will be worth it!

[AP]

175. Today's economy is not the same as the 90s economy.

"and the model of the 1990's is the model we should fallback on to raise this additional revenue."

the top quintile is something like 190% wealthier than it was in 1992, and 32.5% wealthier than it was in 2001. The poor are getting pooer (10% more are starving this year compared to last year).

To transpose the '90s tax code on today's economy places a code that wasn't progressive back then on to a completely different reality, thus making it more regressinve than it was when we had it the first time.

Dean is extremely disingenuous and reveals a sort of contempt for the intelligence of his supporters by forcing them to defend this nonesense which happens to work in his and his mother's favor, relative to 2001.

[burr]

176. indeed not, this is why our government is now deeper in debt.

It is MHO that had a single tax-cut not been passed, we would still be running modest deficits today. Why is this?..because the cost of government services has increased since the 90's. This makes the taxcuts and any Democrat who supported them even more insane under the circumstances.

"the top quintile is something like 190% wealthier than it was in 1992, and 32.5% wealthier than it was in 2001. The poor are getting pooer (10% more are starving this year compared to last year)."

Instead of cutting rates in 2001, the top quintile should of had an increase. In addition, funding for basic social services should not of been cut...but increased to deal with the associated problems of poverty. Whenever a government with a huge national debt cuts taxes, it is bound to also cut social services, education, and healthcare. We do not need to make a dire situation deadly! :nuke:

[AP]

177. So, uhm, how's going back to the 90s code gonna help?

And, yes, in 2001 (and every year) when the richest get richer, the tax code should adjust a little to spread the burden more fairly.

And according to the same logic, the quintiles that are getting screwed should see a little tax relief. So why does Dean want to burde them with a 90s tax code structure?

[burr]

178. lol

maybe the quintiles didn't like the 90's tax code, why do you think they loathed Clinton so much?

The tax code should have higher rates. But I fear the day when we go back to 70% and 90% tax rates for anyone, progressive or regressive. This is not healthy for our economy, another reason that borrowing should be kept to a limit.

[AP]

181. You and Dean have to stop looking backwards.

Our economy is like it's never been before (well, the income inequality is a lot like 1930). We can't go backwards to any tax code. We need to go forward and give it a tax code that makes sense for the scale of wealth and the relative ease of making money for different income strata.

[bread_and_roses]

179. We begin to move closer to agreement

..."I want them to stay down where they were during the Clinton years." At least we both want to keep taxes on the working and middle class "down." If you keep in mind that extreme disparity of wealth continued to increase during the Clinton years, and real wages never fully recovered from the decline of the 70's/80's, then it becomes easier to understand why repealing the tax cuts for these groups is poor policy and poor politics. No matter how many times you say that repealing the tax cuts on these groups is not "raising" their taxes, that it is just returning them to a prior level, those people are going to experience that as "raising my taxes"-which it is. And since those groups know that they are working harder for less, that it becomes harder and harder for them to raise their standard of living or save or get out from under debt, they are not going to buy it. Nor should they.

[burr]

180. Do we?

you and I sit here and debate on whether or not all of shrub's taxcuts should be repealed..as DINOs like Dorgan, Baucas, Breaux, Landrieu, and Miller all agree on another $23 billion in tax cuts to large energy companies, even when our nation is in debt. Even worse, under these new provision, they get these taxcuts while no longer having to obey environmental laws protecting our groundwater! Nor will they have to obey the Federal Regulatory Commission as they simply seize your private property for more power lines, while providing higher rates. And we don't even bother with putting the lines underground as most countries do, who cares if it ruins someone else's property value? So just don't rely on well water any longer friends...safe drinking water is another thing that will cost more in taxes to pipe in, thanks to this act. These are the same DINOs who voted for these overpriced wars in Iraq and Afganistan, and we have gotten hundreds of American deaths in addition to 9/11 as a result.

Is this the price we pay for incompetence and corruption?

From the AJC...
<snip>
Among other provisions, the bill would:

• Extend an estimated $23 billion in tax breaks to the energy industry.

• Delay efforts by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to set up independent electric power transmission organizations.

• Make it harder to sue oil refiners when the gasoline additive MTBE contaminates groundwater.

Environmentalists, energy conservation groups and consumer advocates assailed it as an unrestricted bundle of concessions to oil, gas, coal and electric power interests.
<snip>

<http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1103/18energy.html>

I grow sicker of all DINOs who choose to defend this President, his party, and their actions with every passing day. :mad:

[bread_and_roses]

184. well, I agree

that the items you listed above benefit corporations and thus the wealthy, not poor or working people, and that they are in general bad measures that will likely haunt us for years, if not generations. My only disagreement with you is in your seeming to ignore that the tax policies of at least the last twenty years have transferred wealth from the working and "middle" classes to the upper 5% and especially to the upper 1%. If the latest round of tax cuts tossed them a bone, we should not advocate snatching it back. And no, I am not in favor of either tossing bones or tokens to the working/middle class; I merely acknowledge that half a slice of bread is better than no loaf at all. And nothing I have written is in any way a defense or endorsement of "this President, his party, and their actions." I consider this administration a threat to democracy, peace, and maybe even civilization itself.