These are my random musings. Hopefully they will be witty, insightful, and frequently updated.
Not the candidate, but still shaping the Dem debate
Published on July 26, 2007 By singrdave In Democrat
John Edwards: 2004 Presidential primary candidate, then Vice Presidential candidate with John Kerry. He's campaigning again. This time he's positioning himself as a populist, appealing to middle-class and lower-class voters with his progressive policy stances on Iraq, health care, poverty, and the hue and cry of global warming.

His policy stances:
Iraq: American troops out of Iraq immediately. Overnight reduction of 40,000-50,000... followed by an "orderly and complete" withdrawal of combat forces within a year. The overall war on terror is a "bumper sticker, not a plan" according to Edwards.

Foreign policy: In a larger scheme, he wants to re-engage the nations of the world using America's innate moral leadership. This implies that he would sign onto Kyoto or a similar global warming regime, more to solidify America's participation in international agreements than to make major economic and social decisions. He's announced his intention to enact a cap-and-trade emissions scheme that would reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. In foreign development, he wants to recruit a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 bankers, political scientists, and other experts to help failing states. Presumably this "Delta Force" of economists would try to keep failed states like Zimbabwe and Sudan from falling over the edge into chaos.

Domestic policy: This is where he really appeals to a lot of people. According to The Economist,
He offers plenty of standard populist cant: lots of talk about “fairness”; rants against oil firms for price gouging and drug companies for rocketing health costs; and—this year's favourite villain—anger at mortgage lenders for ripping off poor home-owners. (He calls it the “wild west of the credit industry, where...abusive and predatory lenders are robbing families blind.”) A recent speech decried an economy that rewarded “wealth not work”, a tax system that favoured the rich and a government that served only special interests. Yet for all that Mr Edwards is less a redistributionist firebrand than a big-government do-gooder. He is intent on helping the poor more than soaking the rich; his inspiration is Robert Kennedy, not Huey Long.

He has cohesive programs for helping the poor (remember, he's the one who came up with the "Two Americas" concept in 2004) and for federally-managed universal health care based on Mitt Romney's Massachusetts model. He wants to eliminate poverty by 1/3 within a decade by increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, topping up the working poor's earnings, effectively eliminating taxes for lower incomes. He also wants to give poor people "work bonds" to boost their savings and housing vouchers to help poor families live in better neighborhoods.

Edwards has his faults, too... his gigantic house and $1,400 haircuts have reminded people that there are actually Two Americas, and John's in the upper half. And his trial lawyer experience makes him another Slick Willie... but this time without the McDonald's fixation.

His ideas may or may not have merit, but they are certainly livening up the Democratic debate. The concepts Edwards addresses are probably going to find their way onto the ticket, whether he's the candidate or not. He may appeal to Dems, but he's not raising the kind of money that the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton machines are.

So I would pay attention to the John Edwards campaign. Be prepared to see his policy ideas come November 2008, even if you don't see John Edwards.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jul 27, 2007
I believe anyone making over $200,000 will pay for his social programs.


I don't know. Can you find me where it is said, or is it simply a populism, unbased argument made against him?

I find it funny that a lot of conservatives denounce lefty populism with cons populism.

See your point, but tell me how someone who stands up against poverty and for lower income vouchers/subsidies has the chutzpah to flaunt his own riches so flagrantly? I find him to be very two-faced in that manner.


Isn't a conservative opinion that riches should not be taxed, because when they spend their money, it makes the economy turn?

I know that it's pretty ironic to defend a Liberal using conservative arguments, but what good would be his money if he didn't use it? What good would it do to the poor peoples? (do you have tax sales in the U.S.?)
on Jul 27, 2007
Isn't a conservative opinion that riches should not be taxed, because when they spend their money, it makes the economy turn?


Nope. Some say we should (all poor and rich) not pay taxes at all. But I have yet to find anyone who says that some should pay taxes, just not the rich.

I have found many who said that taxes should be proportional, and not confiscatory.
on Jul 27, 2007
I have found many who said that taxes should be proportional, and not confiscatory.


what do you mean by confiscatory?
on Jul 27, 2007
what good would be his money if he didn't use it? What good would it do to the poor peoples? (do you have tax sales in the U.S.?)


Well, I suppose he could use his additional income as donations to worthy charities and live a more middle-class lifestyle. That would probably take the bad taste out of the mouths of those who perceive him as two-faced in this regard. (I misread your parenthetical as "sales tax." What's a "tax sale?")
on Jul 27, 2007
I don't know. Can you find me where it is said, or is it simply a populism, unbased argument made against him?



"Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday""




on Jul 27, 2007
Well, I suppose he could use his additional income as donations to worthy charities and live a more middle-class lifestyle. That would probably take the bad taste out of the mouths of those who perceive him as two-faced in this regard. (I misread your parenthetical as "sales tax." What's a "tax sale?")


(not, I mean Sales tax. You know, a % you pay when you buy something)
on Jul 27, 2007
"Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday""


thanks. but did he said where he will take the money, and where did you took that quote?
on Jul 27, 2007
SAN DIEGO - Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said Sunday he would consider raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to fund programs such as universal health care.

Edwards has long said he wants to repeal the tax cuts on upper-income earners enacted during the Bush presidency, but Sunday he seemed to go further, by saying he was open to raising them higher than they were before George W. Bush took office. He also said he would consider taxes on “excess profits,” including those made by oil companies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18387728/from/RS.4/


on Jul 27, 2007
See your point, but tell me how someone who stands up against poverty and for lower income vouchers/subsidies has the chutzpah to flaunt his own riches so flagrantly? I find him to be very two-faced in that manner.


You don't have to be poor to care about the poor. Some of the wealthy feel an added responsibility to use their money to care for the less fortunate. FDR was loaded but he was a strong advocate for those struggling financially through the great depression with his New Deal program.

And how is JE flaunting it? Because he built a new home? Would it be any different if he lived in smaller home? He worked for the money, he gets to enjoy the benefits of it. That's our capitalistic society. Are the Republican's now for communism when it comes to the opposing party's candidates?
on Jul 28, 2007
Some of the wealthy feel an added responsibility to use their money to care for the less fortunate.


Then why does he not? He is using OUR money for his salvation. Hardly a noble endeavor.
on Jul 28, 2007
Then why does he not? He is using OUR money for his salvation. Hardly a noble endeavor.


Is it better to use OUR money to help rich corporations through corporate welfare and incentive programs or to help individuals? I know what I think is the more noble of the two.
on Jul 28, 2007
He is using OUR money for his salvation. Hardly a noble endeavor.


True, but would you have John Edwards donating his personal fortunes for the cause? No one person (or single group of people) can fund the social programs the Left espouses. And everything the government does uses "OUR money".
on Jul 30, 2007
Is it better to use OUR money to help rich corporations through corporate welfare and incentive programs or to help individuals? I


It is not OUR money. It is their money. Reducing taxes is not GIVING money, it is taking less.

You still have not answered the question. How does giving OUR money make him noble? I want to give $10,000 to Easter Seals. Please send the check.

Does that make me noble? Because they got $10,000 from you?
on Jul 30, 2007
True, but would you have John Edwards donating his personal fortunes for the cause? No one person (or single group of people) can fund the social programs the Left espouses. And everything the government does uses "OUR money".


No one ever said that one person can. But giving what is not yours hardly makes YOU noble. And if we all gave, then they would have enough. Based upon his taxes, Edwards hardly even breaks a sweat. And if he is going to tell us how bad we are and how good we should be, should he not at least put his money where his mouth is?

If we are to judge the candidates based upon how they want to spend our money, then Edwards is your man. If we are to judge candidates based upon their deeds, and not words, then edwards is just another robber baron keeping his hoard while spending our money for things that he wants since he does not have the character to spend his own.
on Jul 30, 2007
Edwards is going to tax the rich. who will pass the tax down to their costumers. so Edwards will be taxing the poor indirectly to pay the poor.


and no geme this is not a made up fantasies if you had half a brain you would know this

3 Pages1 2 3