Still support your candidate keeping "some" of Bush*s tax cuts?

[dajabr]

Yeah, The Middle Class sure is getting a "break..." :eyes:

Study Shows College Costs Up Over 40 Pct.

October 21, 2003 02:06 PM EDT


Steady increases in the cost of going to college have worsened in recent years as cash-strapped states have cut back on education funding, according to a new report that says tuition and fees at the nation's four-year colleges are up more than 40 percent from a decade ago.

The College Board's annual Trends in College Pricing study, released Tuesday, revealed that public two- and four-year schools, which rely more on government money, have been particularly hard hit.

David Ward, the president of the American Council on Education - which represents the nation's leading higher education institutions - called the findings troublesome.

"We are in the middle of a very difficult period in financing higher education," Ward said in a statement. "I remain greatly concerned about the long-term viability of the social compact that has served students and families so well for more than 50 years."

More: http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D7UANBDG0_story

[MercutioATC]

1. Agreed. It's costs like these that aren't considered by many.

Most just see a "tax cut" of $500 or even $2000 and think they're better off. Factor in the service cuts, local and state income tax hikes, property tax increases, sales tax increases, etc. and see how well the middle class did.

Repeal the ENTIRE cut. Once things stabilize, decide how much, if any, can be reinstated.

[PeaceProgProsp]

4. see my post below.

[GainesT1958]

2. Not any of DUB'S tax breaks...

Just the ones Democratic senators put in--and that he was forced to accept as part of the overall package. Hope that clears things up.:eyes:

B-)

[PeaceProgProsp]

3. So, you don't want the middle class to have a credit to help defray this?

The decision not to give colleges money isn't because we don't have the money. We're borrowing money left and right. Not having the money isn't the issue. Priority is the issue. The Fed Gov't is trying to strangle public education. They're giving money to the rich (in tax cuts) and their giving tax dollars and borrowed money to Haliburton.

You've got the wrong cause and effect here.

If we had to borrow money to give the middle class a tax break so they can have some cushion to pay for education and other things they need so their kids have a bright future, we should do it. We should eliminate the tax breaks on the wealthy and spend that money on publlic education, rather than bombs and Iraqi infrastructure to make TexacoChevronExxonMobil richer.

We don't need to bleed the middle class dry at the church of the balanced budget.

[dajabr]

6. Start over...

Hit the "reset" button. Scrap the entire thing (even the cuts that the Dems shoe-horned in) and come up with a sensible plan that helps those who need it most while bringing the Country's finances into the realm of sanity.

[AP]

37. A sensible plan includes more progressivity.

The last thing the middle class needs right now is a greater tax burden, both in an absolute sense and in a relative sense.

[dajabr]

8. "You've got the wrong cause and effect here."

I see your point somewhat, but a change of Party in the WH should reverse the attack on the states & education, etc.

Campaigning on keeping "some" cuts, however, is just a way to keep from being called a tax raiser, and is dodging the issue.

[AP]

36. see my post below.

[MercutioATC]

9. Nobody said we should bleed them dry....

just return to something resembling a Clinton-era tax structure.

Granted, everybody will feel a small pinch while the local and state tax systems adjust to the influx of new money, but it WILL equalize.

I happen to live in one of the most financially stable communities in northeast Ohio. We have one of the lowest tax rates in our county, the best rated schools on the west side of Cleveland (and 6th in the entire Cleveland area), and incredible city services. We do it by making sure our financial house is in order FIRST and THEN spending money. I really don't feel that the midle clas will be overly burdened by repealing every dime of the Bush cuts, especially considering the gains they'll see from universal healthcare, better schools and more funding for infrastructure.

[AP]

35. Clinton compromised with Rep Congress to get those rates.

They were less progressive than he wanted. Why is our target something Clinton didn't like?

Furthermore, the riche are getting richer (400 richest are 10% richer each of last three years, I read in Forbes), while poor and middle class are worse off or treading water. Therefore, paying at those rates is a bigger boon to rich, burden on poor and middle class now than they were just 3 years ago.

Having more progressive rates IS GETTING YOUR ECONOMIC HOUSE IN ORDER.

It's the middle class that is the engine of economic growth in the US. They will not be able to pull us out of this malaise if we don't take the burden off them.

Look, the history of the last 30 years of America is the history of shifting the tax burden increasingly onto the middle class and off rich individuals and super large corporations. We can't go on like this. If you want to untap the economic potential of the US, you need to get that burden off the middle class. If you're going to make them pay more, you're going to have to make the rich pay much much more.

Dean is so wrong about this that it's stunning.

[AP]

52. I was really hoping someone would try to address this.

Oh well.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

57. Why is our target something Clinton didn't like?

Because each journey begins with a first step. The same for health care. There is no way a Dem President can de facto install his/her tax package or health care plan, considering a Pug Congress. Step number one is start moving leftwards, have success and then move leftward again. Repeat.

[AP]

60. You have to write and pass a bill to repeal the tax cuts. Why not just

write and pass a progressive tax bill.

I totally understand that the result of an attempt to legislate will be compromise. However, Dean's starting point is compromise.

Psst. It's because he's not really interested in the plight of the middle class. He really thinks that the people he grew up with who run Wall St have the right idea about how to run America. He's a fiscal conservative who's trying to sneak in his extremely conservative ideas about economics in under the cover of social liberalism and vague anti-war sentiments.

I can't believe people are defending this. This sort of issue is what it's all about. This is the definining aspect of American political culture today, and Dean's on the wrong side of it. He doesn't care about the shifting of the burden of running society on to the backs of the working class. He's about two baby steps to the left of any Reagan-era trickle-down economist, which isn't good enough for a Democrat.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

99. If you need it explained to you....

Deficits require interest payments. Our current deficit requires tens of billions of dollars a year to service. That is effectively a tax increase. Whether it's a tax increase for you, or your children, is besides the point. Budget deficits= Money in the shitter. Check your next credit card statement for further illucidation.

Psst. I understand that you think Dean doesn't give a shit about the plight of the middle class. That's your prerogative. Even if that's the case, which I humbly believe it isn't, reducing and/or removing budget deficits results in a tax cut for the middle class. I have a $100,000 dollar mortgage. My actual cost, including interest, is actually closer to $300,000 dollars. With no interest payments, I'd save $200,000. Understand? So even if Dean doesn't give a shit, he's still doing the right thing for the middle class.

Furthermore, maintaining a zero deficit has no effect on the size of the budget or the programs that can be implemented. Income into the treasury dictates what we can "afford." Just because Dean is for getting rid of the deficit doesn't mean that he's against providing services. They're not mutually exclusive.

I agree that Dean isn't advocating a progressive enough tax system. The upper bracket should be in the 60/70th percentile, not the 30's. However, no one, outside of perhaps Kucinich, is advocating tax brackets higher than what Dean is. If you'd get off your high, partisan horse long enough to contemplate the economic realities of the situation, you'd realize that running deficits is generally bad for the middle class. After all, they'll pay the lion's share of taxes whether we're in deficit spending or not; and it's demonstrably preferable that they pay taxes without the additional burden of interest payments.

To paraphrase AP: "I can't believe you're against balancing the budget."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

101. If you need to ignore AP's point

and preach a sermon about budget-balancing. OK. But please skip the ridiculous less is more, tax hike is a tax cut argument. Let's leave the Orwellian phrases to Bush and his 'Clear Skies' and 'Healthy Forests' initiatives.

[Pez]

103. this is what "fiscal conservatism" gets the lower/middle class:

not really great news huh...

[burr]

105. Is that meant as a compliment??

:o But freemarket liberalism has nobody's interest in mind. Liberity is the word...

[Pez]

106. so we should follow a plan where the poor get poorer, the rich get richer?

at least someone will benefit! :-D

[burr]

107. sure...

if you side with the Reagan-Shrub Democrats. I take a different approach.

[Pez]

108. did you even read the linked post?

link? read? you?

[burr]

109. yep...

how is ole nick anyway?

[Pez]

110. so...

...dean's record in vermont is something to look forward to?

[burr]

111. I will let you judge this for yourself...

Dean's record in Vermont makes me wish he had been the Governor in the states that I have lived in.

[Fabio]

119. Excellent Post

All the time on this board I see people making the connection between the tax cuts and reduced serves/higher cost of living in their home states.

As you point out, however, the tax cut has nothing to do with this. It's a question of priority. If George Bush had fully funded education, delivered state aid packages, etc, then these costs would not have risen.

[revcarol]

5. There's only one part that should stay in force:

reduction of the 15% bracket to be the 10% bracket. Helps the working poor.

Sure don't agree with Krugman on his thoughts.

[Loyal]

7. Ah, I get it Carol.

Only help the working poor. WHAT about the middle class?! Oh, let's just repeal their tax cuts. That'll help them a lot Carol. Kucinich will not win the primaries, or the GE, with only the support of the lower class.

[revcarol]

10. Sorry, that is my personal view

and not that of Kucinich that I am quoting.Should not have replied to this thread since they are talking about the candidates' views. My bad.

[MercutioATC]

11. Actually, I'm for exempting the first $10k earned from FICA withholding

and eliminating the FICA cap. I'm a Dean supporter, but I believe this idea was Kerry's and I like it.

[LuminousX]

12. That is a good idea

Fairly sound and would go a long ways in helping those who need it.

[stickdog]

50. And returning to Clinton era taxes otherwise.

That would make me happy for now.

[Fabio]

120. Yes.

JK did propose this as part of his economic package announced in Cleveland last year. However, the pasage of the most recent tax cuts (and their middle class relief) makes it too costly to continue to press for it.

snip..

First, we should give every working American some tax relief now. I propose a payroll tax holiday on the first $10,000 of income. Every worker in America would immediately receive a $765 tax cut and every two-income family would get a cut of $1,530. Money to help families pay for new school clothes, put a down payment on a new car, or save for the future.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1203.html

i think it is/was good progressive policy.

[jafap]

13. I am completely with Krugman on this

and I have been telling the same thing to my man Dean for a few months.

Complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts would mean a loss of $250 for me, and a loss of over $1,000 each to each of my four siblings. Trying to explain some complicated cause and effect to show that somehow, someway, we will gain more than we lose if our tax cut is taken away - that is no easy task. Hammering home the simple point that a vote for the Democrat means "your taxes will go up by $1,000s" is an easily understandable sound bite.

Maybe you didn't notice how Alabama's tax hike was defeated by the voters.

Also, for the record, I never opposed the parts of the Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets.

[LuminousX]

15. It is a difficult move to make

I know it is the right thing to do, but how can it be explained in a one sentence soundbite that can be blasted over the 'A vote for Dean is a vote for higher taxes' and the re-issuance of 'Tax and Spend Liberal'

[papau]

16. My position also - but Dean is tone deaf - needs to say restructure

that he also offers with total repeal will mean 10% bracket and child care credit will stay.

But he is not responding to my email.

He needs to make this clear before the next Debate - get any bad PR behind him.

[AP]

61. It's generous of you to call him tone deaf. He knows what he's doing.

He's trying to mislead his supporters into thinking this is good policy. He's not going to change it. He might SAY something that sounds like he's going to change his position a little. But, really, this is part of who he is. He's a variation of a trickle-downer. He thinks that if the middle class bears the burden of closing down the budget defecit through taxes, the benefits will trickle down to them.

The real democrats say that if you take the tax burden off the middle class, put it back on the people who are really benefitting, everybody can pull harder to grow the economy together, which will reduce the defecit. The people benefit first, and then the budget gap closes, rather than the other way around.

[SahaleArm]

68. What is Dean?

Somehow people have confused balanced budgets with fiscal conservatism. Any budget can be balanced by either cutting funding or raising taxes. Dean is proposing the latter which certainly fits the 'tax' model of balanced budgets. I support a plan that leaves the middle class tax breaks untouched while rolling back the estate tax, the dividend tax, and the capitol gains tax. This will pay for the necessary programs and give the middle class more money to spend, thereby stimulating demand.

[MercutioATC]

19. Would you or your siblings benefit from the healthcare plan that is funded

by repealing the cuts? In a less direct way, would you benefit from better-funded schools?

Dean has always presented the situation as a trade-off. Lose the $200 or $500 or $1000 you got and gain these things...not only for YOU; gain them for EVERYBODY.

That is the real issue...bringing everybody up. Who loses when somebody without health insurance goes to an ER where they can't be turned away and healthcare is the most expensive) and runs up $30 in bills that they can't pay? YOU do. Maybe it's in the form of higher healthcare costs. Maybe it's you or a relative who loses their job because the hospital has to downsize due to the rising cost of unreimbursed treatment. You still lose. The same holds true for underfunded schools and higher unemployment. Directly or not, you lose just like everybody else does.

[Fabio]

121. This argument presupposes

that we cant provide healthcare + other domestic initiatices and leave the tax cuts in place. This is not true

[punpirate]

14. To my mind, trying to modify the last couple of tax cuts...

... as a means of fixing the problem is probably not going to do it. As a temporary stimulus, sure, leave the tax cuts in place for bottom 75% or so.

But, the system is far more screwed up than just these recent cuts. The big problem with the example cited, rising tuition costs, has a great deal to do not with personal cuts, but with an increasingly unfair tax treatment of corporations. From the mid-60s through today, the share of total taxes paid by corporations has steadily dropped, from about 34% to below 10% (all 2002 figures are not in yet, but the estimates for 2002 are 8% of the tax burden).

Corporations, increasingly, are using jobs to wangle unreasonable tax breaks, and to play one community against others in a bidding war to reduce local and state taxation. That hurts locally.

And, since most states use, for both corporate and personal purposes, federal returns, the federal breaks supplied to corporations over the years have hurt the states' revenues. Add in the outright corporate welfare paid to corporations and the end result is increasing costs.

Do I think the wealthy should be paying more than they are? Yes, indeed, because a properly progressive tax system adds a lot of societal stability through a redistribution of real wealth, not just income. But that won't make up the difference to correct the huge deficits now in place. A reasonable tax on corporate profits ought to be in place, as well.

Cheers.

[blm]

17. How did Vermont's colleges tuition rates fare during the booming 90s?

They must have gone down under Dean, eh?

[TheDonkey]

18. Try winning an election saying "I'd like to raise your taxes"

even if with that chunk of money going back into government usage people will not vote for it. It's vital we get the huge tax breaks of the rich repealed asap and that won't happen if someone runs on a pro-middle class tax policy. It will only give Bush another 4 years *shudders*.

[MercutioATC]

20. Dean doesn't say that. He asks whether you'd rather keep the pittance

that Bush gave you or have national healthcare, better schools and increased funding for infrastructure.

The idea is that most people saved so little that even just the healthcare would greatly outweigh the loss of the "tax cut".

[helleborient]

21. And that's what polls show...

Support for repealing the cuts in favor of health care.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. So he IS promising to raise taxes? Or not?

[MercutioATC]

55. Raise them from the current levels that can't support our country?

Yes.

We can always find more economical ways to spend federal dollars, but we simply don't have enough going in to maintain the programs we want. Raising taxes to Clinton-era levels is necessary, I believe.

Before you say that a candidate can't win by saying he'll raise taxes, I'd mention two things:

1) Dean sells it as a trade-off. Do you want what you got in tax cuts or healthcare, better schools and increased funding for infrastructure? Is it a tax increase? Sure. Can you explain to people that they can have services but they can't have tax cuts too? Absolutely. Don't sell it as a "tax increase", sell it as a "service increase".

2) It seems to be working. Dean hasn't been shy about telling people what they'll be giving up, and he still seems to be getting plenty of support. Bush sold his "service cuts" as "tax cuts"....why wouldn't Dean's "service increases" sell?

[AP]

48. It isn't a pittance. It's billions of dollars for the middle class. And

middle class wealth is power. And we should be giving them more wealth and power, because the last 30 years have been a steady erosion of wealth and power for the middle class and a shift of that wealth and power to the richest Americans.

[Thinman12]

84. Better schools

Yep

More Cash = Better Schools

Only thing holding us back. THe schools have many more issues than funding.

[Thinman12]

85. And just a pittance

Just a pittance to the middle class would fund universal health care, better schools, and infrastructure. Wow I thought that universal health care, better schools, and infrastructure would be kind of expensive...

[sandnsea]

22. You think tuition will go down?

Just because we repeal the Bush tax cuts? No. The damage is done and it will take years to get out of it. The best way to do that is to let working people keep their tax cuts and continue to spend it into the economy. They've already been hit by local service cuts, tax increases and other increases, like tuition. Why would we want to add to the burden by increasing their federal taxes too?

[dsc]

23. Then why did they go down under Clinton

I mean if these taxes can be cut under Clinton, as they were, and if tuition inceases could be kept under control under Clinton, as they were, then why not now? I am constantly amazed at our collective amnesia in regards to the Clinton era. It wasn't that long ago.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. Tuition went down in your state under Clinton? Really?

[dsc]

28. Yes under our pre pay tuition plan

which had you watched NBC News tonight you would see we ended. That program kept tuition at or below inflation which is, at least when you referred to Medicare, a cut.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. So people paid less money than before? That's what most people

mean by 'tuition going down'. LOL


PS, I don't have TV, so no I didn't watch 'NBC News' tonight.

[dsc]

30. Under the fixed tuition plan

tuition never rose from the year you started in on the program. Thus you paid the same tuition in 2000 that someone paid in 1994 if you went in to it in 1994. That is a cut by any reasonable definition. Unless you are now going to say that those 'cuts' in Medicare aren't really cuts. The only reason those cuts are considered cuts is due to inflation which also effects tuition. So which way do you wish to have it?

[sandnsea]

31. Will it go back down under Dean?

No. It might possibly be reinstated, but tuition isn't going to go back down just because we repeal the federal tax cuts. Especially since Dean is hell-bent on balancing the budget ahead of everything else. People need to keep their tax cuts to help pay for these state and local increases. It would just be cruel to have them try to pay all these increased costs with even less money.

[dsc]

32. Yes my 300

is going so far. I got 300 that is it. That might pay for one minute of tuition.

[MercutioATC]

56. Under Bush, the Ohio tuition plan suffered GREATLY.

...and they're not accepting new money...probably for the next 5 or 6 years. They'll continue to honor past committments.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. Is Dean promising to lower tuition in Ohio?

Or any other state? Is he promising that if he is elected, OTHER politicians will lower taxes and fees?

Isn't the only promise he is really making to raise taxes on the middle-class by $686 billion?

[sandnsea]

62. Kerry's ready to help

And let you keep your $300. And I know a little bit about schools and credits and not having courses available or crediting courses from one school to another. My daughter is faced with that right now when they added a course for her to qualify for nursing school, but didn't add the course in a way to make it available before she has to apply. So now she either has to try to get them to accept credit from another college and figure out how to transfer a portion of her student loan to that college; or wait a year to apply, meaning another year until she gets her degree which is a loss of $50,000, enough to pay off her loans.

Stop Rising Tuitions. Rising tuitions often mean that students have to drop out and others cannot afford to come. As part of his “State Tax Relief and Education Fund” Kerry will help states struggling to bridge deficits resulting from Bush’s economic policies with $50 billion to stop the education cuts and tuition increases across the country.

Make Sure Colleges Do Their Part to Keep Tuition Low. The additional resources Kerry is proposing will be conditioned on better and smarter use of the higher education money. Kerry believes that colleges and universities should work to make the higher education system more efficient, without sacrificing quality, by streamlining services and reducing duplication. For example, if state colleges and universities banded together to make bulk purchases of things such as health care for employees, energy, supplies, and other services saving millions of dollars annually.

Make Sure that Colleges are Making Every Effort to Keep Students in School. Evidence suggests that better counseling and support services will help keep students in college as will greater exchange programs among institutions – if a needed course is unavailable at one school. Also, students are often unable to transfer credits between community colleges and 4-year institutions, which forces students to sometimes needlessly repeat classes. Kerry will encourage colleges and universities to better target services to keep students from leaving school.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/pr_2003_1022b.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. In other words, No, tuition didn't go down under Clinton.

I didn't have to know anything about the college system in your state to know that, lol. It's just common sense. I'm sure average tuition in the US was more expensive in 2000 than in 1992. Any attempt to show otherwise will involve another explanation of why 'up' really means 'down'.

[dsc]

34. so there were no Medicare cuts

you can't have it both ways. Either inflation matters or it doesn't.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. Do you really need it explained to you? OK

Medicare, that wonderful program that we Democrats passed over the objection of the Republicans, was targeted by the Republicans in the mid 90's. The overall budget under the existing funding mechanism for Medicare was going up every year. The Republicans tried to restrict funding so that LESS MONEY WOULD GO TO MEDICARE than under the existing plan. That's why when Democrats called them on it, we won the day, and the Republican plan was defeated.

Similarly, if tuition went down, LESS MONEY WOULD GO TO THE COLLEGE. It the same amount went, or more, tuition didn't go down.


It's really pretty simple if you don't live in the world according to Orwell. If you pay more in tuition, tuition went up. If Congress puts less money into a program, it's cut that program. If you pay more in taxes, taxes went up.

[dsc]

39. Nice try

but colleges also assume more money from tuition. In Ohio it was assumed that they would get 5% per year. Thus that was every bit the cut as the cut in Medicare was.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Less is more, up is down.

:eyes:

[dsc]

43. they stayed level

which is the same. But under your definition of cuts they were cut.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. Staying level means going down, then?

Don't tell me what my definition of things is, I've already told you.

Less money would be a cut. Less tuition would be tuition going down.

Why don't you just 'fess up and admit that tuition didn't really go down under Clinton? It's ok to be wrong once in a while.

[dsc]

47. Let me get this straight

When Dean and Clinton advocated more money go to Medicare that was a cut but when tuition stays level that isn't. Ok I get it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. Here's some easy listening for ya:

[blm]

58. Then why did they go up in Vermont?

.

[dsc]

64. and your link for that is where?

I do know they went up but without seeing any link it is a little hard to answer that. Was it when he had a Republican House to deal with, for instance? Were Vermont colleges under taxed? Did he increase aid for the poor and middle class while increasing tuiton? I don't know. A link from you sure would help and since you asked the question I fail to see why it is my job to find it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Is Dean promising they will go down? No. What is he promising?

To raise taxes on the middle-class as well as the wealthy. I say we can do better.

[AP]

40. Exactly. The middle class needs more option and economic/political power

and not an increasing tax burden.

You can't continue to ask the middle and working class to pay higher and higer effective tax rates when they're getting less and less, and especially while there are some super rich individuals and huge corporations which are getting more and more while their effective tax rates drop through the floor.

Even from a poltiical/strategic perspective, THIS ISSUE CAPTURES EVERYTHING THAT IS A PROBLEM IN AMERICAN SOCIETY AND POLITICS TODAY.

I just scratch my head and wonder what the hell Dean is thinking when he repeatedly displays his lack of interest in middle class opportunity and the overwhelming shift in the tax burden in the last 30 years. Then I remember he's fiscally conservative and bent over forwards to let big business have its way in VT.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. Taxpayer pays higher taxes. Dean says it's not a 'raise in taxes'.

Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying wallet?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[diamondsoul]

41. No actually, I dont,

and haven't for several months. It's just not rational.

This is one of those cold hard doses of reality, and I wish to hell people would wake up to it. But they won't. They seem to like their illusions of benefits as opposed to having the real benefit. Gives them something to bitch about, I suppose.

Yeah, I'm cranky again.:shrug: :grr:

[bread_and_roses]

44. It is political suicide

to tell the middle class you are going to raise their taxes. Property owners are paying those higher state and local taxes NOW - school budgets were passed in the spring. So here's your middle/working class property owner, paying higher taxes, and you want to tell him/her that you are going to take away the tax cut that somewhat offset that? Why should s/he believe that Universal Health Care will make up for it? Or that his state is going to lower his liscence fee because the Federal Tax Cuts were repealed? Which of the major candidates is even proposing Universal Health Care?

Besides, treating everyone like the rich fosters the idea that there is some parity between "us" and "them"...and that is false, when about 5% of the people own about 50% of the wealth in this nation. The way to offset the mistrust of voters about taxes is to STAND UP FOR PROGRESSIVE TAXATION in such clear, strong language that voters begin to understand it again. The Democrats could get some real support if they proposed making the mimimum taxable income even higher...as it used to be, if calculated in real $.

[AP]

46. "treating everyone like the rich"

"fosters the idea that there is some parity between "us" and "them""

Brilliant. That is absolutely true. I have been trying to put my finger on this feeling.

Someone here posted a recap of a Dean fundraiser at a law firm in Philadelphia. Someone at the fundraiser asked Dean why he won't leave in place the middle class tax cuts. His response was that giving the "upper middle class" a tax break would make it look like he was helping people who didn't need help. He said that it's the poor who need help.

You explained one problem with this: it blurs the line between the middle class and the rich and confuses two-teacher families grossing 120K per year into thinking they're in the same boat as Dick Cheney and Bill Gates. In fact, the biggest disparity in income tax burden is between a family making about 300K in earned income and Richard Grasso making almost 200 million. It also confuses people who get 85% to 100% of their income as earned income into thinking they're in the same boat as anyone who gets most of their income in dividends and stock options which are taxed at much lower rates.

The other problem with this is, who the hell said "upper" middle class people. Dean was asked upon middle class tax breaks. I think he's up to something.

So, yeah. Why the hell is Dean trying to blur this line?

[DemDogs]

53. And how would it help colleges? Edwards College for Everyone would.

It is unclear how the plan of any candidate who supports getting rid of middle class tax cuts would help this problem.
What is clear is that one candidate has the start of an answer for families facing these costs: Edwards College for Everyone program.
<http://www.johnedwards2004.com/education.asp>

[burr]

54. Clark seems more like Edwards with every passing day...

maybe his plan should be named "a call for economic wuss..."
I will say that it is a plan that does no harm.

<snip>
Clark continues his call to reverse the failed Bush tax plan by rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, those who make more than $200,000 a year.

"I'm as optimistic as I've ever been about our ability," Clark says, "the ability of the hard-working men and women of this country, by the union members and entrepreneurs, by the farmers and the factory workers - to restore our nation's economy, to fire up its engines, and to create jobs and wealth and hope again."

His plan "Saving for America's future" closes tax loopholes for corporations that amount to corporate welfare. Clark also outlines proposals that will change the way business is done in Iraq, working to enlist international support and reinstate competitive bidding practices for contracts.
<snip>

no need ta explain wes, but please don't stop here...
<http://www.clark04.com/press/release/029/>

[democratreformed]

63. How about a link...

to the whole plan...

http://www.clark04.com/issues/economicplan/

[democratreformed]

65. In case you don't want to go to the site....

here's some more of the plan:

Details of Wes Clark's Plan to Save $2.35 Trillion Over 10 Years


Wes Clark's budget saves $2.35 trillion over ten years for deficit reduction and spending on priorities relative to a continuation of President Bush's current policies.



Note: All savings are relative to a baseline that assumes President Bush's policies are continued, including his proposal to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, and the likely consequence of his Iraq policy.



Streamlining Government and Improving Efficiency


As president, Wes Clark would save $225 billion by implementing a budget that streamlines government, ends redundant spending programs, and improves efficiency. Wes Clark's plan would make the following specific changes to streamline government. He'll also take a hard look at the rest of government to find additional savings toward his goal of saving $225 billion over ten years.

Eliminate the Commerce Department's NTIA. With the convergence of telecommunications and technology, there's no longer a need for both the Commerce Department's Technology Administration (TA) and its National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Therefore, Wes Clark would eliminate the NTIA. NTIA's core governmental functions-such as research and efforts to close the digital divide-would be shifted to other government agencies (such as TA).


Eliminate Office of Thrift Supervision. The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) was established in the late 1980s when there were roughly 3,000 Savings and Loan (S&L) institutions. Today, there are a less than 1,000. With four other federal regulators of banks, the time has come to eliminate OTS and shift the regulation of S&Ls to one of the other federal bank regulators (e.g., the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, etc.).


Consolidate trade promotion activities. According to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, ten federal agencies help U.S. firms export their products abroad. For example, one agency promotes international trade among American businesses (the Department of Commerce). For farmers, a different agency is responsible for promoting exports (the Department of Agriculture). Businesses seeking financing for exports can apply to the Export-Import Bank or the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. As President, Wes Clark would consolidate the trade promotion activities of the U.S. government into fewer agencies, which will save money and simplify government, helping citizens and businesses to get what they need from their government and enabling more effective promotion of U.S. exports.


Consolidate statistical agencies. Today, at least 70 different federal agencies engage in statistical activities. The division of labor between these statistical agencies often makes little sense. Experts have concluded that consolidation of the major economic statistical agencies would produce better data at a lower cost. Therefore, as President, Wes Clark would consolidate the principal statistical agencies into a single agency called Statistics USA, modeled after Statistics Canada.


Institute competitive bidding and payment constraints for medical equipment. Wes Clark believes we should end overpayments to medical equipment suppliers for the provision of medical equipment like wheel chairs, and canes. That's why he supports instituting a competitive bidding or payment constraints for Medicare contracts with these suppliers. The policy would provide for special exceptions for rural communities to ensure sufficient access to these supplies.


Save on drug payments by Medicare. According to the Department of Health and Human Services' Inspector General and the General Accounting Office, Medicare has been significantly overpaying for the few prescription drugs it actually pays for within the Medicare program. Wes Clark believes that Medicare should set payment rates closer to acquisition costs, while maintaining policies that provide doctors with the flexibility to prescribe these drugs when needed.


Better enforcement of the Medicare secondary payer provision. The law requires that Medicare be a secondary payer for elderly workers who have employer-provided health care. These seniors' private health care plans are supposed to be the primary payer, and Medicare is supposed to supplement coverage only where there are gaps in an employer's plan. Studies have shown, however, that many employers are illegally passing payments on to the government. A more aggressive auditing policy can achieve significant savings.


Reduce market entry barriers for generic drug competition. Wes Clark believes in reducing market entry barriers for generic drugs so consumers can benefit from lower drug prices. Today, brand-name companies systematically abuse a legal loophole that delays the availability of generic drugs into the health care system. As President, Wes Clark will ensure that drug companies have the incentive to invest in research and development while eliminating the 30-month stay that brand-name companies automatically receive (regardless of the merits of the case) when generic manufacturers attempt to enter the market.
End Corporate Welfare and Close Corporate Loopholes


Wes Clark would save $300 billion by ending wasteful corporate welfare and closing tax shelters.

End Corporate Welfare as we know it. Wes Clark won't tolerate corporate welfare or corporate loopholes in the tax code that waste resources while providing companies with the wrong incentives. That's why Wes Clark supports the Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission, which would put in place a base-closing style commission to identify corporate welfare and force Congress to vote up or down on an entire package of proposals.


Close tax shelters that benefit the few and harm the middle class. Sophisticated accountants and lawyers have created wasteful - and often illegal - tax shelters to reduce the taxes that corporations and rich Americans pay. As President, Wes Clark would aggressively prosecute illegal tax shelters and close down those that are legal but outrageous.

[DemDogs]

66. Does look like Clark read Edwards' Real Solutions plan

So many of the elements are exactly the same. (Sigh)

[SahaleArm]

67. Is that true?

From http://www.johnedwards2004.com/budget-and-taxes.asp:

"Edwards' proposals will save more than $2 trillion over the next 20 years."

And the Clark Article:

"Wes Clark's budget saves $2.35 trillion over 10 years for deficit reduction and spending on priorities relative to a continuation of President Bush's current policies."

I will say that I like Edwards plan of rolling back cap gains.

The following should be the package that the Democrats run on:

(1) Roll back either the 33%+ tax brackets or > $200,000 earners
(2) Repeal the estate tax break
(3) Repeal the dividend tax break
(4) Move long/short term cap gains to 25%/33%
(5) Remove Pentagon Pork Spending

Spend the money on healthcare, paying down the debt, and balancing the budget while promoting economic stimulus.

[burr]

69. yep...guess so

Christ these details trickle out so slowly, we should name it trickle out proposanomics....the decade will likely be over before all the details finally drip out. Besides, I thought Clark was suppose to be introducing his healthcare plan today. Talk about someone who doesn't stick to a game plan, if he wins...it will only be by confusing both the enemy and the voters!!!

I like his proposal for eliminating non-bid contracts. I think it would be great..if he could find $300 billion to cut in corporate welfare, $125 to cut from military spending, and could bring back the pay as you go approach to non-mandatory federal spending..whether for domestic or military programs.

But it would of been better if his proposal would repeal all the taxcuts signed during the shrub era. This would bring in over $2 trillian by itself. I have serious doubts that Clark will find $225 billion to cut out of Medicare just by reducing duplication and efficiency...my fear is that this may result in seniors getting hurt. If any money is saved by increasing Medicare inefficiency, it should all be used to increase benefits and funding for Medicare recipients...not for anything else!

It would be a terrible mistake to cut government civilian agencies which gather valuable statistical data for the public. Cutting or merging such programs would not only mean eliminating important federal jobs of people who provide this essential service, but it would probably lead to private contracting of information that may no longer be widely available to the public.

And on technology, either Clark has soldout to corporate America...or he is both insane and stupid. "Eliminate the Commerce Department's NTIA. With the convergence of telecommunications and technology, there's no longer a need for both the Commerce Department's Technology Administration (TA) and its National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Therefore, Wes Clark would eliminate the NTIA. NTIA's core governmental functions-such as research and efforts to close the digital divide-would be shifted to other government agencies (such as TA)."

Doing these things would be a disaster! Perhaps it is true that both of the government agencies are not needed, but would it not be better to eliminate the more CORRUPT of the two??? The tax funded National Telecommunications and Information Adminstration is seen as the friend of small technology companies with new ideas. The NTIA provides basic research and grants for cutting edge technology being developed by these smaller..struggling companies. On the other hand, the Department of Commerce Technology Adminstration is where protected companies must pay the big bucks to get a patent just to develope the new technology. If a patent is not paid for, some big company will eventially get it or by the small company out just to get the patents. Then..so-long hardwork and American ingenuity, you can start fliping whoppers for a living! What else does the TA do? They just make sure that we only trade with countries that are as cozy with our big businesses as the DOC is!

[SahaleArm]

70. You're kidding right?

NTIA is a small percentage of total tech funding. DARPA funding, NSF funding, private funding of university research, and venture capital drive the tech industry.

"NTIA's core governmental functions-such as research and efforts to close the digital divide-would be shifted to other government agencies (such as TA)."

NTIA is mainly a funding agency not a research agency; that another agency will dispense the funding will not end research. Do you work for the NTIA?

Where's major tech research being done? Try here:

http://www.mit.edu
http://www.stanford.edu
http://www.bell-labs.com

NTIA's $14 million: http://ntiaotiant2.ntia.doc.gov/top/awards/index.cfm

[burr]

71. I kid when in a good mood..but this really sucks!!!

Oh, I'm so happy bellabs is investing in all this new technology. If they get all the patents, maybe they can also corner the market.

If I had it my way I would abolish the entire commerce department, the patent office, and create a department of basic research. Any new technology discovered in this new department could be sold only by US companies which hire the majority of their workforce in America and from unions. It would be made available to any taxpaying citizen in America. kinda like linux!

I would see that patents are issued by courts, and that they will be based on the uniqueness and quality of a product not fees. Finally, I would see that patents end after 5 years...then anyone can sell this technology. If you want to stay in business, you better invent something better...not depend on the big sugerdaddy to protect your ass!

[SahaleArm]

72. Patent reform.

At least you have been forthwith with you're agenda. The purpose of patents is twofold: to encourage public disclosure to further R&D and allow the inventor a time period in which he/she can captalize on their invention. Somehow this has been distorted by both the tech industry and the USPTO. As someone who works in the tech industry I would like to see the elimination of business process patents as well as a tightening up of the USPTO. My take is that patents should be variable in length, anywhere from to 7-12 years. The real problem with the patent system is in the drug industry and in patent portfolio companies.

In addition the elimination of non-compete clauses in employee agreements would help foster competition. This should be federal law to force companies to compete in a what should be a free market (people not just capital).

[burr]

74. finally...something we agree on!

But the trick is finding a primary candidate who will support these reforms, ie is not another puppet of corporate animals like Radyne Comstream or Microsoft.

[SahaleArm]

75. It's not the Big-Techs of the world.

It's the portfolio companies that don't produce anything:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,400412,00.html

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/03/HNmicrosoftsloss_1.html?business

The problem is that larger companies will patent every last detail to avoid getting sued. That's the fault of the USPTO.

[burr]

78. so the high tech companies just get patents to avoid getting sued??

<snip>
Under patent law, Eolas and the University of California are free to go after technology companies as well as "end users" of that technology, according to attorney Jim Gatto, co-head of the intellectual property group at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo PC.

Typically, however, small companies will target one or two large companies, collecting significant damages and enforcing their patent rights, he said
<snip>

Sorry I'm not buying this! I know people in small tech firms who are becoming more worried about other lawsuits from the high-tech giants than the potential demand for their new products. The primary reason Microsoft lost the case above was because the University of California was involved. Usually a giant like Microsoft would just buy out the company to own the patents, and fire all the employees of this competitor. This isn't possible when the University of California has some ownership of the patents, can't buy out a state university...at least not yet!

When small companies do get sued, they usually don't have enough money to get the best verdict like Microsoft can. As a result, small companies usually wind up settling...and often lose money on technology they spent time and capital to develope! But small companies sueing just to collect damages?? Get real man!!

Finally, 12 years is an eternity in the rapidly changing high tech field. After 10 to 12 years a product or piece of software may already be obsolete. I think 5-7 years would be a more reasonable time limit for patents.

[SahaleArm]

87. One big circle.

In the end we'll need some sort of patent reform; the variable length was introduced based on time and money required for the invention, which raises the barrier of entry.

The effect goes as follows: portfolio company gathers a few broad patents and sues large company. Large company realizes liability and patents the world (Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco don't make money off patent suits). Small company feels baricaded by the large companies patent portfolio. All small tech companies hire or should hire an experienced IP attorney. This costs money which raises the required venture capital and raises the barrier of entry.

If a tech comapany hasn't researched the IP in it's field then it has already failed. If it doesn't have a patent path then it's failed. This is the world as it is today. This isn't just driven by big companies but small ones as well creating a feeding frenzy. So, no I don't accept the anti-corporate theory.

The safest thing is to license university patents and leverage it to create a product. I used the UC example to point out that a small patent company that didn't have a product sued to get a piece Microsoft.

[burr]

88. I don't accept an anti-corporate theory more than a pro-corporate one...

However, I strongly disagree with your suggestion that small companies have the resources or interest in driving such a feeding frenzy. My experience comes from working with those who have started their own technology companies, and they feel strongly that small firms are usually the victims of these lawsuits. The claim that small companies feel somehow protected by the large ones is quite insane...although I might make this argument if I worked for Microsoft!

At least we agree somewhat on patent reform..although I still think 12 years is far to long for a high-tech patent! What actions would you support to stop large technology firms from buying out small ones just to get the patents..and to put another competitor out of business?

[SahaleArm]

89. Not true.

> The claim that small companies feel somehow protected by the large
> ones is quite insane...

Where did I make this statement? I said that patent portfolio companies drive the problem until it becomes a vicious cycle. The fault lies solely in the USPTO and its processes.

Seven years is reasonable considering that it's 17 years today. 10 years would not be unreasonable for a company that spends tens of millions of dollars to develop it's patent.

As an aside can you name me a successful tech company that didn't either license university research patents or patent it's own original research?

[burr]

91. maybe I misunderstood your post...

"Large company realizes liability and patents the world (Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco don't make money off patent suits). Small company feels baricaded by the large companies patent portfolio."

barricade - to defend, fortify, or entrench a force around a strategic position in battle.

I can name many successful companies in Atlanta which failed to patent new technology, and after a few lawsuits began to patent every product they developed. This began after the patent office changed in the eighties. Patents were once only issued if the product was beneficial to the public and was in someway unique or original. Later the patent office became self-financed, the only way to bring in money for their office after Reagans funding cuts..was by charging fees for every patent. Most of my friends agree this was the beginning of a new dark age in technology.

Again I don't buy the argument that any company should have a monopoly on anything for over ten years. This reduces the incentive to develop new technology, and artifically inflates prices of old technology!

[SahaleArm]

92. Incentive.

Barricade was the wrong term, more like trapped by the patent wars. Profiting through lawsuits was the motto of the 90's tech boom.

> Again I don't buy the argument that any company should have a
> monopoly on anything for over ten years. This reduces the incentive
> to develop new technology, and artifically inflates prices of old
> technology!

Well 7/10/12, I'm not too caught up in the number as much as companies having a reasonable amount of time to capatalize on their investment. Artificial as it may be, without patents no one would disclose how they came about to their solution. Pragmatism says the 7-10 years would be an agreeable term given the current environment.

[burr]

95. not every new high tech development should have a patent...

no more than great lines like "I think therefore I am", should of been copyrighted. The patent office should not be able to collect fees for producing patents, this both devalues patents in general..and creates a disincentive for the Patent Office to maintain a high standard.

Again, technology is changing so rapidly that a 7-10 year patent would not run out until this technology had become obsolete. Again 5-7 years is more than is required to reap a return for one's investment! And another thing, you don't need to have a patent just to make a profit on new technology. Just produce a good product which there is demand for, and sell it at a reasonable price.

[SahaleArm]

97. Software vs. Hardware

Software and hardware both change at a rapid pace but you can't argue that they change at the same pace as each other much less at the rate of bio-pharmaceuticals. Bio-Tech and hardware have much higher costs and lead times; in such a case a 10 year patent would not be unreasonable. If you notice semiconductor technology does not evolve nearly as fast as software and has a higher barrier of entry. The problem with software is not the patent length but the criterion for patentability. Too many obvious, overlapping, and prior-art patents have been granted. This is the fault of the USPTO, and solving this requires going back and invalidating every patent that does not meet a minimum bar. A typical software patent costs ~$25k with 98% of the fees going to attorneys not the USPTO. This is a huge burden on smaller, non-venture companies. The toughest thing might be convincing the IP attorney lobby.

USPTO fees: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2003/week31/patfees.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. Dean's plan to help the middle-class with rising tuition?

Cut the child tax credit, the child care credit, rollback the 10% bracket, and reinstitute the marriage penalty.


Kerry's plan to help the middle-class with rising tuition?

A NEW TAX CREDIT TO MAKE FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE AFFORDABLE

Americans Must be Able to Afford Four Years of College. To be successful in the 21st Century economy, America’s workforce must be more innovative and productive than our competitors. More and more, four years of college is a necessity for Americans in order to meet the challenges of the global economy. John Kerry wants to make four years of college as universal as a high school education is today.

College is Becoming More Expensive. Because of George Bush’s mismanagement, states are raising taxes, cutting education, and raising college tuition as much as 40 percent – causing layoffs and undermining economic growth.

· South Carolina’s colleges and universities have raised tuition and fees between 15 and 22 percent due to budget cuts

· Almost 1,000 teaching positions have been slashed statewide. During the last three years, lawmakers have lopped $418 million from the Education Department’s budget.

· Students in South Carolina need help. In addition to increased investment in important programs that help people afford college, like Pell Grants and GEAR Up, John Kerry has proposed a bold new tax credit that will help students to afford college for four years.

College Opportunity Tax Credit: Kerry’s “College Opportunity Tax Credit” will make four years of college affordable for all Americans. He will provide a credit for each and every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition – the typical tuition and fees for public college tuition. The credit will provide 100% of the first $1000 and 50% on the rest. It will also make this credit refundable so that it helps the most vulnerable students.



PROTECTING MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUTS

Middle class families can’t catch a break. They’re getting battered by high taxes, high health care costs, high energy bills, high college tuitions, and a high cost of living that means they are working harder just to stay in place. But some Democrats want to eliminate all tax breaks – including those that go to provide relief to the middle-class. Repealing the tax cuts for the middle class would hurt those who have borne the brunt of the Bush bust, making it even harder for them make ends meet. John Kerry has pledged to repeal George W. Bush’s special tax breaks that go to the wealthiest Americans.

Keep the Full Child Tax Credit: Raising children costs is expensive and many working families are struggling to make ends meet. The child tax credit provides benefits to 431,000 South Carolina households and John Kerry believes we should keep it that way. He fought for this provision in the 2001 tax cut and worked to make the credit partially refundable. Kerry supported a further expansion of the child tax credit that could have provided benefits to an additional 172,000 children in South Carolina, but the proposal was eliminated by Bush and the House Republicans in a secret midnight deal.

Don’t Reinstate the Marriage Penalty: John Kerry will not repeal the reduction of the marriage penalty, which benefits 451,000 married couples in South Carolina.

Accelerate the 10-Percent Bracket Expansion: John Kerry will not repeal the expansion of the 10-percent bracket. This expansion benefits 870,000 married couples and single tax filers in South Carolina.
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/pr_2003_0912.html

[burr]

76. All these ideas sound great, but how will Kerry pay for them???

<snip>
· Students in South Carolina need help. In addition to increased investment in important programs that help people afford college, like Pell Grants and GEAR Up, John Kerry has proposed a bold new tax credit that will help students to afford college for four years.

College Opportunity Tax Credit: Kerry’s “College Opportunity Tax Credit” will make four years of college affordable for all Americans. He will provide a credit for each and every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition – the typical tuition and fees for public college tuition. The credit will provide 100% of the first $1000 and 50% on the rest. It will also make this credit refundable so that it helps the most vulnerable students.
<snip>

If we just repeal parts of the taxcuts that Kerry has suggested..this may result in slightly smaller, yearly deficits. But it will not produce the necessary revenue to pay for the his campaign proposals. Only a complete repeal of shrub's worthless taxcuts would bring in the additional money for these kind of investments.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. Actually, neither a partial nor a full repeal of the Bush tax cuts

will be enough to balance the budget. It's going to also take turning the economy around. A sensible, honest fiscal policy will be the first step in building confidence. But if the middle-class, the great drivers of our economy, have no money to spend, that confidence won't do any good. That's why it makes no sense to raise taxes on the middle-class. Lower taxes for the rich only results in higher levels of investment, and don't have nearly as much stimulatory effect but the relatively small amounts that middle-class received in the latest round of tax cuts goes straight back into the economy.

[burr]

79. I agree that low taxes for the future must be a long-term goal.

Do we want taxes to be lower for future generations? Should the middleclass in that era be worn down with a higher tax burden than what today's middleclass carries for past generations? If you agree with this..then you must realize after 12 years of Reaganomics and now with the Shrubust cycle, that you cannot lower taxes by cutting the taxrates. This would be like building a nice house without a blueprint, or to reap a different crop than what you sow. It would be like not paying the mortgage just because you felt that the fair value of the house had already been paid.

But unfortunately, we know our world doesn't really work this way. I am well aware that, even with a complete repeal of the three taxcuts passed under shrub, we may not get to a balanced budget. But at least we could still make some of the necessary investments Kerry and others are proposing, while not adding to the financial burdens which shall be carried by the future middleclass of America.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

80. We are talking about $686 Billion difference between the 2 plans.

No that isn't chump change. But if we can remember back to the Clinton years, with the right hand on the helm the ship can steer out of an enormous red sea. If I hadn't seen that, I wouldn't have as much faith now that we can do it.

And both Kerry and Dean, and probably any Democrat, considering who we are, propose some great ideas that, well, we just don't know exactly how we are gonna do it right now. But that has always been our strength. We are the dreamers who work to make our dreams real.

[burr]

81. Dreams are great, and they are even better if made into lasting reality.

You state that $686 billion is the difference between the two economic plans. In 1993, Clinton's $500 billion dollar reduction in deficit spending over five years brought us record surplusses by the end of the decade. This difference would be more than enough to make up for that $500 billion in deficit reduction, even if inflation is factored in!

Such a difference doesn't ensure we would then have record surplusses, but at least we would be closer to balanced budgets. Then we would no longer have a booming National Debt, but a booming economy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. We need to start with reality and make that the foundation for our dreams

And the reality is that the Democratic President who is inaugaurated in January 2005 is going to have a much more difficult task than Clinton did. Not only will he have the Iraq quagmire to deal with and the rest of Bush's foreign debacles and their associated financial costs, but a shambles of an economy. The last thing needed when trying to rebound the economy is a bunch of consumers with less money.

Oh btw, the $686 billion figure is over 7 years.

[burr]

83. I wouldn't dream of suggesting anything unrealistic...

seven years eh...such a balanced budget plan was embraced by Clinton and pushed by the so-called blue dogs which had more spending cuts, no taxcuts, and provided the model for Clinton's second-term budgets.

To put it simply, I do not want to see the American middleclass of the future paying the interest on even $686 billion in higher taxes!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

86. There's realism and there's pragmatism

and there's also such a thing as being overly pragmatic. But you are getting confused. You are arguing for higher taxes, I am arguing for lower taxes. We don't pay interest on taxes, we pay interest on debt. But just raising taxes isn't going to be enough unless the economy recovers. And that's not going to happen if the middle class is hit right away with these tax increases. We need to get people working, make America a leader in new renewable energy technologies, jumpstart our manufacturing sector -- and the way to start out is not to hit the middle-class with a tax increase while they're still hurting from the Bush recession.

[burr]

90. pragmatism is just another approach used by the realist.

One thing you don't have to be concerned about, and that is my mental health. I oppose giving future generations our taxes to pay in addition to their own. We pay interest on the debt...over $200 billion a year of our tax dollars. So the middleclass of the future will pay the interest on the taxes which we fail to pay. You are wrong...we do pay interest on the unpaid taxes left over from the eighties, but should our children be forced to do the same? And this shall mean higher taxes on everyone, including the middleclass.

In my opinion, it doesn't need to be this way. If we keep the budget balanced, future taxes will not go up..even when inflation is factored in. If we buildup surplusses and pay down a significant portion of the National Debt, the middleclass in the future will pay lower taxes than we will. But if we keep borrowing and do not repeal all of shrub's taxcuts, the future middleclass will be paying higher taxes thanks to our willingness to "compromise".

[Feanorcurufinwe]

93. A middle class tax hike in a recession isn't pragmatic, it's wrong.

Wrong on the economics, wrong on the politics, wrong in how would impact the families who are the real beneficiaries of the Child Tax Credit, the Dependent Care Credit and the Earned Income Credit. It's all very noble, I suppose, to say that for the good of the children, we must raise taxes on their parents. To reduce their tax burden in the future. What about their present? If we want to balance the budget, we need a robust economy first. We need to create jobs, get the economy moving, and a middle class tax hike will have the opposite effect.

[burr]

94. Glad you agree, and a taxhike during a depression would be a disaster..

we have to stop this tradition of passing our unpaid tax burdens onto America's future middleclass. We must stop the National Debt from booming, and then our economy will start booming. Then..perhaps the IRS will finally stop auditing every working person who is eligable for the Earned Income Tax Credit. We have given the IRS an impossible task, increase revenues while politicians slash the taxrates. The poor always suffer when this happens, because they don't have the best Attorneys or CPAs available to help out!

Maybe if we stop this flawed mentality of a taxcut here or a taxcut there, then we can truly pass on a lower tax burden for the next generation.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

96. Agree?you are arguing Dean's position that we need a middle-class tax hike

That position is wrong and saying I agree with it isn't going to make me agree.


You just aren't making sense, pretending that we agree on the basic thing we disagree on -- I don't know how to respond.

Raising taxes on the middle-class now won't lower our national debt. It will make our debt worse because it will kill any chance of economic recovery.

That's not something we agree on, it's something we disagree on. We can discuss who's right and who's wrong and why but not by trying to muddy the other person's position.

[burr]

98. We do agree on the ends...just not the means.

I agree with you that an increasing tax burden on the middleclass does not have a positive effect on the economy. We agree that the long-term objective must be to reduce this burden on the middleclass.

But I disagree that cutting tax rates will ultimately produce a lower tax burden. Not once did I seek to "muddy" your position. Nor did I "pretend" that we agree on something which we disagree.

It is you who backs shrub's revenue cuts, which will ultimately result in higher taxes for the middleclass. And it is you who has attempted to muddy my position, by claiming higher middleclass taxes is something I want! I can express my opinions without your assistance. If you do not like my postings, just don't read or respond to them.

But if you are willing to debate or discuss this issue, then you should respect my postings as I have respected and read all of your related postings.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

100. No, we don't agree.

I don't agree that we need to have a long-term objective with regard to tax policy. I believe tax policy should be based on both it's effect on the economy, stimulative or otherwise, as well as the realities of the budget, and that overall tax policy should be progressive. I don't believe tax policy should be based on a philosophical or idealogical position that we should have low taxes. I'm familar with that position but it's not one I'm used to hearing from the left side of the aisle.

Your claims aside, what I back is repealing Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy. What I don't back is to cut the child tax credit, the child care credit, rollback the 10% bracket, and reinstitute the marriage penalty. Those things would hurt the middle class, hurt the economy, and only make budget balancing harder because with no recovery, there'll be no balanced budget.

[burr]

104. well, never mind...

although if you don't agree with the long-term objective of having a lower tax burden on the middleclass...why oppose a rollback of all three of shrub's taxcuts in their entirety? Are you suggesting that the future generation SHOULD be paying more in taxes for our sake? :shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

112. I'm suggesting we should have a tax policy that makes economic sense.

And raising taxes on the middle class right now doesn't make economic sense.

No matter how many times you repeat your premises, that we need to cut the child tax credit, that we need to cut the child care credit, that we need to roll back the 10% bracket, that we need to reinstitute the marraige penalty -- all in order to balance the budget -- I'm not accepting those premises. Neither a partial nor a full repeal of the Bush tax cuts will balance the budget, and the cost of this tax hike to the middle class would be so high it would destroy any chance of economic recovery. And without an economic recovery, no matter how much you squeeze out of the middle class, it won't be enough.

You are presenting a false choice. We don't have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to balance the budget.

[burr]

113. I never present false choices...

Raising taxes on a future middleclass to provide relief for today's middleclass is a false choice. Claiming that we must pick some or all of shrub's taxcuts to recover is a false choice. Claiming that we must pick between economic greed or economic doom is a false choice. Claiming that we must decide between us or them is another false choice.

I have heard it all before...when the GOP made their failed attempts to destroy Bill Clinton. I rejected those claims then, and I reject them today! :thumbsdown:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

114. You are in favor of raising taxes on the middle class

and you are trying to turn this into some other issue.

But that's what it is about. Whether to raise taxes on the middle class -- now. Whether the goal of balancing the budget -- which this tax hike won't achieve anyway -- is all-important. Whether the best thing we can do to help the middle class and their children, is to raise taxes on them.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

116. Budget cutting zeal or helping middle class families.

That's been a schism between the Republicans and Democrats for a long time.
It's all a matter of priorities.

Dean has made no secret of where his priorities lie.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[Fabio]

122. Question

I'd like to see you support your last sentence with some fact.

[burr]

123. Answer

How is this for some fact???

[Pez]

102. dean's legacy: not really inspiring.

(credit to Nick)

from the Economic Policy Institute:

Vermont at a Glance

Many families in Vermont saw moderate improvements in their standard of living over the 1990s as the wages of median-wage workers grew. However, low-wage workers saw their wages decline over the 1990s, and median income stagnated. The poverty rate and income inequality in Vermont grew over the 1990s (see link below for table).

Median family income for four-person families
Middle-income families in Vermont have not fared particularly well during the current economic expansion. The incomes of families in the middle of the income distribution stagnated over the 1990s. Median family income for four-person families was $53,691 in 1998, compared to its 1989 level of $53,103 (in 1998 dollars).

Income inequality
Income inequality in Vermont grew over the 1990s. In the late 1990s, the income of the wealthiest 20% of families was 8.4 times that of the poorest 20% of families. By comparison, in the late 1980s, the wealthiest 20% of families had 7.4 times the income of the poorest 20%.

Poverty rate
The poverty rate in Vermont grew during the 1990s, from 8.1% in 1987-88 to 9.6% in 1997-98. However, the poverty rate in Vermont in the late 1990s remained below the national rate (13.0% in 1997-98).

Wages
In Vermont in the 1990s, the wages of low-wage workers declined, while the wages of similar workers grew at the national level. In 1999, the inflation-adjusted hourly wages of low-wage workers (workers at the 20th percentile) were 0.4% lower than they were in 1989, but due to wage gains in the 1980s they remained 10.5% higher than they were in 1979. The wages of workers in the middle of the wage distribution grew over both the 1980s and 1990s. The inflation-adjusted median wage (the wage of workers in the middle) in 1999 was 12.2% higher than it was in 1979.

more

While this article does not discuss Dean directly, it discusses the changes that occurred in Vermont between 1990 and 2001, most of which were Deans tenure.

The poor got poorer, the number of people who fell from middle class into poverty grew, the differential between the highest and lowest incomes grew, the wages of low wage workers decreased, the middle class fared poorly, and the RICH GOT RICHER.


The EPI article indicates that the only thing that prevented the situation from being worse than it was was the fact that the economic gains during the years prior to Dean were so much better than the rest of the nation, that it offered a buffer to lessen the effects of the Vermont Governemt in the 1990's.

Remember while this was happening in Vermont during Deans tenure, the Clinton administration was producing the opposite effects. More of the poor moved into the middle class, trhe middle class did better.

Now lets look at what the Institute for Tax and Economic Policy says about the years from 1989 to 2001 regarding the tax situation in Vermont:


Vermont’s Tax Code: No Breaks for the Poor and Middle Class
When all Vermont taxes are totaled up, the study found that:

The richest Vermont taxpayers—with average incomes of $686,000—pay 9.7% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions. After the federal offset, they pay only 7.1%.

Middle-income taxpayers in Vermont—those earning between $27,000 and $44,000—pay 9.8% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes before the federal deduction offset and 9.5% after the offset—much more than what the rich pay.


# Vermont families earning less than $16,000—the poorest fifth of Vermont non-elderly taxpayers—pay 10% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes, one and half times the share the wealthiest Vermonters pay.

“Vermont’s income tax is not progressive enough to offset the regressivity of its sales and excise taxes,” McIntyre said. “Taxes ought to be based on people’s ability to pay them, which means that the share of income paid in taxes should rise as income grows, not fall as is the case in Vermont.”

more

[Duder]

118. kerry's legacy: not really inspiring.

from the Economic Policy Institute:

Massachusetts at a Glance

Many Massachusetts residents saw their standard of living decline in the 1990s. In contrast to most of the nation, the wages of low- and median-wage workers declined and median family income stagnated. At the same time, the poverty rate grew at a faster rate than in the nation as a whole (see link to table below).

Median family income for four-person families
Middle-income families in Massachusetts have not made much progress during the current economic expansion. In the 1980s, the incomes of families in the middle of the income distribution grew rapidly, but their incomes grew only slightly in the 1990s. Median family income for four-person families was $68,958 in 1998, slightly higher than the 1989 level of $68,091, but much higher than the 1979 level of $52,393 (in 1998 dollars). Although median income stagnated in Massachusetts in the 1990s, the state's median income is still higher than the national median.

Income inequality
Income inequality in Massachusetts grew over the 1990s. In the late 1990s, the income of the wealthiest 20% of families was 10.2 times that of the poorest 20% of families. By comparison, in the late 1980s, the wealthiest 20% of families had 8.6 times the income of the poorest 20% of families.

Poverty rate
The poverty rate in Massachusetts grew more over the 1990s than in the nation as a whole. Massachusetts' poverty rate, which grew from 8.7% in 1988-89 to 10.5% in 1997-98, continued to be lower than the national rate (13.0% in 1997-98).

Wages
In Massachusetts in the 1990s, the wages of both low-wage workers and workers in the middle of the wage distribution declined, while the wages of similar workers at the national level grew. In 1999, the inflation-adjusted hourly wages of low-wage workers (workers at the 20th percentile) were 7.9% lower than they were in 1989; however, due to wage gains in the 1980s, the wages of low-wage workers were still 6.9% higher than they were in 1979. The inflation-adjusted median wage (the wage of workers in the middle) in 1999 was 1.2% lower than it was in 1989; but again, due to wage gains in the 1980s, the median wage was still 15.7% higher than it was in 1979.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/datazone_states_usmap_ma

While I don't hold Kerry responsible for his state's condition, such as a poverty rate that grew more in the 90's than the rest of the nation, I used his state for comparison from the same sources used here for Vermont. When referring to someone's legacy it's a good idea to make comparisons to other states with the same data in order to not distort the findings. Of course this still excludes several varibles from the individual states that could influence the data.

Massachusetts Taxes Hit Poor & Middle Class Harder than Wealthy

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/ma%20pr.pdf

[Feanorcurufinwe]

124. That's Mitt Romney's legacy. The Republican governor of Massachusetts.

If he were running against Dean I'd vote for Dean.