No I'm not talking about the lottery. This would be more a outright tax for the poor. The Democratic debate is on right now, and the idiocy is going at full pace. Howard Dean just said "There was no tax cut for the middle class."
I make somewhere in the $20,000-$30,000 range. Since my wife has graciously been handling finances in the last few years, I don't have any idea what the actual amount is. There's no question that we made enough income for the recent tax refund, and there's no way I qualify as one of George Bush's rich friends, who Dean claimed were the only ones to get the tax cut. In fact, we didn't even pay any federal taxes last year, and we still got a ridiculously high refund from other people's taxes! When Democrats insisted on doing it that way, the Republicans were incredulous that they wanted to refund money that had never been paid, but the Dems won the argument by proclaiming hysterically that it would have been a tax cut for the rich otherwise. Dean says it was a tax cut for the rich even with the free handouts to non-taxpayers. The man looks like his nose is growing by the minute. He wants to tax the poor and then call it a repeal of a tax for the rich.
Updates along the way: Dean: "I am going to balance the budget, and I'm going to do it in about the sixth or seventh year of my administration." Is he planning to wait until then so he doesn't have to do it if he only gets one term? Is it so people won't get mad at him for cutting programs and not re-elect him? This may not be a lie, but it's certainly suspicious-sounding.
Dick Gephardt: "They [the Bush Administration] tried to put more arsenic in the water. We stopped them." That must have been an interesting sight. Did the Democrats discover this plan and run out there to intercept them before they could pour the arsenic in the water supply?
Carol Mosely Braun was asked what she would do to close the racial gap for SATs. Her only way to do this would be to beef up funding for schools in poor areas. How is this going to solve a problem to which income has been proved to be irrelevant? The SAT gap is about as wide for rich and middle class blacks as it is for poor blacks, and it's also independent of parents' education level. Whenever this is pointed out, people who take her view change the subject. She didn't come out and say that blacks' SAT scores are low because all black people are poor and poor people can't do well on SATs, but that's the implication.
Joe Lieberman called the Bush Administration the most secretive administration in the history of our country and said Bush has been the worst environmental president in our history. Lieberman must not know his history. Whatever you think of Bush's policies, I don't know how any honest evaluator could think the secrecy of this national-security-centered administration holds a candle to Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon's. As for the environmental question, I think the senator needs to revisit the turn of the previous century.
Dennis Kucinich: "I'm electable if people will vote for me." That was funny. I suppose that's vacuously true and therefore not a lie, but I had to include it.
Carol Mosely Braun wants us to think she's poor: "When the Constitution was written, I wasn't included. Black people couldn't vote. Women couldn't vote. Poor people couldn't vote." I think the implicature would be that she's in all three categories. Does she want to continue the stereotype that all black people are poor badly enough to expect us to think a former senator and ambassador is poor?