John Edwards Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party.

First of all I would like to ask you a question, how many countries have you lived in? I know that you have mentioned the US and Canada, but you make it sound like you have lived in more than that. I am just curious. To answer your question, I am a huge supporter of Dr. Ron Paul, congressman from Texas. Both me and him are both libertarians. So we do share vary similiar political view points. I know that Dr. Ron Paul doesn't have a snow balls chance in you know where, but I don't mind supporting a lost cause. Maybe that is why I write so many discussions about the defense of our liberties. I don't know of anybody that isn't running that I would like to see running. I know that Fred Thompson is going to run. Eventually Michael Bloomburg, mayor of New York City will run as independent. This could turn into an interesting position if for instance Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Primary nomination, Rudy G. wins the Republican nomination Bloomberg runs as an independent this would put three socially liberal politicians from the state of New York into the race opening the way for a forth canidate whose socially conservative in from any other state to run and have a good shot at winning. Since 40% of America considers themselves to be socially conservative.

What does this answer mean? "First of all I would like to ask you a question, how many countries have you lived in? I know that you have mentioned the US and Canada, but you make it sound like you have lived in more than that. I am just curious. " Are you upset with my answer? This is the first time I have this kind of reaction on mylot. And please let us just stop here. Good luck. Bye.

You attacks on tax cuts on the wealthy 2% are unfounded in truth. You say the wealthiest 2% don't pay any taxes well if they don't pay any taxes than why are you worried? Because if they don't pay any taxes, a tax cut or a tax increase will no affect them. The wealthiest 1% of America is actually it is termed as, pays more taxes into federal revenue than their percentage of income. They comprise 18% of all US income but pay 34% of all taxes. Of course you probably think that this is fair mathematics. Obviously, you would like to see that raised to pay for more social programs. I would like to share with you some facts that support that tax cuts not only grow the economy, but they also generate more tax revenue. The story of supply sided economics: A good account of this is the 1980's, history will show that it worked in 2000 also, as we have already seen that during the Bush administration tax revenue has hit record highs. But I have all the numbers in front of me from the 1980's which resulted from Reaganomics. First of all, lets look at charitable donations under Reaganomics vs the previous decade. Charitable donations rose from 64.7 billion dollars in 1980 to 102 billion dollars in 1989. That was an increase of 57.7%. In the '70's, charitable donations made up 2.1% of income. Under the '80's, it rose to a record 2.7% of income. Let's look at how the poorest one-fifth did under Carter's administartion vs under Reagan's administration. Let me remind you that Carter taxed the top 1%, 70% of their income. My grandfather was taxed 66% of his income, but I am sure you think that that is fair. The poorest one-fifth, their income under Carter's administration dropped by 17%. Under the Reagan administration the poorest one-fifth, their income rose 12%. So I ask you the poorest 20%, who did more for them, Carter or Reagan? Let me remind you Reagan cut taxes on the top 1%. The richest 20% their incomes also rose 12% under Reagan, so as you can see tax cuts to the top 1% has a trickle down effect, and everyone bettered their lives due these tax cuts. Now on to tax revenue: A famous Congressman named Jack Kemp, this is the Jack Kemp who ran for vice president on the Dole/Kemp ticket. He was a supply sider; he helped push tax cuts through Congress. One of his famous arguments for tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% that it would actually increase tax revenue from the wealthy compared to the poor by liberating income from shelters and encouraging saving and investments. The reductions would shift the tax burden upward towards the high end earners, even though the taxes on these people would be cut. Let me explain: take a man who makes a million dollars or more, he actually paid 41% more in taxes in 1982 under the tax rate cuts than he did in 1981. The reason is because he had more money, he was actually able to use that extra money to invest it and make more money, which was therefore taxed. And also someone making $25,000 or less, paid 12% less taxes in 1982 than in 1981. So lets sum that up, under tax cuts the government actually gets more tax revenue than before the tax cuts because of its ability to grow the economy. The same thing is happening under the Bush administration, they are actually collecting more tax revenue than before the tax cuts. It is impossible to be taxed into prosperity. Also you talked about the deficit, the deficit is not caused by tax cuts because I have already proven that more tax revenue is coming in. It is due to spending. Deficits are always due to spending. If you have a $100 and you spend $200 you are left with a $100 deficit. The way to fix the deficit is to cut spending. If we cut out all unnecessary spending, we would not only end budget deficits, but we would be surplusing. Even with the Iraq War spending we have more money to cover that, and still be surplusing. It is time for Congress to get a back bone and start saying no more unnecessary spending. You bring up the Iraq war. I guess that you assume that I am somehow a supporter of the Iraq war the answer is no. I don't believe in intervention wars. I don't believe in nation building, but I find it odd that you support a candidate who has flip flopped on the Iraq War. If you are against the war, why don't you support a candidate that has been against the war from the very get go? On the topic of who is a hypocrite and who isn't, just because John Edwards grew up poor doesn't mean that he has the best interest of poor people in his heart. I do find it funny for a guy who makes his end all to be all based on helping poor Americans who spends all this money on himself, but doesn't give any money to charity. If he cares so much about the poor why not instead of building a 25,000 ft home settle for a 2500 sq ft home like most Americans, and give what he saved to the poor. That seems like that would do more good for the poor than him running for president. How do you know that the $50,000 actually went to his campaign? If he is so trying to raise money for his campaign then why did he take the $400 for his hair cut out of his campaign funds? And if he is trying to raise money by doing speaking engagements at colleges, well why didn't he put $400,000 in his campaign? He didn't, he used it to start building his house. The difference between wealthy right wingers and wealthy left wingers, we don't sit around and say we are going to help the poor by creating a new domestic policy. We actually go out there and give money to charities. So that is the reason why we are not hypocrites. I am sure as the day is long I have given more money to charity in one year than you have in your whole life. So if you care about the poor so much, why don't you quit jumping down my throat, when I called your boy out, and get out and do something. Guess what it is not the governments job to be your care taker. It is not the government's job to make sure you have food to eat, a house to sleep in, and a car to drive. That is your responsibility.