Why Do "Dean-TAX" Threads Ignore Dean's Tax Plan?

I see a lot of brouhaha on DU about Dean's campaign to "raise taxes" by reversing all of the Bush tax cuts. Now, whether reversing a cut can honestly be called a raise is questionable. Pretend you boss CUTS your hourly salary from $10 to $9. If he were to turn around, 1 year later, and restore your pay to $10, would you rejoice at the wonderful RAISE you received?

Not bloody likely.

But that's not my real point. The real point is that Dean's tax plan goes beyond reversing the Bush federal tax cuts (which resulted in higher state & local taxes for most), and looks at the entire tax federal tax code, and how it unfairly burdens the middle class.

From Dean's Website:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_economy_taxreform

"The distribution of the income tax burden has changed dramatically. In 1973, corporations paid 40% of federal income tax revenues. Last year, the corporate contribution was down to 16.8%. Experts estimate that corporate tax avoidance schemes are costing the US taxpayers up to $100 billion a year. Senator John McCain claims that even a modest effort to eliminate unnecessary special interest tax preferences and loopholes would raise nearly $50 billion a year in increased federal revenues...

...The Dean economic program will strive for greater tax fairness for middle class working families. Closing corporate tax loopholes will help shift some of the burden off the shoulders of individuals. Ending unfair tax preferences will raise additional revenue to reduce the deficit and help set the federal budget on the road to balance. "


Now, how can you honestly say that Dean will raise taxes on the middle class, when Dean's entire emphasis is on shifting the burden from the middle class to corporations?

Isn't that, uhm... dishonest?

the only difference is that he doesn't have the domestic record to back it up.

but he's not. He's evolved, changed, switched, flipped, flopped, waffled or whatever this weeks favorite term is.

Rhetoric is the polite word I think of when I read where folks say that Dean wants to raise taxes on the middle class.

middle class tax credits. Will he change if he finds it politically expedient?

the transference of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper class.


But hey, if you love Bush's tax cut...

First, whatever tax proposals he has he needs to be specific about and he isn't.

Most importantly, if he isn't really going to repeal the Bush tax cuts to pay for guaranteed health coverage to every American, and all his other programs, he needs to say so. Because he and his supporters have beat the hell out of the other candidates over these tax cuts, so if he intends to implement any of them at all, he's been a goddamn hypocrite running on a lie.

And, if my pay gets cut and then I get my pay back, I got more money; call it fritters if you want to. BUT if I get more pay and then a Democrat takes it away, I call him out of office.

I'll take the reversal, but try to appease me by telling me it's a raise, and ya done pissed me off.

That's an old management trick. Take some benefit away, then give it back. Pat self on back, claim you care about employees.

What Bush has done to you is like your employer charging you $50 less for insurance benefits while charging you $50 more for parking, and all you can see is that you got a deal on insurance!

Don't let the weasel get away with it, this is like something out of a freaking Dilbert strip...

My boss charges me $50 less for insurance, I have $50 more in my pocket. Period.

He also charges me $100 more in other expenses and they aren't going away.

I have a $50 net loss.

If my boss comes in and says he's taking my $50 insurance benefit away, he's actually leaving me with $150 net loss. He's made my sitution MUCH worse.

And, if he says he's doing it so he can figure out the company budget to provide me with something better in a few years... I'm finding a new job.

but dean isn't taking the insurance benefit away, he's restoring everything to where it stood before all the idiot changes.

Also, no analogy is perfect, and you last sentence is where it realloy breaks down, because ultimately - you can just go find another job, but the benefits one gets from an employer are not like the benefits one gets from living in a country where the budget is balanced (on the shoulders of corporations), where we are not paying interest on debt, where there is enough money to fund social welfare programs, and where the Executive in (nominal) charge isn't an idiot prince with fascist tendencies.

Oh yeah, and it really isn't all that easy to go emmigrate to another country, unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars to deposit in their bank system, or are a highly trained professional, or have rellies there.

He can't get into office, wave a magic wand, and restore jobs, salaries, tuitions, property taxes, state programs, and everything else to where it was in 2000. Things have changed. There has been a terrorist attack. We've got troops overseas. Regardless of Iraq, they will be working with other countries, including Afghanistan, for a long time. We have increased security needs here at home. He can't make it all go back.

If he comes into office with two primary goals, repeal tax cuts and balance the budget, families are going to suffer. They will have BOTH the state and local increases AND Dean's not really tax hike. And he isn't going to be able to instantly implement a health plan with the budget this out of whack and I don't think that's his plan anyway.

It's a lousy plan for the economy as a whole and a lousy plan for individual families.

1) Because we will not agree about the viability of Dean's plan

2) I consider it a small victory that you have changed your rhetoric from "Dean's tax hike" to "repeal tax cuts" and "Dean's not tax hike"

I'll settle for that, and agree to disagree on the rest. Deal?

And trying to get you to see how illogical it is to say that repealing tax cuts is going to cause a "not tax hike" in people's paychecks. It's simple mathematics.

I do appreciate not being personally attacked, that's usually how these debates have ended for me.

I know you have said that you really really really don't like Dean, that it verges on hate.

Therefore, I have to think that your refusal to say that Dean will not raise taxes has little to do with your economic views, and is a direct result of your feelings about him as a person.

I hope you don't take that as a personal attack. It's not, it's just me being pragmatic.

peace :)

At least you didn't call me names, that's good. Look, the reason I really really really don't like Dean is in large part due to this stupidity over his 'not tax hikes'. It's rude to insinuate I just got up one day and decided not to like Dean and then based every opinion of his policies on a whim.

If there is more money going to the government out of my paycheck, that's a tax hike. Period.

Now, I understand he wants to just go back to the 2000 tax structure. I understand people have more state and local fees to pay. But it isn't going to magically translate that those fees will change just because Dean repeals all the tax cuts, which will cause real human beings to have a tax hike.

Democrats don't change tax code in a way that harms working families. Like I said below, I know Dean does. He proposed it back in 1993 with the budget and Medicare, so I'm not surprised he's proposing hurting people again. Clinton said then you don't have to hurt people to get the economy going and cut the deficit. He was right. The Democrats who are proposing a similarly measured approach are also right this time.

Democrats don't raise taxes on the middle class to balance the budget. It'll hurt the economy and hurt them as individuals. Once things improve, then you look at other measures if necessary.

You don't even know the guy, and he has never done a thing to you, yet you feel so strongly.

I'm not trying to be rude, REALLY! I just think that your insitance on this point is kind of irrational.

We're playing a game of "define the term." Bush has NOT legitimately lowered your taxes, he merely shuffled the deck, so that your money flows out Door #2 instead of Door #1.

Yeah, you might have more on your paycheck, but do you have anymore left over at the end of the year? Has that federal income tax adjustment given you any financialnet gain, come year's end?

Honestly?

And Dean backed Clinton's balanced budget plan, you make it sound as if they had different agendas!

Your arguments are based on a limited view of the trees, and either you can't see the forest or you refuse to see the forest. Whe\atever the reason, why prolong this debate.

We aren't going to agree, and we have bigger fish to fry. :) Let's extend some of this energy against W, ok?

One who gets that raising taxes is raising taxes and it hurts families. Real money, real paychecks, real bills to pay. Families are already being hurt by the shuffle and the last thing I want is a President who is going to make it worse by adding to their tax burden.

And until the primaries are over, I'll expend my energy working to get a real Democratic President. One who supported Clinton in 1993, not Domenici's Medicare budget plan.

You hijacked this thread for a bit, but I'm taking it back.

regardless of what you think about reversing Bush's Tax Adjustments, Dean's overall plan is to close corporate loopholes and switch the tax burden from the tired backs of the middle class.

Your view of his strategy is myopic. You've isolated one aspect, and not only rejected the entire plan, but the entire man.

That's very sound.

You know Dean wants to reduce middle class taxes, you really do. I know you do, because you so firmly refuse to speak about ANY other aspect of Dean's plan save for the one that you would use against him.

That's intellectually dishonest, that's all.

I didn't hijack a thread. What is that shit about? You're the one with posts all over the place. Keep them in one spot.

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm responding to three different posts in this thread. One is plenty. That's what I'm talking about.

If I post three times, or ten times, it doesn't matter. ESPECIALLY when I do so to get the various subthreads back on target.

lol...

The ONLY thing he's said is that he's going to "simplify" the code, which is a favorite with the Cato Institute becaues, although there are many gifts to big busienss in the tax code, even more of the tax code is designed to provide more progresivity than is provided by the marginal rates.

Dean has said that he's going end any tax breaks companies get from sending jobs overseas. Ok. That's not going out on limb.

And the only other thing he says is that he'll go back to the clinton rates of 2000. Look, if we had the Clinton rates every year since 2000, the code would have gotten less fair every year. Just because we had some very bad intervening years thanks to Bush, doesn't mean Dean can sell us on the BS that 2000 rates would work today.

Almost every other candidate explains what they'd do to make the code more fair. They have specific proposals. Dean has NONE. And taxes are the PRIMARY tool Republicans use to transfer wealth to the wealthy.

It's stunning that Dean has nothing intelligent and Democratic to say about taxes.

Simply stunning.

and then next year the raise is taken away and my salary goes back to where it was before the raise, do I call that a pay cut?

Of course.

in pay.

Similarly, going back to the 2000 rates, margins, et al, is crappier situation than it was in 2000 if you're anything but super-wealthy.

and instead pay attention to hollow rhetoric. You would think that responsible and intelligent people would rather do some analysis or at least listen to scholars who have already done it, like Krugman, Stigltz and many others who see Bush's tax "policies" for what they are.

Obviously, the far right's drumbeat is going to be tax, tax, tax- just like Arnolds was, but that doesn't make it so, nor does it mean that after 4 years of fiscal disaster- and many more years looming- that most average americans who work for a living, have mortgages and can balance a checkbook are going to fall for it. Dean has an amazing gift (I wish I had it) of being able to explain complicated topics, and show people what they are- and Bush's tax 'policies" are so transparently inequitable that even corporate media distortion can't hide the truth.

Clark is not so bad with this kind of thing himself- and I doubt you'd hear him parroting the kind of deceptive RNC talking points and using the sort of semantics that some of his supporters here seem all too at ease with.

He conflates the middle class and upper-middle class, claiming that if you're middle class you should be willing to suffer along side the upper middle class. He' usese the mantra "tax simplification." He doesn't talk about progressivity in the tax code at all. And then there's deceptive idea that going back to the 2000 code would make sense in 2005.

He also sets up the false dichotomy: must make middle class give up their tax breaks or we can't close the budget gap.

If federal tax receipts go down, state receipts will go up, so shut up about the federal tax increase, because it's a wash.

The issue is not whether everyone or anyone's individual tax burden goes up. The issue is about ALLOCATING the tax burden. For some people it should go down, and for others it should go up so that everyone can work hard to make the economy work.

If anything the federal government does reduces state receipts, the states have the same option: shall we collect taxes progressively or regressively?

And citizens should be voting for federal and state politicians who are willing to raise tax revenue fairly and through progressive taxes.

And any numbn*ts who says otherwise, has no understanding of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills.

Dean will restore the income tax to the levels during the Clinton administration...and then reduce Payroll taxes for working Americans, once the Bush deficits are under control.

That would result in a tax code more regressive today than it was in 2000. Of course 4 years of Bush would make it look good. But, cut out those four years and 2005 compared to 2000 would be WORSE, and even more regressive.

for medicare, medicaid and social security, which is a big assumption. Having been raised in a Republican political climate and propandized much of their lives, a majority may just say FO and die. Why should we pay for your healthcare & retirement.

Or perhaps, when jobs get hard enough to find, or food gets difficult to afford, people might give up their "Me-First" republicanisms.

Another thing that might make you want to invest in the elder generation is the dawning realization that everday you live is another you move towards membership in that select group.

We don't have to hurt families today in order to get the budget under control. That's first. And *you* may be able to just give up money today just because you didn't need it in 2000, but most families have calculated that money into their budgets and they HAVE to have it. It's a car payment, a phone bill payment, the car insurance. It's REQUIRED. It isn't necessary to hurt these people and we shouldn't do it. It's not Democratic policy in the least. It's just wrong. In fact, my daughter doesn't have kids and Dean's tax hike would really hurt her, it actually might cause her to lose her home or her vehicle. It's wrong to hurt people when there are other means to accomplish the same thing.

Repealing Bush's irrational tax bills IS NOT A TAX HIKE- and people on the kind of tight budget you're talking about WILL NOT benefit from Bush's federal CUTS once all of the variables and externalities are factored in. Do the analysis yourself or read about it from the people who have. Here's a a good place to start.

I cannot fucking believe I am arguing that repealing a tax cut isn't going to raise an individuals taxes. You want to talk about fuzzy math, good christ. Dean can talk about all the local taxes and cuts in services he wants; but it doesn't help anybody if their paycheck gets smaller. And he can't magically turn back the clock and think he can fix every state, city, county and local problem by repealing these tax cuts. It's impossible, things have changed.

it's an utterly deceptive use of semantics and you know it. And if you think that higher state & local taxes on property, sales, or higher "user fees" on everything from schools activities (assuming that they haven't been cut outright) to parks and recreation (for starters) ain't cutting into people's bottom line, then you're sorely mistaken and you may need a class in remiedial budgeting.

Of course he can't turn back the clock, but he certainly CAN and SHOULD for everyone's economic shape start restructuring the Republican stupidity so that ALL OF US, you and me included can save money both in the near and long term.

That's the whole point. All those new taxes and fees won't just disappear. They'll still be there. In addition, so will Dean's "not tax hikes". It is not necessary to hurt people while trying to get services back in place and the budget in line. It's not the way Democrats do things.

It is the way Dean wanted to do the budget and Medicare back in 1993, so I'm really not surprised he's advocating it again. He hasn't changed much.

In Portland and some other communities, we've managed to put temporary fees or surcharges in place on things like tuition for higher ed as stop gap measures and UNBELIEVABLE increases in community college tuition (that everyone KNOWS have to go away in order to avoid a nightmare nursing shortage, among other things). There have also been temporary increases in place on local property and income (that sunset out automatically or would be repealed post haste if even the former system of transfer payments were back in place).

Communities that haven't raised their taxes have had major layoffs and service cuts- like knocking close to 3 weeks off the school year (which means 3 weeks of daycare expenses) and after-school activities (either hundred+ dollar fees for those per term or higher day care costs). Worse, new employers won't move there, because of the perception that their greedy constituents don't support their schools.

I agree with you on some points, don't get me wrong- the semantics just get my blood boiling. Some places (like California) are loathe to get rid of state & local taxes once they're on the books. That's problematic. But one thing to remember is that the $87 Bilion appropriation that just went off to Iraq & Halliburton, et al.- that is enough to have balanced every single state budget (including those like Oregon's that are on biennial budgets) and had some left over.

Dean has already said that he's going to institute various forms of revenue sharing- but he's also said that he's not going to hand out money willy nilly to states (like N.Y) that have gone around irresponsibly cutting their taxes and not saving for a rainy day (like Oregon's Republican legislature). I have no illusions about that.

I think my only point is that we have to look at the various levels of economies as a whole, and when we do, I think we have more common ground than it seems, particularly with respect to lunacies like the dividend & estate tax and the high brackets.

On the other hand, I bet we agree as to the modest middle to lower brackets: many of them didn't see a dime in federal tax cuts- no refund checks, and yet are paying substantially more for a whole lot of other interrelated things. Now those people who can least afford it REALLY ARE getting hurt- by Bush- and would benefit greatly under Dean's plan.

I am well aware. Which is why I say, don't raise people's taxes, don't repeal all the tax cuts right away. Ease into a restructuring and an economic recovery, just like Clinton did. Re-fund the state programs, make the health care cost reductions, the manufacturing investment. If it's done right, we just might find we don't need to raise taxes on working families at all. Wouldn't that be great? Affordable health coverage AND your tax cuts. What's wrong with that?

is that you are only paying attention to one side of Dean's plan, not the entire plan. You claim Dean will raise taxes, when you know it isn't true.

Fine. For sake of argument-SAY that reversing a tax cut is the same as raising taxes, but reversing the tax cut is NOT the only item on Dean's agenda (which includes tax code reform) the entirety of which will reduce taxes on the middle class.

What's wrong is that you are promoting an inaccurate image of Dean.

Two, if he isn't planning on repealing all the tax cuts in order to give everybody health care, he shouldn't have said that.

If his real plan is some sort of tax code reform, then he needs to quit saying the other candidates can't implement their plans unless they repeal all the tax cuts. He's beating them up based on his own lie.

AND he needs to lay out the details of his tax code reform so people know exactly what they're voting for. But he can't do that because it would mess up his campaign slogan of repeal the tax cuts and GUARANTEE health coverage for everyone.

Go to Dean's Web Site:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/

Click on the "On The Issues" link (to the left), choose "Economy,"
then select "Tax Reform" (to the right).

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_economy_taxreform

It Says:

REPEAL THE BUSH TAX CUTS
AND REFORM THE TAX CODE

A lot of stuff to read. It's not hidden. Again, don't just focus on one thing, and ignore all else.

I really don't care what's on his website today. He has beat the other candidates over the head about the tax cuts for months now in every single debate. He has said you can't provide health care and do the things we need to do if we don't repeal ALL the Bush tax cuts. That was his campaign promise. Americans will vote to repeal the tax cuts if it means health care for every American. I focus on what comes out of the man's mouth, what he's selling to America in his campaign stump speeches, what they think they're getting if they don't have the internet.

He's a fraud. A phony. A liar. This proves it in spades. Says whatever he thinks will sell for the day. I really really really don't like him.

May 2003

http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/21393032.html

But Dean publicly changed his position Wednesday when he released the following statement in response to Bush's signing of a new $350 billion tax-cut package: "We must repeal the entire package of cuts - both those signed today and those passed in 2001."

Dean explained Friday the change was due in part to the fact that a more modest rollback would fail to pay for health care, special education and deficit reduction.

"It's not enough money," Dean said in an interview Friday. "I thought at one time it might be reasonable to keep tax cuts for the middle class. But when we finally crunched the numbers, we realized you can't balance the budget, provide universal health care and cut taxes."

And here:
In an interview with Iowa reporters, Dean said Kerry can't pay for his health-care plan if he doesn't repeal all of the tax cuts.

"He is basically telling you something that can't be done," Dean said. "You can't fund special education, pay for health care and start to balance the budget again unless you do roll back all the tax cuts."

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/21880860.html

Dean can do BOTH - he can repeal the Bush tax cuts to fund health care, education, balanced budget - etc, and reform the tax code to relieve the middle class of some of its burden.

Here's the clarity behind the confusion - Bush lowered federal taxes, then forced states to raise their taxes to pay fro various programs that could no longer be funded due to tax revunue loss.

At the same time, Bush lowers taxes for corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Dean, on the other hand, would reverse that trend by setting back all of Bush's tax cuts, thus putting us back near the budget we had during Clinton's admin. Of course, ther's now a war to deal with, and all the more reason to ask Americans to sacrifice a bit. But the main reason to get the tax revenues up is to fund medicare and social security.

Dean has said that the real legacy of the Bush Tax cuts will be the strangulation of these programs.

Simultaneously, Dean wants to reform the tax code to close corporate loopholes, incresing the share of the tax burden on corps, decreasing it on middle class families.

How can this be bad for America?

I think this whole tax issue is a scare tactic.

Just look America in the eye and tell us that if we want to be a nation that leads other nations, if we want to fight terrorism, educate our children to compete in a global environment, and provide the best basic healthcare in the world, then we have to tighten our belts while we get corporations to pay their fair share. Tell us that Bush has created an environment where corporations like Enron get a free ride on the backs of America's middle class. We don't need to raise taxes, we just need to ensure that taxes are fair and evenly distributed. Excellence has a price, and its time corporations anted up.

I think the majority of voters would respond to this message with a patriotic determination. Let them call Dean a tax raiser. Dean can show that he is not, and actions speak louder.

I posted the links below. He's going to repeal all the Bush tax cuts and ran his campaign on it. He's still smearing the Democratic candidates calling them Bush-lite because they voted for the tax cuts, which they didn't anyway. But he says they're all bad and they all need to go and shame on those cockroaches for not fighting against them.

Do not come back to me now and say it was all a misunderstanding and he's actually just going to reform the tax code and implement some of the same tax cuts that he's been railing against for months.

Kerry has already worked on closing corporate loopholes and had legislation passed on it with McCain. He has an exact strategy and has already laid out the specific figures and the way to do it. He's proposed plans for the offshore tax loopholes and some others as well. He's also said that's the way to keep the middle class tax cuts. Do not come back and tell me that this is Dean's great new plan at this late date. There isn't one thing that Dean has suggested that Kerry hasn't suggested long ago or actually introduced legislation on. Nothing.

Dean ran a scorched earth campaign against the Congressional Democrats, not caring the truth of what he was saying at all. He flipped on the Iraq war. He flipped on deregulation, Yucca Mtn, HMO's, and I'm too tired to remember what all else. Now he's going to flip on repealing the Bush tax cuts after he called our Congress Bush-lite cockroaches for letting it pass? And his supporters are just going to go along and continue trusting this guy? I really really really don't like him.

"It's not enough money," Dean said in an interview Friday. "I thought at one time it might be reasonable to keep tax cuts for the middle class. But when we finally crunched the numbers, we realized you can't balance the budget, provide universal health care and cut taxes."

Remember Clinton was elected promising a middle class tax cut and then when he got in office he said the numbers were worse than he thought and he wouldn't be able to cut taxes fr the middle class.

This is the same idea, but worsier. First, Clinton saved the bad news until once the votes were safely counted. Also, Clinton promised candy and then said sorry. Dean promised no harm and then said sorry, have to harm you. Sounds like a worse plan than Clinton's to me.

because the rightwing media has a solid hold on just about every channel and newspaper in Oregon. Local idiots (that wouldn't know an externality, a multiplier or a demand curve if bit them in the ass) keep railing against taxes as if they were conjuring up demons. They just don't get that NOT funding essential state services (like the Oregon Health Plan, or the Oregon Model of Elder care or the state's educational system) ends up much more expensive for all of us in many other ways. That's economic reality- though it doesn't always show itself neatly in line item budgets.

People are suffering here- especially in rural areas (ironically, those that vote for some of the biggest most irrational a-holes in the state). No doubt about that. Unfortunately, in order to get back to a stable set of federal and state transfer payments, most if not all of the Bush tax cuts have to be repealed. There's just no way around that. Now, that doesn't mean that part of the legislation can't include middle bracket incentives for doing smart things that will collecively save communities money, but I just can't see how else to afford even what we had in 2000 at this point- which was far from perfect. If you have analysis that shows otherwise, I'm always glad to see it-

Also, since you live here, you've gotta agree that the kicker has to go. We've paid a HUGE price for Republican economic stupidity on that one already- and for what? a meager little check that doesn't really do jack for anybody.

Then what's that about? Do we have to repeal all the Bush tax cuts? Or is Dean going to reform the tax code, make it fair, bla bla bla? Which? Because I'm really tired of trying to discuss two different Dean approaches to taxes.

I'll give it a rest for now- :smoke:

"On the other hand, I bet we agree as to the modest middle to lower brackets: many of them didn't see a dime in federal tax cuts- no refund checks, and yet are paying substantially more for a whole lot of other interrelated things. Now those people who can least afford it REALLY ARE getting hurt- by Bush- and would benefit greatly under Dean's plan."

And I want to get back to the original topic - which is why people say Dean wants to raise taxes, when his overall plan is to lower the burden on the middle class - and NOT JUST THROUGH REVERSING BUSH'S TAX ADJUSTMENTS.

All the candidates will lower the overall burden, every one of them intends to put money back into the states to address that very problem. So in my mind, it's a nonissue when it comes to debating middle class tax cuts. They'll put the money back in the states and either taxes and fees will be reduced or not. But until we know, don't hurt these people with a tax hike at the same time.

As to low income people, most of them did get refundable child tax credits with the first child tax credit of $600 per child. The increased one, this year, was not refundable. Everybody also got a reduction with the 10% tax bracket. And married people got the marriage penalty tax break. So these are things that help everybody. In actual dollar amounts, some more than others certainly.

And another thing, the health care plan costs families making somewhere around $50,000 a year. I don't remember the exact amount. They'll have to pay an additional 6% or 7% if they want the government insurance. Now they may do better with it than their regular insurance, it would depend. But, if they don't have insurance they're now going to need to pay $3000 a year PLUS lose their tax cut under Dean. Kerry's plan is very similar except they don't lose their tax cut. His plan has more cost cutting features and is implemented a little differently. And, I honestly think he just knows where the shit in the budget is located better than Dean and can crunch the numbers better as a result.

I just don't see a reason to do Dean's tax repeal, I think it was an easy campaign strategy. Repeal the tax cut and get health care for everybody. But he isn't giving health care to everybody, that's the rub.

I really do have REAL reasons for not liking Dean.

I know, because my best friend does foster parenting and has kids of his own on about 30K a year. He didn't get a dime. Not a single check- and he could have REALLY used it and would have spent it in the local community. I didn't make that much in 2002, partly because of school and partly because my company took huge hits over the past two years- I didn't get a nickle back either. But my costs went WAY up, PGE hit us with electric charges (thanks, PUC) Comcast took over our phones & intenet, forcing me to get cable and pay more- or else not get cable and pay WAY more (thanks again, PUC). My tuition has been raised THREE times, twice which weren't covered by my student loan's cost of attending- fees have gone up twice and are set to go up yet again in January.

Small businesses are closing right and left due to layoffs (many of them government layoffs)- there's that pesky multiplier effect at work again....

Dean would agree to revenue sharing to fund OHP- so there would be mental health services available again (fixing that cut alone would save everyone many millions straight up). But the money has to come from somewhere, and Bush's lunatic tax giveaways are my first target. Whether and at what point the middle class may deserve a break may be debateable at a later date.

No he wouldn't have. But in 2001, the child tax credit was refundable and your friend would have noticed it in his year end tax returns. If you had kids, you would have too. And everybody benefitted from the 10% tax bracket. And by the way, these are Democratic tax cuts.

And Dean is not the only candidate that's going to fund various programs. Do you know Kerry is the one who wrote the nurse reinvestment act for nursing students? He worked on SCHIP? He worked on AIDS funding? He's been working on health care for years. He knows as much about federal health programs as Howard Dean does, probably more.

And my daughter is in school and I understand all your costs. So why in the world would you want to increase your taxes on top of it all? BEFORE the State gets the money and MAYBE reduces taxes and tuition? You know Oregon as well as I do. Let's keep our tax cuts and make sure they do what they're supposed to before we let go of them.

Delay prevented the lower brackets from benefitting on the most recent cuts.

Also, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into the conventions wisdom going around this state about "making sure they do with it what they ought to do with it." Maybe on the federal level you have a point. Oregon actually has done a lot of good things with their money, and even PERS' problems have been misstated (actually, had the Repubs and some Dems handled that properly in the first place some years ago, we wouldn't have had to deal with that mess).

Personally, I've never had a problem paying income- of course I don't like to, who does, but it's part of being a citizen and having a decent country to live in. Sales tax, on the other hand... I guess I'm too much an Oregonian to go for that....

Low income people didn't get it this year. But the 2001 tax credit was refundable and you can still take it on our tax returns. I have kids.

Oregon does good things with their money and alot of things with their money. There is always another good idea in Oregon, something else to spend money on. I certainly don't like this Republican legislature we've got going on and there have been some incredibly painful cuts here. I want those things fixed, I really don't like reading about people dieing because they couldn't get their medicine. But you know we kind of have a tendency to go a tad bit overboard with spending here. That's all.

So you're saying repeal all the tax cuts. But the other guy says Dean is going to reform the tax code and give middle class people a tax cut anyway. That's the problem with Dean, who knows what in the hell he's going to do.

I know what Kerry is going to do. He said so months and months ago and he hasn't changed a bit. And I have a record to look back on that is so consistent. By and large, no evolving, no new science, no oopsy daisy. (Medicare, Medicaid HMO's, Yucca Mtn) I don't know why anybody would support Dean's ambivalence when they can have solid plans that will work and accomplish the same thing, only in my opinion better. From somebody who actually knows federal budget inside out and already knows exactly where to route out the pork. Makes no sense to me at all.

go up all the time. They went up under Carter, they went up under Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Bush, and they'll go up under Dean too. People won't buy that if Dean raises your federal taxes, then your state taxes go down. Anyone with a mortgage knows the escrow payment goes up pretty much every year.

mean to me that I

only get 600 instead of 1,000 for my kid.

pay tax on my first earnings at a rate of 15 % instead of 10 %

pay tax on most of my earnings at 28 % instead of 25 %,

and you're saying that my taxes will not be hiked?

I don't get that? What am I missing?

Why doesn't Dean say in the debates that he won't reverse all of Bush's tax-cuts if he's planning to use higher corporate taxes to make up revenue?

We don't need any part of Bush's tax cuts in order to have sensible tax policy in the US.

People will come as close as they can to parroting the Bush administrations own defenses of his tax cuts in vilifying Dean.

I don't think they really believe what they say. But their minds are so frozen with their COLD ANGER that they can't tell what they're doing.

In the coming weeks, you will see this theory come to its fruition as republicans place TV ads that say the exact same things as supposed Democrats's posts here at DU, and BOTH will be bashing Dean at the same time.

If some people feel that Bush's tax cuts are so essential to economic success, then why are we bleeding jobs in this country like a hemophiliac in a razorblade factory?

Why is it so difficult for some to understand that Dean's plan is multifaceted?

It includes reversing the Bush tax adjustments AND reforming the tax code.

If Dean says "I'm going to reverse Bush's Tax Cuts" he is not waffling or lying, he is stating one aspect of his overall plan.

Analogy:

You plan on going to the gorocery store, the post office, and the library. When I ask you what your plans are, you might say "I was thinking of going to the libraray to get a few books."

Would you agree with me if I called you a liar, or a waffler?

DUH! Of course not, it would be an unfounded accusation. Just as is this concept that Dean is not telling the truth, just because some folks can't be bothered to read his published positions.

People - you can not HONESTLY attack Dean on this. It's dishonest.

Nor can you say he wants to raise taxes. It's dishonest, because it's incomplete. The net affect of Dean's plan is too ease the tax burden on the middle class, but also to balance the budget. To do so, he MUST reverse Bush's idiotic tax cuts AND reform the tax code to close loopholes and adjust the burden from the mid. class to the corporations.

What is it about this that is so confusing that it requires endless explanation and debate?

And, welcome to DU! :-)

If you can, pick up Dean's new book and go right to chapters 13 & 14. He talks about his campaign, policy ideas, and the move of tax burden from wealth to labor by B*sh. Straightforward, no bullshit, and inspiring stuff!

He just got up in Florida and said Democrats voting for tax cuts are Bush-lite. If he's planning on implementing or keeping some of the same tax cuts, then what is he criticizing Democrats for already giving people those tax cuts AND letting them keep them?

And your analogy is silly. Dean is saying that he's only going to the library and that anybody who tells you they're going to the grocery store, post office and library is a liar. That it's impossible to go to all those place, you must only go to the library.

While actually planning to go all the places himself, but not telling the whole truth about it. At least not in most of his speeches, only for those who take the time to go to his web site.

And Kerry's plan is a winner.

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.

The other objection is that the tricks used to sell the Bush tax cuts have made an already messy tax system, full of special breaks for particular classes of taxpayers, even messier. Shouldn't we favor a reform that cleans it up?

In principle, the answer is yes. But an ambitious reform plan would be demagogued and portrayed as a tax increase for the middle class. My guess is that we should propose a selective rollback as the first step, with broader reform to follow.

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

That is Kerry's plan EXACTLY.