Dean Weak on Tax Issue

[usregimechange]

How can Dean overcome the inevitable "tax increase" mantra?

I think he needs to offer a middle class cut after the budget looks brighter! That would offset some of the demonization. Also, he needs to talk about his cuts in Vermont.

[LeftCoast]

1. Who are you and what campaign do you work for?

I think full disclosure is in order....

BTW, if you want to bash candidates at least be clever and not post three bashing threads in a row...

[usregimechange]

4. ok???

Being critical does not mean I do not support Dean! I am actually his Meetup Host for one of the largest cities in Missouri! Assumptions are dangerous.

[otohara]

15. Actually It's 4 Threads In A Row

n/t

[stickdog]

2. Dean tells it like it is.

If you don't like peace, prosperity and affordable healthcare, you can have your extra $150 a year by voting for the Nightmare on Pennsylvania Ave.

[paulsbc]

3. he shouldn't

back down from what he believes, that the tax levels before the Bush cuts were acceptable for America.

What he has to explain is how just restoring those cuts are going to give us enough money for healthcare. I don't see his math adding up given that he wants to balance the budget and have health care. He has to raise taxes in other areas to make up the difference, according to my math, so where does that come from? Perhaps a Dean knowledable person can address that.

[poskonig]

5. There's room to pivot.

He could say wants to go back to Clinton and then look at what we should keep. But doing so loses the clarity the "repeal the Bush tax cuts" gives to him. Either way is fine with me; but if Dean is going to repeal everything he needs to continue emphasize the increases in state and local taxes and cuts in homeland security and pell grants. Y'know, turn weakness into strength.

[usregimechange]

7. hummm

I just don't think the american people are going to buy it and changing his mind won't be good either.

[quinnox]

6. I think Dean will end up changing his stance on this

If I recall, he at one time said all the tax cuts shouldn't be repealed in a debate, I don't know when he started saying all the tax cuts should be repealed.

But it is a weak point for Dean, and I have a feeling he will change his position on this one.

[poskonig]

8. The polls actually are on our side.

When voters are given the choice between health care and the Bush tax cut, for instance, the numbers are consistently 65%/25% in our favor. Perhaps there is method to their madness at the Dean campaign.

[usregimechange]

9. wow

of the general pop. or dems?

[poskonig]

11. General pop, usually around 65/25

Perhaps there is a strategic reason Dean wants to get rid of all of the Bush tax cuts.


http://www.pollingreport.com/health1.htm

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. July 14-Aug. 5, 2003. Nationwide.

"I'd like to read you a list of some programs and proposals that are being discussed in this country today. For each one, please tell me whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose it. The first one is: The U.S. government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means repealing most of the recent tax cuts." Form 1 (N=1,284, MoE ± 3.5)

Favor Oppose No
67 26 7

"I'd like to read you a list of some programs and proposals that are being discussed in this country today. For each one, please tell me whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose it. The first one is: The U.S. government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes." Form 2 (N=1,244, MoE ± 3.5)

Favor Oppose No
67 29 4

[stickdog]

12. General population.

The idea that non-rich people were crying out Bush's tax cuts is a sham.

[AP]

17. Give them the third choice -- progressive taxation and health care

-- and you'll get 96% approval.

[poskonig]

18. What if we add a war resolution on to that?

Um, didn't Edwards support that? :silly:

[uberotto]

10. Nothing to overcome, because....

No matter who the democratic nominee, they will be labeled as a "Tax and Spend" democrat. If they claim they will not raise taxes, the message will be either drowned out by the other side saying the opposite, or will not be believed because of the perception of democrat == higer taxes. Any democratic candiate who claims they will not raise taxes looses credibility, whether the statement is true or not. Dean gains a great deal of credibility with his statement on taxes. People believe him because he isn't telling them "what they want to hear".

Lower taxes is a Republican issue and no candidate is going to beat bush fighting him in his own yard.

The same goes for any republican trying to label themself as the candidate for better health care. bush can say it, but no one is going to believe it.

[stickdog]

13. "Borrow & spend" Republicans

That will overcome it.

Americans don't love record deficits.

[uberotto]

22. while the label is accurate...

especially for the current administration, it takes time for a label to stick. Every democrat in government today should be using that term every time they get near a camera.

If the public hears it enough, it will slowly start to stick. And next election, it will be a useful weapon.

[usregimechange]

14. humm

good points guys.

[AP]

16. Long before I had any idea who would be running for president...

...I said here at DU that TAXATION was going to be the key issue, and not whether they were increased or decreased, but whether they were made progressive or regressive.

Regressive taxation was the primary covert policy goal of Republicans, and so the Democrats were going to have to find a way to explain to the public the difference between progressive and regressive taxation, and the candidate who could do this the best and turn it into and overall message that the voters could understand would probably win the election.

It amazes me that, in an effort to give a good spin to everything Dean does, Democrats here are arguing AGAINST progressive taxation. I find that appalling and disturbing.

[stickdog]

19. I agree with this. But you have to start out by undoing everything Bush.

Then, if you can afford it, you show the people what a Democratic tax break looks like in comparison to a Ritchie Rich heist on the US Treasury.

Otherwise you aren't making the distinctions clear enough. Too many people think they are well off or soon to be well off for you to say, "you can keep your tax break but rich people can't."

[gristy]

21. Interesting point - I do agree, but...

Regressive taxation was the primary covert policy goal of Republicans, and so the Democrats were going to have to find a way to explain to the public the difference between progressive and regressive taxation, and the candidate who could do this the best and turn it into and overall message that the voters could understand would probably win the election.

Progressive taxation??? The rich person EARNED those dollars and has as much a right to every one of them as a poor person. Does that rich person drive on public roads more? Does her family take up more seats in the public schools? Does she breath any more air than a poor person? Every dollar you take away from a rich person is another dollar that she DOESN'T have to invest in America - you know, that country you HATE and continually slander, you treasonous bastard - and bring JOBS to shmucks like you who don't even deserve them!

THAT is going to be the repuke spin.

[realFedUp]

20. I'm not for the increases in spending for the war....

How do the Bushies explain those?