John Edwards Two Americas

[andyfox]

There is nothing is can do to cause less of it rather than more of it?

[Zeno]

Who is John Edwards and who cares? Aside from that, the simplistic notion cast out to the throbbing masses of "Two Americas" plays well on the moronic mindset and self-interest of many voters. It is a very old ploy used by demagogues to sway the credulous herd and never seems to get threadbare with the public, no matter how much used or whatever cloak it is cast into before the public.

Queen Bee Hillary uses this same overarching theme, in various guises, in almost every speech she harps and spews into the public trough - So does Obama-momma-momma; the White Man’s Black Man. He is so non-threatening that I find him revolting. I wish Mussolini were running for office, at least that way the race would have some interest and possibly even something new. As is, the presidential race is the same ho-hum spasm of lies, silliness, retched speeches, hackneyed platitudes, the unveiling of vile unworkable policies, and the hatching of chimeras galore. In other words, the human herd will get the orgasmic idiocy that it so richly deserves.

Le Misanthrope

[natedogg]

I actually agree with John Edwards. There are two classes of people and they are created by the government tax policies.

If you are a middle class wage earner you are the one paying for the moral crimes of the rich against the poor. You suffer from all the policies that come from this anti-rich rhetoric. Social Security is probably the best example of this.

If you are wealthy or earn an above-average income you are largely unaffected by these policies.

The poor never get anything from it one way or another, but the politicians successfully pander to everyone's guilt about the poor. The middle class wage earners are stuck with no loopholes, no escape. They toil the hardest and pay for it the most.

The irony is that Edwards' rhetoric is being used to justify tightening the screws on middle class wage earners even further and you can bet dollars to donuts that the truly upper-income earners will be only slightly affected by whatever polices he is envisioning. Not to mention that congress can always be counted on to provide plenty of modifications to any bill that may have originally been intended for screwing the rich. (Which is a good thing of course, one of the few good things you can rely on congress for)

There are plenty of games you can play with your income once you get it to be just a little bit above average. Anyone with a truly average wage-based income is just screwed. there's no wiggle room for them. The poor of course, like I said, get nothing from it all anyway. Look no further than public schools if you think all this money is being justifiably taken to create a better world for the poor. The best public schools are in rich white suburbs and the ones in poor inner city areas are completely unnacceptable by anyone's standards. What a laugh.

natedogg

[NickMPK]

A rich person can't be opposed to tax cuts for the rich? Is he supposed to voluntarily pay taxes at a higher rate than everyone else? Or just change careers to something that makes a lot less money?

All politicians at the highest levels personally benefit from upper-class tax cuts. But politicians are representatives of the voters; they are not supposed to vote in their self-interest, but in the interest of the people they represent. It is not hypocritical for a politician to support policies that hurt him personally, it is his job.