Guess which America John Edwards Lives in?

#1
MG1968

MG1968

That’s No Moon…
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
28,385
Likes
19,274
#1
He's earned his money, I'll give him that, and I don't see anything wrong with spending your own money.

Edwards Home County's Largest

The main house is 10,400 square feet and has two garages. The recreation building, a red, barn-like building containing 15,600 square feet, is connected to the house by a closed-in and roofed structure of varying widths and elevations that totals 2,200 square feet.
Click to expand...

The connector has more square feet than many homes.

Anyhow, I tend to see this as hypocrisy. Edwards is a limousine liberal who wants us to "do as he says and not as he does." He kicks off his campaign in front of a hurricane damaged house in New Orleans, bemoaning the "two Americas" then vows to increase the welfare state. All the while his 28000 sq. ft. estate is being built. It's supposed to have been built with energy efficiency in mind, right.

Also, I wonder how many trees were felled to make room for the house and the private road leading up to it.
 
#3
#3
for one thing he wants to redistribute income. for another he wants to raise taxes on "the rich". he panders to the "non-rich" by promising even more nanny state programs.

"hypocrisy" may be the wrong term here, but it just seems to me that if you begin your presidential campaign with a promise to end economic disparity, you don't then go home to an 8 million dollar, 28000 sq. ft. home.
 
#6
#6
Ending economic disparity has nothing to do with what size your house or bank account is. Everyone would like poverty to go away. Would you like to see more people in poverty? Hey if the guy wants to raise taxes on himself and those like him, so be it. If his ideas hold water with the rest of America, he might be elected. But I fail to see where house size means he cannot believe in an idea that everyone lives a better life.

What are school vouchers? Handouts so that people have a better chance at going to a private school to get a better education. Are those evil?
 
#7
#7
I would say the ironic aspect of Edward's pitch (at least his pitch during the 2004 campaign) is the method to reduce economic disparity.

He began with his story about how his father worked from nothing (poor) to being successful and laying the foundation for John. John then worked hard and became a successful trial lawyer which as allowed him to become a millionaire.

His story is one of hard work, making your way, determination etc. His message is one of the GOVERNMENT doing these things for you. Also, inherent in his message is the Gephardt "winners of life's lottery" mentality that says some people are born successful and others are screwed. His own personal story is the antithesis of that argument.
 
#8
#8
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
why not?
Click to expand...

The class warfare approach of pitting rich vs. poor is essentially a way to shift the burden away from personal responsibility.

If he feels the rich aren't doing enough to help the poor, there are any number of ways he can use his own wealth to help. Instead, he advocates more use of the government to redistribute wealth as opposed to a voluntary method.

It sorta looks like the environmental crowd condemning others while they drive their SUVs or take private jets. Nothing wrong with it but it kinda defeats the message.
 
#9
#9
CSpindizzy said:
Hey if the guy wants to raise taxes on himself and those like him, so be it.
Click to expand...

Where are the minority rights in this scenario? Why is okay for 98% of voters to impose tax sanctions on 2% of voters?

Rather than raise his own taxes he could donate his money directly to the cause he chooses rather than mandate a certain group of people pay even more.
 
#10
#10
Ummm...because they can? Last time I checked the Constitution provides a method called taxation to provide revenue. There is nothing that requires a fair system of a flat tax across the board. If 98% want to raise taxes, they get elected and do so.

Our whole tax system is mandating. Are you saying 'mandating' is wrong? Elected officials no matter what party or what socio-economic background they come from mandate who pays what.

Even Hamilton, essentially the designer of our current system, saw that the upper classes would bear a brunt of the tax burden.
 
#11
#11
CSpindizzy said:
Ummm...because they can? Last time I checked the Constitution provides a method called taxation to provide revenue. There is nothing that requires a fair system of a flat tax across the board. If 98% want to raise taxes, they get elected and do so.

Our whole tax system is mandating. Are you saying 'mandating' is wrong? Elected officials no matter what party or what socio-economic background they come from mandate who pays what.

Even Hamilton, essentially the designer of our current system, saw that the upper classes would bear a brunt of the tax burden.
Click to expand...

Of course they can - the point is it is still a matter of the majority dictating that a minority pay more.

Further the point is not that a minority group should pay more but rather how much more. The Edwards approach is to tell one group they can and should require more of another group.
 
#12
#12
volinbham said:
The class warfare approach of pitting rich vs. poor is essentially a way to shift the burden away from personal responsibility.

If he feels the rich aren't doing enough to help the poor, there are any number of ways he can use his own wealth to help. Instead, he advocates more use of the government to redistribute wealth as opposed to a voluntary method.
Click to expand...
Again, what does that have to do with where he lives.
volinbham said:
It sorta looks like the environmental crowd condemning others while they drive their SUVs or take private jets. Nothing wrong with it but it kinda defeats the message.
Click to expand...
Not really. If he were advocating that the wealthy should give up their mansions and live in modest middle class neighborhoods, while he himself lived in a mansion then that analogy would work. Since he is advocating tax increases for the wealthy, I would say that it actually enhances the message. It says that he is willing to put the needs of others over his own personal needs.
 
#14
#14
So if the rich get taxed a little more. They can invest to make up for it or qualify for other deductions as well. If the upper class does not like the notion of paying more taxes they just buy another election to protect themselves.
 
#16
#16
Shall we take him and everyone else that does this out back and shoot them? It sure would dry up the fundraising ability of one certain party.
 
#17
#17
No - if tax shelters are legal, they are legal. Anyone who can should be free to pursue them.

However, it takes a little "oomph" out of the message if on one hand you are campaigning that the rich should bare more of the burden and on the otherhand you do all you can to avoid baring said burden.
 
#18
#18
keep in mind that according to Edwards' reasoning, 200,000/year qualifies you as rich and gives you a 39.8% federal income tax. California has a 10% state income tax. So, now you're looking at a 50% marginal rate before taking into account sales tax.

To me, this is insane. Especially when the government is such a piss poor manager of money.
 
#20
#20
volinbham said:
Let's not forget, Edwards sheltered the vast majority of his income to AVOID PAYING TAXES!
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with living in an expensive house? The OP was that he shouldn't live in a nice house because he advocates higher taxes for the wealthy.

Those same shelters are avaliable to anyone else who wants to use them. What is the probllem?
 
#21
#21
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
What does this have to do with living in an expensive house? The OP was that he shouldn't live in a nice house because he advocates higher taxes for the wealthy.

Those same shelters are avaliable to anyone else who wants to use them. What is the probllem?
Click to expand...

The comment was in reference to your statement that he is making some kind of sacrifice by advocating hire taxes on people like himself. If he truly believed in such sacrifice, why not work to close such loopholes or at least not take advantage of them. Looks more like a do as I say (make the rich pay more) not as I do (being rich but not paying more).

As to shelters being available to all - you'll see I've already made that point. I've have never contended there is anything wrong with it.

Finally, Edwards' house decision does seem odd given his message of economic disparity. By building such a house, he demonstrates the very thing he claims to oppose. He can certainly build it if he wants but that house is a very visible sign of economic disparity.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top