John Edwards's speech and KRT's article - Is that an accurate description

[Mass]

of the speech.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/12688109.htm

Personal responsibility key to combating poverty, Edwards says

BY STEVEN THOMMA

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Fighting the kind of poverty that Hurricane Katrina revealed anew will take more than the government can provide, John Edwards said Monday. It also will take a commitment by the poor to work and stop having babies at young ages, he said.

"While America does more, people will have to do more too," said Edwards, a former and likely future presidential candidate.

Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina who ran in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2004 and ended up as his party's vice presidential candidate, used a Washington speech to criticize President Bush's response to the hurricane. He also proposed several new ways to help poor Americans, whose plight in the hurricane's wake is prompting a new look at poverty by Democrats and Republicans alike.

The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, also gave a speech Monday. Kerry criticized Bush for the hurricane response as well as for his handling of the war in Iraq.

Edwards went further in exploring possible solutions. He argued that choices made by poor people, especially when they're young, greatly affect their chances of being poor.

"When a 13-year-old girl thinks there's nothing wrong with having a baby that will drive them both towards lives of poverty," he said, society has failed.

"When 15-year-old boys become fathers, then walk away, get shot or go to jail," he added, society also has failed.

He urged expanding government programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit for people who work but are poor and creating federally financed "work bonds" that give low-income working families $500 a year, housing vouchers to help poor people move to better neighborhoods with better schools and $1,000 annual grants that they could save for five years toward down payments on houses.

In exchange, he said, the poor and the government would have a new "covenant."

"Everyone will also be asked to hold up their end of the bargain," Edwards said, "to work, to hold off having kids until they're ready and to do their part for their kids when the time comes."

---

For the Edwards speech, go to http://oneamericacommittee.com/20050919.asp

[BayCityProgressive]

1. work towards not having kids??

seems like Edwards is blaming the victims. How are these youth supposed to do this without sex education at a young age and without family planning services open to them?

[Mass]

2. That is why I was asking - This does not sound like Edwards.

May be one sentence or two in a speech, but this article make that the center of the speech.

[ultraist]

5. Edwards said, several times, "WE haven't built the levees high enough"

He does not blame the victim, in fact, he shows a lot of compassion in the speech.

Edwards cited the facts: Teenage pregnancy is positively correlated with poverty. WE, as a society, need to educate our youth and provide birth control. WE ALL are responsible for lifting up those in poverty and opening up access to opportunity. He clearly says this in his speech.

The article put a very conservative spin on the speech by cherry picking two quotes and taking them out of context. Please read the speech in it's entirety.

Edwards does NOT have a history of blaming the victim. His entire platform is built on the premise that poverty is created through structural/systemic problems.

[Wordie]

7. He wasn't blaming...he was quoted out of context. Here's the full section.

<snip>
Down in New Orleans, hundreds of thousands of people lost their homes and untold numbers lost their lives because the levees we built were too weak and too low. We knew better, but we didn't act because we didn't want to look. That's how it is with the moral foundations of our society.

All over this country, too many children are growing up in harm's way -- and too many lives are being washed away -- because the levees we've built are too weak and too low.

When a 13-year-old girl thinks there's nothing wrong with having a baby that will drive them both toward lives of poverty, we haven't built the levees high enough. When 15-year-old boys become fathers, then walk away, get shot, or go to jail, we haven't built the levees high enough. When young people spend more time going to meth labs than chemistry labs, we haven't built the levees high enough.

We know better, but we don't act because we don't want to look. If we believe in community, we must find the courage to do what communities do: Together, we must stand side by side and man the levees.

All of us - parents, clergy, teachers, public officials - we need to say some simple truths: it is wrong when boys and young men father children but don't care for them. It is wrong when girls and young women bear children they aren't ready to care for. And - and - it is wrong when all Americans see this happening and do nothing to stop it.
<unsnip>

He is saying that we all must help young people make choices that will help them in life. Even though he uses the words, "moral" and "wrong," he is not blaming those young people. What he is saying is about community and a shared responsibility we all have to one another as Americans.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I hope this is not what he said.....a la Bill Cosby in white face....

But the link that there in the OP does not work.....

Can someone find that speech, and post the link?

Thanks!

[Mass]

4. Link corrected at the end of the article - judge by yourself

It is part of the speech, but there is a lot more to it. KRT chose to focus on this part only.

[Wordie]

6. I read the entire thing...long, but so inspiring. Courageous of Edwards.

I hope others read the entire thing too, because it is a great speech. Here is an additional excerpt:

<snip>
For a long time, I've talked about how this President's tax policy rewards wealth, not work. Today a stockbroker sitting by the pool watching the stock market pays a lower tax rate than the secretary who types the letters.

So we need tax reform. I've already talked about how to reward work better by expanding the EITC. But we should also stop favoring the wealth of the wealthiest.

An easy way to do that is to restore the Alternative Minimum Tax to its original purpose, shielding the middle class but ensuring that the very richest pay at least the same 28% rate on their stocks that they already pay on their work under the AMT. That will mean that the secretary and shop clerk living off their work don't pay a higher tax rate than millionaires living off their wealth.

[1932]

8. Interesting. Use the AMT on capital gains. Hmmm.

As for the the comment about kids having kids, here's the frame:

To be true to our values, our country must build a Working Society - an America where everyone who works hard finally has the rewards to show for it. In the Working Society, nobody who works full-time should have to raise children in poverty, or in fear that one health emergency or pink slip will drive them over the cliff.

In the Working Society, everyone who works full-time will at last have something to show for it - a home of their own, an account where their savings and paycheck can grow.

In the Working Society, everyone willing to work will have the chance to get ahead. Anyone who wants to go to college and work will be able to go the first year for free.

In the Working Society, people who work have the right to live in communities where the streets are safe, the schools are good, and jobs can be reached.

In the Working Society, everyone will also be asked to hold up their end of the bargain - to work, to hold off having kids until they're ready, and to do their part for their kids when the time comes.

The first test of the working society will be in the Gulf. And the central principle of our effort should be the one I just outlined: We can only renew the Gulf if we renew the lives of the Gulf's people by encouraging and honoring work.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Wow, 1932!

Could it get any better? :loveya:

[1932]

11. And we were just talking about this the other day!

Interesting.

I wish there was an appropriate emoticon.

[FrenchieCat]

12. I do think its this one....

:loveya: ;)

[1932]

13. That's not the emotion I'm having right now.

It's more like, "where's the mature, informed discussion about issues?"

[Mass]

9. As I thought, it is a perfect example of mischaracterization

and it should be an example next time somebody wants to criticize based on a news report. Get the full text and the context.

[mountaindem]

14. John Edwards is in the mainstream

I watched the speech, and he hit the nail right on the head.

These things close doors and more so for poor and working class families.

If you think that society should just turn a blind eye to it, then you are not in the mainstream.
These issues close doors for people, close doors to an education, to a job, earning a living, etc.
It's time we as a society teach people that work is more valuable than a government handout, its time we show people that an education is more valuable than sitting on your rear all day collecting a welfare check.
Those of you in the radical left are not mainstream, you want to turn a blind eye to these issues and make it like children should be treated like adults.
Don't vote for Edwards, go vote for someone in the radical left, but those of us in the mainstream moderate America will continue electing republicans.
The same goes for Bob Casey, another person who gets it, but you in the radical left don't like him either, because he's mainstream middle america, the place where the majority of the people are, the place where republicans are being elected.

[ultraist]

15. WHAT?

First, liberal Dems are the ones who have ALWAYS been concerned about poverty and racism, NOT the mainstream, supposed "New Democrat Centrists."

Secondly, I think you are missing Senator Edwards main point: Poverty IS a systemic problem and that it is up to US, "to build the levees higher."

How can you discount his main theme, that he has been talking about for a very long time: Two Americas (one for the wealthy who have access to the best of everything and one for everybody else). Please read the entire speech and consider the conservative spin this particular reporter put on Edwards speech. The reporter's claim is absurd because it defies Edwards platform.

You know, liberal Democrats and African Americans are the BASE of the Democratic party. There would be no Dem party without us. It's due time the centrists step aside, stop dividing our party and allow Democrats like Dean and Edwards take us back to "our roots" as Democrats, so we stand a chance to win.

[mountaindem]

16. I'm an Edwards supporter

He's dead on correct about there being "two Americas".
What I'm not is a card carrying radical, who believes that children should procreate at age 13 and be allowed to do adult things and society bails them out of it.

It's time we as a society get tough on people, force them to see that a job and work is better than a handout. Teach our children the value of work, not the value of pop culture.

I support John Edwards, I don't support radicals who think that their way is the only way and that children should procreate freely.
It's why I support Bob Casey over any radical left candidate in PA, because he understands the family, he's not radical like Santorum, but is moderate, how most people are.

[ultraist]

19. "Card carrying radicals" what BS

LIBERALS are not radicals who believe that children should have babies. LIBERALS are PRO education and PRO birth control for women.

Teens have children because the ADULTS in their lives have FAILED them, JUST as Senator Edwards says. "WE have NOT built the levees high enough."

People in poverty are NOT just looking for a handout. They are PEOPLE, just like you and me, who are seeking OPPORTUNITY and PROSPERITY. Sadly, they are barred from access to such, unlike the privileged in this nation. THAT is the point of two Americas.

BTW, heard of welfare reform? Time limits? Work requirements?

[mountaindem]

22. It doesn't go far enough

we haven't built that levee high enough or strong enough either.
At the state level we need to have more people helping these folks search for jobs and showing them what they are able to do.
There is no reason that someone can't give up 5 to 10 hours a week doing labor to earn their welfare check.
There is no reason that someone can't give up 2-3 hours a week meeting with a human services worker that helps them find jobs to apply for and shows them what they are able to do.
We can make the system work better, but in our society we have this mentality today that if I'm ok, then I'm not worried about anyone else. We have republicans like Reagan to thank for that.

[renie408]

24. I think maybe you are stereotyping and making assumptions

First, as you seem to note, 'radical' can cover a lot of ground in either direction.

What do you consider policies of the 'radical left' which lead to the dissolution of families? I would be willing to bet that there aren't any politicians, even in Pennsylvania, who support 13 year old girls having children.

I think I just read about this kind of thing, BTW. It's called 'pseudo-certainty'. Where a person develops an assumption and believes it over actual facts.

[Mass]

17. What is your point?

All I was saying is that the KRT article is misleading and that this should give a lesson to those who believe everything the media says, that's all.

I was not attacking Edwards or anything else. (Sorry if I was not clear).

[mountaindem]

18. sorry

I'm just sick of radicals on this site, who criticize people's every move because it's not liberal enough.
America by far is not as liberal as these radicals want to make it out to be. It's why republicans win, because most people are in the middle. John Kerry was painted as a radical as well and he did nothing to fight the image.

Most americans are not radical, they aren't pro teen pregnancy, pot smoking, etc. The main stream media has painted democrats as radicals, when in fact most of us are not.
I could easily be a republican though, because if the radicals in this party keep getting their way, I'm jumping ship.
We don't need anymore radical candidates, what we need is people who are most like middle america, who came from the same place as voters.

[ultraist]

20. Edwards is a populist leaning LIBERAL.

Check his voting record and ratings.

"...if radicals in the party keep getting their way?" LMAO! We have LOST because New Democrat centrists took over! Bill Clinton was the only one who could pull off being a centrist and win, in large part due to his charm and charisma. Sadly, Clinton left our party in debt. In fact, many political scientists claim that Clinton left the Dem party more bankrupt than any other Dem president, due to his centrist policies.

As Senator Edwards and Dean have said, it's time for Democrats to be Democrats again and return to our CORE VALUES.

[mountaindem]

21. you missed the point

I was and am an Edwards supporter, I voted for him in the WV primary, even when it was evident Kerry had the nomination.

What I am not is a radical liberal who wants criminal laws to be weakened, who wants drug laws to be weakened to allow smoking of marijuana and other druges to be legal, etc.

I'm pro-family and pro-life for the most part.
What makes me a democrat is the belief in helping people, the belief that everyone should have a fair opportunity to achieve the American Dream. I'm pro-labor union, pro working man.

What I am not is a radical, who thinks it is ok for people to sit on their couches and collect welfare checks when they are able to work.
When collecting a welfare check is better than working, when it allows people to have more than if they worked, then something is wrong in our society, we are not valueing the right things.

[sadiesworld]

25. Won't moderates balk at subsidizing low wages?

As the tax burden continues to shift from the wealthy to the middle class, won't these taxpayers resent picking up the tab for cheap labor?

Shouldn't we focus on:
-Changing our trade policies?
-Discouraging outsourcing/off-shoring?
-Providing single-payer healthcare?
-Raising the minimum wage?
-Enforcing our immigration laws?

Too radical?

[MissMarple]

26. Welcome to DU, mountaindem! What an initiation.

I remember when young women were on welfare and had baby after baby. As I recall, New York decided to limit the welfare amount to the number of children the mother had when she entered the welfare rolls, and not give more money for any subsequent children. At the time I thought that was certainly a step in the right direction. There were many women who worked hard to support their kids and didn't go on welfare. It must have been especially hard for them to see people accept money and not work.

Also, a woman was not eligible if there was a man in the house. I think this was a factor in the disintegration of many poor families. The welfare programs of the 60's, while "well intentioned" led to many undesirable social consequences. The welfare reform we have recently experienced has also created unintended consequences.

And I don't know of anyone who believes it is ok to sit around and collect welfare checks, unless it someone who has grown up doing so. It's not radical, it is crazy and stupid. But providing childcare, training, and education to needy people along with the financial support for food and shelter while they work or attend school is necessary to bring these people into the middle class. Health care that includes mental health and substance abuse treatment is also necessary. These are the building blocks of the levees John Edwards is speaking of. One way or another our society pays for the effects of poverty. One day we may, as a country, learn the meaning of the adage "a stitch in time...".

People will always slip down often through no fault of their own, and I think they deserve a hand up. And from what you have said, I think you do, as well.

[adaada]

23. Do you really think that most far left people support teen pregnancy?

I have never heard anyone support that. Maybe the real problem is not the people you define as "radical," but the media, which has made even "liberal" a dirty word.

I am PROUD to be a liberal. And what radical candidates exactly are you talking about?