[Macaddict06]

I have come to a generic truth in my short time. Macusers are some of the most sensible people on Earth. That aside, who's rooting for Dean? lets hear it and why. If not, post and we can debate it out.


Cheers!

Macaddict06

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Macaddict06:
I have come to a generic truth in my short time. Macusers are some of the most sensible people on Earth. That aside, who's rooting for Dean? lets hear it and why. If not, post and we can debate it out.

I see this is your first post. Perhaps you are a campaigner?

I'm not sure you want to get into this here.

[spacefreak]

OK...what the heck. I'll give it a go.

Why did Howard Dean demand that ESPN fire Rush Limbaugh over an opinion he stated on a football show? What country's presidency does he think he's running for, or is it just our constitutional rights that he's confused about?

[BRussell]

I'll vote for him over Bush, but I wouldn't vote for him in a primary.

I don't like his idea of taking back all tax cuts. I agree with many of the other Democrats that we should essentially stop where we are now - the middle class tax cuts are in effect now, but most of the upper-income tax cuts are not in effect yet.

I also think he'd probably be the Mondale of 2004 in the general election. I think a Dem has a decent chance, maybe not quite 50-50, but a decent chance of winning. I'm concerned that Dean couldn't win due both to his personality as well as his policies. Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, even Gephardt, maybe Clark all could win, IMO. I really don't think Dean could win.

[chris v]

Howard Dean will get my vote, if nominated, because, as I heard somebody state it on NPR this morning, "I'd vote for a dirty sock if that's what the Democratic party nominated to run against Bush."

CV

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, even Gephardt, maybe Clark all could win, IMO. I really don't think Dean could win.

I think Lieberman is the Party's best shot.

[icruise]

Originally posted by chris v:
Howard Dean will get my vote, if nominated, because, as I heard somebody state it on NPR this morning, "I'd vote for a dirty sock if that's what the Democratic party nominated to run against Bush."

CV

[Macaddict06]

Ok. Let's take this one at a time.
First, I am graduating in 2006, as my ID would suggest. I am not 18, so therefore, I cannot be a campaigner for Dean. I just support him. Second, Rush Limbaugh deserves to be fired for that comment. It was racist, and regardless of "who it was aimed at", racism should NOT be tolerated in any form.
Third, you want to talk constitutional rights? Obviously Gov. Dean is running for presidency of the US, but that could be confused, given Bush's gross negligence of America's needs. After lviving with this constitutional abuse, I find it amazing that some have not been brain-washed by this administration. Instead of working on domestic issues, we are fighitng a war over oil for his buddies, and American blood is spilling for it.
Fourth, don't worry about his economic plans. His state, Vermont, is one of the few in the country with a balanced budget. No president has balanced a budget in 34 years, and given the dire straights our economy is in.
I will give Bush this: He had a very difficult time with the 9/11 attacks, and I feel that that was an unfair thing for him to go through. Immediatley after, he did well dealing with it. But after that, he totally failed in every imaginable way.

*Please not: I am NOT attacking members. I am posting my views, and I welcome yours in return.*

MacAddict06

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'll vote for him over Bush, but I wouldn't vote for him in a primary.

I don't like his idea of taking back all tax cuts. I agree with many of the other Democrats that we should essentially stop where we are now - the middle class tax cuts are in effect now, but most of the upper-income tax cuts are not in effect yet.

How big were the actual tax cuts, though? Did your property tax go up? What about your state taxes? Between unfunded mandates, and cuts in services (like higher education funding), the so called tax cuts for middle class people were actually just massive tax shifts.

There is the question of if Dean can sell this angle...

BlackGriffen

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
How big were the actual tax cuts, though? Did your property tax go up? What about your state taxes? Between unfunded mandates, and cuts in services (like higher education funding), the so called tax cuts for middle class people were actually just massive tax shifts.

The tax cuts were on federal income tax; property taxes and higher education funding are state matters, and not really influenced directly by federal funding. A better argument is that it shifts the tax burden to future generations.

But 1. I think we could afford a modest lower-income tax cut if we hadn't increased spending as much as Bush has and 2. I just don't think it's politically feasible to reverse tax cuts that have already taken effect.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Macaddict06:
Rush Limbaugh deserves to be fired for that comment. It was racist, and regardless of "who it was aimed at", racism should NOT be tolerated in any form.

If you're not wise enough to understand what is or isn't racism, you shouldn't be throwing the term around so loosely.

Rush's statement was no more racist than the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the University of Michigan's admission policies, or recent debates about affirmative action. So watch your mouth, son.

Third, you want to talk constitutional rights? Obviously Gov. Dean is running for presidency of the US, but that could be confused, given Bush's gross negligence of America's needs. After lviving with this constitutional abuse, I find it amazing that some have not been brain-washed by this administration. Instead of working on domestic issues, we are fighitng a war over oil for his buddies, and American blood is spilling for it.

You sound like a living, breathing talking picket sign. . Have you contacted your Congressman or Senator to voice your opinions? They do vote on a lot of things, like the budgets, laws (legislation), departmental funding, etc., and they should be ne of your primary contacts to voice such complaints.

My guess is, if you contact your representatives and say what you just stated above, they are going to chuckle amusingly. You might want to consider this before you spew out the 'oil for Bush's buddies' mantra: we could have purchased all the oil in Iraq for a fraction of what the war costs.

Let me ask you this. How has Bush's 'gross negligence of America's needs' hurt you, or affected you personally?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The tax cuts were on federal income tax; property taxes and higher education funding are state matters, and not really influenced directly by federal funding. A better argument is that it shifts the tax burden to future generations.

Let's see, yeah, funding for higher education is a state matter, that's why I had to file a Free Application for Federal Student Aid every year.

Two examples of federal higher education funding that got scaled back: Pell Grants and Subsidized Stafford Loans.

Property taxes also went up as a direct result of a combination of two pieces of Bush legislation: No Child Left Behind and the tax cuts. NCLB added a large financial burden to local school districts, and then the federal government didn't fund it sufficiently (at least partly because of the tax 'cuts'), so property taxes went up. Funding NCLB would, theoretically, cause property taxes to drop. Better, though, is to repeal NCLB entirely to replace it with something better (and funded).

Trust me, Dean is making all of these points abundantly clear in his stump speech. He also presents the following option: the tax cuts, or universal health care. Choose one, because we cannot afford to do both.

But 1. I think we could afford a modest lower-income tax cut if we hadn't increased spending as much as Bush has and 2. I just don't think it's politically feasible to reverse tax cuts that have already taken effect.

If he were just saying, "I want to increase your taxes," I would agree with you. He doesn't sell it like that, though. First, he offers evidence for why it wasn't really a tax cut in the first place. Second, he sets it up like a deal, "This is what it will take if you want to get this," after selling the audience on 'this.'

BlackGriffen

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
He also presents the following option: the tax cuts, or universal health care. Choose one, because we cannot afford to do both.

I really think universal heath care is a bad idea - and the intensity of my feelings on this are higher than perhaps any other issue.

Nations that have it - their systems are mired in financial turmoil (or quickly heading that way), and the quality and timliness of care has gone down in just about every case.

I'm all for suring up Charity Care programs. But a government managed health care system would be a disaster. Look at all the other big programs the government manages...they're all mired in mismanagement, poor appropriation of funds, etc. Government managed health would be no different.

Just like Social Security, it will be a mess. And this mess will crescendo at the wrong time - like in 25 years when I'll be amongst the elderly who needs quality, timely health care services.

I don't want to have to hop on a waiting list to get an urgent procedure done (like in Canada, Britain). No one else should have to either.

[NYCFarmboy]

Al Sharpton deserves to the the Democratic Nominee for president.

I don't think any candidate more embodies the Democratic ideal, nor would represent the party better.

I think its time the Democratic party quit playing lipservice to African-American voters and nominate a candidate who truly represents the intellectual wing of the party.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Al Sharpton deserves to the the Democratic Nominee for president.

I don't think any candidate more embodies the Democratic ideal, nor would represent the party better.

I think its time the Democratic party quit playing lipservice to African-American voters and nominate a candidate who truly represents the intellectual wing of the party.

Al Sharpton, from what I understand, has far too divisive a presence in New York politics to be electable.

Carolyn Mosely-Braun has many skeletons in her closet that Karl Rove would love to parade in front of the American electorate.

Spacefreak:
Dean knows that a single payer system won't fly, so what he actually proposes is offering health care to the poorest (circa 150% poverty line) and children. IIRC, this is supposed to be a slight expansion of current systems rather than a completely new thing.

BlackGriffen

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Let's see, yeah, funding for higher education is a state matter, that's why I had to file a Free Application for Federal Student Aid every year.

Yes, but that's very different from funding for higher education, which is what I thought you were talking about.

I just don't buy the idea that there was much of a shift from federal to state taxes. The primary way Bush's tax cuts have affected state revenues is that most states link their income taxes to the federal method. So a federal tax cut is also a state tax cut, for most states.

And if it was a shift to states, why did the federal deficit skyrocket? States aren't now paying for what the federal government used to pay for. It's just not getting paid for at all. I agree that this has been a tax shift rather than cut, but I don't agree the shift is to the states. The shift is to future generations, who have to pay for what we spend now plus interest.

I haven't read many of Dean's stump speeches on economic/tax issues, but I do think the deficit is the key to economic criticism of Bush. I'm just not convinced it was a shift, at least not in the way you are presenting it.

If he were just saying, "I want to increase your taxes," I would agree with you. He doesn't sell it like that, though. First, he offers evidence for why it wasn't really a tax cut in the first place. Second, he sets it up like a deal, "This is what it will take if you want to get this," after selling the audience on 'this.'

I'm sure he doesn't sell it as a tax increase, but do you really think that matters? He will have an opponent, and I'm taking a wild guess that his opponent WILL frame it as a tax increase, and I think it will stick, because, well, it would be a tax increase.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yes, but that's very different from funding for higher education, which is what I thought you were talking about.

I just don't buy the idea that there was much of a shift from federal to state taxes. The primary way Bush's tax cuts have affected state revenues is that most states link their income taxes to the federal method. So a federal tax cut is also a state tax cut, for most states.

I gave you two examples of things middle income people have to pay more of directly because of federal legislation.

And if it was a shift to states, why did the federal deficit skyrocket? States aren't now paying for what the federal government used to pay for. It's just not getting paid for at all. I agree that this has been a tax shift rather than cut, but I don't agree the shift is to the states. The shift is to future generations, who have to pay for what we spend now plus interest.

We can both be right on this, you know.

I haven't read many of Dean's stump speeches on economic/tax issues, but I do think the deficit is the key to economic criticism of Bush. I'm just not convinced it was a shift, at least not in the way you are presenting it.I'm sure he doesn't sell it as a tax increase, but do you really think that matters? He will have an opponent, and I'm taking a wild guess that his opponent WILL frame it as a tax increase, and I think it will stick, because, well, it would be a tax increase.

One of his better lines (since picked up by some opponents) is: "I'm sure people would be willing to pay the taxes they did under the Clinton Administration if they could only have the economy they had under the Clinton Administration." A bit of a non-sequitur, at least on the face of it, I admit, but still a strong line. I know that I agree with the statement, even though I realize that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

BlackGriffen