John Edwards

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
John Edwards recently gave a speech at UC Davis on poverty and charged $55,000 for it. As a believer in the free market I have no problem with Edwards earning what the market will bear for him to speak. The irony (to me at least) is Edward's charging a state backed college who recently raised student tution that much money.

He talks of two America's and he is correct. There is his where you can earn $55k for a speech and get $400 haircuts and then there is everyone else. However in his defense I don't necessarily agree that one must live in poverty or come from poverty to be able to address poverty. IMHO he just pushes the line in terms of being a top spokesman for poverty and the poor when it so well known how well he lives.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=16809
 
I don't think anyone running for president is going to really understand poverty...
Like those "compassionate Republicans" understand poverty ?

Kinda tells you something when a party has to come up with an ad slogan like "compassionate republicans" .....
 
cawacko said:
John Edwards recently gave a speech at UC Davis on poverty and charged $55,000 for it. As a believer in the free market I have no problem with Edwards earning what the market will bear for him to speak. The irony (to me at least) is Edward's charging a state backed college who recently raised student tution that much money.

He talks of two America's and he is correct. There is his where you can earn $55k for a speech and get $400 haircuts and then there is everyone else. However in his defense I don't necessarily agree that one must live in poverty or come from poverty to be able to address poverty. IMHO he just pushes the line in terms of being a top spokesman for poverty and the poor when it so well known how well he lives.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=16809
Click to expand...

It was a man from great wealth and from one of the great families who gave us the New Deal.

A poor person isn't going to win a seat in Congress no less, as President. There are two kinds of people who run for and win office, and both are Bush's base: The haves, and the have mores.

Great personal wealth does not preclude social conscious, it only usually does.

On a side note, none of these guys who are running for President are stopping in at their local barber shop. The hair stylists come to them. That costs money. Why, once again, the Dems are lying down and saying "hit me baby one more time" is beyond me. If I were in their ranks, I would be on the phone finding out how much Movie Star Mitt paid for his last haircut. And I'd be snickering in anticipation as I was dialing. But then, if I were in the Democratic ranks, I would be doing a lot of snickering and I would never be lying down and saying "hit me again, that felt good".

There would be a lot of balls on my belt.
 
Darla said:
It was a man from great wealth and from one of the great families who gave us the New Deal.

A poor person isn't going to win a seat in Congress no less, as President. There are two kinds of people who run for and win office, and both are Bush's base: The haves, and the have mores.

Great personal wealth does not preclude social conscious, it only usually does.

On a side note, none of these guys who are running for President are stopping in at their local barber shop. The hair stylists come to them. That costs money. Why, once again, the Dems are lying down and saying "hit me baby one more time" is beyond me. If I were in their ranks, I would be on the phone finding out how much Movie Star Mitt paid for his last haircut. And I'd be snickering in anticipation as I was dialing. But then, if I were in the Democratic ranks, I would be doing a lot of snickering and I would never be lying down and saying "hit me again, that felt good".

There would be a lot of balls on my belt.
Click to expand...
They are also not shopping for their own groceries. Yet the "gotcha" game comes in full force when somebody is surprised at scanners. It does show he doesn't watch much TV though, at least not regular programming....

The haircut thing I could care less about. But the "I'm getting rich working for a Hedge fund to study poverty" thing is really sad.
 
Darla said:
So let's vote for the multi-millionaire who doesn't mention poverty.

That's much better.
Click to expand...
Nah, let's vote the for guy who literally made a ton of cash "studying poverty" by working for a Hedge fund. That's the guy who knows it all about poverty.
 
Damocles said:
They are also not shopping for their own groceries. Yet the "gotcha" game comes in full force when somebody is surprised at scanners. It does show he doesn't watch much TV though, at least not regular programming....

The haircut thing I could care less about. But the "I'm getting rich working for a Hedge fund to study poverty" thing is really sad.
Click to expand...

Guess what? It just so happens that I agree with you about the groceries. What I am starting to think it's a sign of though, is stupidity. How can they keep getting caught out on this question? You're running for President, take a look at the "gotcha" games that have cost others in the very recent past. Here are two big ones, 1) grocery prices 2) the names of the leaders of other countries.

The Hedge fund cover story was retarded. I'm not advising Edwards. I wish I was.
 
Darla said:
Guess what? It just so happens that I agree with you about the groceries. What I am starting to think it's a sign of though, is stupidity. How can they keep getting caught out on this question? You're running for President, take a look at the "gotcha" games that have cost others in the very recent past. Here are two big ones, 1) grocery prices 2) the names of the leaders of other countries.

The Hedge fund cover story was retarded. I'm not advising Edwards. I wish I was.
Click to expand...
There have been many "gotcha" games played. Some more based in reality than others. However, I will gaurantee that those advising the candidates will take advantage of them.

However, I don't think most on this site fall for any of them. Seriously, we are far too deep in it to get effected by the sprinkles.
 
Damocles said:
Nah, let's vote the for guy who literally made a ton of cash "studying poverty" by working for a Hedge fund. That's the guy who knows it all about poverty.
Click to expand...

As long as he is going to institute effective anti-poverty initiatives, (other than the war, this is my big issue, and it was before the war started, and will be after it's over, if that ever happenes) I don't care how he made his money. I don't know how the Roosevelts made their money, now that I think about it. Do you? Did it matter?

No.
 
Darla said:
As long as he is going to institute effective anti-poverty initiatives, (other than the war, this is my big issue, and it was before the war started, and will be after it's over, if that ever happenes) I don't care how he made his money. I don't know how the Roosevelts made their money, now that I think about it. Do you? Did it matter?

No.
Click to expand...
That was my point. However his "cover" story made him look far worse. I can't believe he could say it with a straight face.

As to "effective" poverty measures. We have been fighting the "War on Poverty" to the tune of several trillions of dollars over several deacades. I'd like to know what success would be other than cradle to grave government "insurance".

There are shining lights in the "war" such as the Job Corps and Headstart, yet the actuality is that the "war" on poverty began in the beginning of a recovery where poverty levels were falling regardless and once settled again at the 11% rate of "poverty" (relative to the US) it has remained there for decade upon decade regardless of the amount of cash that we throw at it.

Effective "warfare" on poverty must have new solutions, and an actual standard by which to judge verifiable results. The moving line of poverty is unusually difficult to pin down. In the US one can be well-fed, have cable TV, live in an apartment with their own bedroom and still be considered "in poverty". This isn't the case all the time, but it certainly is a reality in most cases of US "poverty". (Believe me, I have a ton of experience with this level of "poverty" and I didn't get it while working for the local millionaire's club.)

Personally, I believe in investing in the future and educating kids. This means that kids who are interrupting the education of others must be sent to a place where their needs can be met without the rest suffering a lack of education, as well as money. We need to spend less time feeling good and banning tag and working on reading and maths. We need to worry less about suspending kids for making a finger-gun and shouting bang and worry more about buying textbooks.

Well, there is my rant for today....

I don't care that he got rich, I do care that he thinks I'm retarded enough to believe he did it while "studying poverty".
 
Damocles said:
That was my point. However his "cover" story made him look far worse. I can't believe he could say it with a straight face.

As to "effective" poverty measures. We have been fighting the "War on Poverty" to the tune of several trillions of dollars over several deacades. I'd like to know what success would be other than cradle to grave government "insurance".

There are shining lights in the "war" such as the Job Corps and Headstart, yet the actuality is that the "war" on poverty began in the beginning of a recovery where poverty levels were falling regardless and once settled again at the 11% rate of "poverty" (relative to the US) it has remained there for decade upon decade regardless of the amount of cash that we throw at it.

Effective "warfare" on poverty must have new solutions, and an actual standard by which to judge verifiable results. The moving line of poverty is unusually difficult to pin down. In the US one can be well-fed, have cable TV, live in an apartment with their own bedroom and still be considered "in poverty". This isn't the case all the time, but it certainly is a reality in most cases of US "poverty". (Believe me, I have a ton of experience with this level of "poverty" and I didn't get it while working for the local millionaire's club.)

Personally, I believe in investing in the future and educating kids. This means that kids who are interrupting the education of others must be sent to a place where their needs can be met without the rest suffering a lack of education, as well as money. We need to spend less time feeling good and banning tag and working on reading and maths. We need to worry less about suspending kids for making a finger-gun and shouting bang and worry more about buying textbooks.

Well, there is my rant for today....

I don't care that he got rich, I do care that he thinks I'm retarded enough to believe he did it while "studying poverty".
Click to expand...

Edwards can strike false notes. When he does it gives me pause. I mean, he's no Mitt, but sometimes he sounds false.

I want money spent on the following; Universal health care, job training, free college attendence for those with passing grades, and free continuing education for adults.

I'd like to start there, and keep going. I don't think we've done shit about poverty in this country, not because poverty initiatives wouldn't work, but because we don't want them to. It's like Republicans are with government in general. They run on the platform of "I don't believe in government, government doesn't work, vote for me, and I'll prove it!" And what happens? Well, lo and behold they do prove it!

It can work. You have to want it to.
 
Darla said:
Edwards can strike false notes. When he does it gives me pause. I mean, he's no Mitt, but sometimes he sounds false.

I want money spent on the following; Universal health care, job training, free college attendence for those with passing grades, and free continuing education for adults.

I'd like to start there, and keep going. I don't think we've done shit about poverty in this country, not because poverty initiatives wouldn't work, but because we don't want them to. It's like Republicans are with government in general. They run on the platform of "I don't believe in government, government doesn't work, vote for me, and I'll prove it!" And what happens? Well, lo and behold they do prove it!

It can work. You have to want it to.
Click to expand...
I am not against government programs that provide tools rather than provide items, other than temporarily. Education is one of the main things I promote. As well as choice in education. One size fits all can never be thought of as the best way to educate children.

I do laugh at the "blame it on Rs" thing, the "war on poverty" began with a D Pres with a D congress, the congress was maintained by the Ds for a very long stretch of this period. Attempting to say it is all Rs fault is simply laughable and very misleading.
 
Damocles said:
I am not against government programs that provide tools rather than provide items, other than temporarily. Education is one of the main things I promote. As well as choice in education. One size fits all can never be thought of as the best way to educate children.

I do laugh at the "blame it on Rs" thing, the "war on poverty" began with a D Pres with a D congress, the congress was maintained by the Ds for a very long stretch of this period. Attempting to say it is all Rs fault is simply laughable and very misleading.
Click to expand...

But damo, even white collar jobs are going overseas, and h1-b's are being imported. Probably the best lesson we could teach our children is "expect less". Right? Isn't this where glorious "free market" globalism is leading? Our freedoms and expectation simply aren't price competitive.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But damo, even white collar jobs are going overseas, and h1-b's are being imported. Probably the best lesson we could teach our children is "expect less". Right? Isn't this where glorious "free market" globalism is leading? Our freedoms and expectation simply aren't price competitive.
Click to expand...
No, the best lesson we can teach our children is to excel regardless of government enhanced pitfalls. This nation can, and has over time proven it can, excel regardless of the mental retardation of leaders.
 
Our freedoms and expectation simply aren't price competitive.
//

And that is the crux of the problem in a world wide competitive market.
Our freedom to have the easy life is at risk!
 
cawacko said:
John Edwards recently gave a speech at UC Davis on poverty and charged $55,000 for it. As a believer in the free market I have no problem with Edwards earning what the market will bear for him to speak. The irony (to me at least) is Edward's charging a state backed college who recently raised student tution that much money.

He talks of two America's and he is correct. There is his where you can earn $55k for a speech and get $400 haircuts and then there is everyone else. However in his defense I don't necessarily agree that one must live in poverty or come from poverty to be able to address poverty. IMHO he just pushes the line in terms of being a top spokesman for poverty and the poor when it so well known how well he lives.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=16809
Click to expand...


1) this is an opinion piece in a blog. Was an accurate representation of the facts reported?

2) Do you have to work for free to talk about poverty?

3) 55k is nothing compared to speaking fees paid to Bill Clinton, Poppy Bush, or colin powell.

4) Taxpayers didn't pay for this. It was paid for from tickets sold to the event by people who chose to attend.

5) You article itself says at least some of the fee was for travel and expenses associated with edwards trip to davis. It didn't just all go into his pocket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top