Edwards Poverty Tour

[ECW]

PRESTONSBURG, Ky., July 18 — Former Senator John Edwards wrapped up his three-day poverty tour Wednesday in this village deep in Appalachia, and suggested that the “two Americas” theme of his Democratic presidential campaign was an appeal for help not just for the poor, but also for all working Americans bypassed by the nation’s prosperity.

The location was strategic. The last presidential hopeful to visit this town was Robert F. Kennedy, at the end of a 200-mile antipoverty tour of eastern Kentucky nearly 40 years ago, just one month before he formally announced his candidacy. Mr. Edwards, though saying he did not deserve to be compared to Kennedy, whom he described as his political hero, nonetheless sought to link his campaign’s central theme, the elimination of poverty, to work that Kennedy championed.

“This fight to revive and make available the American dream, it continues every single day,” the candidate told a crowd of hundreds on the courthouse lawn here, adding later, “I want America to join us, all of us, to end the great work Bobby Kennedy started.”

By invoking Kennedy, Mr. Edwards hopes to seize on the political appeal of an imposing historical figure who, with a message of helping the downtrodden, appeared headed for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968 when he was killed by an assassin the night he won the California primary. But Mr. Edwards is facing an uphill battle against Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and some have questioned whether his focus on poverty will resonate politically.

On this tour, he sought to broaden that focus.

“This cause, this march we’re on, is not just about the poor,” he said in Pittsburgh on Tuesday. “Everybody’s at risk. Everybody’s vulnerable.”

And here in Prestonsburg, he said that the “two Americas are the very rich and everybody else” — not only the extremely impoverished but all workers who are struggling because of a lack of adequate benefits and wages.

Mr. Edwards also struck the chord of another Kennedy, John, in asking the crowd: “What are you willing to do? How much do you love this country? How much effort are you willing to give? How much courage do you have?”

In this region largely ignored by the other presidential candidates, who have been focusing on the early primary and caucus states, he appeared to have succeeded in delivering a resonant message.

“He reminds me so much of John Kennedy,” said Debbie Blevins, 54, a former bus driver from a coal-mining family. “I agree 100 percent with him, and I do think he can become president.”

Ms. Blevins’s friend Violet Slone, 56, said she hoped Mr. Edwards would win the nomination because she would not vote for Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton in the general election.

“And I won’t vote Republican,” said Ms. Slone, a retired office worker. “So if Edwards isn’t in the race, that will be a day I just won’t vote.”

Mr. Edwards visited eight states on his tour: Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania and then, on Wednesday, Virginia as well as Kentucky. Before arriving here he met in Wise, Va., with volunteers who provide free mobile medical care to uninsured patients in remote areas, and also with young adults in Whitesburg, Ky., who called for a higher minimum wage, health care for all Americans and environmental stewardship.

Addressing those in Whitesburg, many from coal-mining families who complained of unsafe working conditions and untreated disease, he said: “We desperately need a president to stand up with some backbone and do the right thing for regular working people. You want to know why presidential elections matter? That’s why they matter.”link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19edwards.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print)

The media didn't spend a lot of time focusing on this particular tour but the people who heard Edwards speak sure liked what they heard. He may not have the money or the polling numbers but he has the right message.

[Stoner]

So let me get this straight. A man that pays over $400 for a haircut is talking about poverty?

Huh?

This would be like Snoop Dogg going around talking about what it's like to be white.

[ECW]

So let me get this straight. A man that pays over $400 for a haircut is talking about poverty?

Huh?

This would be like Snoop Dogg going around talking about what it's like to be white.


Thanks for trolling all my posts. Nice to know I have your attention.

[ECW]

Nobody's "following you around the board," dude. You're not getting paranoid are you?


Proof's in the pudding, doode!

And no one pays attention to drug-addled hypocrites like Snoop Asswipe anyway much less what he may or may not be coherent enough to pontificate about. Typical that you would use him to back up your argument.

Having an expensive haircut doesn't preclude anyone from speaking out about poverty just like advocating illegal drug use doesn't preclude someone from calling themselves a Republican.

[red states rule]

So let me get this straight. A man that pays over $400 for a haircut is talking about poverty?

Huh?

This would be like Snoop Dogg going around talking about what it's like to be white.


You can't make this stuff up folks

Pretty Boy Edwards has made a killing lecturing about poverty and how rotten things are in America

He has made so much money talking about poverty he is buidling a 30,000 sq ft mansion.





Talk Isn't Cheap

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards — who made his fortune as a trial lawyer before getting into politics — was paid $55,000 to speak to students at the University of California at Davis last year.

The topic — "Poverty — the Great Moral Issue Facing America." His campaign tells FOX News the speech was part of a series at the school and was funded by sponsors and the sale of tickets — which went for as much as $45.

Edwards' financial records show he pocketed $285,000 for speeches to nine colleges and universities last year, in addition to the nearly half million he made in consulting fees from a hedge fund where he worked, he said, to learn more about the financial market's effect on poverty.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274815,00.html

[ECW]

We dealt with this (and blew it the hell out of the water) long before you showed up. Nice try.

[red states rule]

Oh really? It seems you were blown out of the water not the facts about Pretty Boy making a killing off talking about poverty

[manyfeathers]

Edwards is smart, displays good common sense, and I like his hair. Money well spent hey? When he answers a question, you can tell that he's not rehearsing it before he opens his mouth. He's a straight shooter and seems to truly give a damn about American people - the little people.

[red states rule]

Why I see John Edwards as a big phony
By BRAD WARTHEN - Editorial Page Editor

MONTHS ago, I observed on my blog that I think John Edwards is a phony — a make-believe Man of The People.

It’s not so much that he’s lying when he says he wants to help One America — the Deserving Poor, whom he wants to vote for him — get what it has coming to it from the Other America (that of the Really Rich, to which he disarmingly admits he belongs). I think he believes it. But I don’t, and here’s why:

Strike One: Sept. 16, 2003. The candidate was supposed to appear on a makeshift stage on Greene Street in front of the Russell House.

He was supposed to arrive at 4 p.m., but it was past 5 before he showed. When his appearance was imminent, his wife appeared on the stage and built expectation in a manner I found appealing and sincere. Then I saw Mr. Edwards step to an offstage position just behind the bleachers to my left. None of the folks in the “good” seats could see him.

His face was impassive, slack, bored: Another crowd, another show. Nothing wrong with that — just a professional at work.

But then, I saw the thing that stuck with me: As his introduction reached its climax, he straightened, and turned on a thousand-watt smile as easily and artificially as flipping a switch. He assumed the look of a man who had just, quite unexpectedly, run into a long-lost best friend. He stepped into view of the crowd at large, and worked his way, Bill Clinton-like, from the back of the crowd toward the stage — a man of the people, coming out from among the people — shaking hands with the humble, grateful enthusiasm of a poor soul who had just won the Irish Sweepstakes.

It was so well done, but so obviously a thing of art, that I was taken aback despite three decades of seeing politicians at work.

Not enough for you? OK.

Strike Two: Jan. 23, 2004. Seeking our support in the primary he would win 11 days later, he came to an interview with The State’s editorial board.

He was all ersatz-cracker bonhomie, beginning by swinging his salt-encrusted left snowboot onto the polished boardroom table, booming, “How do y’all like my boots?” He had not, it seemed, had time to change footwear since leaving New Hampshire.

The interview proceeded according to script, a lot of aw-shucking, smiling, showing of genuine concern, and warm expressions of determination to close the gap between the Two Americas. Then he left, and I didn’t think much more about it, until a week later.

On the 30th, Howard Dean came in to see us for the second time. Again, I was struck by how personable he was, so unlike his screamer image. I rode down on the elevator with him afterward, along with my administrative assistant and another staffer who was a real Dean fan (but, worse luck for Gov. Dean, not a member of our board). I paused to watch him take his time to greet everyone in our foyer — treating each person who wanted to shake his hand as every bit as important as any editorial board member, if not more so. I remarked upon it.

“Isn’t he a nice man?” said our copy editor (the fan). I agreed. Then came the revelation: “Unlike John Edwards,” observed the administrative assistant. What’s that? It seems that when she alone had met then-Sen. Edwards at the reception desk, she had been struck by the way he utterly ignored the folks in our customer service department and others who had hoped for a handshake or a word from the Great Man. He had saved all his amiability, all his professionally entertaining energy and talent, for the folks upstairs who would have a say in the paper’s endorsement.

At that moment, my impression acquired stony bulwarks of Gothic dimensions.

Strike Three: Sept. 22, 2004. I dropped by a reception held for then-vice-presidential nominee Edwards at the Capital City Club that afternoon. I had stuffed my press credentials into my pocket after arrival so as to mix freely with the high-rollers and hear what they had to say. (They knew who I was, but the stuffy types who want writers to stand like cattle behind barriers did not.) Good thing, too, because there was plenty of time to kill, and there’s no more informative way to slaughter it than with the sort of folks whom candidates want to meet at such receptions.

It was well past the candidate’s alleged time of arrival, but no one seemed to mind. Then a prominent Democrat who lives in a fashionable downtown neighborhood confided we’d be waiting even longer. We all knew the candidate had a more public appearance at Martin Luther King Park before this one, and no one begrudged him such face time with real voters. But this particular insider knew something else: He had bided his own time because he had seen Sen. Edwards go jogging in front of his house, along with his security detail, after the time that the MLK event was to have started.

As reported in The State the next day: “Edwards was running late, and the throng waiting to rally with him at Martin Luther King Jr. Park took notice. They sat for two hours in the sweltering heat inside the community center, a block off Five Points.”

We were cool at the club, drinking, schmoozing, snacking. So he’s late? What are these folks going to do — write checks for the Republicans?

But my impression had been reinforced with steel girders: John Edwards, Man of The People, is a phony. And until I see an awful lot of stunning evidence to the contrary, that impression is not likely to change.
http://www.thestate.com/editorial-columns/story/139273.html

[manyfeathers]

It's all just a dog and pony show isn't it? :dizzy:

One thing occurs to me, why should we ever believe anyone running for office after 8 years of the colossal liar we're stuck with? :fight:

Answer me that?

[red states rule]

Hey, Bill Clinton is no longer in office

[ECW]

And he's not the colossal liar that Chimpy is either. Nice try.

As far as Edwards goes, it's typical for a neocon not to understand compassion. Oh, Chimpy tried to pass himself off as one but that was just another lie in a whole series of lies. Edwards talks the talk and walks the walk. Not a word about poverty in America from your Chimp In Chief and nothing but nonsensical whining once somebody else brings it up. How come Chimpy doesn't bring it up? How come he doesn't do more for the poor in this country? He's the fuckin president, after all? Because they don't have money to give to his campaign so he could give a shit less about them.

Edwards has proven his concern for the less fortunate, something that the so-called Christian Right never addresses despite their Christian duty to do so. It takes a Liberal Christian to follow Christ's path. Conservative Christians are little more than Social Darwinists. Edwards scares you because you know he is right about you and your lack of concern for the poor and you don't anyone to know that.

[nevadamedic]

And he's not the colossal liar that Chimpy is either. Nice try.

As far as Edwards goes, it's typical for a neocon not to understand compassion. Oh, Chimpy tried to pass himself off as one but that was just another lie in a whole series of lies. Edwards talks the talk and walks the walk. Not a word about poverty in America from your Chimp In Chief and nothing but nonsensical whining once somebody else brings it up. How come Chimpy doesn't bring it up? How come he doesn't do more for the poor in this country? He's the fuckin president, after all? Because they don't have money to give to his campaign so he could give a shit less about them.

Edwards has proven his concern for the less fortunate, something that the so-called Christian Right never addresses despite their Christian duty to do so. It takes a Liberal Christian to follow Christ's path. Conservative Christians are little more than Social Darwinists. Edwards scares you because you know he is right about you and your lack of concern for the poor and you don't anyone to know that.


GMAFB. I really liked him and wouldn't have minded if he won until he became the biggest hipocrit in the race and that's hard to do with the likes of Clinton, Obama and Richardson. This guy charges $50,000 to lecture poverty to state funded schools, there is a definate problem with that. Then says he is living poverty, how big is his house? This guy has proven to be a joke and has dissapointed me.

You can't say that this is because I am a Conservative and he is a Liberal that I am saying this because I did like him and I defended him several times. Also I do support some Democrats, if you don't believe that then ask the board owner, I have asked him a couple times to please start a Chris Dodd Forum. Face it man Edwards is playing you, the country and his supporters.

On a personal note, I do give best wishes to him and his family for his wife's medical condition and how they are dealing with it. My prayers are with them for sure.

[ECW]

GMAFB. I really liked him and wouldn't have minded if he won until he became the biggest hipocrit in the race and that's hard to do with the likes of Clinton, Obama and Richardson. This guy charges $50,000 to lecture poverty to state funded schools, there is a definate problem with that. Then says he is living poverty, how big is his house? This guy has proven to be a joke and has dissapointed me.

You can't say that this is because I am a Conservative and he is a Liberal that I am saying this because I did like him and I defended him several times. Also I do support some Democrats, if you don't believe that then ask the board owner, I have asked him a couple times to please start a Chris Dodd Forum. Face it man Edwards is playing you, the country and his supporters.

On a personal note, I do give best wishes to him and his family for his wife's medical condition and how they are dealing with it. My prayers are with them for sure.


Your personal note is noted.

Edwards has NEVER said that he lives in poverty. He says he "came" from poverty but that's not where he is at now.

Your objection to charging schools a lecture fee must have you disgusted with every Republican candidate on the trail right now because they ALL have done the same thing. It's not hypocritical to accept a fee for discussing "Poverty" unless you accepting the fee while telling people you are impoverished when you are not. Your reasons for not liking Edwards aren't based in fact. Maybe you should re-evaluate the source of those reasons and try again. They don't hold any water.

You can dislike him for a number af reasons but the ones you cited are not valid.

[ECW]

Speaking about poverty does not require one to be poor to do so. That fallacy makes a mockery of the idea of public speakers. Edwards charged anywhere from 12K to 55K for his speeches. No one HAD to pay a dime if they did not want to. The amount he charged to each school was negotiated by each school. If they paid 55K, they obviously felt he was worth it. He spoke to 12 schools in all, none of them had their arms twisted behind their backs.

The dichotomy you think exists about getting paid to speak on poverty and the bogus requirement that you be impoverished to make that speech is absurd on it's face. Rightwingers just used his speaking appearances as a smear campaign against Edwards with no substance to it at all.

[nevadamedic]

Speaking about poverty does not require one to be poor to do so. That fallacy makes a mockery of the idea of public speakers. Edwards charged anywhere from 12K to 55K for his speeches. No one HAD to pay a dime if they did not want to. The amount he charged to each school was negotiated by each school. If they paid 55K, they obviously felt he was worth it. He spoke to 12 schools in all, none of them had their arms twisted behind their backs.

The dichotomy you think exists about getting paid to speak on poverty and the bogus requirement that you be impoverished to make that speech is absurd on it's face. Rightwingers just used his speaking appearances as a smear campaign against Edwards with no substance to it at all.


The Rightwing doesn't need to launch a smear campaign against Edwards, he does a great job of that himself.

[Stoner]

The Rightwing doesn't need to launch a smear campaign against Edwards, he does a great job of that himself.


Yeah, people saw right through his disgusting tactic of using his wife's cancer to gain votes.

Fuckin ambulance chaser.

[NortheastCynic]

There is no one running for President whom I respect less than John Edwards. What he does would be bribary if this wasn't a Presidential campaign [how strange does that sound?]. He buys the votes of the poor/working class with promises of giving them the money of the wealthy. He uses buzz-words like, 'unfair' and 'entitled' to spur the emotions of his supporters without presenting a logical reason as to why he believes what he does. I cannot stand the man and would rather see any other Democrat win the nomination. Luckily Edwards has been stagnant in third place since his entry into the race and I see no reason why that trend will not continue.

-NC

[AnnEsthesia]

So let me understand you lovely conservatives. People are only allowed to discuss poverty if they are currently poor?

[NortheastCynic]

As someone who despises Edwards, Anne, I honestly have never understood the 'he's rich and talking about poverty' argument. That is not a legit reason not to like him, by itself, in my view. Every politician pretends to be a 'normal guy' and none are, so I can't get on Edwards' back for that. But then again I'm not one of the conservatives you directed the question at anyway. I'd be curious to hear their answer.

-NC

[AnnEsthesia]

I just find it odd that people who are discussing an issue are derided if they are not exactly what they are discussing. So by that view, I guess conservatives cannot talk about the sin of gay marriage unless they are in one, right?

[NortheastCynic]

Anne, I hear what you're saying, and I certainly agree on this point. As I said, I don't dislike Edwards for being rich and talking about poverty. That's fine, again, every politician has to pretend to be a regular Joe. I dislike him because he is buying votes with the money of the wealthy and is a walking assault on property rights.

-NC

[Truth_and_Power]

So let me get this straight. A man that pays over $400 for a haircut is talking about poverty?

Huh?

This would be like Snoop Dogg going around talking about what it's like to be white.


Ok stoner if you stop talking about liberals maybe edward will stop talking about poverty. Since you are not a liberal you cannot possibly comprehend anything about it enough to criticise it.

In fact, lets all just talk about ourselves and our own self-interest. I'm sure Ayn Rand would be happy with that, but it leaves no room for compassion.

[ECW]

Speaking about poverty does not require one to be poor to do so. That fallacy makes a mockery of the idea of public speakers. Edwards charged anywhere from 12K to 55K for his speeches. No one HAD to pay a dime if they did not want to. The amount he charged to each school was negotiated by each school. If they paid 55K, they obviously felt he was worth it. He spoke to 12 schools in all, none of them had their arms twisted behind their backs.

The dichotomy you think exists about getting paid to speak on poverty and the bogus requirement that you be impoverished to make that speech is absurd on it's face. Rightwingers just used his speaking appearances as a smear campaign against Edwards with no substance to it at all.


The Rightwing doesn't need to launch a smear campaign against Edwards, he does a great job of that himself.


Well. you tried and you saw your "reasons" disappear under closer scrutiny. The trouble is that the standard that you hold out for Democrats to live by and then damn then when they do not, are the same standards that Republicans cannot match and yet you praise them. THAT sounds like a smear job.[hr]


The Rightwing doesn't need to launch a smear campaign against Edwards, he does a great job of that himself.


Yeah, people saw right through his disgusting tactic of using his wife's cancer to gain votes.

Fuckin ambulance chaser.


Thanks for proving my point. Couldn't have done it better myself.

[hr]
There is no one running for President whom I respect less than John Edwards. What he does would be bribary if this wasn't a Presidential campaign [how strange does that sound?]. He buys the votes of the poor/working class with promises of giving them the money of the wealthy. He uses buzz-words like, 'unfair' and 'entitled' to spur the emotions of his supporters without presenting a logical reason as to why he believes what he does. I cannot stand the man and would rather see any other Democrat win the nomination. Luckily Edwards has been stagnant in third place since his entry into the race and I see no reason why that trend will not continue.


I don't remember Edwards promising to give poor people the money from rich people. If by that you mean that the poor ought to have health care and the opportunity to work and pull themselves out of poverty by getting some of the same breaks that the rich get, then you may be correct. But, somehow, I don't think that's what you mean. Your assessment about being mired in third place will hold up until the Iowa caucuses. Then the tide will turn.

[NortheastCynic]

I don't remember Edwards promising to give poor people the money from rich people. If by that you mean that the poor ought to have health care and the opportunity to work and pull themselves out of poverty by getting some of the same breaks that the rich get, then you may be correct. But, somehow, I don't think that's what you mean. Your assessment about being mired in third place will hold up until the Iowa caucuses. Then the tide will turn.What I mean is just that, ECW, he uses the 'social justice' card in order to convince the working class that if they vote for him, he will help take the money of the wealthy and use it to 'give' the working class things they desire. Whether it be the laughable 'right to strike' that was brought up at the AFL-CIO forum or any other form of weath distribution, Edwards consistantly utilizes class warfare to gain votes.

-NC

[ECW]

I don't remember Edwards promising to give poor people the money from rich people. If by that you mean that the poor ought to have health care and the opportunity to work and pull themselves out of poverty by getting some of the same breaks that the rich get, then you may be correct. But, somehow, I don't think that's what you mean. Your assessment about being mired in third place will hold up until the Iowa caucuses. Then the tide will turn.What I mean is just that, ECW, he uses the 'social justice' card in order to convince the working class that if they vote for him, he will help take the money of the wealthy and use it to 'give' the working class things they desire. Whether it be the laughable 'right to strike' that was brought up at the AFL-CIO forum or any other form of weath distribution, Edwards consistantly utilizes class warfare to gain votes.

-NC


I don't know if you realize but there has been a class war going on in this country since the 1930's. The unions got the upper hand and businesses have been fighting back and eroding the rights the unions achieved ever since. It's seems like it's only "class warfare" when poor people talk about it, never when the rich folks just do it, is it?

The progressive tax structure is in place for that very reason but rightwingers have been fighting to shift more and more of the burden away from businesses and onto the middle class and the poor. Chimpy's tax cuts merely amplified that very highway to hell. Corporate tax revenues used to amount to 22% of the federal bedget. Now that number is down to 7%. Who do you think is making up the difference? It sure as hell ain't the rich.

The "money of the wealthy" isn't set aside in the budget for only the wealthy to gain from although, under this president, it sure seems that way. Once it is collected into the Treasury it's everybody's money. It is spent for the common good when the common good is identified and not sold out by our elected representatives.

All that "tax cut" crap is class warfare in reverse. Cut the money coming in so social programs have to get cut so the budget can be balanced. Nice idea if you leave out the part about cutting entitlement programs. Republicans do and that's how they get people to buy into the schlock. Once they discover that some program that helps their community is going to get cut, they scream bloody murder but it's usually too late.

Edwards speaks of regaining the balance that used to exist but has been stripped away by Social Darwinists under the guise of the Republican Party. I know that goes contrary to a lot of what you believe, NC, but that's life.

PS- Unions have had a right to strike since the 1930's.

[NortheastCynic]

I don't know if you realize but there has been a class war going on in this country since the 1930's. The unions got the upper hand and businesses have been fighting back and eroding the rights the unions achieved ever since. It's seems like it's only "class warfare" when poor people talk about it, never when the rich folks just do it, is it?Yes, I am fully aware that there has been class warfare in existance since FDR and his rubber-stamp Congres pushed through several unConstitutional pieces of lesgislation giving workers 'rights' to undermine the property of those they work for. This is not news.

The progressive tax structure is in place for that very reason but rightwingers have been fighting to shift more and more of the burden away from businesses and onto the middle class and the poor. Chimpy's tax cuts merely amplified that very highway to hell. Corporate tax revenues used to amount to 22% of the federal bedget. Now that number is down to 7%. Who do you think is making up the difference? It sure as hell ain't the rich.A few things here. First and most important, I'm not talking about this President. I'm talking about what would occur during a *shudders* Edwards Administration. Edwards has made it clear that he would raise taxes on the rich and it only stands to reason that that money [along with other cash taken from other Americans by force] would be used to 'give' things to the poor. A wise man once wrote in his signature line on an internet debating site: "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' when others are being forced to pay the cost."

The "money of the wealthy" isn't set aside in the budget for only the wealthy to gain from although, under this president, it sure seems that way. Once it is collected into the Treasury it's everybody's money. It is spent for the common good when the common good is identified and not sold out by our elected representatives. The common good, as defined by 525 out of 300 million people. None of whom I've voted for, none of whom I have told, 'yes, absolutely; this is to say nothing of my belief that the 'common good' is a myth.

All that "tax cut" crap is class warfare in reverse. Cut the money coming in so social programs have to get cut so the budget can be balanced. Nice idea if you leave out the part about cutting entitlement programs. Republicans do and that's how they get people to buy into the schlock. Once they discover that some program that helps their community is going to get cut, they scream bloody murder but it's usually too late.I'm all in favor of cutting both taxes [in theory, elminating them would be nice, but I won't hold my breath] and spending [in theory eliminating all of it but I won't hold my breath].

Edwards speaks of regaining the balance that used to exist but has been stripped away by Social Darwinists under the guise of the Republican Party. I know that goes contrary to a lot of what you believe, NC, but that's life.He speaks of artificially creating a balance that, in so doing, will violate the property rights of business owners and steal more money from society's most productive individuals. How do you define 'balance' here?

PS- Unions have had a right to strike since the 1930's.Of this I am also aware. Have I told you how much I despise FDR?:lmao: The entire concept of wanting the 'right to strike' without fear of being fired is one of the most amazingly self-centered, self-important and selfish ideas I can think of. Essentially, an individual doesn't like the conditions of his labor contract, says 'I won't do this job' but the simultaneously says that no one should be able to do the job and it should be reserved for him until the conditions he wants changed are changed. He needs to get over himself and understand that that is not his call, it is the owner of the business' call and if he doesn't agree to some sort of condition of his labor, he is free not to work there anymore.

The 'right to strike' is a sham and flies in the face of property rights. It's no surprise that FDR helped hammer it into the American psyche. As if he hadn't done enough damage.

-NC

[ECW]

I don't know if you realize but there has been a class war going on in this country since the 1930's. The unions got the upper hand and businesses have been fighting back and eroding the rights the unions achieved ever since. It's seems like it's only "class warfare" when poor people talk about it, never when the rich folks just do it, is it?Yes, I am fully aware that there has been class warfare in existance since FDR and his rubber-stamp Congres pushed through several unConstitutional pieces of lesgislation giving workers 'rights' to undermine the property of those they work for. This is not news.

The Supreme Court had ample opportunities to strike down FDR's programs and did whack some of them out of existence but for the most part FDR leveled the playing field that had been seriously tilted since the Roaring 90's (the 1890's). A worker has numerous rights by his own person and under the law. There are limitations to what an employer may legally do regardless of what he owns. It seems like you are almost arguing in favor of a return to the days of the lowest common denominator with no minimum wage, no 40 hour week, no overtime, no child protection laws, no pensions, no health care. That was class warfare at its Management best. Thankfully, unions beat back most of these despicable practices.


The progressive tax structure is in place for that very reason but rightwingers have been fighting to shift more and more of the burden away from businesses and onto the middle class and the poor. Chimpy's tax cuts merely amplified that very highway to hell. Corporate tax revenues used to amount to 22% of the federal bedget. Now that number is down to 7%. Who do you think is making up the difference? It sure as hell ain't the rich.A few things here. First and most important, I'm not talking about this President. I'm talking about what would occur during a *shudders* Edwards Administration. Edwards has made it clear that he would raise taxes on the rich and it only stands to reason that that money [along with other cash taken from other Americans by force] would be used to 'give' things to the poor. A wise man once wrote in his signature line on an internet debating site: "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' when others are being forced to pay the cost."

Cash taken by certain Americans by force is the rightwing way of saying paying your taxes. It's not a crime to pay them. I do so willingly because I know what a society looks like when there is no taxation and no government. It looks like Somalia. No, thanks.

Six years of total GOP control has taken us away from a fiscal surplus into deficit spending and increased debt. The money we pay on the interest alone would be enough for every social program I could think up but we are spending it on paying off a debt run up by numerous Republican presidents. If that were paid off, we could retire the debt and have money left over for some of those vaunted tax cuts you seem to love. A Democratic Congress along with John Edwards as president would go a long way in reversing the downward trend from this administration's disasterous fiscal policies.

An Edwards administration would certainly be more fiscally responsible than this administration. Raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% would re-establish a progressive tax base that has served this country very well for close to a century now. The trouble with your little quote is this: when you do not care for the least fortunate of your society EVERYONE pays the cost.


The "money of the wealthy" isn't set aside in the budget for only the wealthy to gain from although, under this president, it sure seems that way. Once it is collected into the Treasury it's everybody's money. It is spent for the common good when the common good is identified and not sold out by our elected representatives. The common good, as defined by 525 out of 300 million people. None of whom I've voted for, none of whom I have told, 'yes, absolutely; this is to say nothing of my belief that the 'common good' is a myth.

Those 538 members of the legislative branch are a part of what we call a representative democracy. If you didn't vote for any of them, I say thanks. That means my vote counted for more. The dumbshits who represent me side with the chimpster 100% of the time but at least I don't have them on my conscience. Next time will be different. Tom DeLay's manipulations of our districts notwithstanding.

You may feel the Common Good is a myth and that is your right. I do not. Many things are done for the common good: building roads, schools, parks, bridges, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, and the list goes on. I've read about our country when none of those were the practice and government was not active in the lives of the people. It wasn't pretty. I'm not willing to return to those times.


All that "tax cut" crap is class warfare in reverse. Cut the money coming in so social programs have to get cut so the budget can be balanced. Nice idea if you leave out the part about cutting entitlement programs. Republicans do and that's how they get people to buy into the schlock. Once they discover that some program that helps their community is going to get cut, they scream bloody murder but it's usually too late.I'm all in favor of cutting both taxes [in theory, elminating them would be nice, but I won't hold my breath] and spending [in theory eliminating all of it but I won't hold my breath].

I'm not. Eliminating taxes is a utopian dream much like communism was. Looks good on paper; sucks in reality. Government does for the people what they cannot do for themselves. When it loses that focus, society comes apart at the seams. Like now...


Edwards speaks of regaining the balance that used to exist but has been stripped away by Social Darwinists under the guise of the Republican Party. I know that goes contrary to a lot of what you believe, NC, but that's life.He speaks of artificially creating a balance that, in so doing, will violate the property rights of business owners and steal more money from society's most productive individuals. How do you define 'balance' here?

Like I said before, paying taxes is not stealing. It is the price you pay for living in a civilized world and not in the wilds of Siberia or the desolation of Antarctica. People who make money usually take advantage of the protections of the nation to do so. Only fair that the ones who make more, that get more protection, should pay more as well.

Hard to define balance for someone who thinks that taxes are stealing. No answer will be justifiable in that case. I'm willing to return to the tax structure under Clinton. Eight years of solid growth for the first time in our nation's history. Seems like a good start. We'll see how it goes from there.


PS- Unions have had a right to strike since the 1930's.Of this I am also aware. Have I told you how much I despise FDR?:lmao: The entire concept of wanting the 'right to strike' without fear of being fired is one of the most amazingly self-centered, self-important and selfish ideas I can think of. Essentially, an individual doesn't like the conditions of his labor contract, says 'I won't do this job' but the simultaneously says that no one should be able to do the job and it should be reserved for him until the conditions he wants changed are changed. He needs to get over himself and understand that that is not his call, it is the owner of the business' call and if he doesn't agree to some sort of condition of his labor, he is free not to work there anymore.

The 'right to strike' is a sham and flies in the face of property rights. It's no surprise that FDR helped hammer it into the American psyche. As if he hadn't done enough damage.

There is a fundamental concept here that you are not willing to grasp. Workers have rights, too. The employer has a right to expect a fair day's work for the wage he pays and the worker has a right to be paid fairly for a fair day's work. When it goes beyond the concept of fairness (as it often does) both sides have a right to be heard, not just the employer. Remember, society does not belong to him and he is not the supreme authority in matters of employment. The state is and there are laws to follow that govern employment.

Property rights are not supreme either. They do not supercede or replace the right for a worker to be treated fairly under the law. Failure to follow the law and do what is fair results in strikes against the employer because workers understand one concept more than anyone else: money talks, bullsh it walks. When the money isn't coming in, it doesn't talk and the owner is forced to pay attention.

He cannot do it by himself so he hires workers to work in his stead. Treat them fairly and they never strike. I've never heard of a union or anyone clamoring for a union because they loved how they were being treated. (Look at Toyota... no unions because they are seen as treating their workers fairly.The UAW can't make any headway there and for good reason.)

The law protects workers from unscrupulous employers. I know you find that hard to believe but there are a few of them out there. Not being fired for striking protects workers from such employers who flaunt the law, create situations so extreme that workers are willing to stop earning money to protest over it, and force an owner to deal in good faith or keep losing money. Otherwise, he could just fire that set of workers (and some still do this regardless of the law) and hire new ones and continue to put workers at risk.

There are responsibilities that employers must have to the society that they live in, if not to their workers. The worst ones are the reason for the law that was enacted in the first place. I hope you are not advocating for a return to the days of The Jungle when there was no government oversight for businesses? All of us want to go back to the Good Old Days but that's a bit much even for me.

[preservanation]

I thought this guy was on a ticket somewhere in the last election?
Must be a genius...along with Kerry.[hr]


The Rightwing doesn't need to launch a smear campaign against Edwards, he does a great job of that himself.


Yeah, people saw right through his disgusting tactic of using his wife's cancer to gain votes.

Fuckin ambulance chaser.
Funkin A right 'bro!

[NortheastCynic]

The Supreme Court had ample opportunities to strike down FDR's programs and did whack some of them out of existence but for the most part FDR leveled the playing field that had been seriously tilted since the Roaring 90's (the 1890's).ECW, the court WOULD HAVE struck down most [if not all] of his "New Deal" programs had he not coerced them into passing them through, this is a fact. He threatened to pack the court with more judges. He essentially strong-armed them into approving legislation that clearly had no Constitutional justification.

It seems like you are almost arguing in favor of a return to the days of the lowest common denominator with no minimum wage, no 40 hour week, no overtime, no child protection laws, no pensions, no health care.I am in favor of abolishing the minimum wage, the abolition of child labor laws, and of all other regulations you have mentioned. If a business owner chooses to provide a pension, that is his business, given the fact that it is HIS money to give out.

Cash taken by certain Americans by force is the rightwing way of saying paying your taxes.Not just right-wing, ECW, libertarians as well. And I cannot possibly fathom anyone not at the very least, admitting that taxation is just that. The governmen takes your and my money by force, if we refuse to pay we are jailed. This is a fact of life. The difference between libertarians and others is that libertarians do not make exceptions for government. That is to say, a libertarian sees taxation for what it is, a group of people taking individual's money without that individuals consent. Most others call such a thing 'taxation' because the state perpetrates the crime, I call it theft because that is simply what it is. If I and fifty of my closest friends decide to rob you and then distribute the wealth between us to pay for various services we 'need' [rent, various medical procedures, etc] it is theft. If the government takes money from your paycheck and uses it to provide various services that members of 'society' 'need', it is something other than theft? I do not think so.

I do so willingly because I know what a society looks like when there is no taxation and no government. It looks like Somalia. No, thanks.Somalia is in a state of civil war. One state is fighting another for control of the country. If there is one thing worse than one state, it is two.

There is a fundamental concept here that you are not willing to grasp. Workers have rights, too. The employer has a right to expect a fair day's work for the wage he pays and the worker has a right to be paid fairly for a fair day's work.A few things, first, I am not 'willing to grasp' what you say? Does that mean you are not willing to 'grasp' my views? Of course not, I am willing to 'grasp' what I believe to be true, ECW, we simply disagree on this point; there is no failure to 'grasp' anything in this exchange. Second, you used the word 'fair' or a derivative of it three times in the above quote, yet you have not defined it. That's okay, no one can. That's the beauty of the market, it sets an example of what can be considered 'fair', as opposed to an artificial, arbitrary and subjective concept of 'fairness' being dictated to it by the government. Yes, employees have 'rights', those 'rights' are detailed in their contract of employment, no more, no less. I have never stated that workers have no rights.

I would like to go further in depth and respond to more of your points, but I'm literally falling asleep as I type, so I'll get to the rest later. I will say however that you continue to repeat the word 'fair' which again, is an undefinable piece of fluff. What YOU think is fair is different than what other's think is fair. Bottom line, employment is a contract based on mutual consent. If I work somewhere, I consent to doing so, and am subject to the rules that my employer creates. If I do not like those rules, I can find a new job, hence the term 'job market'. You have no right to a job, nor do you have a right to dictate your personal definition of 'fairnes' to others. Again, I'd like to go further in depth, but I'm entirely too tired. I will, no doubt, be back.

TO BE CONTINUED...

-NC

[firefox]

Anne, I hear what you're saying, and I certainly agree on this point. As I said, I don't dislike Edwards for being rich and talking about poverty. That's fine, again, every politician has to pretend to be a regular Joe. I dislike him because he is buying votes with the money of the wealthy and is a walking assault on property rights.

-NC


Also, if he REALLY cared about the lower classes, why does he only play this up during election years? IMHO, those who really care are those who do what needs to be done every day, and actively AVOID attention and credit for doing what they know is right. I was THIS close to voting for this hypocrite in the '04 CA primaries, but I voted for the LP's Mike Badnarik instead.