Is Dean talking about rolling back the tax credit for children?

I caught part of the debate where Dean wants to roll back Chimpboy's tax cuts. Hell,go ahead and roll back those payroll tax cuts,they mean nothing to the average worker. But is he also proposing rolling back the $400.00 tax credit for each child?

Shit,thats the only tax break that actually means anything to working class people. For me that's an additional $1200 credit off what we owe each year--its an actually credit not some lame deduction.

While I agree in part with Dean on these tax cuts he really needs tread carefully. The average person who will only latch on to the "Dean will raise your taxes" crap that will be parroted nightly by the media whores will never get him elected.

David

an increase in other areas that affected the family -- near doubling of property taxes, health care increases, raises in college tuition -- that it more than offset any tax benefits for children. I know that my grandson's tuition skyrocketed, so his tax credit was totally negated.

What action has Dean said he would take that would offset the increases in other areas?

I agree with Dean that the Bush tax cuts were ill planned, but tacking those same taxes back on top of the new taxes for the Middle Class will put the average American working family in worse shape than ever.

It is one thing to recognize that the Bush tax cut did no one any good because it was offset by other taxes, but heaping more taxes on top of the ones that took the place of the first ones will only result in a higher overall tax burden for everyone.

The Pubs will use this to "rile up" people and will use this against him. I think he's going to need to change his stance a little.

I think he means well - but this is going to be "poison" in the general election if he wins the nomination.

I think he's be better off adopting Clark's stance (and a few other candidates stances) that the people with incomes above $200,000 and over should be the ones to "give it back."

If a republican were to come here, he would think he had an ally what with all of these people helping them make their agenda.

he need to face us. we are still the people who have to decide if he's the best choice. his positions would be what we will be stuck with when we move into the general. we will be the ones who have to go out and try and convince people that even though it may cost them as much as a couple thousand dollars more in taxes, they should vote for Dean.

and, if you think the pubblies need any help in using this against Dean....well that is just nutty.

I'm just saying that claims like, "They're really going to use it against him" don't serve us in any way. We need to defend the ideal, not talk about how they're going to bash us over the head.

Do you know how much mileage the right got over the old stat that most democrats think Bush is going to win in 2004? We're cynical. We're pessimistic. And it radiates. I feel as though if we're not confident when we talk about candidates and how they will be perceived in the general, we're only helping add to the dark cloud that's been hovering since, what, 1994?

I'm being mushy. You're right, the pubbies don't need any help. But it would be cool if they faced a unified front.

when we face the pubbies we do need and will present a unified front.

we 'ain't' there yet. we are now fighting amongst ourselves to determine who we unite behind and i think that's a very important fight. i don't want to defend the idea of rolling back all of bush's tax cuts, so i'm not likely to spend a moment defending the idea.

Dean needs to rethink the idea or we need to rethink Dean, imho.

or he is toast.

If that's his attitude, and if Lieberman doesn't get the nomination but Dean does, I will not vote to have my tax credit destroyed and my family suffer!

marriage penalty elimination will result in a reduction of tuitions or property taxes ot health care cost, you need to rethink. we will all pay more federal taxes as well as the increase you mentioned.

signed, bear who for the first time actually qualified for a targeted tax cut because he's married and yes, i want to keep the damn money.

This is exactly what I am saying. Dean is saying he wants to revoke all of the tax cuts and says that they were ineffective because local and state taxes were raised to compensate.

What does he think that revoking the tax cut will do to stop the newer taxes? It will do nothing and the working American taxpayer with kids will end up paying the original taxes, the new higher state and local taxes and will have nothing to show for it.

Surely that is not the entirety of Dean's plan for this. I have not studied Dean as much as I should have, but I find it hard to believe that he would not at least address the end result of his proposed plan of action.

Can any Dean supporters fill me in on what I am missing?

that they are going to roll back my property taxes. But, if he can use the ex-tax cut money to pay for health insurance, I would definitely be happy with that. And getting rid of the child tax credit may prevent (or at least delay) the NEXT round of property tax increases.

then those other costs would go down? Good luck on that one.

On the topic of college costs, tuition across the country has been going up at twice the rate of inflation for years. It is pricing itself out of the market for middle class people, and has been for many years.

Anyone have any ideas to curb this trend?

Anyone who works at a college, any reasons why college costs should consistently go up at twice the rate of inflation?

unless he gets a Congress with bigger balls than the one we have now.

If the Dems don't recapture Congress the odds of any Democrat getting anything passed is very slim. Not very many Congress critters look forward to going home and being attacked for raising taxes.

Bush is only one head on the Hydra.

please stop inferring that balls of various sizes are a requirement for courage. Besides being outdated and sexist it is BULLSHIT.

commitement or vision or any other non sexist term?

my very gutsy 5 yr old neice will thank you

We don't have a choice. If this country and its people must sacrifice something in order to help get us out of this horrific Bush-made economic mess, then the least we could do is pay some more taxes. The top tax bracket has another thing coming. Their taxes are most certainly going up once Dean makes it into office.

I have triplets and I'm ready to pay for my share. Its either we pay or we'll have to cut back so many social service programs that it might leave millions of Americans destitute.

What most people don't seem to realize is that there is going to be a massive backlash against incumbents in 2004. I for one have been saying for months that whether they realize it or not, the Republicans are going to loose the White House and the House of Representatives. The People are pissed and we want our House back. Get ready! Dean will have no problem getting his agenda through Congress if the outcome is as I predict.

Howard Dean 2004

...the most now.

Why can't we spread the burden a little more equitably?

Look, most people making less than 200K all from earned income have a lot more in common with each other than they have with people making over 500K mostly from dividend income, buying and selling assets, and inheritance. Yet Dean wants all these people to feel like they're in the same financial boat. They aren't. You have to stop loading up the burden on people who make up the middle class, and you have to ask the dividend and cap gains and inheritance people to start pulling more of the weight.

-whose children are most likely to seek military enlistment as a stepping stone for future educational opportunity, are the ones who do not make enough to qualify for the upper middle class tax breaks to begin with.

They will be the ones most impacted on when tax cuts drain the funds for educational programs or day care or employment training or senior services. They are the ones who sacrifice most with higher fees and local taxes, property taxes, energy costs, educational costs, healthcare and childcare.

The neo-Democratic trend is to ignore the Americans who struggle the most because they are powerless and can not pay for strong advocates to represent their issues.

Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a particularly cruel social climate, starting with Reagan's crusade against the poor, followed by the Clinton yuppie years aggrandizement of selfish ambition and greed.

of income earners (people who WORK for a living) from just above the EIC threshold to families making between 300K-350K per year (who are taxed at the bottom of the range which is a de facto flat tax range).

People who expect to be rewarded for their LABORS are sacrificing the most.

The people who aren't sacrificing are the people who don't labor for a living. People who invest and who buy and sell companies, people who inherit, people who get dividend income. Those people aren't asked to sacrifice anything at all.

that couldn't do without the mandatory SUV, compared with the "Middle-class" that makes 30K and can't afford healthcare for their children, is the difference.

working for a living, rather than investing and inheriting and being a corp insider with stock optioins) with each other than they have with someone who doesn't get their money as earned income.

The federal gov't is ripping them both off, and the 190k earner is getting ripped off even more by the federal gov't. When you look at state and local taxes, it's the poorer person who gets ripped off the worse. And both those people are getting ripped off by a society which is concentrating wealth and power in the hands of people like Cheney.

the choice is to roll back tax cuts for all or exclude the upper middle class who qualify for certain breaks, at the expense of programs like a more inclusive national healthcare.

and getting those services.

All those people (upper and lower middle class) who make money from working need to realize more of the fruits of their labor so that they can turn around and use their accumulated wealth and political power to stoke the fires of the economy.

It's the people who have been unburdened the last 30 years who need to pull their weight by paying taxes.

We'll get MORE tax money by spreading the tax burden more equitably, rather than by making people who work for a living carry the most weight.

Even if you take back the middle class tax breaks, we'd still have to deficit spend to get those programs the middle class needs. However, if you raise the effective tax burdens for corporations from their current low of 3 percent to 4.5 percent, through more progressive rates, and if you created more progressivity with individual income tax rates -- lower the rates on the lower brackets, higher rates on higher brackets, and spread the brackets farther out on the income scale -- you'd find that you could tax individuals less and create a society which more effectively produces more wealth and spreads it in a way that is more fair.

is standard libertarian terminology.

Uou keep using arguments which are not addressing the points of unshared sacrifice. Rolling back the taxcuts includes the top who benefits the most, but it also includes the breaks for the upper middle class who gain greater advantage than the losses the great bottom suffer in loss of revenue for the dreaded social programs libertarians despise.

When taxes were apportioned more progressively, progressivity of the code was rarely the issue discussed, because it was built in. Bakc then, libertarians and wingers argued about whether we should be taxed at all.

Now, the tax burden is apportioned in a range from regressive to flat so that you never hear the wingers argue about whether we should be taxed at all now. They know they have a sweet deal. They know the poor and middle class are pulling all the weight so they don't have to. They don't want to give up the public subsidy which is allowing them to concentrate power and wealth.

The danger of the Deanies is that they're throwing out the whole question about progressivity at a time when it's THE crucial tax question.

That you'd call ME a libertarian is the perfect example and misrepresenting the issues. I'm all for paying taxes in order to have a society which creates more wealth. But, right now, the crucial issue is whether we're paying taxes in a manner which equalizes the burden among all people asked to pay into the system.

The issue YOU aren't addressing is progressivity. You need to address that.

probably a question of priorities.

radar.

And it should be.

The biggest issue with the federal tax code right now is that it shifts all the burdens to the middle and working class. Throw in the outright regressivity of the state tax code, and we're talking about a pretty obvious problem.

So, just who does Senator Kerry represent?

in wealth and poltical power in the hands of the middle class. That's good money.

It's also a start towards progressivity. And no democrat who doesn't want to balance the budget on the back of the middle class wants to stop there.

The smart ones, like Edwards, want to make the cap gains tax more progressive, and want to collect more tax revenue from corporations. Lieberman wants to add two new, higher tax brackets.

Any Dem candidate who is turning his or her back on (1) any slight move towards progressivity in the tax code, and (2) on the entire debate about progressivity, is either a fool or a bigger friend of the wealthy and big business than he's willing to admit to his supporters.

America is going to look after the poorest so that they can at least show up at a job from nine to five. We're going to keep them healthy and happy enough to work for low wages, which will make companies rich.

It's the middle class in that huge income range which I listed above...those are the people generating all the non-labor wealth which Republicans want to steal. The people at the bottom end of that range are the ones they want to hook with unsecured debt so that you spend your life paying interest rate to some big credit card company. The ones at the top end of that range are the ones they want to tax the hell out of so that Halliburton and Bechtel can get their cash subsidy from tax payer money.

It's not the corporations paying low wages to make shit which will be paying taxes into the pool. It's not MBNA making billions of credit card debt and mortgabes on over-valued property who will be paying taxes into the pool. It's going to be the doctors and lawyers and architects and small business owners who will have the yolk of federal income tax wrapped over their shoulders. Those are the people who are going to have to pull the weight because nobody else is asked to do it.

It is about who the Democrats want to ignore in their reward hierarchy.

want to wrap the yolk around.

They want poor people to work for low wages. They want the lower middle class to go into serious debt. They want the educated, well-paid to tax the hell out of. And they want to hand the world over to people who make over 500K per year from anything other than laboring for a living. (And those people will be accumulationg all the wealth created by the first three people -- the low paid worker, the credit card indebted lower middle class, and the pre-tax wealthy/post-tax poor upper middle class worker.)

Dean -- just no way!

I want to live where you live! Because Bush's tax cuts left states in the the cold. I got a little cash back thanks to the cuts, but my sales tax went up a full point. My property taxes are up. Those two factors alone have resulted in a huge net loss for me and my family.

So where do you live where these tax cuts are a big help?

Some have raised taxes in the last couple of years, some didn't.

No way the message of rolling back all of the tax cuts will sell to the general electorate in November.

Anyone who thinks otherwise, is kidding themselves.

We don't need any part of Bush's tax cut to have a fair tax policy.

Bush's tax cuts make for a weak foundation for solid tax policy to be built. Repealing all of Bush's tax cuts give us a clean slate.

It is not raising taxes but removing "the cut" no one wanted to begin with- back to where it was under Clinton. Didn't see Kerry complaining then, he is just using this for political advantage, but it is dishonest and misleading.

the tax rates which might have been regressive under Clinton are more regressive now.

You can't superimpose those rates on yesterday's income distribution and get the same effect.

Furthermore, Kerry and Clinton and all the Democrats didn't think those were the best rates they could get. Clinton et al consistently fought for more progressive rates, but the Republicans in Congress forced a compromise which resulted in these rates.

Dean's preferred tax scenario is one which was the product of compromise with Republicans (and one which is more regressive today than when it was in effect).

that isn't borne from a compromise with republicans.

The middle class tax cuts are Democratic tax cuts, NOT Bush* tax cuts!

the bill where these middle class cuts came from.

were promoted by the Dems, and fought by Bush* and the Repukes in Congress.

the bone thrown to get it passed, to ease the burden on the upper middle-class who qualifies, while shafting the entire bottom majority.

The middle class tax cuts were Democratic.

Who do I write my thank you letter too? Kerry?

Dear Mr. Kerry, thanks for the 4 dollars per paycheck you gave me. I didn't get a raise this year. My sales taxes went up a full point. My health care is more expensive than ever. My property taxes went up. I can barely afford to heat my home. But hey, thanks for the $4 per paycheck.

Show me the bill.

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

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

no matter how fuzzy your math is. And education is a state responsibility. The Feds are hardly involved in education.

Can't you stay on one topic? You're jumping all over the place. My keeping thr $4 per check is doing no one any good. Take my four dollars and come back with something I can use. Not you, Kerry, you've already proven yourself INCAPABLE.

And education is a state responsibility, yes, but when states can't bear the responsibility, I look to the federal government for help. In the past, even in wartime, the feds have bailed out the states in tough times. But not this time around. Thanks for fighting for us, Democratic Senators.

You're the one scrambling for something to hold on to. You've brought up education (not a Fed obligation, and hypocritical for you to bring up after complaining about how you have to pay to educate them), home ownership (not a Fed responsibility), universal health care ($4/paycheck won't pay for that), and more.

And I don't care who you look to when your state goes broke.

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

and I find it hilarious that you would think anything else were possible.

The Framers of our Constitution, and the majority of Americans throughout the political spectrum, have rejected the idea of the Fed govt providing for our education.

You don't care about my opinions, but you respond to every post I make. Hmmmmm, fixation anyone?

like the one Kerry voted for to help bankrupt our schools and states.

I know Shanga that you feel anything Kerry does is touched by the very hand of god, but the fact remains that Kerry is pushing repuke talking points to prop up a bad tax policy.

The Dean bashers ignore the fact that the average family that got a small credit for their kids, saw their other costs go up well over the credit amount because of the tax cuts draining funds from other areas. It was a scam... they'll give you 300 while taking 600.

Also you people act like Dean just wants to roll back the tax cuts, then do nothing. Dean supports instituting tax credits for working families and small businesses. However you can;t do that by leaving bits and pieces of a bad bill in place... get rid of the whole mess Bush made, then pass a new targeted tax cut/credit for the middle class and working poor.

Also, as I understand it, the child tax credit won't be gone, but simply reduced back to the ammount it was before the bush tax cuts raised the ammount.

I don't expect you to even recognize these points, as you're just mouthing the repuke talking points on the tax cuts to prop up the Bushlite candidates, but the facts simply do not support you on this.

"unfunded mandates"

Too bad the bill you refer to had no mandates.

However you can;t do that by leaving bits and pieces of a bad bill in place... get rid of the whole mess Bush made, then pass a new targeted tax cut/credit for the middle class and working poor.

Typical Dean/Bush*-lite lies. Raise their taxes today and promise to lower them tomorrow.

so it's totally something worthy of deficit spending to achieve. (In fact, businesses OTHER than the health care industry, would reap huge rewards too, so financing it out of PROGRESSIVE taxes makes a huge amount of sense).

You don't need to justify burdening the middle class even more in the short term just to get it.

???

balanced budgets. Instead of being honest, and basing their desire to repeal the Democratic middle class tax cuts on their desire for a balanced budget, they lie and say they want to fund education (which can be done without balancing the budget) and health care ((which can be done without balancing the budget)

Am I supposed to ask why no responses to the dozen or so posts in which I ask you questions?

What's up with that? Pretty shallow.

What response were you looking for?

the bill.

The middle-class tax cuts were promoted by the Dems, and fought by Bush* and the Repukes in Congress.

So explain. These middle class tax cuts were included in Bush's tax bill? Were they independent?

For someone who thinks they know so much about it, you share precious little information.

They were proposed by Dems, and promoted by Dems. Bush* and the Repukes fought against them.

If you want to see the bill, go look it up.

laziness, I don't think you even know how these "midle class ($4 per check) tax cuts" came about.

The Dems proposed them. The Dems promoted them. You, Bush*, and the Repukes, oppose them.

And Dean.

Keep repeating it! It only shows that it's all you have! You have nothing but a couple of sentences! But keep repeating it, because it makes you look smart!

The Dems proposed them. The Dems promoted them. You, Bush*, and the Repukes, oppose them.

And Dean.

You can't prove they exist!

The Dems proposed them. The Dems promoted them. Bush*, the Repukes, you, and Dean, oppose them.

One more time, with feeling!

And the millions of others like me? Why do we get shafted?
My property taxes go up to pay for services, including schools, so parents can get a tax break? Doesn't seem fair.

like Bechtel and Haliburton who are lobbying for a reduction in the tax rate for "architectual and contruction services firms" from 35 to 32 percent?

Do you think your problem is with people with kids or people who make most of their money from dividends, capital gains, and inheritance?

"Do you think the problem is apples or oranges?" It can't be both?

Per capita spending on education is not rising, so the increase in taxes can't be reasonably attributed to education.

I don't even know who you are responding to. But I can tell you that college tuition goes up when the state can't afford to pay professors with revenues. And state employees don't get raises. And property taxes go up. These things are all tied in with education, at least where I live.

The fact still remains - Tax increases (and tuition increases) have nothing to do with the increase in deductions for children. If a state cant afford to pay professors, it's not because the Feds cut taxes; it's because of state finances.

These things are all tied in with education, at least where I live.

The fact that they're related doesn't mean that one causes the other.

as usual. There wasn't a dollar in Bush's economic plan to help states. That's a first.

Repealing the Democrats middle class tax cuts won't add a penny of Fed assistance to the states. Passing a budget with Fed assistance to the states will add money to the Fed's assistance to the states. We can pass such a budget without repealing middle class tax cuts.

Show me! Educate me on the origin of this D middle class tax cut that so many in the middle class didn't get.

The Dems proposed them. The Dems promoted them. You, Bush*, and the Repukes, oppose them.

And Dean.

(If you want to see the bill, look it up and read it)

Can't prove a thing. let's do this until they lock the thread!

while at the same time, arguing that they were unfair.

The middle class tax cuts are Democratic tax cuts. The Dems proposed them. The Dems promoted them. You, Bush*, and the Repukes, oppose them.

And Dean.

(If you want to see the bill, look it up and read it)

As far as I'm concerned there weren't any.

You don't like the middle class tax cuts that don't exist.

BEcause they aren't equally applied across the middle class, meaning that for some they don't exist. The less money you make, the less relief you get. It's built on the same old principle that the gummint will reward you more if you make more money. It KEEPS the burden on the working poor.It's granting the premise of the right, which you've illustrated yourself to be all for.

That makes sense! Non-sense!

IF all you have is attacks, please don't respond.

Why can't you answer this simple question?

All you do is repeat the same fucking mantra. Either put up the bill where it was opposed, or SHUT THE HELL UP. You're not making this thread any better.

Unless you're just a person that thinks the RNC talking points method of repeating the same shit over and over makes it any easier??

Hawkeye-X

due to escalating property taxes to fund local school districts.

Should I ask them if Bush* is a good Christian?

Or should I ask what kind of fool thinks what the majority thinks must be true?

...into heavy debt and financial problems because they're trying to stay in homes in good school districts so that their kids get a good education.

If it weren't for these people having kids and being terrified about their futures, they would be moving into cheaper homes in crappier school districts.

People are chosing places with these property taxes because they know it's good for their kids.

It's another example of how life is more difficult, finanicially speaking, for people with kids. And it's an example of how it's important for the future wealth of society that people with kids give those kids as many options as possible for future prosperity and happiness.

This is just not coming up on your rader(to borrow from you) at all, is it? Your entire advocacy is for the legitimacy of upper-middle class cuts no matter how much of a conflict other factors influencing your argument creates. A reduced tax base insures that revenues have to be found somewhere else, so we see a rise in property taxes. But then you claim, because the tax cut has been responsible for the hike in property taxes, we should ease the burden on those who are victimized by the hike. Do you see how that goes in circles? But the added consideration is, there is NO BAILOUT for those, the vast majority at the bottom, who DLC-style Democrats ignore, that are not only victimized by the tax cut with higher costs elsewhere, but they have none of the relief afforded to the wealthier end of the middle-class. It is the same hierarchy as the Republicans, but not as extreme. Republican lite.

. A reduced tax base insures that revenues have to be found somewhere else, so we see a rise in property taxes.

Fed tax cuts don't result in deficits in states' budgets.

Fed tax cuts IGNORE state budget shortfalls.

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

Do you dispute that in the past federal budgets have bailed out states in crisis?

because if you can't, then it obviously never happened, right?

"Do for me what I refuse to do for you"

And of course, in my usual fashion, I will show you up. I highly recommend your taking a break from this forum and reading up on some of the myriad of articles here:

http://www.cbpp.org/

You can learn all about how state and fedearl budgets are intertwined.

How about the info I've been asking for? Oh, never mind! I know you don't have it, and I suspect you don't have a clue as to where to find it.

I didn't see one example of the Feds bailing out a state.

I'm not sure where the line is drawn.

People who work for a living need tax breaks, because they're pulling all the weight right now. The people whose burden they've assumed over the last 30 years need to take up the slack they've left.

Your post is just filled with so much BS, I can't hardly stand it.

The question isn't so much about absolute tax numbers. it's about allocating the burden fairly. Taxes definitely need to go up on some people and down on others so that we can have an economy that can produce more wealth, which will then produce more tax revenue.

You know why property taxes really go up? Because it's a nice, regressive way to shift the income tax burden on to people rather than corporations. If you don't believe me, study the mechancs of propostion 13 and the method for computing property valuations. Also, read Wealth and Democracy. Property tax hikes are a victory for the powerful and wealthy in the same way that the Federal tax code is a victory for them.

How is making the federal taxes more progressive going to have any influence on state and local taxes? Those are separate poltical battles that need to be fought be electing more democrats who care about a progressive tax code (ie, Democrats UNLIKE Gov Dean). In fact, the best thing for states would be if we elected a president who could make the argument for Federal progressivity so strongly that voters in state and local elections began to make the issue a priority. (And, again, that prsideing ain't Dean.)

???

A $400 will solve all of that. Certainly moreso than providing good schools for everyone.

Changing the Fed income tax does nothing to help fund education.

I like reducing you to one sentence arguments repeated ad nauseum.


The federal government is supposed to be there when states need it. All through history the freds have bailed out states in times of crisis. This is the first time that isn't happening.

Please, ignore this post.

The Fed has absolutely NO responsibility to bail out the states. And the Fed has stood by while states struggled plenty of times in the past.

But I do because it is right. And you can't change that in the past the federal government has bailed out states in crisis. All you can do is act like it's OK for states to be in this mess.

No is asking you about canned food drives. I can't the believe you are bringing up canned food drives after accusing me of not staying on point.

And you can't change that in the past the federal government has bailed out states in crisis.

Gee, it seems like only minutes since you said the Feds have ALWAYS bailed out troubled states. Now you're just saying that they did it once before.

All through history the freds have bailed out states in times of crisis. This is the first time that isn't happening.

I stayed on point. You're lying again. AGAIN!

I'm still waiting for the info on this magical democratic tax cut.

I guess that changes the way your "The Fed ALWAYS bails out the states" changed to "The Feds did it at least once"

if i live here for another 13 yrs, at current rates, i will have paid more in property taxes than i originally paid for the property.

tell me that doesn't suck...go ahead and try.

half of that went exclusively to the school district.
it's called the school district property tax.

property tax. Most corporations have weasled their way out of paying property tax. When property taxes go up, it's a burden that the middle class takes up. They have to go up twice as much as they have to because the wealthiest citizens in our society (corporations, and the people who benefit from selling their stock and receiving their dividends) aren't bearing very much of the burden of paying property tax.

(I may have misremembered the source, I believe it was W&D.)

we're going to have a crappy economy which can't reproduce itself, and we'll have unwantedness, and a crumbling society with more crime.

Compare any country where having children is supported by the government with parental leave and tax breaks and services for parents with any society where a new child often sends a family in a deeper financial hole, and the differences immediately and down the road are very apparent.

America wants the former not the latter. Even if you don't have kids, you reap obvious rewards when your neighbor isn't burdened by having a child.

by sending their parents $400 per kid. We can provide good education and affordable healthcare. I refuse to believe that throwing money at a problem is ever the solution.

and we don't send $400/kid checks outs. That was a one year thing. From now on, your taxes are reduced at the end of the year, so there is no need to send a check.

Why don't you get your facts straight BEFORE you settle on your propoganda?

I'm saying it was wrong. And I'm saying that giving people money for having kids is a stupid means of reducing burden.

You said that the govt will be sending out checks, and when I showed you were wrong, instead of admitting you don't even know the facts, you respond "Big deal". Deaniacs don't care if they're wrong; They're still RIGHT!

One way or the other, the government seeks to reward people monetarily for simply having kids. Split all the hairs you want, it's still wrong, and you can't defend it. All you can do is attack people.

and that you can't admit to making a mistake about the facts.

What integrity!!

ONly in your mind have you proven anyone wrong about anything.

Because, contrary to your misguided assertion, it's not coming

We don't matter. It's all about the kids these days. All you have to do is have a kid and the gummint will give you $400! Just like that! It's free money!

Meanwhile we kidless folks work to put those kids through school.

Hey, I'm fine with that. I'm all about helping my fellow man. But is simply sending a check to people with kids the best way to help? Why not eliminate sales taxes on child care related goods like school supplies, diapers, etc? Why not provide all kids with health care?

Why does it have to be a check? It doesn't even guarantee that the kids benefit from it.

Edited to add: It's this administration BUYING VOTES.

The govt will not be sending out anymore $400 checks. That was only done to refund money already paid to govt that turned out to be an overpayment due to the increase in the child deduction. This year, and from now on, there will be no check; Just a reduction in the taxes you pay at the end of the year.

It's this administration BUYING VOTES.

No, Bush* didn't want the deduction because it reduced the amt he could reduce taxes on the rich.

and maybe save oue Social Security system. Too few kids are being born today and that jeapordizes our SS.

are being born today?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? If we want to save social security, lets stop robbing from the trust fund. More kids? You're out of your mind!

We are suffering from population annorexia, although I will admit that some regions in the world are suffering from population obesity.

And my guess is that when everyone can have a good job, and live with dignity all over the world, we'll find that we settle into a very nice self-sustaining birth rate.

that we need to have more kids to keep SS solvent is silly.

Social Security was one of Roosevelt's greatest programs (patterned after Otto von Bismark's programs just to be fair). However, it is built on the assumption that births would never fall behind deaths. Today's birthrate is too low and once the babyboomers start to retire the system is screwed unless births start going up. Any policy that makes burdens heavier on families should be opposed -- as with any candidate who proposes them.

You can't guarantee that births will excede deaths. So I guess if the whole program hinges on that concept, it's a silly propgram fundamentally.

But hey, I'm not getting any SS when I retire anyway. I defeinitely won't get what I put in.

I think it's a joke that we need to have another baby boom to make up for the fact that we had a baby boom a few decades ago. I think the last thing we need in this country is exponential population growth.

They keep talking about how Medicare, Medicaid, and SS are "fundamentally flawed"

be honest in one of these threadlets? Just one?

You're making a comparison that doesn't exist. Name a republican who has dais that SS is fundamentally flawed because it is based on the need to have the birth rate constantly increasing.

If you can't do that, you owe me an apology. It's incresingly sad that you have to resort to these tactics. It's not even politically motivated. You obviously just don't like me and choose to express it by following me from thread to thread.

Gingrich, Armey, Reagan, Bush and Bush.

I love this middle class welfare, particularly when its beneficiaries are the first ones to rail against programs for the poor.

But we have to do what's right for EVERYONE. Sending $400 per kid is a waste of money.

The repukes fear, more than anything, when the people pool resources.

That is one reason they fear Dean so much, he's showing people how to pool their resources.

Repukes and greedy dems, like Kerry, but into this "me first" notion. They buy votes by telling people they'll give them each money. Split all of the people apart and encourage their selfishness by waving a few hundred bucks at them.

That 400 bucks won't do a damn thing for the average family, even with a few kids, lets say 1200 bucks. That's not going to pay for healthcare for that family, or tuition... sure it will be nice to have a few bucks... probably going to get a new TV or pay bills for a month. Then the money is gone and they are right back in the same mess.

By getting everybody in this selfish me me me mode, all trying to get paid, they mask the fact they are reversing the pooling of resources. This is a ploy to effectively undermine these same people from pooling their resources to get better schools for everybody, better health care for everybody, and better job/business for everybody.

I refuse to support this intentional fomenting of selfishness, nor the candidates who knowingly sell out their constitutions to this process, just for political gain. It is worse than buying votes… what they are buying is apathy. They are paying 400 bucks per kid to get these middle class families to stop pushing for change or trying to get better schools and healthcare. They want them focused on getting paid, and to put middle class working poor with kids against those with no kids. They want people to stop focusing on change and focus only on getting a few bucks from the government, like peasants begging for food at the palace gates.

The whole point is to derail the process of progressive change… like throwing a bunch of 20’s into a crowd of protesters so they’ll not only lose focus on the protest, but turn against each other. And I see so many supposed progressive dems buying into this, mouthing the repuke lines, and all because they want to get theirs….

Who would have thought that your progressive values could be bought for 400 bucks.

Kerry will let the middle class keep their tax cut while getting the $400 back (and all the other money) from the deeper pockets of the high end brackets and the corporations.

Encouraging home ownership is the best way to spread wealth to the middle class. Spreading wealth to the middle class is the surest way to spread political power to the middle class. Spreading political power to the middle class is the surest route towards a more progressive poltical future for America.

However, every time we try to spread wealth to the middle class, the RW finds a way to tap into that wealth and steal it: the SandL crisis, and the 401K raiding by corp insiders are the best examples, and real estate is going to be the next one. That doesn't mean that trying to spread wealth is wrong. It just means that Dem politicians should be more vigilant in standing between people and big corporations to keep big coporation's hands out of the pockets of the middle class.

As for children, our society is going nowhere if we don't make the reproduction of it (through children) and easy process. Even if you don't have kids, your life (especially in retirement) is going to be better if there are smart, happy kids growing up and working hard at good jobs and inventing things and producing art and literature.

DUh!

(Are you the same I.G. who used to post smart things about a year ago?)

You are making compelling, broad arguments, but I haven't seen the post in which you either say that the $400 is right, or that there is some other way to invest in children. Care to share?

AP reponded to a question from IG: "Why should we subsidize your children or your home?"

AP answered THE question. AP didn't answer EVERY question, as you seem to think he should have.

But I like how yo uhave to reply to everything I say!

...economists agree, is the highest utility benefit you can give to someone.

If you hae a low-paying job with beneftis, including OK health care, you're going to be better off getting a tax credit for your kid than if you have the gov't pay for health care for someone who doesn't have insurance.

I'm not saying there isn't a ton of social value in having other kids covered by health insurance. I'm just saying that a tax credit is very powerful tool for making people's lives easier.

is buying votes. How is it a powerful tool other than PR value? Can you share specifics? If you work for the state of NC, your health care is covered. If you have a kid that you want to throw on, you pay a couple hundred more PER MONTH. How can one $400 check EVER be more valuable than saving over $2000 a year?

AP didn't say that $400 cash is better than any benefit. He said that a cash benefit beats a comparably valued service benefit.

and here you are again!

You didn't ask how a cash benefit beats a comparably priced service benefit. You asked the straw man question of how a cash benefit beats a much higher priced service benefit.

How can one $400 check EVER be more valuable than saving over $2000 a year?

Well?

Because we're paying for your parents.

because someday, they'll help finance your retirement

You're so bent on responding to every post I make that you don't even know what you're talking about.

I've already said I'm all about helping provide of rother people's kids, I just think that the gummint throwing money at parents FOR HAVING KIDS is a silly investment. And I've said it like four times, but here you are, seeing read as usual!

I will continue to respond to point out the absurdity of saying that policies aimed at assisting young couples with children should be cut. These couples need every encouragement they can get -- socially and financially.

I agree that policies aimed at helping people with kids need to be funded. But I don't think a mere tax credit serves that purpose very well. I think that there are policies that haven't been implemented, policies that haven't been researched that can more directly help children than a stupid tax cut.


A tax credit doesn't guarantee that the kid benefit from it at all.

You're just repeating your opinion (ie "I don't think a mere tax credit serves that purpose very well") without backing it up with facts.

A tax credit doesn't guarantee that the kid benefit from it at all.

Another opinion unsupported by any facts. Hep has posted scores of times in this thread, but none of those posts contain any facts that back this opinion. Meanwhile, most economists disagree.

>I will continue to respond to point out the absurdity of saying that policies aimed at assisting young couples with children should be cut. These couples need every encouragement they can get -- socially and financially.<

Bull.

Let's talk about a large number of those who have kids and do not apply themselves to being parents, whatsoever. What do I base this on? Let's just say that we've had daily encounters with parents demonstrating to both of us, repeatedly, that they like the idea of having children, but won't do the work involved in bringing them up to be intelligent, educated, responsible, functional adults. I'm paying for this, but I have NO say over whether these kids are going to become functional members of society? After all, it's (as every childfree person on DU has been repeatedly told,) "none of my business".

For those who haven't already noticed, there's a problem with overpopulation. Everywhere. I seriously doubt the suggestion that those currently having kids are doing it to ensure the continuation of society.

Here's a question: If these kids don't grow up to be productive adults, will the parents be asked to repay their child-related tax deductions and credits over the years?

Julie

Saying "I just think that the gummint throwing money at parents FOR HAVING KIDS is a silly investment" is NOT an argument.

It's an opinion, which you fail to support with any facts.

Your constant requests for evidence is particularly funny when one considers your utter lack of your own, every time you reply.

BTW, how on earth did you figure out that a sentence that begins with "I just think that" is an OPINION? You're really on your game today.

You have no arguments, or any knowledge of the subject. Like many people, you just have opinions, and they stink

Let's turn the party into the party of the single & childless.

Our motto: In a few years, we'll be gone!!

after a while, we'll be extinct!!

How original.

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

It's a broad sweeping attack, and threads have been locked for less.

I know a lot of really smart, progressive people who chose not to have any kids. That is really sad because these people would have raised wonderful children. They believed that they were doing the world a favor but I say they robbed the world of really good people.

I apologize on behalf of us all.

So much sacrifice from your ancestors to place you here in our age and you "pull the plug" so to speak? Sad.

I'm not an only child. I have a family. We have values, and we will pass them on to the next generation.

*waits for the post to be deleted*

1) Do you think he's going to make you give it back?

If he can't get anything past Congress, as some have sugessted here, you tax cut will remain in effect, and nothing will change that....

2) How much do you pay a year in health care for your kids?

Because part of the money that comes back will be earmarked for implimenting a plan similar to what Dean did in Vermont....are you willing to give back that $400 to save the full $1200?

If Dean can't get the tax cuts recinded, he won't impliment the health care, that's what it is to be a fiscal conservative! He will use the pressure of most people's need for healthcare to overcome the resistance in Congress...it is a game of chicken he has played well with the Vermont legislature and is the only candidate left who actually has executive experience....

So four possible outcomes:

1) Pass healthcare, recind tax cuts...you lose $400..gain ??? in child healthcare costs...

2) Pass healthcare, fail to recind tax cuts....you keep your $400, lose costs of healthcare for your kids...

3) Fail to pass healthcare, recind tax cuts...you lose $400, you get no healthcare for kids...you're screwed....but Dean would tie the two together, the probability of this event occuring is very low...

4) Fail to pass healthcare, fail to recind tax cuts....you keep $400...you lose the costs of your child's healthcare....this is the outcome with the highest probability if the repugs keep control of one chamber of Congress....but you keep your $400!!

So you need to ask yourself, which of the above senarios are the most attractive to you as a parent? I personally think you should be looking at and hoping for #1.....but that's just me...

The middle class tax cuts were, like, 20% of the total package. And the shit that the rich (who make their money from things other than earned income) wasn't the only shit they got from tax cuts in the last 30 years. And, especially considering the alternative minimum tax, the middle class haven't exactly been getting a ton of tax breaks in that time. (And what about totally regressive state and local taxes?)

All the money needed to fund health care can easily by found in places OTHER than from the middle class earned income earners.

We have horribly underfunded schools, there is little to no low cost mortgage opportunities for working class people, the community college and secondary education systems are underfunded.

I'm all for middle class tax cuts. But I don't believe, and you haven't convinced me that we have to use Bush's framework to do that.

he has proposed using the repealed tax cuts to institute the same type of medical covergae that he got done in Vermont....which is why I used it for my example....

Dean is offering to increase government spending on healthcare, perscription drugs, education, infrastructure, small business loans, aid to the states for the increased costs of homeland security, properly fund homeland security....

all this stuff costs money!! At no other time in American history have we fought a war, occupied two countries and cut taxes....get over it...we all have to make some sacrifices....attacking Dean's position is foolish as any attempt to cut back on Bush's tax cuts will be seen as a tax hike...and since the repugs are good at getting people to think that $400 billion in tax cuts goes to them....all Dems will face this issue....the difference is that Dean will offer real programs and back it up with fiscal responsibility...something that appeals to most Americans....don't believe me, than look at the 1996 election....

bear the biggest relative burden to pay for their own health care, even though many of the benefits of a healthier population will go to big businesses.

They're actually hoping that the burden will be so big that people will criticize the gov't and beg to go to the free market to get health care instead.

The last think the Cato Inst and Republicans want to see is this stuff (which will make society as a whole wealthier and fairer) to be paid for out of progressive taxation.

to this Cato glee over Dean? Any support for your claim?

As if these same families weren't paying this 3 years ago.

I would be happy to pay what I paid under Clinton, if it means healthcare, fully funded special ed, more jobs.

In all your fervor to support Bush tax cuts for him, you forget the 3million + people who got a 100% tax cut when they got laid off because of the economic damage this cut caused.

I wonder if they'd rather have that 400 bucks, or a job?

You present your support for Bush tax cuts as some humanitarian effort motivated by your progressive views on helping families... yet you ignore that this help came, in part, on the backs of 3 million people who now have no income at all to pay taxes on.

But hey, as long as you get your $$$… who cares about those people, right?

It's terrible that Deanies are encouraging a perspective which plays into hands of libertarians and RW'ers that progressive taxation doesn't matter.

I'm throwing that in with the 10-20 billion dollar burden the tax cut revocation will shift back to the middle class. I include this in my calculation because, if Dean doesn't take it seriously viz the middle class tax cuts, I suspect we can presume that he isn't going to take any other cuts to the middle class tax burden seriously, right?

The opportunity costs of not allowing the middle class to pull America out of this slump are going to be huge. Dean has got to take distribution of the income tax burden WAY more seriously if he's expects me to stop complaining about him here at DU. And even if he started to talk more intelligently about tax burdens, I'd still be worried by his record in VT, and by everything he has done to date.

a REPUBLICAN obsession!

The fact is that health care and education --the two things the Deaniacs in this thread have said can't be funded without repealing the middle class tax cuts-- CAN be funded without repealing those tax cuts. Dean's supporters in this thread are not telling the truth when they imply it's either health care and education or middle class tax cuts.

Hoover also tried to balance the budget on the backs of an already over-burdened middle class. He never asked corporations and the wealthy to pick up the slack. It made the economy shrink.

Does Dean's policy continue to burden the middle class?

with proof....

you say:

the two things the Deaniacs in this thread have said can't be funded without repealing the middle class tax cuts-- CAN be funded without repealing those tax cuts.

ok....i'm game....how? The Dean supporters have suggested that Dean would need the revenue for such projects...how would you pay for them.....run defecits? oh, yeah...the American people will love that much more than taxes....

Also, why don't you want Americans to make the same sacrifice they've made during every war time period in the modern era? How do you fight a war on terrorism and rebuild two countries without raising taxes?!

Maybe in lad-de-da land we can talk about universal health care, world peace, democrats in conrtol of Congress, balanced budgets and tax cuts for the middle class...but this is not the environment that any Dem President is going to find waiting for them....is it?!

SO to repeat the question, so you dont miss it....how would you pay for healthcare for everyone under 18, and (fill in other program mentioned above here)?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

...in the future, it makes sense to run the defecit.

Good examples: education, health care, to create a more progressive income tax code (however, this last one doesn't even need to be run on a defecit -- you could raise tax on the wealthiest, who are really getting much richer even in this crappy economy, and balance the budget, or even run a surplus -- remember, the effective federal tax rates on corporations is about 2-3%, while the richest individuals pay an effective federal rate of 22-30%, and we know big corporations like IBM in VT pay very very low state and local taxes).

ok....i'm game....how? The Dean supporters have suggested that Dean would need the revenue for such projects...how would you pay for them.....run defecits? oh, yeah...the American people will love that much more than taxes....

Yep. The American people, and economists, tend to agree that moderate deficits are what the economy needs.

Also, why don't you want Americans to make the same sacrifice they've made during every war time period in the modern era? How do you fight a war on terrorism and rebuild two countries without raising taxes?!

Raise taxes on the rich. Restore the inheritance tax and increase it. Increase the rates on the highest income brackets, and create new brackets for them with even higher rates. Eliminate corporate welfare and tax shelters.

Maybe in lad-de-da land we can talk about universal health care, world peace, democrats in conrtol of Congress, balanced budgets and tax cuts for the middle class...but this is not the environment that any Dem President is going to find waiting for them....is it?!

You must be confusing me with Dean. Dean is promising to do all that, INCLUDING cutting taxes for the middle class. I, on the other hand, have not called for a tax cut. I merely said we shouldn't raise taxes on the middle class.

Why don't you answer your own question and tell us how DEAN plans on getting all that passed?

shifted the burden OFF the middle class?

"I'm throwing that in with the 10-20 billion dollar burden the tax cut revocation will shift back to the middle class."

You can't put BACK something that was never gone. The Bush tax cut raised the level of burden on the middle class, it didn't remove it.

You need to get your head out and stop buying Bush spin.


Oh and this idea that Dean is against progressive tax, is flat out wrong. Dean has said several times he wants to close up the tax loopholes and offshore corproate frauds that corporatations are using to avoid paying their taxes.

You do not need a tax hike, you just need to make them pay what they already should be paying.

But again, I'm sure fact will do nothing to change your Dean hate spew.

...in history? That's real money, too.

According to a recent Paul Krugman column, the typical family will pay $700 less in taxes under the Bush tax cut, but at the same time, he is running up about $1,500 in debt for that same average family.

That tax cut may make it easier for you to raise your kids, but it's going to make it a lot harder for your kids to raise theirs.

according to this Harper's Index:

snip>
Percentage of Americans who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of this year's tax cut : 88

Average amount these Americans will save : $4

Source: Citizens for Tax Justice (Washington, D.C.)

http://www.harpers.org/harpers-index/listing.php3?src=1&sub_date=2003-10-01

like his military background, is a load of shit whose sole purpose is to pander for votes built on deceptions.

than it seems.

Just creating the 10 % bracket from the 15 % bracket will save pretty much every family that makes over $ 30,000 something.

Also increasing the child tax credit is a savings to most families of at least $ 10- $ 30 per month on ther withholding.

This is an odd statistic. I'd like to know how it was arrived at.

Maybe there is virtually no saving from 2005 to 2006, because the middle class cuts already went into effect in 2003.

Or maybe they're figuring that inflation will eat up the tax cuts over three years.

Anyway, on the face of it, it does not appear to be an honest statistic.

I think it is looking at Bush's second tax cut.

In the first round of tax cuts, the 10% rate was carved out of the 15% rate band. Therefore everyone who pays a dollar of taxes gets a tax reduction. If you make $ 14,000 income, you pay 10% tax on the last 7,000 instead of 15% saving you $ 350.

If you don't pay any tax, you don'e get a cut.

However, in the second round of suts, it's the higher brackets that went down.

The old 28% bracket was cut to 27, then to 25 %. The old 31% bracket was cut to 30, and then again to 28%.

Rather than cutting the 15% to 10% in steps, they did that in the first shot though.

So, you could say that in the last tax cut a single making $ 30,000 didn't get anything, but it would probably be incumbent upon you at the same time to say that the same person would have gotten a cut from the tax cuts the year before.

Here are the tax brackets from the second Bush tax cuts from CNN.

*****************************************************

TAX RATES DECLINE
Tax rate declines were accelerated courtesy of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
Old rate New rate Tax-bracket end points
Single Joint
10% Same $7,000 $14,000
15% Same $28,400 $56,800
27% 25% $68,800 $114,650
30% 28% $143,500 $174,700
35% 33% $311,950 $311,950
38.6% 35% None None

New tax rates are effective from Jan. 1, 2003 through 2010. Tax-bracket endpoints are for 2003 and represent the top dollar-amount of taxable income which is subject to a given rate. In other words, the first $7,000 of taxable income for a single filer is taxed at 10 percent; dollars $7,000 through $28,400 is taxed at 15 percent and so on. These endpoints are indexed for inflation and can change from year to year.

**************************************************************

Other candidates trying to nuance the issue may be beat over the head on this if they're not careful.

I think Dean should say any family making less than $100,000 can keep the child bribe just to shut up the tax whiners.

I guess anything is temporary in our mortal lives, but the 15 % bracket is as permanent as any law is, and so is the higher child deduction.

You won't get the $ 400 every year. It's reflected in your monthly paycheck for most people.

I thought the rates revert back to what they were after 10 years. I thought Bush* has been pushing to make those tax cuts permanent

check your mail.

You need to be briefed about what most of us ignore. ;-)

Good point. Consider it done.