Newsweek’s Jonathan Darman lamented this week that the John Edwards poverty tour/publicity tour didn’t passionately grip America, that it did not immediately become a mythic event, like filthy-rich Bobby Kennedy's poverty tour in 1968. In a dramatic flourish, the young Harvard-educated whipper-snapper blames this tragedy on not-very-compassionate America:
"There is something tragic about Edwards's failure to break through. Today, 37 million Americans live below the poverty line, 12 million more than at the time of Kennedy's death. And yet Edwards's call of conscience has not resonated. By all rights, Edwards, the son of a millworker, should have an easier time talking about poverty than did Kennedy, the son of a millionaire. His difficulty speaks to the candidate's inability to connect. It also speaks to the nation's inability to be moved."
Time's Amy Sullivan demanded that reporters ignore the Edwards Haircut story -- as if the press hates the Democrats -- and Darman will be scolded for bringing up the Lavish Coif, but he only raises it to let Edwards defend himself, and then he also laments the press:
"Edwards says his notorious $400 haircut and his 28,000-square-foot house are the obsessions of the media, not "normal voters." (He does have a snarkier press corps than RFK. Not only did reporters not criticize the size of Kennedy's Virginia mansion, they wrote fawning prose about the senator in the hopes of scoring an invitation.)
Oh, those golden days of yore, when reporters were Kennedy’s smitten groupies! They still desire to be smitten groupies, but they have to acknowledge that liberal legends now get dented during the manufacturing process by an alternative conservative media.
It’s also a bit funny for Darman to recall how Bobby Kennedy looked on his poverty tour in 1968 – even though Darman (Harvard ‘03) was born in the 1980s. But check out how John Edwards bluntly tells the young Newsweek-ling that he apparently has no say in approving the talking points and strategic outbursts of Elizabeth Edwards:
Even the candidate's own wife, Elizabeth, managed to steal some of her husband's spotlight. On day two of the tour, Salon.com published an interview with Elizabeth in which she said front runner Hillary Clinton was not necessarily "as good an advocate for women" as Edwards. Edwards denied that his wife's comments detracted from his poverty message. "Anything can attract attention away," he said. "If Senator Obama went out and said something outrageous, that would attract attention away." But Barack Obama is a rival candidate, a NEWSWEEK reporter pointed out; the Edwardses were on the same team. Surely, husband and wife coordinated their messages. Edwards raised his eyebrows: "You think so?"
This raises the obvious question: precisely which Edwards is running for president? Which one is the chief executive of the campaign? I suspect Darman is wondering, that, too. Why else would he include the eyebrow-raising detail, when liberal reporters are trained early to paper over the embarrassing Democratic details?
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It didn't break through
July 27, 2007 - 06:04 ET by Gat New YorkIt didn't break through because of the messenger. Maybe it's those $400 hairdoes or the $200 designer jeans, or the fact that Edwards is just that transparent.
It's more like the nation's
July 27, 2007 - 06:05 ET by FairlightIt's more like the nation's inability to be conned.
After billions and billions
July 27, 2007 - 06:26 ET by VT Con ManAfter billions and billions have been provided for the "cause", it is difficult to comprehend where, exactly, these millions and millions of "poor" are. I believe we have taught (everyone who needs to be taught) how to "fish". There are programs upon programs for the poor. In my state alone, there are at least a half dozen state programs that do nothing but dole out the $ for every conceivable need to the lower income of our state. Their rent is paid, they are given a car, they are provided jobs, they are given $ for childcare, they are given $ to go to school, they get free state paid job/career training.
For all intents and purposes, isn't this a dead issue? and why did Goldy Locks not realize this?
It is a little amazing that
July 27, 2007 - 06:50 ET by Tim GrahamIt is a little amazing that Newsweek can't see that one massive difference between the 1968 and 2008 campaigns is the failed statist War on Poverty in the middle...
Wait a minute....Silky's
July 27, 2007 - 06:29 ET by DarkseanWait a minute....Silky's the son of a millworker?????
Next you'll be telling me Kerry served in Vietnam!
Kerry served in Vietnam...I
July 27, 2007 - 06:48 ET by kwKerry served in Vietnam...I didn't know that. Thanks for the new information!
VietNam
July 27, 2007 - 06:54 ET by PawpawNI served in VietNam in 1968 and never saw JOHN KERRY-I served in VietNam down on the Delta with the Swift Boats there on the Mekong River!
He was there for a coffee
July 27, 2007 - 08:15 ET by Gat New YorkHe was there for a coffee break and long enough to doctor up some "wounds" to get 3 Purple Hearts which was a get-out-of-Nam-free pass.
THREE Purple Hearts?
July 27, 2007 - 09:59 ET by heldmywHe must be horribly scarred...
He shoulda gotten himself a lucky hat or something for protection...
No days in the hospital
July 27, 2007 - 12:22 ET by ThisnThatYes, 3 purple hearts yet no days spent in the hospital.
One tough dude, that John Kerry fellow. One tough dude, indeed.
RED v. BLUE CHARITY DISPARITY
July 27, 2007 - 06:53 ET by kwMy tag line is an important point on this topic. Take a look at this link to Michelle Malikin's website. The "charity disparity" (I am claining coining this phrase!) is simply amazing. And to this I must agree with Mr. $400 Haircut about America the not-compassionate...but with a caveat - only HALF of America is not compassionate - the BLUE HALF! The liberals are only generous with other people's money. Shame on them and shame on you Mr. Trial Attorney. Let's not forget about his big windfall taken as a dividend, not as income to avoid $500,000 in taxes. Could this help the poor Mr. Son of a Millworker?
The war on poverty has been
July 27, 2007 - 06:54 ET by dmntd1The war on poverty has been lost. We need to immediately pull funding for it.
By my calculations, the number of people below the poverty line has gone down on a percentage basis. 25 million people below the poverty line in 1968, out of 200.7 million people (12.45%) as compared to today's 37 million people below the poverty line, out of 302.5 million (12.3%). The fact that we've spent Billions, if not Trillions, of dollars trying to eradicate poverty, and only gone down by 0.15%, means this war is lost!
I really think that questioning others' masculinity is a game probably better left to people who haven't had more cock in and out of them than a Tyson Chicken regional distribution center. AceOfSpades 06162007
Dims increase the level so there will always be A WAR ON POVERTY
July 27, 2007 - 06:58 ET by PawpawNDid you see that the level for POVERTY has increased so dramatically that if 2 people make less than, I believe, but don't quote me, $60000[a little more], then they are considered at the poverty level! Heck, most of our parents never made that much in 10 years! The DIMS just increase the level so they have something to talk about as at or below THE POVERTY LEVEL!!
Yeap, so now what is
July 27, 2007 - 07:28 ET by dscottYeap, so now what is poor?
It should be easy to identify the poor: Anyone who draws Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), (formerly AFDC, formerly welfare), WIC, Food Stamps, Public housing, Medicaid, etc. So how many people are on the dole in these programs, let's not double count since if you qualify for one of these programs you qualify for them all. 10,270,000 as of 2006, so someone is not being honest as to the level of poverty in the country. Dems hyping an issue, NAW, can't be!
http://www.hungerinamerica.org/who_we_serve/demographics/income/government_assistance.html
BTW- we spent $9.8 Trillion on Welfare http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/cda06-11.cfm
As a nation, we now spend ten times as much on welfare, after adjusting for inflation, as was spent when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty. We spend twice as much as when Ronald Reagan was first elected. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm Has an interesting chart showing the growth of welfare spending despite dropping rates of clients.
Clearly, the modern welfare state, as it relates to children is largely a support system for single parenthood. Indeed, without the collapse of marriage which began in the mid-1960's, the part of the welfare state serving children would be almost non-existent.
Pretty damning stuff, um, John Edwards are you capable of reading or do you just ignore facts that are inconvenient?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
I tend to disagree somewhat
July 27, 2007 - 10:10 ET by BeowulfI tend to disagree somewhat with the definition of "poverty level". My daughter collects WIC checks for my new grandson, but does not collect, nor is she eligible for, these other forms of aid (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), (formerly AFDC, formerly welfare), Food Stamps, Public housing, Medicaid, etc.) WIC helps her out on the increasingly expensive costs associated with a newborn, and it is assistance, not truly a dole. Besides, she has far too much pride and self-sufficiency to even consider welfare, public housing, etc. She and my son-in-law are healthy and intelligent. They have no legitimate need for these other programs, they're just starting out their lives as a family, and I would say most new families don't start out with money falling out of their pockets. If more stringent guidelines were codified and enforced, these social programs would cost far less and we just might instill a modicum of pride back into our lower class. But the "granny-state" doesn't encourage self-sufficiency. It rewards laziness and joining in the pity-party that many low income families have become. If these programs looked at people's ability to work and cut them off at a certain point, we would have far less draw on the government dole. There are many "professional" low income families out there, that have the drawing of government aid down to an art form. These are the takers that abuse and strain the system.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
TANF
July 27, 2007 - 11:21 ET by tymanI work for the State of Florida, I help veterans find jobs and needed support. I'm also a retired disabled Navy Chief. We have the people in my office that do the welfare plans, also known as WIA or Workforce Investment Act. The one thing that stands out is that their success rate is very low. A strong majority of people going to school, food stamps etc only want the handout. Then they disappear. They finangle this paperwork wise to show a success. A common thing is that they help a person to get a BS in whatever. They are then expected to find employment in that field. Instead we have a way to see if they got hired on anywhere. If they do, even if its at Mcdonalds, they consider it success. They have to show progress and spend all the tax dollars they can so they get more money the following year.
I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
The problem is in cutting
July 27, 2007 - 11:38 ET by dscottThe problem is in cutting off, it's been figured that all these benefits (less WIC) amount to around $30k a year, so the person would have to get $15/hr job to make it worth their while not to take the handouts. There was a thread on this and it cited the Heritage Foundation I believe. The big issue is to make all the programs like TANF where there is no expectation of open ended handouts.
Secondly a weaning off must occur, the problem is when people get used to free stuff they have no incentive to work or get paid for working. Every dollar they make is one less dollar they get for free in their minds, so they say why bother? So the weaning process has to be timed based and date certain with some kind of progressive monthly reduction in benefits until the date certain cut off. When there is no room for them to argue, plead the emotional pitch, and give the sad eyes, they are forced to reality of having to provide for themselves and thus be a contributing member of society instead of a cost center.
However, there is even a bigger issue here and that is why they are on public assistance in the first place. Public assistance is nothing more than a support system for single parenthood, making the government the bread winner for the family. Until we as a society are willing to discourage the thinking that being a single parent is responsible or without consequence/cost, we are always going to have public assistance. Public assistance is supposed to be for people down on their luck, not a social engineering experiment. Which brings us to the primary reason why many (not all) are on public assistance and that contraversially is the Family Law Courts. Every single parent family you see on public assistance was created by the Family Law Courts. Some may say it was the result of poor individual choice and to an extent this correct but that is not the whole story. The Family Law Courts ENABLED the poor choices by placing children at the mercy of a person who decided they would get a better financial deal with handouts and child support. The idea that a child's best interest is strictly monetary or housing related is sheer foolishness and is willfully ignorant of the needs of children. When the Courts stop awarding default custody on the basis of gender, the entire paradigm will change. Thus all the incentive (the profit motive) to have a child out of wedlock to get public assistance will not only disapear but in fact become a cost to them. If you want to end poverty, then you must address the central prime issue of what drives poverty, and that is the choices made by people who think free money from government handouts at $30k is what will support them by having a child.
Everyone assumes poverty is from ignorance however, people on public assistance aren't dumb or stupid, they know a good deal when they see one. Right now for a single woman the best deal in town is getting pregnant to make $30k/year (tax free). They didn't have the child by accident or by ignorance of where babies come from or because they got sweet talked into bed by some low life slacker who didn't want the responsibility of marriage. They got pregnant because they know the government in its infinite stupidity will give them money because of the kid. KID = MONEY, for the majority it's really that simple and the Family Law Court is the means to that meal ticket.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
Excellent and informative
July 27, 2007 - 11:52 ET by BeowulfExcellent and informative post dscott (and you too tyman). I think the entire issue is pride. If people are willing to live on the government dole, and are actually encouraged to do so by the open-ended, never-ending handouts, where is their incentive to actually earn a living? The only incentive for doing so would be pride. I personally would rather earn $20k than be doled out $30k. I guess that' just the way I was raised. My father actually instilled in me a work ethic - you know - that old, trite "an honest day's pay for an honest day's work".
I also agree that the cut-off needs to be a weaning process - but it has to happen. After all the screaming and lawsuits and vitriolic name-calling, at least people would know that their free-ride was coming to an end.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
I work for the social
July 27, 2007 - 18:01 ET by UndercoverConservativeI work for the social services here in CA. so I see and agree with all this. However, the realpolitik of the situation is much scarier.
If anyone, and I mean anyone, so much as touches the benefits, or makes a decision that even causes a small *delay* in benefits, city councilmen and mayors will not get reelected, since their opposition will use this failure to get political traction. And since your welfare and assistance recipients are poorly educated and even unsophisticated when it comes to propaganda, they will believe outright lies if that's what they are told.
Welfare is the single largest voting bloc in the county I live in. Nothing can be allowed to touch it, any waste is allowed if it can be justified by providing benefits. All programs that taxes can pay for will be raided to provide these benefits-since stay at home welfare folks care little for infrastructure, nor are they interested or capable in thinking in the long term. Roads, fire departments, and especially police services (because those cops keep arresting welfare's felonious offspring) have their budget slashed yearly to feed the Social Services monster, to avoid taxing the working class into open revolt.
Basically I see no hope in the system ever changing. Power hungry folks and selfish lazy people will make sure the system keeps growing at the expense of all else, like a cancer. Until the patient dies.
And this isn't even getting into the state sponsoring of known illegal immigrants, some of which have become very notorious terrorist supporters.
Undercover, Have you
July 27, 2007 - 18:07 ET by BlondeUndercover,
Have you thought of moving?
That sounds like a totally depressing place to live.
A microcosm of the socialist agenda. You're right...it is scary!
pawpawn good idea to ask to not be quoted
July 27, 2007 - 19:26 ET by cjkinseyPP you are incredibly wrong about the poverty level. If you took the highest possible standard, which is a family of 9 or more people, for which 1 is under the age of 18 the poverty line is considered to be 39,933. Which works out to about 4,437 per person a year.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def/Poverty.htm
If you had some clue of which you spoke you might appear more interesting.
if you took
July 27, 2007 - 19:38 ET bya family of 9 or more people, of which 8 are over 18 years old and they make less than 39,933 total, that's 4991 per person (over 18)
there's something not quite right here
Support our Troops
I'm confused as well, a
July 27, 2007 - 19:51 ET by dscottI'm confused as well, a family of 9 and only one person is under 18???? What is being insinuated? 8 adults and 1 child??? Obviously something is lost in translation, so why don't you take a little time to educate us and explain. We are open to rational explainations. Now if you are talking about a family of nine people with two adults and 7 kids it might begin to make sense however, with $60k income, I will have some questions because what you are suggesting is one bread winner and a stay at home mom popping out puppies. There is no way two adults could both work outside the home, let alone a single parent could work outside in that kind of situation due to child care issues. Maybe part time but not more, I could be wrong...
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
botg
July 27, 2007 - 23:14 ET by cjkinseyI am sorry I don't understand what is not quite right? I provided the link to the US Census website with the information.
You were also able to read the numbers, change the number that you divided by, and came up with the right answer. Tell me what you don't understand and I will try to help.
I chose that combination of 9 people and only 1 person under 18, because that was the highest amount of payment. 9 people with 8 kids actually has a lower threshold in terms of money.
Great job looking at
July 27, 2007 - 07:50 ET by Free ThinkerGreat job looking at numbers and putting them into context. I would also be interested in knowing how many of these living below the poverty line rely soley on government checks for their income. Few in America pay attention to this "story" because we are the most prosperous country in the world and our freedom allows any of us to achieve. This stunt tour is another weak grasp from a second tier candidate who has no hope of a nomination. Edwards embarrasses himself so much, I am convinced he is on the Clinton payroll to make Hillary look halfway decent in comparison.
whipper-snapper ? Tim, you
July 27, 2007 - 06:56 ET by dscottwhipper-snapper ? Tim, you need to have gray or white hair to use that term. I can use that term, snark, snark.
Today, 37 million Americans live below the poverty line, 12 million more than at the time of Kennedy's death.
Well lets see, they changed the income level to determine who's poor, might have something to do with that? Especially since it was done during Bush's term, I wonder who pushed that idea? We imported millions of illegals working low wage jobs, hmmm, you think some of the number is artificially inflated by people who should not be here? And given that the unskilled low wage job market is flooded with illegals, you think wages might be a tad depressed thus holding down the American poor? Who pushed for that? Vote seeking Dems and silver spoon Repubs (RINOs like McCain)?
The fact that so called poverty has increased doesn't raise the question why? What government policies pushed by Dems gave these results? We were warned by Daniel Patrick Moynahan back in 1965. Did anyone listen? Are Dems prepared to listen now, the answer is a resounding NO. This is what happens when you claim being rich, well off or poor is an accident of birth, thus absolving people of responsibility as to their living circumstance. Life is not a series of accidents, it's a daily choice, all choices have consequences.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
Numbers Change
July 27, 2007 - 08:01 ET by allanfThat is a standard liberal trick to promote a crisis. Change the meth od of calculation. Then declare a crisis and assert that more goverment money must be spent.
(also see "global warming" and "obesity"
To eliminate poverty
July 27, 2007 - 09:14 ET by Prester JohnSomehow convince teenagers it's a really bad idea to have children out of wedlock and a really good idea to finish high school, and the poverty rate will drop like a rock.
Given that over 35% of the children born in this country (70% of black children) are born out of wedlock it's miracle the poverty rate isn't even higher.
The correlation between poverty and having out of wedlock children is so striking that a blind man should see it.
Poverty ain't what it used to be.
July 27, 2007 - 09:29 ET by Dave in TexasAn old article, but still relevant today. The Myth of Widespread American Poverty.
It's not that Americans can't be moved. We're just smart enough to distinguish between reality and some politician's hype.
We can also do some easy
July 27, 2007 - 12:08 ET by BeowulfWe can also do some easy math here:
US Population 1960 = 177 million
US Population 2007 = 300 million = 41% increase
Previous (1960) "poverty" rate = 25 million
Current "poverty" rate = 37 million = 33% increase
So, considering we have had a 41% increase in population, yet only a 33% increase in "poverty", even with the likely skewed "definition" of income level vs. poverty, it still seems like a significant improvement to me. Even if the rate had stayed the same, we would currently have 99 million people living in poverty. Now my interpretation may be waaaaay off, but it to me, 37 million is usually much better than 99 million, unless you're talking about winning the lottery...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Beo
July 27, 2007 - 23:53 ET by cjkinseyA little misleading, but easy. The current definitions of poverty were developed in 1964, so it is interesting that you chose 1960. From a census bureau report, via wiki, you will see that poverty was at an all time high in 1960, only matched after papa bush's term.
Once these standards for poverty were created however in a 60's the poverty rates and numbers dropped dramatically.
http://en.wikipedia....
Political Poverty Pimps
July 27, 2007 - 07:54 ET by allanfPerhaps it speaks to a nation which recognizes political poverty pimps like Edwards, who want to dole out other peoples hard earned money as if it were heroin to adoring lackeys.
Well John, those days are long gone. We have assistance programs for the truly needy. If you have not heard. The war on poverty is over. We have declared victory.
Why don't you go chase MacDonalds for making innocent kids fat?
I"v been accused of a
July 27, 2007 - 08:47 ET by oorampI"v been accused of a verbal smack-down myself but this is just plain rude:
Why don't you go chase MacDonalds for making innocent kids fat?
You left marks on his face!!!
He only wanted to take more of our money through using the government or payouts from your insurance companies.
Wait a minute~
July 27, 2007 - 08:11 ET by JohnMLet's look at the logic here.
"His difficulty speaks to the candidate's inability to connect. It also speaks to the nation's inability to be moved."
Maybe this has the cart before the horse...
Maybe the story should read: "The nation isn't moved (by ANY message he offers) because he can't connect."
Would a "reporter" think to examine this?
Kind of hard to connect
July 27, 2007 - 08:27 ET by dscottKind of hard to connect with the poor when you build a 28,000 sq ft house, drive up the property taxes and drive out your neighbors who can no longer afford to pay the property tax. John Edwards is oblivious to the effects of his actions. Proclaiming the poor needs sympathy is like saying the water is wet, tell us something new or point the direction to solve the problem. I think even poor people realize that when you promote illegals coming across the border, your own job opportunities shrink. The Dems suffer from the problem of straddling both sides of the fence, you can't be for both illegal immigration and the poor. The Dems have a choice to make, remain with a shrinking constituency of the poor or try to build a new constituency of illegals gaining the vote. John Edwards did his lawyerly best to flim-flam the public by claiming there are more poor than there really are and convince ordinary people they are really poor. You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some people all the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
"This raises the obvious
July 27, 2007 - 08:17 ET by Gothampc"This raises the obvious question: precisely which Edwards is running for president? Which one is the chief executive of the campaign?"
Too many hard questions for Mr. & Mrs. Edwards. They are still trying to figure out who, in their marriage, is the man and who is the woman.
Which points to the problem
July 27, 2007 - 08:30 ET by dscottWhich points to the problem with John Edwards not being able to connect, HE IS CLUELESS.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
Edwards
July 27, 2007 - 09:08 ET by iveseenitallEdwards can't "connect" because most Americans are not as dumb as he believes they are. Because he fooled juries of 12 and made millions, he believes he can it to the entire country. He insults thinking people. Sorry Johnboy, your con game isn't working this time.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
John Edwards = Jimmy
July 27, 2007 - 09:29 ET by buddycJohn Edwards = Jimmy Swaggert=Jim Baker
Hypocrites
July 27, 2007 - 09:36 ET by iveseenitallOphra made what?-270 million last year. Edwards lives in his mansion, Kerry has five of 'em,---on and on it goes. Then they tell us average folks how to live and what to think. Hypocrites all!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I don't think that word means what you think it means
July 28, 2007 - 00:04 ET by cjkinseyWhere is the hypocrisy? What is he stating he believes that he is actually doing differently?
A hypocrite would be something like saying that family values forbid extramarital sex, while you know you are committing it yourself. Read Vitter. Or impeaching someone for lying about an affair, while you are lying to your wife and the public about having one yourself. Read newt Gingrich.
I'm proud of my inability to be 'moved'. Thank you anyway.
July 27, 2007 - 09:51 ET by acaiguana"...It also speaks to the nation's inability to be moved."
Thanks a lot. I'm still trying to adjust/recover from being robbed.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
that's the funniest thing
July 27, 2007 - 18:09 ET by UndercoverConservativethat's the funniest thing i've read all day!
x
July 27, 2007 - 09:58 ET by heldmywx
I think if you're going to
July 27, 2007 - 10:03 ET by BruzillaI think if you're going to compare Kennedy and Edwards, and 1968 and 2007, you have to compare everything. In 1968, the poverty level was $3,000 per year, and 24+ million Americans fell below that income level. Using the latest census information (2005), less than 6.5 million households (family and non-family) fell below the $10,000/year mark. So using some guestimation, one could say that the 24+ million folks who were making less than $3,000 a year has been reduced to about two million in 2007.
Fool the people
July 27, 2007 - 10:07 ET by ridge_sI've heard Lincoln paraphrased thus: You can fool all the people too much of the time.
RFK v JE
July 27, 2007 - 11:42 ET by ChaitealoverDeservedly so or not, back in 1968 many of us believed Bobby Kennedy really cared about poor people. Does anybody believe that John Edwards cares about anyone but John Edwards & his immediate family? And we didn't give a thought to RFK's big house because he had all those kids and needed the rooms [sad how some of them turned out].
Legal money
July 27, 2007 - 11:53 ET by dagdaWe also knew the Kennedys got their money the old fashioned way, boot-legging.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Money & concern
July 27, 2007 - 12:19 ET by ChaitealoverKennedy's father made his money from bootlegging [RFK lived on it, it's true, but how many sons of rich men don't live on the old man's dough?]. We also know that John Edwards made his money himself the modern way, by lying about doctors to juries so he could steal from the insurance companies.
Neither statement has anything to do with whether or not the candidate at least gives the appearance of giving a damn about poor people. 40 years later it's hard to tell if Kennedy really cared or was a good actor, but he did convince many that he did. I don't think Edwards has convinced many people that he cares about anything except power and money [in his own pocket].
Edwards Sets Forth Plan (to wreck the economy)
July 27, 2007 - 13:12 ET by Prester JohnDemocratic presidential candidate John Edwards proposed raising the top tax rate on capital gains to 28 percent from 15 percent and increasing taxes on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year. The increased taxes would help pay for tax-free savings accounts and expanded tax credits for lower-income workers, he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700343.html
And Edwards will contribute how much out of his own pocket to fund these savings accounts and tax credits?
http://www.constitutionparty.org/
Probably little if any.
July 27, 2007 - 13:23 ET by dscottProbably little if any. Which begs the question, how did he escape paying the AMT???? Wasn't this alternative taxing scheme created precisely to make people like Edwards pay their fair share? Hmmm, sniff, sniff, something stinks here.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
Today, 37 million Americans
July 27, 2007 - 16:27 ET by ckc1227Today, 37 million Americans live below the poverty line, 12 million more than at the time of Kennedy's death.
Yet how many of these 37 million are the same as those 24 million that were in "poverty" at that time? I suspect not very many.
There will always be a level of poverty in this country, no matter what is done. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
I think a more pertinent
July 27, 2007 - 18:21 ET by UndercoverConservativeI think a more pertinent question would be, "How many are the children/grandchildren of people who were poor back then?" as in, multigenerational families of welfare drones and professional victims
Poverty level
July 27, 2007 - 16:44 ET by misterbillPopulation of US 1963 188,438,000 Povlevel 13%
2006 300,000,000 Povlevel 12.9%
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
poverty level
July 27, 2007 - 16:46 ET by misterbillThe following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:
In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes.
The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.
Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.
The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian. 2
Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.
Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.
Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.
Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the "poor" report their families have "enough" food to eat; 13 percent state they "sometimes" do not have enough to eat, and 3 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.
The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.
Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels.
Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
WHY THE CENSUS DATA ARE BADLY FLAWED
The Census Bureau counts as poor any household with cash income that is less than the official poverty threshold--which, in 1997, was $16,404 for a family of four. But the Census Bureau dramatically undercounts the incomes of these less affluent Americans. Other government surveys consistently show that spending by low-income households greatly exceeds the income the Census Bureau claims they have.
This is an anecdotal story
July 27, 2007 - 18:50 ET by GrammyThis is an anecdotal story about my family but I think it speaks volumes to one aspect of the issue that several addressed.
My oldest son's wife became pregnant 11 months before he got his BS. She couldn't even get an appointment with an obstetrician without 5,000 to 7,000 dollars of up front money because they had no insurance. If my husband and I had had the money it would have been theirs. Her only option was to apply for WIC assistance.
They were living with us and I went with her (she was the only Mrs I ever heard called at the Welfare Office). They put her on some food assistance and we explained she didn't need that because nutrition was not a problem. Well, that fell flat.
Although our granddaughter was strictly breast fed there were threats made when my daughter-in-law declined and didn't pick up baby formula. By the time our granddaughter was three months old my son had graduated and had gotten a very good job with excellent benefits, especially medical, and they had their own apartment.
My granddaughter spent three weeks in the NICU and my daughter-in-law a week in the hospital. There is no doubt that the help provided at taxpayers expense saved both their lives and we are all grateful.
But it took six months and almost an act of congress to get them off WIC and out of the system. Again there were threats of charges of child neglect if my granddaughter didn't keep appointments made by them for followup tests and treatment tied into their scenario that there was the possibility that deductibles and copays could could prevent the baby's proper medical care.
Literally, my son wrote multiple letters to several agencies and his congressman to get his wife and baby out of the system.
Is it any wonder that trillions have been spent with only minimal progress?
Grammie
Grammy, Thank you for
July 27, 2007 - 18:54 ET by BlondeGrammy,
Thank you for sharing that, which had to be painful.
How depressing that our government creates an underprivledged class of people whom it regards as too stupid to think for themselves. Your post is a perfect representation of the socialist thinking.
It's one thing to need a helping hand...it's another to require a lifetime of fealty for asking for a little bit of help.
Unreal.