Democrats Not Shying Away From Tax Talk

[sbp]

http://publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=526866

Democratic presidential candidates are following the politically risky strategy of embracing tax increases as key parts of their economic agendas, hoping to make mounting federal deficits and President Bush's economic stewardship major issues in the 2004 campaign.

Some Democratic candidates, such as Dean and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), have called for repeal of all the cuts, a move that would raise tax rates for all income-tax payers, reinstate the "marriage penalty" on joint filers, and shrivel the popular child tax credit for middle-income taxpayers. Both candidates frame the issue in terms of choices, and both have pledged that they would use the tax revenue to provide universal health insurance coverage and rev up the economy.

-------------
muwhahaahaa! Call it the Mondale Strategy. :bigmouth:

[nickel]

just the sight of Gephardt makes me wanna :puke:

[johnnymk]

Gee, an increase in taxes. That's always a good tactic to get elected.

Talk about candidates grasping for straws!

[topane]

Wow, so they actually think that the money our gov't is spending has to come from somewhere? What lunatics!

I thought Reps were supposed to be the party of fiscal sanity but it really hasn't worked out that way. Sure, they're pushing for lower taxes but they are not reducing the size of our government. They've taken up the banner of universal healthcare just like the Dems. Except the Dems want to pay for it with real money, and the Reps want to drive up that deficit.

So, if we're going to get universal health care, how the hell are we going to pay for it if there is no tax money to fund it? Tax increases aren't going to win an election (duh!) but I shudder to think what will happen to our country with ever increasing debt.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by topane
Wow, so they actually think that the money our gov't is spending has to come from somewhere? What lunatics!

I thought Reps were supposed to be the party of fiscal sanity but it really hasn't worked out that way. Sure, they're pushing for lower taxes but they are not reducing the size of our government. They've taken up the banner of universal healthcare just like the Dems. Except the Dems want to pay for it with real money, and the Reps want to drive up that deficit.

So, if we're going to get universal health care, how the hell are we going to pay for it if there is no tax money to fund it? Tax increases aren't going to win an election (duh!) but I shudder to think what will happen to our country with ever increasing debt.

i don't know if i agree or disagree with you. i think the tax cut is the correct thing to do. i also realize that it probably will adversely affect our debt. however, i believe the remedy lies with reducing the size of our gvt and the ridiculous amounts of money that are wasted on misc programs and perks for elected officials.

[topane]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd


i don't know if i agree or disagree with you. i think the tax cut is the correct thing to do. i also realize that it probably will adversely affect our debt. however, i believe the remedy lies with reducing the size of our gvt and the ridiculous amounts of money that are wasted on misc programs and perks for elected officials. You agree with me :P. I think a tax cut is great too (before sbp starts flinging the "L" word around ;)) and I don't think we need to repeal any. We should reduce the government's size but it's not going to happen for the forseeable future. Libs make no bones about wanting the gov't to be a nanny state, but now the Cons are doing the same freaking thing, and complain when Libs are doing it. I don't know why people argue about which party is better, they're 95% alike. Call them the "Republicrats" or something.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by topane
Call them the "Republicrats" or something. I prefer the more correct term, F**king ***holes, myself. :D

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by nickelback
just the sight of Gephardt makes me wanna :puke:

Typical of most women, they usually vote for teh best looking candidate. Its a wonder we ever let them vote. :hehehmm:

[nickel]

something that is not a wonder tho is your virginity http://www.gotapex.com/forums/images/smilies/hehehmm.gif

and believe me you didn't let me vote. my foremothers fought for that right.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Its a wonder we ever let them vote. :hehehmm:

Is it a bit funny than Nickleback would be conservative despite that regime holding back women's suffrage? A real female conservative wouldn't vote right?

[attgig]

man... why is it that ever attack on nickle gets so personal...cheeeeel...


anyways...this is NOT going to help the dem's get more votes. they SHOULD shy away from it ESPECIALLY the cuts that greatly affect the middle class (marraige and kids).
I think most of America can appreciate the fact that we shouldn't spend munny like crazy, but Bus can easily argue for the cause that with what happened in past four years, any president...from the most lavishly spending president to the most frugal, would have had to spend this much money over the past four years. There's no way around that. I don't think Bush likes to spend more money than they should, but that the circumstances forced Bush to spend that much money.

[Cantacuzene]

I may agree with you Attgig that he HAD to spend this money, but if thats true why wasnt he more responsible and say, "well i would have liked to give a tax cut, but times are tough."

What he did was demagoguery. He had to have known that the war was goign to run up a debt, but he cut taxes anyway because it was the popular thing to do. Pandering for votes. I hope our children enjoy paying for it.

[topane]

Originally posted by attgig
I think most of America can appreciate the fact that we shouldn't spend munny like crazy, but Bus can easily argue for the cause that with what happened in past four years, any president...from the most lavishly spending president to the most frugal, would have had to spend this much money over the past four years. There's no way around that. I don't think Bush likes to spend more money than they should, but that the circumstances forced Bush to spend that much money. I don't think the gov't needed to spend that much. Moot point, but we didn't need to invade Iraq, and now we're stuck with the bill of occupation and reconstruction.

As for Americans thinking we shouldn't spend money like crazy, I don't think that's true at all. We constantly refinace our debt and run up huge credit card bills. The government is doing the same things its citizens do. Yes, tax cuts are great. The problem is, when your income drops, you don't go out and spend more. The administration should be actively cutting other parts of the government to pay its bills.

So, yes, it's a stupid strategy to say "We're going to repeal tax cuts" but what is the other option? How do we finance our bloated government? It doesn't matter anyway because the tax cuts are enough of a bribe to keep Dubya in for a second term. And for once I agree with Canta - if this keeps up our children will pay for it.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by nickelback
something that is not a wonder tho is your virginity http://www.gotapex.com/forums/images/smilies/hehehmm.gif

and believe me you didn't let me vote. my foremothers fought for that right.

Personal attack aside, I notice you didn't dispute the statement that women tend to vote for the best looking candidate.

[nickel]

it was too stupid to warrant a response :rolleyes:

and by saying it you have proven you are a male chauvinist.

[johnnymk]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Personal attack aside, I notice you didn't dispute the statement that women tend to vote for the best looking candidate.

Gotta agree with you there, canta..The way a guy comes across in the media is what counts with many women.

I can't imagine how that logic applied with Mr. Bland (Al Gore), though.

[nickel]

it didn't apply because to Gore because the whole theory is flawed.

if not, it would apply to men also. if there were 2 women candidates running for any given office and one was Hott and the other was Fugly most men would vote for the Hott one. same logic as Canta thinks he has going.

[bachviet]

No more tax increase please
I have enough tax in California so I don't need more taxes.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
however, i believe the remedy lies with reducing the size of our gvt and the ridiculous amounts of money that are wasted on misc programs and perks for elected officials.
i agree with you in some ways, BUT.....

when it comes down to it, "misc programs" and "perks for elected officials" really don't add up to much. the major components of the federal budget are social security/medicare and defense spending. a large chunk goes for "social programs" and "community development", although almost as much simply goes to pay interest on the existing debt.

so when it's time to start reducing the size of the federal government, even if you try cut out all the "waste" (not even allowing for the fact that one man's "waste" is another man's "vital government program"), you're not necessarily going to reduce the size of government dramatically....which means you have to start looking at defense and social security, two rather unpopular areas to start chopping, especially right now.

[Cantacuzene]

Well I was half joking at first. Then your response made me think about it and I realized it was mostly true. You are prolly right if the tables were turned with female candidates and male voters except Party affiliation is stronger with men than women so I assume the % would be slightly lower than women. Apply it to the real world where most candidates are men and you can discard the theory and work only with the practical and its easy to see I was right after all.

[attgig]

Originally posted by topane
I don't think the gov't needed to spend that much. Moot point, but we didn't need to invade Iraq, and now we're stuck with the bill of occupation and reconstruction.

yeah, well can't look at every decision strictly on a financial standpoint. WMD as an excuse or a real threat....or just getting rid of a dictator who was obviously abusing his people (our business/not our business? that's for another thread but no, I don't wanna discuss that....) who knows. The white house decided that it was worth doing, and that it was worth the financial hit.

[attgig]

Originally posted by whitak24
which means you have to start looking at defense and social security, two rather unpopular areas to start chopping, especially right now.

would America (general public America) be comfortable if America didn't have the strongest defense in the world? I recently read somewhere that using the military simulations that they have over at DOD, they would lose to China. dunno how true that is or what not, but no president wants to be the president that loses a war to the Chinese (or anyone else for that matter). Now, better way to deal with that? diplomacy? no question.

but the immediate threat wasn't against China or any other nation. it was against terrorists, and <cheasy action flick>"America doesn't deal with terrorists."</cheasy action flick> imo, Iraq is a nice strategic point. we have very little presence in the middle east, and since we're in Iraq and setting up our lovely little government (for the benefit of the Iraqi's of course :P), we can set up some nice little military bases to flex our muscles :).

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by attgig
would America (general public America) be comfortable if America didn't have the strongest defense in the world? I recently read somewhere that using the military simulations that they have over at DOD, they would lose to China. dunno how true that is or what not,Its baloney. I remember back in the early 80's, the pentagon and govenrment were all aflutter talking about the soviet threat, how their military was mightier, better equipped, better trained, blah blah blah, and that the communists would be eating our lunch if we didn't watch out blah blah blah.

Then the USSR collapsed from within, and it turns out they hadn't been a real threat to us in decades. This is just more BS from the military so they can keep their ridiculous levels of funding, graft, and waste.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by zenbooty
This is just more BS from the military so they can keep their ridiculous levels of funding, graft, and waste.

On some level you might be right but I for one am quite happy to have a military with a good dose of paronia. It helps them keep their edge. If they didn't think countries are a threat they might get complacent and actually lose their edge. I don't think China would whip us (no I don't want to find out either) and I'd like to keep it that way. The best way to do that is with military planners planning for the worst.

[blueindian]

our military budget is many times greater than any threatening country. we can certainly afford to trim it down without risk to our national security. i, for one, would be plenty comfortable after a sizeable reduction.



wolrd military budgets (http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/world-military-spending.cfm)

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by blueindian
our military budget is many times greater than any threatening country. we can certainly afford to trim it down without risk to our national security. i, for one, would be plenty comfortable after a sizeable reduction.



wolrd military budgets (http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/world-military-spending.cfm)

I totally agree with you, but woe to any politician who actually suggests it. Lowering defense, especially now is political suicide. Yet another case of doing what is popular rather than what is right.

[bachviet]

Originally posted by blueindian
our military budget is many times greater than any threatening country. we can certainly afford to trim it down without risk to our national security. i, for one, would be plenty comfortable after a sizeable reduction.



wolrd military budgets (http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/world-military-spending.cfm)
That might be true but wages are higher for US troops plus the cost of R&D is high for new equipment. You have to look at the ratio not just the total cost.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by bachviet

That might be true but wages are higher for US troops plus the cost of R&D is high for new equipment. You have to look at the ratio not just the total cost.

Whats that mean? I honestly dont see what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that since Chinese troops are cheaper to pay for they have an equal army? I dont think so. And about R&D, its precisely that R&D advantage we have that keeps us number one. I'd love to give credit for our fighting man being superior but he isnt the reason, his gear and training is.

[topane]

Originally posted by bachviet

That might be true but wages are higher for US troops plus the cost of R&D is high for new equipment. You have to look at the ratio not just the total cost. That and our toilet seats cost a hell of a lot more.

[johnnymk]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Whats that mean? I honestly dont see what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that since Chinese troops are cheaper to pay for they have an equal army? I dont think so. And about R&D, its precisely that R&D advantage we have that keeps us number one. I'd love to give credit for our fighting man being superior but he isnt the reason, his gear and training is.

It must be a full moon. I agree with canta on this too.:P

[attgig]

like I said...you all can talk about our military budget vs other military budgets, but our war isn't against those other countries anymore (except iraq, Nkorea, and cuba).

it's against terrorists.....

[blueindian]

Originally posted by attgig
like I said...you all can talk about our military budget vs other military budgets, but our war isn't against those other countries anymore (except iraq, Nkorea, and cuba).

it's against terrorists.....

and we need 1 billion dollar jet fighters to fight small terrorist cells, right?

[bachviet]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Whats that mean? I honestly dont see what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that since Chinese troops are cheaper to pay for they have an equal army? I dont think so. And about R&D, its precisely that R&D advantage we have that keeps us number one. I'd love to give credit for our fighting man being superior but he isnt the reason, his gear and training is.
It costs the US more to keep its military up to date and equip it with the top notch equipment than China or Russia or Korea. I don't think any other country has better arm forces than the US in term of strength, equipment, and etc. We have to look at the military spending in term of ratio vs. GDP not just the amount.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by bachviet

It costs the US more to keep its military up to date and equip it with the top notch equipment than China or Russia or Korea. I don't think any other country has better arm forces than the US in term of strength, equipment, and etc. We have to look at the military spending in term of ratio vs. GDP not just the amount.

i'd rather we look at national health care vs. GDP