Edwards hits Romney who hits back

“Every time another radical Republican running for president speaks, the American people are reminded of how out of touch with economic reality they are," Edwards said in a statement, labeling Mitt Romney as "Example A."

He's got a point. Edwards is racheting things up.

I think most Americans understand that Republicans know nothing about the economy. They were the ones saying President Clinton's economic plan would lead to a depression. Anything a Republican says about an economic plan should be ignored.

Who cares what Willard says about anything? He'll be changing his mind on it tomorrow.

Good ole, flippity floppity Willard. Almost as bad as pander bear McCain.

Romney's comments do show a significant out-of-touch perspective. In order to get a tax break that delivers enough to bring a "new house or a new car" you need to be making more than the typical poor person makes. What is he proposing that is going to help someone earning $20,000 a year make a dramatic life change like he is talking about? He should read the book Nickel and Dimed http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/books.htm to understand what a stretch it is for a single person, with no kids, to live decently on $20,000 a year (that's a 40 hour week at $10/hour folks, much more than the national minimum wage). I undertand that the house, car and bike comparisons were just analogies, but a lot of kids would love to get a "new bike" and won't be, because their parents can barely keep them fed.

As usual with the "Swamp", when people from the two parties are pitted against each other, the Democrat is given the first word, the last word, and the most words.

Romney's worth 250 million or more.

I think he just wants to keep his tax cuts of 15-20 million a year and give the uninformed middle class their 400$ bush checks and call it even

Some new libs that need to take a class in Econ 101.

Raising taxes on investors, which amounts to double taxation, will not help grow the economy or tax revenue for that matter.

Paul,

If the personal computer/internet had not taken off in the 90's, the economy never would have taken off. Also, if anyone in gov't deserves credit for the 90's economy, its Speaker Gingrich.

KB now jumps in looking for a minimum wage of $10/hr. If someone is not worth $10/hr, then they should not be paid $10/hr. The corporation's responsibility is not to make sure they "live decently". The corporations job is maximize shareholder profits. If the person earning less than $10/hr doesn't like it, he/she should go get more skills and make themselves more valuable to the employer or seek new employment.

Now will come posts that called be a heartless jerk.

But as always, the biggest whine goes to RNC Bruce.

If the argument here is who is paying how much in taxes, I'd sure like to see ALL the candidates answer these two simple question: Do you now figure your taxes at the old rate and the new rate and pay the higher of the two? If not, why not?

Terry wrote: "KB now jumps in looking for a minimum wage of $10/hr. If someone is not worth $10/hr, then they should not be paid $10/hr. "

Terry, I give up on being a libertarian economist. You're going to have to wave the flag on your own. I'm going to take the easier road. Rich=bad. Poor=good.

Good luck.

Willard really sounds like he is eager to wield military power and increase the torture quotient.

I don't think he can be trusted with too much power.

" Rich=bad. Poor=good."

That's a generalization of course, but the exceptios proves the rule.

Some Libs need to take a class called Econ 101

Posted by Terry July 27, 2007 7:13 PM

Wingnut Terry,
I'm guessing your Econ class would say that we need to keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich people (you) and everyone else can go F*** themselves?

Terry,
Just to make sure I've got this straight:

We can't raise taxes on the wealthy, because they need to have more money to invest. We can't raise the minimum wage, because the job of the corporations is to make more money for the people who invested in them. So the economy in this case consists of money out of the pockets of the rich back into the pockets of the rich, and all the little people who do the actual work should feel lucky to be blessed with whatever they get.

Funny how your argument seems to ask for the benefits both coming and going. Gotta admire that "if you're poor it's your own fault" attitude.

The republicans could never cut taxes just for the poor. They believe in trickle down so they get to get a piece of the pie. Just like they wouldn't pass the minimum wage without sticking their noses into the death tax. They always have to have something for themselves.

JOhn E.

As far as your sexual activity, I thought we discussed this with Mitt Romney solving your carpel tunnel problems by limiting internet porn.

Your econ lesson for today (and I typed slow since I know you read slow) "More money in the hands of the American people and less in the hands of gov't makes for a stronger economy" Have mom write that on your lunchbox.

As usual with the "Swamp", when people from the two parties are pitted against each other, the Democrat is given the first word, the last word, and the most words.

Posted by: Bruce

Bruce,

If you don't like it, turn on talk radio - where the Republicans are given ALL of the words.

I like how Terry just twists what I say and avoids the issue. I'm not calling for a raise in the minimum wage, buddy, I'm pointing out the FACT of how hard it is to live on even a wage that is sevral dollars over the national minimum, yet Romney basically belittles helping those people, because its not like they can buy a "new house or car" with what Edwards is proposing. So I ask again, what is Romney's plan to put this big money in their pockets? Oh, let me guess, some form of trickle down? Nevermind that its guaranteed that the money Edwards is proposing to put in the hands of people who need it is going to be put right back into the economy, you know on boring stuff like food and clothes, its only the rich that can save everyone. And I fully agree Terry that the way to move ahead is work hard and acquire new skills. I worked my way through college, paying my own tuition, so I need no lectures from you. It's the American way, no? Just lay out how you, as a single parent, would pay for a safe apartment, day care, and say trade school classes, as well as transportation, food, health care on the minimum wage -- your acceptable minimum wage? I'm sure you;d reject any further tax breaks on the grounds of your principles. Come on, show us dumb liberals how they doit downtown, big boy.

BUd,

Nate Clay gets 12:00 - 4:00 a.m. on Monday's.

The reason is no one likes listening to liberal talk radio - its like nails on a chalk board

Terry is just a lapdog for the rich.A wannabe guy who works for a living,but thinks the Big bad govt.is going to take what few dollars he has.

Terry,you'd much better off today if not for those tax increases by Regan and Bush 1.

Crazy Duck,

Under the Bush tax cuts, our family probably has picked up $2000 - $3000 more per year, especially with the capital gains and dividend tax reduction.

Under the Reagan tax cuts I probably didn't benefit as much directly, since I was just starting out. However, I did benefit from the strong economy that those tax cuts generated.

Duck, you probably benefited from teh Reagan tax cuts as well since the tax cuts expanded the EITC program. I know someone of your intellgence and work habits benefits extremely from that.

Wingnut Terry,
I like how the Republicans run on the platform of: "Big Government Is Bad For Us"...and then they get elected and prove it.

RNC Bruce = yawn Zzz.

Get over it Bruce. Look on the bright side, you could still switch parties!!!

JOhn E,

I can't disagree with you on that.

It's the reason they are out of office now. You libs might want to take notes - the American puiblic does not want a gov't solution to each and every problem it has.

Terr, no matter how slow you may type or how simple you may try to keep the dialogue, the problem is John E and most of his brethren cannot read nor understand.

Once again, ALL tax brackets lowered under Bush. Those who were in the lowest tax bracket NO LONGER PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!
Under Bush, child tax credit DOUBLED, directly helping WORKING FAMILIES.
Under Bush, marriage penalty REMOVED, directly helping WORKING FAMIMILIES.

Once again, ALL tax brackets lowered under Bush. Those who were in the lowest tax bracket NO LONGER PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!
Under Bush, child tax credit DOUBLED, directly helping WORKING FAMILIES.
Under Bush, marriage penalty REMOVED, directly helping WORKING FAMIMILIES.

John D
--------