Edwards Wants Higher Taxes

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
At least Pretty Boy Edwards has the guts to admit he wants higher taxes the the Clinton era

He should be on the first to drop out of the race. The rest of Dem field has the brains not to tell you how much of your money they want



Edwards pitches Clinton-era taxes
By Stephen Dinan


SAN DIEGO -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said yesterday raising taxes for higher-income families back to their levels under the Clinton administration is a floor, not a ceiling, and he would consider even higher tax increases.
"What I believe is the starting place is to go back to the Clinton levels," Mr. Edwards told reporters after addressing the 2,000 delegates to California's state Democratic Party convention.
Four years ago, during his last presidential run, the former North Carolina senator drew boos and jeers from the California convention for his defense of the Iraq war. This year, he was back with a completely different message -- both on the war and on how far he would go in rolling back President Bush's legacy.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070430-124141-8365r.htm
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Pretty Boy's "Two America's" shows how out of touch he is

Richie Rich in bib overalls
By PHILIP GAILEY
Published April 29, 2007


John Edwards is right - there are two Americas, one for the rich and another for everyone else. He lives in the former and campaigns in the latter, and sometimes he forgets where he is.

In the "other" America, there is Edwards, dressed in denim jeans and a work shirt, announcing his second Democratic presidential bid against the grim backdrop of a New Orleans neighborhood devastated by Katrina. Then he shows up in the "rich" America, getting $400 haircuts and advising a New York hedge fund for the kind of "wealthy insiders" he denounces on the campaign trail.

The haircuts and the hedge fund are instructive, if not definitive, in trying to understand Edwards' political character - and judgment.

Why would a presidential candidate who joins union picket lines, beats up on Wal-Mart and campaigns as a populist champion of American workers indulge himself in something as extravagant as a $400 haircut and then bill it to his campaign donors, not all of whom are rich trial lawyers and hedge fund managers? What was this son of a textile mill worker thinking?

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/29/Opinion/Richie_Rich_in_bib_ov.shtml
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
166
Reaction score
7
Points
16
Higher taxes for the RICH. But then they know how to cheat the system and avoid paying them, so don't know if it will do much good.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Higher taxes for the RICH. But then they know how to cheat the system and avoid paying them, so don't know if it will do much good.
how much more do you want the producers to pay?

the top 25% wage earners pay 84% in federal income taxes
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
how much more do you want the producers to pay?

the top 25% wage earners pay 84% in federal income taxes
It would be accurate to say 84% of the federal income taxes, but very inaccurate to say that they pay 84% in federal income taxes.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
It would be accurate to say 84% of the federal income taxes, but very inaccurate to say that they pay 84% in federal income taxes.
My mistake

The point is - how much more do libs want them to pay?
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
What I want is a Balanced Budget Amendment. These people cannot be trusted with our futures as they can't see past the next election.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
What I want is a Balanced Budget Amendment. These people cannot be trusted with our futures as they can't see past the next election.
a flat tax would be a good start

any balanced budget amendment would have an escape hatch

the only way to stop them from spending the money is not to give to them
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Higher taxes for the RICH. But then they know how to cheat the system and avoid paying them, so don't know if it will do much good.
You do realize that almost everyone in the United States is among the top richest 5% of the world dont you?

Besides, why is it moral to steal from people who have more simply cause they have more?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
You do realize that almost everyone in the United States is among the top richest 5% of the world dont you?

Besides, why is it moral to steal from people who have more simply cause they have more?
Meanwhiloe to bottom 50% of wage earners in the US pay about 3% of all Federal Income taxes
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
You do realize that almost everyone in the United States is among the top richest 5% of the world dont you?

Besides, why is it moral to steal from people who have more simply cause they have more?
It's not "stealing" Avatar.

If you really love your country and you are fortunate enough to enjoy the fruits of prosperity you should be happy to pay your fair share of taxes.

If our country is truly a "Christian" nation then greed has no place in it.

Giving more than your share to the poor is not a liberal scam it is biblical. The rich should pay more in taxes than the poor. Not only is it the "Christian" thing to do it just makes the most sense.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
It's not "stealing" Avatar.

If you really love your country and you are fortunate enough to enjoy the fruits of prosperity you should be happy to pay your fair share of taxes.

If our country is truly a "Christian" nation then greed has no place in it.

Giving more than your share to the poor is not a liberal scam it is biblical. The rich should pay more in taxes than the poor. Not only is it the "Christian" thing to do it just makes the most sense.
how much more do you want the producers to pay?

the top 25% wage earners pay 84% of federal income taxes
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
It's not "stealing" Avatar.

If you really love your country and you are fortunate enough to enjoy the fruits of prosperity you should be happy to pay your fair share of taxes.

If our country is truly a "Christian" nation then greed has no place in it.

Giving more than your share to the poor is not a liberal scam it is biblical. The rich should pay more in taxes than the poor. Not only is it the "Christian" thing to do it just makes the most sense.
I agree. This nation has no place for greed or coveting. So stop taking the hard earned money of others.

People don't "give" anything to the government. the government takes it. That is the problem. Rather than forcing money from people through taxes we should be allowing them to have it and encouraging them to do good with it. There is nothing Christian about taking money from others at the point of the sword. There is nothing Christian about burdening only a portion of the population with all the costs of society. There is nothing Christian at all when you force wealth from people and give it to those who believe they are entitled to it with absolutely no effort on their part. Robbery and Idleness is not of God.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I agree. This nation has no place for greed or coveting. So stop taking the hard earned money of others.

People don't "give" anything to the government. the government takes it. That is the problem. Rather than forcing money from people through taxes we should be allowing them to have it and encouraging them to do good with it. There is nothing Christian about taking money from others at the point of the sword. There is nothing Christian about burdening only a portion of the population with all the costs of society. There is nothing Christian at all when you force wealth from people and give it to those who believe they are entitled to it with absolutely no effort on their part. Robbery and Idleness is not of God.
How true

It is not obscene how much of thier own money people keep due to tax cuts

What is obscene is how much the government still takes away from them
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
It's not "stealing" Avatar.

If you really love your country and you are fortunate enough to enjoy the fruits of prosperity you should be happy to pay your fair share of taxes.

If our country is truly a "Christian" nation then greed has no place in it.

Giving more than your share to the poor is not a liberal scam it is biblical. The rich should pay more in taxes than the poor. Not only is it the "Christian" thing to do it just makes the most sense.
Enforced "donations" to the poor are not alms. When the government insists on making you donate, personal donations go down and the cost of "help" goes up as we are adding myriad positions in the government to oversee your enforced donations.

If laws shouldn't be made according to Christianity, such as oh... abortion or gay marriage, then laws for this should also not be made according to the Bible.
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
If laws shouldn't be made according to Christianity, such as oh... abortion or gay marriage, then laws for this should also not be made according to the Bible.
True.

We should give up all pretense of this being a "Christian" nation and just call it what it is.....an evil, opportunistic, money-grubbing, greed-driven social scam where the wealthy get richer off of the exploitation of the working poor.

Nobody has any social or moral obligation to take care of anyone else.

"Screw the poor....they deserve what they get!"

Social Darwinism should be our national credo right?

Is that what Conservatives stand for?
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
True.

We should give up all pretense of this being a "Christian" nation and just call it what it is.....an evil, opportunistic, money-grubbing, greed-driven social scam where the wealthy get richer off of the exploitation of the working poor.

Nobody has any social or moral obligation to take care of anyone else.

"Screw the poor....they deserve what they get!"

Social Darwinism should be our national credo right?

Is that what Conservatives stand for?
LOL. A logical fallacy. This is an example of reductio ad absurdam.

Let's see here. Were I a democrat and this was about us, my standard response would be, "Can you give a link to an official site stating this?"

It must be embarrassing to state in one post how there must be a separation of Church and State, then later post in here, "If you are a good christian you would happily pay your taxes because it is like giving alms!"

First, not all conservatives are christian. Second, it is hypocritical to state that the government shouldn't use religion to make laws on one hand, yet state that it should on another.
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
Second, it is hypocritical to state that the government shouldn't use religion to make laws on one hand, yet state that it should on another.
I completely agree!

That's all I'm saying. It's got to be one or the other.:D
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
I completely agree!

That's all I'm saying. It's got to be one or the other.:D
So which do you choose? Continuing with this argument, or being a hypocrite?

Personally, I have never suggested religion as a reason for a law.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top