Welfare for Millionaires
John Edwards has made millions as a trial lawyer and has a 28,000 sq.ft. McMansion, but today he announced he must suck off the taxpayer’s teats in order to continue his campaign for POTUS.
How does this man have any credibility?
Why should we have to finance a multi-millionaire in his quest for POTUS?
10 Comments »
Leave a comment
About
“QC Examiner Hates Hare”—Quincy City Desk Blog
“Backward thinking, deluded right wing fool…”—The Oracle
email: qcexaminer-at-msn-dot-com
Public financing of campaigns does not come from tax dollars.
Comment by schqc | September 28, 2007
The only way your money goes to public funding is if you check the box on your tax return specifically saying you’d like $3 of your tax dollars to go to public funding of presidential campaigns. So unless you volunteered the money, then you aren’t funding John Edwards…Or John McCain for that matter. McCain had been receiving public funding for months. Funny how that millionaire receiving “welfare” slipped past your keen eye.
Comment by Perestroika | September 28, 2007
Well gee schqc, I guess socialists like you have a different concept of what “tax dollars” are than our government does.
Here’s a link to the FEC site that describes what the $3 checkoff is—read it and weep—or spin, your choice.
If you need to lie to yourself in order to feel good about supporting Edwards, it’s OK with me.
Comment by qcexaminer | September 28, 2007
Edwards is dead meat. He is going nowhere. The race is now Clinton-Obama and I am not sure that Obama can keep pace with the Clinton machine unless he gets public support from the Edwards and other trailing candidates of the party.
Comment by thescoundrel | September 28, 2007
Edwards is now spinning this as a principled decision. heh!heh! He says all Democrats, especially Hillary are FOR taxpayer funded POTUS races and he is just gettin’ real.
Uh huh. Is there any doubt that if it was Edwards with the 60+ million raised this quarter, rather than Hillary and Obama, he would be singing another tune?
It’s also interesting, to say nothing of entertaining, to see the left-wing nutroots go nuts on him.
What a hoot!
Comment by qcexaminer | September 28, 2007
I read it.
Don’t see anything there that says any different.
It is neither a tax nor is it mandatory.
Comment by schqc | September 29, 2007
OK schqc, if you want to deny reality and believe your millionaire candidate isn’t sucking off the taxpayers, I won’t get in the way of your fantasy.
Comment by qcexaminer | September 29, 2007
You ask, “Why should we have to finance a multi-millionaire in his quest for POTUS?”
A question which almost answers itself… because if you don’t, the only choice us rubes will ever have for potential leaders are the very millionaires (and lets face it, millionaires just don’t cut it anymore in Bushworld. Let’s say billionaires.) you apparently abhor. (very odd for a conservatioid, I must say.)
You apparently think that someone worth a few tens of millions should be able to finance a modern presidential campaign on his own dime if the donations aren’t cutting it? Think again. As I say, unless you’ve got a few hundred million in walking around money sitting somewhere, (Forbes, Bloomberg, etc.) you’re not going to cut it.
Unlike all of the Republican candidates and most of the Dems, Edwards isn’t accepting money from PACs.
So if you prefer your candidates bought and paid for by corporate lobbys, then stick with the self-financed candidates.
Public financing of campaigns is there for a very sound reason, and that’s to enable non-billionairs to mount a campaign.
And until the country moves to an entirely public financed campaign funding arrangement, this country will continue to slide into a form of government our grandparents wouldn’t recognize.
Comment by TID | October 1, 2007
OK TID, what exactly do you mean by “an entirely public financed campaign”? Are you really saying that no candidate running for POTUS could accept any money except TAX money?
Are you really promoting a campaign where Democrats couldn’t get money off the internet (even Ron Paul got one million in a week), NARAL, MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO (200 mil pledged to Dem candidates for ‘08), trial lawyers, etc.? I know Democrats love to talk the talk, but do you really believe they would give up all that moolah? What the hell, Phil Hare wouldn’t even exist except for Big Labor PACs.
Also, I’m curious—since both you and schqc are such big fans of taxpayer financed POTUS campaigns, I assume you both check off the $3 every time you pay your taxes—-you do pay taxes, don’t you?
Comment by qcexaminer | October 1, 2007
Politics has always been a game for the wealthy. Even if a candidate has roots to the common folk they have to be willing to bend their knees to the people with money to secure their position of power. This government of this country has always been about the money/power connections.
Comment by thescoundrel | October 2, 2007