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?

To bump this thread, will this hurt Edwards?

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observe...n/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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.