Democratic Candidates Develop Economic Platforms

FOX ^ | 10/14/03 | Peter Brownfeld

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Along with national security, the economy will be among the two biggest issues in the 2004 election, say political observers. And while the economy has been sagging throughout much of President Bush's first term, the numbers suggest it is picking up steam.

[RiflemanSharpe]

This ought to be cute, lets see if we cab tax and spend our way to prosperity.

[RiflemanSharpe]

cab = can

[Support Free Republic]

Strong Conservative Forums Help Prevent Candidates Like This From Winning Elections
	Finish Strong. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[dufekin]

It's interesting to hear Democrats developing a platform on anything. But alas, it's basically just more Bush-bashing.

[finnman69]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1000110/posts


The plan calls for lower income tax rates for individuals earning less than about $70,000 a year and families earning less than about $115,000 a year. In addition, Mr. Lieberman's plan would restore the tax on dividends and re-establish certain estate taxes, negating two changes central to the Bush administration's economic plan.

The plan announced on Monday by Mr. Lieberman went further. He would raise the top tax bracket to 39.6 percent from 33 percent for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of more than $143,500. A family with adjusted gross income of more than $150,000 could see its rate rise to 39.6 percent from 28 percent.

In addition to raising rates for higher-income Americans, the Lieberman plan would impose a 5 percent tax surcharge on individuals and families with incomes of more than $250,000 a year. The plan would also close some loopholes in the corporate tax code, including the use of offshore tax havens by American companies.

But Mr. Lieberman said that the new measures would together bring in an additional $900 million in revenues over 10 years, and that the tax code restructuring would simply shift the burden to higher-income families.

[Non-Sequitur]

How nice. So...when is President Bush going to develop one?

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The way I understood it he was relieving too much on the low end to be compensated for on the high end. In otherwords too many lower to average income families for the wealthy to counterbalance, he would come up short.

[Non-Sequitur]

6% unemployment is not that bad for the US.

Unless you're one of the 6% of course. Or one of those who burned through your unemployment and aren't counted any more. Or one of those who has a job but at nowhere near the salary or responsiblity of your former position. Kind of hard on them.

[mikeb704]

Soaking the rich: The enduring myth

[BOBTHENAILER]

Democratic Economic Position:

There's one for you nineteen for me

[AndyTheBear]

Heck, if we had .00001% unemployment it would still suck for the .00001%.

[AndyTheBear]

Shifting the tax burden more toward the high income crowd is essentialy the same thing as subsidizing the formation of new loopholes--such as moving their buisnesses overseas.