John Edwards Starts Poverty Awareness Tour
Former Sen. John Edwards began a national anti-poverty campaign Monday by exhorting students at the University of North Carolina to launch a grass-roots effort similar to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
This time, he told them, the divide isn’t black and white but rich and poor.
The recent devastation of Hurricane Katrina exposed that rift clearly, Edwards told the roughly 700 people who attended the inaugural event of a planned 10-campus “Opportunity Rocks” tour.
More on Opportunity Rocks here.
If anybody is unaware of Poverty, it’s John Edwards.
John Edwards.
Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about !
That seriously makes no sense, and for you, that’s a way of life.
Hm, on one hand you have John Edwards who worked to make a good living for himself and has gone into public service, tried to make good law to help the poor, raised money for the poor, and is now championing bigger ways to help the poor.
On the other is George Bush and the other Republicans, born into money, focused on increasing their personal wealth and the wealth of their already wealthy backers.
Look, I know Edwards has the moral high ground — but I do I have to spell it out every time?
So I’m guessing that in your world, only a poor man or woman can be against poverty?
And that $200,000 dollar thing was income, not net worth.
“Former Sen. John Edwards began a national anti-poverty campaign ”
Wow! The courage! The creativity! And while so many others are starting pro-poverty campaigns.
However, given his net worth (John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029)
and membership in the elitist Democratic Senate Millionaires Club, I ’speck we’ll be seeing a donation of about $12,644,030 from Edwards to anti-poverty groups. Such a donation would put him just below the Democrats super rich category and forestall the natural “blithering hypocrite” criticism one would expect when a wealthy, elitist millionaire calls on others to fight poverty.
Dugger, Everyone!
So I take it this is a bad idea, Dugger?
This reminds me of the argument that people who help weak old ladies cross the street because they like others seeing them do good things aren’t doing good things at all.
It’s stupid. Help the old ladies — I don’t care how or why you do it. If John Edwards wants to donate ZERO dollars, but he raises $100,000, or $100, or $1,000,000, he has done a good thing. “Wah wah wah he didn’t donate a million dollars because I think he should!” Shove it.
cellulose,
Why not an anti-death campaign? Or how about anti-pain?
But please note that there already has been a war on poverty. Remember that? Remember welfare reform that followed? Edwards, in addition to playing the class warfare card, talked about doing something similar to the civil rights movement. Now that entailed a lot of laws, court decisons and litigation. Is he talking, then, about seizing by law wealth from workers and giving it to other folks? Maybe anybody above the super rich line (ahem, excepting of course ex trial lawyers and Democratic senate millionaire club members) , gets all their earnings taken away from them. And why shouldn’t Edwards pledge all his wealth above $200,000 to anti-poverty groups if he is serious? I mean would you take Senator Kennedy’s temperance campaign seriously?
Dugger
Cellulose, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that his wealth disqualifies him from addressing the plight of the poor. But, if John Edwards – of the “two Americas” refrain – still wants to be president, one has to wonder why he would jeopardize his political ambitions by abandoning Main Street (and his “I’m fighting for you” stump appeal) for Wall Street (and all the money-grubbing, masters of the universe connotations that entails).
Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too& . (At least with Bill Clinton, poor people had a sense that he really could feel their pain) Now, most people will ridicule Edwards’ anti-poverty rhetoric as merely pandering, or worse condescending, to the poor.
Dugger,
So your point is that if something is difficult, it shouldn’t be attempted? If there’s a problem that’s almost impossible to cure, no one should attempt to aid it in any way because it’s patronizing.
Why not anti-death or anti-pain? I’ll tell you why. Unless you believe that poverty is innate in the human fabric (like death and pain), then it’s containable. You can’t take physical pain away. You can’t take death away. You can make poverty (on a small or large scale) disappear. This is one of your worst battles with psuedoreasoning I’ve seen. This isn’t a slippery slope — this is a straightforward serious issue that people in this country can actually have an influence on. You seem to think that attempting to get money into poverty groups is patronizing.
Oh, there was already “War On Poverty”? I guess that means that all the resources required or available are going into said ‘war’. Obviously, they aren’t; and the mere fact that a problem or series of programs has a near little slogan (War on Poverty/Drugs/Terror) doesn’t mean I should be satisfied with whatever results are handed down.
Again, I don’t care *why* John Edwards is doing this. Maybe he’s trying to win a future election, maybe he thinks he’ll be greeting by 32 virgins upon his death, maybe he’s self-conscious about his inability to perform to expectations in bed, or maybe he’s just a guy with a good plan. I don’t give a shit. Neither should you.
If poor people are getting money, I think the man deserves some credit, even if you think he’s too rich and didn’t donate enough money. That’s your problem.
$200K a year would put a family in what, the top 2 percent? 3 percent? of all earners?
Hey OW,
“good living”
Plus $12M? Thats only a ‘good living’??!! You telling us “winners of life’s lottery” per Gebhardt, the Democrat’s ’super rich’, who can’t afford to put two kids through college, that thats just a ‘good living.’??? Please!
Dugger
Dugger >>However, given his net worth (John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029) and membership in the elitist Democratic Senate Millionaires Club, I speck we ll be seeing a donation of about $12,644,030 from Edwards to anti-poverty groups.
Hmmm….I thought you people weren’t about class warfare? Particularly when it comes to the “job-creating” rich?
You’re a joke, Dugger.
Can someone please find some evidence of intelligence on the right and bring them here?
JK
Next: only murder victims can be against murder.
First we have the “Chickenhawk” meme that says yoiu have to be a Green Beret to favor the war in Iraq. Now we have a multimillionaire whose suit probably cost more than the latest car I just bought, fighting poverty.
He hasn’t been poor — if ever — in so long, he’s forgotten what it is.
And, yes, it makes all the sense in the world to point that out, in few of the fact that you can bet your bottom dollar that his “plan” undoubtedly involves spending other people’s money.
I wonder how many meals he could have bought in the NO Superdome with his last dividend check? He probably could have paid to have it repaired.
Besides, what’s a fast talking lawyer from the Carolinas going to tel me about poverty?
Welcome to the land of the free, the home of the brave, and the country where the rich *want* to help the poor, but are DISCOURAGED from doing so. Also, adults are deemed “too old” to help children.
*clapping*
If Edwards wants to help the poor, he can open a storefront law office in a poor neighborhood, and provide poor people with legal services. Where I live, they have one that helps mainly with evictions, but that’s a biggie in this area, and they take any case involving senior citizens and the mentally ill.
Instead of running around like a “Presidential Candidate” in “Poverty Warrior’s Clothing,” he should be helping the poor if that’s what he means to do. A window is less transparent than this guy.
If Edwards wants to help the poor, he can open a storefront law office in a poor neighborhood
Yes he could do that, and help dozens of poor people. That would be a good thing.
But a man with Edward’s popularity and charisma can motivate dozens of lawyers to do things like that, and help thousands of poor people. That would be a better thing.
Why are right wingers so opposed to someone trying to help the poor?
Wow! The courage! The creativity! And while so many others are starting pro-poverty campaigns.
There is in fact a powerful group engaged in massive pro-poverty campaign. It’s called the Republican Party.
He hasn t been poor if ever in so long, he s forgotten what it is.
If you’ve ever been poor you never forget it.
And, yes, it makes all the sense in the world to point that out, in few of the fact that you can bet your bottom dollar that his plan undoubtedly involves spending other people s money.
If you mean he’s going to support rolling back tax cuts for the downtrodden wealthy then he’ll be spending his own money since, as you point out, he is wealthy.
Maybe he wants to be president. Maybe he also wants to help the poor. The two are not mutually exclusive, unless you’re a Republican.
My point was that Edwards can help more poor people by doing what he’s doing than he could by a) giving away his piddly 12 mil or b) opening up a drive-thru tort shack in a strip mall. Your assertions to the contrary are small-minded and asinine.
Since you have so completely missed the point, I won’t disturb you by making it again.
And, no, right wingers are not opposed to someone trying to help the poor. What they are opposed to is a poseur pretending he wants to help the poor, when what he really wants is to be President.
Hah, 2/3 of world thinks US is redneck Religious zealots, mainly because of the lack of support for the poor.
The difference between rich and poor is the number one indicator of standard of living. Us, going down, down, down…. Selfish miscreants in power promote big business, tax the poor, lie to the electorate, yet still, even today, it is so fucking obvious that your only comebacks from you chickenhawks is slander and deviations, not facts. Do you know how stupid you look to everyone else?
You haven’t the slightest clue what is important, and your claims and squeals just exemplify your attitudes, the way you see things.
Edwards was the best choice by far in 2004, but got overlooked. Here, hew is addressing the actual number one issue, in reality, facing your country, and you chickenhaswks can only see it in terms of ulterior motives.
You see everything in terms of ulterior motives, you are so corrupt.
Man, you guys that understand satire, and logic, it must be torture watching the nimrods make decisions even though being unable to comprehend their own fundamental inability to tell what is real, and what is cult of Neo-con.
I thought it was bad in the redneck part of Canada for a few years, and maybe I am just lucky no one as corrupt has made a move here, because there are the same dimwits here who say “yeah!” to the party that sells them out for big business.
So, everyone is out to get the Repugs, that is exactly how you sound, and it is pathetic. Take it from someone who hasn’t brainwashed themselves with FOX News.
Even the most socialist democracy in Europe has better individual rights guaranteed than US citizens right now. You can be jailed without excuse, have your property searched without any reason having to be explain, have your house taken away from you – eminent domain!~ – by a business that says it can put your land to better use than you are!!!!
Get a grip. Man, you get someone that actually stands up for what is right, Edwards, and you slay him!!!! Un -effing – real…
These wingers are from the sour grapes department.
“And, no, right wingers are not opposed to someone trying to help the poor. What they are opposed to is a poseur pretending he wants to help the poor, when what he really wants is to be President. ”
There is a poseur in the White House right now. Where is your outrage, Frank?
Wilbur: I said pretending he wants to help the poor. There’s a big difference between “I want to help the poor” and “I want you and /or the government to help the poor.” And calling storefront legal services a “Drive thru tort shack”? That’s small minded
buma: You think there’s a poseur? You be outraged…
Nevertheless. Do the math. Say I am super rich by Democratic logic and make $201K a year. Now the Democrats have all this wonderful compassion and decide that they are to help the poor at the expense of the super rich. So I get higher taxes. Now wouldn’t it be fare for the leader of the anti-poverty movement to set an example and at least put himself in the same positon as the other ’super rich’ he wants to tax so badly? He could do this by donating about $12.6M right away. Think of it. He would only be doing his fair share; he would be helping the poor; setting a good example and still at the end, he would be just as super rich as all other $200K households. Why are progressives blind to Edwards super duper duper wealth. Why not demand he help the poor. He can afford it! You can do it!!
Dugger, From Each According to his Means to Me
War on Poverty: 10 Trillion Dollars and Counting.
WE NEED MORE!!!
Dugger Rant:
“Why are progressives blind to Edwards super duper duper wealth. Why not demand he help the poor. He can afford it! You can do it!!”
OK, I hereby call for Bush’s tax cuts (the cuts that benefitted the wealthiest 1% so well) to be rolled back. This affects my wife and me, and to a greater extent, Paris Hilton and John Edwards.
Again, no progressive answers. Why shouldn’t the leader of the anti-poverty movement at least persoanlly help that movement to the extent that he lowers his own personal wealth to the mere super rich category. Are progressives happy that their anti-poverty leader, a multi millionaire capitalist mogul, is not willing to make his net worth the same as those he’s demanding sacrifices from. What? Are some pigs more equal than others? In fact, how about all Senate millionaires? Irrespective of party (for I am a bi-partisan kind of poster) they should donate all wealth down to the super rich level – $200K.
Dugger
Still having trouble distinguishing between “income” and “wealth”, Dug?
Y’know, Mr. Edwards gave up his legal practice to take a job that pays $158K. Happy, Dugger?
Quaker,
If it would make you happy, we can use as a measuring stick the average net worth of the super rich as opposed to their income. Say if the average net worth of a super rich $200K income household is actually $250K, then multi-millionaire Democrat mogul Edwards would only have to give up $12.55M of his trial lawyer wad instead of $12.6M. Then he would still be super rich but have a net worth of even more. Plus he would have the satisfaction of not appearing as a blithering hypocrite for asking others worth way less than him to sacrifice more when he, himself, is not willing to sacrifice to the point of being equal with his fellow anti-poverty warriors.
Dugger , Trying to Give Edwards a Break Because Even Multi Millionaire Democratic Moguls Have feelings
That number smells funky, Dugger. Where’d you get it?
You’ve been harping on the $200K “super rich” theme since before the 2004 election. Even though you’re badly misinterpreting what was said, I’ll let that slide.
But if you’re going to insist on throwing out that factoid every so often, at least have the courtesy to use it consistently. The $200K figure referred to income. Edwards sacrificed a much greater income to accept a job–U.S. Senator–that pays less.
Now, what’s your beef with Edwards calling attention to the problems of the poor?
I seem to have missed the “tax-breaks-for-the-wealthy” part of Edwards’ proposals.
That number smells funky, Dugger. Where d you get it?
How quickly we forget. Numerous time Kerry spoke of Bush giving tax breaks to the WEALTHIEST Americans and how he would rollback (i.e., raise taxes) on the wealthiest americans. Here’s one quick quote from kerry: “but we start by rolling back George Bush’s unaffordable tax cut for the wealthiest people, people earning more than $200,000 a year”.
Dugger
That’s right: earning more than $200K a year.
Now you came up with an “average net worth” for these people of $250K. MSU?
Here’s a fascinating article on poverty: I wonder if John Edwards has read it.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html
Quaker,
“Say if the average net worth of a super rich $200K income household is actually $250K,” As the word suggest, it was a hypothetical. You can pick higher or lower as you choose. The income of $200,000.01 is what Democrats are claiming makes one among the “wealthiest” Americans. Perhaps you would like to find an average net worth figure out there for people with $200K incomes and make a point. Have at it.
Dugger
No thanks. Not interested in chasing your rabbits today.
The $200,000 figure you like to quote refers to income, not net worth, and any exercise in guessing what net worth high earners actually hold isn’t relevant to what we were talking about.
You criticized Sen. Edwards as a hypocrite because he proposed programs to help the poor but he’s not poor himself! It’s a silly argument. I haven’t heard that Edwards is proposing tax breaks for the wealthy. Apparently he’s willing to pay his share of the load. I haven’t heard that he wants to tax the accumulated wealth of Americans instead of income. So this goofiness about “Why doesn’t he give away all his money” is just, well, goofy.
And wage earners who earn $200,000 and up are, in fact, the beneficiaries of most of the Bush administration’s tax cuts. They also represent the top end of the income distribution curve. They can fairly be characterized as the wealthiest among us. Debate all you like whether that last dollar of income should be taxed at 33 percent or 37 percent. Neither position reflects a fundamental misapprehension of reality.
As I said, I’m not aware the Sen. Edwards seeks to excuse himself from paying his share. You’ve come up with this inexplicable assertion that you can propose an anti-poverty program only if you’re willing to give away all that you own.
Now this is truly a wonder:
In one interminable sentence, you accuse Democrats of playing “class warfare” and denigrate Sen. Edwards for being a “rich millionaire mogul” who sends his kids to private schools.
Tell you what. If you want to go in on it with me, I’ll support a movement to start taxing wealth, rather than income, and we’ll bleed the millionaires like slaughtered pigs.
With me?
yes, Quaker , I referred to both income and net worth.
Of course, you are avoiding the whole issue of rich Democrats pretending they are all concerned about poverty, but then never really being concerned enough to significantly impact their own net worth to do anything about it. Why should so-called “wealthiest” households per Democratis class warfare rhetoric, households that can’t put two kids through college at the same time and pay all bills, lose even more of the income they toil so hard for, to fight poverty when Edwards can still send his kids to the best schools in the world and live like the rich millionaire mogul he is with servants etc. I thought progressives cared about fairness. Some pigs are more equal than others.
Dugger
The democates have been in charge of the House and Senate for several years…oops
Their theme is always the same “rob the rich and give to the poor”
There are several problems with this plan of action…If the government gets their hands on the money the poor will only see $.25 of every dollar the dear government takes from the rich…if that much. Then the Federal government will set up more departments in D.C. to distribute this money to the poor. $.75 of every dollar taken from the rich will go to pay the new employees in these new departments…Here we go with BIG GOVERNMENT again.
I WILL VOTE FOR JOHN McCAIN…We can not afford an OBAMA.
MFM
As for John Edwards…Honesty is not one his qualities. Why do we North Carolinians have people like this in office? Is he one of those “rich people” that bought his way to office? It’s funny to me that some of the wealthiest people in our state are democrats…they could put their money together and save the poor of North Carolina.
Think they would go for it?
MFM