Health Care (for all), Housing (Affordable) & Homeless (no more).

HHH!

If these things mean anything to you who do you think can deliver? For the record I doubt that any of the major or minor candidates can do this.

Basically it'll be SOS (Same old shit) regardless when it comes to these three major failures of America.

Ok...Maybe Edwards can make a dent, so I support him, but in reality I doubt even that go-getter guy can make a real substantive difference in the rich getting richer and the rest getting screwed.

Comments?

On edit: I forgot living wages...

is the People themselves. A good leader can set the tone, but without the People, we got no chance.

We need to make our voices heard. I don't you if you know of the homeless house in Seattle that Greg Nickles supports but this is a great example.

I think it's a great idea.

And good luck with that.

There is no other choice.

From and Edwards supporter. However I choose to keep fighting. There is no other option.....

will be able to take these folks, and send them packing along with their unfair policys.

We will never be rid of dirtbags like Kristol and Wolfwotiz.

america has had a run of "good" presidents. I mean come on it takes a heckuva guy to lead this nation and to lead it well. Now the kind of president that we need is one that is going to turn the political, economic and social machines of america and at least get them to start turning so that eventually we might be headed in the right direction is the kind of president that does not come along very often.

Short answer: I agree with you.

Or incremental acclimatization.

Every time we move in a progressive direction against the entrenched structure in an incremental way, that is below their threshold of activation, Blue becomes the new Red. But you can't shove the needle over to cerulean unless you, like the walrus and the carpenter, no longer hear the oysters weeping.

Me myself have sort of dedicated my twilight years to shoving the left center margin leftward, because Ultramarine is the new lavender.

Germany and Japan were devastated (deservedly so) after WWII. The U.S. sponsored the Marshall Plan which restarted manufacturing in those countries. Within twenty years, those two countries were on their way to becoming economic power houses.

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong have few natural resources. Yet their people enjoy a high standard of living because they have a large manufacturing base. The United States was once a creditor nation because we manufactured almost everything we needed and had goods to export to other countries.

The runaway greed of the multinational corporations has driven almost all manufacturing from our shores and put us in hock to the world because we import almost everything we use. This does NOT benefit the PEOPLE of America. It hurts the people of America as, at the same time, it provides unseemly profits to a small cabal of executives at the head of the multinational corporations.

American consumers do not benefit from cheap foreign labor as the corporations do NOT pass along the savings from using cheap labor by lowering the prices of products proportionately. This is why we have such a huge trade imbalance, the standard of living for Americans has dropped since the 1970's, and the value of the dollar has dropped significantly relative to other currencies.

The decrease in the value of the dollar increases the cost to consumers of imported goods further wiping out any cost advantage due to cheaper labor costs. Simultaneously, it doesn't increase American exports very much since hardly anything is manufactured in the U.S. anymore...except for military hardware. This explains the big push to sell $20 billion worth of weapons systems to our "friends" in Saudi Arabia. It is designed to prop up the military/industrial complex and make the trade deficit a little bit smaller. The fact that it will further destabilize the Middle East doesn't concern the Bush regime...you know the "experts" on security.

By manufacturing the goods that we need here in the U.S. and giving Americans jobs, we not only make foreign debt unnecessary, but American workers pay taxes which means that you simultaneously reduce the Federal deficit. It is a win-win situation for america.

The multinational corporations will tell you that we need "free trade" in order for them to be "competitive". That is a pile of rubbish. There is NO "free trade". Trade is controlled by and for the exclusive profit making of the corporations. NAFTA, the IMF, WTO, the World Bank, and an assortment of trade agreements are all mechanisms for tightly controlling trade for the benefit of the corporations. Who the hell are the multinationals competing with? Themselves?

The corporations prop up a "sugar" industry in the U.S. by propping up the price of sugar by limiting imported sugar through a system of quotas and import tariffs. Our government has to do the same for manufactured goods to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. This is the ONLY way to keep the U.S. economy from collapsing, which would turn this country into a banana republic. The corporations are propping up the corn growing agribusinesses by preventing the use of switch grass to make ethanol, rather than the more expensive corn.

NAFTA, WTO, and other trade agreements have to be rewritten or scrapped for this country to be turned around. This is the solution to many of our country's problems.

It goes without saying that NO Republican in the race would do anything about this problem. Dennis Kucinich talks about it, but he has little chance of becoming president. That leaves us with the big three.

Clinton has started talking about being for "change" long after first Edwards, and then Obama, started getting traction with this message. For a long time she touted her "experience", which was somehow gleaned from her being first lady under Bill.

So what experience did Bill provide? He pushed through NAFTA, deregulated the mass media, continued granting Most Favored Nation Trading status to China, and similar policies that contributed to the mess this country is in today.
With that experience, her claims that she now will undo these policies that husband Bill promoted lacks credibility.

Obama has picked up the populist message, also. However, he talks about reaching across the table to appeal to those people that promoted these policies to convince them to undo the policies that made them unseemly rich beyond avarice. Duh!

Edwards has spoken the populist message early on and has indicated it will be tough to change these policies. He has fought the big corporations before and succeeded in getting them to agree to his demands. Edwards' policies are NOT designed to destroy any corporations. They are designed to level the playing field to give ordinary Americans a chance to survive in the economy. This is what Franklin D. Roosevelt did to prevent America from total economic collapse in the 1930's, and save capitalism and democracy.

Any intelligent American, whether Democrat, Republican, or independent can understand this, and why John Edwards is the only credible candidate for the November, 2008 election.

Actually all wages become more liveable if health care and housing are affordable.

I am not sure that all of the non-rich (whoever that is) get screwed. I think Schumpeter actually had a point when he said that capitalism provided "production for the masses". It is the masses who get the hot water, the televisions, ipods, broadband internet, automobiles, etc.

True poverty is shifted to the 3rd world, to the 2 billion people living on less that $2 a day.