WHY WE NEED GENERAL CLARK AS PRESIDENT

“Nigal -

You had to be there, re: Special sauce. Leave it fellow TTer's to fill in the......blanks....

Vi - I don't mind at all. I've learned a lot and any time a thread can keep it's head above water and civil is cool in my book. I kinda degenerated it myself talking about Nigal's lunch...heheheee


Good to see bacpac come up for air, but alas, just like a fart, he makes a stink and then is gone.....”

“bacpac didn't get that thing from Madonna off of her website. He got it from the EMAIL ALL OF US CLARK SUPPORTERS GOT today. I just saw mine in my inbox!

Ha! I KNEW it!!”

“Now I'm really busted.

Time to admit that bacpac is just another of my trolls.

Not my most creative effort anyway, so shedding it is no biggie.”

“The General just cancelled his visit to our workplace. Schedule conflict...now there's a way to lose a bunch o' votes...tell someone they are not quite important enough to visit.”

“He's all about the common working man ain't he?”

“Nigal, you so mean....”

“If you think I'm advocating Republicans, violin, think again. But between the big-two political party economic policies, I'll take the Rs over the Ds any day. The Ds advocate socialist principles. If that's your idea of fiscal responsibility, I strongly disagree. Was that insulting enough?


Laqtis, do you understand that we do not have a socialist economy (no matter how hard the left-wing is trying) and that the President of the U.S. does not control the economy? Do you understand that economic fluctuations most often have little to do with the administration’s economic policy? Do you realize that many ignorant people credit (or blame) the sitting (and former) President for economic conditions? Are you one of them?

Economists have said that the market was making a correction after overzealous investment, especially in tech stocks. The economy was slowing down during Clinton’s administration regardless of his economic policy. Economists also agree that we recovered faster than expected due in part to the Bush tax cuts. Many also think that we spent our way to a faster recovery by creating deficits. We did the same thing when Reagan took office from Carter. Democrats moaned then that we wouldn’t balance the budget until after 2000. They were wrong then, but it didn’t (and hasn’t) stopped them from raising the specter of doom and gloom that is so integral to their campaign strategy. And you’ve bought into that ideology hook line and sinker. Does history teach you nothing?

So exactly what economic policies has Bush implemented that have driven our economy into the ground? And what specific economic plans does Clark offer that will deliver us from our present doom and gloom?”

“arclite - Surely you know that socialism is defined as state ownership of the means of production (industry). Can you kindly tell me what Democratic candidate is advocating nationalism of key industries?

Did you bother reading the peice from the Libertarian Cato Institute?

If you are against government spending, why would you take Republicans over Democrats?

The Cato Institute showed how non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent during Bush's first three years. They further showed that during Clinton's first three years, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent.

Famous fiscal scolds that railed almost daily against deficits during the early Clinton years have grown strangely silent as of late. What's up with that?”

“Arclite - I'm right in the middle on my Son's B-Day party, so 'll make this short.

I'd like to see your sources. Post some links to your info. I'd like to see where this info is coming from. I'll be backto check on ya later. You gots time, get it up here.....”

“.....and where still waiting as arclite's credibility slowly erodes.......”

“Clark used the word disastrous to dicribe Bush's policies. "So exactly what economic policies has Bush implemented that have driven our economy into the ground? And what specific economic plans does Clark offer that will deliver us from our present doom and gloom?"

Laqtis who are you trying to fool? You seem to be doing a good job of only fooling yourself in a public forum. I asked you some questions. You respond using illogical rhetoric. Will you continue to avoid anything that questions your dogma?


If defense spending is your only argument for fiscal irresponsibility, violin, it’s a good one, but doesn’t ‘splain the whole story. 9/11 was a very unusual scenario and demanded an unusual response. It is a FACT that the Democrat sponsored bill for homeland security included much more spending than the Republican bill. It is a FACT that the Democrat sponsored bill for changes to Medicare contained much more spending than the Republican bill.

If the Dems want to take some of my money to give to poor folks as a safety net for retirement, I’m ok with that. I’m not ok with the gov’mint taking my money to provide ME with retirement benefits. I don’t need their socialist program. Dependence on Gov’mint is a collectivist, socialist philosophy. I could have invested that money much better. It is a FACT that my individual retirement investments will return more of my money than socialist security ever will. I am NOT ok with Dems saying I have no choice of investing the money they take from me, for me. How they invest the money they take from me for others is not my concern. I am NOT ok with the Dems saying I have no choice of Medicare plan except that run by the Gov’mint.

I am not ok with the Dems taxing me throughout my life and then taxing everything over 600,000 I have earned and paid taxes on my entire life at fifty percent after I die. I personally know people who have lost family farms this way. How greedy are the Dems?

Clark will raise our taxes. He has stated so. How can I not be somewhat dependent on socialist security when the Dems take my money? Tax me at a high rate and make me dependent on Government. As we move towards a service economy, the Dems are trying to give gov’mint a bigger niche providing our services. No, of course that’s not socialism.

In none of the fiscal responsibility rhetoric have I heard anything about reducing the generous retirement and health benefits enjoyed by our political class. Does anyone care?”

“Pretty good points, Arclite.

The legislators in my state are working on new ethics rules. I was reading about them this morning. Pretty weak and probably won't pass and be implemented anyway.

Our policies work better than in most countries, and yet there is so much room to improve. I really think that social safety nets are viewed by most politicians as window dressing. Unless ethics improve, I don't want the government taking more of my family income to give to other people. Because they won't give it to the people that I think need it or even pay down the deficit. Our nation is suffering from a dearth of leaders that we can trust. Corporate leaders, politicians, and even news agencies seem to all have too many secrets.

What do people think about the three year visa plan that the admin is thinking of implementing to offer undocumented workers a chance to become legal aliens?”

“arc -

"non-defense discretionary spending" does not include defense spending. You can understand that much, can't you? Those numbers were purposely presented that way to eliminate the 9-11 distortion.

If you really think that payroll taxes you pay go into some sort of government account and is paid to you after you retire, you are grossly misinformed. Retirees are paid from payroll taxes on those still working. Read up on it yourself. If people are permitted to put all or a portion of what they now pay in SS withholding into private accounts, who will pay present retirees who paid into the system all their lives? Overlooking that little obligation makes for fine rhetoric, but is not informed public debate.

Forgive my skepticism, but I sincerely doubt that you know of anyone who has lost a family farm to the estate tax. Farms are treated differently than other estates under the law. The exemption is higher ($2.6 million) and they can defer taxes for up to 14 years. Neil Harl, the attorney and Iowa State University agricultural economist says that in his “more than 30 years of meeting with farmers, farm managers and farm attorneys, ... he has never seen a case in which the tax led to the selling of the family farm.”

A Treasury Department analysis found that raising the estate tax exemption level for family-owned farms and businesses to $4 million ($8 million for married couples), would have exempted almost all the family-owned farms.”

“From that second link: "The American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to the New York Times in 2001 that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes."”

“"What do people think about the three year visa plan that the admin is thinking of implementing to offer undocumented workers a chance to become legal aliens?"
-- LyndyS
08:55:03 AM
01/09/04

As I stated on another thread, I feel it is another attempt to undermine worker security and keep wages low. John Farmer picked up that ball and ran it in for a touchdown in his column today.”

“ >”

“Arc - Egades! My screen is smoking from reading all that! You OK? Still no links to back up yer info, tho, but we'll let that go and chaulk what your saying to it being your opinion, which your full entitled to.

I have no idea where to start. Maybe from the beginining?


"Where have you been?........"

- Right here. Where you at? -

"Did you follow the different spending packages put forth by the big-two parties?......"

- I'm confused. Spending packages: When and where? Now? If that's the case, I thought it was clear that Bush has already out spent any other sitting President in histroy. You're right, if the Dems are saying they are going to spend more than that, we ARE in big trouble, however, I don't think that's the case. -

"Its [the Democratic Party’s] leaders are always troubadours of trouble; crooners of catastrophe... A Democratic President is doomed to proceed his goals like a squid, squirting darkness all about him.”

Clare Booth Luce......."


- Opinions are like #&%!$s. Everyone's got one and there's always shayt 'round the rim"

laqtis "Q" of Borg

All funnin' aside, Dems are the "troubadours of trouble" is a good one amd I agree. Like the one time when the Dems where talking about big, bad USSR and how we have to stop those damn Commies everywhere on the Earth. Or the time that McCarthy persued those damn Commies in the entertianment field. Or when they came up with Star Wars to make sure that those damn Commie missles didn't hit us. Or the time that the Dems sold arms to Iran to fund the Contra Rebels, cause we can't let those evil Commies get in there. Thank goodness the Dems did all that or you and me would all be speaking f-ing Russian right now. What's that? That was the Repubs? GET OUTTA TOWN! All this time, I thought the "troubadours of trouble" where Dems!?!?! Oppps! -

"Laqtis, do you understand that we do not have a socialist economy (no matter how hard the left-wing is trying) and that the President of the U.S. does not control the economy?..........."

- Damn! All this time I thought the President appointed the Chairman of the Fed and decided if he should stay or not. Lied to again! -


"Do you understand that economic fluctuations most often have little to do with the administration’s economic policy?......"


- Most often? What a cleaver way to structure a sentance for your point. That's gives ya a big out for this statement:

"Economists also agree that we recovered faster than expected due in part to the Bush tax cuts........"

I believe in the Professinal field, that's called talking outta both sides of yer mouth. The President has a huge roll and enfluance in our Econoomy. Maybe if ya got outta the cabin once in a while, you'd find that out. -


Do you realize that many ignorant people credit (or blame) the sitting (and former) President for economic conditions? Are you one of them?........"

- So, who do we hold....uh....accountable? Mickey Mouse? Why do the canidates even bother putting together a plan in the first place? Who should we blame or credit? Goofy? -

" Many also think that we spent our way to a faster recovery by creating deficits. We did the same thing when Reagan took office from Carter..........."

- Carter, Carter, Carter. Carter was embattled his whole tenure. Remember there was a big mess created by the Nixon peeps. Then the Iran hostage thang happened. The man was set up for failure. Too bad. He is the best post President 'round. It would've been interesting to see what he coulda done without being side tracked, but I digress. Spending, odd thing and someone correct me if I'm wrong. I don't remember any "recovery" until Bush I came into office. I do remember eating pancakes for breakfast, lunch and dinner, high unemployment, companies closing there doors and shutting whole cities down during Regan. Ahhh, those where the days! You know how many ways I can make pancakes? -

"Democrats moaned then that we wouldn’t balance the budget until after 2000........"

- Right again! We had a balanced budget before then. Isn't that why we used to have a surplus druing Clinton? -

"Does history teach you nothing?......."

- Teaches me that I'm sick of getting trickled on and that I can make a mean short stack!-

"So exactly what economic policies has Bush implemented that have driven our economy into the ground?........"

- You read the paper, don't you? It is written on an 8th grade level, so you shuld be OK. -

"And what specific economic plans does Clark offer that will deliver us from our present doom and gloom?.........."

-Here ya go:

Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform
Restoring Progressivity, Relieving the Working-Family Squeeze, and Reducing Poverty


Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform is the most sweeping tax reform proposal in years. It will restore progressivity to the tax code, relieve the working-family squeeze, and reduce poverty. Unlike President Bush's policies, which have been highly regressive and have dramatically increased the deficit, Wes Clark's proposal is paid for without raising the deficit by a dime.


Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform, a family of four making up to $50,000 will pay no federal income taxes and all taxpaying families with children making up to $100,000 will get a tax cut. The Families First Tax Reform will shift the tax burden from those who are struggling to get by to those with the most to spare. The entire proposal is offset by closing corporate loopholes and by a 5 percentage point rate increase on income over $1 million a year. The rate increase will only reach the income-over $1 million-of the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers.


The tax breaks in Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform all come from consolidating the existing confusing and uneven set of tax benefits for children, including the Child Tax Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the Dependent Exemption... and then expanding them to provide a $2,250 tax credit per child.


With Families First Tax Reform taxpayers will only need to fill out a simple, three-line form to find out if they need to pay federal income taxes, providing their income, number of children, and marital status. And the majority of families won't be forced to file any tax forms with the government.


The Clark Tax Reform provides relief for millions of middle-class families. Under the watch of George W. Bush, their incomes fell by nearly $1,500, their health care premiums rose by $2,600, their property taxes went up and their tuition at four-year public colleges increased a record 28 percent (adjusted for inflation). Rather than relieving the squeeze on working families, President Bush provided an average tax cut of $128,000 to taxpayers making over $1 million.


For lower-income families, Families First Tax Reform will increase the reward for work, helping to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.


Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform will meet his five principles for tax reform: making the tax code simpler, fairer, more progressive, and more pro-growth - without increasing the deficit. It will eliminate hundreds pages from the Internal Revenue Code and dozens of pages of different IRS forms and instructions. This builds on Wes Clark's previous simplification proposal to eliminate the Hope Scholarship tax credit and consolidate it into a Universal College Grant.



HIGHLIGHTS OF FAMILIES FIRST TAX REFORM


All working families benefit.
No families of four making under $50,000 will pay income taxes. Currently, a family of four making $50,000 pays $1,549 in income taxes.
All taxpayers with children making up to $100,000 a year will get a tax cut.
In total, 31 million families will get a tax cut; the taxes of the typical family with children will be cut by $1,477.

Low-income families get crucial additional assistance
Additional tax relief for 15 million low-income working families currently receiving tax refunds through the EITC and the refundable portion of the child tax credit.
Reduce or eliminate the marriage penalty for millions of low-income families.
Help lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.
And tax breaks for 3.2 million poor childless workers, which can be used to defray payroll taxes and work-related expenses.

Simplify taxes for working families
Families will find out if they need to pay federal income taxes by filling out a simple, three-line form.
The majority of families will not need to file any tax forms with the government.

How this will benefit families
A married couple with two children-making $50,000-will get a $1,583 tax break.
A married couple with three children-both earning the minimum wage or $21,000 annually-will get an additional tax credit of $2,287.
A married couple with two children-making $85,000-will get a $975 tax cut.
A single mother raising one child on $30,000 a year would get a $793 tax break.

Families First Tax Reform Works by Providing a $2,250 Tax Credit Per Child


Families First Tax Reform consolidates and expands on the existing set of tax benefits for children-raising the benefit to a standard $2,250 tax credit per child. All families, whether they make $20,000 or $50,000 or $100,000, will get the same tax break for their children.

Paying for Tax Reform

The plan will provide poverty-reducing relief and middle-class-tax-burden reduction of $33 billion annually. This will be paid for without increasing the deficit by:

Shifting the burden to those who can most afford it-a 5 percentage point rate increase only on income over $1 million per year. This increase, which can be used only for working families' tax relief, will not apply to the first $1 million of income or to any capital gains. It will not affect 99.9 percent of taxpayers.
Closing corporate loopholes, including the one that costs America jobs by giving companies a tax break for moving their headquarters overseas.


DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF FAMILIES FIRST TAX REFORM


Benefits for Families


Eliminating income taxes for all families of four making under $50,000. Under Wes Clark's plan, no family of four making under $50,000 will have to pay income taxes.

A simple three-line form determines who pays federal income taxes. Under Wes Clark's plan, families will only need to fill out a simple three-line form to find out if they need to pay federal income taxes, providing their income, number of children, and marital status. A simple table will tell them whether or not they need to pay any income taxes:
Families Will Not Pay Federal Income Taxes If They Make Less Than:

Number of Children
Married
Single (Head of Household)

1
$35,000
$28,000

2
$50,000
$43,000

3
$65,000
$54,000




The majority of families will not need to file tax returns. Under Wes Clark's reform, more than half of American families will no longer need to file tax returns. The government will withhold the correct amount of taxes from the families paycheck or provide them with the correct tax credit. If they still want to file a tax form, they can. This system has been proven to work in thirty-six countries, including the United Kingdom.[1]

Attacking poverty: 3.2 million lower-income taxpayers will be taken off the tax rolls. Professor Jeffery Liebman of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government has done estimates of the Wes Clark's Tax Reform and found that it will take 3.5 million taxpayers off the tax rolls - resulting in 54 percent of working American families with children paying no income taxes.[2] This means, the majority of working families with children will pay no income taxes.


Encouraging opportunity and responsibility by making work pay. Family First Tax Reform, combined with Clark's proposal to raise the minimum wage to $7 by 2007, will raise the reward for families that work. At the same time, the new, expanded tax credits can be used to pay for transportation and childcare, enabling more families to work. Studies show that this will increase labor force participation, move families from welfare to work, and thus help the economy.

Reduce or eliminate the marriage penalty for millions of low-income families. The 2001 tax cut ended the marriage penalty for millions of middle-class families but left a marriage penalty for low-income families. Wes Clark's Tax Reform will fix that injustice- reducing or eliminating marriage penalties for millions of low-income families.


Hundreds of thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty. Currently the EITC does not provide any additional help for families with more than two children. Wes Clark's plan will fix that-consolidating and expanding on the EITC and lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

Helping Squeezed Middle-Class Families: All middle-class taxpayers with children making up to $100,000 will get a tax cut. Wes Clark's Tax Reform will restore fairness to the tax code, providing a tax cut for all families with children making up to $100,000 annually. Of these families, 15 million low-income families currently receiving net tax credits through the EITC and other credits will get larger tax credits. In addition, 3.2 million low-income adults without children will get expanded tax breaks. In total 31 million families will benefit-with the typical tax cut being $1,477.[3]



Families First Tax Reform: Representative Families
Helping typical families: A police officer married to a part-time worker raising two children on $50,000 annually-no more federal income taxes. Currently this family pays $1,549 in federal income taxes, Wes Clark's plan will eliminate their taxes - and the government will give them a tax credit refund of $34. That's a $1,583 tax cut. What this means to a typical family:

$1,500 is five months of groceries[4]
$1,500 is more than seven months of the worker contribution to a typical health insurance plan[5]
$1,500 is a year of utility bills for the typical New Hampshire family.[6]


Expanding EITC benefits to reduce poverty: A cashier married to a custodian raising three children while working for the minimum wage-an extra $2,287 tax break. A couple working full-time for the minimum wage - $5.15 an hour -earns $21,000 annually. Under current law their EITC is limited to the first two children. Wes Clark's plan will end that limitation - providing them an additional tax credit of $2,287.



Helping all middle-class families: A firefighter married to a teacher raising two children on an annual income of $85,000-a $975 tax cut. Currently this family pays $7,445 in taxes. Wes Clark's plan will cut their taxes by $975.

Helping single parents: A single parent raising one child on the $30,000 a year she makes in her own small business-$793 to help with the bills. Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform will eliminate her income taxes and replace them with a credit - in total $793 in tax relief to help with the bills.

Reducing the marriage penalty for low-income couples: Married army privates with two children each making $15,000-Marriage penalty reduced substantially. Under current law, this family faces a marriage penalty. Like many low-income families, they pay more in taxes than they would pay if they were single-$1,499 more. Wes Clark's plan will reduce their marriage penalty, providing a $882 tax cut.


How Families First Tax Reform Works

$2,250 tax credit per child - Consolidating existing tax breaks. Families First Tax Reform will consolidate and expand on four tax breaks for families with children: The Child Tax Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the dependent exemption. Instead of filling out forms for each of these tax credits, families will just reduce their taxes by $2,250 per child.

Available for children up to age 17. The Families First Tax Credit will be available for children up to age 17. This and other eligibility rules will be based on the rules for the existing Child Tax Credit. The credit will phase down for families making over $100,000.

Incentives for lower-income families to work. Like the current EITC, the new Child Tax Credit will phase-in with income. A family making $5,000 will be eligible for a refund of up to $2,000 and a family making $10,000 will be eligible for a refund of up to $4,000 annually. The refund will be capped for families with more than three children.

Expanded benefits for low-income adults without children. Clark's Tax Reform builds on the existing EITC for childless adults, raising the maximum credit from $382 to $500.

No families with incomes under $200,000 will be hurt by Families First Tax Reform. No families with incomes under $200,000 will pay more in taxes than they do today.


Paying for Families First Tax Reform


Wes Clark's Tax Reform will restore fairness to the tax system without increasing the deficit. The Family First credits will cost $33 billion annually - which will be fully paid for by:

A 5 percentage point rate increase on income over $1 million annually-Only impacting the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers. The rate increase will apply to families making more than $1 million annually. In tax year 2004, an estimated 200,000 tax units or 0.1 percent of tax filers earned over $1 million annually.[7] As under current law, the rate increase will not apply to any capital gains and will not apply to the first $1 million earned.

Receipts will be earmarked for lower-income and middle-class families tax reform and could not be used for any other purpose. The money from the 5 percentage point rate increase could only be used for tax reform and could not be used for new spending.

Closing corporate tax loopholes, including ones that reward companies for shifting jobs overseas. Currently the United States provides tax breaks for companies that shift their headquarters - and their jobs - overseas. Wes Clark will crack down on these and other tax shelters, endorsing the Senate Democratic legislation to close tax loopholes that will save an average of $10 billion annually.[8]

$2.35 trillion Savings for America's Future Plan. Previously, Wes Clark announced a Savings for America's Future Plan. This plan includes the repeal of Bush tax cuts that benefit families making over $200,000 annually, cutting corporate welfare, streamlining government, and a success strategy for Iraq. This plan ensures that middle class families are protected from the repeal of the dividend and capital gains tax cuts. It also increases the size of estates exempt from the estate tax from their current-law level. More details of this plan can found at www.clark04.com.


Major Tax Reform


Wes Clark established five basic principles for tax reform: It should make the tax code simpler, fairer, more progressive, and more pro-growth - without increasing the deficit.

Simpler - Eliminating hundreds of pages of the tax code and dozens of pages of forms. Families First Tax Reform will make it possible to reduce hundreds of pages of the tax code down to one easy-to-use form. The IRS could eliminate dozens of pages of forms and publications that confuse taxpayers.[9] All of the confusing definitions of a child used for different parts of the tax code will all be boiled down to one simple definition.


No-returns tax system. More than half of American families will not have to fill out a tax form.
Simplicity will benefit low-income EITC families. Currently, as many as 14 percent of the families with children that could benefit from the EITC fail to sign up for the credit.[10] In addition, there are serious concerns about error rates for the EITC. Many errors stem from the confusing definitions of children. These complications cost low-income families-according to the IRS, 68 percent EITC filers use a paid preparer because the forms are too complicated to figure out on their own.[11]
Simplifying capital taxation. Wes Clark is committed to further simplifying taxes for middle-class families by reforming the taxation of capital.
Fairer - ending the "Middle Class Parent Penalty" and the low-income marriage penalty. Currently millions of low-income families get a marriage penalty in the form of higher taxes. And middle-class families receive less of a tax break for their children than high- or low-income families.[12] Under Families First Tax Reform families will get the same tax break for having a child.

Middle Class Parent Penalty Under Current Law and Wes Clark's Solution

Married Couple With One Child
Current Tax Break Per Child
Families First Tax Credit Per Child

$23,000
$1,763
$2,250

$32,000
$1,305
$2,250

$50,000
$1,458
$2,250

$100,000
$1,763
$2,250






More progressive. Under President Bush, families making over $1 million annually got an average tax break of $128,000-while the income of typical families declined by nearly $1,500. Wes Clark's plan will redress this imbalance, providing tax reform that benefits lower- and middle-income families.

More pro-growth. Wes Clark's Tax Reform will help make work pay for lower-incomes parents while lowering marginal tax rates that provide a disincentive for millions of taxpayers to work. Studies consistently find that the EITC provides a major incentive for work and a way to pay for childcare, transportation and other costs associated with getting a job.


According to one study, more than 60 percent of the increase in the employment of single mothers has been due to expansions of the EITC. Bruce Meyer and Dan Rosenbaum find that 63 percent of the change in the employment of single mothers between 1984 and 1996 can be explained by the expansions of the EITC.[13]
Another study predicted that the 1993 EITC expansion will induce 516,000 families to move from welfare to work. Stacy Dickert, Scott Houser, and John Karl Scholz found that the 1993 EITC expansion will induce 516,000 families to move from welfare to work. [14]
Another study shows that increasing the reward to work, increases labor force participation. Nada Eissa and Jeffrey Liebman found that the EITC significantly increases labor force participation among single mothers, especially less educated women.[15]
Deficit neutral. Reforming the tax code should not be an excuse to increase the deficit. Wes Clark's Tax Reform will be fully paid for, simplifying and improving the tax code without increasing the deficit. This is part of Wes Clark's broader plan to reduce the deficit each and every year, a major down-payment on the goal of eventually balancing the budget.



Background on Families Struggling to Get By

The best-off Americans have the highest share of income since Herbert Hoover was President. The top 0.1 percent of American families get 7.4 percent of the income (not including capital gains) - the highest share of income since 1928.[16]

The typical family's income declined by nearly $1,500 under President Bush, compared to a $7,200 increase under President Clinton. Under President Clinton, family income rose from $45,940 in 1992 to $53,142 in 2000 - a $7,202 increase. Under President Bush the typical family's income fell to $51,680 in 2002 - a $1,461 decrease.[17]

From 1970 to 2000 incomes for middle-class families stagnated while incomes for the best off exploded. The average inflation-adjusted income for the bottom 90 percent of Americans fell 2 percent from 1970 to 2000, while the average inflation-adjusted income for the top 0.1 percent rose 357 percent (not counting capital gains).[18]


Nearly 3 million private-sector jobs lost. The economy has lost nearly 3 million private-sector jobs under President Bush, including 2.6 million manufacturing jobs - with manufacturing job loss each and every month under President Bush.[19]

Health insurance premiums up $2,630. The typical family's health insurance premium has risen by $2,630 between 2000 and 2003 - a 41 percent increase.[20]

Record personal bankruptcies - growing 7.8 percent in 2003. Personal bankruptcies grew 7.8 percent in FY 2003 to over 1.6 million - the highest number of filings on record.[21]

Half of personal bankruptcies are due to health care costs. A study by Jeanne Lambrew found that "about half of all Americans who file for personal bankruptcy protection do so because of health care costs."[22]





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] William Gale and Janet Holtzblatt, 1997, "On the Possibility of a No-return Tax System," National Tax Journal.

[2] Jeffrey Liebman, 1/04/03, "Preliminary Estimate of the Effects of General Wesley Clark's Tax Reform Proposal."

[3] Jeffrey Liebman, 1/04/03, "Preliminary Estimate of the Effects of General Wesley Clark's Tax Reform Proposal."

[4] Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey.

[5] Based on Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003, Employer Health Benefits: 2003.

[6] http://www.nhhfa.org/programdocs/2003rentsurvey_state.pdf.

[7] Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 9/30/03, "Combined Effect of EGTRRA and JGTRRA: Distribution of Income Tax Change by AGI Class, Pre-EGTRRA Baseline, 2004."

[8] Joint Committee on Taxation, 5/13/03, "Estimated Budget Effects of the ÔJobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003,' Scheduled for Consideration by the Committee on Finance on May 13, 2003."

[9] Rahm Emanuel, 10/15/03, "Democrats Can Win on Taxes," "Wall Street Journal.

[10] Len Burman and Deborah Kobes, 1/18/2002, Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Policy Note, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/commentary/eitc_gao.cfm.

[11] Internal Revenue Service, 8/3/03, "Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Program Effectiveness and Program

Management FY 2002 - FY 2003."

[12] David Ellwood and Jeffrey Liebman, 2001, "The Middle-class Parent Penalty: Child Benefits in the U.S. Tax Code," Tax Policy and the Economy.

[13] Bruce Meyer and Dan Rosenbaum, September 1999, "Welfare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Labor Supply of Single Mothers." National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 7363.

[14] Stacy Dickert, Scott Houser, and John Karl Scholz, 1995, "The Earned Income Tax Credit and Transfer Programs: A Study of Labor Market and Program Participation." Tax Policy and the Economy.

[15] Nada Eissa and Jeffrey Liebman, 1996, "Labor Supply Response and the Earned Income Tax Credit," Quarterly Journal of Economics.

[16] Calculations based on data from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, originally in "Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998," NBER Working Paper No. 8467. Available at http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez/.

[17] Calculations based on Census Bureau data.

[18] Calculations based on data from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, originally in "Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998," NBER Working Paper No. 8467. Available at http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez/.

[19] Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

[20] Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003, Employer Health Benefits: 2003.

[21] American Bankruptcy Institute, 11/14/03, "Personal Bankruptcy Filings Continue to Break Records."

[22] Jeanne Lambrew, November 2001, "How the Slowing U.S. Economy Threatens Employer-based Health Insurance," Commonwealth Fund.

Got that!?! -

"Laqtis who are you trying to fool?......"

-Ah, ya caught me. I'll put the dummy down, the jig is up.....-

" I asked you some questions. You respond using illogical rhetoric. Will you continue to avoid anything that questions your dogma?........."

- Dude, do anything you want, but I'll be damned if you question my dog. She did NOTHING wrong, nor is she responisble for this current.....OH, Dogma! Just what is my dogma as you see it? Do you know or are you making an ASSumption about where I'm coming from? -

It's very clear that arc 'ol pal is very happy with the way things are going nowadays. Bully for you! I, on the other hand, don't dig it. I be real honest here. I know that on most of this post, I've made fun of somethings, I try not to take this kind of shayt seriously, but it never works.

Arc, seeing as you have all the answers, I will write you in for President and change my stance. Hell, I'll even get the ball rolling. Watch this!”

“Holy shlt Q! Do you get ANYTHING done at work? LOL! That chit made my head hurt!”

“Dood, I'm not a work!”

“He got fired for taking up too much band width! j/k Laq!!!!”

“LOL! That would never happen. They just installed a new internet pipe at work, so WATCH OUT!!!!”

“uh oh! lol”

“Q, the families earning the top 10%, who increased their earnings by whopping amounts also increased the total dollar amount of taxes that they paid. So at least someone was paying for our government spending and social programs. The other 90% were victims of the downturn in economy and 9/11, and the trend of companies to move manufacturing offshore, which would have happened no matter who was in office. If Gore had been on the winning side of the hanging chads, what would have happened that would have prevented the negative statistics that you quote?

Bush is not responsible for the drop in earnings, jobs etc. in the last few years. He has taken steps to improve that situation though, by trying to stimulate the economy. You may not like the choices that he made, but you can't blame him for a cyclical economy.

Please quote problems that Bush did in fact cause, rather than ones that he was just left holding the bag on. I am not so enamored of the guy that I think he is golden. Just lets talk about the real deal for a change.”

“I posted this over on the "What should I read?" thread. Bush's former Treasury secretary has written a new book. He was canned after saying that "Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut, to be spread over 10 years, would do little to restart a sagging economy and would balloon the federal deficit."

Textbook economics tells you that you don't stimulate an economy from the top down. You put money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it - those living paycheck to paycheck - to stimulate aggregate demand. It’s not rocket science.

The nonpartisan (really) Citizens for Tax Justice have prepared a study of who benifits from Bush's tax cuts which shows that by 2010, the richest 1% will receive 51.8% of the benefit, the middle classes about 10% and the bottom 20% about 1%.

This is counterproductive as there is a substantial body of evidence to suggest that high levels of income disparity leads to lower productivity and makes society poorer overall. Look at the Latin American economies as an example. Add to that the increase in crime and other social ills that come from such inequities and you have a recipe for disaster. Think of the Russian and French revolutions for extreme examples or the riots in the US during the 60's or the rise of organized crime during the Great Depression for something perhaps more plausible.”

“Looks like a good read, Violin. I will check it out.

Where are the statistics on what the tax cut did in the last couple of years, because to me, that is more currently important to look at in evaluating what the tax cuts did to shorten the downturn. Of the later years in the tax cut plan, can those be changed by future legislation?”

“Take a look at page 4 of the CTJ study.”

“Off of the top of my head, Lyndy, I do not believe you can deficit spend your way to a better economy. I would've liked to see all that money that went to an unjustified war, go to help our seniors get affordable meds, or increase funding to our failing schools, or go toward Social Sercurity (I have different feelings about SS, however, if I'm made to pay into to something, I expect a return or get rid of it and give me back my money, all of it. He could've done that too!), or go toward making our boarders stronger, or go toward providing health education for our young, or towards.....

I think that point is made. There are so many other areas to spend that money, other than to throw it away like that. Until something is done to off set this budget, my kids will be holding the bag, just like I'm holding the bag for the deficits ran up by other Presidents in the past. When the economy is in trouble, the last thing you should do is spend money else where, instead of at home. Invest at home seems to be a better policy to me. Our own people could have benifited from that money more than the Iraqi people and I wouldn't be here having this discussion. The piddle I got back was a joke. I rather they kept that money and threw it toward the deficit, but that's just me. The 600.00 advance we got was window dressing. The 400.00 for child tax credit is nothing compaired to what I spend a year on child care. How about making that affordable? I can't deficit spend outta my check book, it doesn't make sence to do so.”

“Did you see that most families that you and I know would be included in the top 20% of income reported? I should certainly hope that people in our area would receive lots of benefits from tax cuts when they earn $75000 a year, as that is certainly not a profile of a rich family in NJ. If you are going to be fair, you can't quote misleading statistics. Violin, I'm really dissappointed in you.”

“That's why I threw us in the 'middle class' LyndyS. Look that I used bottom quintile, middle and top 1%. I don't see where I was misleading.”

“WoW! Vi was busy while I was posting. Thanks to him for providing links to insight that I might not have been able to provide. I have a screeming kid and didn't have the time to look upo stuff. Besides, I think the peeps still might be smarting from the last copy and paste I did.

I did find another source for you, tho. Here is what I was looking at before I decided against the old C and P:

http://bushwatch.org/economy.htm

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/30/peoria/index_np.html

http://www.jobwatch.org/

and a real good one:

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Dec/12282003/commenta/123683.asp

Let us also not forget that these Tax cuts have not produced the 300,000 jobs per month as claimed. Why not? Might as well have kept that cash. I feel as though he did that to keep his poll ratings high in a time of uncertainy (sp?).

thanks for bringing this back down to Earth, Lyndy.”

“I suppose it would have been more accurate to say 10% for each of the middle quintiles and the top quintile excluding the top 1%.

You keep talking about a 'benifit' from the tax cut. Exploding debt is hardly a benifit in my book. Take a look at this page:

"This explosion in debt is a burden on all
Americans. Over the six years, Bush’s policies will
impose an average of just over $13,000 in
additional debt on each man, woman and child in
America—or more than $52,000 in added debt
per family of four.
Even after subtracting the average six-year tax
savings from the President’s tax cuts, the net
burden of Bush’s policies over six years will
average $9,456 per person and $37,826 per
family of four nationwide."”

“Crap! Who changed the spelling of 'benefit' without telling me?”

“Q, I have very mixed feelings about Iraq. I also hate losing all the military sons and daughters, spending all the money that we have spent, having so many millions of people hate Americans for what we have done. Not finding WMD really clinches it.

Deficit spending is not what I want the government to do. However, giving each family an infusion of cash even if it is $600 or $1000, is a good thing in a downturn. They will go out and spend it or use it for their IRA accounts. I don't want to give tax breaks to millionaires because they already have so many ways to shelter their income. But I'm sure that Bush had to send the rich home happy in order to get the bill passed. I just can't say that another president would have done a better job of things. Bush has done some things that I am happy about, but botched some other things pretty badly. Iraq is looking like a pretty bad botch and I can't think that I am the only republican who is feeling that way.

The fact of the matter is that the politicians are playing to the rich and the poor and us middle class is Cinderella. We need to find a way out of the attic.”

“Vi you are right that the tax plan for the upcoming years is a disaster and I printed out the schedules in order to look them over better. The fact is that we don't need the tax cut now, with the economy picking up. My question is "Can it be changed?" I don't know how these 10-year deals work. I had assumed earlier that we never see the end of a 10-year plan because each administration does a new overhaul every couple of years so that they have something new to talk about.”

“"The fact of the matter is that the politicians are playing to the rich and the poor and us middle class is Cinderella. We need to find a way out of the attic........"


I don't think this situation could have been summed up better. I wonder what kind of tax break we all would get if that money that was used to go to war was given back to us? Kinda like a "Here, we thought you'd like this money instead of the Iraqis. Have a couple on us!" Hey, a fella can dream, can't he?”

“Sure it can be changed. Bush has pushed to make it permanent though and has talked about even further cuts. (Here’s my partisan push) The only hope for a return to sanity is regime change in ’04.

8)”

“Sheeeet, I am answering all your responses out of order.


You were quoting the stats on the 10th year only, not on the ten years cummulative or on the years that have already happened. That is part of why I felt you were grossly misleading.

The top 1% getting the 51% benefit is definetly ugly and you were right to point that out. But you point out the lowest quintile which is a group of families that don't pay any federal income tax to start with.”

“Robert Rubin (Clinton's Treasury sect) was one of the voices calling for a two year holiday on payroll taxes on the first $15,000 or $20,000 in income. That would have had the same stimulus as the Bush cuts at a far smaller cost because it would have gone to everyone earning wage income. So no, I think it is fair to say that another president would have handled things differently.”

“Not entirely so LyndyS, that group goes up to $16,000 and remember - they pay payroll taxes starting at dollar one - that's at what now?, about 20%?”

“Just because someone was calling for a plan doesn't mean it would have passed and been implemented. I'm sure that Bush didn't get the exact plan he wanted (which if I remember the capital gains tax issue, was a good thing).”

“They pay only 7.65 percent unless they don't have enough exemptions to get out of the 15 percent bracket. Even then they can apply for the EITC to be calculated, which is effectively a rebate of those payroll taxes.”

“The 7.65 percent is the Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax, but we all know that it a non-refundable Federal Income Tax in disguise.”

“Actually, no payroll or income tax on the first $15,000 would be a great thing for small companies and even rich people who employ other people for services. Since some comply with the rules and some don't, it would level the field, and benefit large numbers of struggling low income workers, while reducing the paperwork in states around the country. I'll bet it would have cost way too much and wouldn't have passed Congress.

Most tax cut programs don't affect the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid by employees and employers, though.”

“The proposal was for two years only so it would have expired when the economy rebounded. I saw the analysis some time ago. My memory is that the price tag was on the order of only a few hundred million.”

“That would have included a reduction in the employer's share which would have helped struggling businesses as well.”

“I just like the simplicity of it. Any working person who has hired someone to watch the kids when they were young or someone to watch an elderly relative would understand. Also working youngsters who are just starting out would really benefit, assuming that they were saving for a house rather than sniffing a mirror.”

“and going one further, that would encourge our kids to get out and get a job instead of illeagals......I mean future Americans.....take them.”

“HOLY COW!!!

Dang, laqtis, your posts are starting to look like those from violin or myself. We're way too wordy for our own good.


I can't read all that at work. I'll have to come in tomorrow to read all of the commentary put forth. Sorry I can't respond to it all right now. I'm going to have to pull a violin (hit and run) for today.


Here's alink for tax rebates: REBATE


Living wage- A favorite topic of Democrats. Instead of market controlled wages they would like to see the gov’mint set mandatory minimums for wages. If anyone thinks that this won’t raise the cost of goods and services, I suggest a quick reality check. I don’t mind paying a bit more for goods and services. Higher prices won’t hurt me as much as the poor. Why don’t we ask the poor how they feel about paying more? Poor people who work, would earn more only to pay more for goods and services. Poor people who don’t work become more dependant on gov’mint subsidies in order to afford the higher cost of goods and services that will accompany higher wages. Charities will need to spend more time raising more money. We’ll increase spending on welfare, disability, Medicare, and social security so people can afford the higher cost of goods and services. Sounds like gov’mint induced inflation to me.

Private property rights- The left has eroded private property rights through environmental groups. These groups have denied property rights to individuals in the name of endangered species and the public good. Are all of these erosions bad? I personally don’t think so. But some of these groups are uncompromising in their desire to change individual property rights to collectivist property rights. If these folks aren’t members of the Green or Socialist parties, they find a haven with the Democrats.

Government regulation- Gov’mint regulation (a favorite subject of the Democratic Party) on manufacturing and transportation erode the free market and give the gov’mint more power to control the means of production and distribution of goods. Are all of these regulations bad? I personally don’t think so. But the Democrats want to regulate with a little too much zeal for me.

School vouchers- The Dems hate this idea. So the middle class is forced to pay for services not rendered if they send their kids to private school or home school. It’s our collective responsibility they say.

Socialized medicine- Collective ownership for the means to dispense healthcare.

Social security- Collective ownership for the means to dispense retirement benefits.





Collectivist, gov’mint control of the economy. Is this socialist philosophy? Not according to violin.


Here's another opinionon tax rebates and socialism:

LIBERAL SNEERING
AT YOUR MONEY
TAX REBATE & THE GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT

By: Chuck Morse
Liberals are sneering at President George W. Bush’s tax rebate. Imagine...returning income to the taxpayer! From their pink parlors they poke fun at this money like it was some sort of national joke. Liberals in Congress are blaming the rebate, with malice of forethought, for the whittling down of the beloved budget surplus they were planning on scarfing up like a blue plate special when Congress reconvenes in September. Shouldn’t government, like the rest of us, tighten its belt during a recession? Unthinkable! Liberals consider government growth as sacrosanct. When did this growth begin to outpace that of the productive private sector and what started the government on this road toward becoming the largest industry the world has ever known?
It all got started on February 3, 1913, when the Wyoming legislature ratified the Sixteenth Amendment, the last of the thirty six states required for ratification, which authorized our Federal government to directly tax the income of the productive citizen. The graduated income tax, an idea articulated in the Communist Manifesto, had been explicitly unconstitutional up until that date. Article I of the Constitution states that: "direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census." Until that date, the government was funded primarily by tariffs on trade and a few excise taxes on whiskey and other commodities. The Sixteenth Amendment would be the first time in 43 years that the Constitution would be altered.
The graduated income tax would extract higher taxes from the earner relative to his income. This Marxist idea, one of the planks of the Manifesto, empowers the government to transfer the "surplus capital" of the achieving wealth creator to itself in the name of "the people." The confiscation allows for the development of a rich and powerful ruling elite, which, in turn, pays off a growing number of clients who then have a direct interest in perpetrating the gravy train. The transfer also serves to effect a gradual erosion of private ownership.
A previous attempt by the government to implement the income tax, 1894-1895, was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Justice Stephen Field wrote an opinion that speaks for itself: "The present assault on capital is but the beginning. It will be but a stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness. If the Court sanctions the power of discriminating taxation, and nullifies the uniformity mandate of the Constitution, it will mark the hour when the sure decadence of our government will commence."
President Woodrow Wilson would euphemistically call this new power to tax "The New Freedom." The same Orwellian tactic is employed today when, for example, the Kennedy Library gives it’s "Profile in Courage" award to a politician, such as former New Jersey Governor James Florio, for having the "courage" to raise taxes. The term "freedom" actually described the loss of freedom that resulted in direct taxation. Likewise the use of the term "courage" by the Kennedy’s to describe taxes. Politicians, like the Kennedy’s want our government to demonstrate greater "courage."
The Sixteenth Amendment would completely transform the nature of our government and how we view its role. The founding fathers debated, at the Constitutional Convention of 1788-1789, whether or not the National government should be a Republic or a Democracy. They chose the republican form of limited government with the mode of production residing with the productive sovereign citizen. The Sixteenth Amendment would turn our form of government into a Democracy, with the government taking control over the mode of production and, as such, the wealth of the nation.”

“"Dang, laqtis, your posts are starting to look like those from violin or myself. We're way too wordy for our own good........"

I don't know whether to thank you or be offended.....LOL! I'm kidding. We'll take a mulligan and pick this up when yer ready. It'll give me get threw yer post.”