Statement from John Kerry on Howard Dean's speech at St. Anselm's

[Nicholas_J]

Middle Class Family From Barrington, NH would pay nearly $3,000 more under Howard Dean
September 17, 2003


Unfortunately, Howard Dean once again stated he wants to repeal the tax cuts Democrats gave middle class families at a time when middle class families are taking too many hits already.

Their health care costs are rising, their housing payments are higher, their jobs less secure, and college is costing more.

This would hurt those who most deserve our help – the hard-working, middle class Americans who have borne the brunt of the Bush bust.

For example, Ted Walsh and Maya Glos, a middle class family from Barrington, would pay nearly $3,000 more in taxes even as they try to get ahead and raise a family if Howard Dean has his way. I believe we should give Ted and Maya a tax cut not a tax increase.

We can cut the deficit in half in four years, give Americans access to the health care coverage they need, invests in education and homeland security without putting a penalty on married people and without taking the child tax cuts the middle class needs.

Howard Dean wants to correct George Bush’s economic mistake by penalizing the middle class and that’s wrong.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/pr_2003_0917d.html

[w4rma]

1. Lieberman on Kerry:…don't need a waffler in charge of our country's future

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): “I thought that John Kerry's statement in his announcement address -- that he voted for the resolution just to threaten Saddam Hussein -- was unbelievable. It was clearly an authorization for President Bush to use force against Saddam. … I don't get it. He's been criticizing Howard Dean for lacking experience to lead America in the world today. It's true. It's not the best time to put a rookie in charge of our country's future. It hasn't been a good time to have a cowboy in charge of our future, but we also don't need a waffler in charge of our country's future.” (Glen Johnson And Anne E. Kornblut, “Democrats Rip Bush In 8-Way Debate,” The Boston Globe, 9/5/03)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/05/democrats_rip_bush_in_8_way_debate/

…
Though Kerry has insisted he's satisfied with his team, his less-than-firm denials of a shake-up have fueled rumors and created angst among his staff.

Early this month, as he formally began his campaign, Kerry told reporters he "reserved the right" to make changes and gave a mixed assessment of his staff's performance. Trying to quell talk of a staff purge, he issued a statement saying there would be "no changes."

The statement, drafted with Lehane's assistance, was meant to be the last word, but Kerry has backpedaled from it. "Those weren't precisely my words. They were the words of a press release sent out," Kerry told The Boston Globe in a story published Sunday.

Several campaign sources said Monday that Kerry signed off on the statement's language ruling out changes. It was unclear whether he saw the actual document.
…
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6778015.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=40579

Also, note that Kerry is using fuzzy Bush(lite?) math which makes me less likely to enthusiastically support him in the general.

[blm]

5. Dean lied saying they all voted for Bush's tax cut, that was OK with you.

But THIS you designate as bashing?

[w4rma]

20. Dean was trashed first (with the same tactic Bush used on Gore)

Walks like Bushlite. Talks like Bushlite...

I'm responding in kind. I'm adopting the MAD policy on Kerry and Kerry supporters.

[Demobrat]

2. What Kerry doesn't realize and Dean does

is that people know what they got, or more to the point didn't get. Kerry can give hypothetical examples until the cows come home, but if you didn't get a tax cut that you can see, he's not talking to you, and that's a hell of a lot of people. A hell of a lot of people who would really, really, really like national health insurance.

[DemDogs]

3. Dean: the truth hurts again

Kerry is right on this. These are not wild numbers; they are not the mean, they are the average tax savings. And the candidates who are not taking away the middle-class tax cut still have health insurance programs. Dean sets up a false choice here, which is a really disturbing pattern.

[w4rma]

4. NOT average family. Ted Walsh and Maya Glos family.

How many children do they have? What special circumstance nets them $3K over the last system? Do they have 6 kids? Did they buy a humvee, recently?

Kerry is defending Bush's tax cuts in *exactly* the same manner that Bush did. Maybe folks *are* correct in labeling this guy "Bushlite". If Kerry keeps this up, I will be using that label, myself, on him.

[billbuckhead]

7. You can never win a national election saying that you will raise taxes

Another silly thing that Dean Quixote says. And we're supposed take Dean's "Excellent Adventure" as mayor of one the smallest states in the union as real experience?

[dsc]

15. ao I take it you oppose Kerry's repeal as well

Kerry also is saying he will raise taxes.

[blm]

8. Rolling back taxcuts equally is a GOP philosophy.

Dems have fought for progressive taxation for years.

Any time taxes are rolled back or increased equally across the board, the GOP wins.

[w4rma]

18. If they are replaced with a universal health care program

then the resources move downward.

That said, I'd rather revoke all of Bush's tax cuts, except for the ones below 350K/year and raise the ones above 350K/year from Clinton's tax policy.

[Nicholas_J]

83. Thats a big IF

Dena is talking about NOT CHANGING the existing healthcare system, and doing things incrementally again, just like he did in Vermont, so if things go the way they did in Vermont, there will be no universal healthcare provided by a Dean Administration.

[dsc]

6. Would that be this Maya Glos?

http://www.politicsnh.com/press_releases/2003/march/3_18_kerry.shtml

Wayne Burton, Durham, former State Representative; Irene Callahan, Dover, Dover Democratic Committee member; Robert Callahan, Dover, Dover Democratic Committee member; Fred Catalfo, Dover, former Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate; Hiram Connell, Somersworth, Democratic activist; Paul Ferland, Rochester, former State Representative; Maya Glos, Barrington, Barrington Democratic Committee member; Roland Hofeman, Dover, Dover City Councilor; John Joyal, Somersworth, Democratic activist; Beth Mahoney, Rollinsford, Democratic activist; Alex Nossif, Dover, Mayor of Dover; Stefany Shaheen, Durham, Democratic activist; Ted Walsh, Barrington, Barrington Democratic Committee member; and Craig Welch, Durham, Democratic activist.

Note the sixth line. This is from a list of supporters who endorsed Kerry. Average family my ass.

[blm]

9. Average families can't be Democratic

committee members? What does that have to do with their family income?

[w4rma]

10. See dsc's post #14

The top 1% wealthiest households in America own at least 38.1% of all the wealth in America. The Great Depression happened when 44.2% of all the wealth in America was owned by the top 1%.

The bottom 90% of American households own less than 30% of America's wealth.
The bottom 40% of American households own 0.2% of America's wealth.

http://www.ufenet.org/research/wealth_charts.html

[dsc]

14. Sure she just happens to be hand picked

but is totally average. Just like all those families Bush found.

Here, from the daily howler, is a description of what Bush did.

ALLEN (3): According to the e-mail, a suitable family must make between $35,000 and $70,000 a year, itemize its taxes and have no children in day care, no children in college, no one attending night school, no children younger than age 1 and "no substantial savings outside of 401(k)."

Yikes! "The screening points have the effect of eliminating families who would benefit most from Vice President Gore's plan," Allen writes. He quotes an expert saying that the restrictions would eliminate all but about 15 percent of couples making between $35,000 and $70,000 a year.

Allen's article includes a lot of info about how the two tax plans would work. He also seems to show the Bush campaign putting a bit of spin on their proposal. Many families in this income range save more money under Gore's plan. According to Allen, those are the families the Bush campaign is trying to keep out of view.


http://www.dailyhowler.com/h091300_1.shtml

All but 15% of families in that range. Frankly it is very likely that Kerry played a very similar game here. Trust me on this, I may not figure out the details of what he did but someone will. An activist supporting Kerry (who is in no way, shape, or form identified as such in the release) just happens to benefit 1.5 times as much as the 'average' family that he cited just last week. Sure she wasn't hand picked. And I went out with Tom Cruise last night too.

[blm]

16. I didn't say she wasn't handpicked.

Obviously her family income fit the argument.

So? He would have made the argument with someone else then.

[dsc]

22. If he wanted to be honest

he would tell us what real families would get. Not some hand picked family. Or failing that some details of what her real situation was would be honest. He chose to be dishonest. Just like Bush did. I won't call him Bush lite but here the facts scream for themselves.

[blm]

38. That's nitpicking, and not too many seem uncomfortable

with Dean's outright lie that the others supported Bush's taxcuts for the wealthiest, when NONE of them voted for it. In fact, the Dems fought the GOP with smaller taxcuts targeted for the poor and working class. If Dean wanted to be honest....

[dsc]

43. On the subject of lies

Dean didn't say he supported Bush's cuts he did say, accurately, that they did support $350 billion in cuts in 03. While I will say I knew what Kerry did, and don't think the attack is completely fair, but Dean didn't outright lie and you well know that. Yet again you want to win too much just like your candidate. There is honest and there is dishonest. Kerry is being dishonest. Cherry picking families and calling them average is just plain dishonest. It was when Bush did it in 2000 and still is now.

[blm]

46. He was talking about the 2001 taxcuts

because in January 2003 he was using the past tense.

\AVERAGE salaries is AVERAGE salaries no matter how much you want to spin it, dsc.

[w4rma]

50. Kerry's being dishonest here, blm, and you know it.

He's using bushlite tactics. He's using the same dishonest tactic Bush used against Gore to sell his taxcuts in 2000.

[blm]

98. "Bushlite" was Dean coopting Nader2000.

Funny, since he was the only candidate who could give Joe L. a run in the center BEFORE thw antiwar crowds grew.

[w4rma]

99. Here is an article describing Bush's and Kerry's tax cut propaganda.

…
ALLEN (3): According to the e-mail, a suitable family must make between $35,000 and $70,000 a year, itemize its taxes and have no children in day care, no children in college, no one attending night school, no children younger than age 1 and "no substantial savings outside of 401(k)."

Yikes! "The screening points have the effect of eliminating families who would benefit most from Vice President Gore's plan," Allen writes. He quotes an expert saying that the restrictions would eliminate all but about 15 percent of couples making between $35,000 and $70,000 a year.

Allen's article includes a lot of info about how the two tax plans would work. He also seems to show the Bush campaign putting a bit of spin on their proposal. Many families in this income range save more money under Gore's plan. According to Allen, those are the families the Bush campaign is trying to keep out of view.
…
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h091300_1.shtml

[blm]

108. Suit yourself. Dean is already drafting a way to get middle

class taxcuts without looking like he's caving on the issue.

You're welcome to whatever explanation he comes up with. I'm sure it won't matter how he rationalizes that move.

[dsc]

51. He didn't say average salary he said average family

those are different things. While I can't prove it this minute I would be willing to bet this family has more children than average, itemizes which I don't think average families do, and has significant dividend income which average people don't. I will be first to apologize if this isn't the case but I would bet the farm on this.

[blm]

97. Average families can't be Dem committee members?

You should DARE to apply such a critical eye to some of the things Dean has said that so many of you not just excuse, but applaud.

[dsc]

103. Not when they are different from the average

in ways which skew the argument. If they have more children, have income from unusual sources, or have deductions others don't then they aren't average for the purposes of a tax debate which is what this is.

[Demobrat]

49. He doesn't have to tell us. We already know.

People already know what their pittance ammounted to. If they were lucky a $300 check and a few dollars a week in their paychecks. If people really benefitted from the tax cuts and want to keep them, they should vote accordingly but Dean is talking to the folks who didn't. And something tells me there's a lot of them.

[Fabio]

60. He chose to be dishonest?

You should really watch your mouth.
Calling people a liar is not very nice.

Maybe this supporter is someone who asked and/or was willing to give him personal information about their finances to use in this speech. Kerry has many times said that the average 2 child, 2 income family earning btwn $40-90k would lose $2k if the marriage penalty and childcare tax credit were revoked. Its simple math. Look it up on his website.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0828.html
here it is:

"repealing all the tax cuts for the middle class would mean that a family of four – with two parents working hard on the job and at home – would have to pay $2,000 more a year in taxes."

[dsc]

62. He doesn't say that here now does he

No he doesn't. Instead this family saves 3k. Ask yourself why this average family saves 1.5 times as much as the one he cites in your quote. Could it be due to factors such as I am saying? He doesn't give any details, doesn't say that he knows the people, but mysteriously they make his case 1.5 times better. I wonder why.

[Fabio]

65. probably...

because they have three children. so.....?

[dsc]

70. Then they aren't an AVERAGE family

which is what he purported them to be (and BTW even with three children I don't think they get there unless they also itemize and don't hit the AMT). But in any case AVERAGE families don't have three children. It is dishonest to call a family with three children AVERAGE. And it is reminicent of what Bush did in 2000.

[Fabio]

72. Where does it say average family in his speech?

[dsc]

74. He doesn't use the word but this is what he says

Unfortunately, Howard Dean once again stated he wants to repeal the tax cuts Democrats gave middle class families at a time when middle class families are taking too many hits already.

Their health care costs are rising, their housing payments are higher, their jobs less secure, and college is costing more.

This would hurt those who most deserve our help – the hard-working, middle class Americans who have borne the brunt of the Bush bust.

For example, Ted Walsh and Maya Glos, a middle class family from Barrington, would pay nearly $3,000 more in taxes even as they try to get ahead and raise a family if Howard Dean has his way. I believe we should give Ted and Maya a tax cut not a tax increase.



He merely calls them an example and also compares them to people who have borne the brunt of the Bush bust. That is categorically untrue. If it were they would be too poor to qualify which they obviously aren't.

[Fabio]

90. That's a pretty amazing answer

"He doesnt use those words, but this is what he says"

I dont think that would hold up in a court of law.

[dsc]

102. If you want to hang your hat

on the vast difference between example and average go ahead. He did exactly what Bush did.

[peaceandjustice]

81. but how common is the category of...

"someone else," really? How many people fit into this catogory that benefits under the Bush tax scheme that Kerry apparently endorses?

[genius]

11. Take from the middle class and give to the rich - Dean's approach.

I wonder how most most people who support Dean would feel if they found out that his plan would cost them enough to keep their kids from getting piano lessons or ballet classes.

[LuminousX]

12. Kerry is talking more tax cuts?

WTF?

Doesn't he realize that local property taxes are increasing to pay for the things that the Federal government can't afford because of Bush's tax cuts?

Cuts, cuts, cuts... pretty soon everything is cut to ribbons and dies.

Kerry is locked in his <b>Bushlite</b> mode of thoughts, tell the people he will give them money if he is elected. It doesn't work. It has brought our country to its knees. We must rescind the Bush tax package and then analyze where we truly are economically and then put in place a tax package that truly targets the lower and middle class American's who can take that money and invest it into the economy instead of buying more Haliburton stock with it.

[CMT]

13. It is nice that Kerry is standing behind

the Bush tax cuts which are behind so much of the deficit and cause of so many of the states having fiscal problems which have resulted in tax hikes on the state level as well as cuts in state programs for education and healthcare. The deficit in Washington will also, sooner or later, lead to budget cuts in domestic programs on a federal level as well.

In a campaign against Bush we will need a candidate who will not say I supported part of the Bush economic program and war resolution but now I really have some doubts about them. We need someone who has consistently questioned both of these policies.

[BushGone04]

17. That's such an incredible oversimplification

Kerry has, repeatedly and consistently, said that, as President, he would repeal the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. He has also consistently said that the problem with the economy in this country is not that the middle class has too much money, and thus that he would not raise the taxes of middle-class families. Calling this position "standing behind the Bush tax cuts" is pretty ludicrous. Additionally, the political ramifications of pledging to raise taxes across the board aren't so hot. Ask Mondale how that worked out for him.

[LuminousX]

21. Legislation

Which piece of legislation will be easier:

The one repealing a previous piece of legislation or one that tries to selectively stop tax cuts for one group of people while giving another group of people extra cuts?

I say the latter one is bound to only create more loopholes and 'taxation atrocities' than the former.

But I also submit that I may be wrong. I'm just a simple minded person.

[BushGone04]

27. Legislation

Which piece of legislation will WORK better:

One that increases the tax burden on the rich without increasing it on the middle class (Am I the only one who remembers that this type of progressive taxation is one of the pillars of the Democratic Party?), or one that increases taxes on everyone and takes money out of the pockets of middle-class families, leaving them less to spend and invest? Moreover, which will succeed in creating a new generation of working-class and middle-class "Bush Democrats" like the Reagan Democrats of the 1980's?

[LuminousX]

30. I'm a pragmatist first,

an idealist second.

With a Republican Congress, opening up another piece of legislation for tax cuts is only going to give Ken Lay another couple billion and that family of four trying to live off of $34,000 a year, squat.

[dsc]

31. Of course you leave out

other factors. Federal deficits are in and of themselves regressive. The people who will have to pay that debt in the future will tend to be middle class (we do still pay most of the taxes) while those to whom the debt is paid tend to be wealthy. Plus high interest rates (which along with low growth are two things one of which has to happen with increased deficits) are also regressive. Borrowers are often middle class while lenders are often wealthy. Those effects will overwhelm any alledged progressivity in these tax cuts.

[CMT]

25. it is not a simplification

The Bush tax cuts have contributed to the mess most states are in today. The tax cut that most people have gotten is fast being made up by states raising fees, state taxes, and cutting programs. Local governments are raising property taxes.

No matter who the democrats nominate Bush and company will try and peg them as a tax hiker. Even though Kerry says he only wants to dismantle the tax cuts for the wealthy it will be spinned that he too wants to dismantle the entire program.

As far as Kerry standing behind a portion of Bush's economic program he is. Just like he has been trying to have it both ways on Iraq.

[LuminousX]

26. As they say...

Straddle the fence and all you'll get is pain.

[MrPeepers]

35. Or...

elected.

Peepers

[BushGone04]

32. No, trust me, it is

I entirely agree that the Bush tax cuts are very poor economic policy. So does John Kerry, so does Howard Dean, and so, presumably, does every poster on this site, as well as everyone whose IQ divided by their shoe size is something greater than one. Having said that, the way to respond to poor policy is NOT, unlike what Dean and most of his supporters seem to think, to simply do the opposite. The answer is to look at the facts and the history behind the situation and to find a solution that will be best for all Americans. John Kerry, with his plan to return to the progressive taxation (increased burden on the wealthy, not the middle class) that the Democrats have long supported, has done this; Howard Dean, with his knee-jerk anti-Bush anger, has not.

And yes, it really is an oversimplification to say that Kerry stands beind Bush's tax policy, when in fact his economic plan is FAR different from Bush's.

[blm]

19. Letting the working class keep their taxcuts

is what any Dem should want. Increasing taxes on the wealthiest will balance the budget. That's exactly what Clinton did.

[CMT]

28. yes, but

this deficit is a real time bomb. Read an arguement today which makes the case that it is much like the 60's when LBJ tried to provide Great Society programs along with Vietnam spending and it ran the deficit higher and led to hikes in interest rates and later the inflation of the 70's. Bush not wanting to touch his tax cuts and wanting additional spendig in Iraq at $87 billion per year is almost identical to the 1960's scenerio.

Besides, the minimal tax cut the working man got from the Bush tax cuts are being whiped away from increased fees, taxes, and spending cuts at the state level. Soon on the national level domestic programs will also be affected.

[blm]

39. Kerry intends to close corporate loopholes.

And keep all govt. contracts away from any company that avoids taxes using offshore accounts.

He said that would close the gap so that the poor and middle class can keep their tax cuts.

He also intends to dump the mini-nukes program and the entire Star Wars program which will save a good chunk of change.

[LuminousX]

40. Congress

and the Republican Congress will rollover and give him whatever he wants?

I've hear the 'close the loopholes' promise too many times. Kerry at least has a history of being tough on corporations, so that is a bonus in his favor regarding the promise. He still has to convince me he can convince Congress to go along.

[DrFunkenstein]

47. Your Answer Here On Getting Congress Aboard

Implement the McCain-Kerry Commission on Corporate Welfare. 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.

Pass a Constitutional Line-Item Veto to Reduce Corporate Welfare and Excessive Spending. 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.
Click Here to Read John Kerry's "Fight for our Economic

Restore Budget Rules to Stop Runaway Spending. John Kerry believes we need to reverse the new budget rules Republicans in Congress have established that make it easier to spend into deficits with fewer votes. He will also review and reassess all discretionary spending programs to determine their effectiveness and whether they should continue to be funded.

[blm]

48. Well, Congress depends on the top of the ticket.

The DNC is against Dean because internal polls show he is a disaster for those down ticket. Mainly in every competitive Southern race.

>>>>>>>>
But what we face today -- and what we must change -- is not simply a failure of policy.  Today at the center of power, we have a radical ethic that ratifies and glorifies a creed of greed. Once, a great Republican President named Theodore Roosevelt took on those who abused their wealth and power;  today’s Republican President invites them in for secret meetings, sells out our environment, tolerates their abuses and lets them evade taxes by moving their headquarters to an offshore shelter that is nothing more than a post office box or a mail drop.

Dick Cheney’s old company Halliburton has 58 offshore tax havens.  The Bush Administration’s response is to hand Halliburton a seven billion dollar no-bid contract. 

My response as President will be:
• No more lavish government-funded life support for favored corporations
• No more tax allowances for bonuses of over a million dollars for CEOs who have done nothing to earn them.
• No more contracts for companies, no matter how well-connected they are, until they decide to do what’s right.
• And no more tax breaks that help companies move American jobs overseas.

A tax code that once ran 14 pages now takes up 17,000 pages, filled with twists and turns and customized loopholes.  Everyone in America knows it is not fair, and if I am President we’re going to scour that tax code and make it simple and fair once and for all. 

Instead of tax breaks for the wealthiest and subsidies for special interests, and instead of photo opportunities with children as backdrops, let’s give real meaning to the words “leave no child behind.”  It’s time to give our schools the resources and our teachers the respect they deserve -- and give every child in America the best possible start in life. 
>>>>>>

[polpilot]

23. Kerry's whining is becoming incessant. Someone needs to pull him aside

and tell him, 'It's over'.

Dean '04...

[LuminousX]

24. But, but...

The media isn't listening to him.

If he can't find a way to get the media to pay attention, how is he going to handle the media when he is President?

Clark and Dean seem to be able to pull in all sorts of media attention. Could it be that they are offering something different than what has been done before? Quite possibly.

If during the lead up to the Iraq war, if Kerry issued a press release calling Bush a warmongerer, I assure you, he would be getting all sorts of press attention. As it is now, he is just another brick in the wall. We've seen what he is before. The media craves newness, or at least an old story dressed up as new (which is all Dean is).

[MrPeepers]

29. Or more appropriately,

someone needs to pull him aside and tell him that he has to win the nomination because your beloved Dean will get his ass handed to him in a general election.

Peepers

[w4rma]

33. Getting snippy? (n/t)

[MrPeepers]

34. Only snippy

in the face of someone elses snippyness. If that is a word. If it isn't, it really ought to be.

Peepers

[w4rma]

41. lol! yup, it's a word.

Snippy

The word was little known on this side of the Atlantic until Democrat Al Gore used it to describe his Republican opponent, George W Bush.
It means curt or sharp, and is probably not a very statesmanlike thing either to say or to be.

But it is maybe understandable in the circumstances.

When Democrat Al Gore telephoned Republican George W Bush for the second time on election night 2000 to retract his concession, the Texan Governor reportedly did not take the news very well.

Mr Gore responded: "You don't have to be snippy about it."

Al Gore had earlier called Mr Bush to concede the election and the Texas governor was preparing a victory speech. But before he could deliver it, the TV networks declared the state of Florida was too close to call, and thus the election still undecided.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/americas/2000/us_elections/glossary/q-s/1037232.stm

What Gore said to Bush
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1015429.stm

I really want to like Sen. Kerry and he's been my #2 choice for a while, but using the *exact* same tactic against Dean that Bush used against Gore, really grates on me. :)

[MrPeepers]

45. I

was actually referring to snippyness, as I had no idea how to form the noun form of snippy. We all have certain things about the candidates that grate on us, except for Al Sharpton. I can't say anything bad about him, except that I pray he dosn't get elected. :)

Peepers

[mitchtv]

36. this is disgusting

i am ashamed, these are my two favorites, but i will probably vote Clark now.You guys are doing the republican's job for them . YOU CALL YOURSELVES DEMOCRATS??

[w4rma]

42. The results of MAD.

You need to note that Kerry attacked Dean using the same tactic Bush used against Gore. Dean did not attack Kerry. And at least one Kerry supporter (Nic) has been doing nothing but attacking Dean for months now. You are letting Nic know that his trashing works.

[mitchtv]

37. this is disgusting

i am ashamed, these are my two favorites, but i will probably vote Clark now.You guys are doing the republican's job for them . YOU CALL YOURSELVES DEMOCRATS??

[BushGone04]

44. Actually, this thread hasn't been toooo bad

Most of what I've seen on this thread (what I've been involved in, anyway) has been fairly civil policy debates, which are quite healthy for us to be engaging in. Certainly not the least civil or most ad-hominem thread we've had on here.

[DrFunkenstein]

52. The BS Behind The Dean People

They say:

1) The tax cuts were virtually non-existent for the poor and middle-class.

2) Those tax cuts are absolutely crucial to returning fiscal discipline to the budget.

So which is it? Are the middle class tax cuts insignificant or all-important?

It seems to me that Dean should have spent a little more time figuring out how to deal with corporate welfare at the national level. I understand that he is a little naive on this point, but I don't see that as an excuse.

[dsc]

53. It is both

I realize that some of you want to pretend that a little bit of money given to many people isn't somehow a lot of money but it is. If you give 150 million people $500 that is 75 billion dollars. And yes I consider that a chunk of change.

[DrFunkenstein]

55. You Know Damn Well That The Money Is Going Back

Into the economy. The last time I checked the problem wasn't that the middle class had too much money. Kerry has done his homework on health care; he's crunched the numbers. I'm sorry that Dean didn't find the same ways to reduce costs, and that Kerry thought of eliminating catastrophic costs and your guy didn't.

Kerry is committed to reducing the deficit by half in 4 years. Meanwhile, the money that the middle class keeps will promote economic growth, unlike Bush's version and unlike Dean's version. We can get into details, but that is the basic truth.

[Fabio]

57. DrF is right

But it wont be admitted here. These Dean supporters know that it will be a difficult issue for Governor Dean to carry politically and that it will likely cost him support among the middle class.


That's why you hear ruminations of 'tax reform' from some people in the campaign. But that wont be waffling.

[DrFunkenstein]

61. He'll Be "Evolving"

Dean supporters will jump off the edge of the Earth if he says so, but the fact is that most middle class families believe in not haivng to return the pocket change they got back.

This is the first serious move towards progressive taxation in years - a reversal of the BS "death tax" that conservatives love to call the richie rich inheritance tax.

I suppose that Dean is committed to balancing the budget at any cost, even if it is to the detriment of the larger economy.

Face it - being the anti-Bush is no substitute for sound policy. Kerry's experience with national level government, and his long pursuit of fighting government pork ultimately inform his policy in ways that Dean simply cannot fathom.

Not to mention that he has been talking with a brain trust of economists on this very issue.

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7681

Kerry Convenes Tycoon Tutorial

For several months, Mr. Kerry has been coming to New York on a monthly basis not just to raise money, but to talk about it. He has assembled a high-powered team of advisers who he hopes can help him in forming an economic agenda for the 2004 campaign. The meetings, which are organized by financier Roger Altman, have included Gene Sperling and Laura Tyson, both chief economic advisers in the Clinton administration, and investment banker Felix Rohatyn.

Read on...

[dsc]

59. No it isn't

the increase in mortgage rates (1.5%) in 6 weeks ate it all up and then some. Add in the higher taxes at the local level and we lost money. People with variable mortgages saw increases of a couple of hundred or more a month.

[Fabio]

63. Just for your information.

Mortgage rates HAVE NOT been tracking treasuries for some time. They are debt dominated in the credit worthiness of individuals, and have very little to do with the solvency of the government. People who got a variable mortgage paid less upfront in order to assume the risk that rates wouldn't rise. So you lost, but it has nothing to do with deficit spending.

As for taxes at the local level, Kerry has a plan to help bail out states facing fiscal crisis, paid for by a series of amendments to corporations paying no income tax here through loopholes.

Furthermore, how would Dean repealing the Bush tax cuts help states?

[dsc]

73. They do track the long term bond market

which in turn tracks the long term deficit projections. So yes, the current policies have increased mortgage rates just like Clinton's policies cut them. Assuming we don't fall back into recession if we don't show that we are serious about balancing the budget in a reasonable amount of time mortgage rates will go up, and up, and up. As to your second question, Dean has repeatedly said he would help states out with many of their expenses (homeland security, health care, education to site three). That would let them cut their taxes.

[w4rma]

54. Hey DrFunkenstein

Why don't you quit trashing Dems? You're making your guy Kerry look bad, IMHO.

[DrFunkenstein]

56. As Soon As We Talk Policy

Dean supporters start talking about getting trashed. What did I say that was not a legitimate policy discussion? You really need a thicker skin than that.

[w4rma]

58. The whole post

DrFunkenstein: What did I say that was not a legitimate policy discussion?

The whole post.

What information did you bring into the discussion. None. Your answer is all over this thread. I'm sure you understand Dean's position as you've been posting here long enough to understand it. You'd rather mischaracterize it in hopes that your smearing Dean will net votes for Kerry. Let me tell you again, your smearing Dean hurts Kerry.

post #12 answers your question:
Kerry is talking more tax cuts?

WTF?

Doesn't he realize that local property taxes are increasing to pay for the things that the Federal government can't afford because of Bush's tax cuts?

Cuts, cuts, cuts... pretty soon everything is cut to ribbons and dies.

Kerry is locked in his <b>Bushlite</b> mode of thoughts, tell the people he will give them money if he is elected. It doesn't work. It has brought our country to its knees. We must rescind the Bush tax package and then analyze where we truly are economically and then put in place a tax package that truly targets the lower and middle class American's who can take that money and invest it into the economy instead of buying more Haliburton stock with it.

[Fabio]

64. How...

Are a federal deficit and increased property taxes related?

[w4rma]

69. Lack of funding for federal mandates to the states

result in higher state taxes to fund the unfunded federal mandates.

Thats how Bush's lack of funding for federal mandates affect the states. Here's how the federal defecit affects states:

post 31:
...Federal deficits are in and of themselves regressive. The people who will have to pay that debt in the future will tend to be middle class (we do still pay most of the taxes) while those to whom the debt is paid tend to be wealthy. Plus high interest rates (which along with low growth are two things one of which has to happen with increased deficits) are also regressive. Borrowers are often middle class while lenders are often wealthy. Those effects will overwhelm any alledged progressivity in these tax cuts.

[Fabio]

71. That...

presupposed the existence of unfunded federal mandates. Can you name a few? Bet you cant.

[w4rma]

76. "No Child Left Behind" is one

"Homeland Security" is another.

[Fabio]

92. Ah yes.

Indeed they are. Just as I hoped you would point out.

As a country, we have had unfunded federal mandates for years - in times of deficit and in times of surplus (yes they did exist in the later Clinton years). The premise that unfunded federal mandates are related to a federal budget deficit is incorrect.

The federal government could choose to spend more in deficit to provide funding for these initiatives (probably the best things for us dems so we could see, in total, how wildly iresponsible the GOP has been with taxpayer money) OR the federal government could choose to spend money on these unfunded mandates at the expenses of other federal programs -- the best target being the military.

In total, though, the premise that unfunded mandates and a federal budget deficit are connected is wrong.

[DrFunkenstein]

67. That's Your Answer?

Kerry favors returning the vast amounts of the tax cuts. Krugman was on the Leonard Lopate show just yesterday talking about how Bush's "average" is BS, because people under $200,000 got relatively nothing back for the ENORMOUS cuts. Dean people argue the same thing.

The amount of revenues Kerry will bring in from off-shore cheats alone will cover the miniscule tax cuts for the middle class.

--

Kerry will set up a fund specifically for the state budgets:

A New ‘State Tax Relief and Education Fund’. The Bush economic approach has left states with nearly $90 billion in budget deficits, forcing lay offs, education cuts, and tax increases.

This fund will help states struggling to bridge deficits resulting from Bush’s economic policies with an additional $25 billion a year for two years to stop the education cuts, tuition increases and tax and fee raising that are inhibiting our economic growth and causing layoffs.

This fund includes Kerry’s proposed $5 billion to stop state cuts in health care that hurt workers and patients, $5 billion for homeland security to stem layoffs of police officers and fire fighters, and his commitment to fully fund the No Child Left Behind education law.

--

You talk about smearing Dean and then cite a post calling Kerry "Bushlite." Do I need to point out the ridiculous hypocrisy of that? Do I need to point out how Dean supporters have tried to distort Kerry's position?

Why don't you start by clarifying Dean's (untenable) position if I have smeared it, instead of repeating that crap? That's what's called "a debate." Not name-calling.

[w4rma]

75. At this point I don't give a flip what Kerry's policy is. Kerry is LYING

to trash Dean. As long as Kerry continues to use Bushlite talking points against Dean, I'll trash him back until he stops. And I'll trash him everytime you trash Dean, DrFunkenstein.

I no longer think Kerry is as liberal as I once thought he was anyway. He has told us to "get over it" and "quit crying in our teacups" over the 2000 election. He trashed Al Gore to reporters, repeating the "invented the internet" lie.

And I'm digging around and learning about the guy. I'm finding he's as hypocritical as his supporters are:
…
But what he's doing, if I'm interpreting him correctly, is accusing Dean of not being a man of his word, and a man who doesn't live up to his word, Kerry is essentially saying, is unqualified to be president.

So let's go back to 1996, to Kerry's reelection campaign against then-Governor Bill Weld, specifically to the night Weld met Kerry at the senator's wife's Beacon Hill mansion. They finalized an unprecedented agreement to limit advertising spending to $5 million apiece, and to limit the use of personal funds in the campaign to $500,000 apiece.

Good government types hailed the agreement as a major breakthrough. Kerry and Weld basked in the plaudits of editorialists the nation over. Kerry described the pact as "a model for campaign reform across the country."

But a funny thing happened on the way to Election Day. Kerry didn't just violate the deal, he pulverized it. Running out of money in the waning days of October, Kerry mortgaged and remortgaged the Louisburg Square house, ultimately pouring $1.7 million in personal funds into his campaign. For those of you keeping track at home, that's $1.2 million more than the agreement allowed.

As he made a mockery of the pact, he did something else distinctly distasteful. He accused Weld of violating the agreement, a charge that seemed specious at best, an outright lie at worst.

At issue was a discount Weld received from the standard fee his media consultant would reap from all ad spending. It allowed Weld to buy about $400,000 more in ads for his $5 million. Every good campaign negotiates a discount, and the written agreement did not preclude them. Kerry claimed it was a violation of a rule that, well, was never written down.

Still, yesterday, he repeated the charge. "The Kerry campaign took appropriate action to level the playing field," said spokeswoman Kelley Benander, adding, "The situation with Howard Dean is much more serious."
…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/09/16/hard_to_pull_for_kerry/

This is the final straw for me anyway. Using the same exact tactics against Dean that Bush used against Gore is low. :thumbsdown: I hope your happy with the results of your (and Kerry's) trashing, DrFunkenstein.

[DrFunkenstein]

77. I Can't Believe You're Citing This Crap

The Globe is famous for being anti-Kerry, and Brian McGrory is one of the nastiest incarnations. This is the opening line of the article he wrote before this:

"John, put that hairbrush down and pull yourself away from the mirror for a second. We need to have a little talk."

http://search.boston.com/dailyglobe2/252/metro/Being_John_Kerry+.shtml

You can throw that in with your opposition research. The Weld story was totally on the up and up, and Bill Weld will tell you so.

If anyone is doing the smearing, let's listen to your bullsh*t about Kerry dissing Gore. In true GOP fashion, you completely distort Kerry's offhand joke which itself came from a distorting article. Secondly, Gore himself said he wasn't running because he wanted people to get over 2000.

You are trashing Kerry, I am discussing policy. By suggesting that Kerry is using Bush's tactics is not only a cheap move, but it is also painfully obvious.

And if that's your criteria for what a liberal is, no wonder you're with Dean.

[w4rma]

78. Why? I could have learned it from you.

Or Nicholas_J whom I never see you call out for his trashing.

But, don't worry I don't resort to the misquoting and misstating tactics that you guys use. I'll help you guys realise that your candidates aren't nearly as perfect as you'd like folks to believe, though. I think that folks need to understand that no candidate is going to be pefect anyway.

As for the Weld situation, I'll be posting that again, later, I'm sure.

And if that's your criteria for what a liberal is, no wonder you're with Kerry.

[DrFunkenstein]

85. Whatever

Feel free to post about Kerry's war crimes, Skull and Bones machinations, and expensive haricuts.

Where do I misquote or misstate? That dog won't hunt. And I've spoken to Nick J several times. We've gone over that before.

I've done my research on Kerry, including GOP smears. There's nothing you can post that would surprise me.

The bitter truth is that beyond the IWR non-vote, he's pretty lightweight. Full of good intentions (except on I/P), but still lightweight.

Maybe his anti-Bush anger thing does it for you, but I'm looking for a little more.

[w4rma]

95. There's that attitude of never admit your wrong or even another's POV

And as for this question:
DrFunkenstein: Where do I misquote or misstate?

Right here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214#41402

[w4rma]

79. Oh, one more thing

When your ready to debate policy instead of shrilling against Dean, I'll be glad to debate.

[DrFunkenstein]

84. Here's A Good Starting Point

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=22075

[w4rma]

96. Kerry has knowledge, but has not demonstrated judgment

That is my general opinion of Kerry's foriegn policy.

Now if you want to talk specifics, be specific.

[Nicholas_J]

101. Dean has already lied in fron of millions of people at debates

When confronted by Dennis Kucinich about having states that he would increase the retirement age to 70, Dean denied having made the statement. And then had to apologize for having done so with Tim Russert in 1995. It is not like he forgot it becasue it was years earlier, as Tim Russert reminded him of it on June 22nd, 2003, on Meet the Press. At this same time, Dean restated his position on raising the age of retirement again, but this time state 68 years old.

In 1995, he also discussed cutting back Medicare benenefits, as well as reducing Veterans benefits.

Dean skirted this issue with Russert in June, but still his suggestions amount to cutting either services, and raising co-payments:

Dean: $85,000, maybe you raise it to $100,000 or whatever the numbers are. We’ve got to look at the numbers to figure out what you do. You get the Social Security problem off the table first by fixing it and then not allowing the Congress to keep taking money out of the trust fund. The president’s financing his tax cuts by taking money out of the Social Security trust fund. That’s ridiculous—first. Secondly, what do you do about the budget? You restrain spending. You do not have to actually make cuts in things like Medicare or in things like Medicaid or even in Defense. What you have to do is restrain the increases in spending.
Russert: When the Republicans tried to limit the growth, the Democrats said that was an actual cut.
Dean: Well, they’re going to say what they’re going to say. All I...
Russert: You would be willing to limit the growth...
Dean: Absolutely.
Russert: ...in Defense, in Medicare and Social Security?
Dean: You have to do that. If you don’t go where the money is—Social Security, we’re going to fix differently. We’re not talking about Social Security. We’re talking about Medicare. We’re talking about Defense and we’re talking about all the other things the federal government does. But I want to put the tax cut back into that budget. They need it to balance the budget.
Russert: That’s raising taxes, though. Let’s be honest.

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1



Lets even be more honest...Dean wants to repeal the Bush Taxes immediately, but doe not feel quite the same way about providing National Health Care Immediately:

Dr. Dean promised that as president he would spend half of the money he would save by repealing Mr. Bush's recent tax cuts to provide free insurance to people under 25 and those who earn less than 185 percent of the poverty rate, and to let everybody else buy into a national plan for 7.5 percent of their gross income. "My plan is not reform — if you want to totally change the health-care system, I'm not your guy," Dr. Dean told supporters in Lebanon, N.H. "I'm not interested in having a big argument about what the best system is. I'm interested in getting everybody covered."

http://www.deanforschenectady.com/NYTimes.html

Dean spent ten years trying the incremental approach to providing health care for everyone in Vermont. For every additional person covered in Vermont while Dean was Governor, 4 were left uncovered.
He did not succeed with incrementalism as Governor, and is simply too stubborn to let go of his own ideas when they have been ineffective:


Vermont
In April 1992 Vermont passed the Vermont Health Care Act of 1992 to ensure universal coverage for state citizens, control healthcare costs via a global budget, implement insurance community rating, reform medical malpractice laws, and place the state's healthcare under one state authority. The legislation did not specify how the state would pay for and achieve universal coverage. This led to development of two state proposals--one backed by a group of 55 legislators for a single-payer plan and one pushed by the governor for an employer mandate.

Although the single-payer plan was not brought to the floor for a vote during the current 1994 session, many predicted it would have been defeated. Additionally, Gov. Howard Dean, MD, had promised to veto it if passed. Dean, the nation's only physician governor, allied with the state's medical community in pushing for reform that was not government run. As Linfield College political scientist Howard M. Leichter describes it: "When Governor Dean speaks, the views of Dr. Dean are never entirely obscured. Dean, for example, shares the distaste of his colleagues for federal micromanagement of medical practices, especially through the much-hated Medicare program."1

Dean's employer mandate bill was killed (7-0) in Vermont's Republican-dominated Senate Finance Committee in May 1994. Earlier in March, the House passed a bill without an explicit financing mechanism. This essentially puts the state's universal coverage effort at square one. Some Vermont legislators are predicting action in future sessions on an individual mandate; and the single-payer advocates have not yet given up hope.

http://www.chausa.org/PUBS/PUBSART.ASP?ISSUE=HP9410&ARTICLE=L


And when it came to either balancing the budget, or prviding health care, Dean cut heath care services, favoring his ideas of fiscal conservatism over social programs.

In his 2000, Dean promised universal health care in Vermont by 2002.

Dean promises health coverage for all by 2002
October 4, 2000

By FREDERICK BEVER Vermont Press Bureau

BURLINGTON - Gov. Howard Dean on Tuesday unveiled an ambitious goal for Vermont's health care system - enactment by 2002 of a plan that would lead to health insurance coverage for every state resident.

Appearing at a press conference at the Burlington Community Health Center, Dean said he would build on proposals expected from a $1.3 million, yearlong study of Vermont's health care system aimed at finding ways to get insurance to Vermonters who currently lack it.

"It will allow us to look at the infrastructure essentially for going to universal health care for all Vermonters," Dean said. "It's a complicated subject; $1.3 million is a lot of money, and I think we ought to be able to figure out how to solve the problem. ... We're going to look at some innovative things."

Those innovations might include a state subsidy to help small employers buy health insurance for their workers, or the expansion of federal or state health insurance programs. Although the study will emphasize building on existing programs, it may also include consideration of more radical changes, such as the "high risk pool" and "single-payer system" advocated, respectively, by Dean's Republican and Progressive opponents.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/State/Story/13593.html

But by the very year Deans promise was to be fulfilled:

Senate adds money to budget, angers Dean

May 9, 2002

By ROSS SNEYD The Associated Press



“If it gets to this office, it’s going to get sent back,” Dean said, speaking in code for an assured veto.

He was particularly annoyed at the way the Senate addressed education funding and the Medicaid health insurance program for the poor.

Medicaid expenses have grown so dramatically in recent years as prescription drug prices have escalated that the state can no longer afford it with existing taxes.

Dean insists on cutting some of the benefits by requiring recipients to pay higher deductibles and co-payments and leaving a $10 million cushion in the bank. He said the Senate “did not have the spine” to make those cuts but insisted the programs need to be trimmed.

“They’re expensive. We can’t afford them. The Legislature’s got to buckle down and do the work properly,” Dean said.

Dean has made promises about health care a number of times. Each time he failed to keep those promises. Each time that he failed, it was his monomaniacal, cultlike devotion to fiscal conservatism thatled Dean to break those promises. Dean justifies every act, appropriate, or not. on Fiscal Conservatism. And really not for very much. He left a ten million dollar surplus in Vermont. But when you consider that this was in a state that had a 3.5 BILLION dollar budget, and in the end, the Senate restored those programs to the budget, and the state STILL had its surplus, Deans adherance to his own ideas about budgeting, and his ideas about cutting programs, and his ideas that it is ok to break political promises in the name of those very outmoded, conservative ideas, such inflexability is indicative that he will do the same when merely repealing the Bush Tax cuts proves an inadequate response to dealing with the enormous deficit created over the last three years, only a portion of which have do do with the Bush Tax cuts.

[Demobrat]

66. Repealing the Bush tax cut is all-important.

To do so will affect the middle class little or not at all, since most of it went to the rich. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Fabio]

68. Sounds like Dogma.

See, here is how history actually went.
Republicans in Congress proposed several tax cuts -- most regressive -- with th exeption of reducing overall marginal rates. They proposed things like elimination of dividend taxation and end of the inheritance tax.

Meanwhile, the Democrats in Congress, facing a minority in both houses, fought to get some tax breaks into the legislation for their folks -- things like elimination of the marriage penalty and a childcare tax credit (which, for the poorest 12 million americans was left out in committee by the GOPers.)

Eliminating the entire Bush tax cut will eliminate those taxes that Democrats have been fighting for middle class people for some time.

Senator Kerry has a politically viable solution that can occur within a relevant time frame (ie while we are still in need of stimilus) -- that is to only grant the $87 million appropriation for Iraq if the upper income taxes are rolled back.

It's called the Kerry-Biden amendment and, if America is worth its salt, should pass. Of course, if it doesn't, it will make the GOPers look pretty greedy come election time.

[Nicholas_J]

88. 54 percent went to the rich

The other 46 percent went to the middle class and the poor, but mostly to the middle class.

The biggest lie that Dean is attempting to perpetrate is that the middle class got NOTHING.

Most middle class families with 2 kids in the middle range of middle class saw exacthy that 3000 gain that was noted. They lost a good deal of it through increase in local taxes, but at least the federal cuts acted as a buffer to the local taxes. Take away that buffer, and Deans repeal of the federal tax cuts will easly result in the middle class paying 2 to 3 times as much in taxes as they were prior to the Bush tax cuts. This is another Dean attempt to soak the middle class and poor, as he did in Vermont, with regressive taxation.

Dena and his supporters make the statements that the middle class didnt get anything, yet the tax tables show the opposite.

Dean and his supporters simply make unsubstantiated claims.

Kerry simply had the taxes done for the people noted, and used the tax tables prior to the 2001 cuts, and the reult was 3000 for that particular family. Considering that there local taxes probably went up as well, Repealing the Bush tax cuts will lead to this family paying MORE taxes than they did prior to the Bush tax cuts being enacted. FAr more.

[dsc]

106. Funny but it was $2000 just a few week ago

where did the change come from?

[peaceandjustice]

82. ummm, don't quite understand your post.

The cuts WERE certainly non-existant to the working-class, I know, 'cause I didn't get a check back, but as far as Dean supporters saying they're all-important...?
Only if by all-important the Dean supporters in question mean the revenue lost to the cuts made to the wealthiest quintile (which, while the wealthiest 1% made out specifically like bandits, also did well overall) would offset a large share of the deficit. If so, than yeah, it is quite possible a disproportionate cut to the wealthiest fifth of Americans caused the U.S. budget enough to jeopardize key social programs.

[DrFunkenstein]

91. Sorry For Confusion

The Bush Tax Cuts are the absolutely worst possible course you could ask for when we are both at war and in the middle of a recession. You'd have a hard time coming up with something stupider. Stupid for your economy, not for your campaign contributions.

But that doesn't mean THE EXACT OPPOSITE is the best course of action. Whatever small amount of money the middle class and poor get will go back into the economy (while the rich will just sit on it).

[peaceandjustice]

80. so you and John Kerry support the Bush tax cuts?

At least, you must, right? Lets get it here on the record then.

[Nicholas_J]

86. Nope

I support what the democrats and ALL of those Nobel Laureates in Economics suggested in lieu of the Bush tax cuts, which was a short term, smaller tax cut, which would go to the middle class and the poor, which is what Keynesian(Demand Side) Economics require when the economy is in a recession, in order to provide an immediate temporary stimulus to the economy.

Thats what Kerry supports, thats what every major economist recommends.

No matter how you spin it, Deans repeal of the Bush tax cuts will be more devastating to the middle class and the poor, than the Bush tax cuts were to begin with, as the middle class will have their income taxes immediately increased by the repeal, only they will also be paying the higher local taxes that resulted from the Bush Tax cuts requiring funding to the states be cut. THere is no way Dean can repeal the tax cuts, and then require the states to roll back the taxes they raise.

Deans repeal of the cuts, pure and simply is raising taxes, particularly at a time when the economy is bad, and the poor and middle class have already begun to be taxed far more by the states than they were before Bush instituted his cuts.

Once the damage is done, simply repealing the tax cuts will not reverse the effects the cuts caused.It will not bring back the Clinton good times It is a simplistic approach, or a devious one, as Dean will be using soaking the middle class and poor in order to try to balance the budget, rather than handle it the way Clinton did, which was to raise the top tax rate on the rich, but not give much of an increase in taxes to the poor and middle class.

Dean wants to repeal the cuts, but is not promising to give the middle class IMMEDIATE health care benefits with that money.

[DrFunkenstein]

89. Kerry Regularly Meets With Some Of The Best Economists Out There

For several months, Mr. Kerry has been coming to New York on a monthly basis not just to raise money, but to talk about it. He has assembled a high-powered team of advisers who he hopes can help him in forming an economic agenda for the 2004 campaign. The meetings, which are organized by financier Roger Altman, have included Gene Sperling and Laura Tyson, both chief economic advisers in the Clinton administration, and investment banker Felix Rohatyn.

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7681

[DrFunkenstein]

87. You Are Seriously Mistaking Kerry's Position

Kerry wants to keep only the tax cuts for people making less than $200,000, the very part that Dems fought to get into the second tax cut.

Like Kerry, I believe that these tax cuts for the poor and middle-class will be much more effective in stimulating the economy than returning to government revenue. If that means the budget takes a little longer to balance, it also means the economy builds up faster to create some jobs out there.

I think that the major problem with the economy is that investors don't trust the corporate books. Kerry's mission is to create a bad-ass SEC and Accounting Oversight Board to restore confidence that books aren't cooked.

He also has specialized tax breaks for job creation and company re-investment, more so at the small business level. He also eases the cost of health care that takes up a huge chunk of business budgets.

[peaceandjustice]

107. more questions

First, do you mean to include people making 70,000 to 200,000 a year as "poor and middle-class?"

How will cutting taxes stimulate spending among the unemployed? I'm not, by the way, suggesting Howard Dean, Wesley Clark or any of the Democratic candidates have proposed convincing job-creation plans.

John Kerry's plans for creating jobs, however, appear to rest on cutting taxes. If Bush, by cutting taxes to the largest employers was unable to stimulate job creation, how will cutting taxes for smaller companies be any more effective?

How do you replace the revenue lost to Kerry's cuts for the poverty-stricken families making 150,000 a year? Would Kerry still operate our government with a budget deficit? Perhaps he won't line the pockets of the wealthiest one percent with tax cuts but bond sales instead, since that is what covers the shortfalls in a budget deficit and the wealthiest one percent account for over 75% of bond sales.

[Fabio]

110. JK has a more comprehensive job plan than that.

It includes maintaining middle class tax relief, but also has business tax credits, capital gains relief in critical technology areas (ie sustainable energy policies), a spending program for domestic infrastructure and more.

What he has not done is taken a protectionist argument that some of the candidates have done. Still, one of the great challenges for our country's future, and I am sure all candidates are united in this, is how to maintain our balance as a consumer/producer country -- or more specifically -- a service versus manufacturing economy. Or, put more simply, How do we stop the exodus of good blue collar jobs in this country?

It is JK's belief, and mine as well, that the next great market of opportunity (and jobs) will be those in sustainable energy technology. Jobs in this area will exist in developing, marketing and manufacturing these jobs if america leads the way. He has an intelligent program to steer private capital into those areas through the aforementioned tax incentives in the critical technology areas, and through some other programs he discusses.

[Fabio]

93. Nope.

And that is a naive example in terms of how the world works. Democrats fought for their own taxes relief to be included in that package. JK (and myself, and wesley clark, and john edwards, and DrF) all favor repealing the tax cuts for the upper income earners.
a.k.a A PORTION OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS

[indigo32]

100. I agree but folks are being deliberately niave about Deans

position on the issue as well. I guess that's just how it goes here. The way I see it... we have 2 people running who want to go about achieving basically the same ends... in 2 different ways. Now we can disagree on the methodology but really they both are talking about the same thing. SO Kerry is stirring up crap when he criticizes on this issue. He's got other issues he could pick no doubt, how about a real one.

[Fabio]

104. Tit for tat will get us no where

But I wish I hadn't seen Dean call the Iraq war

"your (JK's) unilateralist war."

or

"your tax cuts"

during the SC debate

[BushGone04]

109. Are you serious?

Can we please stop with the utterly absurd accusations that Kerry supports the Bush tax cut? Please? THIS IS NOT A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE. It is possible, much as you may hate to believe it, to want to keep a part of the Bush tax cut without supporting the whole thing (and, as has been pointed out several times on this thread, this is the course of action favored by most economists). It's called nuance, people.

Some of these accusations really remind me of Republican "you're either with us or against us" tactics. You can't make everything as black and white as that, and your attempts to do so on economic policy are just as ridiculous and contemptible as Bush's attempts to do so on issues of war.

[Duder]

94. Fuzzy Math, Kerry Style...

Candidate: John Kerry
Category: Intellectual Honesty
Grade: D
http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=646

<...>

'Now, perhaps that's not the most egregious rhetorical flourish in the history of presidential campaigning: Some families really will see their tax bill jump $2,000, which is certainly a lot of money. But let's look at the broader context here. Kerry insists it's not fair to "raise" these taxes because the middle class is "hurting." What Kerry doesn't say is that by leaving some of the Bush tax cuts in place, he's hurting--or, at least, not helping --the middle class in some other way.

After all, the reason Gephardt repeals all of the Bush tax cuts is that he's using the money to finance a much more ambitious health care plan. As for Dean, he's doing more to reduce the deficit, which should shore up the financing for Medicare and Social Security, thereby easing the tax burden on future generations. Presumably, a family making $40,000 a year would care about these things. (Yes, Kerry insists he'd cut deficits, too, but since Kerry's overall spending plan doesn't look much different than Dean's, it's hard to imagine he could reduce the deficit nearly as effectively.)

Think of it this way: If you're this hypothetical $40,000-a-year family, is Kerry's call for a $2,000 tax cut better than Gephardt's plan, which would mean cheaper health insurance and more secure coverage? And is it better than Dean's proposal, which would balance the budget, preserving Medicare and Social Security for your retirement?

Reasonable people can disagree, for sure. But it's worth remembering that the Dean and Gephardt plans would merely return the tax code to what it was under the Clinton administration. And I don't recall Kerry complaining about crushing tax burdens back then.'

[Mass_Liberal]

105. that is stupid

"their health care costs are rising" Dean wanted to roll back the tax cut in favor of universal health care. Thus, while Kerry is generally a good guy, that was just plain stupid.

[Fabio]

111. Kerry is saying...

you can do both...institute his healthcare plan (which is widely regarded a similar in structure to Dean's) and maintain the middle cut tax relief. That is why the comparison is valid. If JK were not saying so, then I would agree.