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.

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

dola,

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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. :)

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.

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.

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













P.S. I got what you meant

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

including Canada?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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