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

[QuikSand]

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

[cartman]

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

[CraigSca]

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

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

[Ksyrup]

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

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

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

[PSUColonel]

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

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

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

I'm ANTI-POVERTY! Take THAT!

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

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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

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

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

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

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

[cartman]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

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

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

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

[PSUColonel]

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

[cartman]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

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

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

[CraigSca]

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

[QuikSand]

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...800457_pf.html

John Edwards Announces Bid for 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination
New Orleans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDWARDS: Yes.

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

EDWARDS: Well, I can give you some examples.

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Taxes? Taxes, Senator Edwards?

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

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

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

(CROSSTALK)

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

EDWARDS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

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

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

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

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

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by cartman

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

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

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

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

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

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

[cartman]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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

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

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

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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

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

[CraigSca]

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

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by cartman

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

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

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

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

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

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

[kcchief19]

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

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

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

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

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

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

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

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

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

[Shkspr]

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

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

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

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

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

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

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

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

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

An excellent comparison.

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

[Dutch]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

[cartman]

Dutch,

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

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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

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

[Dutch]

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

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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

[Ksyrup]

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

[JPhillips]

A few things.

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

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

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

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

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

No need to make this personal.

[JPhillips]

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

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

[JPhillips]

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

It just is silly.

[Dutch]

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

[cartman]

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

It just is silly.

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

[Young Drachma]

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

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

[Dutch]

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

[cartman]

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

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

with this report being the most eye-opening:

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

[QuikSand]

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

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

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

[gstelmack]

I have two key points / questions:

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

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

Additional comments:

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

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

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I have two key points / questions:

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

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

FWIW: Poverty Line -- does that get you what you're looking for there?

[JPhillips]

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

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

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

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