Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
John Edwards has plans for your money
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, February 01, 2007

Well, "yours" in name only:
To reduce carbon emissions, Edwards recognizes that people may have to pay more for gasoline. And he is not ruling out new taxes or increasing old ones.

The universal health care plan he wants is going to be expensive and some people will have to pay more.

Eradicating poverty, his signature issue, will also require more money from taxpayers.

And Edwards does not favor any new tax cuts for the middle-class.

Isn't there a risk in asking voters to sacrifice while other candidates are promising them things? I asked him.

"There is clearly a political risk, no question," he said. "But I actually believe this is what America needs."
What I think America needs is fewer John Edwards.
"I am totally comfortable with the word sacrifice, with asking people to sacrifice for their country," he said.
I hope his comfort with increased taxes, er, "sacrifice" pays off about as well as it did for Fritz Mondale.

Regardless, get ready to hear that word alot in the coming race. And not just from Edwards. The snake oil "sacrifice" pitches will be coming fast and furious from all sides.

I think we ought to agree right now that it is our bloated government which should be doing the sacrificing this time around. We should insist that a new universal and permanent PAYGO system be implemented. The budget is the budget and it must be balanced by 2010. Want something else? Cut spending in another area. Tax increases are off the table ... permanently. Make do with the 2 trillion you now get (make do?). Live within your means like the rest of us have too.

*sigh*

Yeah.

That'll happen.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
So will Johnny-boy be sacrificing the 28,000 square foot house in North Carolina?

Jeebus.
 
Written By: Sean
URL: http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
This guy, more than any of the others, is such an obvious socialist snake oil salesman. His playbook is vintage Huey P. Long. I will be surprised if most people do not see through him.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
So will Johnny-boy be sacrificint the 28,000 square foot house in North Carolina?
Well, he did obtain his money fair and square, via medical malpractice suits based upon junk science and emotional appeals.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don’t forget about Edwards’ S-corp medicare tax avoidance.
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
Great writers from Molière to Ayn Rand have warned us about types like Edwards. Can we sacrifice him instead?
 
Written By: Ron
URL: http://isophorone.blogspot.com
To reduce carbon emissions, Edwards recognizes that people may have to pay more for gasoline. And he is not ruling out new taxes or increasing old ones.
Any plan to raise gas taxes could easily be made revenue neutral, and, if it reduced our oil imports, would save America money.
The universal health care plan he wants is going to be expensive and some people will have to pay more.
And some people will have to pay less. On the whole, it is likely that a plan like this will save Americans money.
Eradicating poverty, his signature issue, will also require more money from taxpayers.
There is no argument or evidence here.

If you don’t agree with an issue, make an argument. Just shouting "Boo! Taxes!" doesn’t really contribute anything to reasonable discourse.
 
Written By: Lars
URL: http://
Let’s see...Edwards wants to eradicate poverty by taking more money away from people. Yeah, that’ll do the trick.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
I think it’s "make do" not "make due" but other than that I am 100% in agreement with you.
On the whole, it is likely that a plan like this will save Americans money.
Because you say so? What on earth leads you to that conclusion?

I’m guessing most folks think they’re already sacrificing enough of their paycheck to Uncle Sam and cries of "sacrifice" will ring hollow. AsMcQ pointed out, the government does not exactly have a great track record so far of using money wisely. Now they want more? I wish attorneys could charge clients like that (I know, I know, some do). Draft a document for a client, completely screw it up, then charge your client for the time it took to do it the wrong way, the time it took to do it the right way, and then ask for MORE money. Then we’d all be rich like Mr. Edwards.
 
Written By: Jinnmabe
URL: http://
let’s start with ethanol subsidies. in fact let’s start with all ag. subsidies, crop supports, discounted water. having the republican minority propose those cuts will establish the party’s return to its small government roots.

 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
I think it’s "make do" not "make due" but other than that I am 100% in agreement with you.
Ack. One of life’s little blind spots. "Make due"?
Argh.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
If you don’t agree with an issue, make an argument. Just shouting "Boo! Taxes!" doesn’t really contribute anything to reasonable discourse.
Lars, this being a libertarian blog, we assume those who come here already know those arguments and also realize that "revenue neutral" completely misses the point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
let’s start with ethanol subsidies. in fact let’s start with all ag. subsidies, crop supports, discounted water. having the republican minority propose those cuts will establish the party’s return to its small government roots.
Funny you should say that since a Republican has proposed at least a start on that. He goes by the name of Bush.

Predictably Democrats are already making ominous noises.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Lance,

Hate to rain on your parade but the fact is Bush and the republicans have bloated farm subsidies since he has been in office. The ethanol / biofuels mandates they have enacted and want to expand are more of the same. The article is an encouraging sign but Bush has a long way to shrink the subsidies back to where they were before he and the republicans started bloating them.

If I recall correctly the republicans in congress had scuttled earlier attempts by the democrats to limit the payment size. The republicans should be better then the democrats on this issue and it is dissapointing that they aren’t.



 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
Is it just me or is it always people who made their big money as lawyers or financial types or movie stars who like to ’spread the wealth’ so to speak?

Maybe they feel guilty that the money was just "too easy."

Also, some suggestions for Edwards:

End tax-free muni bonds and S-corporations used by movie stars and the like so you can hit the real moneyed types like Kerry etc. In fact, just call up your tax lawyers and ask them how they are handling your personal fortune, and then find ways to eliminate all the loopholes you are using.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"I am totally comfortable with the word sacrifice, with asking people to sacrifice for their country," he said
Does all this sacrifice come before or after the shyster makes cripples walk like he promised last time?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Hate to rain on your parade but the fact is Bush and the republicans have bloated farm subsidies since he has been in office. The ethanol / biofuels mandates they have enacted and want to expand are more of the same. The article is an encouraging sign but Bush has a long way to shrink the subsidies back to where they were before he and the republicans started bloating them.
You are not raining on my parade, I have never voted for Bush, not for governor, or President. But, Francis asked, he got it. I have complained about Republican support for farm subsides plenty, though they are not as bad as the Democrats.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
I’ll make Edward$$$$ a deal. He can have more of my tax money if I can have his hair:)
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
If Edwards is happy to ask us to sacrifice for our country, does that mean that he supports our miltary effort in Iraq? Oh wait ....
 
Written By: Tom Crispin
URL: http://
I assume Mr. Edwards has visited this site many times to make some personal sacrifices for the betterment of our country.

[EDIT (Bryan): Fixed the link for ya, Harun. Cheers.]
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I have complained about Republican support for farm subsides plenty, though they are not as bad as the Democrats.

factually false, not that the Democrats are sweetness and light on this issue (sugar subsidies ... sweetness ... ye gods i have a bad sense of humor.) check who signed the Freedom to Farm bill, and who functionally repealed it.

[the larger point is that the Republican party is critically dependent on the low-population, high-farm-subsidy midwest states. any serious attempt by republicans to kill farm subsidies would rapidly result in a senate in which democrats would have 60 votes.]
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
Any plan to raise gas taxes could easily be made revenue neutral, and, if it reduced our oil imports, would save America money.
Monkeys COULD easily fly out of my butt, but they won’t. The government COULD easily devise a plan to raise gasoline taxes and cut other taxes, but it won’t. What the governmet WILL do is raise gasoline taxes IN ADDITION to the current tax burden. It will do this easily.
And some people will have to pay less. On the whole, it is likely that a plan like this will save Americans money.
.....because the federal government is a more efficient than the private sector? Because increasing the demand for healthcare will reduce its cost?
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
To be fair to Edwards, there is a little more to his success than junk science, including a rather gruesome swimming pool mishap.

http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.html#medmal

*******************************

"it is likely that a plan like this will save Americans money"

It is more likely that a plan which claims it will provide more health care will cost more money.

"There is no argument or evidence here."

So how would you eliminate poverty without spending any money?

****************

"Let’s see...Edwards wants to eradicate poverty by taking more money away from people."

Makes sense to me. We had to impoverish them in order to enrich them.


"
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider