Now that Edwards has called for raising the capital gains tax will HRC and BO follow suit?

Edwards is calling for raising the capital gains taxes on the wealthy (those making $250,000 or more a year) to 28% while keeping it at 15% for everyone else. Will Obama and Clinton follow suit?

on politico. Hillary has a hair ad up about the press obsession on her changing hair. sound familar???
I posted she is copying Edwards again. she always follows and copies others.

I haven't seen that ad but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so if true the Edwards ad people deserve another pat on the back.

No more than 20% for Clinton, which would match her husband's rate. Remember though, it is up to 28% at most, not necessarily automatically at 28%.

He/she claimed they all advocate this.

== sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul-27-07 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Uh, everybody has called for that

Wes Clark called for that back in 2004. I'm pretty sure Edwards did too. Fairly common Democratic platform.
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man. - Thomas Paine==

So so much for whatever promises she is making. Same old calculating, triangulation. Afraid to do anything that somebody might attack her over.

Wes Clark called for that back in 2004. I'm pretty sure Edwards did too. Fairly common Democratic platform.

Clark isn't running right now.

==Clinton and Obama voted against a 2006 law to extend the 15% rate, but neither has endorsed a rate higher than 20%.==

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-taxes27jul27,0,5890269.story?coll=la-home-center

Raising taxes for the pure sake of raising taxes is not good policy.

Obama advocates raising them for specific purposes, as the record shows.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm

His Illinois record, by the way, beats Edwards all to hell. It's coming. Be patient.

This thread is about discussing whether Clobama will come out for this policy, not an infomercial for Obama and his record in the minors.

==Raising taxes for the pure sake of raising taxes is not good policy.==

No one is doing that.

==In Iowa Wednesday, former Sen. John Edwards went even further by proposing additional tax hikes on capital gains, hedge funds and corporations to help pay for new tax breaks for lower-income families.==

Edwards is trying to reverse *'s shifting of the tax burden to the middle-class and away from the wealthy. This is part of his plan to correct this. How dare he try to give tax breaks to lower-income families. :sarcasm:

His voting record is self-evident.

Also, what tax breaks for low income families?

Obama helped get an earned income tax credit in Illinois, and sponsored the initiative to extend it. He sponsored the legislation to prevent Bush's overtime laws from affecting Illinois workers. He sponsored legislation to keep banks from charging fees to welfare card holders.

Edwards?? Yeah, I know about those four trials. Anything else he's actually DONE for people, besides a couple of trips to New Orleans?

That isn't a difficult question to answer...

Obama is in the U.S. senate, not the the Illinois legislature. It is funny how we hear so much about what he did in the minors but nothing about his record in the U.S. senate.

==Also, what tax breaks for low income families? ==

Read the Edwards economic and tax plan.

==Anything else he's actually DONE for people, besides a couple of trips to New Orleans?==

I did not want to bring this up but if Team-Smear-4-Obama is going to attack Edwards as a hypocrite they will receive a reply...Well, for one, let's look at what they do when the cameras aren't rolling. Obama speaks of an "empathy deficit" before the cameras. Guess how much Obama gave in charity before he became a senator in 2005? He was in the top 2% of income earners before 2005. The average person gives 2.2% of their income to charity. Obama? 0.4%...

==Giving, service and compassion are recurrent themes on the campaign trail for Sen. Barack Obama, but the Democratic presidential contender has only recently dug deep into his own pockets to support charitable causes.

Obama has enjoyed a robust household income throughout his political career in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate. But for most of that time he has reported comparatively little by national standards in charitable contributions on his tax returns, records released by Obama show.==

==In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.==

==From 1997 through 2002, the Obamas reported devoting less than 1 percent of their household income to charity. In 2005, as the book-deal money poured in, they reported $1.65 million in combined income, with $77,315, or 4.7 percent, going to charity.==

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0704250022apr25,1,1209388.story?page=2

Edwards? He gave $350,000 in charity last year (28% of the family income).

Perhaps Team-Smear-4-Obama should be more careful in their attacks on other candidates, lest they subject themselves to self-pwnage by pesky facts.

It can't be much more clear than a vote.

Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)

As opposed to Hillary, btw.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm#Tax_Reform

Are you kidding me? You're seriously going to try to pass off tax deductions as benevolence?? lol.

Was that too hard to say? :rofl:

Tax deductions? Surely the Obamas are aware of those deductions as well...

then to Bush's 15. So why are you making a hoopla about 28%? There have been plenty of points in time that the tax wasn't that high. There's no reason for it to be that high just to say you're going to tax the rich.

Yes, I'm sure the Obamas were aware of those deductions. It's just that you have a very real necessity for them when your income is in the millions and not $250,000.

This is a political discussion forum. Edwards made a proposal and I am curious if Clobama will follow suit. Clobama, in the past, have signaled support for raising it to 20%. However, apparently they have not proposed that as part of their presidential platforms yet. Whenever they give us a number, whether it is 15% or 20% we can discuss the issue. It is a shame, though, that we know what "Barack" means but we don't know his position on the capital gains tax?

==Yes, I'm sure the Obamas were aware of those deductions. It's just that you have a very real necessity for them when your income is in the millions and not $250,000.==

So you are claiming the Edwardses gave 28% of their income to charity for tax purposes. The Obamas are also now millionaires. Using your logic, since surely the Obamas would like to take advantage of the same deductions they would give a similar amount in charity, or even more since they are not frauds like the Edwardses. However, that is not the case...

One would believe an intelligent person could figure out his position from that. I can't help that you can't.

And yes, I do expect the Obamas to increase their charitable giving for tax purposes, just like all rich people do.

Another faith-based initiative...

Obama has apparently taken no position on this yet. The fact that he opposed past * tax cuts means nothing regarding whether he is going to raise the capital gains tax. HRC also opposed the * tax cuts. Do you think HRC is going to raise the capital gains tax too?

==And yes, I do expect the Obamas to increase their charitable giving for tax purposes, just like all rich people do.==

So why didn't they suddenly start giving away a ton in charity? They give, post-2005, roughly as much as Cheney does (6%) to charity and about half, percentage-wise, as much as *. Speaking of tax benefits, why are Cheney and * unaware of this? Are you seriously going to argue * and Cheney do not care about paying less in taxes? Cheney gives about 1/5, percentage-wise, in charity as Edwards does while * gives about 1/3 as much as Edwards (again in percentage terms).

Just like I also read that HRC voted to extend the capital gains tax cut which you either can't read, can't process, or just choose to ignore.

The Obamas are scrooges. The Edwards are wonderful, maybe they're going to open their 28,000 sq ft home to need kids too.

Thanks in advance.

==Just like I also read that HRC voted to extend the capital gains tax cut which you either can't read, can't process, or just choose to ignore.==

Can't read? You apparently can't read this: #
# Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006) http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm#Tax_Reform

As a Kerry fan should know, senators vote differently on the same issue based on the particular context of the vote, the provisions of the bill, etc. When it comes to raising the capital gains tax, HRC voted against it before she voted for it.

So you believe HRC is going to raise the capital gains tax too because her last vote on it was to increase it?

==The Obamas are scrooges. The Edwards are wonderful, maybe they're going to open their 28,000 sq ft home to need kids too.==

You claimed Edwards was a hypocrite...I merely put inconvenient truths on the table in response. Perhaps you should do your homework before attacking another candidate? Edwards lives in an expensive home, as do Obama and Kerry...

I hope you're getting paid really well. There's no other logic to what you do.

You never even mentioned the 2006 vote in this thread... So you have yet to find where Obama has called for a capital gains tax hike in his presidential platform? Maybe that is because it isn't there (although he may come out for a capital gains hike in the future, especially now that Edwards has done so)?

sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul-27-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. She voted to extend the tax cuts

So so much for whatever promises she is making. Same old calculating, triangulation. Afraid to do anything that somebody might attack her over.

This is misleading, as my last post showed. Her last vote on the issue was to raise the capital gains tax.

sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul-27-07 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. He already voted on it

It can't be much more clear than a vote.

Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)

As opposed to Hillary, btw.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm#T...

Are you kidding me? You're seriously going to try to pass off tax deductions as benevolence?? lol.

Once again you were misleading DUers by not pointing out that HRC voted to raise the capital gains tax in her most recent vote on the issue.

sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-28-07 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. I can read

Just like I also read that HRC voted to extend the capital gains tax cut which you either can't read, can't process, or just choose to ignore.

The Obamas are scrooges. The Edwards are wonderful, maybe they're going to open their 28,000 sq ft home to need kids too.

The deception continues.

==I hope you're getting paid really well. There's no other logic to what you do. ==

I am putting real facts on the table. You are misleading DUers by trying to claim that Obama supports raising the capital gains tax in his presidential platform and that HRC absolutely opposes a capital gains hike.

She voted to fund the $47 billion with the tax hike. But when she had a chance to vote on the tax cut on principle, she voted to extend it. Two different things. As has been pointed out ad nauseum.

As has Obama's consistent opposition to the capital gains tax cut, as well as his stated promise to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Whether it's 20% or 28% or 40%, like it was under FDR & Carter, isn't relevant, because any President has to work with Congress on them anyway. He'll create a fair tax system and he'll help the poor, because that's what he's been doing his entire life.

And once again in your last sentence, you make up any damned thing. The record on the both of them is clear and posted. The only way anybody could be confused is if they choose to be, the way you choose to be, for whatever agenda of yours that it serves.

==She voted to fund the $47 billion with the tax hike. But when she had a chance to vote on the tax cut on principle, she voted to extend it. Two different things. As has been pointed out ad nauseum.==

Where exactly was this pointed out? You never even mentioned that vote! :rofl: Politicians change positions. She was against it in 2005, for it in 2006. What is her position in 2007 as a presidential candidate, not a senator? Do you know? Apparently she, like Obama, has not said anything, which suggests they will keep the current rate.

==As has Obama's consistent opposition to the capital gains tax cut==

You continue to try to mislead DUers. Where exactly has Obama called for a capital gains tax increase in his presidential platform? Why can't you produce it?

==Whether it's 20% or 28% or 40%, like it was under FDR & Carter, isn't relevant==

Yeah, details about issues don't matter. You must be taking Axlerod's stated strategy of focusing on personality and biography, not issues, to heart...

==as well as his stated promise to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy==

First, that is not true. Obama, like HRC, seeks to simply not renew Bush's income tax cut in 2010 for those making over $250,000 a year. Edwards wants to outright repeal it for those making over $200,000 a year. The difference? Lost tax revenue in the intervening period. Second, Obama has stated this position on income taxes. That is part of his platform. The capital gains tax apparently is not.

==He'll create a fair tax system and he'll help the poor==

What is his tax plan? What is his anti-poverty plan?

==The record on the both of them is clear and posted.==

Once again you are trying to mislead DUers...you have not shown anything in their presidential platforms on this issue. In fact, no one has in this thread about the big 3's positions on this. What does that tell you? That suggests Clobama have not taken a position on this yet, or favor the current tax rate of 15%.

Since Hillary's tax cut votes were way way way back in this thread. If you don't read what's posted, there's no point in talking to you. You aren't doing anything for the Edwards campaign and certainly nothing for the country or the world. I'm going to be dead before global warming and stark poverty kicks in. Are you? Because all your shit is doing is guaranteeing that nothing changes at all. I frankly don't know how you can stand to look at yourself in the mirror.

You never mentioned her vote to raise the capital gains tax, made it seem as if there was only one vote on it and she voted to keep the * capital gains tax cut, and are now relying on the fact that you at least included the link to defend yourself against the fact you were misrepresenting HRC's position. :rofl:

Mostly from capital gains.

Don't you think we need something at least AS strong as anything we've had in the last 30 years to help level make our society and economy healthy again?

Clark does not call for increasing the capital gains tax.

I totally support Edwards on this. If only he'd take a stance against our open borders/illegal immigration for the rich, I could support him 100%. HRC's Wall St. constituency in NY is one of the wealthiest in the nation. She knows where her bread is buttered and it isn't from the economic class that makes up most of America.

This needs to be done, and I'm hoping that all candidates agree.

Good for Edwards for keeping it front and center.

He is out there fighting, and I am liking him more and more.

So much for arguing against the Dems 'destroying' the anointed policies of St. Ronnie, aye?

But Edwards plan is based on a lot of analysis in the name of fairness. It has nothing with creating a wealth culture, but a "honor the work" culture that does need to be implemented.

And have a great weekend. :)

'Tis a STRONG message. :applause:

I guess I really don't think a society where we don't have any choice except one school, college, doctor, home, would be any good. Personal wealth creates opportunities for future generations and we should encourage it.

But all capital gains should be treated as earned income, just like wages, just like interest...

They indexed the brackets for inflation so as not to punish people holding assets for long periods of time...

So that argument doesn't play all that well...

The bottom line is this: Why should someones income be worth more to the government, by charging a lesser rate, than my income...

If they did that, they could repeal the Estate Tax as well and make it really simple for everyone concerned...

There are wealthy, and then there are wealthy. I had a friend who was a manager of an insurance company during the Clinton years who completely refused to vote for Bill Clinton or a Democrat again because the one year he cashed in all his stock options, well, that was the year the law changed and he got hit with a big tax penalty. I don't remember the details, but I do remember that's when we started losing ground to the Republican No More Taxes crowd.

What I'm saying is, there needs to be a formula so that people, who live incredibly frugal lives and who may only have one nest egg to count on for retirement, shouldn't be penalized for that once in a lifetime cash in.

are cashing out of capital investments in a year they income over $250K, and if they are, then they can stand to have it taxed at 28% without feeling much hurt?

As for the Clinton example, I don't understand it. I think it was in '98 in a bill signed by Bill Clinton (or passed over his veto) that the capital gains tax dropped down to 15%. Either way, how can you be pissed off at Bill that it was 28% in '98 and 15% in '99?

But if Clinton dropped it by that much, it should have been a great retort. Too bad they didn't use it.

are cashing out of capital investments in a year they income over $250K, and if they are, then they can stand to have it taxed at 28% without feeling much hurt?

As for the Clinton example, I don't understand it. I think it was in '98 in a bill signed by Bill Clinton (or passed over his veto) that the capital gains tax dropped down to 15%. Either way, how can you be pissed off at Bill that it was 28% in '98 and 15% in '99?

much sense.

:rofl:

I suppose we'll hear reports of hell freezing any day now.... :hi:

;) :hi:

that he needed to apologize for not giving poverty a priority in his campaign!

"Dang", I said, "if he's going to pressure other candidates to remember the likes of me and to fight for me, then HELL YEAH I'm gonna be loyal!" :)

I still think of that time with fondness. He stood up for ME. Who else has done that?

NOBODY.

NONE.