..Oh Yeah! And that worked real well, didn't it?

• Maybe if the O appointees paid their taxes.....sm. - MT and worn out
  • do you honestly think only these appointees are not paying taxes? - Amanda
    • No, it is not just political appointees cheating on taxes, - A. Nonymous
    • The tax code is so - Chele
      • I just finished taking a tax class -- - Amanda
        • Why they made it so difficult is - Chele
      • I agree - NM - Mrs. Bridger
  • Maybe if they ALL paid their taxes.... - Mrs. Bridger
    • Yes they are...... - Froggy went a courtin
      • Nah.....we all know what Bush is.....NM - Mrs. Bridger
        • Things could get worse with Obama.. - and THEY ARE! nm
        • If 2 months haven't learnt ya, - Froggy went a courtin
          • Hey, you'll burn with the rest of us.... - Mrs. Bridger
            • Look what he has done to the deficit in 2 months.... - sam
              • Sorry, earned income credit, I have to pay taxes..... - Mrs. Bridger
                • That's what I like about some Dems... - sam
                  • and I believe it was you...... - Mrs. Bridger
                    • I never retorted to gutter speak.... - sam
            • I was talking about Obama's - Froggy went a courtin
              • The only thing ANY of us can do - Mrs. Bridger
                • We can't wait until the end of his term as you put it - Backwards typist
                • Try to wrap your mind around this.... - sam
                  • ..Oh Yeah! And that worked real well, didn't it? - MTPockets
                  • How come it hasn't worked for the last 8 years? - Mrs. Bridger
                    • Guess you didn't see the post I did below - Backwards typist
                    • Do you read anything except the posting board? - sam
                      • And WHAT do you read? - Mrs. Bridger
        • whoops, there is a message above.............NM - Mrs. Bridger

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

John Edwards, Little Man?

August 15, 2004 - Senator John Edwards of North Carolina was added as a folksy candidate to hide the abrupt coldness of John Kerry. John Edwards was also a Southerner, and in a tight election, the Democrats wanted a touch of populism to add to their ticket. On the way to moderation, though, the Kerry campaign settled for a candidate almost as liberal as Kerry himself. Despite the southern drawl and eloquent speaking, Senator Edwards has no clue about average America. The freshman Senator from North Carolina was considered difficult to contact by many of his constituents. When Hurricane Isabel ravaged North Carolina's coast, Senator Edwards made only a quick trip to his Raleigh office, far from the coast. Most North Carolinians have seen Edwards' lack of compassion for their issues as a sign that he is only concerned about personal advancement. North Carolina has had a shot to know Edwards best, and they like him least. Up for re-election this year, Edwards had terrible approval ratings. Even after his addition to the ticket, North Carolina, referred to as a battleground state by ABC News, had a Bush lead of over 15 points. Although he is the son of a mill worker, that story has only gotten Edwards so far. The Senator made his fortune as a trial lawyer. Many of his cases dealt with cerebral palsy, a brain condition that impacts many children. Edwards used science which stated that doctors could cause cerebral palsy, and he won millions while suing doctors out of business and helping lead to soaring malpractice insurance costs. Now, the medical community has refuted those claims and many believe that Edwards' cases were not based on science but emotion. Making care from doctors more difficult has not helped the average American. In the Senate, Edwards has helped his lawsuit-happy trial lawyers and fought against tort reform. This has also hurt average Americans. Tort cases revolving around the asbestos industry have caused severe problems. Already, over 80 businesses have gone bankrupt and 60,000 Americans have lost jobs due to the largely frivolous and expensive lawsuits. Many more are expected to lose as the saga continues. However, Edwards still has not cast a vote for average Americans. Although his Senate website featured some of his gallant addresses on the American economy, Edwards has helped tarnish that economy with frivolous lawsuits. Most of the little people Edwards claims to represent have never had an immense respect for trial lawyers. That has come with good reason as frivolous lawsuits cause inflation, dramatically increase malpractice insurance, and have cost working Americans jobs. However, Edwards has continued to claim to support the little people. In his presidential campaign, he accused Bush in a letter to MoveOn.org: He honors wealth while I honor the work that creates it. Edwards went on to say: I am running for president because I believe in an America where Main Street has as much value as Wall Street. Edwards may have little support for Wall Street, because as a tort lawyer, he could have sued many of Wall Street's companies. However, John Edwards' working man image is a fantasy. Despite his southern drawl and charisma, John Edwards was the fourth most liberal Senator last year. As a wealthy liberal, he cared little for cutting taxes for hardworking Americans. Although he claims to want to help the working class, Americans for Tax Reform gave Edwards a 0% rating, and the Citizens Against Government Waste gave John Edwards a 13% rating. Edwards may not protect the Wall Street that has created jobs for the prosperity of millions of Americans, but he does protect his fellow trial lawyers. Besides trial lawyers, Edwards protects his liberal interests. Despite his play for mainstream support, Edwards' presidential run proved how isolated he was from average America. What he claimed to be a grassroots campaign was a mixture of Hollywood studios, accounting firms, and real estate, but most were wealthy trial lawyers. Of Edwards' largest 25 donors, 22 were trial lawyers. Edwards collected an astonishing 56% of funds from large donors ($2000 or more), more than any other Democratic candidate. That percentage even exceeded the percent of funds President Bush received from large donors. Doubts have also been cast on the integrity of John Edwards and his donors. As have most liberals, John Edwards promoted his presidential run on MoveOn.org, George Soros' soft-money organization designed to escape campaign-finance reform laws. Average Americans could never give enough to satisfy Edwards' political aspirations, and neither did MoveOn.org. Some of Edwards' wealthy trial lawyer friends could not resist violating laws. One of Edwards' donors, C. Tab Turner of Turner and Associates has been accused of campaign finance violations. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Turner may have used other employees to donate to Edwards' campaign on his behalf. Among the wealthy Hollywood firms, liberal activist groups, and wealthy trial lawyers, John Edwards still claims to understand average Americans. People have asked before and after the conventions: Who is John Edwards? He would call himself the son of a mill worker who wants to work as vice president in an effort to give a voice to the little people. That was the essence of his speech. However, on convention night, it was what was not said that was so important. Edwards forgot about his millions made as a trial lawyer. While Edwards has spoken virtuously of trial lawyers, he has forgotten that they have also spawned some of the economic problems now facing America. Who is John Edwards? He is not the southern choice. He has no concern for middle America. Even constituents in his own state had difficulty contacting him. John Edwards is a Southern liberal who knows nothing of American values. This is what Democrats call a populist. It is what Americans call a liberal in disguise.

He was on The View and he stated he lives in Mexico 9 months out of the year. He loves Mexico. He's against waterboarding and his answers to questions they asked him were way out there as if he hates the country.

He's a real patriot, isn't he...NOT!

We aren't living high on the hog, and we've opened our home to those less fortunate. Over the past 25 years, we've had 10 people (friends not strangers) live with us until they could get back on their feet, rent-free, taking none of the money they could make, all meals provided.

Yes, welfare is very backwards, but if I knew of anyone abusing the system, I  would report them.  I don't know anyone on welfare or living in Section 8 housing since I now live in the country. If other people would do that, it would soon straighten out.

at the polling place yesterday.  Then we had a party.  There were only 4 present who voted for Obama and my husband and I were 2 of them.  We had an enjoyable time and on one thing all of us agreed.  ALL of us must get involved if we want to save this country.

I'm glad it's over.

who neatly solved that problem. 

He owned the company and he when quit smoking (or more accurately, he quit buying) any time he wanted a cigarette, he would 'bum' it from one of his employees.  Since O cannot nip out and get a pack of smokes now, maybe he gets by this way.  Would some secret service guy or Whitehouse domestic employee refuse him? 

My old boss should have run for Congress, so out of touch was he with his 'little people.'  Payday was Friday and the checks were locked in his desk until 4:30 Friday afternoon.  (This was to prevent someone from going to the bank at lunch and never returning, I guess.)  And I might add this was back when bankers hours were truly that, not open until 6 on Friday, and until noon Saturday. 

Trouble was, sometimes he would not return from lunch, or at all on Friday, so we did not get paid until Monday.  But he helpfully said that nobody should be living so hand-to-mouth that they absolutely needed their 2-week check before the weekend.  I mean, if you can't go to the grocery and therefore cannot feed your kids, you obviously are not budgeting properly.  Another neat solution, don't you think?  If only I had listened to this man, I would be wealthy today.

at McDonald's for 4 1/2 years? He couldn't get another job and wanted to know what O was going to do about it. I was absolutely shocked!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TptsP4ryido&feature=related

and collects SSD for his "mental illness." He checks himself into a state hospital when it comes close to the time when he has a review coming up. This is what I heard from my son, so I don't know how true it is, but I do know that he is healthy and doesn't seem to have any mental health issues.

His one brother is on disability because he was on the drugs so much, they fried his brain and another brother had cirrhosis. He couldn't get help and died.

So why do you keep trying to demonize the Democrats.  Both parties made compromises - I believe the Democrats initially wanted about $20 billion more for the program, but they negotiated with the Republicans to secure their votes.

You seem so worried about the cigarette tax not covering the program, and yet what we spend in Iraq in a day would cover the S-CHIP program for a year.  The money is there, but people don't want to make it a priority.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that Democrats that voted yes on the bill (and don't forgot some Republicans did too) actually CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN?  Is it so hard to believe that they actually want to do something to help kids?  I'm glad they are getting headlines, not because they are against Bush, because really - could public opinion get any worse for him?  I am glad because this is an issue that needs TONS of attention drawn to it.  I don't really care if more people dislike Bush over this issue.  People who like him will continue to and people who don't will continue not to like him.  I see bad headlines about him every week, but that is not my concern.  My concern is affordable healthcare for all children, no matter how high or low their parents' income level is.

that we have and WE should decide who to give it to, not Nobama. We are living the American Dream and will be penalized for it. If your child got all A's in school and the teacher told you that some kids got C's and B's and your child would have to give up some of their A's so the others would be on equal ground, would you object? Probably so. There is no incentive in socialism to work hard to acheive things when you can have the gov't provide everything for you. Don't you people know that you are playing right into the hand's of more gov't? You are being fed a bunch of lies and you won't even realize it until it is too late.

for 30 years at GM.  He was a salvage worker so he wasn't one of those guys who sat on his butt all day long making a ridiculous amount of money.  My dad retired in his 60s because his health didn't allow him to continue working or he would have.  I know how unions work and how they "protect" the employees.  I've also seen the proven statistics about how non-union states are more production and have higher job growth and as far as protecting your job.....no ones job is protected especially nowadays.  People are getting fired left and right so where is the protection.  What good was that auto bailout when all that money pretty much went to pay off the unions.  Unions are nothing but democratic pushed BS. 

Here is a tad bit on unions:

The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and industries they control. The essential goal of the unions is to compel the payment of higher wages for the performance of less work and less productive work. Unions are notorious for their hostility to labor saving machinery and to any form of competition among workers, for featherbedding practices, indeed, for “making work” by deliberately and arbitrarily increasing the number of workers required to accomplish a given task and sometimes even by compelling the disassembly or destruction of products already produced.

It should be no wonder that the percentage of the labor force controlled by unions tends progressively to decline. Where the unions hold sway, companies cannot compete. Their market share falls and they ultimately go bankrupt. The only way that unions can maintain any given share of the labor force is by finding new victims to replace the ones they have sucked dry. The finding of new victims, by means of new government intervention is the unstated agenda of  Mr. Stern, Ms. Milkman, and The New York Times.

The actual effects of labor unions are arbitrary inequalities in wage rates, mass unemployment, and substantially lower real wages for the average worker. Labor unions are aptly described as a leading vehicle of what von Mises called “destructionism.”

Whenever a union succeeds in obtaining above market wage rates for its members, it also reduces  the number of workers who can be employed in its field. This is because of the operation of one of the best established principles of economics: Namely, the higher the price of anything, including the wage of any kind of labor, the smaller is the quantity demanded of that good or labor service.

Thus, workers who could have been employed in the lines controlled by labor unions are instead displaced and forced to seek work elsewhere. The added competition of these workers in other lines then serves either to depress wage rates in those other lines, thereby resulting in an arbitrary, union-imposed inequality in wage rates, or, if those other lines are also unionized or are forced to pay union wages in order to avoid becoming unionized (which is often the case), to cause still other workers to be displaced. It should be clear that to the extent that the effect of union activity is to depress wage rates in other fields, the union slogan “Live Better, Work Union” turns out to mean “Live Better by Forcing Other Workers to Live Worse.”

If wage rates in all lines of work are forced above the free-market level either because labor unions are able to impose their wage scales everywhere, or because upward union pressure on wage rates is joined by minimum-wage legislation, the effect is mass unemployment. In this case, there is simply no branch of the economic system that is allowed to pay wage rates low enough to make possible the absorption of workers displaced from elsewhere by the imposition of union wages. The result is the kind of situation presently existing in France and Germany, where unemployment is in excess of ten percent. And, of course, the cost of supporting the masses of unemployed falls mainly on the workers who manage to keep their jobs. Here higher taxes are their reward for “working union.”

For the full article:  http://mises.org/story/1861