Dean: RePukes offer Deficits and Deceit

[LoungeMachine]

Dean Says Republicans Offer `Deficits' and `Deceit' (Update2)

April 22 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean said Saturday that George Bush, his chief adviser, Karl Rove, and Republicans in Congress offer Americans ``deficits, divisiveness and deceit,'' and predicted Democrats will retake the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in November.

``Six months from today, Americans will be asked one simple question: Do you want more of the same Bush and Republican policies or do you want change?'' Dean said at the spring meeting of the Democratic National Committee in New Orleans. ``The Democratic Party offers the American people the change they are looking for.''

The Democrats chose New Orleans for their three-day meeting to emphasize, according to Dean, that ``Republicans have cut and run when it comes to rebuilding the Gulf Coast. We won't.''

Dean yesterday donned a white Hazmat suit and brown and yellow work gloves to help gut a storm-ravaged home in New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward so that it can eventually be restored.

The ward is still largely without power eight months after Hurricane Katrina hit and Vincent Copper, 68, the owner of the home, stood by Dean and said help had ``been slow'' in coming. ``Rome wasn't built in a day,'' Copper said.

`Burning Issue'

``This is a searing, burning issue and it's going to cost George Bush his legacy and it's going to cost the Republicans the House and the Senate and maybe very well the presidency in the next election,'' Dean said.

Democrats, buoyed by the unpopularity of Bush's policies on the Iraq war and other issues including government response to Katrina, have taken commanding leads over Republicans on most issues and in voter preferences for the November elections, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll conducted April 8-11 shows.

The poll found that registered voters favor Democrats by 49 percent to 35 percent as the party they would like to see win their congressional district this year. Democrats are preferred even on issues that often favor Republicans, such as taxes and the budget deficit, and lead by wide margins on traditional Democratic strengths like Social Security. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Democrats' Plan

Dean said that Democrats will fight for a six-point plan that includes raising the minimum wage, tax ``fairness'' for the middle class, ``a complete ban on gifts and travel from lobbyists,'' the inspection of all cargo coming into U.S. ports, fixing the Medicare drug plan and ``transition'' in Iraq.

``Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own future,'' Dean said.

He also said that Democrats seek immigration legislation that ``secures our borders, protects American workers and enables immigrants who work hard, obey our laws and pay taxes a path to earn the rights and privileges of citizenship.''

Dean said that Democrats have a ``bold vision for a secure America'' and added: ``I'm tired of being lectured to by Republicans who have brought a culture of corruption, cronyism and incompetence to Washington that has put party ahead of country and undermines our values.''

``If Howard Dean's party wants to wage their campaign on angry attacks, that's their prerogative,'' Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said in response. ``President Bush and Republicans are going to instead act, and offer the American people solutions that will strengthen our economy and keep us safe.''

[diamondD]

Funny how when Howard starts explaining how he's gonna pay for all of his visions, everyone runs away.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by diamondD
Funny how when Howard starts explaining how he's gonna pay for all of his visions, everyone runs away.

dd brings up a good point.

Another one would be how can we make BushCO's tax cuts permanant, while paying for 2-3 long term military occupations, as well as recover from this administrations rampant spending?

All the while taking care of all of the vets coming back limbless, or shell shocked beyond hope.

Oh, and then there's N.O.


Crunch those numbers, d2

[FORD]

`President Bush and Republicans are going to instead act, and offer the American people solutions that will strengthen our economy and keep us safe.''

Chimpy and the republicans "acts" are how we got in this fucking mess.



Once again, Dr. Dean calls it like it is.

[Warham]

Yeeeeaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhh!

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
dd brings up a good point.

Another one would be how can we make BushCO's tax cuts permanant, while paying for 2-3 long term military occupations, as well as recover from this administrations rampant spending?

All the while taking care of all of the vets coming back limbless, or shell shocked beyond hope.

Oh, and then there's N.O.


Crunch those numbers, d2

I think you should look to past history and see what effect tax cuts have had on overall government income taxes. They INCREASE.
Figure it out.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
dd brings up a good point.

Another one would be how can we make BushCO's tax cuts permanant, while paying for 2-3 long term military occupations, as well as recover from this administrations rampant spending?

All the while taking care of all of the vets coming back limbless, or shell shocked beyond hope.

Oh, and then there's N.O.


Crunch those numbers, d2

Crunch these:

Take a Hike
Howard Dean wants to raise your taxes, whether you're dead or alive.

BY STEPHEN MOORE
Friday, January 2, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

The Democratic Party appears to be on an irreversible course to nominate Howard Dean as its candidate for the presidency. Yet while voters in Iowa and New Hampshire may have heard a thing or two about Mr. Dean's economic policies, most Americans have not. Indeed, most voters are unaware that the former governor of Vermont has a plan to raise income taxes on every single American who pays them.

Recently, an organization I run, the Club for Growth, began airing TV ads in Iowa and New Hampshire telling voters about the specifics of Mr. Dean's tax proposals. The Dean plan, our ad notes, would raise taxes by $2,472 a year on a typical middle-income family of four. Mr. Dean would also raise the death tax rate, the capital gains tax rate, the dividend tax rate and the payroll tax, and he would bring back the hated marriage tax penalty that President Bush abolished this year. There is hardly a tax levied at the federal level that Howard Dean would not raise.

And although the Dean campaign has howled in protest over this ad--and has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to rebut it with TV ads of its own (which mostly change the subject)--what it cannot deny is that these are precisely the economically destructive changes to the tax code we would see under a Howard Dean presidency. In fact, unlike some recent presidential candidates, Mr. Dean doesn't bother to conceal his plans to raise taxes, he revels in telling America about it.

In the ad, we maintain that Mr. Dean's economic agenda is reminiscent of such unforgettable recent Democratic presidential failures as George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. We're willing to admit that this may be a bit unfair. In fact, Messrs. McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis might have reason to complain, because none of them proposed economic policies that would tilt the Democratic Party as far to the left as Mr. Dean has.

Mr. Dukakis, who was ridiculed by Republicans mercilessly as a tax and spender from "Taxachusetts," pledged to voters that he would raise taxes "only as a last resort." Mr. Dean promises new taxes as a first resort. And he would raise them on virtually everyone who has a job and an income tax liability--not just on the "evil rich" Wall Street tycoon, but even on the man who shines his shoes. In fact, I recently analyzed IRS tax data released by the Treasury Department to estimate the impact of the Dean tax on family finances. I found that Mr. Dean's plan would force roughly two million low-income working Americans--that's roughly three times the population of the state of Delaware--who don't pay any income taxes now, to start paying them. This is the candidate who says he's going to be the voice of the little guy in Washington.





When it comes to taxes, Mr. Dean thinks really big. In raw numbers, the Dean tax proposal would raise taxes on 109 million Americans by roughly $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. This comes out to a Dean tax of about $15,440 for every family of four in the U.S. over the next decade. The Dean tax rule of thumb is that if you are in the middle class, he would roughly double your federal income tax payments.
Dean's Greedy Hand
Current Dean tax
Capital gains tax 15% 20%
Dividend tax 15% 39.6%
Income tax rate (highest) 35% 39.6%
Income tax rate (middle) 25% 28%
Income tax rate (lowest) 10% 15%
Per child credit 10% 15%
Marriage penalty Eliminated Reinstated
Death tax in 2010 0 55%
Source: Club for Growth

Let's look at real-life examples of what the Dean tax might mean for you. Under current law, a married couple with one child and a $40,000-a-year income pays income taxes of $1,503. Under the Dean tax, that family would pay $2,935--or just about double. For a family with two kids and an income of $80,000 a year, the extra Dean tax costs $1,780 a year. What Mr. Dean has never had to answer to in the Democratic primary, perhaps because the other candidates are too embarrassed to ask, is how a presidential contender whose campaign is dedicated to relieving the economic squeeze on working class families, believes that socking these folks with a $1,400- to $1,800-a-year tax hike will make their financial situation less stressful.

Mr. Dean responds to these charges by countering that his plan will help restore prosperity and produce higher incomes and more jobs. But how exactly? His tax plan would be the equivalent of hitting small businessmen, who create about 70% of the jobs, over the head with a two-by-four. The highest tax rate under the Dean plan rises from 35% to 39.6%. Add on top of this perhaps the most insidious feature of the Dean tax. For the first time ever, he would eliminate the cap on payroll taxes. Henceforth, all income of more than $87,000 a year would pay a 15% payroll tax. This means the Dean tax plan raises the small-business tax rate from 38% to 55%. If you are a self-employed worker with an income of $125,000 a year, which in high-cost-of-living states like California and New York is hardly rich, Howard Dean wants to raise your taxes more than $8,000. That will create jobs?

When President Bush cut taxes this past year, one of the most immediately visible happy results was that the dividend and capital gains tax cuts helped boost the stock market by between 10% and 15%. The after-tax rate of return on corporate profits increases with a lower capital gains and dividends tax, so stock values predictably rise. Just since the Bush tax cut, the increased valuation of the stock market has increased the net wealth of American households by more than $1 trillion, according the American Shareholders Association. Repealing those tax cuts would impel the market to surrender those higher share prices. Since half of American households now have their savings stored in stocks, this market give-back also will put a severe dent in family finances. So the Dean tax is a double whammy on households: It reduces their after-tax income and reduces their wealth.

Of course, by reinstating the marriage penalty and bringing back to life the death tax permanently, Mr. Dean's tax proposal would add greatly to the complexity of the tax code. By raising income tax rates by roughly five percentage points on everyone and by calling for a more than doubling of the dividend tax, he sends us back toward the era of punitive double and triple taxation of saving and investment income. In many ways then, the Dean tax is "the anti-flat tax." It gives us higher tax rates and more IRS complexity, and requires several million more families to file IRS 1040 returns every year.





If the Democrats do indeed nominate Mr. Dean and make the Dean tax the underlying economic message of their party, that would be good news for Republicans, but awful news for sound economic policy making in Washington. It will signal once and for all that the Democrats have gone off the deep end on economics and no longer believe a word of John F. Kennedy's message of 40 years ago that higher tax rates "will never produce enough revenues to balance the budget, nor enough jobs" to put Americans back to work.


Wall St Journal

[FORD]

Originally posted by diamondD
Crunch these:


Recently, an organization I run, the Club for Growth....

Sorry. That's where I stopped reading. The "Club For Growth (of unrestricted corporate fascism)" is notorious for more distortion than Tony Iommi's guitar collection.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhh!

Thank you for that substantive input...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I think you should look to past history and see what effect tax cuts have had on overall government income taxes. They INCREASE.
Figure it out.

Have any examples of that?

A prediction as to when that might actually happen?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
Crunch these:

Take a Hike
Howard Dean wants to raise your taxes, whether you're dead or alive.

BY STEPHEN MOORE
Friday, January 2, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

The Death Tax? How is it "raising taxes" to not cut a tax?

...

Mr. Dukakis, who was ridiculed by Republicans mercilessly as a tax and spender from "Taxachusetts," pledged to voters that he would raise taxes "only as a last resort." ...
Wall St Journal

Funny, but doesn't "Taxachusetts" have a "fiscally responsible" Republican Governor? Has he slashed taxes? Just like my Governor: Pa'flunky. A fiscally absurd Republican...

A little more on the so-called "Death Tax."

Linky

FEBRUARY 8, 2006

NEWS ANALYSIS
By Howard Gleckman

Death, Taxes, and George W. Bush
The President aims to end estate taxes for the wealthiest Americans. He also wants to scrap a $255 death benefit for the poorest


The contrast in President Bush's new budget could not be more stark. On one hand, he wants to eliminate what he likes to call the "death tax" -- a levy imposed on a handful of the nation's biggest estates. On the other, he wants to end Social Security's lump sum death benefit -- a $255 check that the families of many of the nation's poorest use to help pay for their funerals.

There is a lot more in Bush's $2.77 trillion budget than that, of course. He'd boost spending for homeland security and the Pentagon, trim many popular domestic programs, and control the growth of Medicare by boosting premiums for high-income seniors and freezing or cutting payments for health providers, such as doctors, hospitals, and hospices. At the same time, the President asked Congress to make most of his first-term tax cuts permanent.

ESTATE PLANNING. That includes permanently eliminating the estate tax, or what conservatives like to call the death tax. Like most of what happens these days in the tax world, the story is complicated, but it goes like this: Starting in 2001, Congress began to gradually increase the size of an estate that would be exempt from tax. By 2009, estates of $3.5 million or less ($7 million for a couple that does the smallest bit of planning), would be tax-free. By 2010 all estates would be exempt from the tax, but only for one year.

So President Bush wants to permanently free all estates from the tax starting in 2011. The estimated annual cost: in excess of $50 billion in 2012, rising to more than $70 billion by 2016.

It is hard to know how many families will get the tax break at the end of the decade. But this year, of the 2.4 million people who are expected to die, only about 6,500 estates will be subject to the tax.

RICH MAN, POOR MAN. Then there is Social Security's lump-sum death benefit. That widow's check is only $255 and is probably of little interest to those people who worry about estate taxes. But for very poor families, it can be a big deal. It is often used to help pay for a funeral at a time when many families have no other cash.

According to the Bush budget, the benefit would be eliminated "because it no longer provides a meaningful monetary benefit for survivors yet requires significant administrative resources." The Social Security Administration estimates that eliminating the benefit would save the government about $190 million next year.

A spokesman says the benefit has not been increased since 1954 and "no longer bears a relationship to funeral costs." Now Congress will have to decide whether it wants to slash a small benefit that means so much to the very poor. And whether, at the same time, it wants to cut taxes for a handful of heirs of the very rich.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by FORD
Sorry. That's where I stopped reading. The "Club For Growth (of unrestricted corporate fascism)" is notorious for more distortion than Tony Iommi's guitar collection.

So, in other words, you don't want to discuss Howard Dean's actual tax plans, so you want to deflect to the messenger.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
So, in other words, you don't want to discuss Howard Dean's actual tax plans, so you want to deflect to the messenger.

How would the DNC Chair have any real plans since he's not actually elected, with any real power?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I think you should look to past history and see what effect tax cuts have had on overall government income taxes. They INCREASE.
Figure it out.

Speaking of history.....

When have we EVER cut taxes in a time of war?

We were told by this administration that Iraq would pay for it's own rebuilding.

The war wouldn't cost us more than 2 billion.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhh!

Aren't you just giddy over the fact you got to post this before your fellow triplets ASSVibe or Brie?


BigWarVibe

The Sheeplets.