It's a very good question.

Look soon for an item in the news that begins with the words, "Dean later explained..."

Heh. Howard Dean knows the Amazing Power of Self-Justification.

I see a book deal in this...

I think he's meaning to say that somehow only giving tax cuts to the filthy rich (as obviously GBW has done), it somehow costs the middle-class more to cover it, or something. The problem with his logic is that it isn't logic.

Sounds like Dean's trying to help Bush get re-elected.

GBW = GWB.

Disclaimers: Your mileage may vary. Please issue me a We're All Clueless About Some Issues (WACASI) pass if needed. I am not calling Dean a liar. He certainly knows things I don't know. He may be self-deceived. Comment follows.

It's the old 'pretend the feds can fix a local problem' (self?) deception, like the way that education is a Federal priority even though the folks who can actually fix the problem are all local. The federal government can't force the states to lower their fees and taxes in response to additional federal funding.

I also fail to see how adding an extra level of federal 'management' to the problem will save money. In my business adding another large organization with no ability to add value never decreases costs.

Yours,
Wince

But I bet that Bush won't be asking the question: "Are you better off now then you were four years ago?" when the debate rolls around.

The more I look at the Bush tax cuts, the spiraling deficit (as opposed to the balanced budget under Clinton) with less money going where it needs to go, the closer I come to the conclusion that Bush has got to go. Aside from the war on terror, his administration has been a joke. Tax cuts for multi-millionaires during a WAR. FDR is definately turning over in his grave. While soldier fight and die, for the rich it's just business as usual.

Now, I don't think Howard Dean is the answer, but he has to be better than Bush.

Bush wins in 2004. Hillary and Oprah in 2008, and we can finally get our country back on the path it was on when Clinton was in office.

I hope Castro dies soon because if this happens:

Hillary and Oprah in 2008

Im outta here.

That must have been a typo. . . because it'll have to be Dean or any other Democratic candidate who forgoes asking "Are you better off than you were four years ago" since the answer, from any except the blindly partisan, is yes. Four years ago the dot-com economy was imploding, taxes were higher (for everybody) and Al Qaeda was plotting unimpeded to attack the United States.
Now my question is, how can someone who casually commits a felony (revealing nuclear power plant security details), misrepresents his positions continuously, falsely claims that the current President's gubernatorial records are sealed tight as an excuse to hide his own, plans to increase taxes on the middle class as well as the evil, rich bastards (i.e., everyone who doesn't contribute heavily to Democratic fundraisers), and garners a net negativeapproval rating from the American public be better than Bush, who has reduced taxes, increased American security, restored America's prestige in the world (never mind if they love us, but they better damn sure respect us), presided over one of the strongest growth periods in American history, and done it all while plainly telling us what he wanted to do and how? Now explain without resorting to blind anti-Bush drooling hatred. I don't think its possible.
Lieberman may be a either-or candidate, even Gore back when would have been, but Howard frickin Dean?
Bush wins in 2004, Rice/Guiliani in 2008, and Hillary becomaes the first female candidate to lose to a female candidate. And I hope we never get back on the path we were on when Clinton was in office.

Now, I don't think Howard Dean is the answer, but he has to be better than Bush.

No, he doesn't. If middle classes are being burdened as Dean says - raising their taxes by rolling back cuts won't ease shit.

Tax cuts for multi-millionaires during a WAR

Those tax cuts haven't been implemented. Unless you are talking about capital gains and corporate deductions. Cuz, that's all the "rich" have gotten so far.

Who do we consider now-a-days as being rich? Just curious.

Tim, my situation has gradually improved over the last year, Bush's tax cuts weren't only for the filthy rich, and, while I disagree with a number of his policies, he's almost imeasurably preferable to Dean.

Tax revenues have increased since the tax cuts, and although the connection between the two could be questioned, the fact remains that the tax cuts have not hurt tax revenues. What has caused the deficit is a tremendous increase in spending. The economy is, while not healed, looking to be in much better health than it has for quite some time.

Quite a few people would answer the four year question diferently than I would. I accept that, although I think some of the reasons for the problems that we've had aren't even close to being in the realm of something that can be solved by a president in just a few years. And those problems saw their beginning not in the Bush years, but in the Clinton and Father Bush years.

The better question to answer is this: Are you better off than you were on September 12, 2001? And to that, I think most of us would answer with a resounding "yes."

I think Bush has earned another four years in office to help carry on his war on terror and foolish taxes--and hopefully to make some better decisions on other policies, as well.

Now that Tim has informed me that my wife and I are filthy rich, I guess I'll go on out and buy that Ferrari I've always wanted.

I wish the teller at my credit union would tell me these things.

"Rice/Guliani in 2008"? Wow! I think I'd vote Republican in a flash if that was the option!

Tim,

He'll ask that question....and at least his vote total of 55-60% of the voters will answer "yes" to said question....

I'm better off than I was four years ago...most Americans are; of course, there have only been a very, very few periods in American history where most people wouldn't be better off after any given four year period....

As I recall, some states did see a reduction in revenue due to the Federal tax cuts, because they had some kind of tax that was based on the Federal tax.

Or something like that. I think estate tax was one issue for certain states.

Heck yes, I'm better off than I was four years ago. My Clintonian depression disappeared the day GWB was sworn in 2000. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God, we are free at last!

Let me see if I can make this simple...

First, the Bush tax cuts are still being implemented and a fix of the alternative minimum tax is on the way. That means the adverse effects at the state and local level will not only continue but will in fact get worse. That in turn means that there will be additional service cuts and additional taxes and fees implemented at the state and local level. If history is a guide, those taxes and fees will come out of the pockets of those least able to afford them.

Second, the long term fiscal health of the entire nation is at stake here. These tax cust weren't cuts at all. They were loans taken against our future and the futures of our children and grandchildren. They are not "free". They are borrowed money that must be repaid even as the baby boomer generation approaches the point where they will be depending on payouts and benefits from Social Security and Medicare. Something has to give.

Third, you have entirely misrepresented Dean's position by leaving the entire laqst half of it out of your post: Dean has said from the very beginning that repeal of the Bush tax cuts is only the first step in restoring a tax system that is fairer to the poor and the middle class and much simplified. That means a system where corporations start paying a reasonable share again (after seeing their taxes decline to nearly nothing) and where the best off who reap the largest rewards of the civilized society that made their fortunes possible have to pony up.

Come on, how hard is it to go to the Dean for America web site and actually read the position statements on issues of reform of the tax code and the budget?

Fourth (and final), your post and the most of the responses to it strike me as an example of a very simple-minded approach that does not bother to think things through. It's all "here and now" without regard to tomorrow.

Short version: There is much more to Dean's plan than a simple repeal of the Bush tax cuts. He means to reform the entire tax system so that those who reap the largest rewards from the civil society and the economic system it makes possible pay for the benefits they are receiving. Look again. Don't be simple-minded.

Fourth,

Since I can't edit my last post to add this,let me say it here.

Dean's real problem is that he assumes that most people are not stupid. In that regard he is clearly wrong. Not only are the masses stupid and lacking in the ability to think things through (to a degree which I find sadly amazing), they like it that way. Actually getting information and doing some thinking about it is apparently just too hard. Much easier to look at the surface without examining what lies beneath it.

Are we a nation which must be led by the nose? Sadly, it appears so.

We have a choice to make and that choice boils down to what kind of country we are going to be. You can pocket a few hundred bucks in borrowed money from Bush's tax mortgage now but it will be coming out of your pocket many times over later. Not only will you be poorer for it but so will the entire nation save for the lucky few who are born into wealth.

The Bush tax plan means to bankrupt the government, shift the tax burden onto the backs of workers and leave inherited wealth of aristocracy and the capital it generates untaxed in toto. It's a con game and people who ought to know better seem eager to fall for it.

Governor Dean Unveils Economic Plan

Dean Press Release on Taxes via Value Judgement

*******

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BURLINGTON--Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., issued the following statement today:

"I have repeatedly called for the complete repeal of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to pay for health care and make significant progress toward balancing the budget. As I have consistently said since November 2002, I will propose additional tax reforms that will make the tax code fairer for working families--and that will ensure that corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share."

Background Below:

DEAN ON TAXES:

National Coalition for Essential Schools, Washington D.C. 11/14/2002 http://www.essentialschools.org/pub/ces_docs/fforum/2002/dean_sp.html

As a party we need to look outside the beltway. We must set a tax policy that is good for working Americans, not just the Ken Lays of the world. And we must not be afraid to stand up for such a policy. . .

We are a party who must embrace small businesses and help them -- first by making health insurance available to their owners and employees, and secondly by changing our tax code to remove benefits for large corporations, and creating wealth and opportunity for those who create the most jobs, our small business community.

We should repeal the President's tax cut, which primarily benefits Americans making over $300,000 a year, and replace it with targeted cuts that will make a real difference in the lives of average Americans. [November 2002! Hello!]

We should use a limited estate tax exemption to protect small businesses and family farms, cut payroll taxes for low- and middle-income workers, and use direct subsidies rather than tax credits to make it possible for working people earning $30,000 to $40,000 a year to save money in their IRA's, as the president's tax code did for people earning ten times that.

These targeted cuts would not only be fiscally responsible, but help those who truly need help.

* * *

Des Moines, IA, 07/30/03

Finally, we must reform our tax system. When I am President, I will work to repeal the top heavy Bush tax cuts, and replace them with a system that is fairer, and simpler, and places less of a burden on working Americans who live off their paychecks. [July 2003!]

* * *

"Reclaming the American Dream," Georgetown University, 10/16/03

Once we have repealed the President's reckless tax cuts, we will set about making the tax system fairer and simpler. We'll end corporate welfare as we know it, eliminating up to $100 billion dollars in tax breaks and subsidies that benefit special interests and large contributors to both political parties.

And we'll crack down on tax shelters that allow American companies to hide their profits offshore and not pay any taxes while enjoying all of the benefits that the American taxpayer provides to them . . . It's time to move the balance back and take some of the burden off the individual taxpayer who's trying to make ends meet.

And as a final goal, we'll simplify the tax system so that a majority of Americans can pay their income taxes without wasting hours filling out forms.

* * *

"Creating a New a New Social Contract for America's Working Families," December 18

The New Social Contract I am proposing will include fundamental tax reform to ensure that every wealthy American individual and corporation is paying their fair share of taxes and that the tax burden on working families is reduced.

Not paying your fair share is equivalent to turning your back on being an American. And that's what American companies that move to offshore shelters are doing. They're avoiding $70 billion a year in taxes enough money to bring a real tax cut to every family.

Better and fairer tax enforcement could collect another $30 billion a year from known tax cheats. Closing corporate loopholes and ending unnecessary tax subsidies would bring $100 billion into the US Treasury each year money that the rest of us are paying today.

I want to get rid of the Bush tax program and repeal the "Bush Tax". Let's start over with a real tax reform plan to make the code fairer and simpler, based on a few simple principles:

* We must eliminate abusive tax shelters and crack down on corporate tax evaders.

* Corporations and inherited wealth should pay their fair share of taxes.

* Individuals and small businesses should spend less time dealing with taxes, and the tax code must be simplified.

* * *

NPR Debate, January 6, 2004

Question: You're proposing the elimination of President Bush's tax cut including the child tax credit. I'm the father of three children, my wife stays home with them and we have made great sacrifices to live on one paycheck. How can you justify taking this money from us?

Answer: Ultimately we will have a program of tax fairness for middle class people, but the truth is the Bush tax cuts gave people who make a million dollars an average of $112,000 in tax cuts. 60% of Americans got a $304 tax cut.

*****

Now I'm done.

Hey Ox. So, do you think a simple-minded person who doesn't think things through would be likely to come in and start assuming no one else was familiar with Howard Dean's positions, wouldn't have already gone to Dean's web site and read those documents?

Do you think a simple-minded person who doesn't think things through would find it thoughtful and compelling to paste in a bunch of campaign boilerplatel and canned speeches, as if that would immediately be persuasive to anythinking person?

Because I kind of think that that's what a simple-minded person who doesn't think things through would do, myself.

The original question is right. Dean believes that people will REWARD Bush with their votes for cutting their taxes... the truth is people vote on their prospective wellbeing with President A or President B, and raising their taxes would hurt their wellbeing.

I still think Dean could win and would vote for him, basically because Bush looks like the kind of guy who will blow up the world. Cutting taxes won't stop that. But the original dissection is right on.

"...Bush looks like the kind of guy who will blow up the world..."

Well, from the viewpoint of us stupid sheeple, it kinda looks more like their are groups in the world who are *literally* blowing up things (google for NYC/WTC, Baja nightclubs, etc.). And

Bush looks to be the kind of guy who will hunt them down and prevent even more stuff like that from happening (google for: al Quida, Taliban, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, etc.)

To us sheeple, if forced to make a choice between blowing up the (rest of the) world, and blowing up NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, Boston, etc. Well....we'd feel real bad about having stomped the (rest of the world) flat. Not.

Bush's tax cuts forced state governments to raise taxes and/or fees.

Most states have a balance budget requirement. Many states income tax is tied into the federal income tax. A federal tax cut means a state tax cut.

The federal tax cut caused a massive unbalanced budget. The federal tax cut caused reduced state revenues. Because the states cannot have debt, and in order to keep the same services the states had to increase taxes and/or fees. Net result = no middle class tax cut. This is an excellent example of a Bush head fake that fools all you simpletons.

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?