• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dean is not fiscally conservative


linkage

``Real Democrats don't make promises they can't keep,'' the former Vermont governor said. ``Working Americans have a choice: They can have the president's tax cuts or they can have health care that can't be taken away. They can't have both

So, the people can have tax cuts, or the goverment can spend the money. This is not how to balance a budget.
 
What a weak argument!

Look at his record as governor of Vermont. Actions speak louder than words. If you'd like to twist his words and somehow interpret them to mean he's not for balancing the budget (when he explicitly states this fact in EVERY stump speech), then go ahead. If you'd like to say that the sky is green, go ahead. Its a free country, and you're free to make totally baseless claims.
 
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
What a weak argument!

Look at his record as governor of Vermont. Actions speak louder than words. If you'd like to twist his words and somehow interpret them to mean he's not for balancing the budget (when he explicitly states this fact in EVERY stump speech), then go ahead. If you'd like to say that the sky is green, go ahead. Its a free country, and you're free to make totally baseless claims.

How exactly did I twist his words?
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
What a weak argument!

Look at his record as governor of Vermont. Actions speak louder than words. If you'd like to twist his words and somehow interpret them to mean he's not for balancing the budget (when he explicitly states this fact in EVERY stump speech), then go ahead. If you'd like to say that the sky is green, go ahead. Its a free country, and you're free to make totally baseless claims.

How exactly did I twist his words?

Also vermont law requires all defecits be closed at the end of each fiscal year.
 
You twisted his words by somehow suggesting that the only two parts of his economic plan to return the federal government to fiscal responsibility is by only 1) repealing Bush's tax cuts and 2) enacting universal health insurance. His economic plan is comprehensive and detailed, and its goal is to have a balanced budget. Its not as simple as your making it out to be.
 
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
You twisted his words by somehow suggesting that the only two parts of his economic plan to return the federal government to fiscal responsibility is by only 1) repealing Bush's tax cuts and 2) enacting universal health insurance. His economic plan is comprehensive and detailed, and its goal is to have a balanced budget. Its not as simple as your making it out to be.

Ok, since it is so detailed, what is he cutting and what taxes are being raised?
 
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
You twisted his words by somehow suggesting that the only two parts of his economic plan to return the federal government to fiscal responsibility is by only 1) repealing Bush's tax cuts and 2) enacting universal health insurance. His economic plan is comprehensive and detailed, and its goal is to have a balanced budget. Its not as simple as your making it out to be.


Where is this plan?
 
Ask and ye shall receive.

We need a fresh start, a new beginning with a new administration and a new economic plan -- a program that opens up opportunity, creates more good jobs and saves the ones we have.

Let me say a few things about my approach to the economy.

First, I have a well-deserved reputation as a fiscal conservative. Vermont is the only state that does not require a balanced budget but I balanced the budget every year of my 11 years as Governor. I?m a thrifty person, and I hate to waste and inefficiency. So I?m not afraid to say ?no? to spending plans that don?t make sense.

I cut some taxes both income taxes and sales taxes -- but when we had good fiscal years, I set up a rainy day fund, and put money away against the hard times sure to come. The banks and investment houses liked Vermont?s fiscal situation so much that they raised our credit rating and reduced the cost of our borrowing.

I?m fond of saying that you really can?t trust Republicans with your money. That may seem like a funny notion, but the truth is that Republicans don?t seem to understand the simple notion that a government like a family must eventually live within its means. Since the days of President Reagan and the first President Bush, Republican administrations have run up more than $3 trillion in deficits. It took President Clinton without the support of a single Republican in Congress to adopt an economic program that brought the budget into balance and set the stage for the unprecedented expansion of the 90s.

But balancing the budget is not the be-all and end-all of an economic program. The central economic goal of a President must be to speak to the core concerns of America's workers and their families -- adequate health care, an excellent education, the assurance that every American who wants one has a decent job at a living wage, and the confidence that they will be secure in their retirement and be able to maintain a reasonable quality of life in their senior years.

This President has failed to address these core concerns. With an economic agenda that consists of little more than irresponsible tax cuts, he offers little comfort to our country's working families.

The average working American would much rather have guaranteed health care than a $400 tax rebate. Working Americans worry about the security of their current jobs. They are worried about the financial future of their children. They are concerned about the security of their retirement either that Social Security will not be there for them or that their savings will be wiped out through another collapse of the stock market.

And the answer this President offers to each of these concerns is to cut taxes. Well, let?s be clear. The tax cuts this President is offering are not about giving a family an extra $400. And I don?t even believe that they?re really about giving far larger amounts to millionaires or corporations though they do that as well.

These tax cuts are the centerpiece of a radical agenda to destroy Social Security, Medicare, our public schools and our public services through privatization and starvation.

The actions of this President and this administration are threatening the soundness of our Social Security system and of our private pension systems as well. By creating the largest deficits in history and adding irresponsibly to the federal debt, he has given Americans worried about their retirement even more cause for concern.

As President, I will be committed to preserving the integrity and long-term stability of the Social Security Trust Fund. I will oppose privatizing the Social Security System. And I will pursue a responsible economic agenda, and under my plan we will never have to consider raising the retirement age.

The long-term future of Social Security and financial security for all of us in our retirement years depends on ensuring a healthy rate of economic growth over the next several decades. Even a modest increase in long-term growth rates will ease the burden on the Social Security Trust Fund. If we do need to bring more money into Social Security, then I?m prepared to look at reasonable options for expanding the ceiling on payroll taxes.

The best guarantee for our Social Security, therefore, is an economic plan with three basic principles:

First, we must create economic growth and jobs new jobs, more jobs, and better jobs for Americans;

Second, we must return to fiscal sanity, for the sake of future generations, yes but also for the sake of our very national security. We cannot be a world-class country if we are the world?s largest debtor;

Finally, we must reform our tax system. When I am President, I will work to repeal the top heavy Bush tax cuts, and replace them with a system that is fairer, and simpler, and places less of a burden on working Americans who live off their paychecks.

Today, I want to spend a few minutes talking with you about the first of my priorities economic growth and job creation. About how we do go about creating jobs and economic growth.

First, we need to put more money in the pockets of people who will spend it not only wealthy investors whose needs are well taken care of. We can do this by taking several simple steps.

We should begin by raising the minimum wage. At a time when nine million Americans are out of work, let?s at least help those who are still working. When I was Governor, I raised the minimum wage. It?s now $6.75 an hour, compared to the federal minimum of $5.15. We?re the richest nation in the world. We can do better!

We should expand unemployment insurance to cover more low-wage and part-time workers. Less than 1 in 5 of them are covered today and I know we can do better!

We need to provide help to the states and communities who are laying off firefighters and police officers, closing schools early, reducing highway assistance and even releasing prisoners from jail. And we should double the Community Development Block Grant Program.

Just this week, we?ve seen new data that shows that as states and local governments are raising taxes and cutting spending, they?re slowing the economy by as much a half a percentage point. By increasing assistance to them, we?re pumping money directly into the economy and more importantly creating more jobs!

We must increase our investments for growth. Too many of our schools are obsolete and decrepit. Your own Senator Harkin has been a real leader in pushing creative federal investments in new and better schools. That not only helps education it creates jobs. And tax cuts, as the President has proved, do not create jobs.

We need a national program to expand access to broadband in our inner cities and in rural America in order to allow those parts of America who have been left out of the new economy to participate in it.

We must bridge the digital divide between young and old, white and black, and rich and poor. Expanding the broadband network provides new employment opportunities and stimulates demand for information technology creating more jobs in our vital high-tech industries.

No economic plan can ignore the issue of health care. My plan will reduce the cost of health insurance to employers, take a contentious issue off the bargaining table, and permit more money to be used to compensate employees and create new jobs!

We must re-examine our trade policies. In an era of globalization, multi-national corporations chase the lowest wages and the most permissive regulations. Fair trade is good for America and the world, but the playing field needs to be level. We can?t allow some countries to subsidize exports, manipulate their currencies, or erect barriers to imports from the United States.

We need to remember that the purpose of trade must be to improve the standard of living for us as well as our partners. Trade can only build strong and stable societies in developing countries if it is conducted under clear rules that are continually improved. Solid labor standards in our trade agreements are essential if we are to help create a strong middle class in the developing countries and creating strong middle classes in developing countries should be an essential goal of our trade policy. Middle class economies create the basis for strong democracies and for strong demand for U.S. goods and services.

Those who deny that problems exist in our trading system are not helping the cause of trade. When I am President, I will insist that every new trade agreement include strict and enforceable labor and environmental provisions.

As for existing agreements, I will not hesitate to renegotiate provisions that can be improved for the benefit of both working Americans and our trading partners. I will make sure the interests of working Americans are represented at the negotiating table by giving labor a role on the advisory teams. We have to protect middle class jobs in the United States with the same enthusiasm and vigor that we apply to protecting intellectual property rights, capital, and the interests of investors.

I am running for President because we can do better. We need to do better. The American people deserve a better deal.

link
 
How is complaining about about a tax cut being to large, when he only wants to spend it, not hypocritical?
Ummm, how is this hypocritical? If a person thought the tax cut was too small but also wanted to increase spending, that would be illogical.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: jahawkin
How is a balanced budget not fiscally conservative??

How is complaining about about a tax cut being to large, when he only wants to spend it, not hypocritical?

Because the tax cut should have never happened in the first place. How is having a huge tax cut for the rich sending the country into gigantic deficits fiscally conservative??
 
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Ask and ye shall receive.

We need a fresh start, a new beginning with a new administration and a new economic plan -- a program that opens up opportunity, creates more good jobs and saves the ones we have.

Let me say a few things about my approach to the economy.

First, I have a well-deserved reputation as a fiscal conservative. Vermont is the only state that does not require a balanced budget but I balanced the budget every year of my 11 years as Governor. I?m a thrifty person, and I hate to waste and inefficiency. So I?m not afraid to say ?no? to spending plans that don?t make sense.

I cut some taxes both income taxes and sales taxes -- but when we had good fiscal years, I set up a rainy day fund, and put money away against the hard times sure to come. The banks and investment houses liked Vermont?s fiscal situation so much that they raised our credit rating and reduced the cost of our borrowing.

I?m fond of saying that you really can?t trust Republicans with your money. That may seem like a funny notion, but the truth is that Republicans don?t seem to understand the simple notion that a government like a family must eventually live within its means. Since the days of President Reagan and the first President Bush, Republican administrations have run up more than $3 trillion in deficits. It took President Clinton without the support of a single Republican in Congress to adopt an economic program that brought the budget into balance and set the stage for the unprecedented expansion of the 90s.

But balancing the budget is not the be-all and end-all of an economic program. The central economic goal of a President must be to speak to the core concerns of America's workers and their families -- adequate health care, an excellent education, the assurance that every American who wants one has a decent job at a living wage, and the confidence that they will be secure in their retirement and be able to maintain a reasonable quality of life in their senior years.

This President has failed to address these core concerns. With an economic agenda that consists of little more than irresponsible tax cuts, he offers little comfort to our country's working families.

The average working American would much rather have guaranteed health care than a $400 tax rebate. Working Americans worry about the security of their current jobs. They are worried about the financial future of their children. They are concerned about the security of their retirement either that Social Security will not be there for them or that their savings will be wiped out through another collapse of the stock market.

And the answer this President offers to each of these concerns is to cut taxes. Well, let?s be clear. The tax cuts this President is offering are not about giving a family an extra $400. And I don?t even believe that they?re really about giving far larger amounts to millionaires or corporations though they do that as well.

These tax cuts are the centerpiece of a radical agenda to destroy Social Security, Medicare, our public schools and our public services through privatization and starvation.

The actions of this President and this administration are threatening the soundness of our Social Security system and of our private pension systems as well. By creating the largest deficits in history and adding irresponsibly to the federal debt, he has given Americans worried about their retirement even more cause for concern.

As President, I will be committed to preserving the integrity and long-term stability of the Social Security Trust Fund. I will oppose privatizing the Social Security System. And I will pursue a responsible economic agenda, and under my plan we will never have to consider raising the retirement age.

The long-term future of Social Security and financial security for all of us in our retirement years depends on ensuring a healthy rate of economic growth over the next several decades. Even a modest increase in long-term growth rates will ease the burden on the Social Security Trust Fund. If we do need to bring more money into Social Security, then I?m prepared to look at reasonable options for expanding the ceiling on payroll taxes.

The best guarantee for our Social Security, therefore, is an economic plan with three basic principles:

First, we must create economic growth and jobs new jobs, more jobs, and better jobs for Americans;

Second, we must return to fiscal sanity, for the sake of future generations, yes but also for the sake of our very national security. We cannot be a world-class country if we are the world?s largest debtor;

Finally, we must reform our tax system. When I am President, I will work to repeal the top heavy Bush tax cuts, and replace them with a system that is fairer, and simpler, and places less of a burden on working Americans who live off their paychecks.

Today, I want to spend a few minutes talking with you about the first of my priorities economic growth and job creation. About how we do go about creating jobs and economic growth.

First, we need to put more money in the pockets of people who will spend it not only wealthy investors whose needs are well taken care of. We can do this by taking several simple steps.

We should begin by raising the minimum wage. At a time when nine million Americans are out of work, let?s at least help those who are still working. When I was Governor, I raised the minimum wage. It?s now $6.75 an hour, compared to the federal minimum of $5.15. We?re the richest nation in the world. We can do better!

We should expand unemployment insurance to cover more low-wage and part-time workers. Less than 1 in 5 of them are covered today and I know we can do better!

We need to provide help to the states and communities who are laying off firefighters and police officers, closing schools early, reducing highway assistance and even releasing prisoners from jail. And we should double the Community Development Block Grant Program.

Just this week, we?ve seen new data that shows that as states and local governments are raising taxes and cutting spending, they?re slowing the economy by as much a half a percentage point. By increasing assistance to them, we?re pumping money directly into the economy and more importantly creating more jobs!

We must increase our investments for growth. Too many of our schools are obsolete and decrepit. Your own Senator Harkin has been a real leader in pushing creative federal investments in new and better schools. That not only helps education it creates jobs. And tax cuts, as the President has proved, do not create jobs.

We need a national program to expand access to broadband in our inner cities and in rural America in order to allow those parts of America who have been left out of the new economy to participate in it.

We must bridge the digital divide between young and old, white and black, and rich and poor. Expanding the broadband network provides new employment opportunities and stimulates demand for information technology creating more jobs in our vital high-tech industries.

No economic plan can ignore the issue of health care. My plan will reduce the cost of health insurance to employers, take a contentious issue off the bargaining table, and permit more money to be used to compensate employees and create new jobs!

We must re-examine our trade policies. In an era of globalization, multi-national corporations chase the lowest wages and the most permissive regulations. Fair trade is good for America and the world, but the playing field needs to be level. We can?t allow some countries to subsidize exports, manipulate their currencies, or erect barriers to imports from the United States.

We need to remember that the purpose of trade must be to improve the standard of living for us as well as our partners. Trade can only build strong and stable societies in developing countries if it is conducted under clear rules that are continually improved. Solid labor standards in our trade agreements are essential if we are to help create a strong middle class in the developing countries and creating strong middle classes in developing countries should be an essential goal of our trade policy. Middle class economies create the basis for strong democracies and for strong demand for U.S. goods and services.

Those who deny that problems exist in our trading system are not helping the cause of trade. When I am President, I will insist that every new trade agreement include strict and enforceable labor and environmental provisions.

As for existing agreements, I will not hesitate to renegotiate provisions that can be improved for the benefit of both working Americans and our trading partners. I will make sure the interests of working Americans are represented at the negotiating table by giving labor a role on the advisory teams. We have to protect middle class jobs in the United States with the same enthusiasm and vigor that we apply to protecting intellectual property rights, capital, and the interests of investors.

I am running for President because we can do better. We need to do better. The American people deserve a better deal.

link

That is not very detailed. I see far alot of spending mentioned and not much cutting.

What programs will be cut and what taxes will be raised to support this.
 
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: jahawkin
How is a balanced budget not fiscally conservative??

How is complaining about about a tax cut being to large, when he only wants to spend it, not hypocritical?

Because the tax cut should have never happened in the first place. How is having a huge tax cut for the rich sending the country into gigantic deficits fiscally conservative??

So how would you have got money back into the hands of the people to get the economy going again?

 
Originally posted by: jahawkin

Because the tax cut should have never happened in the first place. How is having a huge tax cut for the rich sending the country into gigantic deficits fiscally conservative??

obviously you've never heard of the laffer curve
 
Whatever you think of Bush's tax cut, someone is going to end up paying for it anyway... like our children.
 
Dean claims he set up a rainy day fund to help when there were budget deficits. He did not. The rainy day fund is a requirement of VT law where budget surpluses get put instead of being returned to the taxpayer. It was enacted before he became govenor.
 
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Dean claims he set up a rainy day fund to help when there were budget deficits. He did not. The rainy day fund is a requirement of VT law where budget surpluses get put instead of being returned to the taxpayer. It was enacted before he became govenor.

I wasn't aware of this. Source please?
 
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Dean claims he set up a rainy day fund to help when there were budget deficits. He did not. The rainy day fund is a requirement of VT law where budget surpluses get put instead of being returned to the taxpayer. It was enacted before he became governor.

I wasn't aware of this. Source please?

Ask and ye shall receive

VT Statute
 
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Dean claims he set up a rainy day fund to help when there were budget deficits. He did not. The rainy day fund is a requirement of VT law where budget surpluses get put instead of being returned to the taxpayer. It was enacted before he became governor.

I wasn't aware of this. Source please?

Ask and ye shall receive

VT Statute

Despite this, it seems like Dean is still getting kudos for the rainy day fund from other Vermonters:

Vermont Administration Secretary Michael Smith said credit for the budget balancing should be shared by the Legislature, former Gov. Howard Dean and Gov. James Douglas.

?We responded early to the deficit, starting with the previous administration,? Smith said. ?We started early to put the brakes on spending.?

Klein agreed that lawmakers and both the Dean and Douglas administrations deserve the credit for the state?s strong fiscal health, but added, ?I think Dean gets a large amount of credit.?

?He set the tone,? Klein said. ?You had fairly conservative revenue forecasts and fairly conservative spending policies that made it easier to respond when revenues collapsed.?

I don't know the political background of Secretary Smith, so I'm not sure if there's favoritism behind that quote. I think this guy was elected or appointed with the new Republican governor. It's odd that Dean would be given credit if the law were already regularly practiced. Maybe the governor he replaced didn't practice this law?

Also, if you could give me a link to the anti-Dean column or article where you got this tidbit from, I'd appreciate it. I assume you weren't perusing Vermont state law code on the Internet and just happened to stumble upon this...



 
Also, if you could give me a link to the anti-Dean column or article where you got this tidbit from, I'd appreciate it. I assume you weren't perusing Vermont state law code on the Internet and just happened to stumble upon this...

No article directly related. I have read several articles on Dean where he is touting his balancing the budget and the rainy day fund. I did a search on "state balanced budget amendments" or something close to that. One web page I ran across said that VT didn't have a BB amendment but there was a footnote that mentioned the statute and how it kind of forced the issue so then I did a search for the statute . . . and you know the rest.
 
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Also, if you could give me a link to the anti-Dean column or article where you got this tidbit from, I'd appreciate it. I assume you weren't perusing Vermont state law code on the Internet and just happened to stumble upon this...

No article directly related. I have read several articles on Dean where he is touting his balancing the budget and the rainy day fund. I did a search on "state balanced budget amendments" or something close to that. One web page I ran across said that VT didn't have a BB amendment but there was a footnote that mentioned the statute and how it kind of forced the issue so then I did a search for the statute . . . and you know the rest.

Interesting. Good find.
 
Back
Top