John Edwards pledges to end all bad things, for real
 

Edwards plans big for presidency
Candidate: Sacrifice must be priority, too
Print article
Send to friend
Letter to editor



By LAUREN R. DORGAN
Monitor staff


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 26. 2007 1:25AM



DAN HABIB / Monitor staff
John Edwards

Zoom

Purchase Photos Online


John Edwards says if he's elected president, he'll institute a New Deal-like suite of programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth disparity. To do it, he said, he'll ask many Americans to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes.

Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, says the federal government should underwrite universal pre-kindergarten, create matching savings accounts for low-income people, mandate a minimum wage of $9.50 and provide a million new Section 8 housing vouchers for the poor. He also pledged to start a government-funded public higher education program called "College for Everyone."

"It is central to what I want to do as president to do something about economic inequality. I do not believe it is okay for the United States of America to have 37 million people living in poverty," he said in a meeting with Monitor reporters and editors this week. "And I think we need, desperately need, a president who will say that to America and call on Americans to show their character."

At every stop, Edwards said, he tells voters he'll ask them to sacrifice. Asked to describe what he means, he described his plan for increases in capital gains taxes, saying taxes on "wealth income" should be in line with those on work income.

"I think if we want to fund the things that I think are important to share in prosperity, then people who have done well in this country, including me, have more of a responsibility to give back," he said. Later, he added: "There are no free meals."

Like other Democrats, Edwards named his top three priorities as ending the war in Iraq, enacting universal health care and overhauling the American energy system. "Those are three things instantly I would do," he said.
Edwards also ripped fellow Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton, who leads most polls nationally and in New Hampshire by a wide margin, for taking campaign contributions from federal lobbyists and for her recent vote in favor of naming Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. Edwards barely mentioned Sen. Barack Obama.

Both Edwards and Clinton have proposed universal health care plans that mandate insurance for everyone, while Obama has proposed a plan that requires coverage only for children. Edwards, who was first to propose a plan, called Clinton's a "carbon copy" of his but said he is better positioned to negotiate because he has the "clean hands of not taking money from lobbyists."

"Senator Clinton has over the years has taken millions of dollars from lobbyists and defends the status quo system," he said. "She just basically says the system works and her argument is, 'I'm experienced, I can operate within the system.' "

Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand questioned the line Edwards has drawn. He takes money from state lobbyists and from a variety of industry groups; according to a Washington Post roundup, he's taken more than $8 million this year from lawyers and law firms, including some that also employ lobbyists.

"It is disappointing that instead of taking the opportunity to lay out his ideas to New Hampshire voters, John Edwards is consistently choosing to engage in misleading, desperate attacks against Senator Clinton," Strand said.

Edwards called the Iran vote made by Clinton and others "a signal" to President Bush about what's permissible.

"Are we going to hear six months from now, Bush invades Iran, 'If only I had known then what I know now?' " Edwards said. "How long does it take to learn this lesson? There's a very hard lesson that I've had to learn from Iraq."

As a senator, Edwards voted to authorize the war in Iraq, as did Clinton. Since then, Edwards has apologized and called the vote a mistake, while Clinton has not, saying that she "takes responsibility" for her vote and she would end the war. Edwards has often criticized Clinton for stopping short of an apology.

Edwards said he would pull combat troops out of Iraq within 10 months, while leaving behind a strike force in the region and limited troops in Iraq with missions like protecting the American embassy. He said it's impossible to predict the future of the country.

"No one knows what's going to happen in Iraq. We're in a bad place, the choices are ugly," he said. And we have to make the best choices under the circumstances to maximize the chances for success, but there are enormous risks in Iraq. And a lot of it is out of our hands."

Edwards billed himself as a "rare combination": The most progressive of the major candidates as well as "the most electable." He pointed to the fact that he was elected to the Senate from a "red state" and that he comes from a rural area, two factors that he said prove his electability.

Edwards said the time has passed for "poll-driven, careful, cautious ideas."

"I think you have to say, 'There's something rotten in Denmark,' " he said. "The system needs to be fixed."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071026/FRONTPAGE/710260384


Ok, so I think he officially scares me more than Hillary. When do we change our name to "Unified American Socialist Republic"?

I'm pretty sure this is his last ditch, hail mary attempt to gain some supporters, as he's behind Hillary and Obama. I just don't see this plan appealing to anyone but the unemployed, because it will take a bite out of everyone else's paycheck. We have our fair share of morons in this country, but I think most will see this as being totally unsustainable without huge tax increases. Or as John says, "sacrifices".

He's walking on the ragged edge of 'political sanity'.

He needs only a slight nudge ...he'll be gone.

37 Million in poverty? By what definition? The kids don't get a PSP? He needs to see real poverty.

He's probably using Hillary's definition. Under $80k/yr = poverty. Funny, I make half of that right now. Am I poor white trash?

Even better is the fact that I am going to college, make about $40k/yr, have two kids, good health insurance, two good paid for cars, and a 4 BR 2500 sq ft house in a nice neighborhood. Yeah, I'm in the depths of poverty.:rolleyes: Please John, end my plight!

Edit: here's my trailer home.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1193751344.jpg

Will he do something about his hair?

what an asshat and a poverty pimp.
He's trying to buy votes by taking away from those who earned and give to those who don't earn.
Problem with that is, why would anyone try anymore? If you work harder you get screwed more but can't get ahead so it would be easier to just give up and join the ranks of the lazy or dumb poor.
Just like in the former soviet union, no incentives for higher porformance eliminated the higher performance.

I'D LOVE TO CHANGE THE WORLD
(Alvin Lee)

Recorded by : Sister Red; Ten Years After.


Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more?

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you

Population keeps on breeding
Nation bleeding, still more feeding economy
Life is funny, skies are sunny
Bees make honey, who needs money, Monopoly

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you

World pollution, there's no solution
Institution, electrocution
Just black and white, rich or poor
Them and us, stop the war

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you

God save me from him and Hitlery.. Seems both of them are bent on taking away from those of us who work hard and save....

I'm tempted to quit my job and go on unemployment and welfare, borrow as much money as possible and never pay it back, develop a drug and alcohol dependency, and have a bunch of illegitimate kids. that way these politicians will be on my side instead of trying to rape me at every turn.

From this website:

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html

.....comes this quote:

"The number of people below the official poverty thresholds numbered 35.9 million in 2003, or 1.3 million more than in 2002, for a 2003 poverty rate of 12.5 percent. Although up from 2002, this rate is below the average of the 1980s and 1990s."

Also this quote:

"As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2003 was $18,810; for a family of three, $14,680; for a family of two, $12,015; and for unrelated individuals, $9,393. "

And so, if four people live together with a combined income of less than $18,810, they are defined as "poor." I would have to agree.

- - - - - - - -

There are limits to my communistic sensibilities. I probably cannot support Mr. Edwards on some of this nonsense. But having said that, I will say this: In my professional opinion, a $5.85 minimum wage is not economically healthful, overall. In my estimation, while severe hikes in the minimum wage would do much to upset the apple cart for a bit, once stabilized a minimum wage that is a "living wage" would help all Americans. It would, for example, elevate the vast majority of those 36 million Americans out from under the "poverty level." The ones who are working. Just so you know......there are more people working and living in poverty than there are people who are unemployed.

I'll bet I seem like quite a PITA to some of you guys. If it were not for me, you guys could circle-jerk with mythology like POVERTY = $80K per year.

Hey now, that was straight from the mouth of Hillary. The "poor" people that she desires to give free healthcare includes everyone making less than $80k. The numbers posted above seem realistic.

While I don't believe that you can really live on minimum wage, I don't think it's all that valid anyway. Even McDonalds hires start above minimum wage. Sure, you can raise it to whatever you want, but eventually employers will raise prices to compensate. That effectively eliminates any additional buying power.

I have to agree, Matt. With both your statements.

I like John. Every election needs a real scumbag and with Al sitting on the fence this year it's nice to know John is there. I'm sure we all remember John's initial goals:

AMES, IA—In an effort to jump-start a presidential campaign that still has not broken into the top Democratic tier, former Sen. John Edwards made his most ambitious policy announcement yet at a campaign event in Iowa Monday: a promise to eliminate all unpleasant, disagreeable, or otherwise bad things from all aspects of American life by the end of his second year in office.

In Iowa, Edwards speaks with conviction about his lifelong distaste for bad things.

"Many bad things are not just bad—they're terrible," said a beaming Edwards, whose "Only the Good Things" proposal builds upon previous efforts to end poverty, outlaw startlingly loud noises, and offer tax breaks to those who smile frequently. "Other candidates have plans that would reduce some of the bad things, but I want all of them gone completely."

According to Edwards, his plan is composed of three steps. Everyday bad things, such as curse words and splinters, would be eradicated during his first six months in office. Next, very bad things, including child abduction, soil erosion, and resurgent diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis, would be ended by the the end of 2009. Finally, extremely bad things—plights such as genocide, species extinction, and virtually every form of cancer—would take a full two years to wipe out.

"Racism will soon be a thing of the past," Edwards said. "Same goes for being picked last for playground athletics, AIDS, robbery, not having enough spending money, and murder. Because these things are bad and not good, I promise they will be eliminated."

Other bad things the 2004 vice-presidential nominee vowed to end include the housing crisis, skinned knees, frowns, steep staircases, jailbreaks, water that is too cold to swim in, pain, traffic, being tired in the morning, sprained ankles, hunger, not having enough energy at night, teen pregnancy, cases of the blahs, thunder, the high cost of admission to events, type 2 diabetes, games of tic-tac-toe with no clear winner, the lack of parking in urban areas, forgetting birthdays, child prostitution, and confusion.

"Imagine a world free of procrastination, class disparity, and itchiness," Edwards said. "It will only be possible if we try."

Edwards told the gathered audience that the second half of his presidential term would be devoted to a $125 billion effort to supplant the abolished bad things with good things, such as flowers, the laughter of children, butterflies, sunny days, financial stability, Skittles, and medicine.

Though some Democrats are applauding the positivity of Edwards' pro-good agenda, critics say that the wealthy former trial lawyer is, at best, paying lip service to the issue.

"This is certainly a step in the right direction, but it's not enough," Daily Kos contributor *****ingPoints wrote hours after Edwards' announcement. "Where in Mr. Edwards' list of bad things does it mention poisonous snakes, nasty red wine stains on rugs, trolls, and noisy neighbors? Edwards has left the door wide open for a rival candidate to outflank him on his own issue by introducing a comprehensive plan that fills these gaping holes."

Republican front-runner Rudolph Giuliani attacked Edwards Tuesday for labeling things as bad when they may actually turn out to be good in the long run.

"Is 'shooting' always a bad thing?" Giuliani said. "I think such a position would undercut not only our soldiers in Iraq, but also law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day, not to mention our basic Second Amendment rights."

Added Giuliani: "On a personal note, I rather like cloudy days, and I don't want to live in a world where they don't exist."

Then it's true. The end times are near.;)

Nice post cairns. Gotta love The Onion. That's where I drew my thread title from, except Edwards supplied the humor.

People should get paid what their work is worth on an open, competitive market. Not one penny more, ever, for any reason.
They provide a service to an employer and should be compensated fairly based on the skill level or physical requirements.

If someone provides a valuable skill, they should get paid more for it. If someone provides unsklilled labor that anyone could do, they should be paid significantly less. With no exceptions. The minimum wage ashould be abolished, not raised.
If your employer pays you less than your work is worth, you go to work for someone else who will pay more. If there is no one else who will pay more, then your work is not worth more. It really is that simple.

Raising the minimum wage for people who don't provide much value to their employers is right out of the communist manifesto. Anyone who believes that is the right thing to do needs to pack his bags and get the heck out of this country before he does any more damage. I heard cuba still believes in that crap, they'd fit right in. I'll even chip a little bit for the plane ticket one way of course.

Does he have this guy "Not Sure" on his staff that will solve EVERYTHING?

JP

"John Edwards says if he's elected president, he'll institute a New Deal-like suite of programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth disparity."

Finally a Democrat who will own up to being a socialist...at least he is honest about it.

I still say we should make the parties change their names. The Democrats would become the American Socialist party, the Republicans would become the Democratic party and then maybe we can get some actual conservatives to be the third party.

So true. This is perfect.

True conservatives need a party...it ain't the Republicans, sad to say.

In your dreams. One of the well-known keys to political success (and Chess as well) is to control the center of the board. It is interesting that you guys are so deluded as to think that your brand of thinking is anywhere near the center. Your "party" has eliminated this fantasy for everyone who has been paying attention. The center of the board is open for occupancy, but the distance is too far for your "party" to travel. In spite of the marketing attempt to mischaracterize Democrats as communists, that party is (or at least could be) in a position to occupy the left and the center. But for the terrible choices we have (Obama and Clinton, unfortunately), this should be easy.

One thing that is true - the Repubs botched things up so bad in the last few years, both substantively and on things like image control, that this is the Dems game to take.

But by nominating the most disliked woman in America, with just about the highest negative polling numbers of anyone (male or female) in America, the Dems sure seem intent on blowing it.

For a sports analogy, the Repubs have fumbled the ball, but the Dems are about to pick it up and run it into their own endzone.

The Dems really need to clean house at the top of their party.

The end times are indeed upon us. I agree with "the."

Here's the deal...lose the party affiliation and work to FIX this mess. Term limits...insist on it, vote for it.

Our system needs a transfusion.

Interesting there's an article in politico about that subject today. Pelosi, Reid, Murtha and Hoyer are getting an earful from their own members who are fed up with their leadership. The Armenian snafu is just the latest example (but a particularly bad one) in a long line of Pelosi missteps- starting with the Mid East trip and her horrific attempt at diplomacy.

They've belatedly reached out to Republicans on SCHIP and Hoyer is getting an earful from them- most Democrats know they need the Republicans to actually get something done- and they're worried about their own approval ratings. Interestingly the two parties are not far apart on the issue and the junior members know this- and want the posturing to stop.

Hopefully some wiser heads will prevail- at this point Pelosi makes Gingrich look like a statesman.

I'm not okay with term limits. It would limit our ability to re-elect good legislators. It's just a band-aid that assumes (rightly so) that voters are idiots and that challengers are better suited than incumbents. I know it will never happen, but I'm just stubbon enough to be still hoping that voters might become informed. I see no band-aids that will prevent ignorant voters from electing anarchists and communists.

I used to think this, but have decided that there are plenty of good folks out there who can replace even the good legislators. If I were king for a day, there'd be not only term limits, but it would be one term only, no reelections period and no more jobs on the federal payroll after the first one. Get out of Washington and get a real job! What amazing changes we'd have without career politicians.

You miss the central problem...seniority, the power of seniority. It must be changed.

The FFs, IMHO, had no idea that a permanent political class would become tantamount They accounted for most of the vanity of man, but they seemed to have missed this phenom.

Term limits would serve to enhance the pool of good legislators by removing the barriers to even challenge an incumbent today. Odd I want to level the playing field and you seem to enjoy the current, stolid system that enhances the status quo.

We have term limits, every 4 years you can vote them out. What we really need is to keep the stupid people from voting, you should own property and not be not be on Government assistance to vote. Convicted felons shouldn't be voting either:mad:

That asswhipe edwards wants to limits what CEOs can earn, but he hasn't said a thing limiting what trial lawyers can steal from everyone!!!

From what I know, removing an entrenched incumbent can be nearly impossible. Whomever he has chosen to support (lobby) will be more than happy to leverage enough cash to destroy the campaign of most challengers. Just watch, even the bad incumbents have to f-up pretty badly to get voted out.

I agree with Paul (Seahawk), I think that this a great way to affect change. If the biggest problem with Washington is the politicians, get rid of the politicians. 4 years to serve your nation, then it's back to the real world. If becoming a senator wasn't like winning the lottery, you might actually get people that wish to serve their country. It would go a long way towards destroying the established relationships/stranglehold that special interest groups and lobbyists have on our government.

man alive that Alvin Lee could play, my favorite song, or one of them.

Little Johnny Haircut is a scary gent, but he is not getting elected to anything, maybe VP I guess, but Hillary will take the black chain smoker over the fair skinned baby soul channeler for her #2.

Matt, you are not white trash, you have a Dodge truck with pipes, you are a redneck.

Your house looks EXACTLY like my friend Alan's in Conroe

If Edwards, Soros, Clinton, etc feel that they are not paying enough taxes...the federal government will certainly accept their contributions. They have already made theirs and don't really care if you make yours. Raising taxes on earned income really only hurts those working stiffs that must depend on earning income...not guys that have already amassed wealth like Edwards, etc...

A redneck? Sweet! Now I suppose I need some huntin' dogs, I'll start only drinking Budweiser, and I need a car on cinderblocks in the front yard. I have a lot of work to do!

Actually, it's my brother-in-law's truck.:)

I agree. Actually, I don't agree with the bit about prohibiting stupid people from voting.......conservatives should play some role in decision-making.......but I just think that as long as voters are unaware of what's going on, term limits and other bandaids are not going to be effective.

Indeed, here is one of the many downsides to all this gubmit-bashing. We have tens of thousands, if not millions, of talented managers out there in the private sector. Do you think they are anxious to take a gubmit job where they can be considered a lazy, mindless idiot? What if we pretended that public service were an honorable and valuable and respected gig? And....what if we paid a market rate?

I support non bad things and I like all things good. I want to vote for good things..................err...so then...I should.................vote........ for John?

I want......no, I need to vote against bad things,........but......what am ..I..................... voting for now?

If I don't vote for John, then I'm voting for.... bad things? Or, if I don't vote for John am I voting against..... non bad things?

I think I need a drink. What's John drinking?

I'm glad you're so smart Superman. If we just had more smart people like you, can you imagine? It must be true that government workers, in general, are smarter than the stupid masses. All these anti government idiots out here trying to undue years of progress and getting in the way of our future potential. Heck, if it weren't for the Federal Government the world would come to a screeching halt. Don't you think?

Sure, Gbmnt can be inefficient, but would you trust an efficient private agency? Neither would I. The private agencies' greed alone causes everything they touch to be dangerous, and who will reign in all the money they're stealing from the stupid masses? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Who will stop this injustice?

It's high time we get smart and vote, yes vote, against Bad Things.