Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.

"We'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a healthcare plan that cost anywhere from $90 to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source," Edwards said on NBC's Meet the Press news program.

The 2004 vice presidential nominee and former North Carolina senator said his plan would "get rid of George Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year."

He said the plan would also reduce healthcare costs.

"Finally we need to do a much better job of collecting the taxes that are already owed," he said, specifically targeting what he said are large amounts of unpaid capital gains taxes.

"We should have brokerage houses report the capital gains that people are incurring because we're losing billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue," Edwards said.

Offering a preview of his plan, Edwards said it aims to bring healthcare coverage to 47 million uninsured Americans, lower costs for the middle class and foster competition.

It would expand Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance plan for the needy, and offer subsidies for the uninsured. He said, "We ask employers to play a bigger role, which means they either have to have coverage or they have to buy into what we're calling health markets."

Without providing details, Edwards said his plan would create "health markets" nationwide. One choice available in the markets would be "the government plan, so people who like the idea of a single-payer health insurance plan, that is actually one of the alternatives," he said.

Edwards declared his candidacy in December calling for fewer U.S. troops in Iraq, a restoration of U.S. world leadership and an end to poverty.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"We'll have to raise taxes."

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally like Walter Mondale, in large part because he was willing to say something to the effect of: "I'm going to raise your taxes and so will Ronald Reagan. He won't tell you that he will, I just did."

Honesty about your position means a lot to me. The media would be so much better if each reporter was honest about their political biases, and politicians would be better for it to.

I didn't vote against Mondale because he was going to raise taxes, because I knew he was right that Reagan would raise them as well. I voted against Mondale because I knew he would raise them a heck of a lot more than Reagan would.

ps - Edwards is toast. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Honesty about your position means a lot to me. The media would be so much better if each reporter was honest about their political biases, and politicians would be better for it to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree more. It is nice to not have my intelligence insulted by politicians who promise huge spending increases or tax cuts, without stating how they will not increase the deficit.

A little honesty goes a long way.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

re: the title.

I've always assumed as much

Apparently
 

Did anyone ask him about why that much money was needed? Any questions about areas where spending could be cut? Crazy to believe that people think there's no fat to be trimmed from a budget in the trillions. If Edwards states it will be $120 billion you can be certain it's way over that amount, probably at least twice that amount and the rate of spending will certainly increase faster than revenues grow from taxes. He wasn't going to win anyway, he was a terrible choice as a VP candidate and from what I've read he didn't run for a second Senate term because he wasn't favored to beat a Republican.

Re: Apparently
 

Aren't these tax cuts only tempory, and already going to expire in a couple years? I don't see how this is raising taxes? Not that we don't need to dramatically increase taxes in the next decade or so if we don't want to be crippled by debt.

Re: Apparently
 

Its not even so much that he is being honest about raising taxes, how could he not be on this issue? as it is the fact that he wants to spend 120 billion/year on healthcare given the current budget issues.

Re: Apparently
 

Its not even so much that he is being honest about raising taxes, how could he not be on this issue? as it is the fact that he wants to spend 120 billion/year on healthcare given the current budget issues.

Right, it's much better to spend that much anyway and let the middle class carry the burden of higher health care costs.

Re: Apparently
 

[ QUOTE ]
Its not even so much that he is being honest about raising taxes, how could he not be on this issue? as it is the fact that he wants to spend 120 billion/year on healthcare given the current budget issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

at the risk of being leveled, i'll ask anyway - are you serious here?

Re: Apparently
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did anyone ask him about why that much money was needed? Any questions about areas where spending could be cut? Crazy to believe that people think there's no fat to be trimmed from a budget in the trillions. If Edwards states it will be $120 billion you can be certain it's way over that amount, probably at least twice that amount and the rate of spending will certainly increase faster than revenues grow from taxes. He wasn't going to win anyway, he was a terrible choice as a VP candidate and from what I've read he didn't run for a second Senate term because he wasn't favored to beat a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually according to polling he would have easily won a second term.

I think whats happening here is people are reacting to Obama's openess and honesty and trying to do some of the same. I dont think there isnt a single Democrat who hasnt said they are willing to roll back the bush tax cuts on the rich.

Re: Apparently
 

fish2plus2,

with all due respect, it's nice that you now, in your second post, actually explain what led you to title your post "is John Edwards a complete retard", since nothing about your post itself actually explained this.

he has a health plan, he says how he's going to pay for it. if you think there are other budgetary concerns more important than healthcare, maybe you ought to give some specifics before calling the guy a "retard", especially since you might want to look elsewhere for those responsible for the current "budget issues"

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.


[/ QUOTE ]

No! Picking on the poor oppressed minority wealthy. I think we should immediately start a collection to help those poor rich people out. Who wants to donate to the Save the Wealthy Fund?

Maybe we could raise the cost of a gallon a gas a few cents, and donate the extra money directly to anyone with a net worth over $50 million. I mean a few extra cents at the pump for a fill up, is worth it knowing that no rich people are going hungry at night.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.


[/ QUOTE ]

No! Picking on the poor oppressed minority wealthy. I think we should immediately start a collection to help those poor rich people out. Who wants to donate to the Save the Wealthy Fund?

Maybe we could raise the cost of a gallon a gas a few cents, and donate the extra money directly to anyone with a net worth over $50 million. I mean a few extra cents at the pump for a fill up, is worth it knowing that no rich people are going hungry at night.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your definition of "wealthy?"

NCAces

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

doesn't matter what you think of health care, to the general electorate, this position is unelectable.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

Revenues have reached an all time high under Bush. What more do they want? I don't understand why certain people think it's not enough.

natedogg

Re: Apparently
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did anyone ask him about why that much money was needed? Any questions about areas where spending could be cut? Crazy to believe that people think there's no fat to be trimmed from a budget in the trillions. If Edwards states it will be $120 billion you can be certain it's way over that amount, probably at least twice that amount and the rate of spending will certainly increase faster than revenues grow from taxes. He wasn't going to win anyway, he was a terrible choice as a VP candidate and from what I've read he didn't run for a second Senate term because he wasn't favored to beat a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually according to polling he would have easily won a second term.

....


[/ QUOTE ]

According to at least one noteworthy source not true.


Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball

Larry Sabato


Senator John Edwards (D) is another North Carolina one-term wonder, seriously considered for VP by Al Gore after just two years in office, and now the VP choice of Democratic nominee John Kerry. Having been irrevocably bitten by the presidential bug, Edwards bit the bullet in early September, dropping out of his Senate reelection race to focus completely on his owncampaign for president.

It is just as well. All the national attention, plus his liberal-leaning voting record, hasn't sat well at home. Edwards' ratings in the Tar Heel State are anemic, around the 40% mark.

Re: Apparently
 

In case you missed it, poster claimed that Edwards said he was raising taxes which I would take to mean that he's wants to increase the highest marginal tax rates. I don't see that in the list of tax cuts that will expire but might have missed it:

When Would the President's Tax Cuts Expire ?

Re: Apparently
 

[ QUOTE ]
fish2plus2,

with all due respect, it's nice that you now, in your second post, actually explain what led you to title your post "is John Edwards a complete retard", since nothing about your post itself actually explained this.

he has a health plan, he says how he's going to pay for it. if you think there are other budgetary concerns more important than healthcare, maybe you ought to give some specifics before calling the guy a "retard", especially since you might want to look elsewhere for those responsible for the current "budget issues"

[/ QUOTE ]


Well according to this article he doesn't think it's all that important to pay for his health plan.

Edwards Pushing Universal Health Care


Democratic presidential contender John Edwards says it is more important to invest in universal health care and lifting people out of poverty than to reduce the budget deficit.

The 2004 vice presidential nominee said in an interview broadcast Sunday said "there is a tension" between the two directions, but he has made his choice.

"If I were choosing now between which is more important, I think the investments are more important," he said on ABC's "This Week."

Edwards' proposal, which includes tax cuts and a million housing vouchers for the poor, may place him at odds with Democrats in charge of the congressional spending committees.

Now that the Democrats are in control of Congress I don't expect to here the railing against the budget deficit that they've been doing since Bush took office. Look for the Republicans to start railing on that theme now since they're out of power. Same old baloney from the politicians, it never changes.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Revenues have reached an all time high under Bush. What more do they want? I don't understand why certain people think it's not enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, are you paid to post inane statements on bulletin boards on behalf of the administration? or are you just trolling?

inflation and population growth cause revenues to go up over time. would you like to give credit to Bush for the sun rising in the morning?

Re: Apparently
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did anyone ask him about why that much money was needed? Any questions about areas where spending could be cut? Crazy to believe that people think there's no fat to be trimmed from a budget in the trillions. If Edwards states it will be $120 billion you can be certain it's way over that amount, probably at least twice that amount and the rate of spending will certainly increase faster than revenues grow from taxes. He wasn't going to win anyway, he was a terrible choice as a VP candidate and from what I've read he didn't run for a second Senate term because he wasn't favored to beat a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually according to polling he would have easily won a second term.

....


[/ QUOTE ]

According to at least one noteworthy source not true.


Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball

Larry Sabato


Senator John Edwards (D) is another North Carolina one-term wonder, seriously considered for VP by Al Gore after just two years in office, and now the VP choice of Democratic nominee John Kerry. Having been irrevocably bitten by the presidential bug, Edwards bit the bullet in early September, dropping out of his Senate reelection race to focus completely on his owncampaign for president.

It is just as well. All the national attention, plus his liberal-leaning voting record, hasn't sat well at home. Edwards' ratings in the Tar Heel State are anemic, around the 40% mark.

[/ QUOTE ]

The polls showing a close race were taken a year before the election, at a time when Edwards was running in the single digits in the Presidential race.

Polls taken during the actual year of the election, after Edwards had gained national traction, showed him beating Burr by 20 points if he had chosen to get back in the Senate race.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Revenues have reached an all time high under Bush. What more do they want? I don't understand why certain people think it's not enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, are you paid to post inane statements on bulletin boards on behalf of the administration? or are you just trolling?

inflation and population growth cause revenues to go up over time. would you like to give credit to Bush for the sun rising in the morning?

[/ QUOTE ]


Revenues have gone up under Bush. What else do you need to know? I am far from a Bush fan but the tax picture is hardly one of his failings. I can't even believe you or anyone could possibly think we need to raise taxes.

natedogg

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Revenues have reached an all time high under Bush. What more do they want? I don't understand why certain people think it's not enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, are you paid to post inane statements on bulletin boards on behalf of the administration? or are you just trolling?

inflation and population growth cause revenues to go up over time. would you like to give credit to Bush for the sun rising in the morning?

[/ QUOTE ]


Revenues have gone up under Bush. What else do you need to know? I am far from a Bush fan but the tax picture is hardly one of his failings. I can't even believe you or anyone could possibly think we need to raise taxes.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Surprised you are falling for this one nate. Although revenues have gone up under Bush, it is logically possible that they could have gone up more under someone else with higher rates. Unlikely, but possible.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Revenues have reached an all time high under Bush. What more do they want? I don't understand why certain people think it's not enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, are you paid to post inane statements on bulletin boards on behalf of the administration? or are you just trolling?

inflation and population growth cause revenues to go up over time. would you like to give credit to Bush for the sun rising in the morning?

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been a number of recent studies (albeit produced by CATO and Heritage economists) showing an historically inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues in the United States with the data adjusted for inflation. I am not an economist myself, but the reviews of the studies I have read (especially with respect to the CATO one) do not dismiss them as overly ideological or partisan.

Which Polls??? (n/m)
 

.....

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unlikely, but possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as funny as natedogg, but you're close

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

What in your mind is a true measure for comparison's sake?

Edit: Apparently you know already that revenues when adjusted for the factors you mention are above the historical average and median. If we look from 1952 (when spending increased alot) then we're above the average and right at the median. Revenues were at the max during the late 1990's. Many attribute that to the windfall the government received from capital gains from the stock market boom and view them as an aberration.

I think you need to look at the spending side of the budget to get a true picture of what's going on with government spending. Basically spending reached an all time high during the Reagan years but when Grahm-Rudman kicked in, spending was reduced significantly. It's been rising since 2000 and from what the politicians are stating, it will continue to rise at a rate that will eventually be what is was during the Reagan years.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There have been a number of recent studies (albeit produced by CATO and Heritage economists)

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a dream....that one day, no one will listen to two words of the propaganda that comes from conservative think tanks

[ QUOTE ]
showing an historically inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues in the United States with the data adjusted for inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

this absurd nonsense that tax cuts will pay for themselves (and it should be logically obvious, i.e., common sense, that it is nonsense) has been discussed and debunked before on this forum. I am currently too lazy to search for the threads myself, but you can find them if you like.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Revenues have reached an all time high under Bush. What more do they want? I don't understand why certain people think it's not enough.

[/ QUOTE ] seriously, are you paid to post inane statements on bulletin boards on behalf of the administration? or are you just trolling?

inflation and population growth cause revenues to go up over time. would you like to give credit to Bush for the sun rising in the morning?


[/ QUOTE ] Revenues have gone up under Bush. What else do you need to know? I am far from a Bush fan but the tax picture is hardly one of his failings. I can't even believe you or anyone could possibly think we need to raise taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You MUST be getting paid..

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Revenues have reached an all time high under Bush. What more do they want? I don't understand why certain people think it's not enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, are you paid to post inane statements on bulletin boards on behalf of the administration? or are you just trolling?

inflation and population growth cause revenues to go up over time. would you like to give credit to Bush for the sun rising in the morning?

[/ QUOTE ]


Revenues have gone up under Bush. What else do you need to know? I am far from a Bush fan but the tax picture is hardly one of his failings. I can't even believe you or anyone could possibly think we need to raise taxes.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Surprised you are falling for this one nate. Although revenues have gone up under Bush, it is logically possible that they could have gone up more under someone else with higher rates. Unlikely, but possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

My only point is that we have gigantic revenues, more than enough. No need to start taxing the rich to bring in more except for vengeance.

natedogg

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
My only point is that we have gigantic revenues, more than enough. No need to start taxing the rich to bring in more except for vengeance.

[/ QUOTE ]

terrific analysis, our revenues are "gigantic", "more than enough", nothing more need be said. let the suffering rich keep their tax "relief". deficit? what deficit? budget smudget.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My only point is that we have gigantic revenues, more than enough. No need to start taxing the rich to bring in more except for vengeance.

[/ QUOTE ]

terrific analysis, our revenues are "gigantic", "more than enough", nothing more need be said. let the suffering rich keep their tax "relief". deficit? what deficit? budget smudget.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, revenge is one reason, and it is clearly one of yours.

natedogg

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My only point is that we have gigantic revenues, more than enough. No need to start taxing the rich to bring in more except for vengeance.

[/ QUOTE ]

terrific analysis, our revenues are "gigantic", "more than enough", nothing more need be said. let the suffering rich keep their tax "relief". deficit? what deficit? budget smudget.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you think you are the only one around here that thinks or knows anything about this, point me to any website that shows that total tax revenues have fallen under Bush.

NCAces

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...arts_R/R-1.gif

since you asked
 

[ QUOTE ]
point me to any website that shows that total tax revenues have fallen under Bush.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reread my posts carefully - I never said tax revenues have fallen under Bush. Of course, apparently, they did, until recently.

My point is that it is completely disingenuous to pat Bush on the back for revenues going up when inflation and population growth, among other factors act to increase gross revenue independently from tax policy. That's why I said it's like giving him credit for the sun rising in the morning.

a website

scroll down to "DIMWIT O'REILLY COMES UP WITH THE FACTS"

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There have been a number of recent studies (albeit produced by CATO and Heritage economists)

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a dream....that one day, no one will listen to two words of the propaganda that comes from conservative think tanks

[ QUOTE ]
showing an historically inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues in the United States with the data adjusted for inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

this absurd nonsense that tax cuts will pay for themselves (and it should be logically obvious, i.e., common sense, that it is nonsense) has been discussed and debunked before on this forum. I am currently too lazy to search for the threads myself, but you can find them if you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a well reasoned case with numerous factual examples backing up your positions. No doubt, you have a strong background in debating.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

So lemme get this straight. West and the rest of you guys.

you.
A. think that taxes are to low.
B. Also think that taxes should be raised rather than spending reduced.
C. Were dropped hard on your head once or twice as a child.

NeBlis

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.


[/ QUOTE ]

No! Picking on the poor oppressed minority wealthy. I think we should immediately start a collection to help those poor rich people out. Who wants to donate to the Save the Wealthy Fund?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah because when you steal from rich people it's not actually stealing!

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.


[/ QUOTE ]

No! Picking on the poor oppressed minority wealthy. I think we should immediately start a collection to help those poor rich people out. Who wants to donate to the Save the Wealthy Fund?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah because when you steal from rich people it's not actually stealing!

[/ QUOTE ]
And if you're not in favor of stealing from rich people, then it could only be because you love rich people and you're trying to "stand up for them". Couldn't be any other reason.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

Not a retard, just inexperienced.

Any experienced politician knows that its perfectly fine to spend with reckless abandon. After all, its not your money you're spending (or promising to spend through debt issuance), and youre only around for maybe a couple of terms anyways.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So lemme get this straight. West and the rest of you guys.

you.
A. think that taxes are to low.
B. Also think that taxes should be raised rather than spending reduced.
C. Were dropped hard on your head once or twice as a child.

[/ QUOTE ]

A. never said that - but with regards to repealing Bush's tax cuts favoring the rich to help balance the budget, yes, I'm all for that, what a shocking position to take
B. never said this, see A
C. see Blizzardbaum's reply above, which is far more applicable to your post