(POL) - Can an anti-poverty candidate win?

[QuikSand]

I tagged this as "political" but I'm hoping that it doesn't degenerate into the usual hyper-partisan mud-slinging horseshit that most POL threads here do. We'll see...


So, obviously my thoughts here are spurred by John Edwards making his announcement of a presidential run, as he has made an anti-poverty plank a pretty central part of his campaign, at least so far.

I have to wonder whether this sort of approach has any shot to resonate with voters.

Personally, I'm not exactly sold on John Edwards, but I do think that he is pretty charismatic, and probably presents a fairly attracive candidate for the Democratic party in many ways. Independent of my thoughts on the matter, I think his "two Americas" pitch getting at economic populism is about as effective as anyone's in the party... and I think that this kind of message has a real shot to work for the party nomination, if not in a general election.

I also happen to think that Edwards' decision to incorporate an element of "the government can't do it all, the people have to do it" is a strong idea. I don't know how he will marry that message with the other things he is talking about, but I think he has a good core idea there for a coming campaign.


With that background -- he is prominently talking about setting a goal to reduce US poverty by a third in 10 years, and to seek to essentially do away with poverty in this country in 30 years. I don't know if he is talking much about specifics, and what sort of programs he proposes to accomplish these goals, but my central question is basically this: is that goal really going to ring true with enough voters?

Traditionally, at least recently, the traditional Democrat approach has been to pit the "middle class" against the "fat cats" in some fahsion or another -- sensingf that quite a lot of people consider themselves part of that middle class. Usually, it's at its peak effectiveness when they talk about "working families" and the like... people who "work hard and play by the rules" to recall a phrase turned a few times by our last Democratic president. That's who we have the most support for, overall.

Poverty is another issue, it seems. It gets into a far more complex set of circumstances with oportunity, effort, race and culture. And it seems to me there are plenty of people who just don't really connect with a family from a place totally unlike theirs, who face life challenges totally unlike theirs. Most everyone has a family member who seems to work hard but can't get ahead. Not everyone has a family member who actually has hungry children.


So... is there a potential political vein to be tapped here? Whether Edwards has it right isn't the core question, but if this takes the shape of how he ought to pursue his campaign to maximize its effectiveness migth make sense, as a practical example.

[cartman]

I don't think any single plank or position can win an election for a candidate, but it sure can lose an election for a candidate. That being said, this appears to be a good position to build a platform around. The key will be getting his message of "the government can't do it all, the people have to do it" out early and often, otherwise he will be painted as wanting to massively expand the welfare state.

[ISiddiqui]

My belief is that in a 'rugged invidualism' base as is in many parts of the US, an anti-poverty campaign won't resonate. There are too many people who think that poverty is in someway the fault of the poor and therefore why should they be the ones to help? I don't think many voters are really going to go for the poverty pitch, instead wondering well, what will you do for us?

[CraigSca]

I think it's a great idea - who can possibly support poverty. I also like the marriage with the idea that the government can't do it alone. While it sounds like a great position, it also "sounds" like the same old, same old - tax the rich and give to the poor.

Unless he brings something specific to the table, I'm leery it can be done.

[Ksyrup]

Not to get too political here, but isn't the "less government, more individual" idea to combat poverty essentially the long-standing Republican position? Maybe there would be a difference of opinion as to how much governmental "interference" should be allowed, but Republicans have been stressing community/religion-based giving for years as an alternative to government programs. And how he will effectively marry "less government" and "universal healthcare" will be a challenge, I suspect.

That said, I think Clinton proved that a charismatic Democrat could effectively run on a pseudo-Democrat platform that borrowed from Republican ideals to sway swing votes.

I'm not sure whether this one plank would be enough for Edwards, and I'll be interested to see whether this message really devolves into the standard "class warfare" position the Democrats usually take when it comes time to hit the campaign trail, but I don't see why it wouldn't help him gather some cross-over support.

[PSUColonel]

No. As long as people understand the absolute facts of history. There have always been poor people, and that there will always continue to be poor people. It's just the way it is. The democrats have long been using this part of their playbook in order to get the mass amount of "have nots" to vote for them. It is a completely unrealistic platform, and the sooner voters realize this, the better.

[Ksyrup]

I think it's a great idea - who can possibly support poverty.


I'm ANTI-POVERTY! Take THAT!

I still think one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time is Charlie Crist's Anti-Murder legislation in Florida. He's still pushing it. Of course, this time, it will be from the Governor's mansion, so what do I know. But the idea that we need "anti-murder" laws strikes me as hilarious. Just think of how many more people are going to be killed until Florida passes his anti-murder legislation!

[PSUColonel]

Not to get too political here, but isn't the "less government, more individual" idea to combat poverty essentially the long-standing Republican position? Maybe there would be a difference of opinion as to how much governmental "interference" should be allowed, but Republicans have been stressing community/religion-based giving for years as an alternative to government programs. And how he will effectively marry "less government" and "universal healthcare" will be a challenge, I suspect.

That said, I think Clinton proved that a charismatic Democrat could effectively run on a pseudo-Democrat platform that borrowed from Republican ideals to sway swing votes.

I'm not sure whether this one plank would be enough for Edwards, and I'll be interested to see whether this message really devolves into the standard "class warfare" position the Democrats usually take when it comes time to hit the campaign trail, but I don't see why it wouldn't help him gather some cross-over support.



It is not the responsibility of the federal government to bail people out of peoverty. As far as I can see, it already goes far beyond what a reasonable person should expect, in terms of assistance and programs. This is why we live in a free market, and a capitaslistic society. Anyone can change their situation in life (that's not to say all do) but as I said in my previous post, there will ALWAYS be the haves, and the have nots.

[ISiddiqui]

It is not the responsibility of the federal government to bail people out of peoverty. As far as I can see, it already goes far beyond what a reasonable person should expect, in terms of assistance and programs. This is why we live in a free market, and a capitaslistic society. Anyone can change their situation in life (that's not to say all do) but as I said in my previous post, there will ALWAYS be the haves, and the have nots.

As stated in my post, this is the view a lot of people have out there... so I'm not sure an anti-poverty message will succeed.

[cartman]

No. As long as people understand the absolute facts of history. There have always been poor people, and that there will always continue to be poor people. It's just the way it is. The democrats have long been using this part of their playbook in order to get the mass amount of "have nots" to vote for them. It is a completely unrealistic platform, and the sooner voters realize this, the better.

I'm not sure if I'm getting what you are saying. Are you saying that no one, either government entity or private party, should do anything to reduce the number of poor because they've always been around and always will be?

To me, a program (public or private) that enables people to be more productive members of society is a good thing, as long as the production generated is more than the cost to run.

[PSUColonel]

No, what I am saying is: 1) poverty will always exist, 2) it is better to fight it from within the private sector, as doing so is not really the responsibility of the federal government, although it does provide SOME assistance which is OK, but the bulk of the help is better to come from the private sector. 3) The best way to prevent poverty is education, not through saying you are going to fight poverty that already exists. 4)Democrats have long used this platform as a "trick" in my mind to get people to vote for them. As I said earlier, there will always be poor people, no matter what you do, and that it really isn't the federal government's problem to solve.(or at least it shouldn't be) unless we are talking about preventative measures such as education.

[cartman]

No, what I am saying is: 1) poverty will always exist, 2) it is better to fight it from within the private sector, as doing so is not really the responsibility of the federal government, although it does provide SOME assistance which is OK, but the bulk of the help is better to come from the private sector. 3) The best way to prevent poverty is education, not through saying you are going to fight poverty that already exists. 4)Democrats have long used this platform as a "trick" in my mind to get people to vote for them. As I said earlier, there will always be poor people, no matter what you do, and that it really isn't the federal government's problem to solve.(or at least it shouldn't be)

Then it sounds like you don't disagree with his message of "the government can't do it all, the people have to do it". Like I said, he'll have to get this key part of his message out, otherwise people will make the assumptions you made that it is a typical Democratic initiative to expand the welfare state.

[CraigSca]

Theoretically, however - does poverty HAVE TO exist? Suppose everyone gets a fair education, and everyone strives to receive one. Is there such a thing as a free-market society without the poor?

[QuikSand]

Well, since Edwards is in the center of this so far... here is his announcement speech transcript:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122800457_pf.html

John Edwards Announces Bid for 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination
New Orleans

Courtesy CQ Transcripts Wire
Thursday, December 28, 2006; 10:21 AM

EDWARDS: Good morning. I'm here in New Orleans to -- in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans to announce that I'm a candidate for the presidency of the United States in the election in 2008.

The reason I'm here -- actually, the best explanation of the reason I'm announcing here in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans are these young people who are behind me right here and who worked with me yesterday at this house just over to my right.

New Orleans, in so many ways, shows the two Americas that I have talked about in the past and something that I feel very personally. And it also exemplifies something that I've learned since the last election, which is that it's great to see a problem and to understand it. It's more important to actually take action and do something about it.

And I think that's why I'm in New Orleans, is to show what's possible when we as Americans, instead of staying home and complaining about somebody else not doing what they're supposed to, we actually take responsibility and we take action.

And I don't mean we take action after the next election. I mean, we take action now.

And that's what these young people have been doing. They were with me at a food bank in New Orleans a couple days ago; here working yesterday.

Earlier this year, we were not in the Ninth Ward but in St. Bernard Parish with 700 young people who gave up their spring break to come here and work to help rebuild New Orleans.

This is an example of what all of us can do if we actually take it upon ourselves to take responsibility. And we want people in this campaign to actually take action now -- not later, not after the election. We don't want to hope that whoever's elected the next leader of the United States of America is going to solve all our problems for us. Because that will not happen, and all of us know it. Everyone listening to the sound of my voice right now knows that.

If we actually want to change this country and we want to move America the way it needs to move, we're going to have to do it, all of us, together. Instead of staying home and complaining, we're asking people to help.

You know -- all of us have so much to contribute and we have different things to contribute. And we want you to help not starting later, but starting right now.

And that's why we're here in New Orleans, because Americans can make a huge difference here.

You walk around in these neighborhoods and what you'll hear is most of the good that's been done in New Orleans has been done by faith-based groups, charitable groups and volunteers, people who cared enough to come here and spend some time and actually do some work, get their hands dirty. Well, that's what we need to do again. It's what America needs to do again.

And that's what's going to be the basis for my campaign. This campaign will be a grassroots, ground-up campaign, where we ask people to take action.

You know, some of these young people are wearing One Corps shirts, which is an organization that we started a few months ago, for the purpose of getting thousands of people involved around America in helping make a difference and actually doing something and taking action.

And what I've seen -- I learned a lot in the last campaign, which some of you heard me talk about -- but I've actually learned more since the last campaign, because I've seen firsthand what actually happens when, instead of waiting for somebody else to take care of our problems, we do something.

We were concerned about the Congress not having raised the minimum wage, so we went out to six states -- not just be, my by the way; there were a lot of people involved in this -- went out to six states and got it on the ballot and raised the minimum wage in six states in America, which is a good thing.

EDWARDS: We've made college available to young kids who are actually willing to work while they're in college for their tuition and books. We've organized thousands of workers around this country so that they can have a voice and have decent wages and decent benefits. It's helped strengthen America, strengthen the middle class and grow the middle class in this country, which is important for all of us.

So it's not like we don't know what needs to be done. And this is not rocket science. Everybody in America who's listening to me right now knows what we need to do. They know about the challenges we face and they know what needs to happen.

So we would ask everyone who's interested in changing America, who's interested in actually taking action to join us. You can join One Corps by going to johnedwards.com. These young people and thousands of others have joined this cause already. And we ask you to join us, too. Because, we can -- we can't wait for someone else to do this for us. There is just too much at stake.

And I want to actually talk for a minute about what's at stake. You know, my own view is that actually the biggest responsibility of the next president of the United States is to re-establish America's leadership role in the world, starting with Iraq.

And we need to make it clear that we intend to leave Iraq and turn over the responsibility of Iraq to the Iraqi people. The best way to make that clear is to actually start leaving, which is why I've said we ought to be taking 40,000 to 50,000 troops out now, and that ought to continue over time.

The problem in Iraq is not one that's susceptible to a military solution; it's going to require a political solution. Fighting between Shia and Sunnis have been going on for centuries, and a political solution is the only viable way there's going to be any success in Iraq over the long term.

EDWARDS: And it is a mistake -- I want to be absolutely clear about this -- it is a mistake for America to escalate its role in Iraq. It is a mistake to surge troops into Iraq. It sends exactly the wrong signal to the Iraqis and the rest of the world about what our intentions are there.

So it's not -- and by the way, it's not just Iraq that'll help establish America's leadership role in the world again. We have to show that we have the moral authority to lead. You can't lead through raw power.

And in order to do that, we're going to have to lead on things that, at least in the short term, seem like they're beyond our self- interests, things like the genocide in Sudan and Darfur. We said after Rwanda we'd never let anything like this happen again. Well, it's happening right now. America needs to lead.

I was in Uganda a few weeks ago where there are huge atrocities going on in northern Uganda. America can make an enormous difference there. I was there with the International Rescue Committee, who are another group of Americans that are making a huge difference in the world.

There's so many opportunities -- global warming, which is a huge moral issue for America and for the entire world.

We need to ask Americans to be willing to be patriotic about something beyond war. We need to ask America to be willing to conserve, to take the steps necessary to get off our addiction to oil, to create a new energy economy in this country.

It's critical to America being able to do what it needs to do in the 21st century. We ought to be the example for the rest of the world. It's not just what we do over there; it's also what we do here.

You know, we've got 46 million, 47 million people without health care coverage? When are we finally going to say, "America needs universal health care"? Because we do. We need it desperately.

I spoke earlier about this issue of poverty and the two Americas.

EDWARDS: I've been running the poverty center for the last couple of years at the University of North Carolina, which I'm very proud of. And we've developed a whole new set of ideas about what we ought to do about poverty.

But we should be the example for the rest of the world. We're not the only ones that saw these pictures that came out of New Orleans. The whole world saw. And we need to show that the most powerful nation on the Earth won't stand by and let this continue.

So whether it's poverty, energy, health care, demonstrating that we are once again the beacon for the rest of the world, which is what we need to be, not just for us, but also for them -- because when America doesn't lead, there is no stability. We are the stabilizing force in the world. We are the preeminent power in the world. And we need to maintain that power, we need to maintain our strength. That what allows us -- gives us the capacity to lead.

But we also have to show that we have a responsibility to humanity. And the world needs to see that from us. They need to see our better angels again. Because it will affect the way they respond to us and it will affect our ability to lead.

So we're asking everyone who's listening to join us in this cause. As I said earlier, you can join us by joining One Corps, but there's so much good to be done out there, and together we're going to do it. We are going to do it together.

And I'll be happy to take questions from anyone who has them.

Come on, there are a lot of people here. I can't believe you don't have a question.

Yes?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) are saying that having Hillary Clinton and Obama are the front runners. What are you going to do to dispel that notion? Do you think maybe the Earth will begin to shift a little bit today with this announcement and maybe you'll get more attention?

EDWARDS: I hope the Earth shifts, but I hope it shifts in a different way and in a different direction.

Speaking for myself, I hope that anyone who's considering running for president -- and I've been through this, as everybody knows -- is doing it because they want to serve. I've made my own personal decision and my family's made the decision that this is the best way for me to serve my country.

And if I really believe that, which I do, then I want the best human beings possible to run for president of the United States. We need a great president in 2009 because of all the problems and the challenges that we face.

So whether it's on our side or the other side, I hope good people run.

The change I want to see happen, though, has nothing to do with the candidates. It has to do with getting Americans involved and engaged in changing their own country.

Because, I'm telling you -- and everybody knows this. Everybody knows -- they don't need to hear it from me. They know it in their gut. If we wait for the next election and we stand by and hope that the next person that's elected president is going to solve all our problems for us, we are living in a fantasy world. It will never happen -- never happen. We have to take the action to change this country.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) New Orleans is to. You're kind of like one hand is rubbing the other here?

EDWARDS: Well, I hope so. For those of you who couldn't hear, the question was, you know -- are you doing some good for New Orleans or is New Orleans doing good for you? That's basically what you're asking.

I hope we're doing some good for New Orleans, because if you walk -- as you know very well, as you walk around to these houses and through these neighborhoods -- we're in the Ninth Ward. Earlier this year I was in St. Bernard Parish doing work, along with a bunch of other people. What you hear is people, they feel like they're just forgotten, that no one's paying any attention.

And in the worst-hit areas of New Orleans, as everyone in New Orleans knows -- they certainly don't me to tell them -- you don't see much change.

And the change -- I will say, though, on a positive note, the change that has happened has been mostly done by volunteers and volunteer organizations.

So if we can help bring Americans to New Orleans to help rebuild this great city and get people to pay attention to what's actually going on here, I feel like we've done a good thing.

QUESTION: But you get something out of it, too, as well.

EDWARDS: Yes.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) patriotic about something other than war. What do you mean? And does that mean Americans should pay higher taxes to achieve benefits for global warming or universal health care?

EDWARDS: Well, I can give you some examples.

EDWARDS: We ought to be patriotic as Americans, not just as a government, although the government plays a critical role in helping to rebuild New Orleans.

We ought to be patriotic to do something about global warming. I don't mean in an abstract way. I mean, we've made mistakes in the past. We walked away from Kyoto unilaterally, which was, in my judgment, a serious mistake.

If you are under the age -- people often think about global warming as something that is going to affect the next generation. If you are under 60 and something doesn't change, global warming is very likely to affect your life.

And this is another example of a place where Americans can get off their addiction to oil, we can drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, we can invest in some of the cleaner alternative sources of energy -- wind, solar, biomass. There are a whole series of things that we need to do.

Because it's not just, by the way, a global warming or an energy security question, it's also a national security question, because it drives so much of our policy, particularly in the Middle East. And that has got to change.

QUESTION: Taxes? Taxes, Senator Edwards?

EDWARDS: Oh, I'm sorry. The answer to that question is, we do need, in my judgment, to get rid of some of the tax cuts that have been put in place, particularly for people at the top. I think that it may be necessary to put in place a tax on some of the windfall profits that oil companies are making in order to implement some of these changes that I've just talked about.

I think it's also really important that we be honest with people. We're in a -- we've gotten in a deep hole, in terms of our deficit. We have investments that need to be made. I've talked about some of them: Investments to strengthen the middle class; investments to end poverty; universal health care, which I'm completely committed to; some of these energy proposals that I've talked about briefly here today.

Those things cost money. So we're going to have to invest if we're going to transform America the way it needs to be transformed to make us successful in the 21st century, which is going to require rolling back some of these tax cuts, in my judgment, that have been put into place.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... it's still on its knees from Hurricane Katrina. And you've pointed out, properly, that much of the work that's gone on here has been, much of the lifting has been done by volunteer groups, faith-based groups, school groups.

EDWARDS: Yes.

QUESTION: Are you saying that there is a larger role for the federal government to play in the rebuilding of New Orleans that it's not now doing?

EDWARDS: Of course, there is. And my own view about this is, this was a place where presidential leadership would have been critical. I really do believe that. I think if the president of the United States had come to New Orleans, spent some time here -- I mean, the president has a lot of responsibilities. He can't stake himself out for the long term in New Orleans, but he should have spent a period of days here, saw what was actually happening on the ground, and then demanded action.

EDWARDS: Should have had somebody at a high level coming into his office every day -- if I'd been president, I would have had somebody coming into my office every morning, and I would say to him, "What did you do in New Orleans yesterday?"

And then the next day, "What did you do yesterday? What steps do we need to take? What are we not doing? What are the people in New Orleans telling us that we're not doing?"

And that's the -- unfortunately, that's the kind of thing that didn't happen. And as a result the federal government, while there's been money allocated -- and I'm telling you things everybody in New Orleans already knows, but of course the country needs to hear it -- all this money's been allocated and very little of it has gotten to the ground. You just don't -- you ride around and walk around out in these neighborhoods, you don't see much change.

So, yes, the answer is yes, there is a very significant role that the federal government needs to be paying, that it's not paying right now -- playing, playing, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Senator, your call to action seems, at this point, a little bit vague or non-specific. What specifically are you saying that you want people to do, when you talk about the responsibility the people have?

EDWARDS: We're going to have a whole series of things that we're going to ask people to do, very specific.

For example, in January, January 27th, we will have a national call to action day, where we ask people to do a very specific thing. Let me give you some examples of what I think we can do -- the best examples, by the way, in terms of what's possible are the things I've actually seen done in the past: raising the minimum wage, making college available to kids who are willing to work when they're in college, the humanitarian work I saw occur in Uganda, the work that has been done to organize workers all over this country. The government had, basically, nothing to do with any of that.

EDWARDS: That's action that was taken by me but with lots of other people.

An example of what we can do now is we can do the kind of work these young people were doing here in New Orleans yesterday. More people can come to New Orleans and volunteer and help rebuild this city that's struggling so very badly.

Another example of what we can do is Americans are going to have to take responsibility to deal with global warming and the energy insecurity that exists in this country today.

This is not something the government or the president of the United States can fix on their own. That's what I meant when I said a few minutes ago, we need to call on Americans to be patriotic about something other than war.

I have personally seen what happens in communities where community action networks are involved in lifting up families that are living in poverty.

Again, the government plays a minor role in a lot of the work that's being done by faith-based groups, charitable groups and community organizations to lift up families who are living in poverty.

There is a long list of things that we can begin to do today -- not when the election happens, today -- to bring about the change that needs to occur.

Almost every state in America, we have thousands and thousands of kids who don't have health care just because they haven't signed up for the children's health insurance program. So we're not asking for the government to do anything. We're not asking for a new law. It's there. It's been there for a long time. But these kids don't know about it and they can't take advantage of it. Those are some of the kinds of things that we want to ask people to do.

QUESTION: Senator, you've done a lot of international travel recently, but some of your critics say all that's done is highlight how little experience you have in international and especially military affairs.

And in this age of the war on terror and the war in Iraq, why would the American people select as the commander in chief somebody with a relatively modest amount of experience in those areas?

EDWARDS: It's a very fair question and it's a question that I would ask if I were deciding who I thought should be the next commander in chief and the president of the United States.

My answer to that question is that what I've done over the last couple of years -- I've been all over the world, met with leaders, met with the people all over the world. And it's been helpful to me. It's given me some depth and understanding that didn't exist before that time.

EDWARDS: But if you look at what's happened over the last six years, we've had one of the most experienced foreign policy teams in American history -- Rumsfeld, Cheney. They've been an absolute disaster by any measure. Rumsfeld just resigned under -- resigned or was asked to quit by the president of the United States.

I don't think anybody in America thinks those people have done a good job, and they were extraordinarily experienced.

Experience, number one, doesn't equal good judgment, and, number two, doesn't indicate that you have a vision, long-term vision for what America should be doing, and, secondly, that you can adapt to a rapidly changing world. Because we've seen no capacity to be mobile, to be able to move when the environment changes, when the world changes.

If I can take just a second and say what I think America should be doing, I think that it is so critical that we not only maintain our strength, but that we -- when crises occur, when Ahmadinejad wants a nuclear weapon, when Kim Jong Il is testing missiles and nuclear weapons, when China's economic and military power is growing every single day with very little being done about it by the United States of America, when Hezbollah and the Israelis are engaged in conflict, when the Israelis are attacked by Hezbollah, America needs to be able to engage and bring the rest of the world with us to deal with those crises.

What's happening, instead, is we encounter resistance. When we go to the Security Council on all of these issues, we encounter resistance. Instead of the world naturally coming to us, they resist us.

And when we are not leading, there is no leadership. The world is literally in chaos. And look at what's happening from Central Africa all across the Middle East, and through Afghanistan, Pakistan, up through North Korea. We live in an unstable, chaotic world today.

The only way that'll change is if America becomes the stabilizing force. We cannot be the stabilizing force (inaudible) rest of the world once again sees us as the great beacon (inaudible)

To do that, we're going to have to show (inaudible) on the big moral issues that face the world, and that's what I've been talking about.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

EDWARDS: My vote -- for those of you who can't hear, he asked if I wish I could take back my vote on the war. My vote was a mistake and I should never have voted for this war. I now know that. I came to that conclusion some time ago. I didn't do it for the first time here today.

I do think it's important to note, for anybody who voted for the war, that we didn't conduct the war. Bush, Cheney, those people -- Rumsfeld, they conducted the war. And they've been an absolute disaster in the conducting of the war.

But none of that changes or affects my responsibility. I'm responsible for what I did.

EDWARDS: And I believe that my vote was a mistake. I also feel a responsibility now to tell the truth about the circumstances we're in, which are very, very difficult.

I think America -- my own view is I think America can accept that we can't guarantee what the results are going to be in Iraq, no matter what path we take. And I think we should be honest with people about that.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

EDWARDS: Yes. The answer's yes. The question was, should we be a part of the International Criminal Court? The answer's yes.

America -- when America doesn't engage in these international institutions, when we show disrespect for international agreements, it makes it extraordinarily difficult when we need the world community to rally around us to get them there.

We should be the natural leader in all of these areas, and, certainly, we should be a member of the International Criminal Court.

You know, we didn't used to be the country of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. We were the great light for the rest of the world, and America needs to be that light again. And we can -- and we can be that light again. Thank you all very much.

[BrianD]

Then it sounds like you don't disagree with his message of "the government can't do it all, the people have to do it". Like I said, he'll have to get this key part of his message out, otherwise people will make the assumptions you made that it is a typical Democratic initiative to expand the welfare state.

That seems like a tough platform to run on. Being anti-poverty makes sense, but if his stance is that people have to fix poverty, not the government...what then is his position? "I'm going to stamp out poverty by making others stamp out poverty"?

As far as eliminating poverty in 30 years, I don't think that is possible unless you put everyone on a level playing field. Don't the rules of economics and inflation pretty much say that there will always be rich and poor unless everyone is exactly the same?

[QuikSand]

Theoretically, however - does poverty HAVE TO exist? Suppose everyone gets a fair education, and everyone strives to receive one. Is there such a thing as a free-market society without the poor?

This is an ongiong matter of debate in economic circles, often expressed as two competing theories... "wage competition" and "job competition." Some would suggest that if everyone gets better educated and trained, then everyone will command more in the workforce and everyone will be better off. Others would counter that in any society, we still need dishwahers and ditchdiggers, and those jobs will just go to whomever are the least-trained and least-educated among us, for low wages. I don't think it's a closed debate, really.

[cartman]

That seems like a tough platform to run on. Being anti-poverty makes sense, but if his stance is that people have to fix poverty, not the government...what then is his position? "I'm going to stamp out poverty by making others stamp out poverty"?

As far as eliminating poverty in 30 years, I don't think that is possible unless you put everyone on a level playing field. Don't the rules of economics and inflation pretty much say that there will always be rich and poor unless everyone is exactly the same?

The way I see it, the approaches used since the 1960s declared "War on Poverty" have obviously not worked. Instead of using massive government programs to approach the problem, take the approach of giving incentives to private parties to tackle the issue. The parallel I can think of is that the US government doesn't conduct R&D for companies, they offer tax breaks to companies to offset their R&D costs.

[BrianD]

This is an ongiong matter of debate in economic circles, often expressed as two competing theories... "wage competition" and "job competition." Some would suggest that if everyone gets better educated and trained, then everyone will command more in the workforce and everyone will be better off. Others would counter that in any society, we still need dishwahers and ditchdiggers, and those jobs will just go to whomever are the least-trained and least-educated among us, for low wages. I don't think it's a closed debate, really.

If everyone commands more in the workforce, and actually gets more, inflation will kick in since people have more money to throw at available goods. Does anything actually get better in that situation?

[CraigSca]

Sounds amazingly like George Bush's trashed "thousand points of light."

[BrianD]

The way I see it, the approaches used since the 1960s declared "War on Poverty" have obviously not worked. Instead of using massive government programs to approach the problem, take the approach of giving incentives to private parties to tackle the issue. The parallel I can think of is that the US government doesn't conduct R&D for companies, they offer tax breaks to companies to offset their R&D costs.

I agree that a private approach is better than a government approach. Private firms are much more able to monitor their programs and make sure that people are working for their aid and not just "working the system" as some do.

[PSUColonel]

Theoretically, however - does poverty HAVE TO exist? Suppose everyone gets a fair education, and everyone strives to receive one. Is there such a thing as a free-market society without the poor?


Theoretically=utopia=doesn't exist=will never exist

THe fact is we live in a competetive capitalistic society in which it is YOUR responsibility to take advantage of educational opprotunities, and to make sure YOU are the one getting the good job. I hope for YOUR sake that is what you do, however for those who don't they will likely end up with lower paying jobs and consequently have less money. There are exceptions to every rule, but this is generally how it works. Although I am becoming frightened at what is happening in the entertainment industry.

[kcchief19]

For better or worse, my belief has been that effective campaign strategies has always been "us versus them." I think the declining effectiveness of the middle class versus the rich concept to a certain degree is due to a number of factors. One inherent flaw in focusing on the middle class is that it ignores the lower class.

From the Edwards perspective, I think his "Two Americas" concept has a real draw to it because while it's inspiring on one level, at its base it's an "us versus them" argument. The largest block of voters are going be in the "one America" he will be talking about rising up. There is a huge group of potential voters at the lower end of spectrum who do not vote. Anyone who could tap into this group of voters and motivate them to get involved will succeed.

Our nation's politics seem to come in cycles, and it certainly appears that the timing for an anti-poverty message may be approaching. This was a major tenet of Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society -- the Two Americas seems to fit in that line very well.

That said, I think an anti-poverty campaign on the presidential level could be brutally effective -- for a Republican. It's one of those "only Nixon could go to China" things.

[kcchief19]

No, what I am saying is: 1) poverty will always exist, 2) it is better to fight it from within the private sector, as doing so is not really the responsibility of the federal government, although it does provide SOME assistance which is OK, but the bulk of the help is better to come from the private sector. 3) The best way to prevent poverty is education, not through saying you are going to fight poverty that already exists. 4)Democrats have long used this platform as a "trick" in my mind to get people to vote for them. As I said earlier, there will always be poor people, no matter what you do, and that it really isn't the federal government's problem to solve.(or at least it shouldn't be) unless we are talking about preventative measures such as education.
I'm treading softly here because I have ZERO interest in turning this into a partisan pie fight. But this argument to smacks of saying that fighting poverty is too hard and can't be done. So why bother trying?

You could say the same thing about crime.
1) Crime always has existed and always will exist
2) The best ways to protect yourself from crime are things done privately, such as using alarms, travelling in groups and and whatnot. The government spends a ton of money trying to prevent crime, but you still have to protect yourself privately.
3) The best way to prevent crime is education
4) Politicians have always used crime as a trick to get people to vote for them, labelling their opponents as "soft on crime" because they oppose a law banning the sale of machine guns and grenade launchers.

There has always been crime and always will be crime and they government can't solve it. So why do we bother trying? Let's shut down every police department in the country, shut down the FBI and turn everything over to the private sector. We'll hire security companies to protect our property; the media can keep a watch on crooked politicians the Enrons of the world.

[Shkspr]

A campaign strategy is only going to be as effective as the opposition's attempts to destroy it are ineffective. When you hear the words "end poverty", you're hearing the words "give the poor more money". Edwards has no chance to raise the level of debate to alternative solutions faster than Republican strategists can seed the idea of massive tax increases. The idea is a complete non-starter. It would, however, be an exquisite topic to press in an inauguration speech.

[Oilers9911]

Theoretically=utopia=doesn't exist=will never exist

THe fact is we live in a competetive capitalistic society in which it is YOUR responsibility to take advantage of educational opprotunities, and to make sure YOU are the one getting the good job. I hope for YOUR sake that is what you do, however for those who don't they will likely end up with lower paying jobs and consequently have less money. There are exceptions to every rule, but this is generally how it works. Although I am becoming frightened at what is happening in the entertainment industry.

But is it not your governments responsibility that you get the education you need to be able to get that good job?

[Klinglerware]

I'm treading softly here because I have ZERO interest in turning this into a partisan pie fight. But this argument to smacks of saying that fighting poverty is too hard and can't be done. So why bother trying?

You could say the same thing about crime.
1) Crime always has existed and always will exist
2) The best ways to protect yourself from crime are things done privately, such as using alarms, travelling in groups and and whatnot. The government spends a ton of money trying to prevent crime, but you still have to protect yourself privately.
3) The best way to prevent crime is education
4) Politicians have always used crime as a trick to get people to vote for them, labelling their opponents as "soft on crime" because they oppose a law banning the sale of machine guns and grenade launchers.

There has always been crime and always will be crime and they government can't solve it. So why do we bother trying? Let's shut down every police department in the country, shut down the FBI and turn everything over to the private sector. We'll hire security companies to protect our property; the media can keep a watch on crooked politicians the Enrons of the world.


An excellent comparison.

Poverty is a tough issue, and I don't pretend to know all the answers. I do agree with PSU in that education can be a gateway out of poverty. But I also do think that education alone is not a panacea. For example, research indicates that poor nutrition adversely affects the ability for one to learn. So, without addressing hunger, an emphasis on education may not be very effective. There are likely to be other links like hunger-learning that preclude anything but a comprehensive approach to the general problem.

[Dutch]

I'm sick of people bashing the rich in this country. We are not some despotic nation where the people on top stole money from the poor. It's a free capitalist society. There are large ammounts of upper class people that worked damned hard to get to their point and work damned hard to be rich. Doctors, lawyers, businessmen, managers and small business owners for example.

These people did not hold a gun to anybody's head and demand they get paid $125,000 a year (or whatever).

And John Edwards says Americans need to stop being patriotic about war and start being patriotic about other things, things like universal health care and global warming. And who should pay? Not everybody, just the rich folks at the top. Talk about saying the right things.

We continually make the mistake that everybody in poverty today will be in poverty 10 years from now or 20 years from now. That's simply not true. Poverty is a point in time. Many people progress out of poverty into the middle class, and many people progress from middle class into upper class. It doesn't happen over night, but it happens.

Obviously, not everybody is going to get out of poverty, but we should always be mindful of ways to improve capitalism. Ways to reward those who bust their ass to get out of poverty. But we should do so in a way that protects our freedoms and protects our ability to grow. If we tax the hell out of the rich to the point where the ammount of work and effort it takes to become a doctor or a lawyer aren't equal to the pay, it hurts everybody, not just the rich.

The dream of all young folks is to at least be financially comfortable. But if you start them off too comfortable, they won't progress nearly as fast as those who are uncomfortable. A certain amount of stress on folks lives is needed to get them off their butts and contribute to America. And you all know what I'm talking about. It's amazing how much we progress when we compete in the marketplace and how little we progress when we don't.

I believe John Edwards when he says he is anti-poverty. I do. But I don't believe his sincerity when he says that all Americans need to sacrifice a bit for global warming and universal healthcare in one sentence and then says that nobody but the rich should pay for it in the next. America isn't powerful in spite of capitalism. John Edwards, as well as anybody, should know that.

[ISiddiqui]

Edwards was bashing the rich and saying they should pay for it all? He said they should roll back the tax cuts for the top, but I didn't see him say they should be the ones to pay for it all or bashing them in any way.

[cartman]

Dutch,

where has anyone bashed the rich in this thread or any of the links in this thread?

[Ksyrup]

This is an ongiong matter of debate in economic circles, often expressed as two competing theories... "wage competition" and "job competition." Some would suggest that if everyone gets better educated and trained, then everyone will command more in the workforce and everyone will be better off. Others would counter that in any society, we still need dishwahers and ditchdiggers, and those jobs will just go to whomever are the least-trained and least-educated among us, for low wages. I don't think it's a closed debate, really.

Much like there's a legitimate debate over whether increasing the minimum wage (or even having one) actually hurts or helps people. One theory is that by forcing companies to pay the lower-skilled workers more, it will negatively affect the number of jobs available, so that fewer people will have jobs, albeit at a slightly higher wage.

[Dutch]

cartman, I didn't say anybody in this thread was bashing the rich. I was specifically talking about Edwards speech that was quoted. Sorry for the confusion.

EDWARDS: We ought to be patriotic as Americans, not just as a government, although the government plays a critical role in helping to rebuild New Orleans...we do need, in my judgment, to get rid of some of the tax cuts that have been put in place, particularly for people at the top.

[Dutch]

Edwards was bashing the rich and saying they should pay for it all? He said they should roll back the tax cuts for the top, but I didn't see him say they should be the ones to pay for it all or bashing them in any way.

He put the responsability on everybody to support universal health care and global warming, but when asked who will fit the bill, he said those "on top".

[Ksyrup]

And that's where Edwards will lose effectiveness, if he (or his party) plays up the "class warfare" platform they always trot out during the campaigns. I am interested in lessening people's reliance on the government for basic necessities; I'm not interested in mandating that certain people pay for it.

[JPhillips]

A few things.

Say what you want about the Great Society, but during the sixties the poverty rate was cut almost in half.

The single best way to reduce poverty in the inner city would be more government funded lead abatement programs. Lead poisoning lowers IQ and increases violent behavior and is primarily a problem in lower income households.

Edwards himself is very unlikely to win regardless of message. He has to compete for money and airtime with Clinton and Obama. I would be shocked if he can take the nomination. What's his power base?

An anti-poverty message isn't enough IMO. I do think there is room for a strong "class warfare" message as it's indisputable that the wealthiest are taking far more of our GPD than any time since the Depression. The real problem though isn't money as much as risk. Job instability, healthcare, insurance costs, etc. have convinced the majority of Americans that their children will have less than they did.

Dutch, your being upset by the term universal healthcare is silly.

[Dutch]

And that's where Edwards will lose effectiveness, if he (or his party) plays up the "class warfare" platform they always trot out during the campaigns. I am interested in lessening people's reliance on the government for basic necessities; I'm not interested in mandating that certain people pay for it.

Exactly. I hate this perception that rich people are somehow less deserving of their money than I am of mine.

[Dutch]

Dutch, your being upset by the term universal healthcare is silly.

No need to make this personal.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: How does going back to the tax rates of the Clinton years lead to this,

If we tax the hell out of the rich to the point where the ammount of work and effort it takes to become a doctor or a lawyer aren't equal to the pay, it hurts everybody, not just the rich.

[JPhillips]

Dutc: It's not an attack. You're trying to imply that universal healthcare means Americans will be paying for healthcare for the entire universe or something.

It just is silly.

[Dutch]

I do not think that "universal health care" is silly. I do think that if Edwards asks everybody to sacrifice for "universal health care", then why then say those "on top" particularly will pay for it? That's a bit misleading.

[cartman]

Both sides need to acknowledge the fact that some pretty large tax increases are going to be necessary in the coming years. Since 2002, the amount of promised government expenditures has gone from $18 trillion to $50 trillion. That is 5X GDP. That is not a number that the economy can grow into. If taxes aren't raised, then more money will have to be printed, which is how every other economy in history has addressed this issue. That leads to rampant inflation. There are a few options, and none of them are particularly appealing. One would be to rollback the entitlement programs (Medicade, medicare, Social Security), another would be to raise taxes, and the third would be to print more money and raise inflation. There really isn't much of a difference between a 25% tax increase and a 25% rate of inflation, the average person will lose a similar amount of "real" money either way.

[Dutch]

Dutc: It's not an attack. You're trying to imply that universal healthcare means Americans will be paying for healthcare for the entire universe or something.

It just is silly.

I'm voicing opposition to Edwards suggestion that the rich should pay for our universal healthcare coverage. And I did not imply that all Americans will be paying for the world's healthcare.

[Young Drachma]

His support base are upper middle class, white suburbanites who go to the city to "do good" and then travel back to their homes, eat organic food and hate Wal-Mart on principle.

I can't see how he's going to do anything than tread water in a race with Obama and Clinton. Though, he's probably poised to be in contention as someone's running mate again. He won't be such a contrast like he was with Kerry this time.

[Dutch]

I don't think Edwards can win on an "anti-poverty" campaign. I think you are right, Dark Cloud. H. Clinton and Obama will basically say the same things, but with much more influence.

[cartman]

The financial numbers I mentioned are from the 2006 Financial Report of the US Government, released by the Department of Treasury. The link, for those interested in a little light reading :) is:

http://fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html

with this report being the most eye-opening:

http://fms.treas.gov/fr/06frusg/06gao1.pdf

[QuikSand]

I guess it's my fault, in sizable part, for posting the Edwards text... but to me, focusing on the specifics of what Edwards is saying takles this conversation away from what I think is more interesting.

To me, I just wonder if the generic message of "we should be doing more to reduce poverty in this country" is a rellying cry that gets many votes in America today. The specifics of whether you pay for it by one means or another seem to me to be somewhat separable.

I think I side with the several here who have expressed that this just doesn't resonate broadly enough. I think such a sizable share of the voting population basically believes that (most? all?) poor people are poor by choice or lack of effort, that they are not persuaded that anyone else really needs to do anything about it. Their interest is definitely more about helping people who are working but can't get ahead... or in preserving the gains achievable by those who make more substantial contributions to society or the economy.

[gstelmack]

I have two key points / questions:

1) Define "poverty". You can't fight something without defining it.

2) As pointed out in this thread, the beauty of America is the ability to move up and down the economic scale. People can pull themselves up from the muck if they choose to work hard, and people can dump themselves back into it if they choose to rest on their laurels.

Additional comments:

How do you expect to help someone that won't help themselves? I'm all for programs that give people a leg up, but I'm not for handouts that people use as an excuse to sit around all day.

Somehow you need to figure out how to weed out the people that are content with welfare (anyone else ever work in a business where people came by to get a signature that they had applied for a job, when they had no intent of landing the job but just needed to show they were "trying" to keep their benefits?) from those that really just need a start (seed money for a college education, say). Even a high-budget TV show like "Extreme Makeover" has generated controversy in their choices of who to help despite extensive screening processes.

As long as the images of the "poor" include TVs, cars, and bling, you'll have a hard time convincing those that are working hard to make major sacrifices. Especially when many of those may have pulled themselves up from that muck themselves and have seen that it can be done.

[Dutch]

I guess it's my fault, in sizable part, for posting the Edwards text... but to me, focusing on the specifics of what Edwards is saying takles this conversation away from what I think is more interesting.

Well, I guess it was your "fault" by giving us too much information to work with. I, personally, should have better recognized that what I responded to and said would have slid things off into mudslinging. Sorry about that.

To me, I just wonder if the generic message of "we should be doing more to reduce poverty in this country" is a rellying cry that gets many votes in America today. The specifics of whether you pay for it by one means or another seem to me to be somewhat separable.

I don't really think they are. When Obama, or Clinton, or Edwards or Bush talk to their base, they talk to their base. There is no "we" in partisan politics and that was the point I wanted to raise, although with poor results.

It is simply not fair to say that Edwards is sincere when he says that we all need this and that and that 'they' will pay for it. Now, if a candidate said everybody must pay for it regardless of whether or not you are red, black, white, blue, Christian, Jewish, rich, poor, male or female. I'd be willing to listen to that. But as it stands, I'll just stick to my little partisan side of things if everybody else does. Just to be honest about that.

I think I side with the several here who have expressed that this just doesn't resonate broadly enough. I think such a sizable share of the voting population basically believes that (most? all?) poor people are poor by choice or lack of effort, that they are not persuaded that anyone else really needs to do anything about it. Their interest is definitely more about helping people who are working but can't get ahead... or in preserving the gains achievable by those who make more substantial contributions to society or the economy.

I don't think it's unfair to side with that logic. There is a certain "survival of the fittest" mentality to our world. We can be kind about it, especially for those who are in need, but we should also recognize, not punish those who have accomplished so much.

[QuikSand]

I have two key points / questions:

1) Define "poverty". You can't fight something without defining it.

There already is a pretty well-established definition of poverty in this country. While the absolute specifics might be negotiable among sensible people, I really don't think this is a central issue.

FWIW: Poverty Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line) -- does that get you what you're looking for there?

[JPhillips]

I think we also need to put a distinction between the wealthy and the ultra-wealthy. At the very top there are a number of built in advantages(acess to politicians, college admissions, insider trading info, etc.) to help keep/acquire wealth that lead to an almost de facto aristocracy. That's why we've seen huge amounts of wealth being accumulated by the very top over the past couple of decades.

[Dutch]

I think we also need to put a distinction between the wealthy and the ultra-wealthy. At the very top there are a number of built in advantages(acess to politicians, college admissions, insider trading info, etc.) to help keep/acquire wealth that lead to an almost de facto aristocracy. That's why we've seen huge amounts of wealth being accumulated by the very top over the past couple of decades.

Or maybe just a counter. Like a stronger enforcement of the law. Special priviledge to politicians (read: favors), college admissions (read: favors), and insider trading (read: favors) are all illegal if the proper laws regarding such are not followed.

White collar crime needs to be addressed as a priority today as much as it was after the Enron/World Bank scandals of a half a decade ago.

I still fail to see the advantage in penalizing everyone that is ultra-rich if they earned their money fairly and behave ethically.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: No, not all of this is illegal. Legacy admissions are legal. Access for donations is largely legal. We can also add compensation packages for Fortune 500 executives and tax rules that value investment over work.

And I'll stick to my contention that going back to the tax rates of he nineties isn't in any way penalizing the rich.

[Dutch]

And I'll stick to my contention that going back to the tax rates of he nineties isn't in any way penalizing the rich.

Well, true, they penalized a lot of people. :)

[Dutch]

dola,

However, if they tend to penalize people equally, I'll be much more in favor of it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

To weigh in here, I think an anti-poverty message can resonate but it must be done properly. I actually don't think an us vs. them message would succeed. Rather, I think a "we must all work together and do our part" message would be the more successful approach. Now, the key is putting it into practice.

I will address some of the comments here, because I see some of them so far being similar to thoughts of voters and opponent's attacks.

As to penalizing the rich: We're not penalizing the rich, we're just asking them to pay their fair share. To help those succeed in the same system that allowed them to succeed. While we will ask someone who makes $40,000 to pay $7,000 in taxes, we must ask someone who makes $120,000 to pay $30,000 in tax. The economic hit on both is the same and it is only fair.

As to handouts: We are not going to take your money and just give it away. We will use it wisely only to assist those in succeeding in the American Way. Programs will require the unfortunate to use the assistance in certain ways. If they don't, we will not give anymore to them.

The Children: As for the children, they are a special case. Right now, they cannot do for themselves, they cannot take the path to success, but we must ensure they have the foundation to do so -- this means making sure they are fed, are healthy, and have access to education better than they do now. By doing this we can end the cycle of poverty.

The Main Message: We all win by reducing or eliminating poverty. American becomes stronger. As we succeed, we will have more income to tax from the new members of our economic society which will allow the tax burden on the current members to be lowered.


I think this is how you approach it. I think it can be successful if married with the right candidate and the right message.

[Dutch]

As to penalizing the rich: We're not penalizing the rich, we're just asking them to pay their fair share. To help those succeed in the same system that allowed them to succeed. While we will ask someone who makes $40,000 to pay $7,000 in taxes, we must ask someone who makes $120,000 to pay $30,000 in tax. The economic hit on both is the same and it is only fair.

Well, since we opened this right back up, John Edwards didn't say that and as far as I know, the rich already pay at least the same percentage as everybody else, if not more. So asking them to pay even more is not exactly like the numbers you are citing here. Just saying.

[ISiddiqui]

Hell, I still don't think he's bashing the rich. He's just saying everyone's going to have to pay, particularly the top %. Meaning he'll move the rates back to where they were in Clinton's day. That top percent won't have that much trouble paying the extra 2 or 3 percent in federal taxes. Oh, and for the record, I got no problems with a progressive tax system (like the kind we have where the rich pay a higher percentage).

[Dutch]

Look, Big Ben, Parliament! Seriously, you got the last word so we can stop sabotaging Quiksand's point. :)

[ISiddiqui]

Hey, I had some work to do so I couldn't get involved in the discussion before :p.

[Dutch]

Hey, I had some work to do so I couldn't get involved in the discussion before :p.

And I'm off today, so apparently, I've got time to babble excessively. :)

[Ben E Lou]

A campaign strategy is only going to be as effective as the opposition's attempts to destroy it are ineffective. When you hear the words "end poverty", <s>you're hearing the words</s> it will be spun by the opposition as "give the poor more money". Edwards has no chance to raise the level of debate to alternative solutions faster than Republican strategists can seed the idea of massive tax increases. The idea is a complete non-starter. It would, however, be an exquisite topic to press in an inauguration speech.

With my small edit, this pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. Since when have we had campaigns where we saw the candidates "raise the level of debate to alternative solutions?" No, in all likelihood, the right would do an effective job of spinning this as "just another example of tax and spend liberalism." I'm not picking on either side here, either. Both have a strong tendency to put what will win elections well before what is best for the nation. Could it WORK? Yes, possibly. To directly respond the the original question, I doubt that it could provide the basis for a winning platform for a Democrat.

It's a sad reflection on my view of our political process, but my honest opinion is that the best strategy for the Democrats in 2008 is to just paint themselves as "the alternative," but present no real plan that can be attacked. It almost worked in 2004, and it would probably work this time around.

[Dutch]

With my small edit, this pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. Since when have we had campaigns where we saw the candidates "raise the level of debate to alternative solutions?" No, in all likelihood, the right would do an effective job of spinning this as "just another example of tax and spend liberalism." I'm not picking on either side here, either. Both have a strong tendency to put what will win elections well before what is best for the nation. Could it WORK? Yes, possibly. To directly respond the the original question, I doubt that it could provide the basis for a winning platform for a Democrat.

It's a sad reflection on my view of our political process, but my honest opinion is that the best strategy for the Democrats in 2008 is to just paint themselves as "the alternative," but present no real plan that can be attacked. It almost worked in 2004, and it would probably work this time around.


There is no way the Democrats lose in 2008. People are sick of the Republicans, we all need somebody new to blame.

[Senator]

What you guys have to remember, and really focus on is how campaigns are run. In this instance, goal #1 is to win the Democratic nomination. He is speaking directly to those fellow Democrats who might vote for him the in the primary, and is making his strategy to distinguish himself from Hillary et al. Poverty is a great topic for national discussion, but what you are seeing is the first salvo in the primary battle.

On a side note, I am 700 pages into Truman for the 3rd time, and it is almost comical how the issues never really change.

[QuikSand]

On a side note, I am 700 pages into Truman for the 3rd time, and it is almost comical how the issues never really change.

Just a thought... if you want new issues, maybe try a different book? *shurg*













P.S. I got what you meant

[Senator]

But don't you agree this is really a primary tactic QS?

[QuikSand]

In sizable part I do. And I actually think that it is likely to fail even on that level. Even within the party, I just don't think the "handout" mentality that this sounds like resonates all that well.

Lots of people, even people who vote in the D primaries, basically believe that if you're poor in America, it's your own fault. For anyone who believes that is essentially true, this message is going to hit a really sour note, I think.

[Senator]

My guess is that the Democratic party has long been self thought of as the party with a heart. If he can make Hillary seem cold and uncaring, and show that he is a "people first" candidate and not a common politician he can erode her support. Just a guess, but I think everything he is doing has been designed in poll analysis to take votes away from her wherever she is weakest.

[Glengoyne]

There is no way the Democrats lose in 2008. People are sick of the Republicans, we all need somebody new to blame.

I think the Republicans can avoid this, but only by nominating McCain.

On the topic of the post. I think Edwards can gain some traction on this by focusing on the two points highlighted by QS in the initial post.

-Poverty is bad, and the Government can't fix it alone. Seems to be a fairly positive message. It does have the "class warfare" ring to it, but couched correctly it could gain some traction for those who aren't normally drawn to the the Democratic party's platform, but are disenchanted with the GOP.

[CraigSca]

While we will ask someone who makes $40,000 to pay $7,000 in taxes, we must ask someone who makes $120,000 to pay $30,000 in tax. The economic hit on both is the same and it is only fair.

Isn't $120K a 28% tax bracket? That's what they're paying today.

[PSUColonel]

I'm treading softly here because I have ZERO interest in turning this into a partisan pie fight. But this argument to smacks of saying that fighting poverty is too hard and can't be done. So why bother trying?

You could say the same thing about crime.
1) Crime always has existed and always will exist
2) The best ways to protect yourself from crime are things done privately, such as using alarms, travelling in groups and and whatnot. The government spends a ton of money trying to prevent crime, but you still have to protect yourself privately.
3) The best way to prevent crime is education
4) Politicians have always used crime as a trick to get people to vote for them, labelling their opponents as "soft on crime" because they oppose a law banning the sale of machine guns and grenade launchers.

There has always been crime and always will be crime and they government can't solve it. So why do we bother trying? Let's shut down every police department in the country, shut down the FBI and turn everything over to the private sector. We'll hire security companies to protect our property; the media can keep a watch on crooked politicians the Enrons of the world.

I would agree completely that crime and poverty are very similar when it comes to political campaigns. In fact I agree with just about everything you posted here....except the part about closing police departments down. What you probably already realize, is that it is the governments #1 priority to protect it's citizens, not to make sure they aren't poor.

[JPhillips]

Guys, this is much more targeted than you think. This is actually about the black vote in the primary. Its the biggest "block" and any Dem has to win a sizable portion to win the nomination. Clinton and Obama have a big head start with the black community and Edwards is at least smart enough to know he has to do something bold to have any chance. If Edwards can somehow win the primary I think he's likable enough to have a good chance, but I don't think he'll get that far.

I believe that positions and ideas are really only important in the primaries anyway. After that it's all about likability.

[PSUColonel]

But is it not your governments responsibility that you get the education you need to be able to get that good job?

It is your government's job to provide educational opprotunities, it is the individuals responsibility to get the education. After all, school is mandatory in this nation. I realize some schools are better than others, but any individual who WANTS to excel in this nation can.

[PSUColonel]

Dutc: It's not an attack. You're trying to imply that universal healthcare means Americans will be paying for healthcare for the entire universe or something.

It just is silly.

I can guarantee that universal health care will mean less quality of healthcare, and much longer wait times for surgury and procedures.

[JPhillips]

PSU: I won't completely threadjack, but experiences in many Western countries contradict you. We pay more and get less than almost any other industrialized nation.

[PSUColonel]

Both sides need to acknowledge the fact that some pretty large tax increases are going to be necessary in the coming years. Since 2002, the amount of promised government expenditures has gone from $18 trillion to $50 trillion. That is 5X GDP. That is not a number that the economy can grow into. If taxes aren't raised, then more money will have to be printed, which is how every other economy in history has addressed this issue. That leads to rampant inflation. There are a few options, and none of them are particularly appealing. One would be to rollback the entitlement programs (Medicade, medicare, Social Security), another would be to raise taxes, and the third would be to print more money and raise inflation. There really isn't much of a difference between a 25% tax increase and a 25% rate of inflation, the average person will lose a similar amount of "real" money either way.

absolutely not. I don't think we need to repeal any tax cuts. Doing so will result in far less available jobs, and a much worse off economy. While wer're at it, I am angry we haven't rid of the death tax yet. There is no point to taxing money twice except to find more creative ways for the government to steal money from the wealthy, just because they happen to have it. What's the point in becoming wealthy if you can't keep your money and pass it on to heirs. It was taxed once already when it was earned.

[cartman]

absolutely not. I don't think we need to repeal any tax cuts. Doing so will result in far less available jobs, and a much worse off economy. While wer're at it, I am angry we haven't rid of the death tax yet. There is no point to taxing money twice except to find more creative ways for the government to steal money from the wealthy, just because they happen to have it. What's the point in becoming wealthy if you can't keep your money and pass it on to heirs. It was taxed once already when it was earned.

So how do we cover this $30 trillion shortfall? If not by raising taxes, then it will be by printing money, which leads to inflation. At those kinds of levels, the inflation will be staggering, and much worse for the economy than a tax rate hike. It's going to be ugly either way, but a much more controllable method is by raising taxes, since inflation isn't easily controlled.

[PSUColonel]

Hell, I still don't think he's bashing the rich. He's just saying everyone's going to have to pay, particularly the top %. Meaning he'll move the rates back to where they were in Clinton's day. That top percent won't have that much trouble paying the extra 2 or 3 percent in federal taxes. Oh, and for the record, I got no problems with a progressive tax system (like the kind we have where the rich pay a higher percentage).

I have a better idea, let's get rid of income taxes and go with a 23% sales tax for items purchased. One thing though: repeal the 16th amendment first.

[JPhillips]

I don't think we need to repeal any tax cuts. Doing so will result in far less available jobs, and a much worse off economy.

As I've said before, if you can prove this your Nobel Prize in Economics is waiting.

[Glengoyne]

I can guarantee that universal health care will mean less quality of healthcare, and much longer wait times for surgury and procedures.

I'll take the Colonel's side of this debate every time. When people around the world with money have the choice between our system and their own, they come here and pay their own way. They choose to participate in the same system that most Americans with private health insurance already have access to.

[JPhillips]

Glen: Do you have any proof for this statement? France has an excellent healthcare system. How many rich Frenchmen choose to come to the US for healthcare?

Of course you're also making a false comparison as everyday healthcare is far different from terminal illness care.

[PSUColonel]

PSU: I won't completely threadjack, but experiences in many Western countries contradict you. We pay more and get less than almost any other industrialized nation.

including Canada?

the only thing I would suggest, is that we MUST find a way to put a leash on attorneys.

[JPhillips]

Can you not read? I said, "many " not "all".

[PSUColonel]

So how do we cover this $30 trillion shortfall? If not by raising taxes, then it will be by printing money, which leads to inflation. At those kinds of levels, the inflation will be staggering, and much worse for the economy than a tax rate hike. It's going to be ugly either way, but a much more controllable method is by raising taxes, since inflation isn't easily controlled.

I like the idea of larger sales taxes, and the elimination of income taxes.

[JPhillips]

PSU: You aren't at all dealing with how the deficit will be balanced. Tax system makes no difference at all.

[PSUColonel]

PSU: You aren't at all dealing with how the deficit will be balanced. Tax system makes no difference at all.

agreed. I just figured while we were on the topic. I agree printing money and creating inflation is not good either.

[Surtt]

This sounds like he is preaching to the choir.
It will get the support of the poor, but I don't think this will play very well to the middle class (the block he needs to get elected.)
With all of the layoffs the last few years, and tax cuts most benefiting the rich, alot are struggling jst to stay where they are.
They are not going to want another expensive burden.
JMHO.

[cartman]

the only thing I would suggest, is that we MUST find a way to put a leash on attorneys.

This has already been looked into by the Congressional Budget Office in 2004, and debunked as a main reason healthcare costs are high.

hxxp://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4968&sequence=0


Effects on the Availability of Physicians' Services

Some observers argue that high malpractice premiums are causing physicians to restrict their practices or retire, leading to a crisis in the availability of certain health care services in a growing number of areas. GAO investigated the situations in five states with reported access problems and found mixed evidence. On the one hand, GAO confirmed instances of reduced access to emergency surgery and newborn delivery, albeit "in scattered, often rural, areas where providers identified other long-standing factors that affect the availability of services." On the other hand, it found that many reported reductions in supply by health care providers could not be substantiated or "did not widely affect access to health care."(17)
Effects on Malpractice

Defenders of current tort law sometimes argue that restrictions on malpractice liability could undermine the deterrent effect of such liability and thus lead to higher rates of medical injuries. However, it is not obvious that the current tort system provides effective incentives to control such injuries. One reason for doubt is that health care providers are generally not exposed to the financial cost of their own malpractice risk because they carry liability insurance, and the premiums for that insurance do not reflect the records or practice styles of individual providers but more-general factors such as location and medical specialty.(18) Second, evidence suggests that very few medical injuries ever become the subject of a tort claim. The 1984 New York study estimated that 27,179 cases of medical negligence occurred in hospitals throughout the state that year, but only 415--or 1.5 percent--led to claims.(19)

In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency. Thus, choices about specific proposals may hinge more on their implications for equity--in particular, on their effects on health care providers, patients injured through malpractice, and users of the health care system in general.

[cuervo72]

Glen: Do you have any proof for this statement? France has an excellent healthcare system. How many rich Frenchmen choose to come to the US for healthcare?

Of course you're also making a false comparison as everyday healthcare is far different from terminal illness care.

Anecdotal, but working on the peds unit at Hopkins, my wife saw a good deal of foreign children. Of course, it's a pretty good hospital.

[Glengoyne]

Glen: Do you have any proof for this statement? France has an excellent healthcare system. How many rich Frenchmen choose to come to the US for healthcare?

Of course you're also making a false comparison as everyday healthcare is far different from terminal illness care.

I think all of my evidence is completely anecdotal, but there are a good number of examples of this happening. As for everyday healthcare. There is nothing wrong with the everyday health care that most Americans have available to them. Not everyone with access to the system (Private or Public) takes advantage of it.

[JPhillips]

That's not true. Our level of preventive care is poor for many Americans. Many Americans are underinsured and can't afford the preventive care they need.

But look at it in another way. We don't track illnesses very well which could lead to earlier intervention for serious diseases. If we computer tracked symptoms we could spot things much earlier and with a higher rate of accuracy. These types of systems, however, offer very little to a healthcare company that will likely not have the patient on their roles for their whole life. Just go to your doctor and see how incredibly inefficient they are compared to other businesses.

I think, though, that most of this debate is pointless as for most opposed to universal healthcare the problem is government control. I bet that even if I could guarantee better care for less money a lot of you would still be opposed.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

This has already been looked into by the Congressional Budget Office in 2004, and debunked as a main reason healthcare costs are high.

hxxp://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4968&sequence=0

Why y'all have to keep bringing research and data into this? Can't we all just rely on PSUColonel's gut? The man has a perfectly good load of bullshit to sell us. Don't you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than in your head?

[SportsDino]

As a dude who is about to jump from below the lowest tax bracket there is (poverty level AND in debt) to a tax bracket in the lower portion of the upper middle class I personally do not mind paying a higher percentage than lower classes.

I'll be pulling down more money than anyone in my immediate family ever has (even adjusted for inflation). I won't care paying more money, because for the first time I'll have money to spare. This is why taxes are higher for the upper class, the tax percentage has a weaker connection to whether they eat every day, have decent shelter, and adequate health care. It is not unreasonable, given that our budget is out of whack and needs immediate funding, that the first to pay should be those who can afford it. We will not cover multi-billion dollar deficits by pulling the same amount of dollars from each American equally, the price on the poor will be too high.

But I have another question to ponder which may be slightly related to this (not sure if this is a threadjacking or not):

What about running on a platform of destroying congressional pork barrel spending and cutting corporate welfare as an alternative to raising taxes?

In theory that could be a democratic or republican position (obviously each would target certain pork/welfare first based on their base), but we all know both parties would shy away from it due to their spending addiction. Would it make a good campaign position though if followed? Could it be possible to dissect the budget and make as part of your platform the targetted cuts you are going to make? Would that help or hinder a politician's platform?

My personal opinion, putting that sort of information out there would make for a very solid platform, but given how greedy/fickle the public is, seeing their name on the list of targets to be cut (no matter how silly the pork is) will cause such a negative reaction that the person couldn't get elected. Which is probably why politicians always like to promise big things (like wars on poverty) but don't like actually throwing out their strategies with real numbers (and the whole war on poverty tends to fade out of their minds after election and its business as usual).

[JPhillips]

Running on that platform would dry up your contributions and, hence, you'd have no chance of winning.

[Glengoyne]

Jphillips,

I think you are right about preventative care, but I think the reasons are different. I believe that a lot of people, even those with private health insurance, don't take advantage of what care they have at their disposal. The same goes to those who can't afford private insurance. There are a large percentage of those that qualify for preventative care, especially prenatal care or care for children, that don't make the effort to actually get that care. I've seen the infant mortality rate comparison, but I think that is a red herring, as the crack babies and other such cases aren't excluded. Yes we fare poorly on comparisons in those areas, but we have a larger population of fuck ups than most nations.

[Marathoner]

That's not true. Our level of preventive care is poor for many Americans. Many Americans are underinsured and can't afford the preventive care they need.

But look at it in another way. We don't track illnesses very well which could lead to earlier intervention for serious diseases. If we computer tracked symptoms we could spot things much earlier and with a higher rate of accuracy. These types of systems, however, offer very little to a healthcare company that will likely not have the patient on their roles for their whole life. Just go to your doctor and see how incredibly inefficient they are compared to other businesses.

I think, though, that most of this debate is pointless as for most opposed to universal healthcare the problem is government control. I bet that even if I could guarantee better care for less money a lot of you would still be opposed.

The problem with this is HIPPA. Tracking symptoms would be an invasion of privacy.

[SportsDino]

As for sales tax, exactly how high would this tax need to be to cover the cost of running our government (especially how it is being run now)? Income taxes are providing a lot of money (I'm sure someone will post the numbers soon), and sales tax doesn't seem to apply to a lot of big transactions (for instance stock market trading), so we'd have to make an awful lot of money on every little teddy bear and ninentdo wii joe shmoe american buys to make up the difference.

Would you personally be happier paying a portion of your paycheck every month or paying a bigger chunk with everything you buy? Sales tax doesn't look so bad now when it is a few extra bucks for every full shopping cart you pull out of the store, but how would it feel if you were throwing down a 20 dollar bill or two on each cart? If everyone cuts down their spending to avoid the tax, then the tax needs to be higher to supply enough funds to cover the government, making it even harder to buy things.

At some point our consumer based society would probably crumble under the incentives of all our taxes paid as a sales tax, and while people would likely become more frugal and invest their money (unless they are afraid of capital gains taxes), all that money our companies are built on from mad shopping extravaganzas around christmas will disappear and shatter a good number of businesses.

If you want to cut the income tax, come up with a way to replace the funds, and if you suggest cuts, point out what you want to cut in specific and how much it will save.

[Marathoner]

I can guarantee that universal health care will mean less quality of healthcare, and much longer wait times for surgury and procedures.

DING DING DING. For an example look at the VA system. While it performs an admirable goal, there is certainly a difference between it and a for profit entity in terms of speed. I am not sure the quality is worse however.

[SportsDino]

Does the average American vote based on advertisement spending?

Do you personally vote based on the ad exposure you have seen?

More poll questions, I should open a new thread.

[Toddzilla]

Well, he's a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male, so that makes him an immeasurably more attractive candidate to the general American populace than the others already announced.

[kcchief19]

I think I side with the several here who have expressed that this just doesn't resonate broadly enough. I think such a sizable share of the voting population basically believes that (most? all?) poor people are poor by choice or lack of effort, that they are not persuaded that anyone else really needs to do anything about it. Their interest is definitely more about helping people who are working but can't get ahead... or in preserving the gains achievable by those who make more substantial contributions to society or the economy.
If you're basing that off the discussion here today, I think you're basing that off a skewed demographic. This board is -- I have no doubt -- predominately white male with above average household income and above average education. I'll bet it's also disproportionately Republican. In short, I think you're mostly hearing from people who would never vote for an anti-poverty candidate, or more directly would never vote for John Edwards.

While I know you would prefer to stay out of the specifics of Edwards and stray more toward the general concpet of anti-poverty platform, I think a key in Edwards' tack is that he is proposing the idea of "two Americas" -- one for the "haves" and one for everybody else. "Everybody else" is a pretty large group. He's folding a lot of people into that "two Americas" umbrella. More to the point, he's saying it's "average Americans" vs everybody else. And last I checked, I think more than 80 percent of Americans define themselves as "average." It's a populist message.

[PSUColonel]

As for sales tax, exactly how high would this tax need to be to cover the cost of running our government (especially how it is being run now)? Income taxes are providing a lot of money (I'm sure someone will post the numbers soon), and sales tax doesn't seem to apply to a lot of big transactions (for instance stock market trading), so we'd have to make an awful lot of money on every little teddy bear and ninentdo wii joe shmoe american buys to make up the difference.

Would you personally be happier paying a portion of your paycheck every month or paying a bigger chunk with everything you buy? Sales tax doesn't look so bad now when it is a few extra bucks for every full shopping cart you pull out of the store, but how would it feel if you were throwing down a 20 dollar bill or two on each cart? If everyone cuts down their spending to avoid the tax, then the tax needs to be higher to supply enough funds to cover the government, making it even harder to buy things.

At some point our consumer based society would probably crumble under the incentives of all our taxes paid as a sales tax, and while people would likely become more frugal and invest their money (unless they are afraid of capital gains taxes), all that money our companies are built on from mad shopping extravaganzas around christmas will disappear and shatter a good number of businesses.

If you want to cut the income tax, come up with a way to replace the funds, and if you suggest cuts, point out what you want to cut in specific and how much it will save.



good points. I'll need to think about this.

[ISiddiqui]

I have a better idea, let's get rid of income taxes and go with a 23% sales tax for items purchased. One thing though: repeal the 16th amendment first.

I have a better response: Not just NO, but HELL NO!

Can you imagine how much worse recessions will get with this plan? First of all, a progressive income tax system tends to moderate economic downturns. The reason for this is when things start overheating in the economy, people run into higher tax brackets. That tends to bring the growth down a bit lower and when you finally get a bust, it doesn't tend to fall as far, and as incomes do decrease (though, normally, wages are sticky downwards, but some folks will get lesser paying jobs as layoffs happen), there will be less tax burden.

Without this balancing system, you will have to rely solely on monetary policy to prevent overheating of the economy. Especially when you take out the self-regulating effect of a progressive tax system, it becomes far harder to do so. The central bank has to be much more on the ball, and I doubt they'll be able to do it. And, of course, there are limits on what monetary policy alone can do.

Our recessions today are far less painful than they were in the late 19th Century. Because back then they had no mechanisms to slow down economic growth to prevent overheating. So the economy overheated, rose too high, and crashed very far down. The boom/bust cycle was a rollercoaster compared to today's gentle sloping (relatively speaking, of course).

Oh, and the fact that I have no problems in taxing people who make more money a higher percentage. In fact, I'd even consider it fair to do. And after all, what are we talking about here? Raising the top rate to 36%? That's very small for most of the people in that bracket. Hell, the more you make, the more you can afford to spare. $4k for a guy making $19,000 a year is far worse of a hit than $4k for a guy making $60k a year.

[kcchief19]

I hate this perception that rich people are somehow less deserving of their money than I am of mine.
FWIW it's worth, I hate hearing people say that the rich need to "pay their fair share." I recognize full well that as an aggregate amount the richest in this country pay more than the rest of us. They pay their fare share and a lot more.

But a progressive tax is the only way our system will work. The funny thing is that it was conservatives in this country who originally pushed for a progressive tax, and it was smart. Nothing else will work. Thanks to the way we've jacked up the tax code in this country, there are people making a whole lot of money who pay less in taxes as a percentage than people who make less money than them. That's what makes the system not work, and it's that decision more than any other that has led to our record deficits.

What fascinates me though is when people bash rich people for saying rich people need to bear more of the burden. Dutch, you're bashing John Edwards for saying the people at the top need to pay more taxes. Do you realize he's talking about himself too? According to his last campaign disclosure in 2003, he had a net worth between $12 million and $60 million. People make it sound like everyone with money is a Republican and none are Democrats. Warren Buffet is one of the most liberal people in the country. He is also fiercely opposed to any repeal of the estate tax, and there's only one guy in the country with more of an estate than him.

Just as you ask the question why do people blast the rich not paying enough in taxes, I ask this question: Why do you blast rich people who say they don't pay enough in taxes?

[cuervo72]

I'll be pulling down more money than anyone in my immediate family ever has (even adjusted for inflation). I won't care paying more money, because for the first time I'll have money to spare.

Single, aren't ya...

[cuervo72]

Just as you ask the question why do people blast the rich not paying enough in taxes, I ask this question: Why do you blast rich people who say they don't pay enough in taxes?

Thanks to the way we've jacked up the tax code in this country, there are people making a whole lot of money who pay less in taxes as a percentage than people who make less money than them. That's what makes the system not work, and it's that decision more than any other that has led to our record deficits.

Rearranging the order here, because in a way I think you answered your question earlier in your post. I think the perception is that sure, we can raise taxes for the "rich", and we'll probably define "rich" as $100k and up. Unfortunately, it's guys like Edwards (nothing against him personally, but *like* him) that are going to have good tax guys who can find loads of loopholes and won't be affected by this much at all. Guys closer to that $100k may well have much simpler taxes (I know my taxes basically consist of income, deductions for the kids, deductions for mortgage interest, and a small amount for charity, and that's about it) won't be able to find loopholes and will get hit a bit harder.

edit: if Edwards is talking about closing loopholes, then fine. I doubt that's what would happen though.

[Galaxy]

Glen: Do you have any proof for this statement? France has an excellent healthcare system. How many rich Frenchmen choose to come to the US for healthcare?

Of course you're also making a false comparison as everyday healthcare is far different from terminal illness care.

France isn't exactly a great example (along with other socialist states), considering the extremely high tax rates and the major problems they are facing in paying for the great health care system.

[Galaxy]

FWIW it's worth, I hate hearing people say that the rich need to "pay their fair share." I recognize full well that as an aggregate amount the richest in this country pay more than the rest of us. They pay their fare share and a lot more.

But a progressive tax is the only way our system will work. The funny thing is that it was conservatives in this country who originally pushed for a progressive tax, and it was smart. Nothing else will work. Thanks to the way we've jacked up the tax code in this country, there are people making a whole lot of money who pay less in taxes as a percentage than people who make less money than them. That's what makes the system not work, and it's that decision more than any other that has led to our record deficits.

What fascinates me though is when people bash rich people for saying rich people need to bear more of the burden. Dutch, you're bashing John Edwards for saying the people at the top need to pay more taxes. Do you realize he's talking about himself too? According to his last campaign disclosure in 2003, he had a net worth between $12 million and $60 million. People make it sound like everyone with money is a Republican and none are Democrats. Warren Buffet is one of the most liberal people in the country. He is also fiercely opposed to any repeal of the estate tax, and there's only one guy in the country with more of an estate than him.

Just as you ask the question why do people blast the rich not paying enough in taxes, I ask this question: Why do you blast rich people who say they don't pay enough in taxes?

The problem I have with the argument, is what is "fair"? Should a guy who works hard, took a big risk, and made a nice living have to pay a higher % of his income simply because he makes more?

As for taxes, it's a tough problem. We are in a global economy, and other countries are slashing taxes lower over each other (corporate tax is a big one).

[Glengoyne]

The problem with this is HIPPA. Tracking symptoms would be an invasion of privacy.

Knowing people that are in the business of identifying people that are likely to have or at least are in the running to be diagnosed with specific diseases based on their medical history, I believe you are wrong. Companies and governments are pretty much welcome to share your or anyone's medical history at a whim, just so they are sharing them with companies, or business associates, rather than uncovered individuals.

[flere-imsaho]

There is no way the Democrats lose in 2008. People are sick of the Republicans, we all need somebody new to blame.

I disagree. Two years is a long time. I have great faith in the Democrats' ability to screw up their chances in two years.

My guess is that the Democratic party has long been self thought of as the party with a heart. If he can make Hillary seem cold and uncaring, and show that he is a "people first" candidate and not a common politician he can erode her support. Just a guess, but I think everything he is doing has been designed in poll analysis to take votes away from her wherever she is weakest.

This analysis makes complete sense to me.

I realize some schools are better than others, but any individual who WANTS to excel in this nation can.

The gulf between the educational opportunities in this country is significant. In my area alone, one only has to look at what's available to an inner city kid on Chicago's south side, and what's available to a kid at the public schools in the wealthy north shore suburbs to see this.

I'll take the Colonel's side of this debate every time. When people around the world with money have the choice between our system and their own, they come here and pay their own way. They choose to participate in the same system that most Americans with private health insurance already have access to.

I've bolded the important part. This isn't about what people with money do, it's about what people who don't have money get. People with money will always be willing to pay more for extra. Did you know, for instance, that there's a growing trend among upper-middle-class Americans to go abroad to places like India for surgeries, since the quality of care is the same, but their money can buy them more amenities (such as time spent in-patient), than in America?

Instead, compare the experience of the uninsured/underinsured American to their societal counterpart in a country with universal health care. If you're an underinsured blue collar worker in the U.S., you live in constant fear of a freak, non work-related accident, that will send you to the hospital. If you awkwardly slip and break your leg in your driveway one day, you're screwed. You'll be paying for that care for years, at least. In a UHC country, it's a trip to the hospital, your leg gets set, and you don't pay anything.

Most of the UHC opponents I know have never lived in a UHC country, and base their opposition to UHC on these anecdotal horror stories that people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh like to throw around.

I've lived in a UHC country for 5 years, and now I live in the U.S. and have excellent private health insurance. In my experience, the difference has mainly been a nicer class of waiting room in the U.S., but considerably more paperwork.

[flere-imsaho]

Knowing people that are in the business of identifying people that are likely to have or at least are in the running to be diagnosed with specific diseases based on their medical history, I believe you are wrong. Companies and governments are pretty much welcome to share your or anyone's medical history at a whim, just so they are sharing them with companies, or business associates, rather than uncovered individuals.

I've worked with HIPPA, and I can tell you that this isn't the case.

[Glengoyne]

I've worked with HIPPA, and I can tell you that this isn't the case.

You can't have worked at too high a level with HIPPA if you think that an insurance company is somehow realistically restricted from sending data regarding your medical utilization to another company, if it serves the interest of your insurer. Look up business associate.

[Tekneek]

IThis is why we live in a free market, and a capitaslistic society.

We do not live in a free market. Capitalistic system, yes, but not a free market.

[flere-imsaho]

You can't have worked at too high a level with HIPPA if you think that an insurance company is somehow realistically restricted from sending data regarding your medical utilization to another company, if it serves the interest of your insurer. Look up business associate.

Working with the General Counsel of a major medical institution, I have audited the implementation of a major database system specifically in light of HIPPA restrictions. I think I know what I'm talking about.

Having said that, the original contention was that HIPPA would make it difficult, if not impossible, to globally track symptoms, in its current legal understanding. You're making the contention that insurance companies can, under HIPPA, have some level of access to an individual's medical record. Those are two very different contentions.

[Dutch]

Just as you ask the question why do people blast the rich not paying enough in taxes, I ask this question: Why do you blast rich people who say they don't pay enough in taxes?

Some people will sell their soul to partake in politics. I can assure you that John Edwards probably doesn't care if a tax burden on his class brings him down from 45 million a year to 25 million a year if the money is being used simply for pleasure.

But to a corporation, or a small business, that's a big deal. The misconception is that all rich people use profits simply for yachts. I would say a lot of people use profits to pay their employees or materials or research.

Like I said, I don't mind a reasonable solution. And if the progressive tax rate needs to be increased, by God, I want to know why and see results. If the end result is a recession after 10 years of it, I don't think we want it.

But, I agree with you in a sense, a recession 10 years from now isn't something a candidate today is very much worried about.

[Tekneek]

You can't have worked at too high a level with HIPPA if you think that an insurance company is somehow realistically restricted from sending data regarding your medical utilization to another company, if it serves the interest of your insurer. Look up business associate.

I thought it was 'conventional wisdom' that you had to settle with the provider directly (not file with insurance) if you really wanted medical privacy. Maybe I've had a little more insight than most?

[Tekneek]

But to a corporation, or a small business, that's a big deal. The misconception is that all rich people use profits simply for yachts. I would say a lot of people use profits to pay their employees or materials or research.

"Profits" that are reinvested into the business before the end of the year aren't really profits, are they? Depending on the business structure, there are any number of ways to spend some unexpected profits in December to reduce that tax burden. Of course, if you're trying to bank them for a rainy day they are and the government is going to take a share.

[Glengoyne]

Working with the General Counsel of a major medical institution, I have audited the implementation of a major database system specifically in light of HIPPA restrictions. I think I know what I'm talking about.

Having said that, the original contention was that HIPPA would make it difficult, if not impossible, to globally track symptoms, in its current legal understanding. You're making the contention that insurance companies can, under HIPPA, have some level of access to an individual's medical record. Those are two very different contentions.

That's fine, I've done more than my share of HIPPA auditing and implementations as well. I assure you, that your insurance company can send your detailed utilization records to a third party for analysis. It is done. It is done all of the time, and it is perfectly legal under HIPPA. The companies performing the analysis are business associates, and therefore allowed access to the data. There are companies whose business model is to provide this very type of analysis for HMOs, and state governments managing Medicaid.

Oh and my contention isn't that your insurance company has access to your medical records somehow beyond what is submitted to them for payment. My contention is that insurance companies can share your utilization data with their business associates. By utilization data, I mean any claims submitted to the insurer. Doctor visits, the specialty of the physician, any items billed in an insurance claim(right down to a bandaid), ER visits, any prescriptions filled, how regularly they are filled, fillings, caps, or root canals, oh yeah any diagnosis codes submitted in the billing process; All of those things can be freely shared with business associates.

[SportsDino]

How about a platform of cutting the loopholes from the tax code, but not by way of a 'flat tax' or other oversimplification that adjusts the tax rate in a way to greatly reduce tax burden on the rich?

Or in other words, progressive income tax, extreme reduction of loopholes and ability to sneak your money out to Bermuda...

Realizing of course you are going to be begged to keep in various loopholes that make life easier on the middle and lower upper class or else no one will vote for you. And of course, this assumes you can survive the negative consequences on your donor base (typically rich people with money to spare for political hot gas).

Would you vote for a candidate attempting to reduce the tax code games as a major part of their platform?

[Dutch]

Would you vote for a candidate attempting to reduce the tax code games as a major part of their platform?


Shouldn't our congress be working on issues like this as well?

[Glengoyne]

I thought it was 'conventional wisdom' that you had to settle with the provider directly (not file with insurance) if you really wanted medical privacy. Maybe I've had a little more insight than most?

I think that is pretty much right. That is actually one of the concerns "in the business" surrounding Wall Mart's $4 pricing on selected generics. Those transactions are completely settled at the pharmacy without any submission to insurance. Lots of people who review that data will have to develop work arounds to account for those unidentified transactions.

[Glengoyne]

...

Would you vote for a candidate attempting to reduce the tax code games as a major part of their platform?

I used to hang my hat on this type of thing. Complete and real simplification of the tax code using a progressive scale. I also felt that a flat tax wouldn't be ALL that bad either. The thought was that you'd save a fortune in enforcement and processing at the IRS. The downside is that you'd also have a huge negative impact on the tax accounting, tax preparation, and tax avoidance(attorneys) sectors. So I'm now thinking that that wouldn't be such a good trade.

On the tax code simplification, I heard an interesting story on this topic on NPR. One of the folks interviewed described what I'll call a never ending cycle. A simplified tax code will have a larger impact in certain individuals than others. Their specific circumstances will cause relative "injustices" for some individuals amongst their peers. People paying for college tuition. People paying for the medical costs for special needs children. People who commute simply insane distances so they can afford to put a house over their family's heads. There are lots and lots of exceptions that very simply "will" be legislated into a simplified tax code. The result isn't a simplified tax code.

I've become a tax code simplification defeatist, so that sort of platform will fall flat with me, although not all that many years ago that wouldn't have been the case. It would have gotten serious traction with me.

[larrymcg421]

Tax code simplification isn't going to happen when lobbying groups have as much power as they have today. Even after the Abramoff scandal, they're pretty powerful. And which interest group is going to give up the perks they currently have in the tax system?

[Galaxy]

Was out of the loop for a few days.

But what are the thoughts on the AMT system? How does play a role?

[Warhammer]

First off, I think Edwards is going to sew up the nomination. I think Obama is going to go for second fiddle this time around, and then run in 2016 for the whole schbang. I think Hillary has too many enemies and will rally the Republicans like no one else and so the Democrat powers will make sure she doesn't win the nomination (i.e. look at what happened to Dean in the last primary).

Second, I think the whole universal health care is a mistake. The reason why we appear to lag behind regarding health care is that the stats are skewed. I think we have a basic health care system which is good, but not great. That is the health care system most go to. However, our top of the line system is without peer, but only the wealthy among us can afford that care and they do, and pay out of pocket. The result is a high average cost per patient, but only because of the few wealthy that skew the results.

Additionally, I have experienced first hand our system vs. that of England. My uncle had a heart attack and would have died had he had his episode in England. Here, he was able to be seen right away and had the appropriate measures taken. In England, according to my aunt, he would have been on a 6 week waiting list.

Third, I think the war on poverty idea is a good idea. He needs to couch it not as an us vs. them issue though, rather as a what's good for the country argument. He should position himself as between republicans and democrats on the issue and offer incentives to get private entities to do such works.

I will say this though, I may be running my own business in the next 6 months to a year, possibly sooner. If I need to pay 36% in taxes vs. say 25% in taxes, that will have a large effect in my decision whether or not to hire any personnel.

[flere-imsaho]

In England, according to my aunt, he would have been on a 6 week waiting list.

A 6-week wait for treatment for congestive heart failure? Forgive me if I don't believe you.

[flere-imsaho]

I think Hillary has too many enemies and will rally the Republicans like no one else and so the Democrat powers will make sure she doesn't win the nomination (i.e. look at what happened to Dean in the last primary).

The bolded part is, I think, more a reason why Hillary would lose the general election, but not one why she would lose the primary.

I still believe she'll win the primary. She has all the insider power, all the money, and the machine behind her. I just don't see a lot of compelling arguments against this.

[Galaxy]

First off, I think Edwards is going to sew up the nomination. I think Obama is going to go for second fiddle this time around, and then run in 2016 for the whole schbang. I think Hillary has too many enemies and will rally the Republicans like no one else and so the Democrat powers will make sure she doesn't win the nomination (i.e. look at what happened to Dean in the last primary).

Second, I think the whole universal health care is a mistake. The reason why we appear to lag behind regarding health care is that the stats are skewed. I think we have a basic health care system which is good, but not great. That is the health care system most go to. However, our top of the line system is without peer, but only the wealthy among us can afford that care and they do, and pay out of pocket. The result is a high average cost per patient, but only because of the few wealthy that skew the results.

Additionally, I have experienced first hand our system vs. that of England. My uncle had a heart attack and would have died had he had his episode in England. Here, he was able to be seen right away and had the appropriate measures taken. In England, according to my aunt, he would have been on a 6 week waiting list.

Third, I think the war on poverty idea is a good idea. He needs to couch it not as an us vs. them issue though, rather as a what's good for the country argument. He should position himself as between republicans and democrats on the issue and offer incentives to get private entities to do such works.

I will say this though, I may be running my own business in the next 6 months to a year, possibly sooner. If I need to pay 36% in taxes vs. say 25% in taxes, that will have a large effect in my decision whether or not to hire any personnel.

My question is, how exactly do you "win poverty"? The new minimum wage proposal, in my view, isn't going to do it. Reading an article the other day, a woman who had four kids was on minimum wage. This alone, raised a lot of questions to me.

[billethius]

If we tax the hell out of the rich to the point where the ammount of work and effort it takes to become a doctor or a lawyer aren't equal to the pay, it hurts everybody, not just the rich.


Poor people don't usually have access to many doctors or lawyers, so a pretty good argument could be made that you're incorrect there.

HOWEVER, the insurance industry is already doing this to doctors. No taxation needed.

[billethius]

Additionally, I have experienced first hand our system vs. that of England. My uncle had a heart attack and would have died had he had his episode in England. Here, he was able to be seen right away and had the appropriate measures taken. In England, according to my aunt, he would have been on a 6 week waiting list.

Well my aunt says anecdotal evidence is pretty useless...

[MrBigglesworth]

Second, I think the whole universal health care is a mistake. The reason why we appear to lag behind regarding health care is that the stats are skewed. I think we have a basic health care system which is good, but not great. That is the health care system most go to. However, our top of the line system is without peer, but only the wealthy among us can afford that care and they do, and pay out of pocket. The result is a high average cost per patient, but only because of the few wealthy that skew the results.
Actually, our government alone (ie, not including out of pocket costs or employer based healthcare at all) spends more per capita than any country with universal health care.

Additionally, I have experienced first hand our system vs. that of England. My uncle had a heart attack and would have died had he had his episode in England. Here, he was able to be seen right away and had the appropriate measures taken. In England, according to my aunt, he would have been on a 6 week waiting list.
I agree with flere, a 6 week wait for a heart attack is a little far fetched. Was it for a specialized surgery? That could be the case. In any system there are some things that one does better than the other, and it's possible that in England they don't have many doctors that do that specific surgery. But also, England's healtcare system sucks (but is still better than ours overall). The US would be better off with a French style system which has both public and private components.

I will say this though, I may be running my own business in the next 6 months to a year, possibly sooner. If I need to pay 36% in taxes vs. say 25% in taxes, that will have a large effect in my decision whether or not to hire any personnel.
That's what a lot of people say, but think of it this way: your goal as a business owner is to maximize gross profit. If you hire personnel, it is with the belief that profit will increase because of it. Income taxes have no effect on gross profit, ie if your revenue is $200k and your expenses $100k, your profit is always $100k no matter if taxes are 50% or 10%. So your personal income tax level should have little impact on whether or not you hire someone.

Good luck with your business, if your business ability is as good as your ability to draft QBs in FOF, you'll be a rich man soon!

[Galaxy]

Actually, our government alone (ie, not including out of pocket costs or employer based healthcare at all) spends more per capita than any country with universal health care.



That's what a lot of people say, but think of it this way: your goal as a business owner is to maximize gross profit. If you hire personnel, it is with the belief that profit will increase because of it. Income taxes have no effect on gross profit, ie if your revenue is $200k and your expenses $100k, your profit is always $100k no matter if taxes are 50% or 10%. So your personal income tax level should have little impact on whether or not you hire someone.


You have to look at it deeper than that in regards to cost. But, I would never want a full-blown health care system universally.

Your taxes has a HUGE effect on how a business operate. To be honest, if we had a tax rate of 45-50%, I would question why I would even want to start a business in the first place if I have to the government half of what I've earned. To me, entreprenurs and businessmen (not your Enrons, ect.) are the most important asset we have in a capitalist market.

[JPhillips]

Galaxy: You have to offset any increase in taxes for a business owner with a decrease in healthcare costs. There is a likelihood that businesses will actually save money.

Remember we spend more per capita on healthcare than anyone else in the industrialized world.

[Malificent]

Just a random throw out question - Does making your campaign about getting out and working to fight poverty appeal to the set of Christian voters that have been voting Republican up until this point based on sin issues (gambling, gays, abortion)? My guess is that obviously the extremists aren't going to budge, but there is a chance a platform like this could swipe some of a crucial support group for the Republicans, a group that they have pretty much counted as their own up to now.

A chance, of course, does not equal a certainty.

[st.cronin]

Just a random throw out question - Does making your campaign about getting out and working to fight poverty appeal to the set of Christian voters that have been voting Republican up until this point based on sin issues (gambling, gays, abortion)? My guess is that obviously the extremists aren't going to budge, but there is a chance a platform like this could swipe some of a crucial support group for the Republicans, a group that they have pretty much counted as their own up to now.

A chance, of course, does not equal a certainty.

I think that's part of the strategy. It would certainly appeal to me, for example.

[MrBigglesworth]

You have to look at it deeper than that in regards to cost. But, I would never want a full-blown health care system universally.
I was speaking to Warhammer's point that the wealthy who pay out of their pocket skew the stats, when in fact government spending alone is more per capita than any other country.

Your taxes has a HUGE effect on how a business operate. To be honest, if we had a tax rate of 45-50%, I would question why I would even want to start a business in the first place if I have to the government half of what I've earned.
If we changed the top marginal tax rates to 45 and 50% this year from 33 and 35%, and you made $72k, your total tax bill would be $15k ($15k with old rates). If you earned $150k you would owe $36k ($36k with the old rates). If you earned $200k, you would owe $58.5k ($52.5k with the old rates). You are telling me that you would question starting a business in the first place because if you made $200,000 a year from it, the new tax rates would take an extra $6,000 away from you?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Um, boasting that the US pays more per capita for healthcare is not really a good thing. It's called paying too much, not necessarily the quality of care. I guess it's been said many of times, but judging US healthcare by what a wealthy person can get in terms of service instead of what the poor/unemployed get in terms of service is not necessarily the best measure of the quality of healthcare.

[MrBigglesworth]

Um, boasting that the US pays more per capita for healthcare is not really a good thing. It's called paying too much, not necessarily the quality of care. I guess it's been said many of times, but judging US healthcare by what a wealthy person can get in terms of service instead of what the poor/unemployed get in terms of service is not necessarily the best measure of the quality of healthcare.
You didn't quote anyone so you could be replying to someone earlier in the thread, but I am going to assume you were talking to me and/or JPhillips. We weren't boasting about the spending, we were saying that the system is broken. That an increase in taxes would be offset by a decrease in expenses for businesses (JPhillips) and that wealthy individuals paying out of pocket isn't skewing the stats, it really is bad (me).

[Warhammer]

A 6-week wait for treatment for congestive heart failure? Forgive me if I don't believe you.

I understand that, all I can say is that my uncle from England suffered a "heart attack" and would have died according to my aunt if he was in England.

What I don't get is why his condition was improved with a pacemaker.

The facts may be off, I don't know, all I know is what I was told. The wait in England was 6 weeks for a pacemaker at the time, and the doctors in VA told my aunt that if he did not have the pacemaker put in he would have died.

[Warhammer]

That's what a lot of people say, but think of it this way: your goal as a business owner is to maximize gross profit. If you hire personnel, it is with the belief that profit will increase because of it. Income taxes have no effect on gross profit, ie if your revenue is $200k and your expenses $100k, your profit is always $100k no matter if taxes are 50% or 10%. So your personal income tax level should have little impact on whether or not you hire someone.

Good luck with your business, if your business ability is as good as your ability to draft QBs in FOF, you'll be a rich man soon!

I agree profit is profit. However, if I am at say $100k profit, and I hire someone, I am suddenly at ~$50k profit, in the short term. As you mentioned, you anticipate higher profits later, but if they don't materialize, I am stuck with less money.

The other issue is that based upon tax rates, you have to pay people more so they can enjoy the same standard of living. So, if I am paying this person $50k and their taxes go up 5%, suddenly they are only earning $47.5k. Add inflation and their earning power is even less. So I need to pay them more to ensure they maintain their standard of living, or risk losing them to another job.

I appreciate the well wishes. I'm sure it will do well, I just need to be sure that I am the one they decide to partner with.

[MrBigglesworth]

I understand that, all I can say is that my uncle from England suffered a "heart attack" and would have died according to my aunt if he was in England.

What I don't get is why his condition was improved with a pacemaker.

The facts may be off, I don't know, all I know is what I was told. The wait in England was 6 weeks for a pacemaker at the time, and the doctors in VA told my aunt that if he did not have the pacemaker put in he would have died.
There are long waits for pacemakers in England. France doesn't have the waiting lists that England has, however, and one benefit of lagging behind in areas like this is that we can take what works from countries and get rid of what doesn't.

[Warhammer]

My question is, how exactly do you "win poverty"? The new minimum wage proposal, in my view, isn't going to do it. Reading an article the other day, a woman who had four kids was on minimum wage. This alone, raised a lot of questions to me.

This is one item that absolutely pisses me off, not you Galaxy. Why does a woman have 4 kids if she is making minimum wage? Why? Last I checked, I was considered upper middle class and my wife and I have a hard enough time with 2 kids, we've decided to hold off having any more. Yet you have others out there who keep on having them? Close the legs sister...

I fall in the camp of losers and winners. I really think that all of us in this country have opportunities. They might not be equal, but if any of us maximizes our opportunities, we are going to do well.

The problem is that many of us do not realize what opportunities are. We have the opportunity to get an education in this country. It is up to the individual to make sure they maximize that. Not their parents, not their teachers, the child needs to make the most of their opportunity.

What people don't like is that they might have messed up their opportunities when they were 10 or 12 by screwing around rather than learning how to read, write, etc. It might be harsh, but I am making damn sure that my kids understand things. They are responsible for their actions and the resulting rewards and punishments.

Regarding Hillary, I think what is going to happen is that the Dems hierarchy is going to see that she is not going to win in 2008 if she runs, but Edwards will have a good shot to win. Therefore, they will eventually get behind him and push him to a victory. There is a lot of time before the election and I just don't see how Hillary is going to stand-up to the criticism she will receive the closer we get to the campaign.

[Galaxy]

This is one item that absolutely pisses me off, not you Galaxy. Why does a woman have 4 kids if she is making minimum wage? Why? Last I checked, I was considered upper middle class and my wife and I have a hard enough time with 2 kids, we've decided to hold off having any more. Yet you have others out there who keep on having them? Close the legs sister...

I fall in the camp of losers and winners. I really think that all of us in this country have opportunities. They might not be equal, but if any of us maximizes our opportunities, we are going to do well.

The problem is that many of us do not realize what opportunities are. We have the opportunity to get an education in this country. It is up to the individual to make sure they maximize that. Not their parents, not their teachers, the child needs to make the most of their opportunity.

What people don't like is that they might have messed up their opportunities when they were 10 or 12 by screwing around rather than learning how to read, write, etc. It might be harsh, but I am making damn sure that my kids understand things. They are responsible for their actions and the resulting rewards and punishments.

Regarding Hillary, I think what is going to happen is that the Dems hierarchy is going to see that she is not going to win in 2008 if she runs, but Edwards will have a good shot to win. Therefore, they will eventually get behind him and push him to a victory. There is a lot of time before the election and I just don't see how Hillary is going to stand-up to the criticism she will receive the closer we get to the campaign.


I had the same views about the kids as you did. I think not having kids would go a long way to help solve the problems.

[Galaxy]

You didn't quote anyone so you could be replying to someone earlier in the thread, but I am going to assume you were talking to me and/or JPhillips. We weren't boasting about the spending, we were saying that the system is broken. That an increase in taxes would be offset by a decrease in expenses for businesses (JPhillips) and that wealthy individuals paying out of pocket isn't skewing the stats, it really is bad (me).

The system is broken, but going to an universal "health care" system doesn't mean its the answer. We need to look at the reasons as to why it is expensive. Your just saying we spend more. Also, France does has a large percentage of the medical field in private care. I believe that French citizens can opt out and use private care (with some public $). Germany has a "two-tier" system. The "universal" system in several countries are also starting to feel the financial bug as well.

However, the bottom line with health care is how each person views it. Is it a right? Or is it like electric, gas? Each person view's is different.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

The problem is that many of us do not realize what opportunities are. We have the opportunity to get an education in this country. It is up to the individual to make sure they maximize that. Not their parents, not their teachers, the child needs to make the most of their opportunity.

What people don't like is that they might have messed up their opportunities when they were 10 or 12 by screwing around rather than learning how to read, write, etc. It might be harsh, but I am making damn sure that my kids understand things. They are responsible for their actions and the resulting rewards and punishments.

The simple fact is that not all kids start on equal footing, not even close. Some kids at 10-12 (or younger/older) didn't screw up their own opportunities, their parents or their school may have done it for them -- abused them, failed feed them, moved around with no stability, failed to educate them properly -- in other words they were very poor. Claiming some 15-year old kid should have studied harder and then went to college when he was forced to take a minimum wage job to help feed his family completely misses the point.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention the kid who gets sick but can't get proper medical care to get better so he can actually maximize his studies or employment opportunities.

As good as the U.S. is at allowing some to obtain the "american dream," it is simply not available to all. That is a myth.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

You didn't quote anyone so you could be replying to someone earlier in the thread, but I am going to assume you were talking to me and/or JPhillips. We weren't boasting about the spending, we were saying that the system is broken. That an increase in taxes would be offset by a decrease in expenses for businesses (JPhillips) and that wealthy individuals paying out of pocket isn't skewing the stats, it really is bad (me).

Well, I guess it was partly in response to earlier posts about how great the U.S. health system is because rich people from other countries often choose to come here and your comments that I thought dovetailed with that. But I guess I was confused as to what you were saying.

[Glengoyne]

...

Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention the kid who gets sick but can't get proper medical care to get better so he can actually maximize his studies or employment opportunities.

As good as the U.S. is at allowing some to obtain the "american dream," it is simply not available to all. That is a myth.

Sort of a diversion to the thread, but I'll bite. Some have it easier, but anybody can pick themselves out of poverty and succeed. There are plenty of examples. It takes motivation, discipline, and hard work, but there is no one who can't make it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Sort of a diversion to the thread, but I'll bite. Some have it easier, but anybody can pick themselves out of poverty and succeed. There are plenty of examples. It takes motivation, discipline, and hard work, but there is no one who can't make it.

Just have to disagree. Yes, there are examples of success - plenty - which came with hard work. But there are also plenty of examples of those who worked hard but did not succeed (at least defining success as middle income). My point is not that people can't do it -- they can -- it is that not everyone can, even if they are motivated and hard working. I just can't agree with the bolded statement. It's what people tell themselves (including me for the longest time) to make them feel better about ignoring the plight of the poor and disadvantaged.

Just so you know where I am coming from: my biggest concern is for children lacking proper parenting, and financial and health assistance. That is where I would like to see the focus of a "pro-poverty" candidate -- helping disadvantaged children and youth to succeed so there are a lot more of the successes of the type you describe rather than failures.

[JPhillips]

Glen: Not at all true. I'll throw out just one example, the child who has a lower IQ and higher risk of behavior problems because of lead poisoning. The child did nothing but live with his/her mother, but they will be at a permanent disadvantage in school/work.

I know I bang this drum a lot, but lead poisoning is one of the biggest factors for educational problems among the poor.

[Galaxy]

Just have to disagree. Yes, there are examples of success - plenty - which came with hard work. But there are also plenty of examples of those who worked hard but did not succeed (at least defining success as middle income). My point is not that people can't do it -- they can -- it is that not everyone can, even if they are motivated and hard working. I just can't agree with the bolded statement. It's what people tell themselves (including me for the longest time) to make them feel better about ignoring the plight of the poor and disadvantaged.

Just so you know where I am coming from: my biggest concern is for children lacking proper parenting, and financial and health assistance. That is where I would like to see the focus of a "pro-poverty" candidate -- helping disadvantaged children and youth to succeed so there are a lot more of the successes of the type you describe rather than failures.

I think part of the problem I have, are with parents who lack the financial means to be able to provide children they have (then think others, who make wise decisions in regards to having children, should be responsible). That being said, how would you achieve your plans?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I think part of the problem I have, are with parents who lack the financial means to be able to provide children they have (then think others, who make wise decisions in regards to having children, should be responsible). That being said, how would you achieve your plans?

I agree with your hesitation to bail out the parents for poor decisions, but I am talking about helping out the children (who did not make the poor decision and have no blame). Thnk of it as "now that the children are born, what do we do about it?"

If you assist the children now, there is a good chance they will not grow up to be their parents and repeat the cycle of poor decisions. We all have to realize that healthy (physical and mental) children will grow up to be part of a contributing society that will alleviate the problem and not be part of the problem in the future. That's the only way to "win" against poverty.

As to achieving plans, I don't have all the answers, but I will start with 2. Making sure every child in America has access to good quality medical care and good quality education. Something that can be done by investing in both more than we do now. And I'm not talking about slightly upping the budget, I am talking about a monumental shift in funding both. Let's stop wasting money on pork, let's make better taxing decisions and wiser expenditures. You probably could have funded universal healthcare for children for several decades and built or upgraded thousands upon thousands of schools (infrastructure, teaching, etc.) with the money that was wasted in Iraq.

[Galaxy]

I agree with your hesitation to bail out the parents for poor decisions, but I am talking about helping out the children (who did not make the poor decision and have no blame). Thnk of it as "now that the children are born, what do we do about it?"

If you assist the children now, there is a good chance they will not grow up to be their parents and repeat the cycle of poor decisions. We all have to realize that healthy (physical and mental) children will grow up to be part of a contributing society that will alleviate the problem and not be part of the problem in the future. That's the only way to "win" against poverty.

As to achieving plans, I don't have all the answers, but I will start with 2. Making sure every child in America has access to good quality medical care and good quality education. Something that can be done by investing in both more than we do now. And I'm not talking about slightly upping the budget, I am talking about a monumental shift in funding both. Let's stop wasting money on pork, let's make better taxing decisions and wiser expenditures. You probably could have funded universal healthcare for children for several decades and built or upgraded thousands upon thousands of schools (infrastructure, teaching, etc.) with the money that was wasted in Iraq.

But that's part of the concern I have. You would be forcing those who are financially responsible, have children when they can provide them with the things that you talk about, to spend the money on irresponsible behavior of the parents. I do understand the kids aren't at fault, but yet the taxpayers shouldn't be responsible to provide the basic needs of children that parents should have the financial abilities to provide themselves (as well as good parenting skills, which I think is important to those things). Where do you draw the line? It's a tough situation.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yes, but you have lost sight of the fact is that these bad parents' decisions affect not only their children but the rest of the public, even as it stands now without additional assistance. As I stated, if we start now, years down the road the problem will alleviate itself.

As for your statement that taxayers should not be responsible for meeting the basic needs of children, I have to disagree. It's the government, through its taxpayers in part, to help its citizens who cannot, like disadvantaged children, help themselves. You've heard of food stamps, right? The child tax credit?

[Galaxy]

To bump this thread, will this hurt Edwards?

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/16593583.htm

That big house
Edwards' expansive estate raises questions in some quarters
Just for the record, the Taj Mahal is bigger, at 34,596 square feet. And if John Edwards is elected president, he'll move into a 55,000-square-foot house on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Even so, the 29,000-square-foot Orange County estate Mr. Edwards and his family recently built has some eyes rolling. Isn't he going around talking about reducing poverty and helping the poor? The whole thing has provoked a lot of jokes, mostly at Mr. Edwards' expense.

However, several different threads can be pulled here. First is the size of the thing. The family living area is 10,778 square feet, which qualifies it as a Hummer House without even considering "The Barn" -- 6,300 more square feet with basketball and racquetball courts and a pool.

Whether it's in good taste is in the eye of the beholder. But it's clear such a large house, even if designed with conservation in mind, is not on balance environmentally prudent, given the fuel needed to heat and cool it. Yes, the Edwardses did buy 102 rural acres and presumably will protect it from development. Nevertheless.

Another issue, for some, is Mr. Edwards' wealth. He made millions as a trial lawyer, and some see amassing such riches as an ethical issue. It was Andrew Carnegie who said, "The man who dies ... rich dies disgraced." Jesus said, "Give all you have and follow me," although it appears few Christians take that literally. But Mr. Edwards didn't start life with money, he earned it. How he spends it is between him and his Maker -- though he should expect questions about how many houses for the homeless a portion of the construction money might have built.

Finally, some think there's something not right for a person as rich as Mr. Edwards to be talking about poverty. That's nuts. If only poor people were qualified to fight poverty, they'd lose some invaluable allies. The poor tend to be quite busy, thank you, fighting their personal poverty. It's hard to spearhead national crusades when you're holding down several jobs, trying to make the rent and struggling to find transportation, health care and safe neighborhoods.

This is reality in America: The wealthy and well-connected have more influence than the poor. Far better for them to use it to help in the fight against poverty than for more ominous endeavors, such as stock manipulation or tax fraud.

[Greyroofoo]

While I think Edwards will do more for the poverished americans than any other candidate, I think this hurts his image.

[BrianD]

I would comment that he should really be able to spend the money he earned any way he chooses, but his actions don't really follow Democratic party-speak.

[Galaxy]

I would comment that he should really be able to spend the money he earned any way he chooses, but his actions don't really follow Democratic party-speak.

I agree with this. I think the problem he has is with his platform that he is pushing hard.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I'd be interested to know if he has donated large sums to charity/poverty issues. I have absolutely no problem with a guy building a $10 million house, who has donated $1 million to charity, running on poverty issues.

[Galaxy]

I'd be interested to know if he has donated large sums to charity/poverty issues. I have absolutely no problem with a guy building a $10 million house, who has donated $1 million to charity, running on poverty issues.

I just think it is bad timing to build such a project. No matter how he spends, opponents and the media will run with this; with his platform and quest for president.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I just think it is bad timing to build such a project. No matter how he spends, opponents and the media will run with this; with his platform and quest for president.

Good point. He could have waited a year and a bit.

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed... it shows that Edwards is an absolutely horrid politician if he didn't realize how this would look while he's running for Democrat nomination.