Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Democratonomics
Posted by: Dale Franks on Sunday, February 04, 2007

Via email:
Question: how many poor people had to go without a home because John Edwards bought a 28,000 sq ft mansion for himself?

Presumptive Democratic answer: some/many

Correct answer: 0

What does each answer tell us about John Edwards' economic ideas, in practice and theory?
Heh.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
(The Following Appeared in my "In-Box" with a plea that I post it, in the light of a large Hagel-Snowe Super Bowl Party in Maine):


Again this is easily dealt with...John Edwards is a Democrat who CARES, ergo HIS rewards are JUSTIFIED, whereas if this had been Newt Gingrich or Bill Frist it would be INEXCUSABLE....

Edwards house is built on his efforts to help his clients and the People, whilst a Senator, therefore his hoouse if built on the proceeds of JUSTICE, flowing from the Powerful to the PowerLESS and John is merely taking a tiny portion of this Justice.

It is this ort of shallow argumentum ad hominem that reveals the Right’s moral bankruptcy and will no doubt spark a backlash against them. The only way I could foresee the Republicans achieving ANYTHING in ’08 would be a Snowe-Hagel ticket, or a Hagel-Snowe ticket. And that will totally eclipsed by the Edwards-Carter ticket or the Clinton-Carter ticket...Until the Republicans moderate their beliefs and actions they can not expect much electorally, i.e., supporting nationalized health care, increased taxes on the wealthy and the like, nothing will flow to the Republicans advantage, ESPECIALLY with the failed Social Engineering project in Iraq...

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I doubt many Democrats are foolish enough to think that an economy that doesn’t reward talent, innovation and hard work with wealth would be worse off.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I doubt many Democrats are foolish enough to think that an economy that doesn’t reward talent, innovation and hard work with wealth would be worse off.
And yet, they tend to favor tax policies that do just that. how terribly odd.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
And what does it tell us of Edwards himself?

If he believes his presumptive Dem. answer that his home causes others to go without and he built it anyway, then he’s pretty reprehensible

If he doesn’t believe the presumptive Dem. answer and just peddles that line because it plays well, he’s a liar.

So Edwards supporters....which is he?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"talent, innovation and hard work"

How do I convince a jury that a doctor’s decision about a c-section caused cerebral palsy? (or whatever hokum he was selling that day.)

p.s. talent, innovation, and hard work....to get a PS3 for his kid from Walmart....yeah.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
He could’ve bought five lesser houses and bulldozed them. Therefore, him buying a mansion saved four houses for the rest of us.
 
Written By: SJC
URL: http://
Correct Answer: "How many people were ablt to afford a house of their own due to being employed building Mr. Edwards 28,200 monstrosity?"
 
Written By: RIV
URL: http://
"and John is merely taking a tiny portion of this Justice."

Amen brother! For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Scott Erb wrote:
I doubt many Democrats are foolish enough to think that an economy that doesn’t reward talent, innovation and hard work with wealth would be worse off.
Okay, I’ll admit to being a simpleminded West Virginian, but... huh? That sentence parses very oddly, and it’s difficult for me to understand exactly what you mean. I’m assuming that the first part ("I doubt many Democrats are foolish enough to think that...") indicates that you think the rest ("...an economy that doesn’t reward talent, innovation, and hard work with wealth would be worse off") is a foolish statement.

So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you believe that an economy that does not reward talent, hard work or innovation will be better off (or at least, as well off) as one that does reward these things.

Am I misinterpreting? Or do you really believe that not rewarding talent, hard work, and innovation is the way to go?
 
Written By: Robin Sizemore
URL: http://onestackmind.com
The question isn’t whether people were made homeless as a result of Edwards’ mansion, or whether people were employed building it.

The question is what the carbon footprint of such a mansion would be, and why anyone should be allowed to pursue such a consumption-heavy lifestyle when Global Warming is running rampant.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Did people have to go poor because Edwards built a mansion? No. But in order for him to finance it? Sure thing. I can’t think of anything closer to a zero or negative sum industry than civil law. Considering the arguments Edwards used to win many of his cases, I’m betting a lot of people got hurt to earn that money.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
Well, Edwards made his wealth by using junk science arguments in our tort system: essentially a legal form of theft. Society would be better off if the money he stole went elsewhere.

The problem isn’t that Edwards built a house, it is the destructive means he used to aquire his wealth.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"I can’t think of anything closer to a zero or negative sum industry than civil law."

That’s true in the short term, but is rather too cynical. A good civil justice system that enforces contracts and punishes fraud is necessary to ensure that people feel secure enough to create wealth without worry that someone else will steal it.

But a civil justice system run amok becomes the very preditor that it’s supposed to protect people from.
 
Written By: Jon Biggar
URL: http://
That’s true in the short term, but is rather too cynical. A good civil justice system that enforces contracts and punishes fraud is necessary to ensure that people feel secure enough to create wealth without worry that someone else will steal it.

But a civil justice system run amok becomes the very preditor that it’s supposed to protect people from.
I agree we need a civil justice system; but Edwards is a good example of a civil justice system run amok.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider