Edwards calls for Cabinet-level post to fight poverty

[Sapphire Blue]

A thread posted by JohnLocke in GD: Politics...

Edwards calls for Cabinet-level post to fight poverty: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3164388

[Czolgosz]

1. Wouldn't that be a nice change - a president interested in eliminating poverty instead of exploiting

it.

[Virginia Dare]

2. I think that's a very noble idea..

any votes on who that person should be?

[bobbolink]

5. If Edwards isn't elected President (or VP), I'd like to see him in this position!

First, though, I would cry about him not being in the Oval.

But, he has been doing so much on his own, and really standing up for us, that I'd love to see him given a spot where he had some real power to accomplish something!

First off, I'd *LOVE* to see him do big hearings with only those of us on the receiving end doing the testifying! We've had enough of the "experts" already. We poor folk have much to say!

[Sapphire Blue]

24. The position will not exist until Edwards becomes president.

[seashorelady]

25. He has been really listening to the plight of the poor

[Sapphire Blue]

23. My vote (if I had any say in the matter) would go to President Carter.

[Virginia Dare]

31. That's a great thought, although I doubt he'd take it..

he seems to be content doing what he's doing, and he's getting rather advanced in age. :cry:

I'd like to see an African-American or another minority in the position, Jesse Jackson Jr. maybe?

[Solo_in_MD]

3. Isnt that what HHS is for?

[Sapphire Blue]

4. Please read the other thread; it's not just about domestic poverty... it's about GLOBAL poverty.

[bobbolink]

6. Was that crack because you don't like JE, or because you don't like poor folk?

Read the article, give it some deep thought, and think of what a difference this could make for us who are barely keeping body and soul together.

If you responded in that manner because you don't like Edwards, please take it elsewhere. We poor folk need a bit more understanding.

[Solo_in_MD]

7. Neither, it was quite seriously meant

HHS is the Cabinet level department which oversees domestic antipoverty programs. International poverty is covered by Dept of State via the various foreign aid programs. I am not sure how this proposal would dramatically change things at a practical level.

As for JE, while he is not my first choice, I have nothing against him. I currently lean to Obama or Richardson, but am not hard over.

[bobbolink]

8. Poverty gets lost in the shuffle. SOME OF US ARE DYING AS A RESULT.

I would think the lives of so many would be of importance to "liberals".

Speaking of which, have you made your calls about the budget yet??

[Solo_in_MD]

13. I fully believe that there is not enough reaching those who need it

As a diehard follower of Demming, the entire social support structure is crying out for a major makeover from a TQ/Six Sigma perspective. Sort of a mamoth Kiazan driven effort. All sides agree that not enough money is getting to those that need it. Some claim its fraud, others very high overhead in public social services. Its hard to tell where there truth is, other than not enough help is reaching those in need. Given the entrenched system and those who profit from it, I would be hard pressed to believe such change is possible in the near term.

[bobbolink]

36. Having looked at a number of your replies elsewhere on DU, my initial

response was correct.

You seem to be all left-brain, and missing much of a heartfelt compassion.

Those of us who are poor certainly don't need being talked down to, or any other "analysis".

Once you have walked in the shoes, maybe you'll have a bit more caring.

Adios!!

[seashorelady]

26. What would change at a practical level,

is that Edwards would hold that Cabinet member accountable.

[Solo_in_MD]

34. As a practical matter, cabinet members are never held accoutntable unless there is a major screwup

and sometimes not even then. That precedent is accross all parties for generations

[Sydnie]

9. Kick and rec

I am loving Edwards even more these days.

Thanks SB.

[bobbolink]

14. Im a rather late convert to JE, but he has my attention fully now!

When he went to campaign for aw, crudarama.. there goes the brainbox... the guy who was running against Joementum... He clearly made a deal with him, because the LAMONT (!) came out on the stage and APOLOGIZED for not having made poverty a stronger component of his campaign!!!

That did it for me!

:loveya: for John Edwards for pushing for us so strongly!

edited to say... I was just kidding... of course I knew it was

LAMONT!!

[Jcrowley]

10. Poverty

is not the problem, it is merely a symptom. Better that John would appoint a Cabinet position to address the problem of Wealth for then we would find its necessary offspring, Poverty, would be eliminated.

K&R

[bobbolink]

12. Actually, I think that would come out of it...

but, you certainly have a point.

Thanks for kicking this!

And, here's to tomorrow! :toast:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. I Say Absolutely And When A Dem Is President I Say Give It To Barbara Boxer.

I can't think of a Dem that would truly put their heart into the role more than she would.

[Sabriel]

15. Waiting for the "Edwards is too rich" irony posts....n/t

[karlrschneider]

16. Oh, great. We had the WOD, the WOT, now the WOP.

:eyes:

[bobbolink]

17. Oh great, now we have you.

:eyes:

[karlrschneider]

18. I think eliminating poverty is a fine, decent and honorable goal

And that the money would end up in the politician's and the bureaucrat's pockets just like it has on all the other 'wars.'

[1932]

20. LBJ's War on Poverty was one of the most successful actions taken by

a government ever. American has gotten off track and it doesn't have to be this way.

I have faith that Democrats can successfully wage these wars.

[Clarkie1]

19. Excellent. I fully support this concept.

I would like to see the Peace Corp expanded, I think that would be a good place to start.

K&R

[seashorelady]

27. One Corps groups have already begun around the country.

Edwards is pushing us to the limit, to be all that we can be. Now, not when the next president is elected.

[Clarkie1]

35. Cool. I don't think he's qualified to be President, but One Corps is a good thing. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Kucinich has been calling for the creation of a Dept. Of Peace for a long time now.

There is no peace without justice, and that means economic justice also. I'm glad to see Edwards picking up on Kucinich's ideas.

[Sapphire Blue]

22. You ARE joking, aren't you? "Edwards picking up on Kucinich's ideas"?!?!?!?!?

It would be great if Kucinich (instead of twirling around on chairs) or any of the other candidates would pick up on Edwards' ideas addressing poverty, though. They all seem to be too busy ignoring poverty, though. Meanwhile John Edwards is working on real solutions. He will be a great president!

John Edwards for President 2008

[seashorelady]

28. The experts have also warned Edwards that he won't gain a lot of votes

working on poverty issues. He said he didn't care, that's what he wants to do.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. Do the experts say that because they believe there are so few voters effected by

the poverty issue? What are the experts reasons for their conclusions as regards poverty and votes?

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Are you saying Edwards isn't intelligent enough to recognize a good idea and adapt it for

for his campaign?

I don't believe it. Edwards is a smart guy.

President Johnson launched a massive anti-poverty campaign in the 60s. It was very successful, if not perfect. Unfortunately, his support for the Vietnam War cost the nation so much that he was forced to scale back his anti-poverty plans. Imagine what could have been accomplished if Johnson has been wise enough not to buy into a long and costly war?

If we don't learn from history, we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Do you have any examples of anti-poverty legislation Edwards introduced or strongly supported while he was a Senator? I don't have much knowledge about that, so I thought I'd ask someone more familiar with his record than myself.

I do know that there are very real differences between The Kucinich plan for Universal Health Care and the Edwards plan for Universal Health Care. Kucinich supports a single payer fee for service plan that would mean all Americans, rich or poor, have the same access to quality health care, and it will mean we pay less to get more.

Edwards plan would create a two tiered system, basically means tested welfare for the poor,the lower middle and middle class, and private health insurance for the upper middle and upper classes. Edwards plan by far will require many more taxes on the wealthy, as well as on small employers to subsidize the less well off, and as such will be eventually starved for funds one day when the costs become excessive. Edwards plan leaves the inefficient and costly private health insurers in the picture, which will mean that it costs much more for less health care. But private insurance companies will do very well.

I like both Kucinich and Edwards. I think they are both good men. However, I believe Dennis represents a change from the status quo, while Edwards would perhaps just slightly modify the status quo.

Dennis Kucinich twirling on a chair has about as much relevance to the issue of poverty as the size or construction of Edward's house- no relevance at all. I find that when people become personality driven instead of issue driven they tend to focus in on these sorts of things instead of on the issues and the solutions proposed by the candidates.

It's a free country, but I feel we do ourselves and our candidates a great disservice when the dialogue sinks to that level.

[Sapphire Blue]

32. What I'm saying is that Edwards is not adapting anyone else's ideas for his campaign.

The Rural Rental Housing Act & the Fair Minimum Wage Act are two "examples of anti-poverty legislation Edwards introduced or strongly supported while he was a Senator".

Senator Edwards focused on poverty in his 2004 presidential campaign (remember the 'Two Americas'?), became director of the newly formed Center for Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at UNC School of Law, his alma mater, from Feb 2005 until he announced his candidacy for 2008. He has also worked on numerous states' campaigns to raise the minimum wage, been involved w/ACORN & UNITE HERE's Hotel Workers Rising.

Senator Edwards is committed to End Poverty Within 30 Years and for Restoring America's Moral Leadership By Fighting Worldwide Poverty.

On his approach to health care...

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE THROUGH SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

“We have to stop using words like ‘access to health care’ when we know with certainty those words
mean something less than universal care. Who are you willing to leave behind without the care he
needs? Which family? Which child? We need a truly universal solution, and we need it now.”
-- John Edwards

The time has come for a universal health care reform that covers everyone, cuts costs, and provides
better care. The number of uninsured Americans has risen to 47 million. Families with insurance face
rapidly rising premiums and risk losing coverage when they need it most. Individuals and small
businesses often face much higher premiums and sometimes cannot get coverage at any price. Our
health care system is the most expensive in the world, yet the results are often disappointing.

Today, John Edwards released his plan to strengthen America’s health care system and insure all
Americans by 2012. His plan is based on the principle of shared responsibility: businesses, families,
and governments must each do their part to achieve universal health coverage and a better health care
system for all of us. His reforms will also make health care more affordable and rational.

(snip)

Choice between Public and Private Insurers: Health Markets will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it. Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan.

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

You're right, "we do ourselves and our candidates a great disservice when the dialogue sinks to that level" (of remarks like the one that I made about Kucinich twirling on a chair), and I apologize for making that remark.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. Yes, and this part here is exactly why I don't believe, based on my life

experience that the Edwards plan makes good sense for America. (And by the way, I was impressed with Edwards in that he has actually released a plan, as has Kucinich.)

The overview in the final block text paragraph reminds me of schools vouchers.
I also oppose school vouchers.

'Choice between public and private schools' could replace the opening line.

The problem, in my view, with the Edward's plan is that it attempts to surge the uninsured into the same system we have now, even though the system we have now is failing us miserably.

It would help the uninsured at an incredible cost because it copies what we do now except adding one more bureaucracy to the multiple overlapping public and private bureaucracy we already have now. And it requires much more money even than we are spending now.

[bobbolink]

37. What poverty plan has Kucinich "released"?

:shrug:

[bobbolink]

38. I didn't even know about the "Rural Renting Housing Act" -- thanx

for reminding me!

If all were working as hard for us as this man, we wouldn't be struggling just to keep breathing!!

Thanks so much for contuuing trying to get people to care, Sapphire Blue, although it doesn't always have much of an effect. :(

:loveya: :hug: :loveya: for Sapphire!

[SoCalDem]

39. What's needed is to eliminate the bullshit and just do what's proper.

Eliminate the Homeland security dept first,

That's why we have a defense department..to protect our "homeland" from attacks.
(although it was totally impotent the one time it needed to protect us)

If the Labor department did its job well, there would be jobs aplenty.

If the existing departments were FOR the citizens instead of the corporations, we would all be better off, and would not need extra departments with more government employees shuffling paper around.

[bobbolink]

40. Fine. Then same for Dennis' Department of Peace.

:eyes:

"if, if, if, if"... beggers...horses...