http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/24/elec04.prez.clark.policies/index.html NEW YORK (CNN) -- Retired Gen. Wesley Clark on Wednesday proposed a $100 billion economic incentive plan to be funded from reductions in parts of President Bush's tax-cut program that benefit high-income families. Speaking in Manhattan across the East River from a plant in Queens where jobs are being cut, Clark said that "fiscal discipline requires not only reducing the deficit. It requires moving money from areas where it isn't advancing national goals and directing it to areas where it is. "So I will reduce the tax cuts Mr. Bush gave the richest households -- those making more than $200,000 a year" and use the money for an economic incentive plan, he said. Clark, who declared his candidacy for the Democratic nomination last week, outlined his three-part, two-year plan. • A $40 billion fund would focus on improving homeland security by investing in infrastructure, such as hospitals, and training those who are the first to respond in emergencies. That fund would leave hospitals better prepared for potential biological and chemical attacks, provide money to hire more Coast Guard and customs workers, and secure ports, bridges and tunnels, Clark said. • A $40 billion fund for states and local governments -- many financially strapped -- would bolster public education, health care, local law enforcement and social services, he said. About $20 billion would help public colleges keep tuition down and help state and local governments train workers for new jobs, he said. Local governments would receive $10 billion to cope with rising health-care costs, and $10 billion would help finance local law enforcement programs and social services. • The third proposal would provide $20 billion for business tax credits and incentives, including tax credits of $5,000 per every new employee hired by a company. There would be incentives for firms to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States and efforts to make companies more competitive in the trade markets, Clark said. The candidate took aim at the president's record on the economy, saying 3.3 million private-sector jobs, including 2.5 million manufacturing jobs, had been lost during Bush's term. Clark said that unemployment had risen sharply under Bush, particularly for African-Americans and Hispanics, and that unemployed workers have been idle for longer periods of time than in previous years. "Three years ago, we were told we were getting a compassionate conservative," he said. "What we got instead were massive tax cuts for the rich, staggering deficits for the country and the worst jobs losses since the Great Depression. "That's not compassionate or conservative. It's heartless, reckless and it's wrong." Earlier this month, Bush acknowledged that "we've got a short-term problem" with unemployment. But he added that the long-term prognosis for more U.S. jobs was good under his tax cut and other economic stimulus proposals.
Wow that took some deep thinking. Class warfare and demagoguery at its finest. Rile up the masses! Take from the rich, give to the poor! ..and how many times must we debunk the myth that only the rich received tax cuts...sigh.
Class warfare? focus on improving homeland security by investing in infrastructure, such as hospitals, and training those who are the first to respond in emergencies. Yep, let those firefighters and police pay for their own equipment like our soldiers and teachers. Otherwise, it's class warfare. A $40 billion fund for states and local governments -- many financially strapped -- would bolster public education, health care, local law enforcement and social services, he said. About $20 billion would help public colleges keep tuition down and help state and local governments train workers for new jobs, he said. Local governments would receive $10 billion to cope with rising health-care costs, and $10 billion would help finance local law enforcement programs and social services. Well! The nerve! Who cares about public education and law enforcement? If those people don't like it, why don't they just move to a better neighborhood? The third proposal would provide $20 billion for business tax credits and incentives, including tax credits of $5,000 per every new employee hired by a company. There would be incentives for firms to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States and efforts to make companies more competitive in the trade markets Blatant favoritism! Business tax credits are really the worst kind of class warfare aren't they? They encourage those little people to start their own business so they're not available for the big companies to walk all over. How repulsive. "fiscal discipline requires not only reducing the deficit. It requires moving money from areas where it isn't advancing national goals and directing it to areas where it is. "So I will reduce the tax cuts Mr. Bush gave the richest households -- those making more than $200,000 a year" Dang socialist! Just like that damn Red Theodore Roosevelt and his cousin and all those other great Americans. Guilt by association!
no one here has said ONLY the rich got tax cuts I dunno where you have been or if you have lost your cognitive ability to read but.. the problem has always been the unfairness of the tax cut the top 1% recieved and the stupidity of the huge deficits the tax cut will create.. wake up man
Rimrocker, I'm glad you took the time to argue every point which I didn't mention in my post. Thaaaanks. The class warfare I was referring to was the source of the money for all his programs. The money from the tax cut he wants to repeal which gave all those rich people unfair money. That theory has been debunked repeatedly. It's a tired tactic that democrats love to use. The fact is that only the rich pay taxes, so only the rich save money from tax cuts (aside from the enormous jolt to the economy which results in time).
maybe its just late but I am not sure you made the point you were after. kind of came out garbled. but that could be me. I think you were being sarcastic, and you have a problem with the proposed use of funds "taken from the rich" specificly from apparently repealing the bush tax cuts. I think you should re-read the article. Clark said he would just repeal the part for people that made over 200k. he is not saying he is increasing their taxes beyond this, but returning them to pre bush levels. the bush tax cuts lowered taxes for many people, but I think Clark is just using the 100 or so billion that were given to Americas richest. the $200k plus club. got it?
It must take at least two and a half years, because that's how long it's been since the first of the Bush tax cuts went through. Those checks were spent a loooooooong time ago.
You wanna see *real* class warfare? Cut off all funding for social programs and so-called "entitlements," as the rich get more powerful and the poor get poorer. The rich will have to spend their tax cuts on security systems and barred windows. We're all in this thing together.
When Bush talked about Iraq getting 87 billion dollars he mentioned that Americans might have to sacrifice. I don't mind spending money to build Iraq provided it's accounted for, but I have a major question. Where is the sacrifice the wealthy are making? They are getting tax cuts left and right, and corporations are getting enviromental breaks. Yet Americans have to make sacrifice. I know where the sacrifice is coming from so far, and it's the future generations and tax payers that have to pay for the deficit. I just don't see the sacrifice made from the top 5% of the nations money earners. Or does Bush only want other Americans to sacrifice? I'm not trying to bring on class warfare, I just want clarification on the President's words.
Debunked repeatedly? by who? What's been debunked is supply side economics, both academically and in this forum. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64425 Well, actually, "debunked" is an exaggeration, as that implies that it actually had any credibility, or "bunk" in the first place.
So, where were you in the Krugman thread, you know, the one that proved with numbers and hard facts that the only people who have seen any real tax reduction over the past five decades have been the rich? I guess it is only debunked for people who buy the tired rhetoric of the conservatives.
Andrew, only the rich pay income taxes. Therefore only the rich CAN have tax reduction. How many times must this be repeated.
Evidently, as many times as it takes for you to believe that its true and to convince enough sheep otherwise; too bad it's not.
I believe that everyone pays taxes, whether through some form of income, sales or other tax. But I don't think its fair that if you make a higher amount of money, you should have to pay a higher percentage. To me, that just does not make logical sense. "Retired Gen. Wesley Clark on Wednesday proposed a $100 billion economic incentive plan to be funded from reductions in parts of President Bush's tax-cut program that benefit high-income families." This quote alone makes it seem like high income earners barely pay any taxes, when their rates are incredible compared to the lowest brackets. Its like a negative reward for making less money. I personally think that as your income rises your rate should fall because you are paying a higer actual amount to the government than most people. Lower parts of the population get used to being carried by the upper earners and this is a dangerous situation.
I'm sure that idea is taking it too far, but honestly do you think its fair to have to pay a higer percentage based on making more money?? And do you not believe that system causes complacency for those that are beneficiaries of the system?? They get used to the benefits such as welfare, free healthcare, social services without adding to the pot.
