Edwards thinks Bush's tax cuts help long-term economic growth.

[Renew Deal]

Q: Will you work to repeal the Bush tax cuts?

Edwards: I voted against the Bush tax cuts. I believe we should repeal the tax cuts for those that earn over $200,000 a year, and close a group of corporate tax loop holes. I would not raise taxes on middle class working families because I believe they are the engine of our economy and it would be a mistake and would inhibit long-term economic growth.

Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 7, 2003

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Tax_Reform.htm

How can Edwards honestly argue he is against the tax cuts and then say the tax cuts are effective. Now he proposes keeping the cuts for everyone under $200,000.

If he honestly stuck to his positions, he would repeal the tax cuts. I think this is another example of Edwards looking out for himself and arguing both sides of an issue, just like any well paid lawyer does.

[AP]

1. Oh Lord. Do you know what progressive taxation is?

What you've quoted is the BEST reason to support Edwards. He understands the importance of the allocation of the tax burden. It needs to come off people who work for a living, and born a little more heavily by those who have the lightest load -- those who get their income UNEARNED (dividends and cap gains, for e.g.).

This is Keynes + FDR and every real democrat understands what he's talking about.

[Renew Deal]

13. Edwards is being slick with this.

How does he honestly think the tax cuts work and vote against them. I might as well vote for Lieberman. He thinks the tax cuts work and he votes for him. At least he is being honest to himself, which is more than what I can say for John Edwards. Then again, arguing both sides of an issue is what lawyers do best.

[AP]

20. You're the one being 'slick.' Edwards is doing what FDR and Keynes all

said was the right thing to do.

[Renew Deal]

23. If it's right

why didn't he vote for them from the beginning?

[AP]

29. E. likes shifting the burden off people who work for living. Bush likes...

cutting taxes for the rich alot, and cut middle class taxes a little with the same bill.

Cutting all taxes, but rich people's taxes more than taxes of people who work for a living isn't reallocating the burden off middle class. It's shifting even MORE of the burden on to the middle class, because the short-funding of the government will cost them even more while they're still contributing a bigger relative proportion of the tax burden.

You REALLY don't understand this? Or you do understand this but you're willing to intentionally mislead people?

[liberalnurse]

28. I follow you on that excellent argument.

Edwards is not being straight with the people but using double-talk....How disappointing.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalnurse]

33. I understand........

and see the wisdom of the poster's argument.

[AP]

39. See the posts in the subthread that ends with post 37

Can you honestly say there is "wisdom" in a line of argument that involves deliberate misrepresentation?

And if there's ANY wisdom in ANY of the posts in this thread which deliberately misrepresent this issue, please tell me where it is. I see none.

And, again, I ask you, how can you call yourself 'liberal' if you don't understand this issue? This is the core of liberalism -- which direction does the power flow?

If you claim that you understand it, prove it to me. I still don't think you do.

[AP]

40. I know you read this, liberalnurse. Waiting for a reply.

[bearfartinthewoods]

49. i think you are wasting your breathe AP.

it's been like this for two days now. fear is in the water and it seems the only path open is to attack Edwards with anything that can be dreamed up.....even his belief in progressive taxation and his desire to roll back bush's cut for the rich.

[dolstein]

2. Edwards thinks middle class tax cuts are good for the economy

Honesly, are you so blind that you thought that Edwards was defending the tax cuts for the wealthy? After all, he says he wants to repeal those tax cuts, and close all the tax loopholes for corporations.

Edwards voted against the Bush tax cuts. However, like all traditional Democrats, Edwards believes that the key to a strong economy is a thriving middle class. A rising tide lifts all boats. That's the antithesis of trickle down economics. It's sad that some DU'ers feel the need to misrepresent Edwards' positions.

[Padraig18]

3. Edwards is being honest.

I disagree with his position, but it's not an 'all or nothing' issue. He is essentially arguing for progressive taxtaion.

[JasonDeter]

4. Your header is misleading. Edwards clearly made a distiction.

Why smear someone based on a half truth? He's for repealing tax cuts for the wealthy and keeping them for a specific group. Why put words in their mouth when its plainly obvious what they said? HE HONESTLY DID STICK TO HIS POSITION!! This kind of tactic does not befit the Democratic Party but plays into the hands of the republicans.

[AP]

6. Psst. Bleacher is helping Edwards with these posts.

By saying such things so outrageous at such regular intervals, Bleacher is proving the strenght of Edward's candidacy.

[ochazuke]

21. Yeah, misleading subject line!

Edwards did not say the misadministration's tax cuts promote long-term growth, he voted against them! He would cut taxes on the middle classes. The post is another negative attack on the most positive candidate in the race.

Actually, tax cuts for the investing class can lead to growth in the long-term as those investments bear fruit, while cuts for middle and lower income workers are more of a stimulus to demand in the short term because they are more likely to spend rather than invest the money.

The way our economy is going though, there may not even be a long term. I mean with all of the job losses due to offshoring and productivity growth, an implosion may occur before the long term arrives.

[sandnsea]

5. This has been the Democratic argument

Since 2000. Tax cuts for middle class and working people because they're the ones who buy things and fuel the economy. Democrats fought for those tax cuts, it would make NO sense to repeal them now. Bush didn't want the 10% rate in 2001, he wanted to put the other tax cuts in place first. Democrats are going to have to get on board on this one in order to get the truth out there about who was really looking out for the middle class and tax cuts.

[AP]

8. It has been the Dem argument since 1932, and has been

the thing Republicans have really dismantled since 1974.

[sandnsea]

27. Well, true

I was just referring to this round. :-)

[Renew Deal]

25. Edwards position goes beyond that.

He agrees with the tax cuts but doesn't vote for them. How does that make sense. It seems like he is just trying to make everyone happy.

[mohc]

26. Its quite simple

Edwards believes it would be better to have no tax cuts than to include tax cuts for the wealthy. So when they are bundled together Edwards votes against them. To help us get out of a weak economy, Edwards would support tax cuts for the middle and working class. But he is not willing to risk the long term solvency of our nation by running the deficits created by tax cuts for the wealthy.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. this is deliberately deceptive

hopefully this thread will be locked, but who knows how much damage is done by this kind of sniping...

[Renew Deal]

14. No it's not.

I wrote: Edwards thinks Bush's tax cuts help long-term economic growth.

Q: Will you work to repeal the Bush tax cuts?

Edwards said: I believe they are the engine of our economy and it would be a mistake and would inhibit long-term economic growth.

[AP]

19. Edwards said that people who work for a living are the engines of the...

...economy.

Not the tax cuts.

He said that overburdening them with taxes makes it harder for them to work to pull the economy up. That's why he wants to unburden them.

You're being deliberately misleading.

[Renew Deal]

24. Edwards is saying the tax cuts are the engine to the economy

Besides that, if he believes that he want sto "unburden" them, why did he vote against the tax cuts. That's what makes this slick.

[AP]

31. No he did not.

He said the middle class are the engine of the economy.

[AP]

37. here's the whole quote, and you should have had the courage to post it.

Q: Will you work to repeal the Bush tax cuts?

I voted against the Bush tax cuts. I believe we should repeal the tax cuts for those that earn over $200,000 a year, and close a group of corporate tax loop holes. I would not raise taxes on middle class working families because I believe they are the engine of our economy and it would be a mistake and would inhibit long-term economic growth.

[AP]

41. JRE: "middle class working families...are the engine of our economy"

"middle class working families because I believe they are the engine of our economy"

that's from the link above.

Waiting for an explanation of your failure to quote the whole Q & A, and just the Q with a misleading version of the A, which you persisted in misrepresenting.

[billyf65]

9. Uh huh...

Econ 101.

Give a middle class family a tax cut, they buy things they need. This helps the economy and provides jobs.

Since the wealthy can already afford what they need, a tax cut given them may be poured back into stocks, but not into clothes or laundry detergent or a new refrigerator or groceries.

Ergo - tax cuts for the middle class help the economy. Tax cuts for the wealthy do not. And advocating for middle-class tax cuts is a very progressive idea that will actually help the economy.

[AP]

15. It's not only about money to buy things, it's about having money so that

you have more options and more political and economic power, which includes the option to NOT buy things. And it has to do with not having to go into debt.

When you're in debt, you're leveraging your future -- you're paying interest to credit card companies and mortgage lenders, which is just easy, guaranteed profit which shifts money and therefore political power to wall st banks and the rich.

A tax cut for the middle class shifts economic and political POWER to the middle class, and it's WAY MORE significant than just the ability to spend money.

[Renew Deal]

16. So if he thinks tax cuts help

Why didn't he vote for them?

[AP]

18. Do you know that there are several tax brackets and houndreds of ways

to pass wealth between two people, and they're all taxed differently, and taxing them differently can promote different outcomes?

A tax cut on unearned income over a million dollars is very different from a tax cut on earned income between 50K and 75K.

You do know that don't you?

[Renew Deal]

22. I know that

but you didn't answer the question. Edwards agreed with the premise of Bush's tax cuts, but voted against them. So he agrees with the tax cuts he voted against. That's pretty slick don't you think?

[AP]

34. OK. MATH LESSON TIME!

Say there are 10 Americans in the entire United States. One controls 90% of all the assets in America, and earns 50% of all the income earned in America. The other 9 control 10% of the assets and earn 50% of the income. Most assets aren't taxed until they're sold. Property is an exception, but it's taxed at the state level, not the federal level. That means, income tax contributes the largest portion of the federal tax revenue.

Ideally, That one person making 50% of the income should contribute 50% of the federal tax base generated by income tax. However, you could make a reasonable argument that he should pay a little more since his wealth has allowed him to buy up 90% of the assets, and becuase it's only right that he pays a little more into a system that has created such a rewarding life.

There's even more to thiss: you want to tax him and everyone else in a way that encourages all ten of these people to do things which make them better off collectively. Ie, it's work which creates wealth, so you don't want to make work more expensive. So, you don't put most of the burden on tax revenue generated from earned income. Monopolies, and behemouths pushing out price competition and innovation are bad for the collective group, so you don't want to really let income accumulate in a few powerful corporations. So you tax activities which result in that, or reward that kind of economic activity a little more. Not a lot more -- since you do want to reward success, however, size itself isn't success. Working hard, and coming up with knew, better products and ideas constitute "success" so you want to reward that more than not working, and monopolizing, and sheer size.

Well, back to my 10 Americans: in early Bush America, that one guy with all the income, and control of assets was actuall paying something like 35% of tax base, with the other nine paying 65%.

Thanks to Bush tax cuts, that one guy had his income tax burden cut even more -- to, say 25%. Edwards didn't like that. Thanks to Democrats, Bush also cut the FEDERAL INCOME TAX BURDEN (but no other tax burden) on the middle class so that they're contributing maybe 60% of the tax base. This means were running defecits -- 85% of what came in last year is coming in this year.

Math time: the rich are paying 25/85th = 29% of the total tax burden and the middle class and poor (the other nine) are paying 71%. So, by giving everyone breaks -- the rich, more than the poor -- Bush has managed to shift an even GREATER PERCENTAGE of the tax burden on to the middle class. The middle class BURDEN (or share) has climed almost 10% from 2001, even thought they got a tax cut. And the costs of the deficits will eventually be born by them to both in terms of paying it back (because, certainly any additional tax burdens will, at the least, be born as disproportinately as the the current tax code disproportionately burdens them) and in terms of what is lost by way of government activities cut to reduce the federal budget -- ie, SBA loans, pell grants, federal transportation subsidies, etc. etc. -- ie, things that previoulsy had been used to spread wealth and power down from the top and make middle and working class peoples' lives more meaningful and rewarding.

In other words, people who work for a living are paying more (realtively, if not in an absolute sense) and getting less.

That's what Edwards is against. His entire candidacy is based on the idea that if you control 90% of the assets in America and get 50% of the income, you should pull a little more of the weight, and that, if you do, the size of the pie actually gets bigger and you will be wealthier, and so will the middle class.

Now, I suspect you know this and that you're not going to waste your time reading this post because you do know it, so I'm going to give you a pop quiz. If you've read this far into the post, you'll answer this pop-culture question: Oppening this weekend is the movie Miracle. It is a movie about the US Olympic Hockey team winning a _____ medal in the 1980 Winter Olympics. Fill in the blank.

If you don't answer this question I will presume that you either know the truth and therefore can't be bothered to read long explanations of what you know is true, or that you really don't care about the truth because your purpose in this thread has nothing to do with knowing the truth.

[AP]

42. Anyone home?

crickets.

[citizen snips]

52. LoL.

We get it AP 99% of the people who have posted on this thread agrees with Edwards tax plan.

[magnolia]

46. Bleachers.....

...it's like this: Suppose someone offered you a plate of food and said that if you accept it you have to eat the whole thing. Suppose next to the meat and potatoes there's a pile of dirt. You'd have to say "no" to the plate, but admit that the food on the plate would have been good. That's what Edwards did. Tax cuts for wealthy = bad. Tax cuts for middle and lower class = good. Piled on the same bill...you'd have to say "no" to the whole thing. That's why he voted against a bill, even though parts of it would be good for the economy.

[DevilsAdvocate2]

17. Econ 102

Actually, tax cuts for the wealthy help the economy as well. Just because the wealthy may not use the money from the cuts on consumer goods does not mean the economy as a whole does not benefit. Money invested in stocks, bonds, or plain old savings accounts provides the capital businesses need to build new factories, open new locations, etc. The more capital that is available, the less expensive it is to borrow that capital. When borrowing is less expensive (more attractive), more people will do it. Having said that, I agree with Edwards when it comes to repealing the tax cuts for the people who earn over $200,000 a year.

[AP]

35. That was back in the day when the rich made money by competing for wealth.

(If that ever were the case.)

Now, the rich get rich by having Republicans legislate transfers of wealth accumulated from working class labor to them.

The only investment they make anymore is into buying off politicians who pass laws that transfer wealth.

[colonel odis]

10. i would never direct this at a particular post or post-er

but it feels a little like i'm smelling fear or desperation among some kerry supporters.

as well as an influx of freepers. you can tell when the freepers are about because boogers are wiped all over the posts.

[democratreformed]

12. Well, I can almost agree with the second part of your post.

Unfortunately, I think that some of these are coming from long-time diehard supporters of other Democratic candidates.

[SangamonTaylor]

11. Edwards is fighting to reverse the Bush movement

that the administration has pushed to redefine our tax system away from a "income tax" concept toward a "wage tax" (see the recent accellerated depreciation which is a huge giveaway)

[GRClarkesq]

32. Tax cuts do improve the economy

BUT the question is do they improve the economy enough to offset the lost tax revenue.

Edwards has the right take on this issue. No Dem nominee will get elected "raising" taxes on the middle class.

[AP]

36. Absolute tax cuts have less to do with the economy than relative tax...

...burdens and how the money is spent.

Right now we're cutting all taxes and transferring the money to the wealthy. And the only think the wealthy are doing is using the money to buy off politicians so that they continue to legislate transfers of wealth.

That's a deadly mix.

[DemDogs]

38. This topic line is nonsense

Edwards says that he supports the middle class tax cuts -- these are not the "Bush tax cuts" -- these are the tax cuts that the Democrats fought for. The middle class, according to history and logic and Edwards, is the engine of the economy and he retains the "Democratic tax cuts" for those in the middle class.
In addition, he makes capital gains progressive, too, which no one else does.

[AP]

43. I wonder why I got the last word in a couple of the subthreads above?

Actually, I know why. But I didn't think my opposites would give up so easily.

Ok, I did think that would happen.

I'm not sure whether I'm more saddened or amused by the absense of intellectual rigor among my opposites in this thread. It's a little of both right now, I guess.

[DancingBear]

44. Edwards is right on this

He gets a pass from me - progressive taxation has been a Dem plank for years. When he says he was against Bush, but for middle class relief, I can accept that. That's just a politician being a politician - remember, to those serving in Congress the whole world is shades of gray.

Anyone remember the old Steve Goodman tune "Election Year Rag"?

"you take two steps to the left
and two steps to the right
and then you stand in the middle
and you hang on tight"

[Beaker]

45. huh?

not all tax cuts are the same...or is that lost on you?

"If he honestly stuck to his positions, he would repeal the tax cuts..."

Edwards: I voted against the Bush tax cuts. I believe we should repeal the tax cuts for those that earn over $200,000 a year...

[AP]

47. "huh?" is right.

I'd love to see people try to defend the arguments they started but seem to have dropped.

[ShaneGR]

48. I'm middle class, I NEED that tax cut

But remove the one for the rich. It's called progressive taxation, Clinton did it and it WORKED.

[tobys]

50. It's called a progressive tax structure, and Edwards is correct.

Even though I'm not an Edwards supporter, Edwards is completely correct in saying that middle tax tax cuts help in the long term growth of the economy, because it is the middle class and the poor class that spend all of their disposable income, thus in turn leading to greater economic activity.

The upper class tax cuts on the other hand stifle economic growth because the rich people do not need to spend that extra money and that extra money just goes towards their personal savings, rather being being passed on down to the ordinary people.

Upper class tax cuts are a way for upward redistribution of welath, whereas middle class and lower class tax cuts, help those people in the short run, and help the economy grow in the long run.

[citizen snips]

51. Nice Try.

But Edwards supports giving tax cuts for the middle class not the rich. What is wrong with that?

[mmonk]

53. Some tax relief

in hard economic times is warranted. But not as deep as has been done, not as top heavy and certainly not permanent (that's irresponsible). But all DLC candidates will be for a tax cut because its seen as a modus operandi to winning as well as the tough on defense stuff (real or imagined).

[Moderator]

54. Locking

Misleading. Inflammatory.

DU Moderator