Clark nails Bush on AWOL and Edwards&Kerry on progressive taxes

[cryofan]

Now THIS is what I have wanted to see all along: the Dem candidates getting into a real debate on progressive taxation--the most important and ignored topic of all.

from:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/09/politics0952EST0531.DTL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Asked about President Bush and his service in the Vietnam era, Clark said, "I know the charges about what he did or didn't do are offensive."
....

Sweeping across Tennessee, Clark touted his tax plan, which includes eliminating income taxes for families of four earning less than $50,000. "Mine will be $1,500 a year," he said, compared what he called the average $100-a-year benefit promised by rivals Kerry and John Edwards.

....
"Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards are good men, but they don't have the leadership to stand up to millionaires," said Clark. "They talk about middle-class tax cuts, but it's just rhetoric. The majority of families would not get any tax cut from either of them and the average tax cut would be less than $100."
.....

He (edwards) said Clark is looking at only one part of his tax plan, the section on dividends. "My middle-class tax cut plan will give thousand of dollars to tens of millions of families," Edwards said. "He's only looking at the deductions. You have to look at all the other parts together."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[dtseiler]

1. Uhh ... didn't say anything about AWOL

He said that the charges are offensive. Well DUH, Captain Obvious. Clark didn't weigh in one way or the other on if he thought Bush was AWOL and what that means for him to be sending troops to war.

That is what I want to know.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Clark bled Democratic blood over this issue

When he got ambushed at the Fox debate on whether he would repudiate Micheal Moore, no other candidate came to Clark's aid. They let him dangle as the media hounds went at him for not forcefully disassociating himself from such reckless charges, UNTIL the story about Bush being AWOL began to get the traction that it did. And the story got that traction only because Clark, interviewed on Sunday morning network TV after that debate, DID NOT move into damage control and furiously back pedal. That story only got traction because initially it was being used as a club to attack Clark with. AFTER Clark was bloodied, McAuliffe, and Kerry, and un named Democrats near and far, puffed themselves up comparing Kerry's Viet Nam record with Bush's, usually failing to even mention Clark's 34 year service to his country in the military, and his Silver Star in Viet Nam.

[robbedvoter]

10. Clark prefers to attack on why war in Iraq, 9.11 liability and other

PRESENT problems rather that 30 year olf stories (no matter how much fun they are).
kerry has no other issue he can attack on, so the AWOl is his only difference from W. We gladly cede it to him. Clark has bigger (and fresher) fish to fry:
Such as these


"And to me, the problem is less about the intelligence community and more about how the president made his decision to take us into war in Iraq. We still don't know why we went to war in Iraq."


But Wolf, one of the virtues of being experienced in the national security business, as I am, is that I know a thing or two about how to read intelligence reports. And I would always be very wary of acting on the kind of inferential intelligence that the United States tends to collect. It has to be taken with a grain of salt. I learned that throughout my military career, and this is no different.

What we have here is an administration that wanted to find a pretext to go to war with Iraq. And that's the heart of the issue."

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

"
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/08/le.00.html
****

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

17. robbedvoter

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you


DU Moderator

[ShaneGR]

2. I love the whole give more tax cuts thing, uh, we're broke General

Keep the current middle class cuts and get rid of the wealthy ones. The deficit is far too staggering to even consider any further cuts.

[Lefta Dissenter]

3. Clark's plan to handle the tax cuts is self-funding

he's keeping the tax cuts for anyone under $200,000/year, taking them back for those over $200,000/year, and adding 5% to the tax bills for those earning over $1,000,000/year. Won't add a penny to the deficit.

edit: by the way, you have a typo in your sig graphic. Clark won Oklahoma, Edwards came in second. Maybe you haven't seen the news. :shrug:

[ShaneGR]

4. Ummmm....

The idea is to start paying it off. IMO.

[Lefta Dissenter]

5. I was talking about one facet

of the tax plan. How many of the candidates are proposing cuts to the Pentagon budget and know exactly how and where to do it??? THOSE are the ways we'll be paying down the deficit.

[BootinUp]

12. No the idea is Jobs first.

[spooky3]

7. check out johnedwards2004.com and please explain

how Clark's plan differs from that proposed by Edwards. Further, without looking at all spending plans along with all revenue increase plans, one can't say whether the revenue plan will or will not add to the deficit. We also have a huge deficit to pay off now.

[BootinUp]

11. Clark has an overall economic plan like Edwards PLUS

The overall plan rolls back the Bush tax cuts for people making over 200K. He uses that money for Healthcare, Jobs programs, Education Programs. The plan is based on achieveing deficit reductions.

The tax cut plan in the article is revenue neutral. It jacks up millionaires taxes in order to provide additional tax relief for families with children. Unless you believe in trickle down economics this does not hurt the deficit.

Then Clark also proposes 7.00 minimum wage.

[spooky3]

14. So does Edwards'. As I suggested earlier,

please go to JohnEdwards2004.com for verification.

Edwards' plan also proposes increases on unearned income, as AP and others have pointed out repeatedly over time.

[AP]

9. Edwareds wants to shift the tax burden from earned income to unearned

income, in addition to keeping the tax cuts for income under 200K.

I don't think Clark's plan makes a distinction between earned and unearned income.

[robbedvoter]

13. Clark is shifting burden from millionaires to middle class

I know capital gains are important to Edwards (who voted for the bankruptcy law), but familiers of 4 with 2 kids do not have a lot of chances to have capital gains these days - so eliminating tax for them all together is more prigressive.
Curring taxes for 31 million families will come in handy when Edwards's bancruptcy law will attempt to deprive them of their homes.

[BootinUp]

8. deficit neutral proposal tax cut, and overall economic plan cuts deficit

You really ought to check out the plan before you criticize it.

[topdog08]

15. First Clark exaggerates, now he lies about Edwards

On Friday, Wes Clark and his campaign manager Chris Lehane accused John Edwards of not protecting veterans benefits. This over a "Sense of the Senate" amendment to an amendment to a 1999 Health and Human Services appropriations bills that said increases in discretionary spending should be limited to avoid dipping into the Social Security trust fund. Clearly, calling this an assault on veterans' benefits was a distortion if not an outright lie. Now they are just lying.

On Sunday, here is what Clark had to say:

"My opponents, on the other hand, haven't taken the bold but necessary steps to help America's working families. They have not asked millionaires to pay their fair share by raising their income tax rate. I like John Kerry and John Edwards. They are both good men. But real middle class tax cuts aren't just a matter of rhetoric - they're a matter of action. And while both men talk a lot about middle class tax cuts, when you look at their plans, you realize they're all talk and no action. In fact, the majority of families wouldn't get any tax cuts from either plan," Clark said....

JOHN EDWARDS' PLAN

Leaves out most middle-class families: only 13 percent of families have capital gains and only 17 percent of families have stock dividends.
Provides little tax relief - $33 on average for middle-class families.
Does not raise income taxes for millionaires. The Edwards proposal does not raise income tax rates for millionaires. It does take a much smaller step of raising capital gains rates for capital gains in excess of $1 million.



Edwards' plan specifically reverses the Bush tax cuts for those making over $240,000, including every single millionaire! This $240,000 threshold is the same one Wes Clark sets! Yet he accuses specifically states that Edwards is not raising the income tax rate for millionaires! In fact, he repeats the same sentence twice for emphasis. Does he think saying it twice will make it true? This is just an outright lie.

As for capital gains and dividend income? John Edwards plan INCREASES taxes on both capital gains and stock dividends! Clark is implying that John is cutting those taxes, when Edwards is raising them! Sure, only 13% and 17% pay each of those taxes respectively, but Edwards is RAISING taxes on those groups, not cutting them like Clark clearly implies.

And this $33 claim? I have no idea where Wes is getting that from, and of course he does not bother to say. Nonetheless, he obviously left out the following specific Edwards' proposals for working families:

The American Dream Tax Credit

Edwards' American Dream Tax Credit will offer a matching tax credit of up to $5,000 to help those who need it to cover a down payment on a first home. This credit will give millions of Americans their first chance to own a home.

Incentives to Invest and Save

To help working Americans invest in American business, Edwards will cut capital gains taxes for 95% of Americans. For these taxpayers, he will create a $1,000 exclusion from capital gains taxes, as well as $500 dividend exclusion. He will also lower the long-term capital gains rate for middle-class families. These steps will simplify tax filing and eliminate two tax forms for millions of Americans.

Matching Savings Accounts for Retirement

Edwards will give Americans who have the most trouble saving today a chance to save through matching savings accounts. He will match $1 in private savings with as much as a $1 refundable tax credit for savings, up to a limit of $1,000 per couple, for Americans with incomes up to $50,000. A working family that saves and receives the maximum under this plan every year from age 25 to retirement will have a nest egg of $200,000, on top of other savings.



The facts are clear. Clark is not telling the truth, and he needs to apologize. Of course, his hope is that Tennesseans will go to the polls tomorrow before his lies are uncovered. I guess he thinks it's the only chance he has to stay in this.