Edwards touts big fight for small towns

[JohnLocke]

Edwards touts big fight for small towns
By Stephani Finley--Creston News Advertiser
Friday, July 27, 2007
----
(...)
He said the people of rural Iowa need to have a U.S. president who understands their needs. John Edwards said he’s that man.

Edwards, a Democratic presidential hopeful and former North Carolina senator, said he is willing to take on the “big guys” for the average people of America.

“There’s one way to take their power away from them and that’s to beat them,” Edwards said. “You have to take ‘em on head on and you have to beat them.

“If you think we can have universal health care, by talking with the insurance companies and the drug companies, it will never happen.”

Edwards was in Creston Thursday afternoon on a campaign stop, where he spoke before an audience of more than 150 at the restored Creston Depot about giving power back to the American people and away from big business and a “rigged politiacl system.”

“These people have billions of dollars at stake. They’re not going to change,” Edwards said. “They’re terrified of big change. They don’t want to see it happen. I don’t know about you, but I think this country badly needs big change.”

Edwards said he can make those changes happen because he was first to come out with a universal health care plan, he has an aggressive energy plan and a “clear plan for getting out of Iraq.”

Two Americas
Edwards said there are two Americas — one America is made up of rich people and big companies, the other is everyone else.

“Talk about something that’s rigged. Man, the tax system is rigged,” Edwards said. “George Bush has made it really easy for the richest people in the country and for big corporations to do well. And they’re doing great.”

Edwards touted the tax system that he announced earlier Thursday at an event in Des Moines.

“First we’ll help middle-class and lower-income families,” he said. “Help them save by matching what they are able to save. We have terrible savings rates in this country. Nobody’s saving. There’s a reason people don’t save. They have to pay their bills. They don’t have any money to save.”

He would also expand the earned income tax credit, which, he said provides better help for families that are working. He would expand the child care tax credit and make college accessible for everyone.

Fair share
Edwards said on the other side of the spectrum, he will increase the capital gains rate for those making more than $250,000 a year.

“So those people who are making most of their money, millions of dollars on their investment, they’re going to have to pay their fair share,” said Edwards. “It makes all the sense in the world. ... It’s not right and it needs to be stopped.”

He said he is going to be the president that end the off-shore tax havens.

“We are going to have to close some loopholes that the highest-ncome Americans are taking advantage of,” he said. “ ... I believe everybody, including me, people who have done well, have a responsibility to pay their fair share.”

http://www.crestonnewsadvertiser.com/articles/2007/07/27/news/local_news/7-27aajohnedwards.txt

[Milo_Bloom]

1. LOL

From the guy who only wants to raise the capital gains tax 13% and is in favor of taxing INCOME (money earned from labor) higher than CAPITAL GAINS (money making money).

That's not taking them on John, that is pretending to be on their side, while still offering a plan that favors corporations and their investors.

[brentspeak]

2. Get your facts STRAIGHT

Edwards proposes raising the capital gains tax on the wealthiest Americans 28%, NOT "13%":

Reverse the "War On Work"

Nothing better reflects the problems with our tax code than the lower tax rates for capital gains. As Warren Buffett says, there is something wrong when he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. As president, Edwards will:

* Raise the tax rate on capital gains to 28 percent for the most fortunate taxpayers – taxing the investment income of the wealthiest Americans similarly to the wages of the middle class.
* Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest-income households and keep the tax on very large estates (above $4 million for couples).
* Declare war on offshore tax havens by cracking down on tax shelter promoters, cooperating with allies to fight tax havens, and closing the "tax gap" by improving IRS customer service, simplifying tax filing, auditing more large corporations and high-income individuals and requiring more third-party reporting.
* Close unfair loopholes like the tax breaks for hedge funds and private equity fund managers and unlimited executive pensions.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/tax-reform/

[Milo_Bloom]

4. Facts are straight, learn to read, please.

Edwards plans on raising the capital gains rate 13%

From 15% to 28% 28-15 = 13%

INCOME taxes top out at 35%

CAPITAL GAINS taxes under Edward would top out at 28%

THUS, he still plans to tax income at a higher rate than capital gains, thus favoring CORPORATIONS over INDIVIDUAL LABOR.

Edwards tax plan is a SHILL plan meant to trick people into believing he is a reformer, but he is status quo.

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. Absolutely! They're goin' ter LUUUURV having their tax havens abolished,

and to pay all those 'outsourced' taxes! You're pretty a smart 'un, Mr Minderbender. We could do with more of your input in these parts, pardner.

[Milo_Bloom]

6. Hardly

There is no actual plan on HOW he plans to abolish "tax havens", just more empty rhetoric.

The only part of his plan that he actually put in writing, winds up favoring corporations over individuals.

Hey, if you want to believe it is really reform, that's just super... why should anyone actually think about what a candidate says anymore or analyze their plan, lets just pay attention to the empty rhetoric and think it means something...

Yaaaayyyy.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. Gee whizz, you're pretty special, aren't you? How do you know it's

'empty rhetoric'? You wouldn't know your backside from your elbow judging from your gratuitous accusations.

What proof do you have that it's 'empty rhetoric'? The cases he WON for the little guy at the COST of the big corporations! He's already 'walked the walk', and it's a matter of public record. For all we know, you could be Osama Bin Laden, Martin Borman or an unusually inept troll.

How could you prove otherwise? Well, a good start would be to make sure you back up any accusations you level at John Edwards with facts. What you've spouted so far is just puerile piffle. Why on earth would he spell out how he plans to enact his policies! Only a half-witted politican would do that. And only a half wit or a specialist would be interested in the nitty-gritty.

What's important to the electorate is that he gets the job done. So far, his record reads reeeeel goooood to most people. He's not after your vote, Mr Minderbender, he's after the people's votes.

[Milo_Bloom]

11. No real plan = empty rhetoric.

When someone states, "I am going to close all the loopholes" and then doesn't offer a list of the loopholes and how they are going to be closed, it is EMPTY RHETORIC.

"And only a half wit or a specialist would be interested in the nitty-gritty."

Did you miss the sarcasm tag there? Let me get this right, we don't have to know the details of a plan... we just have to take a politician (who has proven unreliable in the past) at their word?!?!?!

WOW. That is some heavy duty kool-aid you drank there.



PS: His record kinda stinks. He voted for the war, the bankrupcy bill, the patriot act and a whole host of other things that have helped to bring down this country. The only things he did "for people" also made him rich in the process, which doesn't say too much for his motivation.

[Joe Chi Minh]

15. Sure he should have insisted on doing it all pro bono. He's a bad, bad, bad boy!

You tell it like it is Mr Minderbender.

[Milo_Bloom]

17. If he REALLY cared enough... he would have done SOME that way..

But alas, he just sucked as much money out of his cases as he could.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/campaign/14career.html?ei=5090&en=870846aae154e1d1&ex=1247544000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&adxnnlx=1185665764-lOINRYyxeKek2sHOo+VJuQ

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. Why should he work pro bono when he can get his fee on top of a

very handsome return for his clients. Especially punitive damages. Oh... that sounds so beautiful. John Grisham captures the transcendant beauty of it all so well.

[Milo_Bloom]

21. Because it is the right thing to do???

Taking it probono could put MILLIONS more into the pockets of his clients and/or good causes related to his client's cases.

One issue I have with Edwards is that even after he was a millionaire several times over, he STILL continued to charge top dollar, rather than cutting his %, giving more back to his clients, etc and he didn't use his skills enough to help those who didn't have a high dollar amount attached to their cases.

However, that is seperate from his tax plan, which is a shill plan meant to fool the sheep who just want to believe his rhetoric.

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. If he makes his clients rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Well, for regular people. But hey,

if you want to think everyone wants to be millionaires, who am I to tell you otherwise?

Do you know how much he has given to charitable causes?

[Milo_Bloom]

28. What years?

I am not interested in anything he has done post 2002, since anything done then is suspects as self-serving to run for president.

I do know he set up a charity and then became its largest beneficiary to the tune of 1.3 million dollars http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=40e91dae1c1a1188&ex=1185768000

[Inspired]

27. Do you think he never took on pro bono cases?

You are wrong. Read "Four Trials". It might enlighten you.

You're talking points sound very much like those that I hear on Fox from Hannity and others of his ilk. Congratulations.

[Milo_Bloom]

30. No, I didn't say that!

I didn't say he never took on pro-bono. If that were true, he would have been disbarred.

The point was raised that I should believe in him, because he won so many cases against corporations and I pointed out how rich he became in that, so that the taking of cases against corporations doesn't qualify him as a fighter of corporations, since he did it for personal gain, as much as if not MORE than helping people.

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. Now, now, inspired. don't confuse Milo with facts. He's jist a simple

quartermaster-sergeant, who likes a game of poker in between other deals.

[Milo_Bloom]

35. What fact?

I love the way the Edwards apologists work. They put words in your mouth and then claim you have been proven wrong when someone tries to correct the words you never said in the first place.

Way to represent your candidate there.

[Joe Chi Minh]

39. Why, you were seen playing poker, when Kelly turned up! That's what fact!

Why the fact that he's worked for poor people without remuneration from them. What else, my fine feathered friend.

[Milo_Bloom]

40. Never said he didn't.

But, please, tell me more lies while you are at it?

[Joe Chi Minh]

44. Ithink you're getting tetchy, Milo. And that's not good. Especially for a multiple

CEO. It can lead to a certain well... I don't like to say it... but ...abrasiveness. There. I've said it now.

Off to bed now Milo. It's late even for me. But we must continue our wee colloquy another time. When you're in a better mood, mebbe.

[Milo_Bloom]

47. Just don't lie and you won't have a problem.

[Joe Chi Minh]

60. Sorry about that, Milo. I was getting your persona in Catch 22 muddled up

with that other cheap hustler, Crapgame, in Kelly's Heroes. Nevertheless, Clint and Donald told me give you their best wishes.

[Joe Chi Minh]

61. Oh, and don't forget about Dennis' obstinacy! We're keen to know

what you're referring to. It could be significant.

But it sounds like you want it both ways. John to be obstinate and Dennis not to be obstinate...

Do you find life a bit like a box of chocolates, Milo?

[Milo_Bloom]

65. No gonzo, I don't.

You see, I am not running for office.

Surely, you can understand the distinction, right?

[Joe Chi Minh]

71. Bein' a polly don't stop yer thinkin' life's like a box o' chockies, do it, now?

[Milo_Bloom]

64. Oh, Gonzo

Is all you have left poorly worded insults? Can't attack the substance anymore?

[Joe Chi Minh]

72. Obstinacy, obstinacy, obstinacy... Maybe it'll be 3rd time lucky again..?

But I think not.

"But it sounds like you want it both ways. John to be obstinate and Dennis not to be obstinate...

Do you find life a bit like a box of chocolates, Milo?

[Milo_Bloom]

82. What a pretty sight...

Ignored Ignored Jul-29-07 01:40 PM #71

[dragonlady]

7. "Income" is not just from labor

"Income" under the Internal Revenue Code is "income from whatever source derived." That includes interest and dividends and lots of other things, not just labor. Edwards would almost double the tax on capital gains (the stocks that you "buy low, sell high" for example), while leaving the income tax rates alone for the lower brackets but repealing the tax breaks for the wealthy (above $200,000). He also has some incentives to save through a tax break on the first $250 of income (interest) from savings. This is a very populist position, and I like it very much. (The repeal of the tax breaks will fund health care for everyone that can't be taken away--have you seen Sicko yet? We NEED that kind of health care.)

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Are you listening, Milo? Or did you know? I don't think you're as green

as you're cabbage-looking. I think you knew full well the proper definition of "Income" under the Internal Revenue Code. And you've been telling fibsticks. Go and stand in the corner!

That "LOL" at the beginning of your first post reads more comically than ever now. The whole basis of your accusations has been shown to be total and utter bullsh*t.

[Milo_Bloom]

12. I gave the link.

How the code DEFINES income and how it treats it are two different things.

See the post above for the link and next time, please do some research first... It really helps you look a little less like a fool

[Joe Chi Minh]

63. Oh. You didn't reply to Dragon Lady about 'Sicko'. Have you seen it?

What do you think of its theme, as you must have read about it. Do you prefer Dennis' free, comprehensive National Health Service?

[Milo_Bloom]

10. Sorry, but no.

You do understand it is broken down differently, right?

For example,

A person who has a salary of $250,000 per year would be taxed at a HIGHER RATE than someone who simply makes 250,000 trading stock. (35% for the wage earner, vs 28% for the trader).

http://news.morningstar.com/classroom2/course.asp?docId=144042&page=2&CN=COM

"Capital gains--the difference between what you sell a stock for versus what you paid for it--are "tax preferred," or taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. Ordinary income includes items such as wages and interest income. "

The "investment incentives" are a joke, as the truly poor live check to check and don't have 250 to save, so it is a nonsense "incentive".

Is someone claims to be a reformer and then allows capital gains to be taxed at a lower rate than income, they aren't a reformer, they are part of the problem.


As for the sicko comparrison, Edwards is not proposing a solution to the problem talked about in Sicko, not at all. He is still allowing PROFIT to rule the system and is just going to pay the insurance companies from a different pool of money. Explain how brining more people into the insurance/profit system is going to do anything for the problems highlighted in sicko, which involved the abuses of the system BY those very companies????

Don't fall for the rhetoric offered by a snake oil salesman.

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. Sorry, but no. Your equation of corporate income with personal income

is stupid beyond belief. Silly Billy, there you go again, comparing apples with oranges... Such an unsophisticated basis for your increasingly laughable accusations!

You could take 80% away from the rich and they'd still be rich; but if you took 80% of a company's income away from it, well, the company would be, shall we say... unlikely to flourish.

[Milo_Bloom]

16. Lie much?

I didn't equate CORPORATE INCOME with PERSONAL INCOME at all.. that is a comparrison you made up to try and deflect from the actual issues, which is the different between the capital gains tax and INCOME tax, which are treated completely differently under the IRS Code (as shown in a previous link).

We are talking about the different of taxing CAPITAL GAINS (money making money) differently than ORDINARY INCOME (wages).

The "great reform" that Edwards offers only raises the capital gains rate 13%, which continues to favor the wealthy as it taxes those who earn money through investments alone at a LOWER rate than someone who earns money through WAGES when earning close to the same wage.

So quit lying and try to actually use facts. It really does help prove a point, eh?

[Joe Chi Minh]

22. No. I wasn't lying. It was ignorance and an excessive contempt for what

you're trying to do.

How about Dennis then, eh? You really love the working people don't you? He would agree with every danged thing you say, and so would John, but Dennis would act on it. And more power to his elbow. If he had the all-round status of Kerry, I think he could, but I just have such a low opinion of US capitalism that I would worry about the opposition he might encounter. Perhaps mistakenly.

But more seriously, with the current MSM neocon propaganda arm still in full operation, I worry that the will of the people would be more likely to be thwarted by the low-lifes of the right and the vote grievously split. And you know, your silence about Dennis makes me wonder if that's what you're up to.

[Milo_Bloom]

37. So stating incorrect facts from ignorance isn't lying?

Wow, guess you are a bush supporter, eh?

[Joe Chi Minh]

41. Well... I hate to say this, but no... it's not lying in the sense we normally

understand that word. It's accidentally saying something that's wrong, mistaken. "Lying" implies bad faith, the INTENTION to deceive. Say that word, I..N..T..E..N...T...I...O...N. See, you can do it, if you really try.

[Milo_Bloom]

46. Intention doesn't matter in incorrect facts.

Either facts are correct or incorrect.

When you state incorrect facts, you are lying.

When you state correct facts, you are telling the truth.

[Joe Chi Minh]

57. I can see where you're coming from, Milo, and it's an ugly place.

Don't go down that road. It's important to be able to isolate the intention to deceive and distinguish it from honest ignorance, which most of us are guilty of expressing from time to time. But lies define a man's character and tend to be a very purposeful "work in progress" of worldings in high places til the day they drop off the twig; it also tends to go with a degraded worldly intelligence and overweening ambition. And you sound like a lost soul who can't distiguish between them.

By the way, how much did Johnno bilk your corporations of in the courts? Is that why you have it in for him? What do your coporations make or provide?

[Milo_Bloom]

70. Don't like the truth much, do you?

So when I point out that all of the facts you present are wrong, it is just innocent ignorance on your part. I still haven't seen an apology... in fact, exactly the opposite, I have seen you continue to use the lies in other places to try and state facts you know not to be true.

Edwards has nothing to do with my industry at all (Entertainment Events)... in fact, he would probably be a very valuable ally to have in office, but, unlike Edwards, I can see past my own self interest and actually see what is being sold and who is buying it and explain that they don't realize what they are buying into.

[Joe Chi Minh]

73. ".... but, unlike Edwards, I can see past my own self interest ...."

Did I ever tell you I fought with the French Foreign Legion in Dien Bien Phu?

[Joe Chi Minh]

77. "(Entertainment Events)" Aaaah.... dream-factory stuff. I see where yer

comin from now. Habit of a life-time, eh, Milo?

[Milo_Bloom]

78. Do ever offer anything of substance?

To any conversation or do you just troll?

[Joe Chi Minh]

85. From the moment you opened your mouth, DUers have been able to

see your glaring bad faith, which only the most arrant stupidity could have concealed from you. What's more you are stupid enough to call me a liar, while, when I did think I was mistaken - something you would never do because the truth has never been a concern of yours, quite the contrary - I stated baldly, without any euphemisms or evasions (although ironically, I had been right, not wrong) that I had spoken from ignorance. You see, the truth about JE's electability is what I am interested, not twisted propaganda.

I say twisted because, after I think 4 requests for you to give us an example of Dennis Kuchinch's obstinacy that you think make him unsuited for the presidency, we are all still waiting - and we know you cannot come up with an a plausible answer, because, a less intransigent approach than DK's on JE's part is precisely what you been vilifying him for.

Don't insult the intelligence of DUers. As someone who runs two corporations, you just don't come across as 'leftie'. Very far from it. Your ravings about JE centre on money, and I fear much of your mind that should have developed to deal with other areas, has, it seems, been allowed by you to atrophy.

You basic assumption has always been that we are all so stupid that we will swallow your garbage about John Edwards, being a bad person to vote for. Quite apart from your transparently foolish bad faith in trying to con Democrats into turning against JE, your posts vilifying him bear an uncanny resemblance to earlier ones we read a while back; impassioned whining about cases he won against physicians and others, nad having zilch to do about his electability.

Anyway, you know now why I won't stoop to treat you as a bona fide, intelligent poster. Your assumptions are laughable. And if your assumptions are laughable, it follows that the whole edifice of your thoughts is a hollow, pitiful sham. I'd hope to maintain a light touch, but some peope, it seems, are incapable of learning the easy way.

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. Dennis Kuchinich sounds like he's your man. And a lot of us would like

to seem him as President. But I just feel America is such a jungle at the moment, getting a grip of the reptilian predators will, to a degree, have to be done more incrementally.

Closing the tax havens suggest a major move in the right direction, and I'm sure it will be far easier to abolish them than it was to establish them. So I can only assume you're of a nerdily myopic persuasion.

How about Dennis then?

PS: Still looking for your link. I'm sure I glanced at it earlier. But I want to destroy it. Is it really possible that the IRS would define income one way and treat it another? Maybe. We shall see, I hope.

[Milo_Bloom]

20. I have no "man" right now...

"closing the tax havens" is absolutely meaningless, especially when you understand how they are formed (knowledge I have since I run two corporations and I refuse to take my CPA's advice and use them). You can't just "close tax havens" without banning offshore companies from doing business in America.

Without explaining HOW it is going to be done, it is completely empty rhetoric. It is like saying, "I am going to stop crime". It doesn't mean anything unless you explain how.

As for the link.

http://news.morningstar.com/classroom2/course.asp?docId=144042&page=2&CN=COM

Capital gains--the difference between what you sell a stock for versus what you paid for it--are "tax preferred," or taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. Ordinary income includes items such as wages and interest income.

The tax code FAVORS investments, which FAVORS corporations, as it encourages people to buy their stock, which gives them more money.

Further DIVIDENDS are not subject to social security taxes, medicare taxes, etc... Some dividends are taxed as INCOME, however, others are taxed as CAPITAL GAINS. If I turned my S corp into a C Corp and issued shares and declared a dividend from those shares, I could avoid almost all major taxes and get taxed at a lower rate. I chose not to do that.

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. How about Dennis then, Milo? Third time lucky?

[Milo_Bloom]

25. I like a lot of what Dennis says.

However, I think he is too abbrasive and stubborn to actually get things done.

[Joe Chi Minh]

29. Well, you want someone stubborn, don't you? And as for "abrasive", well, I swear

you're sounding more like a hot-house plant, by the minute.

And there was me thinking you were one hard-nosed SOB a minute or two ago ago. I don't imagine multiple CEO's are widely thought of as being overly sensitive, but life's one continual learning experience, isn't it. If you feel the people in the world of American business and politics couldn't handle his abrasive manner, maybe you should be thinking about positng to a literary, poetic kind of board.

[Milo_Bloom]

33. What on earth are you babbling about?

First, I am not running for office and this has nothing to do with "sensitivity". It is about getting things done and although I like what Dennis has to say, I don't believe he has the ability to get the things done.

It's really that simple.

[Joe Chi Minh]

36. Simple is as simple says, I suppose.

[Milo_Bloom]

38. Well, hello mister simple.

You make up facts, then claim they aren't lies.

Make up arguments not made, then claim they are proven.

Then can't back up any of what you say and claim simplicity.

Way to critically think there!

[Joe Chi Minh]

45. Now, you're getting abrasive again, Milo. I don't like it, and I shall tell your mummy.

[Milo_Bloom]

48. Only to those caught lying.

Kinda sucks to be caught, doesn't it?

I think I'll just call you Gonzo from now on.

[Joe Chi Minh]

58. I like that! I'm a great fan of HST. Do you think he's the cat's whiskers?

Or do you prefer Tucker Carlson, say? Or Bill Schneider?

Yours aye

Gonzo

[dragonlady]

31. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck

As I said, the capital gains tax would be almost doubled. That's a huge change, and you can't do everything at once.

The really poor aren't paying income tax now, between earned income tax credit, deductions for children, and the like. For those who have a modest income, the Edwards plan would mean $250 of interest not taxed (that's the interest on about $8,333 at 3%). Here's the full plan, from the wesbite:

Edwards will help regular families save and get ahead by:
Creating a Get Ahead Credit, which will expand the Savers Credit to match savings up to $500 a year, providing as much as an additional dollar for every dollar of savings.
Boosting low-income families' savings with work bonds, which will supplement the Earned Income Tax Credit to match the savings of low-income workers up to $500 per year.
Exempting from taxes each family's first $250 in interest, capital gains, and dividends.
Allowing families to deposit part or all of their child tax credit into a tax-free savings account.
Expanding the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to pay up to 50 percent of child care expenses up to $5,000 and make it partially refundable to benefit low-income working families.
Tripling the EITC for 4 million adults without children and cutting the marriage penalty for 3 million families.

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070726-economic-plan/

As for the health plan, let's face it, the insurance industry is so strong that a totally public single-payer system isn't going to pass. The Edwards plan puts restraints on the insurance companies by negotiating prices and prohibiting them from cherry-picking healthy people in the insurance-based parts of the plan. But people can also choose the option of a public insurance plan modeled on Medicare but separate. The more who take the public option, the closer we are to having single-payer. Sounds great to me.

[Joe Chi Minh]

34. "That's a huge change, and you can't do everything at once. "

....in a nutshell! You can't do everything at once, Milo.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. But we did before, why not now?

We cut the rate from 70% down to 28% in one year.

We can't do it the other way around???

Please, sell the kool-aid to someone else.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. self delete nt

[Milo_Bloom]

42. But, it still isn't real reform.

Keep in mind they slashed the capital gains tax all at once in 1981. So if they did it that way, why is it TOO RADICAL to do it in the other direction?

"the Edwards plan would mean $250 of interest not taxed "

We already don't tax on amounts less than $500, so what is his plan exactly?

Come on, PLEASE try and think critically and not just swallow the whole glass of kool-aid.

[dragonlady]

49. I'll try again to explain

The $250 would be taken off your income, before you figure the tax on what's left. I don't know where you get $500 from. When I make out my tax return, I put the entire amount of interest on line 8. What do you do?

I guess we'll just have to differ on whether doubling a tax rate is significant. :)

[Milo_Bloom]

50. Its not about significance...

It is about whether it is REAL reform of the nature Edwards is selling.

The problem is that he isn't delivering what he is selling.

Nearly doubling a rate to a level still over 50% below its historical rate isn't "helping unify to one America", because it still heavily favors those earning money from money, instead of from wages.

It turns his One America platform into a joke, because it continues the exact problem that created the "two Americas" (actually like 4 if you think about it) in the first place.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. Reform is impossible if it does not get through Congress

Edwards is offering realistic plans, not pie-in-the-sky rhetoric that has 0% chance of ever becoming law.

[Joe Chi Minh]

59. Steady there. Steady there, dmc. Milo's a CEO of 2 corporations who's

incandescent because John Edwards doesn't look like nationalising 'in one go', the many industries that need it. Like a youthful Stalinist, full of egalitarian ideals and impatient to set the world to rights. So please don't talk about realism to him. He's doing the best he can accoridng to his lights.

He's currently undergoing a grieving process, because he's just discovered that John Edwards isn't really Dennis Kuchinch in another guise, and it's been a very painful epiphany.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

62. Oh, I see

:spray:

[Milo_Bloom]

67. Still, lying, eh, Gonzo?

Why can't you get your story straight and tell the truth in what has been said?

[Milo_Bloom]

66. They just don't accomplish any real goals.

Yes, Edwards is offering plans that can get through congress, because they serve the same corporate interests they always have.

No REAL reform.

That is the point.

[Joe Chi Minh]

74. But how old are you, Milo? Most teenagers would have heard that

politics is the art of the possible. I perceive that you favour glorious failure over incremental successes. But that's the religious side of you - telling your accountant you wouldn't use a tax haven and all. Not too many Martin Luther Kings and Ghandi's about, Milo. Not even Presidents Kennedy.

There - that's another thing you have in common with Dennis. Seems you could do with a bullet-proof vest, too, what with all that idealism o' yourn.

Tell me. Do you think it's true that Andrew Carnegie avoided being tarred with shame, even infamy, by giving his ill-gotten agains away before he died? His cruel plunder from the families of his employees?

Oh, and by the way. Clearly, I was wrong about speaking from ignorance. You were. The capital gains tax you referred to applied only to an income band, a high-income band; while income tax is levied on virtually a (natural) person's whole gross income. So, yes. I was right and you were wrong. As per usual. Ye cannae tell yer apples from yer oranges, now, can ye?

Well, you may protest that that distinction only goes to buttress your argument. But that ain't so. Apples and oranges is apples and oranges. The American people want whole and healthy apples - not yet top of the range, but sweet-tasting and more than palatable given the present typhoon climatic conditions.

But what do you want? Why, you wants Johnno ter give 'em orange juice and marmalade. Crushed right out of the political process. Marmalized. Banjaxed.

Go back to sleep Milo. You must be more than familiar with "Don't call us. We'll call you." Now, it's your turn to hear it.

But don't fergit about the Denis' obstinacy, will you? We're sticklers fer sussin' out vague evasions.

[Milo_Bloom]

81. *SIGH* Like dealing with a child...

"politics is the art of the possible. I perceive that you favour glorious failure over incremental successes. But that's the religious side of you - telling your accountant you wouldn't use a tax haven and all. Not too many Martin Luther Kings and Ghandi's about, Milo. Not even Presidents Kennedy. "

In negotiations, even political ones, you ask for everything and then settle on a compromise. Edwards is asking for maintaining status quo and only minor tweaks to the system that won't offer real help to anyone... where is his fallback?

Oh, and by the way. Clearly, I was wrong about speaking from ignorance. You were. The capital gains tax you referred to applied only to an income band, a high-income band; while income tax is levied on virtually a (natural) person's whole gross income. So, yes. I was right and you were wrong. As per usual. Ye cannae tell yer apples from yer oranges, now, can ye?

lie. Please educate yourself better.

But what do you want? Why, you wants Johnno ter give 'em orange juice and marmalade. Crushed right out of the political process. Marmalized. Banjaxed.

Go back to sleep Milo. You must be more than familiar with "Don't call us. We'll call you." Now, it's your turn to hear it.

But don't fergit about the Denis' obstinacy, will you? We're sticklers fer sussin' out vague evasions.

And back to trolling.

Let's see, you state nothing, tell lies and then go back to personal insults.

You are actually and truly 100% useless and offer nothing to this debate except for lies and misinformation.

Congrats, you have proven yourself worthless enough to be ignored. Welcome to the I file.

[bling bling]

83. I'm actually suprised you lasted as long as you did.

Nice try.

The upside is that you provided some interesting points. I appreciated reading it.

[Milo_Bloom]

84. Thank you. :)

I use the I file very rarely, because I am of the crazy belief that we should listen to and talk to everyone no matter what we think of their opinion. (I know it is very naive of me) ;-)

[Joe Chi Minh]

88. "Welcome to the I file." Is that a promise....? I want it notarised.

[Joe Chi Minh]

56. Look, Milo. You need to come to terms with the fact that John Edwards isn't

Dennis Kuchinich. We've all known it for a long time. Someting about their physical appearances, I think, gave the game away at quite an early stage. Check into a clinic, a psychiatric unit, asap. It's little, seemingly insignificant details like that, that if they go unchecked, can turn into really serious delusions. Like not being able tell margarine from butter, you know?

Oh, and by the way, you never told us what Dennis was 'obstinate' about, that you find such a negative on his CV. You're real begar for impugning populist Democrats' CVs, you know.

That's another thing you should mention to the trick-cyclist. There may be a deeply, deeply hidden antipathy you really harbour towards the left. What we call the left now, is really the centre ground, is't it? Continental European Social Democrats.

[Milo_Bloom]

68. Still got that truth telling problem, I see.

Well, I guess the simple minded are easly tricked with slight of hand.

What's funny, is that you actually agree with me 100%, but aren't quite sharp enough to understand it.

Edwards does not euqual Dennis.

Why does that statement mean so much?

Work that mind a little, see if you can figure it out...

[Joe Chi Minh]

75. Milo, I don't like to be pedantic. But it's 'sleight', not 'slight'.

As for your raging that Johnno isn't Dennis, everyone here can see the madness of it. You've written it doon.

In easy stages:

1. John has incremental, but nevertheless substantive plans.
2. Dennis has 'sh*t or bust' plans; and we fear that they will be bust in the Congress.
3. Believing the saw that politics is the art of the possible,
a) We're not furious with Johnno's plans. People are used to eating hard tack, these days. And it sure beats eating bubkis.
b) We never did confuse Johnno with Dennis; and many of us ain't even got 20/20 vision. So how comes you got so confused and are spitting the Dummy because he's not Dennis?

[Milo_Bloom]

80. More trolling from gonzo?

"1. John has incremental, but nevertheless substantive plans."

Already proven untrue.

"2. Dennis has 'sh*t or bust' plans; and we fear that they will be bust in the Congress."

Irrelevant.

"3. Believing the saw that politics is the art of the possible,
a) We're not furious with Johnno's plans. People are used to eating hard tack, these days. And it sure beats eating bubkis. "

You speak only for youself and maybe a couple of other Edwards' apologists, who haven't looked critically at his plan.

"b) We never did confuse Johnno with Dennis; and many of us ain't even got 20/20 vision. So how comes you got so confused and are spitting the Dummy because he's not Dennis?
"

You are the only one who brought up the comparison, and thus, the only one who confused the two.

[Joe Chi Minh]

87. Don't continue to insult our intelligence, there's a good chap.

"You are the only one who brought up the comparison, and thus, the only one who confused the two." Hilarious non sequitur. You're really on a roll today!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

53. Its called political realities

The idea that we are going to raise the capital gains tax rate from 15% to, say, 70% is absurd. There is no way that would get through Congress.

[Milo_Bloom]

69. Of course you could.

How incredibly defeatest... typical Edwards apologists, I guess.

First, they have done just as drastic a change in the past.

But, let's put that aside.

If a politician pitches a bold plan AND gets overwhelming support AND is voted in AND his party is voted in the Senate and Congress... they can pass what they promised, because they have the votes.

Or you can just go with a status quo candidate and a defeatest approach.

[Joe Chi Minh]

76. And you can rely on the election machines being A1.... and there being no

criminal interference in the election process by Republican activists and media.

[Milo_Bloom]

79. So let me get your story straight...

A politician should not offer bold new ideas and should only offer status quo solutions to problems because election officials might be corrupt?!?!

[Joe Chi Minh]

86. Offering them is fine, dopey. What new ideas do you have in mind, though?

In fact, putting forward such ideas may be highly desirable - assuming (and as here, that may be a big 'if') they are practicable.

Even a half-reasonable person would realise that they need to be offered within a context that allows them to be realisable, whether that would be currently or at some time in the future. Dennis is offering a totally free tax-funded helath service for all. But if the republicans were able to shave millions of votes from the likes of John Kerry, just what do you imagine they WOULDN'T do to keep Dennis from the Oval Office.

I know you're well aware of the realities and are trying to deceive DUers in to wildly impractical "gesture politics" which will render them even more marginalised than the charades you call your elections. But it's good to expose the folly of your wild, vapid exhortations.

[TheFarseer]

14. we finally agree on something

I think investment income should be taxed at ordinary income. How can Washington politicians tell us that people who work for a W2 are not as good as people collect dividends and Cap Gains? It should be taxed the same. I won't even mention here that considering a stock held for 366 days and a piece of farm ground that has been in the family for generations as the same thing for tax purposes is completely absurd. Oops, I just did!

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Couldn't agree more.

I actually want to go further and tax capital gains at a higher rate than income.

The concept should be that everyone has to work in some fashion. If someone chooses to just live off interest or dividends and not "give back" to society, they should be taxed at an incredibly high rate.

There are easy ways to distinguish between a family farm and "investment property", "stocks", "interest" etc.

It is such an easy concept to get behind. People who work for their money shouldn't be punished for earning more (lower the tax rate and create more categories, so lowest income rates pay 0 income tax, then 5, 10, 12.5, 15, 17.5, 20, 22.5 and 25 being the top, so we keep it progressive. Go similar with capital gains, but bigger jumps and go up to 70%, so someone earning 250,000 per year effectively doing nothing, gives back financially to society.

Can't you see people getting behind that concept?

[Jillian]

3. Edwards should do well in rural America.

Of all the candidates, I think he has the best message for them.

[goodhue]

51. Edwards will rock the upper midwest

[illinoisprogressive]

55. he is right about fighting for small town.