In 1995, Bill Clinton said this to a Houston fund-raising audience about the 1993 tax increase his administration is infamous for:
Probably there are people in this room who are still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much too.
John Edwards, on the other hand, must think that the Clinton Administration and the congress at the time raised taxes too little, because he said on Sunday that he wants to go beyond what was done in 1993 (link requires registration; HT Colorado Right):
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said yesterday raising taxes for higher-income families back to their levels under the Clinton administration is a floor, not a ceiling, and he would consider even higher tax increases.
"What I believe is the starting place is to go back to the Clinton levels," Mr. Edwards told reporters after addressing the 2,000 delegates to California's state Democratic Party convention.
In an unbylined report from the Associated Press at MSNBC, the AP writer seemed to sense how unpopular the idea of tax increases beyond 1993-2001 levels would be, and attempted to downplay what Edwards really said (bold is mine):
Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said Sunday he would consider raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to fund programs such as universal health care.
Edwards has long said he wants to repeal the tax cuts on upper-income earners enacted during the Bush presidency, but Sunday he seemed to go further, by saying he was open to raising them higher than they were before George W. Bush took office. He also said he would consider taxes on "excess profits," including those made by oil companies.
Edwards said it was more important to level with voters than to worry about the political consequences of advocating higher taxes.
"Seemed"?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
screw taxes...
May 1, 2007 - 06:39 ET by sarcasmoIf only the silky pony (or any of 'em) wanted to go back to Clinton-era spending levels.
JMR
Not Newsworthy
May 1, 2007 - 07:37 ET by JimboMaybe the media isn’t covering it because they think that everyone knows that a Democrat in the White House = increased taxes. Not a very newsworthy story. /sarc off/.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Higher level income? To liber
May 1, 2007 - 07:38 ET by msh1973Higher level income? To liberal Dems that could be $50,000/yr, that would now include the middle class. Taxes are the thing that makes me what to scream out, what don't these people understand...IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY!
msh, why do you sound so surp
May 1, 2007 - 08:23 ET by Beowulfmsh, why do you sound so surprised? I hate to find myself so sarcastic, but that seems to be the only emotion appropriate anymore. Of course the Dems are targeting the middle class. They themselves (Dems) are among the rich, so they won't be going after them. They have a firm voter base among the poor, so the more "wealth re-distribution" they advocate, the firmer that base. Add to that, the middle class has a habit of bovine acceptance of inititiatives such as this. We are still a democracy, but the vast middle class refuses to understand the power we hold. We control the economy. We control legislation. We control foreign and domestic policy. Yet we never exercise that power. And power not used will always be taken up by someone who will use it, in this case the Dems. How many issues are dictated to us simply because only a very small fraction of us make our voices heard? Why do you thing the vocal minority has such influence on events in this country? It's simply because no one else stands up to challenge them.
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Beowulf,I am not surprised ju
May 2, 2007 - 07:41 ET by msh1973Beowulf,
I am not surprised just frustrated. I am really angry that the Republicans didn't make Bush's tax cuts permanente, they had years and they did nothing! I am so sick of paying high property taxes, income taxes....taxes, taxes, taxes! Then this Boozo comes along and says I am not paying enough. Well, what is enough...50%, 70%?
I'm feeling contraversial tod
May 1, 2007 - 07:39 ET by dscottI'm feeling contraversial today, I will agree with Edwards that taxes need to be raised. :-o It's called the Excess Energy Consumption Tax. The most progressive taxation scheme in history.
Any household using more than twice the average electrical and natural gas consumption should be taxed at 100% of the utility charge. That tax should increase at every multiple of the average consumption by 100%. The point of the taxation would be to force huge energy wasters like John Edwards and Dr. Al Gore off the electric grid and to jump start the solar and wind power (small units) industries and employ tens of thousands of American workers. Their purchases like the 15 million other super wealthy will provide the necessary capital to lower the cost of production benefiting everyone. The results will be a 50% drop in US residential electric demand over a two to five year period and make the US near energy independent.
The second taxation scheme is to tax the H%#^%LL out of fuel for private jets (non commercial flights, excluding propeller driven aircraft). For every multiple of 100 gallons, one dollar Federal gas tax should be cummulatively levied, so by the time they get to a 1000 gallons they would be paying $9/gallon.
Under my scenerio their would be no need to increase anyone's taxes other than those who squander our national resources, run their mouths about carbon credits and generally support the enemies of the US.
It should go without saying that when Edwards talks about taxing the rich, he actually means the middle class.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Excess Energy Tax
May 1, 2007 - 07:48 ET by JimboYour proposal would levy a serious burden on the members of Congress. Unless they can figure out a way to pass their share on to us, I don’t see how such a thing can get enacted.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
It's called class warfare and
May 1, 2007 - 08:01 ET by dscottIt's called class warfare and shame. It's time to club the liberals with it.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
i am opposed to taxing anyone
May 1, 2007 - 09:25 ET by Ruths husband Beni am opposed to taxing anyone (rich or poor) and I think the idea of taxing private airplane owners is wrong minded. There are two very good reasons why I don't own an airplane, 1)I am not rich enough and 2) I am afraid of flying. But I realize that every time someone buys a private airplane, they are employing all of the people in the private airplane supply chain. We should encourage the wealthy to spend their money, not to hoard it.
In addition, federal taxes are the chief way that our government is circumventing the states rights. For example, the federal government mandated the 55 mph speed limit in all states by threatening to remove federal funding.
You see, once they get your money....it becomes their money and then they get to extort you with it.
Another thing on the topic of private airplane ownership is the media was making a big deal over the number of planes John Travolta owns. You know, I'll bet he only flies one at a time. How many he owns is meanlingless with regard to his "carbon footprint." But I would like to leave a carbon footprint on some of these greenies behinds.
Yaba daba doo! -Fred Flintstone campaign slogan
Which is precisely why we sho
May 1, 2007 - 10:04 ET by dscottWhich is precisely why we should tax the bejebers out of those who advocate big government, they need to bear the burden of their bad ideas. It is the elite in this country who advocates high taxes, notice they never pay them? I propose to hit them where they live and not affect the rest of the country.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Do you think he'll close the
May 1, 2007 - 07:43 ET by OldSailor88Do you think he'll close the tax loopholes for them bad old rich people too??
This is from WIKI: " Edwards made his personal fortune through his trial successes and his 2003 financial disclosure forms showed a total net worth between $12.8 and $60 million.[6] Edwards was criticized for paying himself mostly through subchapter S corporate dividends, rather than a salary, to take advantage of a tax-law loophole that allowed him to avoid paying $591,000 in Medicare taxes; Edwards claimed that he chose the subchapter S structure to protect his assets from liability.[7]"
Haven't you heard, John Edwar
May 1, 2007 - 07:58 ET by dscottHaven't you heard, John Edwards says there are two Americas. One for him and the wealthy and one for the rest of us in the poor and middle class and if he gets his way he will tax the middle class out of existance.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
These guys are such scumbags,
May 1, 2007 - 08:03 ET by HadEnoughThese guys are such scumbags, how anyone can get so excited about raising taxes is beyond me.
Go pound salt
Even dimocrats have to rememb
May 1, 2007 - 08:25 ET by jdhawkEven dimocrats have to remember that Clintoon raised taxes for the first time on Social Security receipients. That they had already paid taxes on their earnings before they were taxed on Social Security didn't seem to bother anyone. Also, if you are a Social Secuirty receipient and working, you still must pay into Social Security. No matter that the aggregate taxes levied (federal, state, local, excise at all levels) make it impossible to live on Social Security in the first place.
If you go by your fast food places or any miminum wage work place, you will notice more and more "seniors" at work. The above is the reason. In the "Breck Girl's" workers paradise, nearly everyone will work until they are dead. But, hey, they will have "free" medical benefits!
Edwards has made enough of a
May 1, 2007 - 09:20 ET by GalvanicEdwards has made enough of a fortune as a trial lawyer to keep himself and his progeny in the upper class for generations. From his lofty perch, he -- not unlike the Kennedys --- displays all kinds of compassion for the working man and the desolate. He loves to distract voters from his enormous wealth by recounting how his dad was a mill worker and his family lived in a small two-bedroom home (which they moved out of shortly after his birth).
Rich Dems love to tell us of their PARENTS humble beginnings, as if it were bonadfides for union membership. Edwards, Biden, Gephardt, Cuomo --- they've all proletarians at heart.
On the April 11 edition of
May 1, 2007 - 11:28 ET by fenderteleOn the April 11 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews baselessly asserted that "I don't think the Democrats are any better" than Republicans when it comes to "fiscal responsibility." In fact, a comparison of the records of the two most recent presidents -- Bill Clinton (D) and George W. Bush (R) -- shows that budget deficits shrank under Clinton, eventually resulting in large budget surpluses, while deficits have ballooned to record levels under Bush.
Largest tax Increase In History
May 1, 2007 - 11:35 ET by JimboDo you think the largest tax increase in American history under Clinton had anything to do with that?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Or treating the military li
May 1, 2007 - 11:50 ET by MightyMouthOr treating the military like redheaded step children? Requiring Bush to build it back up in the last six years. The reason we went to war "with the army we had" was because Bubba under funded the military during is admin. I guess he had more important things on his mind.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sums it up
May 1, 2007 - 11:54 ET by JimboGood point MM. The largest tax increase in American history while simultaneously under funding the military. Sums it all up.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Congress makes all spending bills
May 1, 2007 - 13:36 ET by c5thenThe deficit shrinking has more to do with the Republican controlled House and Senate under Clinton from 1996 till 2000 than who happens to be occupying the address at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Remember that Congress passes the budget, the President is just responsible for executing it.
The tax cuts passed in 1996 were responsible for high economic growth and increasing tax revenues as a result. '98, '99 and '00 saw much higher tax revenue come into the Treasury than any were predicting. As a result the projected deficits got smaller. There never was a surplus because that was a trick of the budgeteers in taking the SS trust fund revenue and the highway trust fund revenue and including it in the totals.
The clear take-away is that reducing the tax burden stimulates the economy which leads to higher tax revenue. None of the MSM or the demo-dopes will care to point that out as it goes against their socialist dogma and is concidered blasphemy.
Keep in mind
May 1, 2007 - 11:36 ET by c5thenWhen liberals talk about raising the taxes on the "rich" or the "wealthy" what really happens (and they know it) is that the taxes fall on the Middle Class. This serves as a preventative measure to stop the upper middle class from actually making it into the ranks of the "wealthy". The threshold levels are taxed such that making that extra $5000 in income results in an additional $6000 of tax liability. One step forward, two steps back.
The actual wealthy can afford to hire accountants and lawyers that structure their assets and wealth in such a way so as to limit their "taxable income" and thus minimize any tax liability.
That's why 4 million of the w
May 1, 2007 - 12:15 ET by dscottThat's why 4 million of the wealthy are complaining about the AMT, they now have to pay taxes like everyone else. Why else did the MSM try to make an issue of it a while back? They tried to claim all the increase in tax revenue was due to the AMT, not the Bush tax cuts. That fell flat when it came out that the AMT only raises $50 billion not the huge sums the Bush tax cuts inspired by encouraging economic growth.
Yeap, there are two Americas, one for John Edwards and the other for us, which of course he would like to have as well because he is better at spending wealth than we are. The liberal victimization motto is: "I must take everything to ensure I have something."
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius