Dean's tax cut proposal is dead on arrival

I'm just curious. Assuming Dean wins, how will he repeal the middle class tax cuts or get anything done in congress at all, when it's most likely the house and senate will be in republican hands in 2004?

Even if by some miracle we take back the house and senate, there are enough DINO's and republicans to kill his repeal plan.

I don't see how him saying repealing the middle class tax cuts can help him. It can only hurt and repealing all those taxes are a pipedream anyway.

Why is this Dean's policy?

He would surely lose to Dubya if this is the case.

that you go to Dean's website and read it for yourself as opposed to taking someone's word for it. The website gives a thorough explanation as opposed to a soundbite.

This is straight off his site: The first step in reversing this agenda, balancing the budget and putting the US fiscal house in order must be the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and returning the tax code to rates that were in effect during the prosperous years of the Clinton-Gore administration.

How will he possibly get this repeal plan done in a republican congress when most democrats even disagree with it?

It's not in tune with political realities and I see very little upside at all. Bush will just attack, attack, attack, that he's going to raise taxes on the middle class. We all know that's what he will do.

And Dean countered well. he cut taxes twice in Vermont and balanced the budget 11 straight years. What's Bush's problem with that?

Gephardt is proposing the same thing, although instead of saying "repeal tax cut" he says "restore Clinton tax code." Amounts to the same thing.

The other candidates are calling for a repeal of tax cuts for people making $200,000 or so, which is most of the tax cuts.

Not flaming, just wondering what percentage of the tax cut went to the middle class. If, as you say, most of the cuts went to people making $200,000, why does Dean want to repeal the middle class cuts? Keeping them while rolling back the upper class cuts would not only add progressivity to the tax code, it would save him substantial political grief if he's the nominee. Seems much more advantageous for our candidate to be arguing for a rollback for the wealthy while keeping the other cuts in effect.

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

I assume it's accurate; I am number-challenged. This analysis argues that if the tax cuts that haven't yet gone into effect yet are repealed, it would keep the middle-class cuts but repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy.

The Democrats insisted that lower and middle income people get $300 rebates. The rest of the cuts went to the top 1%.

I suggest that Dean roll back all of the tax bill except the $300/person that some of you are so worried about.

is if he isn't able to access the revenue the federal government repeal of the tax cuts would bring? Would he still be able to finance his health care plan and implement his plans for balancing the budget?

Or are you still holding Dean to a higher standard?

the revenue from rolling back the middle class tax cut, I assume his ability to finance his health care plan and balance the budget would be adversely affected. Not sure why you're trying to change the subject when it's a fairly reasonable question.

if it isn't asked of ALL the candidates. As usual, the ABD crowd singles Dean out as if he's the only one faced with this problem.

you're under no obligation to post. Kerry, for example, doesn't plan on rolling back the middle class cut, so if he were to turn his campaign around and eventually end up President, he wouldn't face the same revenue problem Dean might.

So, once again, does Dean have a fall back plan? Will his desire to cut the budget, if not funded by a highly unlikely middle class tax cut rollback, mean program cuts? If so, which ones? Seems something we should know before we cast our votes, not after.

Exactly? Dean's not funding his plans with any middle class cuts. He plans to fund his policies with repealing the cuts on the rich.

So if congress fails to support turning back the cut on the rich, the same problem faces ALL candidates, because they all talk about, uh, how do you folks say it, RAISING TAXES.

So your premise is false. Of course, I'm sure you have a hundred links bookmarked which show him telling the world that he'll fund his policies with the middle class tax cut repeal you seem to be so worried about. Please share them with me.

No, I won't grant your premise by answering your question.

why does he even need to do it? Why not let the middle class keep their tax cut?

This seems to me to be the central flaw in Dean's tax plan.

Your question is good. We need to repeal the middle class tax cut because it isn't even fair across the specrtum of the middle class. In other words, *I* would have liked a piece of that tax cut, being in the middle class myself. I got NOTHING. I'm losing money.

The central flaw with this problem people have with repealing the vcuts is thatthey think there will be a repeal and that's it. It's not true.I believe Dean will put forth a tax policy that will benefit a greater number of people in the middle class.

to announce his replacement middle class tax cut program before votes are cast? That would allow voters to compare the current middle class benefits with Dean's proposed benefits. This would also innoculate him, to some degree, from Republican attacks during the general election if he were to become the Democratic nominee.

But I also think he's doing well by noting that he balanced the budget for 11 years straight while raising minimum wage, providing health care, and giving TWO tax cuts.

I, also , got nothing.

However - this issue will be portrayed as a tax increase - IT WILL -
and there's nothing Dean will be able to do about it. It's a political loser. People don't trust the government as it is - an argument that "we'll take away your tax cut, but I promise to write a new tax code that will be better." just isn't going to work with a lot of voters. Nuance doesn't work - look at Kerry's campaign.

Dean would be much better off taking the middle class cuts off the table so it can't be used as a campaign issue - then writing a better tax code once he's in office.

that we shouldn't do the right thing because of how it would be perceived.

I think honesty will go a long way, considering how we're going to make the media irrelevant.

to the wealthy, there are a lot more of us -- which means that our puny tax cuts are important for restoring revenues nonetheless.

Eloriel

I already asked the question about how much money the middle class tax cut rollback would bring in in post #22. Do you have the answer?

If, as you claim, Dean has announced he plans to somehow segregate the revenue from his rollback of all tax cuts and have only money from the wealthy go to fund his programs and money from the middle class rollback go to something or other unspecified as of this moment, perhaps you could provide a link or two in support. I'd be interested in knowing when he made the specific proposal and I'd be equally interested in knowing what he suggested doing with the revenue from the middle class tax cut rollback.

Thanks.

And if you don't have the answer, maybe you should refrain from using it as the focus of any argument you wish to make, particularly the fallacious argument that Dean's policies would be funded by the middle class tax cut.

Well IU asked this a long time ago, and I still don't have the answer. Are the middle class tax cuts D tax cuts, independednt of Bush's tax plan, are they BUSH'S middle class tax cuts, as part of his tax plan, or are they D amendments to Bush's tax plan?

Dean' hasn't been specific as far as I know about exactly where the funding for his policies will come from other than to say it will come from repealing BUSH'S tax cuts. Which is why it's so ABSURD that you would assert that repealing the middle class tax cut would provide the funding for his policies.

See, we're a long way from your original question. Interesting, but not surprising.

which is why the congressional races are so much more important than the 'big dance' anyway. any dem who does not have coattail will be hanstrung, period, this has nothing to do with howard.
i admire him for admitting that taxes have to be paid to run the government. he may go down in flames for it, like many other honest and admirable candidates in the past. like walter mondale, and here in illinios, dawn clark netsch. it's imporatant to support candidates that tell the truth, instead of always voting for the prettiest lies. this starts with someone who has the guts to tell the truth.

We don't need any part of Bush's tax cuts to have sensible tax policy. I'm in the middle class and I got no tax cut.

First you assume that Repubs will retain control of congress. Even so Dean would do what all Presidents do when faced with a congress controlled by the opposition. He will use his election as a public mandate for change.

Massive debt, little or no job growth, and an increasingly hostile international marketplace is already giving us ordinary folks second thoughts about our puny tax cuts.

and we had eight great years under him.

Allowing the Bush tax shifts to expire as they were designed to do is not a tax hike. Continuing them is a tax shift from today until ten years down the road when our kids will be trying to get started in an economly already stressed to the limit by the interest payments due on the incredible debt Bush and the GOP have put on their backs.

Where the hell is the Concord Coalition these days?

Dean's "tax hike" is nothing more than an effort to balance the budget and shrink the deficit. When did that become bad politics?

I prefer the "over $200,000" formula that Clark and others have brought out BUT the fact remains that the Bush tax shifts are a clear and present danger to our economy and our future and the point has to be made over and over again.

If you don't like what the Democrats have to say don't vote for them. I personally believe the tax cuts should be reversed as soon as possible and then a more logical approach taken. Granted it will be tough with a Republican Congress but it is amazing how much power the President actually has. Especially now that the GOP has rigged the works. The bully pulpit goes a long way to getting legislation passed.

Dean's proposal, along with Gephardt's, differs from everyone else's.
Dean and Gephardt want to completely roll back "Bush's" tax cuts. All the other candidates want to keep the middle class portions of the tax cut. That part of the tax cut package was put in there BY the Democrats. Gore campaigned on it!

Cutting middle class and lower class taxes during an economic slowdown is SOP for the Democratic party. Dean is outside the party on this issue - he's well in the minority with the position he's taken. So, being opposed to Dean on this issue is not tantamount to supporting Bush. It's support for the majority Democratic position.

didn't want in the first place? (which we MORE than pay back in other taxes, lower wages and/or less services from a repug adiministration) Oh how will Dean survive? :eyes:

maybe they'll understand that taxes = programs :shrug:

*Dean's campaign has already begun to support candidates for Congress in an attempt to elect more Dems

Let me be clear. The President's tax cuts are part of a radical agenda to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and our public schools through financial starvation.


In Oregon last week, the state had to close schools three weeks early because there was no money. In New Hampshire this week, the sheriffs made it clear that, because there was no money, they couldn't provide the basic law enforcement protection communities expect in this time of heightened alerts about terrorism. All across the country, hospitals and health care systems are cutting back and cities are cutting services because there is no money.

What America needs now is a Democratic Party with the backbone to stand up for fiscal responsibility and against this President's recklessness with the facts, and our future.

No Republican president has balanced the budget in 34 years and if this president succeeds, no future American president from either party will be able to do so without massive tax increases that will break the backs of the American people or without destroying Medicare, social security, our schools and even our nation's security.

My central commitment upon taking office will be to repeal these tax cuts to put our fiscal house in order, and save the very fabric that holds our American community together.

We will not be able to meet our fundamental obligations to teach our children, care for our parents, and defend our nation if we bankrupt our country.

If we fail to defeat this President and end his radical agenda, we will have lost the central ideal proclaimed from one American generation to the next throughout our history: "We are one nation, and we are all in this together."

More ...
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6033

When your kid's school has no electricity and there will be no Social Security or Medicare when you retire is that puny $300.00 bucks a year really worth it?

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

He's said in numerous interviews that the budget-balancing will be done gradually, as it was done under Clinton. I imagine he'll probably try to get the upper-class tax breaks (the vast balance of the tax cuts) first and then see if the budget has balanced enough. If it has, then he'll probably stop there. If not, he'll probably get rid of some of the middle-class tax cuts.

Dean's much more practical in practice than his speeches reveal.

D-U-freakin'-H.

The rich make their money off us, envelop smaller businesses, and destroy freedom of choice in their grand quest for control and wealth. Why are they getting their breaks and cuts while the rest of us could be keelhauled and treated like garbage?

I thought Deanie was for small businesses and lower- and middle-class people. Michael Moore even gave Deanie a friendly mention in his "Dude" book, but now I wonder if that wasn't a paid advertisement.

He sure sounds more like a puke than a Dem, if you're right.

And don't forget, this guy supports NAFTA (a hypocrisy of a "free trade" agreement that benefits only the US corporate interest and our oil/energy supplies in times of crisis) and will support the FTAA (essentially NAFTA times 10).

and the bulk of actual money in the cuts goes to people making $200,000+

you can't have it all. Programs have to be paid for. He will not lie to you about that. Now, unless you are wealthy and can live off your stock dividends in your old age, I applaud you. But the fact remains MOST of us will need Soc Sec and Medicare even though we did everything right and worked hard all our lives. If bush remains in office you will see the elderly return to the state they were in before SS and Medicare. It was ugly. Most people supported those two programs otherwise they would have to support not only their own families but their Mother's and fathers too. Most people feel it is better to allow the seniors to live as independently as long as possible. Because while we may have enough for ourselves and our families, taking on your parents is a burden many cannot do well or easily.

Clinton was faced with a similar situation. He had to make a big decision........raise taxes or not raise taxes in an effort to pay off the national debt. Without one vote from repukes, he passed this bill and the outcome was the most vibrant economy the USA has ever had. He was left a lousy economy from bush1. He turned it around. He told us, this will be difficult and most people will not like having their taxes raised. But look what happened. He left his office with a 2 trillion dollar SURPLUS and brought more people up from poverty into the middle class ever. The MBA from Yale has squandered it in his first 2 years! The repercussions will be felt for years in the future.You will see the middle class fall into poverty as well as seniors who are almost there now. And who do you think will pay for this? You, your children, your grandchildren. Wow! What a legacy!