1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

John Edwards must want my vote

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by jterrell, Aug 6, 2007.

  1. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    18,716 Messages
    824 Likes Received
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/06/edwards-to-talk-up-trade/


    WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards will unveil what aides are calling a “new, transformational approach to how this country thinks about trade” in a speech he is scheduled to give later this morning.

    In remarks to be delivered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Edwards calls current trade policies a “bad for working Americans,” and says when “Washington” evaluates trade deals the main question asked is “is it good for corporate profits.”

    Keeping with his theme from Saturday’s YearlyKos convention, aides say Edwards will “continue to make the case that lobbyists in Washington exert too much influence and it’s time for the Democratic Party to reject their contributions.”

    Trade issues will be a focus for Edwards this week. He will join the other Democratic presidential candidates at the AFL-CIO’s forum on Tuesday night in Chicago.

    – CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson
    ------------------------


    Edwards was only my 3rd or 4th choice amongst just the democrats and below both Paul and McCain whom I at least respect even if disagree with. BU this is my bread and butter issue for the most part and he has been pretty consistent on this issue starting in his attempt 4 years ago to win the nomination.

    Being anti-big business is the surest way to win my vote.

    If he really pushes this it will certainly cause me to take note.
    As his written plan for America did 4 years ago.
  2. Eric_Boyer

    Eric_Boyer Well-Known Member

    4,339 Messages
    166 Likes Received
    special interests and lobbiests are a direct result of the democratic platform to include general welfare as an enumerated power (a switch in time to save nine)

    A democrat is not going to solve this problem because they would have to admit that too much government power is the cause and it is a direct result of their actions in the last century.
  3. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    18,716 Messages
    824 Likes Received
    That is both untrue and comical.

    These special interest and lobbies are paid for by big business to get around the fact the government monitors, regulates and polices them.

    I will grant you wouldn't have them if we had a laissez-faire approach but then we'd also have only a handful of mega-corporations running our entire world.

    People do not realize that money is such a big factor and separating the special interest money from infiltrating the government is the only way you assure elections and laws are not bought and paid for.

    In a completely free market all we'd find is that Japan could in fact own our country. The corporations have no souls and no loyalty to any particular country. The are only loyal to the almighty dollar/yen/euro and free market policy allows that to be taken to an extreme.
  4. Crown Royal

    Crown Royal Insulin Beware

    10,042 Messages
    442 Likes Received
    Who fired you?
  5. Eric_Boyer

    Eric_Boyer Well-Known Member

    4,339 Messages
    166 Likes Received
    Government power does far more to prop up monopolies then it does to discourage them.

    But that is besides the point. The fact is our special interest industry is a direct result of the democratic platform to strip power from the states or the people and give it to the federal government.

    in 1780 our federal government spent $5 for every man, women, and child in the country. In 1910 we spent $8. In over 140 years the figure went up only $3 per person.

    During the reign of terror known as the FDR years we made all kinds of changes that gave the federal government power to take care of us from crade to grave. By the end of his term we were spending $68 per man,women and child.

    Corporations certainly took notice - and the lobbiest indiustry was born. Today we spend $10,000 per man,women, and child.

    FDR created is problem and until you hear Edwards or the other statists admit it, don't expect them to solve the problems they created.
  6. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,683 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    If Edwards continues to take money from the trial lawyers and the unions, he is a hypocrite. Big corporations aren't the only one's with deep pockets for lobbyists. Unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, and foreign countries all have deep pockets for lobbyists.
  7. Eric_Boyer

    Eric_Boyer Well-Known Member

    4,339 Messages
    166 Likes Received
    Agreed.

    What happened JTerrell? When I left 4 years ago you were a guy that made sense. Now you are lock step with the the democratic party and BrainPaint makes sense?

    Insert Twilight Zone music here.
  8. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    18,716 Messages
    824 Likes Received
    I don't disagree there at all.

    But his takes I agree with and at least he is stating them.

    All of these candidates are taking money from somewhere, money may not win elections but a lack will certainly lose them.

    I especially agree that our current trade agreements are bad for Americans.

    He was on my list of most disliked politicians for exactly the reason you state but he does become relevant for me if he is at least addressing issues I consider crucial.
  9. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    18,716 Messages
    824 Likes Received
    ROFL. Who exactly made you arbiter of political worthiness?

    I think you have a poor memory.

    I was stating 4 years ago Hillary would be President and laughing at GWBush and his supporters which I thought included you. Not much has changed.

    I have not been fired except twice in my entire life. Neither any time recently and once was in high school. But I work in corporate America and understand the business perspective and slant. I have worked for Verizon/GTE, Bank of America and a federal government arm. Outsourcing is rampant and corporations are increasingly short-sighted with shady financial dealings meant to make a lot of money for a few people in the interim with no regard for long-term effect on the economy, employees or company itself.

    Everyone is up in arms over Social Security but pensions, 401Ks and other retirement plans are now all but void except in the highest levels of a corporation.

    People love to have these theories and ideas but seldom seem interested in actually carrying them out to their logical conclusions.
  10. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,683 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    My problem with John Edwards is that about half of his campaign contributions come from lawyers. Tort reform needs to happen in this country and most of his money comes from people who don't want these changes to happen. When these guys win multi-million dollar suits against the large corporations, these companies simply shift the cost of higher insurance premiums onto you and I - the consumer.
  11. Eric_Boyer

    Eric_Boyer Well-Known Member

    4,339 Messages
    166 Likes Received
    My problem with Edwards is he tells people what he thinks they want to hear.

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498-2,00.html

    This is pretty big news I would think. The 2004 presidential hopeful basically calls the 2004 VP hopeful a big fat liar.

    Seems like news to me :bang2:
  12. Ben_n_austin

    Ben_n_austin Benched

    2,898 Messages
    3 Likes Received
    I'm right behind you. And he knows how the system works. If he's about what he says he is, he'd do a damn good job, domestically. And you can't get any worse than Bush on foreign policy, so what the heck?
  13. Ben_n_austin

    Ben_n_austin Benched

    2,898 Messages
    3 Likes Received

    You put too much credence in party affiliation. And it's lobbyists...
  14. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,647 Messages
    2,657 Likes Received
    I think you guys are just jealous of Edwards because he has sexy hair.

    I know from exp that people are jealous of men with sexy hair.

    On a serious note.

    Would ANYONE here actually vote for Edwards as President...say in the primaries.

    Of course some would vote for him in the regular election because they would vote dem not matter what.

    But I am talking if they had a choice of dems to vote for would anyone here actually vote for Edwards?
  15. Eric_Boyer

    Eric_Boyer Well-Known Member

    4,339 Messages
    166 Likes Received
    I put credence in verifiable historical facts.

    Is my spelling of lobbyist all you have to counter with? The democrats are to blame for the increase in govenrment power that brought us general welfare and eventually lobbyists. If you disagree, then bring something to the debate other then a dictionary.
  16. Mavs Man

    Mavs Man All outta bubble gum

    4,668 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Increasing Big Government doesn't check Big Business (in truth, it is the opposite). Neither does pandering to populist, nationalist sentiments of "fair trade" on balance help American workers.

    Let's return to a true free market that provides competitive market incentives for companies and citizens alike to make their own choices freely - not a furthering of the Big Brother/Nanny state.
  17. Eric_Boyer

    Eric_Boyer Well-Known Member

    4,339 Messages
    166 Likes Received
    Not a chance. Obama is the least annoying of all the dems
  18. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    18,716 Messages
    824 Likes Received
    sigh.....

    let's talk facts....

    Who was president under the last meaningful welfare reform?
    The one that enforced 'term limits"?

    Bill Clinton.

    Further, studies show he had one of the most effective welfare policies and one that did not cause spikes in crime.

    Republicans think by saying we aren't gonna give away any money to the impoverished or undereducated they are making life better for the middle class.. WRONG!

    The middle class is who gets to deal with the impoverished and undereducated that are turning to crime and drugs any other means possible of making a living.

    The Repubs love welfare for IBM and Cisco and Mobil/Exxon but boy there better not be 1 red cent handed out to the unwed 17 year old mother who lives in the projects.

    Other various notes from the thread:

    BP: I would not at this time vote for John Edwards but he is back on my radar and I'll pay attention to him now. There are a couple of issues I side with him versus Hillary on and I'll see how that plays out for me.

    Lawyer donations: Law firms are and lawyer causes are amongst the biggest donors overall to the political candidates. GWBush had his list of top 100 donors littered with law firms and lawyers' associations. Edwards does have the ambulance chaser feel to a certain extent but do not mistake that he is far from alone in his political donations from legal firms.
  19. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    18,716 Messages
    824 Likes Received
    ROFL.

    What fact exactly are you basing anything on?

    Oh thats right you are not.

    Right now even with regulations and watchdog groups we are fighting an uphill battle against big business. Be it Microsoft or AT&T or the Utility Companies they own such a share of business as to be monopolies. We have regulation because when we did not we learned quickly how awful that can be. US Steel and other companies.....

    If we are going to have a free market then make it totally legal for me to beat a greedy businessman's arse. Do not ask me to abide by laws and then say businesses do not have to. The greediest of all possible organizations oft-times created solely to make money... yea they'll be nice and fair about everything.....

    Here's a nice little article about de-regulation in place currently...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19649894/site/newsweek/

    But we'll go farther and define the terms here.....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

    A free market describes a theoretical, idealised, or actual market where the price of an item is arranged by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, with the supply and demand of that item not being regulated by a government (see supply and demand); the opposite is a controlled market, where government sets or regulates price directly or through regulating supply and/or demand.[1] However, while a free market necessitates that government does not regulate supply, demand, and prices, it also requires the traders themselves do not coerce or mislead each other, so that all trades are morally voluntary.[2] This is not to be confused with a perfect market where individuals have perfect information and there is perfect competition.

    The notion of a free market is closely associated with laissez-faire economic philosophy, which advocates approximating this condition in the real world by mostly confining government intervention in economic matters to regulating against force and fraud among market participants. Hence, with government force limited to a defensive role, government itself does not initiate force in the marketplace beyond levying taxes in order to fund the maintenance of the free marketplace. Some free market advocates oppose taxation as well, claiming that the market is better at providing all valuable services including defense and law. Anarcho-capitalists, for example, would substitute arbitration agencies and private defense agencies.

    While most economists regard the free market as a useful if simplistic model in developing economic policies to attain social goals, some regard the free market as a normative rather than descriptive concept, and claim that policies which deviate from the ideal free market solution are 'wrong' even if they are believed to have some immediate social beneficial. Samuelson treated market failure as the exception to the general rule of efficient markets. But more recently the Greenwald-Stiglitz (1986) theorem [3] posits market failure as the norm, establishing "that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation." And the Sappington-Stiglitz theorem "establishes that an ideal government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through privatization"[4] (Stiglitz 1994, 179).[5]

    In political economics, one opposite extreme to the free market economy is the command economy, where decisions regarding production, distribution, and pricing are a matter of governmental control. Other opposites are the gift economy and the subsistence economy. The mixed economy is intermediate between these positions and is the preferred basis of socioeconomic policy for most countries and political parties.

    In other words, a free market economy is "an economic system in which individuals, rather than government, make the majority of decisions regarding economic activities and transactions."[6] In social philosophy, a free market economy is a system for allocating goods within a society: purchasing power mediated by supply and demand within the market determines who gets what and what is produced, rather than the state. Early proponents of a free-market economy in 18th century Europe contrasted it with the medieval, early modern, and mercantilist economies which preceded it.

    ---------------------------------


    The reason a free market is IMHO such a load of complete dung is the section in BOLD.

    The underlined section details my exact feelings on the matter.
  20. Eric_Boyer

    Eric_Boyer Well-Known Member

    4,339 Messages
    166 Likes Received
    sigh.

    1780 - $5 spent per person in this country

    1910 - $8 per person

    1913 - democrats want to soak the rich. Fight for an amendment allowing tax to be non-proportional - now they can soak the rich. Courts are threatened that if they don't lossen up on spending, the courts will be packed.

    1940 - $68 dollars spent per person.

    1940's - democrat passes legislation allowing this indirect tax on labor to be applied before we even see a dollar of our earnings. Soak the rich my arse!

    early 1990's - about $3,600 per person.

    Today - $10,000 spent per person. It would of been impossible to get to this point if it weren't for jealousy and the desire to soak the rich and to redistribute property. Liberals need to accept what they did in the name of tax problems just as conservatives need to accept the error of their war mongering ways of late.

    Clinton was an OK president (for modern times). This isn't about Clinton, it's much older then that.

Share This Page