Dems grapple with ‘rich’
I thought they defined “rich” as anyone making a penny more than they themselves do?
Bottom line: vote for a Dem, vote for a tax increase.
From The Hill:
Leading Democrats in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail are having a difficult time agreeing on what it means to be wealthy.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said it means earning $500,000 or more annually. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) contends that raising the tax rate on families making more than $400,000 could offset legislation to slash taxes on the middle class.
Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) support scrapping tax cuts on those earning $250,000 or more, while former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) has advocated raising taxes on families making more than $200,000.
Other Democrats decline to define “wealthy” in numerical terms even though they have decried President Bush’s tax cuts as giveaways to the rich. [DMC: Translation — we don’t know who is “rich”, but clearly Bush targeted those unknown people…]
The White House hopefuls are quick to emphasize that the tax hikes are necessary medicine to remedy what they see as unjust tax policy and to pay for policies that will help the poor and the middle class. [DMC: I’m in the middle class. Dem’s: please do not “help” me!!!]
The price tag for such sweeping goals is high. Edwards’s reforms on poverty could cost as much as $140 billion annually, and the ex-senator has acknowledged that balanced budgets would not be his first goal.
Have these presidential candidates ever had to balance a checkbook and live within their means?