The richest Americans are getting richer," Edwards said. "How much money do these people need?"

Since the Reagan era, the heroes of the nation's economic story have been valiant entrepreneurs who "took risks" and "created wealth." This narrative advanced the Republican cause and seeped deeply into the Democratic Party. If Iowa is any indication, there is a new narrative in which the old heroes are cast as the goats of the story and the new heroes are people like "the guy in Orange City." There is a thunder out of Iowa, and it is shaking both parties.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123002239.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Johnny Reid Edwards stands on the shoulders of Democratic giants and those giants are William Jennings Bryan, Franlkin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, and Robert Francis Kennedy...May God bless his candidacy...

The moneychangers have stormed the temple and now occupy it...It's time for them to be told their time is done..."You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

~

As Edwards reminds us, he can't do it without US.

Same was what FDR said.

Populism is a Democratic strength. It is a tragedy that Republicans coopted it.

I liked when Gore said Bush is for the powerful...I'm for the people...

I have to think what populism means in this new era...I know what it meant in Tom Watson's day...

That's what makes it populism... it is tribal. (As opposed to, say, international socialism)

The corporations are just one more out-sider class, like blacks, jews, mexicans, northerners, atheists, unmarried women, college-graduates, etc..

It has been interesting watching Edwards try to craft a populism that is not overtly racist. He's done pretty well, though NAFTA is a placeholder for anti-mexican sentiment, and out-sourcing a place-holder for generalized xenophobia.

There's no way around human nature, but I applaud Edwards for trying. Populism is powerful, but hard to tame.

Poor white folk at the end of the day were more willing to cast their lot with rich white folk than they were willing to cast their lot with more black folk...

Than ignoring the will of the masses does.

If we don't talk to "the tribes" the bad guys will.

NAFTA: I find it intriguing that opposing it is "a placeholder for anti-mexican sentiment" while supporting it is a vehicle to exploit labor south of the border. One can't win.

Is xenophobia against outsourcing a useful lever to use against corporate power? Yes, and I'm okay with that.

The Roosevelts and Kennedys were loaded too...

he invested in big business(FEC-46 pages/10MB);

http://opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2006/N00002283_2006_Pres.pdf

Some mighty big companies on there...

"earning" it?

His 3.7 million income in 2006 pales in comparison to any of the top 300 CEO's. Those people are bagging the money by the 100's of millions per year even when their companies are floundering.

"good investment" , it was a good investment.

Your flat statement that making 24 million isn't a good investment suggest some other requirements for "good investing" that you failed to express.

businesses and shelter taxable monies for their very wealthy clients. That is not ethical investing. At least not where I come from.

Obama would "never" get involved with "hedg" funds, or those who run them, right?

One of Sen. Barack Obama's biggest presidential fundraisers is a hedge fund manager, Orin Kramer, general partner of Boston Provident Partners LP in New York and a longtime Democratic fundraiser.

OH no! Does this mean you will leave the Obama camp and protest?????????

Hedge Funds are not the bizarre monsters you seem to imagine.

I agree with you 99% of the time, but not on your demonization of hedge funds. It's a bit silly.

invested in hedge funds, an asset, not a profit. The yield from that investment is a major part of the 3.7 million income.

Hedge funds have gotten a lot of bad press lately but I would assume that there are some that are legitimate, decent investments and others that are shady, exploitive investments. I would have to stay neutral on that investment, not knowing what funds it references.

of his annual 3.7, he isn't exactly making a "killing" in the market.

enough. He hasn't worked as a practicing attorney in years.

I am not troubled by the fact that Edwards made a lot of money practicing law.

I am very troubled by the fact that he invested so much of that money in Fortress. Fortress is the epitome of vulture capitalism and people making too much money via a corrupt system.

It's the one blemish on Edwards that I have trouble getting past.

I think if you're sitting on 50 something million dollars want to ask questions like how much money do other people need, you've got to put your money where your mouth is. I would be a lot more impressed if he took that money out of Fortress and invested in something that the world needs. The world does not need hedge funds.

which I have questioned before on here;

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/presreturns.nsf/Returns/07921AB261F711F685256F08004FB033/$file/edwards03.pdf

But I bet Edwards gave a very good percentage to charity. Not just for the tax deduction but because he believes in it.

and taxes paid, between '94 and 2003. Looks like he made more money off investments than work. I'd also like to know how he managed to pay less than 10% tax on his 2003 income.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/03/edwards.tax.returns/index.html

Teddy, too, for that matter.

Assholes, all of 'em.

Need I add....

:sarcasm:

A bit ironic coming from him. :eyes:

My first thoughts exactly.

Have you checked on the bank accounts of other "liberal" Dems to see who else you can villify?

Really? Did you type that with a straight face? Pointing out irony isnt exactly vilification. I dont give a rats ass that John or any other politician is wealthy. But if he's going to talk about rich people as if he's not one of them... he deserves to be called on it.

estate, perhaps he has decided that he has enough. Further, his efforts to become President will likely diminish his personal fortune.

in pocket money, plus the expense accounts and the other perks...like the presidential security system and communications set up on his palatial home.

He will make money from the office, not lose it.

effort. If he is elected, the $400,000 per year is inconsequential. The bottom line is that he isn't running for office for the hope of financial gain. And I don't care how much personal money he has accumulated as long as it was legitimate. What I care about is his agenda for America's middle class.

If we starting eliminated our candidates due to their wealth, we will exclude some good ones.

Clue: he won't It's not like he took a risk like John Kerry. He didn't even put his own money into the campaign. And people don't run for president for financial gain. And part of his money is dubious. Fortress has tax shelters. Legal, but not exactly defensible. Of course, we can't really find out too much about what hedge funds do. They're very lightly regulated and protected by the very money that Edwards rails against. I have no objection to people of wealth running for office. I do have a problem with JE's investment practices. Smells like greed and hypocrisy to me.

people, including myself, were not already general knowledge.

And may I add that your debate style is both pompous and denigrating. If you don't agree with someone's positions, it isn't necessary to lead in with such words as "sorry" and "clue" which are attempts to establish that the poster with whom you are disagreeing is definitely wrong, ignorant and needs to be educated by you.

he'd be a hippie loser like Kucinich.

We can never win against right wing talking points. They say if you are wealthy you are a hypocrite, if you are not you are a loser. We need to stop repeating right wing talking points, we need to stop attacking our own people over their personal lifestyle.

I support Edwards for his political position, not his modest wealth. The strength of his convictions are more important than the size of his house (or the cost of his haircut)

Some day, an impoverished saint may run for the Democratic Party nomination and actually have a chance of winning.

Some day, pigs might fly too.

I'd rather elect a progressive democrat now than wait for pigs to fly

No wonder you support him. Jayzuz.

on welfare. lol.

:D

To us average folks it is alot............Wake up ..................he is talking Billions!

Or the Mellons? Really, this is just too rich coming from him. He can't carry this message, it will blow up in his face.

:rofl:
I dunno, Johnny. Why don't *you* tell us?

As wealthy as Edwards is, Bill Gates is 1000 times more wealthy.

Not everyone in the top 1% is the same, and why assume that he isn't talking about himself?

of a hedge fund with offshore tax shelters, and investments in predatory loan businesses, I'd be much more receptive to him. You can't even invest in a hedge fund unless you are very, very wealthy.

Did you all check your logic at the door?

his personal wealth would not be touched in his quest to become the most powerful man in the world.

He decided to hamstring us Democrats rather than invest his money where his mouth is.

If you don't understand the "logic"......then you haven't thought much about the ramifications of public financing and the limits imposed when played on an uneven playing field.

Edwards thought about it I'm sure prior to accepting those "limits" and what they could mean, and decided that sacrificing his personal wealth wasn't going to be doable in his claim to "fight for us".

That'll do so much good for the country.

the conviction that Election finance reform was even more important than winning the White House....but that's not why he chose matching funds.

If you don't understand what it all means, then I can't help you. :shrug:

Judging by the size of the Edwards' estate - quite a bit. A better question might be "How much more money does Edwards need?".

Hedge Funds Investments - $24.0 million
Cash and Fixed Income - $20.1 million
Retirement Plans - $1.4 million
Trust for Children - $417,000
Rental Property - $1.9 Million
Houses - $8.5 Million
Net Worth - $54.7 million

I can't believe his supporters don't see it.

it is about power.

This is not the classic stereotype of the excrementally wealthy with their multiple mansions and yachts.

These are people who buy and sell communities. This level of money is beyond sensual hedonism. It has come down to control over your life and my life.

This is about folks who buy and sell the companies we work for, treat them as toys and lay us off like we are plastic gamepieces.

This is about people who buy up media outlets to make sure THEIR facts and THEIR views are the only ones heard.

This is about people bankrolling politicians so they make sure the politicians always do their bidding.

This is about people bankrolling universities to make sure their needs are met by paid researchers, and that those pesky political dissidents go away.

There is a level of wealth concentration that is deadly to any democracy.

the focus on the type of wealth that Edwards is referring to. Edward's 3.6 annual income in trivial in comparison to thousands of Wealthy Americans whose assets are in the 100's of millions and still climbing.

She made the Council Of One Hundred or whatever they call it...It's a group of the one hundred best trial lawyers in America...The same group John Edwards belong to...

She's loaded too...Has a home in Central Florida...A home in the Spanish Wells... A home in Milan...But she's cool... She voted for Jesse Jackson in 88 and gave tons of dough to the Democratic party...

as a toy for the wealthy, nor does an expensive car.

My livelihood and home as a toy for the wealthy bothers me greatly.

Human lives have become a plaything for the rich. We need to change that now.

Bravo, DBoon - you'd make your namesake proud. :patriot:

~

...can't believe JRE is the ONLY candidate out there fighting for PEOPLE and offering to RESTORE the Democratic Party to what it is SUPPOSED to be -- and they spit in his face (OK, well YES, I can considering the criminal shitpile that's in the White House right now - some people are really stupid).

It's OK though, that HILLary / Clintons have millions and that the Kennedys did too. Perhaps it's what they DO with those millions and whether they CARE about something and someONE and FIGHT for something and someONE besides those millions and the people they got it from that matters. EH?

DUH.

I watched his stump speech where he talked about both Roosevelts and Truman and it gave me chills...

Less Fortunate...

...how lucky he and Elizabeth are to have health coverage. But what about those who DON'T? Who speaks or cares for them? (HE asked that question).

JOHN EDWARDS does.

And he's said that no matter who wins, the candidates will all be fine, regardless - but what about the rest of America and Americans? WHO will speak up for them - the less fortunate? (HE asked this question too).

JOHN EDWARDS will.

Besides, it doesn't seem that one can be elected in this country to a high-level office unless you are wealthy. I don't think it's particularly smart to try to use that as a reason not to vote for a candidate. I do however think that John Edwards has more interest in righting the wrongs in this country than in making oligarchists happy. They've had it their way too much for too long. I think I see the caboose on the gravy train!

purpose this bloated beast might serve.

So, where does that leave Joe Biden?

What does he have, a 28,000 sq. ft. house? Is that to store his money in?

I read much of the Kennedy fortune has evaporated because most of them went into public service and not business...

That can soak up a lot of money, even for a rich person, right :shrug:

because very simply, a wealthy man cannot ask this question to other wealthy people. It may be unfair, but the public will view Edwards as a hypocrite. If Edwards has such a problem with wealth, then why doesn't he live in a more modest home? Why doesn't he live on less land? etc. This is how human nature works and the Repubs will exploit it to the hilt.

This is why Edwards, barring a major giveaway of his worldly possessions, is a fatally flawed candidate.

I say all this knowing Edwards is a good man and a good Democrat, and also knowing that his premise is entirely true. However, I can foresee how this will shake out - it will be like Kerry in 04, a war protester running as a war hero - the public won't be able to reconcile the two personas.

They were benevolent rich people. At least they're honest about who they are.

~

Son of a Mill Worker.

When he ran against Arch Moore to win his governor's seat before becoming a senator he spent so much money that it dazzled the folks in WV... The saying was "make him spend it all."

If JRE loses it won't be because he's richey rich... He better have a plan to confront the inevitable flip-flopper charge but if it's Mitt for the Pugs that's off the table...

convincing people he was not going to solve WV's financial problems out of his own pocket.

The concept that rich people can't help the poor is a complete fallacy.

between professing a belief in noblesse oblige and proclaiming or acting like you are of the same class you wish to help.

He emphasizes his rags to riches story...

It just doesn't line up! You cannot be the poverty crusader when you flaunt your wealth the way Edwards does.

Come one, someone has to see the irony in Edwards saying this?

Let me check my hedge fund and get my haircut, Ill get back to ya.

Just repeat after Obama, everybody, no matter how odious, is good, moral and decent.

I think the head of United Healthcare made in the 100s of millions last year.

That is far too much money for the head of a company that likes to deny coverage to their insured. I used to be one of them.

Hedge funds are risky by definition, but they are open to anyone who either has a net worth of a certain amount of money or any lay investor who invests in a "fund of hedge funds."

It's not a secret that hedge funds are not transparent, are risky; however there are a huge variety of hedge funds, so it's very hard to define what they are. Some are irresponsibly leveraged, like Long Term Capital Management was (betting too much on Russian currencies), and others are very responsible, do not leverage at all or excessively, and screen their investors so they do not permit people who cannot safely afford to invest in them invest.

The "hedge fund" boogeyman is similar to me as the "Al Queda" boogeyman. More myth than reality.

It's no more "evil" than investing in Google. As a matter of fact, hedge funds have not done all that well over the past few years. Most hedge funds LOSE money.

It is, sadly, the case that some people on the left regard preventing the rich getting richer as an end in itself, but thankfully they are in a minority.

The problem is that the poor are poor, not that the rich are rich.

Making the rich a bit poorer is a price worth paying for making the poor a bit richer, but it should be acknowledged that it is, in itself, a bad thing, and that if there were a way to make the poor richer without making the rich poorer that would be better still.

When Edwards starts giving his PERSONAL wealth to the poor I might believe his line against the rich in this country. Until then he can sit back with his millions and talk whatever smack he wants but he is as greedy as the ones he makes out to be the enemy until he gives it away he is a member of the rich club and I bet he loves his money just as much as these evil rich people he is rallying against.