The Other America

[BT]

JS

If we can't agree on the easy stuff i really don't have much hope for us ever reaching common ground on the hard stuff.

Edwards display of opulence has to affect his credibility. Especially when his chief bully pulpit would be enacting laws that allegedly level the playing field.

How can he in good conscience say that a CEO should not be paid 400 times what the lowest paid worker is paid when he lives in house 14x the size of he average 3/2 suburban ranch house.

Now if he wants to give rousing speeches urging poor americans to take advantage of the opportunities ( a la Bill Cosby) for advancement that exist, education comes to mind, wise life choices come to mind, then he is more than welcome to do that and would have some credibility due to his rising from humble beginnings himself.

But if he wants to pass puniive taxes for success or limit compensaton packages or irony of ironies, urge tort reform,  then he will come up short in the credibility arena simply because he does blatantly display his wealth, he does take advantage of every tax break in the book, and because a family his size does not need a 28,000 square foot house, and since he is already on record as saying he, through government,  gets to decide what is needed, he definitely doesn't walk the walk.



 

[Amianthus]

No, your argument is invalid. It might be nice for the impoverished to have no voice, but it is hardly fair to demand it.

Yet, it seems disingenuous for someone to claim that the wealthy should have their money taken away to help others, when obviously, he is not doing the same with his own money.

Perhaps he should look to Yvon Chouinard for a guide in how to make a ton of money and then still advocate for the impoverished and the environment.

[_JS]

First, let me make it clear that I'm not here to campaign for John Edwards. It is the point that matters to me, not the candidate.

The poor need advocates. The fact is that politics is set up to dissuade the working class folks and especially the poor from advancing to high levels of political influence. Moreover, it is difficult to have a shared, collective voice.

Why does he have to "walk the walk" to support policies to limit compensation packages, or basic policies to help redistribute wealth for the benefit of the poorest in America?

Do you consider Franklin Roosevelt to have not "walked the walk" either (no need for handicap jokes)?

Yet, it seems disingenuous for someone to claim that the wealthy should have their money taken away to help others, when obviously, he is not doing the same with his own money.

Do you know for a fact that he does not give to charities or comit to volunteer work?

[Amianthus]

Do you know for a fact that he does not give to charities or comit to volunteer work?

Nope. But I do know that a small family can live much more cheaply than he does. A display of opulance as this - especially in the area his house is built - is basically thumbing his nose at the poor.

[sirs]

Yet, it seems disingenuous for someone to claim that the wealthy should have their money taken away to help others, when obviously, he is not doing the same with his own money.

Do you know for a fact that he does not give to charities or comit to volunteer work?

Last time I looked, he was taking advantage of every single tax loophole he could to keep more of his own money, vs allowing the Government, to which he is a public representative of, to take as much as they could in order to do the "will of the people", which he advocates and looks to expand.  

[_JS]

So he should really be a Republican, then? Is that what you're saying?

[sirs]

So he should really be a Republican, then? Is that what you're saying?

Who's saying that?

[BT]

JS,

It is inevitable that people will take an inventory of the messenger whilst digesting the message.

A racist could be an advocate for civil rights, but i doubt his message would sell well in the hood.

The subliminal message one gets from Edwards is he got his but you can't get yours.

[domer]

D'uh. I don't think Edwards is abandoning a "bootstrap" message, as he and Bill Cosby have lived. What he seems to be doing is expanding the range of that notion's efficacy beyond "the talented tenth" to the entire disadvantaged population, most of whom simply cannot capitalize a bare diet of self-reliance. And further, he is not arguing that people shouldn't live well; indeed, he is arguing, within reason, that everyone should. And his pitch for "equity" is not cast in absolute terms but in degrees of relative contribution to solving this and other pressing social issues. One can argue that anyone who effectively puts these matters before the public is certainly doing his share to close the gap. It may be a paradox but what Edwards stands for is true nonetheless: Live well, work hard, and to the extent it is reasonable, we will help you by making the political system more responsive to your needs.

[_JS]

I cannot say it better than that.

[BT]

So basically Edwards is advocating a do as i say not what i do philosophy.

If not perhaps you can pointout his value of education speeches, his nose to the grindstone recipe for success. All i seem to recall about him is his divisive have vs have not rhetoric. And if not divisive why the two Americas catch phrase?

[domer]

I don't think Edwards, or any politician, has to cast his arguments to be kosher according to the lights you follow, which would lead to intellectual strangulation. I think the matter is simple and obvious, as I've stated it.

[BT]

Domer if you can't debate civilly why bother posting. We already have a Knute, we don't need two.

[domer]

Get your hands off of my neck, now!

[Universe Prince]

The problem with these attitudes is that it assumes that only the poor may speak for the poor.

I've got a little extra time this evening, so I'd like to respond here. I won't speak for others, but I am not saying only the poor can speak for the poor. I am merely saying I find a little disingenuous to talk about "two Americas" in terms of haves and have-nots as a means of placing oneself as a champion of the middle class and the poor, and then to spend $6,000,000 on a house. His action is what I am criticizing, not his economic status. I have nothing against the man being wealthy and talking about helping the economically disadvantaged improve their lives. Good for him on both points.

Maybe I'm being unfair. It's possible. But I see no reason why I should not consider his actions when assessing the man and his message.