Edwards Wins on Global Warming

John Edwards has the best plans for the environment. And in listening to him speak, I believe he also has the will to act on those plans if elected. All of the candidates do a lot of talking.... but I feel that Edwards is the one with the passion to accomplish his goals.

Great diary, away from distractions, when all candidates have a chance to speak directly on the issues that matter most - Edwards shines.

Great news - a good look at voters and how they are on the importance of the issues that John Edwards has been leading on.

Edwards is the best choice for 2008 for everyone.

I am behind Edwards all the way. He has the heart, mind and soul to be our next President.

Edwards is the best choice "for everyone"? He is such a phony. He lives in a gigantic mansion and gets $300 haircuts, made his money as an ambulance-chasing lawyer and then he claims to be "for the people". Edwards is emblematic of the modern-day Democratic Party: your actions don't matter as long as your ideology is correct. So never mind the eight-car garage! Edwards is in favor of capping carbon emissions!

Jeff, do you work on the issue of poverty? Do you? Do you know what this wealthy man, John Edwards, has done for people in poverty? Do you realize he had a very strong hand in the recent increase in the minimum wage, for example?

Well, here's what someone who actually works on poverty has to say about him. This is the statement of ACORN President Maud Hurd:

Press stories that question Senator John Edwards' commitment to ending poverty require a strong response from those of us who spend our lives in that fight. ACORN is the nation's largest grassroots community organization working to eliminate poverty in America.

As ACORN's president, I can personally attest that Senator Edwards has been a steadfast ally in this struggle – from raising wages to rebuilding the Gulf Coast.

One of the best ways to end poverty is to pay workers fair wages. In the summer of 2005, I traveled with Senator Edwards to cities and states across the country, launching ballot initiative campaigns to raise the minimum wage above the shamefully low $5.15 an hour.

While Senator Edwards could have chosen to do anything else with his time, he chose to spend it on the road with low-wage workers and their allies who were fighting to lift workers out of poverty. Edwards worked directly with grassroots community-faith-labor coalitions on the ground, leading rallies and press conferences to galvanize public support and working outside the spotlight to help organize support and raise funds to bring wage increase proposals to the ballot.

Last November, voters rewarded the efforts of Edwards, ACORN and our allies by resoundingly approving six state ballot measures to raise the minimum wage. As a result, more than 1.5 million of the country's lowest-paid workers will get a raise. The ballot measures were just the most high-profile victories in a year that saw an unprecedented 17 states raise their minimum wage – many for the first time – including Edwards' home state of North Carolina.

This movement in the states helped create the public pressure for a long-overdue increase in the federal minimum wage, which was passed last month and will help another 12.5 million low-income workers make ends meet. In addition to his work to raise wages, Senator Edwards has made an ongoing commitment to work with ACORN and others in the struggle to rebuild the Gulf Coast and help Katrina Survivors return home.

In making poverty the defining theme of his campaign, Senator Edwards has shown his true colors. It is a sad statement that someone working not only to raise the issue of poverty, but to offer ambitious solutions and his put his feet on the ground to end it -- is attacked rather than applauded.

John Edwards walks his talk. If he promises something, you know he will do his best to get it done. He is probably the only one of the major presidential candidates that can be said about, but it's true.

AstroGirl S.,
Forgive me if I am not persuaded by the breathless adulations of a left-wing interest group like ACORN (which has its own legal troubles, BTW). So Edwards wanted to raise the minimum wage. Good for him. It's good politics for Democrats. Will it end poverty? Of course not. Here are some dirty little secrets about poverty and the minimum wage.

1. It is not possible to "eliminate poverty" in the way it is currently defined. The federal poverty level is DEFINED as a certain percentage of an average income level, usually around 70% or 85% depending on the situation. As everybody gets richer, the average income also rises, so the poverty level also rises. So even though people defined as living in poverty may be making more money, they would still be considered "in poverty" by the government because the poverty threshold also increased. This leads to the absurd situation that if the average income was $100,000, people making "only" $70,000 would be considered "in poverty"!

2. The government declares that a person lives "in poverty" if the person's income falls below a certain threshold defined as above. However public assistance is NOT regarded as "income" for this purpose. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, because the whole stated purpose of public assistance is to help people who are poor. If public assistance has helped a person to cross from "in poverty" to "out of poverty", don't you think the statistcs should report this person as "out of poverty" instead of still "in poverty"? And yet this is precisely what is done. So the number of people reported as "in poverty" is inflated.

3. Using the minimum wage as an anti-poverty tool is a terrible idea because most minimum-wage earners are NOT already in poverty, even with the inflated definition of poverty used by the government. Most minimum-wage earners work part-time and don't rely on it as the sole source of income. By boosting the minimum wage you will be disproportionately helping people who are NOT "in poverty". So tell me again how Edwards is championing the 'little guy' with his minimum wage stance.

By the way, all of this information is freely available on the DHHS website.

-Jeff

To summarize: No I don't believe John Edwards when he says that he is serious about "ending poverty". He of all people should know it's not even possible, and he of all people should ALSO know that raising the minimum wage is not the way to do it. So I regard his position on the minimum wage as a way to score political points from the left-wing base and not as a serious attempt to deal with poverty.

Jeff,

In a sense I agree with you that Edwards is not serious about elimininating poverty, but that is because I credit the man with enough intelliegence to reallze that the concept of "eliminating" poverty totally ignores the existence of people who choose to live an impoverish lifestyle existence for spiritual or other esoteric reasons. For that reason alone eliminating poverty is impossible.

The best anyone can attempt to do is reduce the number of persons who for whom living in poverty is not a matter a choice. While I suspect that is a statement with which you agree, I also suspect, that on what constitutes a matter of choice is where we part ways, but that not being the subject of this article I will end my comments on that subject.

Jeff, ACORN is not in any legal trouble. The right wing has tried to stop them from legally registering qualified voters. That is the "legal" trouble you're referring to, and it's discussed by Edwards in the videos of his recent talk to ACORN members, which I recently reported on here.</> I believe it's in part 6 of the videos.

Edwards believes any who works full time in America should not live in poverty. Do you disagree with that? It is absolutely possible to pay working people a decent wage and give them enough support that a person working full time should not have to live in poverty. This is what he means by eliminating poverty, and it is a noble, and also totally achievable goal.

AstroGirl S.,
No, the legal troubles I'm referring to are associated with ACORN employees registering dead people to vote in Missouri, along with registering individuals multiple times. See the following link:
http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/politics/10214492/detail.html

But that is besides the point anyway. As I explained above, according to the government's definition of poverty, it is not possible to "eliminate poverty" because it is impossible for everyone to be "above average". This is not a question of politics, it is a question of mathematics. Perhaps you and Edwards are using a different definition of poverty than what the government uses; if you are, please share what it is so that the discussion may be more informed.

Also, according to the government's own statistics, over 70% of minimum wage earners have an income that is in excess of 150% of the federal poverty level. If the minimum wage is raised, assuming nobody loses their job as a result (which is a questionable assumption), it would disproportionately enrich people who are NOT living in poverty. So, quite frankly, Edwards is full of crap if he is suggesting that raising the minimum wage is a way to lift people out of poverty. In my opinion, he is merely appealing to the left-wing base of his party by his advocacy on behalf of the minimum wage.

Now to the larger question of whether people who work full time should not be living in poverty. Sure, I'll agree with that. I'll also agree that there should not be war, disease, or hunger on this earth. Where I believe I differ from you, however, is that I believe any government that attempts to tackle such weighty issues should, first and foremost, respect the dignity and liberty of the individual. This respect includes, but is not limited to, the following:

1. Respect for the individual who is in tough straits due to no fault of his/her own. Government should not lump this person into some dehumanizing category along with a bunch of other people and then offer a solution that only imperfectly applies to all in the group. Instead, any proposed help to be offered to this person should take into account the individual's unique circumstances.
2. Respect for the individual who is in poverty due to the individual's own POOR CHOICES. This person's liberty is no less worthy of respect than the next person's. Giving public assistance to this person, with no strings attached, is really no different than enabling.
3. Respect for the individual who is already successful, including business owners. Government should not excessively tax or regulate this person, thereby diminishing the successful's person liberty to do what he/she chooses with the earnings.

In my view individual liberty is the highest principle to which the government must adhere, and all other considerations are secondary. So yes, I realize it is possible to "give [working people] enough support that a person working full time should not have to live in poverty", but HOW the support is "given" is of paramount importance in my mind. I submit that it would be very, very difficult to craft some central government solution that is consistent with the three principles given above, which is why I tend not to favor centralized government solutions to these types of social problems. Instead, I believe solutions to problems like poverty, hunger, etc., are best solved at the local, grass-roots level.

So, this is a very long answer to your very short question. I hope you find it informative and I look forward to reading how you approach the question of attempting to find solutions to complex social problems like poverty.

-Jeff

WHEN, WHEN will Republicans stop the lying? That stuff about ACORN is a Republican smear only. Republicans will do anything to get an unfair advantage in elections. Fortunately, most Americans are starting to see through their crap.

AstroGirl S.,
The link I provided is to an MSM newspaper article on what some ACORN members were caught doing. It doesn't appear to be a Republican smear job, the four individuals were indicted by federal authorities. But really this is a small part of the discussion. What do you have to say about the rest of the discussion, concerning poverty and the minimum wage?