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.