So, how long before Dean announces his "tax fairness" plan?

[dolstein]

I'm no fan of Dean, but even I'm amazed at how tone deaf he is on the tax issue. He's really left himself defenseless against charges that he's going to raise taxes on the middle class. Dean's only response -- "but wait -- I'm going to raise taxes on the wealthy EVEN MORE" -- just doesn't cut it.

[BobbyJay]

1. Dean is stubborn. He is obsessed with losing.

My only explanation is that he has literally NEVER been in contact with middle class people and working families. He actually advocates RAISING taxes on them. Tax cuts that GORE and others championed for. I question Dean's sanity.

Dean lives in an alternate universe if he thinks his horrendous tax plan will fly in a general election. Hello Walter Mondale.

[dsc]

2. Yeah that is his only response

He has repeatedly pointed out that closing the defict is necessary to economic growth (proven in the 1990's). He had repeatedly pointed out that states have raised taxes and fees since the feds won't pay their own way on education and homeland security. My state has increased the sales tax, auto registration fees, college tuition, and several other things. But yeah his only response is what you said. Sure it is.

[BobbyJay]

3. My state taxes went up under Clinton, though.

Dean will win in a landslide though. More taxes for all!

[dolstein]

4. Ok, let's look at that

How does pointing out that states have raised taxes and fees lessen the impact of a federal tax increase? As Kerry pointed out, there's no guarantee that the state taxes and fees will go back down as a result, and certainly not immediately.

[BeyondGeography]

5. May he stick to his guns

this is hastening his demise, which is great for our chances in November.

[w4rma]

6. What do you have against President Clinton's tax plan?

That's where Dean wants to take us: Back to Clintons plan.

Do you support increasing future taxes on Americans via deficit spending?

Or do you support cutting military, social security and/or medicare spending?

Or do you support bringing the tax levels back to the Clinton era?

Would you support a payroll tax cut if the cap on the payroll tax were lifted?

[BobbyJay]

8. Clinton ran on raising everyone's taxes?

NOPE--he knew it was a political loser.

[adamrsilva]

7. Dean and Gephardt just give cold, hard truth. Others offer pie-in-the-sky

tax plans where can we have everything and low taxes!

[BobbyJay]

9. What do Gephardt and Dean both have in common?

You guessed it, Frank Stallone.

[Dookus]

10. He'll do it in the 6th or 7th year

of his presidency.

[DancingBear]

11. As soon as he finishes mixing the ingredients

Let's see - a dash of Gephardt's, a tablespoon of Clinton's, three cups of Clark's, and just a pinch of Kucinich's.

Stir well, and VOILA!!

And I thought it up all by myself! Honest! No foolin'.

[flaminbats]

12. When politicians only state the truth?

When hell freezes over? When Casper the magic ghost comes riding into town with 6 billion of hell's angles, and they torch every school and hospital in sight? When something really is nothing? When Lucifer walks on water? When Christ comes down from heaven, and has a few drinks with Bin Laden? When Shrub finally decides it's time to switch parties? Or when Lieberman stops and wonders...what the hell am I doin this for anyway? :wtf:

[bread_and_roses]

13. Dean's plan is anti-progressive

and among the major reasons I oppose his candidacy. Look at the Banana-Republicanication of the US:

from The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040105&s=krugman

According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez--confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office--between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they're not an artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age levels of inequality.

Look at wealth concentration and stock ownership:
http://www.inequality.org/factsfr.html

Since the mid-1970s, the most fortunate one percent of households have doubled their share of the national wealth. They now hold more wealth than the bottom 90 percent of the population. (NYU Economist Edward N. Wolf, Top Heavy)

In 1998, the top 1 percent of Americans owned 47.7 percent of all stock, while the bottom 80 percent owned 4.1 percent. Between 1989 and 1998, nearly 35 percent of all stock market gains went to the top 1 percent of shareholders. 64 percent of American households have stock holdings worth $5,000 or less, or own no stock at all. (NYU Economist Edward N. Wolff, cited by Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America 2002-03, pp. 286-289)

To posit, as Dean's plan does, that there is any parity of benefit/burden in tax policy is simply unethical. It is unconscionable to talk of rescinding the paltry benefits low and average income workers recieved under the last cuts - especially for hypothetical benefits.

Economic ineqality is being discussed in a thread in GD:
"The death of the American Dream and the re-emergence of the caste system"

edit for spelling

[flaminbats]

14. Really??? Try showing me any proposed tax plan that isn't regressive..

:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: wowsers!!!!!!!! :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: