1/12/2008

43 Comments

1. So John Edwards expects to be President until at least 2036?

   Comment by chaos — 1/12/2008 @ 11:14 pm

2. It’s obviously the money we’re lacking, not the resources. Solution: Print more money.

   Subsidizing bank accounts will therefore be free. And the housing vouchers will make for better houses. And poverty – which will require a definitional change to disappear – will be gone.

   Tons of people under the poverty line have televisions and microwaves, plus (as our host noted in a prior thread) the standard measures do not include welfare payments. So, to eliminate poverty as currently measured, we’ll have to give people non-welfare income. Perhaps requiring companies to hire anyone who applies at a minimum wage of $35 an hour will solve this problem.

   Workers unable to attend work due to physical disabilities like lost legs or addiction to heroin will nonetheless be paid for their willingness to apply for work.

   Anyway, I’m glad John Edwards will give money to working families and end poverty. That will leave only the idle rich suffering; since they don’t work, that may be difficult to enforce. Maybe we can tax high-end haircuts.

   –JRM

   Comment by JRM — 1/12/2008 @ 11:38 pm

3. Subsidizing bank accounts?

   What? Why? And neighborhoods are better or worse relative to to where the poor criminals live. How can you give housing vouchers out to send all the poor people to “better neighborhoods”? How does that work? Wouldn’t that just inflate the price of all housing and be meaningless?

   I checked to see if this was satire. Aren’t there enough solvable problems without worrying about the unsolvable?

   Comment by Jem — 1/13/2008 @ 12:14 am

4. Edwards is a commie asshole. We can end poverty in 5 years by booting out the illegal aliens and not importing any new cheap labor, that means NO IMMIGRATION, for five years.

   Also, employers will have to offer medical insurance and all that good stuff or workers will work elsewhere. You need to increase the valuableness of labor to end poverty. It works by supply and demand like everything else in an evolved capitalistic free enterprise system.

   Comment by j curtis — 1/13/2008 @ 12:14 am

5. If you use the average world income as a yardstick, everyone in America is already well above the poverty line.

   That’s why they come here.

   Comment by Kevin Murph — 1/13/2008 @ 1:00 am

6. WELCOME BACK DRJ

   Comment by james conrad — 1/13/2008 @ 2:04 am

7. He will lead a national effort to “end poverty within 30 years, lifting 37 million Americans out of poverty by 2036.”

   Edward’s plan will probably be even a greater failure than the Democrat’s “War on Poverty” that started in 1964. Despite missing benchmarks for decades, the Democrats still refuse to withdraw from their quagmire.

   Comment by Perfect Sense — 1/13/2008 @ 4:32 am

8. Does Edwards really think it is possible to win a war on statistics?

   As long as there is money, there will be a poverty ‘line’. As long as there is a line, there will be people under it. No matter what we do, that’s the way it works.

   Yes we can raise the poverty line (or lower it) but you can’t take everyone above it.

   Comment by Verlin Martin — 1/13/2008 @ 5:02 am

9. Nobody can end poverty because poverty is a measure of income, not quality of life. The measure does not include most forms of government assistance designed to stave off food deprivation and homelessness.

   There will alwasy be a percentage of the population “In Poverty” regardless of how well they are nourished, clothed and housed.

   Comment by davod — 1/13/2008 @ 5:11 am

10. From the Democratic view point, Edwards is brilliant. Why?
    Because he will assure that a whole new generation of “Economically Disabled” will be suckling at the government teat. Thereby assuring a democratic electorate. It’s all just a repeat of history. Our economy is down, there are people struggling to thrive, so the Democrats throw open the doors to the vault.
    JRM noted that many of our “poor’ have what are luxuries elsewhere in the world. It seems that Edwards and his friends feel that not only have to provide a safety net but rather make sure that the “poor” are comfortable. When we do that we end up with the Bird Feeder syndrome.
    Wouldn’t money be better spend subsidizing teachers salaries? Wouldn’t money be better spent on driving down the cost of health care with more malpractice reform? How about reduction in the costs of (insert your favorite economic vagarity).
    What we need to do is ask Mr. Edwards to shut up before he condemns another entire generation to the wretched mistakes of his Deomcratic forebears.

    Comment by paul from fl — 1/13/2008 @ 5:36 am

11. As long as somebody is peddling snakeoil, democrats and young people (is that redundant?) will buy it.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 1/13/2008 @ 5:48 am

12. What we need to do is ask Mr. Edwards to shut up before he condemns another entire generation to the wretched mistakes of his Deomcratic forebears.

    Blessedly, Mr. Edwards isn’t going to get the chance to do that.

    Comment by Pablo — 1/13/2008 @ 6:17 am

13. You have to be really young or stupid to believe the crap that flows from Edwards’ mouth.

    Comment by tired — 1/13/2008 @ 6:47 am

14. Why is it that everytime I hear Beefcake, Cankles, Obama and Paul speak, in the background I hear the Internationale? Maybe it’s coincidence???

    Comment by fmfnavydoc — 1/13/2008 @ 7:00 am

15. One other thing – why don’t they give up their “hard earned money” to help those that are “less fortunate”? Oh, that’s right – they are members of the “party”, and therefore entitled to the “perks” of their status in the “party”…

    Comment by fmfnavydoc — 1/13/2008 @ 7:04 am

16. “There will alwasy be a percentage of the population “In Poverty” regardless of how well they are nourished, clothed and housed.”

    -davod

    Not if everyone has the exact same amount of money, the exact same property, the exact same standard of living. Sound familiar?

    Not that I think Edwards is really a Communist… just another ambitious, half-bright Southern Boy without the good sense to think about the words that come out of his mouth.

    Comment by Leviticus — 1/13/2008 @ 8:51 am

17. This isn’t Lake Woebegone, not everyone will be above average.

    There’s always going to be a “Bottom 10%” of something.

    Comment by Techie — 1/13/2008 @ 8:53 am

18. DRJ;

    In a vacuum,(I know that’s difficult) would you assess the candidate based upon his leadership abilities, consistency and electability?

    He is the darkhorse, but I see nothing terribly negative and find him the most attractive candidate.
    (And I don’t mean physical attributes)

    Comment by Semanticleo — 1/13/2008 @ 9:23 am

19. I don’t suppose that just saying, “Elect me president and I’ll give away the farm.” has quite the sensitive ring he is hoping to convey.

    Comment by MikeD — 1/13/2008 @ 9:25 am

20. What does “subsidize bank accounts” mean?

    Uncle Sam will pick up ATM fees?

    Comment by Techie — 1/13/2008 @ 9:42 am

21. You will never end poverty in the US. Everytime we come close to doing so, the US government literally changes the definition of poverty.

    There has always been poverty, there will always be poverty. It’s part of the human condition.

    Instead we must look at standard of living. The average poor person in the United States today has a better standard of living than at least 90% of all the people who have ever lived.

    Comment by gahrie — 1/13/2008 @ 10:05 am

22. John Edwards KNOWS poverty. He has friends who have friends who know people who have friends who know people that live in poverty. John Edwards has done his research. He KNOWS poverty.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 1/13/2008 @ 10:56 am

23. So, Edwards will subsidize families moving to “better” neighborhoods?

    Where is David to claim that’s “code words” for something eles?

    Comment by Steverino — 1/13/2008 @ 11:48 am

24. Semanticleo,

    I’m not sure if you are asking me to assess a generic candidate’s qualities or if you want my opinion of Edwards. I think your question concerned the latter but please correct me if I’m wrong.

    As for Edwards, he is articulate, charismatic, has a charming family and appears to be a self-made man. Those are all appealing qualities. He is also an accomplished plaintiffs’ tort lawyer – an occupation that leaves me conflicted because I think it’s important in principle but I know high-profile tort lawyers who are anything but selfless or compassionate. That gives me pause about Edwards’ true nature and intent.

    However, overall, my biggest problem with Edwards is that he is a one-trick pony. He has put so much into presenting himself as a warrior for the poor and mistreated that there is nothing else there. He may be capable of great intellectual depth and interest in serious issues but it’s hard to see it given the way he frames every discussion as related to the plight of the downtrodden.

    Comment by DRJ — 1/13/2008 @ 12:29 pm

25. I think Edwards is the ideal candidate, from the collectivist perspective, as long as he spouts claptrap like this. So it surprises me (and it’s a rare pleasant surprise) that the Dems aren’t going for him. I guess a presidential election really is more of a personality contest than anything else.

    I’m surprised he doesn’t propose outlawing the study of economics, the field of study that teaches people why plans like his don’t work–or achieve their goals (if at all) at an unacceptable cost. You can fight human nature, but any victory you win will be Pyrrhic.

    Comment by Alan — 1/13/2008 @ 12:30 pm

26. “Edwards is that he is a one-trick pony.”

    You understood my question.

    But, is simplicity of message not desirable for a less than active electorate? I mean, people don’t have a lot of time to examine the minutiae of political issues, so they catch sound bytes and tend to retain the small acorn. It may not satisfy the political junkies, but it is our election process.

    Comment by Semanticleo — 1/13/2008 @ 12:42 pm

27. What DRJ said.

    The outlook for him seems dim. He needs to bail.

    Comment by steve — 1/13/2008 @ 12:48 pm

28. * He will “create a million [housing] vouchers over five years to help low-income families move to better neighborhoods.”

    Should we tell him about Section 8?

    Comment by nk — 1/13/2008 @ 12:59 pm

29. Semanticleo,

    I think attractive candidates with simple messages worked well in the 70s and 80s, when media communication was visual but not so pervasive. Today’s 24/7 media saturation requires that a candidate have more depth.

    Comment by DRJ — 1/13/2008 @ 12:59 pm

30. Today, 50% of students are in the bottom half of their class, Edwards will solve this by 2036.

    The ending poverty part is hilarious, today’s “poor” in the United States have a living standard that exceeds most middle class of two generations past. And exceeds those of nearly three-quarters of the rest of the world.

    Comment by SPQR — 1/13/2008 @ 1:12 pm

31. True story. About 10 years ago, a Sacramento, California school administrator expressed concern that 50% of the district’s students scored below average on a district wide test.

    Comment by Perfect Sense — 1/13/2008 @ 1:19 pm

32. The two most mistrusted people in the world are politicians and lawyers. Where in the sub-zero zone does a lying, I’m better than you, political lawyer stand?

    Comment by Scrapiron — 1/13/2008 @ 1:33 pm

33. The Democrats have been promising to end poverty for almost 80 years. This includes the times when they controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency ( 1933-47, 49-51, 61-69, 77-81 and 93-95 ). They really have no interest in doing so. Poverty is their selling point. If everyone moved to the middle class they’d have no voters except intellectuals. Edwards has given them a deadline. They’ll miss it even if they control the government until then. They always do.

    Comment by Ken Hahn — 1/13/2008 @ 1:34 pm

34. Perfect Sense,

    That’s classic. Sad, funny, and classic.

    Comment by DRJ — 1/13/2008 @ 1:53 pm

35. Scrapiron, where do they stand? So far, in 1st place, 2nd place and 3rd place in the contest for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

    Comment by SPQR — 1/13/2008 @ 2:17 pm

36. I’m concerned about his class warfare stance. For example, he supports a bill that would eliminate private voting in attempts to unionize. If secret voting is a “loophole” (from his website)what else needs to be removed for our own good?

    Comment by Dr T — 1/13/2008 @ 2:56 pm

37. Why is it going to take him so long?

    The Bolshi’s ended poverty in the Soviet Union in less than ten years: When you drive all of the middle-class (admittedly there weren’t many) out of the country, kill the aristocracy, and confiscate all of the wealth, there is only poverty left:
    The Equality of Scientific Socialism!

    Comment by Another Drew — 1/13/2008 @ 2:57 pm

38. John Edwards gets his talking points from Hugo Chavez. And we all know how well Hugo is doing these days. Knock yourself out, John.

    Comment by Iapetus — 1/13/2008 @ 5:55 pm

39. Once again, life imitates art:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/news/john_edwards_vows_to_end_all_bad

    Comment by Sean P — 1/14/2008 @ 10:00 am

40. TRANSLATION: I WANT TO CREATE BIGGER GOVERMENT

    Comment by krazy kagu — 1/14/2008 @ 8:13 pm

41. Hotel-Sierra!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    What planet is this scumbag from?

    Comment by GMC USN RET — 1/14/2008 @ 10:26 pm

42. Just to clarify what “He will ’subsidize bank accounts for working families’” means: The reasons that so many lower-income Americans do not have bank accounts include physical access to banks* and prohibitive fees for banking services.

    What Edwards proposes subsidizing are those fees, not what’s IN the bank accounts.

    Moving people into “better neighborhoods” works in concert with the bank-fee proposal and his other proposals regarding poverty. But if the people who move still can’t afford to have bank accounts, it doesn’t help much.

    *Banks that formerly had branches in poorer neighborhoods have closed those branches, due to the (reasonable) risk they faced having them where police response is slower and the chance of robbery was higher. What have filled the void are “check-cashing” businesses and short-term loan companies, both of which have faced accusations of predatory practices towards the low-income people they serve (Edwards addresses this in his platform). Some states have regulated caps on their fees and interest rates, but it’s inconsistent across the states.

    Comment by Roberta — 1/20/2008 @ 5:28 pm

43. The only problem with printing more money is that it will send us into deflation. Printing more money is definitely NOT the solution.

    Comment by Amber — 1/25/2008 @ 4:30 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.