John Edwards Two Americas

[Jack of Arcades]

Why are people are still talking about this?

[GoodCallYouWin]

Edwards wants to 'wipe out inequality in America'. People who are not created equal, will be made that way by the government. Yippee.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are people are still talking about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

because the chicken-little knee jerk response of Terrorism right around the corner isn't bringing in votes anymore?

Does John Edwards have a lot a money? - yes - does EVERY presidental candidate that runs under one of the two major parties have a lot of money? - yes - do hypocrites pointing out the sources of funding in one political party ever turn an eye to their own parties' excessive spending? - hardly ever.

But like everyone else, his grooming habits are irrelevant to his campaign and his message. Many great presidents have addressed the issues average Americans face while making lots of money themselves or having it handed down to them by Daddy -

it's a non-issue they drag up every few days as if by repeating it over and over it'll get some merit. Yawn.

rb

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Edwards has never denied the fact that he's rich. George Bush has hidden the way he got that way, and with good reason. But does either really matter? Shouldn't we be concerned more about what their public policies are and would be?

[/ QUOTE ]

It strikes me as exploitation and pandering to the base. I believe it's reflective of his political mindset and the bankruptcy of his ideas on "two americas." It's one thing to be wealthy, it's another to be extravegant to the sense of being ridiculous to many people and then railing against tax cuts that not only have benefitted him but benefitted a lot of people making a lot less than Mr. Edwards. I don't fault Mr. Edwards for taking full advantage of the tax laws to pay as little as he legally can necessarily. But it strikes me as disingenuous to rail against the widening gap between the "have" and "have nots" while he has no problem in taking full advantage of tax laws. There's nothing precluding Mr. Edwards from paying more taxes if he wants to. The political message from Mr. Edwards is that we need higher taxes to enlist more government handouts because this will help eliminate poverty. There's a saying that charity begins at home and methinks that Mr. Edwards could take the money he does on haircuts and maybe contribute towards a homeless shelter or something. I have no problem with people being extravegant and enjoying the trappings of being super wealthy. I do have a problem with those same people telling me that it's my responsibility to contribute more when it's quite obvious he could be doing alot more himself.

Get Me John Edwards

If Washington changes the Social Security payroll tax, it might be time to incorporate--as the former senator did.
High-earning self-employed professionals are likely hearing one word from their accountants these days: incorporate. It might make sense in light of President Bush's recent comment that he's "open-minded" to an increase in the amount of salary--now $90,000--that the Social Security payroll tax is levied on.

The idea is to do what Democratic vice presidential candidate and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards did back when he was a trial lawyer: Set up your practice as an S corporation, pay yourself a reasonable salary as an employee and then take the rest as S corp profits that are subject to income but not payroll taxes. (S corp profits aren't subject to corporate tax but are all passed through to an owner's return and taxed at ordinary income rates.)



As far as Bush is concerned I think it's fair to say that he doesn't see it as "two americas" so I'm not sure why his wealth is relevant. I know that Bush actually pays a high proportion of his income in taxes. Here's an article I dug up about the taxes he paid in 2004. I believe 2005 and 2006 are similar:

Bushes Paid $207,307 In Federal Income Tax

But in reality the amount of money that Bush pays in taxes and his wealth (alot less wealth than Edwards btw) is a side show. Bush isn't claiming there's "two americas" nor did he run on a platform that states that he could help eliminate poverty with higher taxes. Edwards is though and that's why this story is reflective of his political mindset and he deserves the scruting.

[andyfox]

Pandering and disingenuousness in a politician? Heavens to Betsy!

I don't care what Bush paid in taxes, nor what Edwards and his S corporation did. I care about their policies and what those have meant and would mean for America. The fact that Edwards is himself rich has nothing to do with whether his ideas are bankrupt of not. I didn't care whether George Bush or Ted Kennedy sent their kids to private schools or public schools when they pushed No Child Left Behind, all I cared about was whether it was good policy or not. Nor did I care what Bush's income was when he said a person making $200,000 a year deserves the same percentage tax cut as a person making $20,000.

BTW, I agree with you that Bush doesn't see "two Americas," which is why he believed that the $200,000 earner and the $20,000 earner deserved the same tax cut.

[tehox]

So no politicians, celebrities, etc, are allowed to talk about changing governement policy that might alleviate poverty. What is the cutoff of somone's net worth where they are allowed to talk about such things without being a hypocrite?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
So no politicians, celebrities, etc, are allowed to talk about changing governement policy that might alleviate poverty. What is the cutoff of somone's net worth where they are allowed to talk about such things without being a hypocrite?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would depends on the specifics to some extent, I'd guess. Just how stark is the contrast between that politician's "Do as I say" and his or her "Do as I do"?

On a related note, I'd guess that Al Gore preaching environmental while running up a 50K electric bill in one month could be a slight bit over the top on the hypocrisy meter. Even if he does have to maintain 4 houses.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Edwards wants to 'wipe out inequality in America'. People who are not created equal, will be made that way by the government. Yippee.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as some are more equal than others. Pass the hairspray.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"governement policy that might alleviate poverty. "

No such animal; government is a force for poverty, not a force for alleviating it.

[rubberloon]

All this was decided long ago, in the English Revoluition around 1649. The choice was PROPERTYor LIBERTY Cromwell & Co. decided they'd keep their property, thank you very much, and LIBERTY should be kept away from the working poor since it gave them ideas. Washington & Co. thought this was an excellent idea, but threw in liberty as well, not of course for their own slaves, who were after all their property. So the rich kept their property which is all that matters. By the way if you pay taxes you aren't rich.