John Edwards talking about POVERTY.

[chimpymustgo]

OMG - Edited to add:

at the NH Dem dinner.

On fire.

[beaconess]

1. And he's talking about race

and civil rights
"Not an African American issue, not an Hispanic American issue, not an Asian American issue, it's an AMERICAN issue. It's about our values and the kind of America we want to be! This is our MISSION!"

Brought them to their feet!

[chimpymustgo]

3. Middle class insecurity. We can do something.

Shifting tax burden.

Okay. JRE is the one.

[fabius]

2. I really like Edwards economic message.

I mean, I REALLY like it. And his delivery.

Just the a couple months ago I was saying to my wife, "nobody talks about the poor any more. They've dropped off the radar screen."

John Edwards is talking about poverty and racism in a very persuasive way.

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

6. hmmm

I don't really think poverty is a winning issue because it is not such a big problem in this country. All the studies say the poor are getting richer. Homelessness is a problem, but other than the homeless, the poor get the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. 98% of the poor have color TVs, try that in any other country. I would like to hear more talk on the environment!

[beaconess]

7. Do you really believe that poverty is not a big problem?

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

10. Yes

Nobody is starving. Hell, the poor are much more likely to be obese than the middle and rich. I have traveled the world and to say poverty is a problem here is an insult to everyone else. But, what do you expect from a materialistic society? Go to the poorest section of Harlem and it is nicer than the richest of Mexico City. I know you guys mean well, but I'd rather see my money go to other means.

[jenk]

12. it's not......until you lose your job and there is no safety net

So it is an issue, nobody wants to talk about it. Good for Edwards to have the courage to bring this to the front!

[spooky3]

11. link to support the color TV assertion?

Everything you are saying is contrary to every statistic I have ever read on poverty.

Here's just one--42 million Americans have no health care coverage.

I don't know where you live but it must be in a very rare area if you don't see grinding poverty everyday, along with working poor, who can afford only the barest of essentials despite working multiple jobs.

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

16. That is my point exactly

All I have is the barest essentials + a computer;) That's all I need and I could do without the computer. Anything else would be greed.

[DjTj]

20. Edwards' point is that you are one catastrophe away from financial ruin...

...What would you do if a relative got in a serious accident and required expensive care for the rest of their lives?

...What happenned to so many Americans when the internet bubble burst and they were laid off?

We are the richest country in the world and we should have plenty to help insure ourselves against catastrophes. Instead, we give tax breaks to the rich. There should be social security instead of growing wealth.

[AP]

30. Lots of people WANT more.

working asses of to get it.

Can't.

Edwards's point.

[Astarho]

31. Exactly

just existing isn't enough for many people.

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

43. Then maybe they should invest in education...

I work for what little I have and I pay taxes. It is not my responsibility to pay for someone else's luxuries.

[beaconess]

46. I think you made a right turn on your way to Republican Underground

and ended up here by accident.

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

51. Not all democrats are socialists

I am a Southern democrat with the best democrat governor in the country (Mark Warner) and I have every right to be on here debating the issues.

[beaconess]

54. Yes, you have every right to be here

but don't be surprised if people call you on the views you express, which sound identical to some of the most callous and cruel Republican talking points about the poor.

[DjTj]

56. I'm also in Virginia...

...and I am also very much not socialist.

I actually think John Edwards' tax plan makes much more capitalist economic sense than Bush's.

Bush hasn't just been cutting taxes, he's been shifting the tax burden so that people with a lot of assets don't have to pay as much tax as they used to. He has done this by reducing capital gains and repealing the estate tax.

What this means is that people who are working and paying standard income tax and payroll taxes are paying a greater percentage of the overall tax burden.

What this essentially does is create a disincentive for people to work, while creating an incentive to put your money in assets (big house, boats, cars, stocks, bonds, etc.) The Bush tax system favors wealth over work.

The Republicans will paint this as class warfare, as trying to transfer money from poor people to rich people, but I like to think of it more in terms of rich people only, because in truth, they're the only people that actually change their behavior when the tax code changes.

Let's say Bill Gates has $1 million and he wants to decide what to do with it. He can either put it into Microsoft and develop a new product or he can use it to speculate in land or the stock market. Under the Bush system, he would get taxed higher on money he would make through Microsoft but would get taxed lower on his outside investment income. This is NOT what we want Bill Gates to do. He is pretty damn good at running Microsoft, and we want him to keep doing that. When he produces good software, that helps everyone in the country, but when he buys a yacht, it does nothing for everyone else.

We want to incentivize work over wealth. It makes basic economic sense, but Bush is too busy protecting the interests of the ultra-wealthy.

The Edwards tax plan is online here:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/economy-taxes.asp

(It's clearly worded to attract people that think more along socialist lines, but hopefully you can see through that.)

[beaconess]

57. Nice job

This is a very difficult thing to explain and you made it very plain. Thanks!

[AP]

60. Invest in education? Is that how George Bush got rich?

[LiviaOlivia]

13. Then turn to the FOX channel

You quoted almost exactly their spin from the Heritage Foundation.

need further info:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1051213&mesg_id=1051213

Here's hoping you visit Tombstone (Az)

[spooky3]

29. excellent find, LiviaOlivia.

Virginia4, you REALLY do not want to rely on Fox News or Heritage Foundation for "information." They are propagandists, not information sources. And you won't persuade anyone here by using "data" from them, especially when you won't be open about where you got the "data."

[union_maid]

18. Most of the poor probably ARE homeless. Where's the difference?

Homeless people aren't just the mentally ill or addicted populations anymore. Most of them have jobs. If you're poor, you very likely can't afford a home of any kind, and if you have one now, you're not at all certain to have one down the road.

[democratreformed]

23. Statistics from 2002

The top 5% of the people in this country owned 59% of the wealth. The national poverty rate is around 12%. (that does not include people living at the poverty level - only those under it). My state, Arkansas, had the highest poverty level - at 18%. Many of those are children. I don't know where the statistics are right now, but I remember hearing that families are the fastest growing group of people who are entering poverty.

[AP]

24. (gentle nudge) wake up (quiet whisper in your ear) you're

sleeping.

And you're talking in your sleep.

[fabius]

33. Republican studies say poor are getting richer.

You believe them?

Like the "lucky duckies" editorials in the WSJ. The theme is "Poor people pay almost no taxes, those lucky duckies. While the suffering, overburdened RICH people have an immense tax burden." Typical self-serving WSJ crap.

So if these poor people are so lucky, why don't the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal volunteer to trade places with a couple of retail clerks earning $20K annually and try it out?

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

35. LOL

I am a retail clerk and I have everything I need. I studio apartment, clothes and food. Plus the occasional beer! Would I like to have more? Sure! Is it Uncle Sam's job to give it to me? No. Uncle Sam should help those who need food, clothing, and shelter, but I don't think it needs to go beyond that.

[tkmorris]

44. Oh please

You come on here quoting FauxNews to support your argument, then you start talking about Uncle Sam giving people stuff.

Not one person said anything about the government giving you anything. Furthermore there ARE people starving in this country whether you like it or not. Also people without housing, and decent clothing. You really should get outta that retail store once in awhile.

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

49. There are not people starving

And if there were, it would be because they have too much pride to use the services that are already in place. Trust me, I am from the South and the poor white folks here would rather die than take a welfare check.

[barbaraann]

4. Wow! I'm impressed.

Edwards is moving up on my list!

[Jerseycoa]

5. He's terrific

The best speaker we've got.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

8. Edwards aint gonna be President

this year, but he will be some day.
He looks better & better all the time.
I think he's grown more than anybody in
the primary, and/or my perception of
him has.

[DjTj]

17. It's our time now!

John Edwards is going to the White House this year!

...jump on the bandwagon before it passes you by!

[mlawson]

22. There is no reason for him to wait.

He is 'hot' right now. Lightning might not strike again, in 2008. Anything could happen in the meantime. And there is no reason to imagine he will be any better in 2008, either, especially if he is out of office for four years.

[LostInTheMaise]

9. Is it just me

or does anyone else feel that a millionaire talking about poverty is just talk. How many people could a millionaire help *out* of poverty with their millions?

[DjTj]

14. He helped himself out of poverty...

...I think that makes him pretty well-qualified to help the rest of us.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[bearfartinthewoods]

15. he's already helped many get justice

that's how he earned his money.

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

21. I haven't read the facts of his cases

so I may be wrong, but I generally don't have much repect for trial lawyers. Go Lieberman or Dean!

[DjTj]

25. Edwards' cases...

Are in his book, "Four Trials," which you should definitely check out:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/fourtrials/

Here is an excerpt from what is by far the least moving part of the book, but still very good:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/excerpts/2004-01-12-four-trials_x.htm

Happy reading!

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

26. Thanks, I'll check it out

[barbaraann]

27. Without trial lawyers, the corporations would have total control.

n/t

[AP]

28. I've read about those trials, and I have a tremendous

amount of respect for Edwards.

(Lieberman or Dean?!?!)

[LiviaOlivia]

34. Please expand on "don't have much repect(sic) for trial lawyers"

Do you have specifics?

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

36. Sure

A lawyer that would sue McDonald's because his client is fat. A lawyer who chases ambulances. A lawyer who goes after tabacco companies because their client is sick. A lawyer who travels up and down Florida making millions looking for establishments that are not wheelchair accessible. Frivolous suits that hurt alot of people and cause us regular hard working Joes to pay skyrocketing insurance rates. Plus the judges they shop for and play ball.

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

37. But as I said

I don't know much about Edwards, who he sued, and why

[DjTj]

38. Edwards is not the lawyer behind any of those cases you mentioned...

...and he has a proposal to punish lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits:

Most lawyers are responsible advocates for their clients, but the few who aren't hurt the real victims, undercut the credibility of the legal system, and clog our courts. Before a lawyer can bring a medical malpractice case to court, Edwards will require that he or she swear that an expert doctor is ready to testify that real malpractice has occurred. Lawyers who file frivolous cases should face tough, mandatory sanctions. Lawyers who file three frivolous cases should be forbidden from bringing another suit for the next 10 years — in other words, three strikes and you're out.


http://www.johnedwards2004.com/healthcare-costs.asp

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

39. I know he didn't bring any of those suits

I was just giving examples. Thanks for the quote though. I feel alot better about him now :)

[spooky3]

40. you might like to read this article

"Let's keep doctors in business"

http://www.dodgeglobe.com/stories/052203/opi_0522030031.shtml

[bearfartinthewoods]

61. well in one case he sued the manufacturer of a

swimming pool filter assembly that so concentrated the suction that a child got stuck on it and died in a most horrible way. the descision forced them to redesign the fixture to prevent more deaths.

[LiviaOlivia]

42. Every citizen has the right to access....

...a court and judge. Let the judge decide what is frivolous or not. To deny access to the court system is unconstitutional.



The Hypocrites Of Tort Reform
Advocates Who Changed Their Tunes

Emily Gottlieb is the deputy director of the Center for Justice & Democracy.


No one likes a hypocrite. Yet one would be hard pressed to find more hypocrites than in the "tort reform" movement. Take a look at the record of a host of lawmakers, lobbyists and even journalists who complain about lawsuits and argue that the rights of injured consumers to go to court should be scaled back because we are too "litigious."

When they or family members are hurt and need compensation for their own injuries, often minor ones, these same individuals do not hesitate to use the courts to obtain compensation, to right a wrong, to hold a wrongdoer accountable or to obtain justice. The same is true for corporations that have funded the "tort reform" movement. These companies support efforts to immunize themselves from liability for harming consumers. But when these same companies believe they have been wronged by a business competitor, they are the first to sue.

In this report we take a look at the cases of several proponents of tort restrictions who do not "practice what they preach." We examine individuals who have sued sometimes for millions of dollars while at the same time championing damage caps and other severe liability restrictions for others. We also look at corporate litigants who have lent financial or other support to groups like the American Tort Reform Association, the Manhattan Institute and state business coalitions like New Yorkers for Civil Justice Reform.

Notably, tort restrictions advocated by these organizations virtually never limit the rights of corporations to sue business competitors for commercial losses. This list is by no means exhaustive but merely representative of businesses and other "tort reformers" who say one thing but do another when it comes to the civil justice system.


Individual Hypocrites

George W. Bush

As Texas Governor, George W. Bush was one of the "tort reform" movement’s biggest proponents. One of Bush’s first acts as governor in 1995 was to meet with representatives of nine Texas Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) chapters in a salsa factory outside of Austin, after which he declared a legislative "emergency" on "frivolous lawsuits." Over his two terms, Bush signed a series of brutal bills that severely reduced injured consumers' rights to go to court.

However, when it comes to solving problems involving his own family, Bush heads straight to court. In 1999, Bush sued Enterprise Rent-A-Car over a minor fender-bender involving one of his daughters in which no one was hurt. Although his insurance would have covered the repair costs, making a lawsuit unnecessary, Bush sought additional money from Enterprise, which had rented a car to someone with a suspended license. In this case, Bush seemed to understand one of the most important functions of civil lawsuits -- to deter further wrongdoing. The case settled for $2,000 to $2,500.

U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

As a United States Senator, Rick Santorum has repeatedly supported limits on consumers' rights to seek compensation in the courts. In 1994, Santorum sponsored the Comprehensive Family Health Access and Savings Act that would have capped non-economic damages at $250,000. In a 1995 floor speech supporting damages caps, Santorum said, "We have a much too costly legal system. It is one that makes us uncompetitive and inefficient, and one that is not fair to society as a whole. While we may have people, individuals, who hit the jackpot and win the lottery in some cases, that is not exactly what our legal system should be designed to do."

But the same rhetoric does not seem to apply to Senator Santorum. In December 1999 Santorum supported his wife’s medical malpractice lawsuit against her chiropractor for $500,000. At trial, the Senator testified that his wife should be compensated for the pain and suffering caused by a botched spine adjustment, claiming that she had to "treat her back gingerly" and could no longer accompany him on the campaign trail. After the verdict, Santorum refused to answer phone calls asking what impact the case had on his views of "tort reform." According to his spokesman Robert Traynham, "Senator Santorum is of the belief that the verdict decided upon by the jury during last week’s court case of his wife is strictly a private matter. The legislative positions that Senator Santorum has taken on tort reform and health care have been consistent with the case involving Mrs. Santorum." In January 2000, a judge set aside the $350,000 verdict, deeming it excessive, and offered a reduced award of $175,000 or a new trial on damages only.


Need further info:
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/4286


Personal note:
Hate of trial lawyers is a smoke screen. It is really a hate of average people fighting the abuses committed by corporations and the government.

Livia

Edit: personal note

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

45. What are the current penalties

for bringing a frivolous lawsuit to court?

[DjTj]

50. This differs by state...

...but at the federal level the standards aren't really solid and sanctions are basically left up to the judge.

In general, they'll make you pay the other side's legal fees if it is clearly frivolous. In egregious cases I think you could be disbarred, but there are just very few standards right now (especially with medical malpractice where it's impossible for the judge to make a ruling, since it requires expert medical knowledge).

[spooky3]

52. many attorneys will not take a case on a contingency basis

so, if you are so stupid as to file a frivolous case, you have to pay attorney's fees, which could be in the tens of thousands, and your own time is wasted. These costs are also imposed on people who have STRONG cases, by the way, which is why for every person you know who has actually filed a frivolous case, there are probably 100 who had a good case but didn't file, because they didn't want to pay these costs and risk losing.

[VirginiaIs4Lieberman]

53. Thanks

You have been very helpful while others here have been personally attacking me for being a centrist democrat.

[LiviaOlivia]

55. None that I know of...excluding being counter-sued.

As it should be. Of course a judge could get a wild hair...

P.S. I believe you'd be a good Republican.

[beaconess]

48. Lawsuits aren't the reason you're paying higher insurance rates

although that's what Bush and the insurance companies want you to believe.

Insurance companies skyrocketing rates have nothing to do with lawsuits - it is an attempt to recoup the massive losses they incurred as a result of bad investment decisions through the 80s and 90s.

They're lying to you. Please don't fall for it.

[beaconess]

47. How could you be for either Lieberman or Dean?

They are about as polar opposite as two Democrats can be. I can certainly understand how you could support one of them, but I don't understand how you could support both of them.

[tkmorris]

58. Seriously

I don't understand that one either. I have tried to figure out what cause would be important to you that would have you supporting those above the others. Nothing occurs to me. Nothing at all.

[spooky3]

19. other comments on this thread

re: all the speakers at dinner shown on CSpan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=180099&mesg_id=180099

[AlinPA]

32. He's great tonight. All these guys are good tonight, esp.

Clark, Edwards and Dean.

[DeepModem Mom]

41. No politician has talked about poverty in this way since RFK...

and if it isn't an issue that wins an election, it restores something to our party that we once had and lost. It lifts us up, and places us in stark contrast to the Republican Party. And in response to another post, RFK, like Edwards, was a millionaire. A good primer on poverty in modern America is "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich, a book high on the list of assigned reading for thousands of Generation Y college students.

[angee_is_mad]

59. Well, he is a southerner

and he knows how F#ck things are down here!