On a side note, the only word that politicians overuse that annoys me more than “middle-class” is “partisanship,” which is why every time Joe Lieberman opens his mouth I want to plunge an ice pick into my ear holes.

So Edwards is the wrong person to advocate for the poor because he himself was able to escape poverty? Brilliant, Save.

And how, exactly, do you know Edwards didn’t receive assistance from the government in some form along the way, if only through guaranteed student loans? Just asking, Save, how much you actually know about Edwards personal story and how much of your opinion is based on right wing horseshit.

And he could accomplish this challenging goal by NOT mobilizing the power of the government? You think?

Suggesting that the government is the ONLY way to alleviate poverty and suggesting that the government has a role to play in alleviating poverty are two totally different things.

Edwards policies recognize the constructive role that government can play in alleviating poverty including worker re-training, strengthening labor laws, raising the minimum, helping rural areas develop new industries etc. etc.

What else would you like to see as a central part of his platform? Asking corporations as nicely as possible that they provide child care for low wage employees? Asking CEOs to set aside some of their stock earnings to provide more worker re-training funds for those employees they layoff after every merger, pretty please?

It’s clear that Edwards position on poverty is that the government should be rewarding the hard work of individuals who, despite being gainfully employed or trying to find work, find themselves trapped beneath the poverty level.

The government has a role to play in alleviating poverty. If you believe it has NO role to play, just come out and say it. Then tell me that candidates for office should build their platforms entirely around suggesting that companies and people do things because, well, it would be nice if they did.

What an idiot.

We can see ourselves or at least people we come in contact with in those phrases, not just the Other.

Uh, you do realize that Edwards said his goal is to eliminate poverty by 2036 right?

No, YOU are in third grade!!!

I looked at Edwards site and aside from his ideas on cutting (some) taxes, I don’t see anything he proposes that would fall outside the scope of the government. ”

Uh, you do understand that Edwards is running for president right? In turn wouldn’t you expect that he would be giving his ideas on, now follow me here…running the GOVERNMENT?

Here’s your sign.

Yes Frame, that was a stupid thing for you to say. Thanks for pointing that out.

Are you suggesting that government has no role to play in helping people escape poverty? Because Edwards has never suggested that government is the ONLY way to do it.

Really? Then perhaps you can share with the rest of us the policies advocated by liberals to alleviate poverty that operate outside of the federal government.

I looked at Edwards site and aside from his ideas on cutting (some) taxes, I don’t see anything he proposes that would fall outside the scope of the government.

Now seems like as good a time as any to explore economic disparity. This is the first post-Katrina Presidential election, we’ve got Paris Hilton to point at every single time anyone tries to break out Horatio Alger and tell us that rich people get rich through honesty and hard work, and while obviously Michael Moore movies don’t win elections, Sicko’s done a pretty good job of at least getting people talking about disparities in healthcare (and even focuses on the rich vs. the middle class rather than the rich vs. the poor).

Yeah, because he proposes that the government just give people money to buy rolls royces. What a stupid thing to say, Jay.

Are you suggesting that government has no role to play in helping people escape poverty? Because Edwards has never suggested that government is the ONLY way to do it.

I have little doubt that any major candidate speaking about poverty would be mocked as a “hypocrite” because of their wealth(never mind that most presidential candidates are well to do, both as a consequence of their success and as a necessity for being a “serious” contender).

CEOs aren’t really liked much more than trial lawyers these days, either.

In today’s blend of news/entertainment, the issue that John Edwards has with his poverty message is himself. Yes, he wasn’t born into money like Bush or Kennedy, but he is very very wealthy.

Like it or not, he got wealthy being part of a profession that society doesn’t look favorably upon: trial lawyers. Granted, most people disdain lawyers until they need one, but that still is the overall perception.

He’s handsome, educated, wears expensive suits and has that smooth southern accent. People know about that haircut and they know about that mansion he’s having built. So there are a lot of people who are thinking: “What the hell does this guy know about poverty?”

Now before anybody gets crazy, I’m not criticizing Edwards but rather Americans part of a lazy society who think that way.

This isn’t to say that I agree with Edwards as I don’t. He’s operating from the myth that only the government can rescue people from poverty, but it’s not say that people wouldn’t accept Edwards message. He’s just not the right messenger.

Nobody ever actually paid those top marginal rates, primarily because of all the loopholes available to the wealthy. Many of those loopholes, such as deductions for charitable contributions, were designed to benefit not only the person taking them, but also the larger society.

I’m trying to see what point you’re trying to make about Edwards’ focus on poverty, Mike, but all I see are ad hominem arguments.

There’s probably a way to connect fighting poverty and the ownership society concept(affordable housing programs and college scholarships, e.g.).

“the conservative racket designed to protect that concentration”

Mmmmkay … so FDR was a conservative? I mean, he set the top marginal tax rate at 94% and congressional Democrats kept it above 90% after the war; JFK finally cut it to 77%.

The most effective means of keeping people from acquiring wealth is to tax it away from them. That seems to be a solidly Democrat racket. I believe the sales pitch is, pay your “fair share.” Only Democrats seem to know what that is.

“I think it’s kind of an American thing to want to be part of the middle class, because we have one in this country while other nations you’re either really rich or really poor.”

SSSSSSSHHHHH! Don’t EVER let Mr. Two Americas hear you speak such heresy again!

“more abstract dialogue about increasing wealth and ownership”

NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!! St. Hillary has already dismissed the idea of the “ownership society.” Commie Dearest wants America to be a “we’re all in this together society.”

Sorry Oliver, but your party’s position on these issues has been laid out plainly enough to effectively neuter any attempt to redefine it.

You want to know what John Edwards’ real problem is? He is a personal injury trial lawyer who made millions off medical lawsuits whose basis has since been proven false. He sheltered his millions in an S corporation, thus avoiding paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. Not illegal, mind you, but it makes Edwards into a major hypocrite who has no problem weaseling out of paying his “fair share.” And how many ther people can you name who worked for a very exclusive money management firm, took nearly half a million dollars in consulting fees, and then claimed that they were doing it just so they could study poverty?

John Edwards’ true problem is that he is too obsessed with lining his own pockets to be taken seriously as an advocate for the poor.

Since Joseph Kennedy pulled all the crooked stunts (insider trading, gin running, etc.) that built the Kennedy family fortune, Bobby Kennedy could at least portray himself as the son of a wealthy patriarch who had washed his hands of his father’s misdeeds and truly felt compassion for the less fortunate. John Edwards can’t do that.