Why Bush will win

[StevenNick]

Why Bush will win... Especially if Dean is the nominee, because of the "repeal of Bushes' tax cuts. Nice wording for a tax increase. I'm not in total agreement with how Bush cut taxes but the lowest income people saw there tax burden decreased by 33% while the richest people saw there tax burden decreased by 9% So who is getting the shaft by Deans' economic policy's? I don't think the wealthy in this country were in need of having their taxes reduced but Dean is proposing having the poorest people in this country have there taxes raised the most. Now I hear about Dean considering a tax cut for the middle and lower class. Does that mean that they will have their taxes reduced further or is it Dean speak for a smaller increase than 33%?

It drives me insane hearing people talk about "tax cuts for the rich".  It's just one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.  People like Howard Dean don't understand that it is not only bad economics, but it is unconstitutional that we make "the rich" pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than "the poor".

One of the main problems with government sponsored income redistribution is the fact that there are no static classes in America.  Most of the people who are "poor" in this country are either young people who have yet to reach their highest earning potential or are retired people who have surpassed their highest earning potential.  If you look at the people who are "poor" now, only a handful of them are the same who were "poor" fifteen years ago, and only a handful of them will still be "poor" fifteen years from now.  

Some people try to say that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but that simply is not true.  Everybody in this country is enjoying the unparalleled economic growth that this country experiences on an almost constant basis despite the periodic economic downturn.  In fact, the only reason statistics occasionally show the increased division between rich and poor is because of the constant influx of immigrants into this country.  They tend to be poorer than the national average thus depressing the average income of "the poor".  But even the immigrants enjoy economic prosperity once they are established in the country.

There simply is no rationale for a graduated income tax.  The poor are, for the most part, not the destitute, miserable starving hordes that most people associate with the word.  In fact, most of them will be "rich" in a few decades.

The final flaw in a graduated tax system is that tax rates are placed on certain income levels that are considered "rich" at the time, but in a matter of years become middle-class.  The government will still be taxing incomes of $100,000 at the highest tax rate even after inflation and wage increases have rendered such an income something less than extraordinary.

It would be so much simpler to tax people at two rates:  zero, and a rate to be decided by congress (I like the thriteen percent rate that Russia and Ukrania have adopted).  Once tax reforms have been made, foolish politicians need to stop the class warfar tactics that are so ridiculously uninformed.

[dazzleman]

Another problem with graduated tax rates is that a certain level of income has a vastly different puchasing power in different parts of the country.

A person making $100,000 per year will be very well off in Alabama, and barely middle class in California or New York.

Those that the Democrats call the "rich" are often just middle-to-upper middle class people within the context of the expensive areas that they live.

Personally, my definition of rich is that your money works for you, and not the other way around.

I think that the Democrats are demagoguing the whole tax issue, implying that only the "rich" should be paying anything at all.  This is a major threat to the stability of a democracy, because democracy is finished when the majority of people are able to vote themselves benefits that they don't have to pay for.

[lolitsadam]

3.  Gay marriage seems like it will be the big social issue of 2004 which plays right into the republicans' hands.

Are you blind?  Republicans supporting a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage and all legal recognition of same-sex couples is FAR from going to help them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The country's split in half on civil unions, so I don't see honestly how that could be used against the Dems.  And Bush is the one who's out-of-step with mainstream America, most Americans aren't fundamental Christians as he is.

I really don't think you put much thought into your post.

[Nym90]

The poor saw their taxes cut by 33% and the rich only by 9%? Ah, but you forget about payroll taxes, the taxes for Social Security and Medicare that come out of your paycheck before you even see it. Most Americans pay a majority of their taxes in payroll taxes, and payroll taxes only apply to the first $60,000 of income! And Bush has not cut payroll taxes at all, of course. These are a much bigger burden on the poor than on the rich.
On the one hand, you say tax cuts for the wealthy are a good thing, then on the other, you say that's not really what Bush is doing! Which is it?

[Nym90]

Actually, a lot of people are poor and their families remain poor for many generations, and likewise, many people are rich and their familes remain rich for many generations. But you are right that there is a great deal of economic movement among classes for people in this country.

But, I fail to see your point. If people frequently move from one class to another, wouldn't that be a big argument in favor of the progressive tax structure? It's benefiting different people at different times, it's not just a giveaway to a certain group of people at the expense of others. And, also, maybe the progressive tax structure is what is helping those poor people to move up the economic ladder. Since poor and middle class people receive much more benefit from government than they pay in, this helps them to have a better quality of life and move up the economic ladder.

Our society does have a vested interest in helping the poor and middle class with government programs, even if it comes at some expense to the wealthy. Almost all problems in society can be linked in some way or another to poverty (well, that and poor parenting, but that's another thread). The elmination of poverty and the lifting up of the bottom classes helps everybody, even the rich! Republicans are the ones playing class warfare, not Democrats. Democratic economic policies would benefit everybody, although they do benefit the poor and middle class a lot more than the wealthy, but overall the wealthy will still see benefit. Republican economic policies help the wealthy at the great expense of the poor and middle class. Even if the poor and the middle class get a tax cut, the cuts in government spending that will inevitably result from the tax cuts for the wealthy will mean that the poor and middle class will overall be hurt much more than they will be helped by tax cuts.

I fail to see what you mean by saying that the only reason for a divide between rich and poor is because of immigrants, even if it were true. For one thing, if the divide is increasing, it doesn't really matter what the reason is, it's still true; also, you state that immigrants eventually get pulled up by our economic prosperity, but, since the divide between rich and poor is widening, obviously they and others are not being pulled up fast enough to make up for the rate of immigration. People will see benefits in a few decades, you say...well, 30-40 years is a long time for people to have to wait for economic prosperity to pull them up.

Also, you fail to understand the irony in your staunch defense of our economic system and how it helps everbody, but then your proposal for a drastic change in that very same system. A 13% flat tax would result in the devastation and elmination of almost all government programs other than defense. I realize you probably have no problem with this; however, that would devastate the economy and also the societal well-being of 95% of Americans. The progressive tax structure is what is responsible for making America such an economic power.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Steve... if you think that everyone is doing well at the moment then I encourage you to visit old industrial towns(eg; Flint), the Mississippi Delta and High Appalachia.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually, a lot of people are poor and their families remain poor for many generations, and likewise, many people are rich and their familes remain rich for many generations. But you are right that there is a great deal of economic movement among classes for people in this country.

But, I fail to see your point. If people frequently move from one class to another, wouldn't that be a big argument in favor of the progressive tax structure? It's benefiting different people at different times, it's not just a giveaway to a certain group of people at the expense of others. And, also, maybe the progressive tax structure is what is helping those poor people to move up the economic ladder. Since poor and middle class people receive much more benefit from government than they pay in, this helps them to have a better quality of life and move up the economic ladder.

Our society does have a vested interest in helping the poor and middle class with government programs, even if it comes at some expense to the wealthy. Almost all problems in society can be linked in some way or another to poverty (well, that and poor parenting, but that's another thread). The elmination of poverty and the lifting up of the bottom classes helps everybody, even the rich! Republicans are the ones playing class warfare, not Democrats. Democratic economic policies would benefit everybody, although they do benefit the poor and middle class a lot more than the wealthy, but overall the wealthy will still see benefit. Republican economic policies help the wealthy at the great expense of the poor and middle class. Even if the poor and the middle class get a tax cut, the cuts in government spending that will inevitably result from the tax cuts for the wealthy will mean that the poor and middle class will overall be hurt much more than they will be helped by tax cuts.

I fail to see what you mean by saying that the only reason for a divide between rich and poor is because of immigrants, even if it were true. For one thing, if the divide is increasing, it doesn't really matter what the reason is, it's still true; also, you state that immigrants eventually get pulled up by our economic prosperity, but, since the divide between rich and poor is widening, obviously they and others are not being pulled up fast enough to make up for the rate of immigration. People will see benefits in a few decades, you say...well, 30-40 years is a long time for people to have to wait for economic prosperity to pull them up.

Also, you fail to understand the irony in your staunch defense of our economic system and how it helps everbody, but then your proposal for a drastic change in that very same system. A 13% flat tax would result in the devastation and elmination of almost all government programs other than defense. I realize you probably have no problem with this; however, that would devastate the economy and also the societal well-being of 95% of Americans. The progressive tax structure is what is responsible for making America such an economic power.

Excellent post

[Paul]

Our progressive tax code isn't something that helps people climb the economic ladder: it's what keeps people pinned down.  The truly rich (those who don't think about income tax but instead corporate and capital gains) don't need to worry about taxes from wages or a yearly salary.  The system actually hurts those attempting to climb the ladder out of the impoverished lower classes.  That is, our tax code makes it easy to stay rich, but not easy to get there.
Providing benefits to the lower classes seems extremely compassionate, and yes we need to ensure that poor children recieve education, have food to eat, and access to basic medical care.  But handouts can be counterproductive.  After all, if the government is rewarding you for staying poor, and you would actually have less resources if you were employed, it's stupid to even look for a job.
The bracketed tax code that punishes success is wrong, and the benefits to the lower class are only a stopgap, which can be negative in the long run.

[00tim]

The poor saw their taxes cut by 33% and the rich only by 9%? Ah, but you forget about payroll taxes, the taxes for Social Security and Medicare that come out of your paycheck before you even see it. Most Americans pay a majority of their taxes in payroll taxes, and payroll taxes only apply to the first $60,000 of income! And Bush has not cut payroll taxes at all, of course. These are a much bigger burden on the poor than on the rich.
On the one hand, you say tax cuts for the wealthy are a good thing, then on the other, you say that's not really what Bush is doing! Which is it?

And what about luxury taxes, estate taxes, capital gains? how about taxes on the interest in bank accounts?
my argument against Dean does not include the tax structure. But the wealthy pay the highest percentage no matter how you look at it, actually I'm happy about that. If Dean is elected President a vast majority of people will see their taxes raised by a higher percentage than those who are in the highest tax bracket who will be recieving the lowest percentage tax hike. In the end the economy is only going to do good if the lower and middle income is better off. Wealthy people are going to spend money and make money regardless of the economic situation. raising taxes on the midle class would likely balance the budget twice as fast as only increasing taxes for the wealthy because there are so few perecentage wise who fall into this wealthiest catagory. Does anyonee really think that raising taxes only on the wealthy helps. That is why taxes have always been raised on the middle class the hardest percentagewise.  regardless of who is president , you want to raise taxes fine, I want to see something for my increased sacrifice, not the politicians have more money to throw around come election time.

[Nym90]

Well, as for the taxes that the rich mostly pay, Bush has or is trying to cut all of them, unlike payroll taxes which disproportionately affect the poor. That was my point.

Dean will not raise taxes on the poor or middle class more than he will the rich. If you believe this, then you are simply uninformed about his positions. I absolutely agree that the economy will only do better if the poor and middle class do better; however, Republican economic philosophy dictates that only amount of money held by the rich really matters, as they'll be generous and charitable enough to give their money back to the poor and middle class and thus government doesn't have to do it for them. Yes, wealthy people will spend money and make money no matter what, which is why for the rich, a bad economy can actually be a GOOD thing since higher unemployment gives them more choices of whom to hire for job openings and thus also more power over employees who have more fear of losing their jobs and not being able to move to a different company if they don't like their current one. When the economy is bad, companies can treat their employees badly and they have no choice but to take it. Yes, their are far fewer wealthy people than there are poor and middle class, but overall the amount of tax money that they pay is greater and thus raising taxes on the rich helps raise far more money than raising taxes on the poor and middle class. You are completely wrong iin stating that taxes have always been raised on the middle class the hardest percentage wise; Clinton raised taxes only on the rich, and not the middle class. And, oh, by the way, the economy boomed in the 1990's under this policy, and we went from record deficits to record surpluses. Now, Bush has cut taxes for the wealthy, and we are back to record deficits again, far larger even than we had before Clinton came into office. So the size of the deficits and surpluses under different administrations should clearly put to shame any argument that raising or cutting taxes for the wealthy has little effect on government revenues.

Rather, I think Republicans deliberatly want to cut off the source of revenue for government programs, thus creating a massive deficit, which then will force spending to be cut. Now that we have a deficit, spending cuts can be justified, the Republicans can say "Gee, we really don't want to cut spending, but we just have to due to the deficit, we have to be fiscally responsible" completely ignoring the fact that the fiscally irresponsible tax cuts are what caused the mess in the first place! Rather than being honest about their agenda and supporting spending cuts even when they aren't absolutely necessary, the GOP would rather promote the more popular part of their agenda first, and then, once they have created a fiscal crisis, use the unpopular part of their agenda as an excuse to "fix" it.

[dazzleman]

I wouldn't say it was true that Clinton raised taxes only on the rich, not the middle class.  The income levels that he raised taxes on could be considered rich in certain parts of the country, but not others.  In places like the New York metropolitan area, a family of four with an income of $150,000 is middle class, not rich.  Housing costs are so high in some areas that a person with an income of $150,000 can barely afford a starter home, so I wouldn't consider that person rich.

The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton raised taxes as the economy was growing and the recession had already ended, while Bush lowered taxes in order to provide stimulus to an economy that was sinking.

Don't forget that Clinton signed onto a big tax cut in 1997 on the "rich" and this had a lot to do with the late 1990s boom.  Clinton agreed to slash capital gains taxes in 1997, and by definition only those with assets benefit from this type of tax cut.

My problem with the Democratic position on taxes is that there seems to be no limit to their soak the "rich" philosophy.  I don't believe Democracy can survive if the majority of people are able to vote themselves benefits that they don't have to pay for, so I oppose large scale redistribution of wealth, which is effectively what the Democrats are proposing when they say they want to eliminate taxes on the middle and lower classes, and significantly increase them on high income people.  It's not only about where to get the most money; it's also about the principle that everybody must pay some share for the cost of government if they are going to have a say in determining what is spent.

[00tim]

My taxes went up and I'm not wealthy. But you are correct when you say that Clinton raised taxes mostly on the wealthy. He did still raise taxes on middle income people. I have never given presidential administrations alot of the credit for economic situations good or bad. There are too many outside influences out of the control of the administrations. The federal reserve has the most influence as far as government goes. We had an economic recovery during the Reagan administration and taxes went down for everyone and the federal deficit grew. We had a recession under GHW Bush when he raised taxes and was not as supply sided as his predecessor. Along came Clinton who raised taxes considerably and we had the largest economic expansion in U.S. history. Clinton and Reagan benefited under conditions with low fuel prices and lowering of the interest rates. Neither had anything or atleast much to do with these influences.
Now along comes Dean who was calling for the "repeal" of the Bush tax cuts. =tax hikes. It has been proved and we are currently in an economic upturn with low taxes combined with low interest rates and atleast for the time stable fuel prices. Yes there is a deficit which must be addressed but it was also proven that the deficit was turned into a surplus not by Clintons tax hikes (it did help some) but primarily by the good economy which brought in enormus revenue for the gov't.
The problem with people like Dean is they care more about the imediate gov't budget and how much money they can spend right now.
NO, there is not as much fiscal responisbility with the Bush administration as there should be and Taxes need not be lowered for people in the wealthiest percentile but raising taxes on the middle and lower income people simply for the benefit of Lowering the federal deficit when it has been proven that
A. You can have good economic times with one
B. the federal deficit goes down predominently from good revenue which only can be achieved under economic upturns is not a policy that is best for the people.

[Gustaf]

This is really off topic, but would it be allright for those of you who are independents to have a signature that tells us what kind of independents you are? There are two independents from NY, and I keep mixing you up! It's easier to understand the points if I can distiguish between green independents and libertarian ones. You don't have to, if you don't want to, of course, but I would appreciate it, anyway.

[Nym90]

Dazzleman, I can perfectly understand having a moral objection to redistrubution of wealth. That's at least a consistent position, and I commend you for that, even though I disagree with it. As I've said all along, the economic debate is basically a struggle between two competing moral principles, and different people have different ideas about which is more important. Do the wealthy have a moral obligation to society to give back some of their wealth for others' benefit, or does society have a moral obligation to the wealthy to let them keep their money? Most of us would agree that both are true to at least a certain extent, but then which is more important?

[dazzleman]

Dazzleman, I can perfectly understand having a moral objection to redistrubution of wealth. That's at least a consistent position, and I commend you for that, even though I disagree with it. As I've said all along, the economic debate is basically a struggle between two competing moral principles, and different people have different ideas about which is more important. Do the wealthy have a moral obligation to society to give back some of their wealth for others' benefit, or does society have a moral obligation to the wealthy to let them keep their money? Most of us would agree that both are true to at least a certain extent, but then which is more important?

With respect to redistribution of wealth, I think it's a matter of degree.  A certain degree of it is necessary and even desirable, but if it goes beyond a certain point, democracy is endangered because self-government is predicated upon the notion that the vast majority of people are self-supporting.  If that is not the case, and people are able to vote themselves benefits that they don't have to pay for, self-government is in grave danger.

The trick is to balance between the two competing notions.  It's not really about the rich keeping their money; for the real rich, even the tax rates proposed by the Democrats won't make any difference in their lifestyle.  I believe in constructive help for people who need a hand up, but handouts should be strictly limited to those who are legitimately unable to help themselves.   The GI Bill was a perfect example of a hand-up that greatly benefited society economically and socially, and every dime spent on it was worth it.  But AFDC welfare is a perfect example of a bad handout that hurt society immeasurably.

So please understand that the issue is not greed for the rich, as many Democrats try to paint it, but the overall best interests of society, which are not necessarily served by taking from those who have more just because they have more.

[NHPolitico]

The more I hear, see, read, the more I am convinced of G.W. at the helm for another 4 years. Unless, and only unless, there is a more significant terrorist attack that would rival or beat 9-11 as the worst on U.S. soil. If that happens, Heaven Help Us All !

The stages of grief. The sooner you get to acceptance the better.  Cheer up. I lived through a second Clinton term!

[NHPolitico]

I'm forming a 'Liberal League' around my school, and the #2 reason why people say no is because Bush was in a war.  I asked one of them what would happen if he hadn't gotten into the war, and she said she wouldn't like Bush.

I don't understand what you're saying here.  Are you saying that these kids at your school like Bush because he was a president that put the country in a war?  OIF or OEF or both?  Are they just saying that they like that he is fighting against the terrorists? What?

[NHPolitico]

*sigh* The perils of being a young overenthusiastic liberal.

And no matter your beliefs, I'm glad you're engaged and involved. Competition keeps our side on our toes. If you start your club and it thrives, maybe some conservatives will get off their asses at your school and form a competing organization.

[NHPolitico]

New?  Hardly.  I've been liberal since I was... say... 9.

9?? How in the world did you develop an informed worldview at 9?  

[NHPolitico]

Bush is a Man of Faith & He Belives in God I Think that its Time that Amercan goes back to God in 2004

Bush will win because Pat Robertson said God said so.  The real God-- not the YaBB variety.  

[NHPolitico]

The World needs a Dean Presidency.

Got any backup for that?

Maybe he just got cut off. The World needs a Dean Presidency... like we need a baseball bat to our heads.

[NHPolitico]

I wish Dave would make a few of us trusted members, moderators at the forums. (If the forums will allow him to, that is.) That way we can lay down the law with an IRON FIST, and stop all these fools and their stupid posts, and bring an end to trolls. As President Bush said about terrorist, I say about trolls.

We will hunt them down, and take em down. We'll smoke em out. These guys can't stay hidden forever. They will experience the justice they never gave to others.

Quoting Bush? Trolls must really get to you!

[NHPolitico]

Well, as for the taxes that the rich mostly pay, Bush has or is trying to cut all of them, unlike payroll taxes which disproportionately affect the poor. That was my point.

Dean will not raise taxes on the poor or middle class more than he will the rich. If you believe this, then you are simply uninformed about his positions. I absolutely agree that the economy will only do better if the poor and middle class do better; however, Republican economic philosophy dictates that only amount of money held by the rich really matters, as they'll be generous and charitable enough to give their money back to the poor and middle class and thus government doesn't have to do it for them. Yes, wealthy people will spend money and make money no matter what, which is why for the rich, a bad economy can actually be a GOOD thing since higher unemployment gives them more choices of whom to hire for job openings and thus also more power over employees who have more fear of losing their jobs and not being able to move to a different company if they don't like their current one. When the economy is bad, companies can treat their employees badly and they have no choice but to take it. Yes, their are far fewer wealthy people than there are poor and middle class, but overall the amount of tax money that they pay is greater and thus raising taxes on the rich helps raise far more money than raising taxes on the poor and middle class. You are completely wrong iin stating that taxes have always been raised on the middle class the hardest percentage wise; Clinton raised taxes only on the rich, and not the middle class. And, oh, by the way, the economy boomed in the 1990's under this policy, and we went from record deficits to record surpluses. Now, Bush has cut taxes for the wealthy, and we are back to record deficits again, far larger even than we had before Clinton came into office. So the size of the deficits and surpluses under different administrations should clearly put to shame any argument that raising or cutting taxes for the wealthy has little effect on government revenues.

Rather, I think Republicans deliberatly want to cut off the source of revenue for government programs, thus creating a massive deficit, which then will force spending to be cut. Now that we have a deficit, spending cuts can be justified, the Republicans can say "Gee, we really don't want to cut spending, but we just have to due to the deficit, we have to be fiscally responsible" completely ignoring the fact that the fiscally irresponsible tax cuts are what caused the mess in the first place! Rather than being honest about their agenda and supporting spending cuts even when they aren't absolutely necessary, the GOP would rather promote the more popular part of their agenda first, and then, once they have created a fiscal crisis, use the unpopular part of their agenda as an excuse to "fix" it.

Democrats are starting to talk about the Bush Deficit Tax and the Bush State Tax.  They say that the high deficits will cause higher tax burdens on future generations and that therefore the tax reductions are ephemeral. Same with the State Tax argument. Less money to bail states out, so they raise state tax rates by the same amounts as federal income taxes fall.  I think it's about the best argument the Dems could come up with, and I don't think voters will think much of it.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Since when is liberalism an informed worldview?

I've been conservative since I was 9 or 10 - a lot of which was influenced by listening to talk radio.

New?  Hardly.  I've been liberal since I was... say... 9.

9?? How in the world did you develop an informed worldview at 9?  

[StevenNick]

Dazzleman, I can perfectly understand having a moral objection to redistrubution of wealth. That's at least a consistent position, and I commend you for that, even though I disagree with it. As I've said all along, the economic debate is basically a struggle between two competing moral principles, and different people have different ideas about which is more important. Do the wealthy have a moral obligation to society to give back some of their wealth for others' benefit, or does society have a moral obligation to the wealthy to let them keep their money? Most of us would agree that both are true to at least a certain extent, but then which is more important?

Even if the "rich" have a moral obligation to society to give back some of their money, is it the moral obligation of the government to force them to give?  Is it the governments duty to decide who deserves to have tax revenues "redistributed" to them?