SF Chronicle called Edwards' speech fee "whopping" but ignored Giuliani's much larger fees
In a May 21 entry to the San Francisco Chronicle's Politics Blog, Chronicle political reporter Carla Marinucci wrote, "Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who recently proposed an educational policy that urged 'every financial barrier' be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show." According to Marinucci, Edwards "charged a whopping $55,000 to speak to a crowd of 1,787 [at] the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006," before Edwards declared his intention to seek the presidency. However, Marinucci made no mention of Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani, who reportedly charged Oklahoma State University $100,000 for a speech he delivered in 2006 and an additional $47,000 for the use of a private jet.
According to Marinucci's post on the Chronicle Politics Blog:
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show.
The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus' Mondavi Center confirmed Monday.
That amount -- which comes to about $31 a person in the audience -- included Edwards' travel and airfare, and was the highest speaking fee in the nine appearances he made before colleges and universities last year, according to his financial records.
The earnings -- though made before Edwards was a declared Democratic presidential candidate -- could hand ammunition to his competition for the Democratic presidential nomination. The candidate -- who was then the head of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina -- chose to speak on "Poverty, the great moral issue facing America," as his $55,000 topic at UC Davis.
However, as Media Matters for America noted, Giuliani's speaking fees are considerably higher, and he charged a state school far more than Edwards did. The Chicago Tribune reported on February 7:
Since he left office, Giuliani has leveraged his image as "America's mayor" to his decided financial advantage and in ways that belie his man-of-the-people persona.
He commands $100,000 for a speech, not including expenses, which his star-struck clients are happily willing to pay. In one speech last year at Oklahoma State University, Giuliani requested and received travel on a private Gulfstream jet that cost the school $47,000 to operate. His visit essentially wiped out the student speakers annual fund.
Like other high-priced speakers in the private sector, Giuliani routinely travels in style. Besides the Gulfstream, which is a standard perk on the big-time speakers circuit, his contract calls for up to five hotel rooms for his entourage, including his own two-bedroom suite with a preferred balcony view and king-size bed, in the event of an overnight stay.
The Oklahoma contract also required a sedan and an SUV, restrictions on news coverage and control over whom Giuliani would meet, how he would be photographed and what questions he might be asked.
According to Salon.com, Giuliani has earned $9.2 million in speaking fees since 2006.
The Chronicle blog post was flagged by Internet gossip Matt Drudge and was also highlighted in the May 22 edition of ABC News' political newsletter, "The Note," which claimed that "Edwards can't shake free of this do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do narrative."
Note to self: be a mayor of a city, don't do a good job during a city crisis, speak about stuff, earn $9.2 million...
Note to Self: Run for President and talk about helping the poor then charge poor students for a speech about poverty.
Yes ... MM has pulled a classic bait-and-switch and misrepresented the issue.
The issue is that Sen. Edwards has charged his substantial fee to speak about POVERTY!
Everybody understands that politicians and personalities charge fees to speak, but there's something to be said about a multi-millionaire charging so much money to speak about poverty. That's the issue, folks.
No, that's your issue. Don't let the fact that Edwards gave 23% of his income to charity last year cloud that vision...
Good for Edwards. But he should put his money where his mouth is. Poverty is the "great moral issue" after all. how's your hair look John?
It is a classic "bait and switch." Edwards is getting the heat because he's the one preaching about poverty. He's put himself out there as a champion of the poor. It's a false comparison between Edwards and Giulianni. And since when is the San fran Chronicle a conservative paper? hard to get more liberal than the SFC.
And if asked, Giulianni would declare himself an enemy of the poor?
Geez o peets, he spends 1/4 of his income helping the poor and that ain't enough for you? what, does he have to become impoverished too? typical hypocritical republican...
The NeoCon stance is that they want a man in the Presidency who proclaims his deep and unending love for Jesus - not a man who is interested in the things that Jesus taught.
Edwards brings American poverty - a real and flourishing problem in this first world nation - to the forefront in his campaign. In retaliation, the media and the conservatives attack him for non-issues like haircuts, despite the fact that he contributes more than any other candidate to charities and the poor.
Neocons, show us which of your candidates gives as much to charity as Edwards, or STFU about your false and misleading charge of hypocrisy.
No, that's Rush's issue. He talked about Edwards yesterday on his radio show (no mention of Rudy).
Shoe, et al. are just regurgitating Rush (quelle surprise!)
WHAT DON'T YOU LIBERALS GET??!!
RUDY IS NOT RUNNING ON TRYING TO END POVERTY. EDWARDS IS.
THAT'S WHY NOBODY CARES WHAT RUDY CHARGES.
No he didn't.
Republican presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani earned $16 million last year — including $11.4 million in speaking fees — and Democratic contender John Edwards' income topped $7 million, the candidates' financial disclosure statements released Wednesday show.
Do the math. He gave 5%.
Duncecan... it was paid for by TAX PAYERS, not the students... and, it only came out to $31 per person, which is a more than fair price for a prominent public figure running for president talking to a university...
Oh, Being a tax payer then I want a refund.
I'm with ya. Where do I get my Iraq War rebate?
Ditto. How do I get a refund for the "most open and ethical congress in history" lie? Do you have Pelosi's address?
It was NOT paid for by taxpayers, but by the sale of tickets and funds raised by the Mondavi Center.
John Edwards loves poverty (and the poor) so much that:
- He advises a predatory lending hedge fund that created more of them (the poor, i.e.)
- He makes a public university pay obscene fees to discuss his "favorite" topic
One would think that given his sordid record, Mr. "I'm so pretty" would be recognized by Democrat Party suporters for what he is - an ambulance-chasing hypocrite.You know, I understand shaving like a barbarian, cutting and hacking at your face, but there have been great advances in plastic surgery - for instance, you could permanantly eliminate that sneer on your face.
What are you? A paid shrill for the Edwards campaign?
More of that reich wing hypocracy again. How much does coulter make in speaking fees again? (and please, rightys, use something other than she ain't running for office!)
snoop,
In the same vein we could ask what does Bill Clinton get per speech? I'm sorry but I don't get the relevance?
That is my point, it is irrelevant who makes what. More of the reich making a mountain out of a mole hill. Like we are supposed to believe they wouldn't complain about what Edwards charged if he chose some other subject?
It's not relevant at all. Considering Edwards often speaks about "Two America's" and issues of poverty, it is hypocritical of him to take such large sums without donating much of it to improving the conditions of the poor. I do not know that is the case precisely, but I am no fan of Edwards and his apparently blatant hypocrisy here.
Well, considering Edwards has donated over $350,000 to charity last year (23% of his income) I'd say he isn't skimming by with the 10% rule republicans generally follow.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273133,00.html
Thank you for blowing that "talking point" away!
"Edwards received about $395,000 in paid speeches — most of them at colleges — and was paid $40,000 salary for work at the University of North Carolina Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.
The Edwards family donated more than $350,000 to charity, including the International Rescue Committee and Habitat for Humanity." FoxNews Article
I stand corrected, snoopy. Good work.
That's what I like about you, your moniker is truly befitting your nature!
Republican presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani earned $16 million last year — including $11.4 million in speaking fees — and Democratic contender John Edwards' income topped $7 million, the candidates' financial disclosure statements released Wednesday show.
My math maybe be different then crazy leftie math but 350k isn't 23% of 7 million. Looks like he gave about 5% of his income.
Oops.
L.A. Times -
Republican presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani earned $16 million last year — including $11.4 million in speaking fees — and Democratic contender John Edwards' income topped $7 million, the candidates' financial disclosure statements released Wednesday show.
Do the math. 23%? Not even close.
Democratic hopeful John Edwards reported earned income of $1.25 million, the biggest single source of which was a hedge fund that employed him part time.
Learn to read...
Quoted straight from the LA Times. If they got it wrong they got it wrong.
I believe they did, because the $7M figure is what is being reported as Edwards holdings on other sites.
"apparently blatant" is an oxymoron.
Actually, Bill Clinton received $100,000 from the Mondavi Center, compared to Edwards's $55,000. However, these funds were paid by the Mondavi Center,NOT UC Davis or the taxpayers of California. The funds were raised from ticket sales and development contributions.
Goodall's fee is the third highest paid by Mondavi Center for a speaker. Former President Bill Clinton was paid $100,000 and author Toni Morrison received $60,000. Former Sen. John Edwards, who ran for vice president in 2004 and is now running for president, was paid $55,000. Former Sen. Bob Dole, a 1996 presidential candidate, received $52,000.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/04/25/news/250new1.txt
And your rambling, off-topic point is....?
Snoopy
You know you are right, she ain't running for office
Yeah, but...but....but...Edwards got a $400 haircut!
And if Julie Annie still had hair, I'm certain he would have forced those schools to throw in the fee for his private barber to travel with him. Or maybe he does, and that is included in his entourage demand?
I don't mind politicians who live one way, unapologetically, and tell the rest of us that want to work on issues that affect the "folks"......but I cannot stomach politicians who live one way, playing class warfare at every turn, and tell the rest of us they are just like us "folks".
Well, since most national politicians are gazillionaires...who's left to be an advocate for the poor?
That was not my point.
I don't think Nerzog was trying to make your point, but, rather, to contest it.
And when did Edwards ever say he was "just like us folks?" Have you actually heard or read any of his "TwoAmericas" speeches?
Two Americas is class warfare, dressed up.
Given the wealth divide generated by conservative economic policies, 'two Americas', is right on the money.
And yours is the textbook definition of class warfare.......thanks for clarifying what Edwards' speech is all about.
If that’s your definition of class warfare, I don't see anything wrong it. This class warfare has kept the poor and the middle class from getting completely screwed by the rich.
Class warfare is pitting one class against each other, in this case to score cheap political points. Edwards has a cute little name for it, Two Americas.....but you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
So, despite the fact that trickle down economics has actually enriched the wealthy and impoverished the poor, it's class warfare to offer critcism?
So to even things out, the government should do what?
How about just admit that the right practices class warfare as well and leave it at that?
Psst... (its only class warfare if its the poor and middle class vs. the rich. Rich vs. poor is not class warfare in the Rethuglies lexicon...its 'the free market').
The government should stop breaking unions, cease corporate welfare, stop sucking money from the poor with with tax cuts for the wealthy, stop deregulating health and environmental standards and stop allowing corporations to privatize profits while socializing costs.
"stop sucking money from the poor with tax cuts from the wealthy"? Not only does that make no sense, it's absurd.
uummm, Tommy.. It DOES make sense. More wealthy people (the top 1%) of Americans pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes, and have more loopholes to avoid paying ANY taxes.... the poor pay more as a percentage of their income, and are able to spend and save less, if at all..
Educate yourself on just who pays the lions share of taxes in this country, and then let us know......just how much more do you want? What % do you want?
I think you misinterpreted his post. Read it again.
“Educate yourself on just who pays the lions share of taxes in this country, and then let us know......just how much more do you want? What % do you want?”
The more money you make, the more taxes you pay. That's just the way it is.
Sorry, but although that is the way it should be, far too often it is not the way it is.
Every time the tax issue comes up I post this link, but nobody really seems to pay attention. I thought people liked facts.
THE TOP 1% EARN 19% OF THE INCOME AND PAY 37% OF THE INCOME TAXES, THE BOTTOM 50% EARN 13% OF THE INCOME AND PAY 3% OF THE INCOME TAXES. WE HAVE A PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM FOR #$%^& SAKES!! STOP LYING!!
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
But that's just INCOME you're talking about. The top one percent has a lot more than that in terms of wealth:
"In 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%."
From a UCSC study drawing on data from economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).
I'm surprised wealth only skewed that far. Nonetheless, they already paid taxes on the income that created that wealth. How many times do you want to get your hands on their funds? If you take 20%, and then 20% again, and then 20% again, and then.... you get the picture.
Sorry to be such a Johhny-come-lately in terms of response, but here it is. . . First, if you look at the stats, most of the wealth of the wealthy isn't from income - it's from stuff like interest and capital gains which are taxed at a lower percentage than income, I believe. (which in itself seems totally unfair - why do I pay more taxes on money that I actually work for than on money that I just make because I already have money, like interest?)
Second, it's not a question of taxing the same person repeatedly for the same money, but of taking a higher percentage as you earn more. I think progessive taxation is totally fair, especially given the tendency of wealth to concentrate so much. If the 20% percent has 80% of the wealth in the country, why shouldn't they pay a big percentage of the taxes? They benefit a lot from having a stable, well-run economy, government, and society - not to mention from the labor of the other 80% of us.
Where is the personal responsibility, the responsibility that says citizens have to pay for the benefits we receive from our common wealth?
The wealthy have made greater use of the common good, they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth, and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it.
The common wealth protects and empowers your ability to prosper, that ability to prosper is the common good.
Truth is that, through the common wealth, America put more money in your pocket than it took out, by far.
Somebody has to pay and if the wealthiest are paying less, the poor are paying more.
Who says the wealthy are not paying their share? You figure their share should be what?
Bottom line, our govt. wastes way too much money in this country, to continue to bleed money their way is ridiculous, and I vote for every single tax decrease and against every single tax increase on that principle alone.
Government can be effective.
It's when politicians, who believe they have no moral obligation to serve the common good effectively or govern effectively, that government reverts to cronyism.
Nah, they're just issuing more treasury bills and bonds.
"Class warfare is pitting one class against each other,"I have no problem with that."in this case to score cheap political points."
I don't think he's doing it for cheap political points.
How do the rich screw the poor exactly? I assume you're including all the rich Dems too? The Clingtons. The Edwards. Obama, and on and on.
The poor poor. The poor are poor mostly because of the decisions they make. The rich are rich largely because of decisions they make. It really is that simple in 90% of the cases out there. And there always be that 10% you just can't help.
So what good decisions did Paris Hilton make?
Most bankruptcies in this country are caused because of medical bills. How many people decide to get a catastrophic illness that their broken health care plan (if they even have one) doesn't pay? How many times have you read "The Secret", may I ask?
Paris is a red herring and it's VERY disingenuos to bring her up. She's the exception and to suggest or imply otherwise is to LIE!
And if you declare bankruptcy you're ABSOLVING your debts. Why did they have no health insurance? I sell health insurance and talk to people everyday who CHOOSE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON OTHER THINGS!. Like new cars or satelite TV.
And if you're in poverty already you don't need to worry about a catastrophic illness bankrupting you cause you had no money in the first place.
Wow.. leave it to an insurance salesman to show no empathy and instead concentrate on filching the poor out of more money they can't afford to spend.
"Why did they have no health insurance?"
You can have health insurance and still be forced into bankruptcy due to unforseen illness. Affordable health insurance in this country is largely a pile of Merd. Not every business offers health insurance, much less good health insurance, and on a $100K surgery and hospitalization bill, if you're "lucky" enough to have paid for health insurance that covers half of that, you're still $50K in debt.
To get the good health insurance that covers more than extreme circumstances is an expense that the majority of the working poor simply cannot afford to make.
Your post is rediculous. So I'm squeezing the poor too?
If you have insurance and get a 100k claim you'll be stuck with a 50k bill?
The above shows that you know NOTHING about insurance. Your posts can't be taken seriously with statements like that.
The working poor may not be able to afford insurance. I don't have insurance myself(wife and son do) because I'm uninsureable, or I'd have to pay $518.00 a month for a 10 k deductible plan just for me. I can't afford that. But I'm not asking the rich to pay. I'm not asking the government to pay. i'M NOT SITTING AROUND SAYING POOR ME!. I'm trying to figure out a way to make more money so I can pay for it!
So, what if there is no way to make more money?
Listen, if what you're saying is true, a large percentage of the population would be lazy bums, and that's ridiculus. What opportunities are there for a Wal Mart employee, hm? Do tell.
This ain't cuba. There's always a way to make more money. Or a way to be more disciplined with money you have. Let me qualify my earlier post...If made a few lifestyule changes, like getting rid of my digital cable, having a less expensive car, eating out less and if I stopped smoking I'd be able to afford that insurance. But paying for insurance is no fun. Being responsible all or most of the time is no fun. But that's MY CHOICE! And i'll have to accept the consequences if things go south.
As for the Wal-Mart employee, why are they working at Wal-Mart? Just saying that someone who works at Wal-Mart can't afford health insurance, though possibly true, is irrelevant. They aren't forced to work there!
Please. Insurance is a scam and insurance agents are scam artists. If insurance were the way it's supposed to be, there would be many fewer insurance agents.
So now I'm a scam artist? Insurance is a scam? You have no proof or facts to back up either assertion. You're just another liberal name-caller who, when called out on their ignorance resorts to name calling and slander. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Actually, yes, in my opinion and experience, insurance is a scam and the insurance agents I have dealt with in the past have been some of the most unscrupulous people I've ever encountered. While I will admit that not all insurance salesmen bad or unscrupulous, once you've been burnt by fire, you're more cautious the next time you're around it.
Okay. We got common ground here. There are plenty of bad agents. And if you're a good agent and you sell aganst them it can be quite frustrating. Sorry to hear about you bad experiences.
Tommy,
There are two Americas and our current economic policies promote that. You can't have the existence of inequitable policy and blame those who fall on the short end of it for complaining about. Acknowledging that isn't class warfare.
Lynn,
What current economic policy promotes class warfare? Because if you are referring to all people keeping more of their own money, limited and efficient government, then how does that foster class warfare?
Tommy, Tommy, Tommy
Nothing is trickling down sweetie, I lived through the Reagan trickled down years and it didn't work then. Home Foreclosures among the middle-working class are at record highs, sales are down at Wal-Mart and K-Mart, the ranks of the super poor has grown, the ranks of the working uninsured has grown but sales are up at Neiman Marcus and Nordstroms. Edward's is correct, there are two Americas while some are getting their jollies admiring their portfolios and ordering that new Mercedes convertible other's are struggling just to maintain the status quo and to meet the monthly mortgage, that's the reality of this current economy.
have grown
But conservative principles dictate that one is only successful when one is disciplined and if one is not disciplined one is immoral. By that standard if one has been left out of or left behind it's their own fault. Conservative personal responsibility only goes half way.
Progressive principles of mutual responsibility goes the full distance as it requires one to take personal responsibility for the common good of others.
Personal responsibility for the lives of others, now that is good.....the new mantra. What you are really saying is social income redistribution, or welfare. Take from those that are successful and give it to those who have decided they don't want to apply themselves and live off the hard work of others, is that it? Well, that is immoral.
another broad brush stroke by Tommy. Yup, every one who is poor don't want to apply themselves and just want to live off the system...
Yes, the same broad brush that some paint with saying that all wealthy people are Paris Hilton, or crooks.
Obviously, I am speaking theoretically. But in principal, it is immoral to take from one who has earned it, and give to someone who hasn't.
I would allow them to keep what they have earned - as opposed to that which was bestowed upon them at birth, or stolen. That single correction would mend both our National Debt and most of my resistance to your economic fantasies.
And you base your assertion on...let me guess, NOTHING!
I'd bet you'd find that very little's been "stolen" and that most wasn't inherited.
Tommy,
let's put it this way. Why don't the rich support that proposed 10% flat tax? Could it be because they pay less using the current system?
Who says they don't support the flat tax? A flat tax would be much harder on the poor than our current system is, which is a PROGRESSIVE tax system.
I think it depends who you define as rich. To be sure, some wealthy people pay very little tax. I remember reading at one time how H. Ross Perot only paid about 5% of his gross income to taxes. I could understand wealthy people in a similar position may oppose a flat tax. Other wealthy people who do not take steps to shield themselves from high tax rates may prefer a flat tax.
On the other hand, a progressive tax works out much better for the poor than a flat tax would. That should be obvious to everyone as under the progressive system, the poor pay little to no tax and under a flat tax, the poor would have to pay a definite percentage.
Not so, Open!
Opponents of the flat tax, on the other hand, claim that since the marginal value of income declines with the amount of income (the last $100 of income of a family living near poverty being considerably more valuable than the last $100 of income of a millionaire), taxing that last $100 of income the same amount despite vast differences in the marginal value of money is unfair. Many flat-tax proponents actually concede this premise since most proposals are not truly totally flat but have a threshold where income below that threshold is not taxed at all.[citation needed] Therefore, with the exception of flat-tax proponents who argue for no deductions and taxation of all income at one flat rate, both proponents and opponents agree in principle if not in degree with the basic premise of this concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
I don't see your point. Can you point out what in my above post, you believe is incorrect?
The rich, that's who. A true flat tax should apply to all income and profit without exemption or exception, no industry would get special treatment, and the biggie is there would be no capital gains exemptions. The only thing the wealthy would like about a flat tax is if it were limited to just income the tax burden would shift to the middle class.
The poor would still be paying more under your system if there were NO EXEMPTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS. Why do you hate the poor?
even flat tax proponents say there would be a lower ceiling on who pays taxes, so the poor won't be taxed. Why do you hate the facts?
Ok, If the poor arent taxes then that is an EXCEPTION to the tax code. You said NO EXCEPTIONS.
wow, a word parser. good for you...
*caugh* Hippocrite *caugh*
According to us, all the wealthy are crooks? Yet you accuse Edwards pf being a hippocrite because he's rich AND wants to help the poor ie: The rich should never help the poor... Haven't you ever heard of the "Gospel of Wealth"? I don't agree with it, since I know most of the rich will never actually spend much of their cash, but you should love it. And then we have Edwards, who not only donates 23% of his income to charity, no, he's an anti poverty activist, too. So he was with a hedge fund, but he tried to make it into a progressive hedge fund. And he never actually wanted $400 haircusts, but heck, they were in a hurry, and you know how expensive hotel stuff is! Plus, he gave the money back, which is more than Biggus Dickus Cheney(us) would have done. And he freaking apologized for it. When was the last time Julie Annie apologized for something? Seriously, I challenge you all, WTF IS YOUR FREAKIN' PROBLEM WITH EDWARDS? Is it maybe just because he's a lib? You can tell me, I can keep secrets...sorta.
Pretty sure Cheney gave millions to charity comapred to Edwards 350,000. A figure of 7 million comes to mind but I'm not positive.
put up or shut-up
Last year, the Vice President and Mrs. Cheney donated about $6.8 million to charity, including $1.3 million to Capital Partners for Education, which provides scholarships for low-income students to attend private high schools:
There ya go smart guy.
Dick Cheney himself (not including Mrs. Cheney's assets) is worth between $20M-$80M. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml
John Edwards' net worth is estimated between $20M-$60M. I wish I could find a summary of their charitable contributions in the past decade or so to see how they compare, but I don't have that kind of google dedication.
Yes, but what percentage of his income did he give to charity? Cheney steals more than Edwards earns, so actually, percentage would be the best measure. One would think that you rightie wingnuts would remember the 10% rule (or did you conveniently forget your Christian values?). So, let's look at percentage of income donated to charity, not the actual dollar amount.
Why don't you do that sir? I'll await your post. Here's what I found.
The Cheneys donated $104,425 to charity in 2006. This brings the Cheneys' total charitable contributions during his Vice Presidency to $7,800,019.
The numbers I posted earlier were inncaurately attributed to 2006. They were 2005 numbers.
The Cheneys' 2005 federal tax return, released by the White House late last week, shows that they made a $2.7 million donation to the Cardiothoracic Institute of George Washington University Medical Center, where the vice president has been treated for heart ailments.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com] src="http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/largerPhoto/images/enlarge_tab.gif" border="0" alt="" width="103" height="12" align="bottom" />Buy This Photo[link to www.washingtonpost.com] color="#0c4790"> Vice President Cheney has been treated at GWU Medical Center. (Robert A .Reeder - Twp) Who's Blogging?Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
- The DC Education Blog
- TaxProf Blog
- AFP Blog: Recent News of Note
Full List of Blogs (5 links) »Most Blogged About Articles On washingtonpost.com | On the web<!-- delicious -->Save & Share- Tag This Article
Saving options1. Save to description: Headline (required) Subheadline Byline2. Save to notes (255 character max): Subheadline Blurb None 3. Tag This ArticleThey also gave $1.3 million to Capital Partners for Education, a Georgetown-based scholarship fund that helps finance education at private schools for area teenagers. It was the largest single contribution in the charity's history.
Together with a $2.7 million to the University of Wyoming, where the vice president graduated in 1965 and his wife taught English, the couple made about $6.8 million in charitable donations last year.
I'm not surprised that you failed to answer my question. The question was "What percentage of income" not the amount of money. Your reading comprehension skills need some work. I'd suggest applying to the program you mentioned - you know, the one where Cheney gave the biggest donation in the institution's history. Maybe it will help you a bit.
And I told you I'd wait for your post. You're the one implying that percentages would favor your boy Edwards. So let's see it?
Tommy,
Your moral argument could be used against all taxation. Do you believe all taxation is wrong?
These are tried and true Progressive moral values that sustained our country during an era of unrestrained capitalism.
"Take from those that are successful and give it to those who have decided they don't want to apply themselves and live off the hard work of others, is that it?"
Do you really believe it's just a question of hard work?? I mean that may be true for Paris Hilton, but it isn't true for all rich people ;)
Sorry, but you could work every hour of every day and still not come within shouting distance of rich if you make minimum wage. So, if it's just hard work you're worried about rewarding, how about making a national standard wage for everyone?? Then, everyone would be rewarded in exact proportion to the numbers of hours they worked.
Somehow, I don't think you'd support that.
Brilliant idea. A "national standard wage." Because all jobs require the same skill, the same brains, etc. That's one of the dumbest posts I ever read. How bout you move to a communist country buddy?
And another Paris Hilton comment. Again...just dumb.
Minimum wage jobs aren't there for you to support a family or yourself for that matter. If that's whee you're working I A) want to know why you're working there and B) I suggest you get a second and third job if need be.
Minimum wage jobs aren't there for you to support a family or yourself for that matter. -
So, for what (or for whom) are minimum wage jobs intended? Are they intended for those who just want to have fun and waste time?
They're intended for the uneducated. The unskilled. The unambitious. Part-timers. Students, etc. Isn't that who's working those jobs?
And if it's not the above then who is working there?
So, are you saying that the unskilled and unambitious deserve to be relegated to the low-income levels of our society?
If that's the case, I'd like to see all of the rich people out there who do nothing but reap the rewards of the hard work of their ancestors, living off the interest of money they had no hand in EARNING, be relegated to the same level. By your standards, such rich folks are unskilled, correct?
See, it seems to me that you (as in wealthy republicans) want to treat those who are unskilled or unambitious in a different manner than you would treat others. You look down upon them with disdain, wishing that the sight of them didn't make you so sick to your disgusting rich, tummy-tucked midsection. You indulge yourselves with the niceties in life to make you forget about those who toiled (sometimes to the death) to bring you what you take for granted.
So, are you saying that the unskilled and unambitious deserve to be relegated to the low-income levels of our society?
Yes. actually you got this one right. The unskilled, uneducated and unambitious deserve to be relegated to the low-income levels of society. I couldn't agree mor. Ofcourse, your use of the word "relegate" impiles that someone/something is putting these people at this level.
You think I'm a wealthy republican? Guess that's why I still rent. have no savings or investments. And I haven't paid rent for this month. You got me all figured out.
But I don't think my financial situation is someone else's fault. It's not. It's 100% my fault. And I don't expect that you or anyone else sould be forced to bail me out because I've made some bad decisions.
"Brilliant idea. A "national standard wage." Because all jobs require the same skill, the same brains, etc. That's one of the dumbest posts I ever read. How bout you move to a communist country buddy?"
You totally missed my point, but that may be because the post I was originally responding to is now lost in the thread. Anyway, someone had said that the poor are poor because they don't work hard, while the rich do. I was just pointing out that that is clearly not true - and you obviously agree!! As you say, one gets paid very differently depending on different factors, most of which have nothing to do with effort. In fact, many have to do with luck- for example, why is it fair that someone with "more brains" gets to live better than others? Anyway, my (now very long-winded) point is that whining that taxing the rich more penalizes "hard work" is ridiculous.
There is an approach to economics called ParEcon, or Participatory Economics, that is a throwback to some marxist principals, but governed far more judiciously than what people consider Communism today. The basic principle is that each person has a complex of jobs that involve varying tasks (from the mundane kind of janitorial work to higher technical skill level jobs) and each person is compensated in terms of effort that they put into their jobs.
It's a very interesting concept, although it won't catch on on any kind of massive basis. Still, when you look at all of the options available, it's easier to consider solutions to the current problems we have with the system in place now, and its vast inequalities.
Sure. So an unskilled, uneducated janitor, should get pair more than or the same as a doctor ore engineer? What if both put in equal effort? Does it matter that the janitor probably made some choices that resulted in their janitorial carreer or, that they simply aren't capable of doing much else?
"Sure. So an unskilled, uneducated janitor, should get pair more than or the same as a doctor ore engineer?"
The difference is not effort, it's incursion of debt. Who says that any given janitor isn't capable of being a physician?
The labor provided by a janitor is every bit as dignified as that of a surgeon, both contribute to public health in their own particular way. Each has a purpose and each deserves just compensation. It doesn't work that way, though, because the market sees the janitor not as an asset but as a resource, as an expense to be cut in the mad dash for profit. It's immoral in this society that any laborer should be treated as a thing instead of a person.
Really? That's interesting. It does seem like a fair system, but I would imagine virtually impossible to implement properly in any large society.
Lynn,
Why are there two Americas? You think it's because someone's victimizing you"? Taking advantage? It just ain't so. Most rich people are rich because they've WORKED HARD, been Disciplined, and they've been willing to take risks.
They're not rich because they got lucky. They're not rich because they inherited. And they aren't rich because they took advantage of you! The rich create most of the small businesses in this country and therefore CREATE a large portion of the jobs available. If you're not disabled or mentally impaired and you're poor I'd bet it's because of poor personal choices. Period!
Ehull...
So what you're saying is that the 1st responders, fire fighters and nurses who make more or less $50000/yr. aren't rich because they're lazy, and that the troops you claim to support making roughly that amount are lazy, and that school teachers, who study very hard to make $35000/yr. starting salary to teach our children are lazy, and that people working at the DIA, CIA, FBI, etc. to defend this country are lazy, because if they weren't lazy they would all be Donald Trumps and George Bushes.
Meanwhile, guys who sit around and pull dividends on their investments are hard working, guys like Trump and George Bush who had big head starts thanks to their families are hard working, and movie stars who get paid $20 million plus are hard working. These people make more than the hard working doctors who will repair your heart when it fails, hard working mechanics who will fix your car when it fails, and hard working mothers who raised your sorry a**.
Exactly! These comments reveal what utter contempt some on the right apparently have for people they publicly call heroes.
"These comments" was meant to refer to those like Ehull's, not the animated Messiah's, by the way. I need to work on my posting skills.
That's a bit unfair. The main component in determining this is risk. There is little financial risk (obviously there is mortality risk) in being a fireman.
Most people who become rich do so through investing and risking their capital. If you look, the highest paying careers are usually those that involve the most unique skill sets (athletes) or the greatest amounts of risk undertaken (investments and entrepreneurship).
If you're going to leverage government to plunder returns on investments, what happens to investors' and entrepreneurs' incentives at the margins?
I fail to see your point. These people CHOSE to become firefighters, teachers(who make a bit more than you've suggested), etc. I'm not saying their lazy nor did I imply that if you're poor or middle class you must be lazy. But you must choose to join one of those professions.
As for "head starts" is it you fault you didn't get a head start? No, right? So is it Bush's fault he did come from money? No. You're cherry picking examples. And let me suggest that the person who started the Auto shop where the mechanic works SHOULD make more money. He's providing jobs and either invested or took a risk to start that business. If he inherited the business then his family did that investing or risk taking.
"I fail to see your point."
I'm not surprised.
The point is that if all it takes is Hard Work to become rich, the poverty problem in this country wouldn't exist as even a shadow of the level it's at today. Hard Work is not what it takes. It takes opportunity primarily, which even in the "Land of Opportunity" is not something that comes readily to the poor and to the lower middle class.
Just as Paris Hilton does not prove that all of the wealthy are lazy and selfish, a person like Alberto Gonzales (who, despite his current issues, did rise from poverty to the highest ranks of government) does not prove that Opportunity exists for all - that is a fiction perpetrated by those who would rather dismiss a problem than seek resolution for it.
I never said all it takes is hard work. Check my posts. I've said consistently that it takes hard work, discipline, some kind of education, drive and a willingness to take risk.
And it is not a fiction that you can go from little or nothing to something. Happens all the time.
I might add to BLR statement, that it doesn't take hard work, but that it takes smart work to get something in life. Work smarter NOT harder. Also, investments are not the only form of risk and reward. "Working hard" as in studying, waking up early, going to classes and taking final exams and quizzes for 4 years can get you a college degree. But that is a risk. Nobody is guaranteed a job. Most students have to incur substantial amounts of loan debt to get that degree, myself a perfect example. MY hard work has paid off and I found a good paying job in a field I like. That is my reward. But since I am a taxpayer, (I pay about 25-33% in income taxes just so you know), I DO have a stake in this economy and all the benefits or pitfalls that go along with it.
Ehull, there are couple of key things you fail to understand :
1) 9 times out of 10 it TAKES money AND good luck to MAKE money
- You can't make money in the stock market without first investing at least $2000. Some people don't have that kind of money lying around to invest. The stock market is not for everyone, and I don't see anyone here advocating for stock market handouts.
- People who are born into money most certainly have a head start over everyone else, no doubt about that. Does that make them evil? NO. UNLESS they choose to flaunt and demean those who weren't so fortunate. OR even worse, intentionally trying not pay there share by using illegal and "legal" loopholes and technicalities. Snobby best describes people like that. I surely hope you are not implying that those people don't exist.
2) Some people are born into "poverty" or "less than humble beginnings" just as much as people are born into wealth and privilege.
- Does that make them inherently lazy and non-deserving of help? ONLY if they choose to complain and gripe about their situation but do nothing about it. Or even worse, waste the little help they do get on stuff they can barely afford or waste it on drugs or alcohol or something like that. Those kinda of people most certainly do exist. Honestly Ehull, these are the people you have the beef with and I understand that. But do you deny that sort of mentality does not exist on the corporate level or with "wealthy" people in general? CEOs included. And what of corporate welfare? I mean based on your standards, if a company is in so much drowning debt (the company is by definition, "poor"), then why should some have to be bailed out by taxpayer money (how's that for income redistribution)? They CHOOSE to take the risks (remember that?) and lost fair and square. You can't have it both ways.
FINALLY!! Someone got it right!!
Kudos!
Good post D!
I don't deny some rich inherited. But I don't see it as particularly relevant.
If you don't have money to invest why don't you have that money?
I know i had more to say but I can't remember the rest of your post.
Here's the rest. Corporations that fail shouldn't be bailed out.You could make a case for bailing out airlines because we can't have a bunch of airlines shutting down but even that I'm not real supportive of.
And I disagree that it takes luck. Some people get "lucky" but over the long term you make your own luck.
I don't disagree about your interpretation of luck. My point is that whether you just get lucky by accident or coincidence or do the right things and put yourself in the right places to "be lucky" its still takes luck, more specifically the right luck. Thats what working smarter is all about. As far as money to invest in the stock market.. again my point is not everyone has that kind of money to spare. There are plethora of reasons why that maybe, but I sure hope you are not implying its because these people are lazy. Although some will inevitably be. But we will ALWAYS have those kind of people. As far as the airline industry is concerned, MY view is that if you allow any company to be bailed out by tax-payer dollars, then you must allow individuals to be "bailed out" in whatever shape or form that takes as well. Period. Neither system is perfect. There will always be abuses, thats what enforcement is for.
Ehull,
And I suppose you CHOSE to be born a semi-literate fool!
The fact that you exhibit a lack of critical thinking skills, poor (yes, poor) grammar and spelling, and a complete dearth of intellectual honesty and historical comprehension demonstrates that perhaps, with your current education, you deserve to make minimum wage.
I know computer programmers who would run rings around you who are working at Starbucks thanks to the current corporate economy of perpetual layoffs. A very good freind of mine who works 10+ hour days just got laid off from TIME/WARNER because of downsizing IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL.
You know, you're right: my kind should have never let ignorant peasants like you even learn to read, much less pursue any other activity: you're far too stupid and ignorant to be a responsible citizen. (ahhh, sweet, bilious irony!)
Van Gogh was a pauper, yet fat cats buy and sell his paintings at Sotheby's for more money than you will ever see in your lifetime. Orwell (who had an Etonian education, a veritable scion of the British "governing classes") lived most of his life in utter poverty. Nietzsche, one of the most influential men since Jesus, owned two sets of clothes and toiled day and night at writing some of the most beautiful German prose ever, despite being told to desist such activity by his doctors (did I mention Jesus? not exactly CEO material). Gandhi, a London educated lawyer, renounced all worldly possessions to pursue his fervent belief in Ahimsa. I could go on and on
But I suppose none of these people can hold a candle to steriod-freak Barry Bonds (oh wow, you can hit a ball with a stick, you're the crown and glory of human evolution!!), or some jerk who sells stocks and bonds on Wall Street. If this is where the human race is headed, if this is evolution, then mankind is truly doomed. The LCD has indeed won.
You mean capitalist policies. get off your ass, get to work, and maybe you'll make some money. How's that sound?
Given the republicans' effort to banish the middle class, I whole-heartedly agree that Edwards is engaging in class warfare. I encourage him to continue. Do you truly believe that Republicans want everyone to be wealthy? Please. They want a wealthy ruling class and a poor, subservient class over which they might continue their "do as I say, not as I do" policies.
Touche. How observant of you.
Hey Tommy,
I've heard the Breck Girl reference his poor old dad so much that I think I'll vote for his dad.
Yes it is hard not to laugh at someone who made millions as an ambulance chaser, hundreds of thousands supposedly working for a hedge fund, and more thousands as a speaker lecturing us about the two Americas.
You may not like Giuliani, but lets face it, Edwards has zero credibility.
I agree, Edwards has no credibility with me......the jury is still out for me on Guiliani.
Edwards just rubs me the wrong way...$400 haircut aside, I think the guy is a snake oil salesman.
Giuliani isn't on my radar either.
In fact none of the candidates interest me from either side.
Just a side note:
Check this out & tell me if Rudy & the original Dracula [Nosferatu] were separated at birth :-O
http://blogs.indiewire.com/twhalliii/Nosferatu%20Kino%204.jpg
http://www.creaturescape.com/godsandmonsters/nosferatu/nosferatu.jpg
At least a strong familial resemblance!
It's sad that the jury is still out regarding your opinion of Giuliani. Guiliani is the only guy (other than GWB) who has gotten unusual mileage out of invoking the tragedy of 9/11. No one else has pimped a national tragedy more than Republicans. It's disgusting.
The sky was falling, I was there, and thank God GWB was our president.
Wow. Just...wow.
And for you, the jury's still out? Damn...
Nice double standard. So, you righties believe that you make your own wealth through hard work. In the next breath, you admonish Edwards for his hard work (ambulance chaser, etc.). Just where do you wingnuts get off? You don't like Edwards because he is a progressive. You don't like Edwards because his speeches appeal to the majority of Americans. Even though Americans might not vote for him in droves, they nod their heads in agreement when Edwards speaks. So, if you're going to paint yourselves as hard-working righties, please be fair and give credit where credit is due. Otherwise, your arguments are just as partisan and disingenuous as you are.
Besides, has Edwards said that he's just like the rest of us. Seems like I remember a him sayig that he had been "blessed".
I agree. Bringing Giuliani into this appears to be an attempt by MMFA at deflecting the argument as well. Giuliani hasn't preached about issues of poverty as Edwards has.
Edwards is a hypocrite on this. There is no spinning it otherwise unless that money was (mostly) donated to charity or some other form of poverty relief.
Who knows what Giuliani's position is? He's flip flopped so much he looks like a rubber sole with a toe strap!
Don't worry. He'll get his campaign to pay for it.
Speaking at a university about the financial burdens of attending college and charging a whopping fee, as Edwards did, is not the ironic equivalent of Guiliani's fees. That is the difference, the two are unrelated.
And out of whose pocket did UC Davis pay Edwards, ours?
And out of whose pocket did OSU pay Guiliani?
Tommy I will agree with your statement on this one. they are apples and oranges.
Nah, this time Tommy is dealing in grapes - sour - because he doesn't attract either level of speaking fees. The only inequivalence is the purely mathematical difference between the total cost to the Universities - completely in favor of Edwards as the "man of the people". Topic? Now THAT is the irrelevance, and Tommy not only bought it, he brought it!
Edwards as the "man of the people?". If he can get people to believe that baloney, he deserves every penny of his speaking fees.
Based solely on his campaign proposals, he most certainly is the foremost populist in the field - from either (any) party. That appears to me to qualify him as a man of the people. When added to the "self-made" nature of the currently well-off Mr. Edwards, and the exact process by which he acquired that money (forcing predatory Corporations to pay at least a measure for their sins, to the resounding benefit of every one of us who are daily victims of that Corporate cabal - yeah, most certainly, and without regard to whether your bias can accomodate that fact:
MAN OF THE PEOPLE!
conley,
Edwards gained his most of his money suing doctors for malpractice during childbirth, using junk science, which much has since been discredited. But did he give any of it back? Naw..
It was not the evil corporations who suffered but you and me through higher medical insurance rates because of predatory lawyers like Edwards.
VS Giuliani, who's number 1 source of income last year was a whopping $11.4 million in speaking fees, speeches which were about milking 9-11 for personal profit. But he did give $80,000 to charity...
Not to mention his assertion that, while he watched thousands perish as the WTC collapsed, his first thought was 'Thank God George Bush is President". What a heartless, partisan hack.
AA,
Sorry, but unregulated capitalism has created a system in which giving care is punished, while denying it is rewarded. Even those who have private insurance do not have all their needs met when we see insurers routinely overruling the judgments of medical professionals in order to boost profits.
It is hardly predatory for a lawyer to agree to represent someone who has been wronged. Moreover, the revisions to the tort law intended to block the types of verdicts he delivered in Sta-Rite and the NC trucking company cases, have done zero to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance of which you complain. The reaction to his success has been another catastrophe for those who have been wronged, whether by doctors or by Corporations.
Sorry, but if you have a point that isn't defiant of logic, or devoid of truth, I haven't been quite able to find that point.
why not, George did it.
And obviously you have perfected moral relevence to a fine art- just like the rest of MMFA- your goal is not to root out wrong at any level, instead it's to make your ideological enemies look worse in comparison.
If you were talking to me, my "moral relevance" is zero: Repugnants = bad, evil, confiscation and imprisonment appropriate. Dems = lesser evil, confiscation sufficient. Pretty black and white, actually, and based on the fact that I have occasionally heard truth from the mouth of a Dem, never since Eisenhower from a Republican; and the last Republicans I can with certainty identify are Collins, Snow, and maybe Hagel; the balance have been possessed by the hate-wing Repugnants.
"it's to make your ideological enemies look worse in comparison."
In reality, isn't that why we're all here? I mean...really.
Edwards preaches about poverty.
Giulianni doesn't.
Edwards was paid by the taxpayers.
Giulianni was paid by the students.
Sounds like apples and oranges to me.
Another lie - no, not even innovation - the same lie repeated! Check once more the (I just counted) nine times in this thread that it has been pointed out that the taxpayers didn't find Edwards' speech, but rather a third party, through ticket sales and promotional opportunities.
But right-wingers won't admit that you're correct, that ticket sales paid for Edwards's speech. They want to perpetuate the myth that taxpayers paid for it. Republicans believe that if they repeat a lie enough, it becomes truth. Not as long as fair-minded liberals are around!
I already corrected my previous statement and acknowledged that tax money didn't pay for the speech.
My apologies. I should have said Republicans minus EHull.
I regret the error.
normal you comment has no bearing on the facts of the matter. You (likely on purpose, as is your pattern) conflate the RECENT talk from Edwards about finacial barriers to attending college (do try to read what is written someday) in the first paragraph with the speech he gave well before announcing his run, let alone the , once again since you are slow, RECENT focus on costs of college. In fact the article does not seem to address the subject he spoke on. Add to that the fact that his fee was a bargain compared to the failed NY mayor.
All in all typical distortion and hate-wing talking points from you.
Is that all you can say is "right wing talking points"?
Peg, Because all he has is "left wing talking points". Like a gnat here, actually.
*I* thought mutt supplied a novel framing of the talking points: "hate-wing" - which I propose to steal early, and often.
please use it all you want :) it is funny to watch piggy and tommy do theur best to not address any substance at all LOL!
Mutt wrote: "All in all typical distortion and hate-wing talking points from you."
Which seem to me to be talking points themselves. After all it is de rigeur that almost every other post here try to point that whenever a 'righty' speaks his mind it has to be talking points. But I like the fact that you added "hate-wing". Nice.
My understanding is that thefunds were paid by the Mondavi Center, NOT UC Davis or taxpayers, though the article implies otherwise.
Perhaps her readership is most interested in how California state schools spend their money.
Very good point.
Have you any evidence that UC Davis paid for the speech and travel? The Mondavi Center is not UC Davis and raises its own funds through the sale of tickets and development.
Nope. I'm hardly so moved by the topic as to even Google it.
That said, the point stands that an SF columnist and her readership would be most interested in what goes on at a university in California.
Then perhaps she should have included the fact that the school didn't spend the money? Or would that have left her like a Repugnant caught without lies - speechless?
Just out of curiosity...are you people that post here so out of touch with reality that you think $100,000 for an hour speech is, like, a top tier speaking fee? Do you know what Harvey Mackay or Les Brown get paid to speak to a group for an hour? Or Lou Holtz? Can we have some more contact with the real world, please?
Actually, I think the point is that $100,000 is a lot more than $55,000.
But Sebafan makes the best point of all, this is a California newspaper commenting on a California state school.......Guiliani's fees at another state's school are irrelevant.
In fact, this is a partisan hack seeking to buttress an attack on Edwards but dragging in, belatedly, the reference to UC Davis, and baselessly associating that "state-funded" school with the cost of the fee.
Seems apparent that some zombies will defend any attack on Edwards, but since zombies are pretty much mindless, I suppose it is useless to ask why.
The headline was: SF Chronicle called Edwards' speech fee "whopping" but ignored Giuliani's much larger fees
I don't think it is a 'partisan hack' to offer a pretty clear explanation for why a writer on a SF blog would 'ignore' Giuliani's speaking fees. She also didn't say anything about anybody else's speaking fees.
Anyhow, whopping is hardly the worst adjective one could apply to a large sum of money. More power to him. I only wish he wouldn't try to leverage the government in an effort to get his hands on mine and yours.
The "partisan" part derives from the failure to ascertain the facts prior to asserting 1) that the fee was in any sense noteworthy; 2) that the fee was unusually large (i.e., "whopping"); 3) that it was even remotely related to the status of UC Davis as "state-funded". Distortion and omission at such scale is never sans bias, never for non-partisan purpose. OK, I guess those are pretty much the basis for "hack" as well, since the justification for her column lies (hmmm . . . interesting word) in some alleged journalistic endeavor.
Zombies? Well, I don't know about her, but then we have a full complement already posting here.
The fourth-largest fee paid by the institution is noteworthy and unusually large (at that venue, not in general).
I've yet to see full proof that the speech was fully funded by ticket sales, and 'development funds' may well be code for assessments against students or allocations of general university funds. Either way the university almost certainly has some or total discretion over the use of the funds.
I've also said above that I really don't care who paid for it. I'm only offering an explanation for why someone in SF would be interested in this speech, and not mention Giuliani. I don't know this woman or her work. For all I know she's ultra-right; then again, she might write the same article about any politician under similar circumstances.
Finally, I hope the zombie comment was not directed at me. I check around here every so often. I probably agree 1/3 of the time, disagree 1/3 of the time, and vehemently disagree 1/3 of the time. I just don't need to join the 'me too' chorus when I'm on board.
Hypocrite. You say that you don't really care where the fees came from, but from your posts above, you evidently DO care where they come from. Otherwise, this portion of the discussion wouldn't be relevant. I am confused, however, as to why you and other nuts here continuously deflect the topic of conversation to something other than what this article is about. Tax burdens are not the subject here. The subject here is the fact that the news reported that Edwards received a hefty fee for speaking (and the ensuing wraggle by worthless partisan news reporters), but not mention anyone else's speaking fees. If we were comparing the fees received by all candidates, then this discussion might have a bit more to it. However, the point is that the media is using Edwards speaking fees to make him look bad. Why? Do they perceive Edwards to be some sort of threat? Do these "pundits" (and I use that term very loosely) believe that if they trash Edwards (who, IMHO doesn't have a chance against Clinton or Obama), those who would have voted for Edwards would change their minds and vote for another candidate (probably Hillary or Obama). Are you kidding? The only purpose of this news piece is to trash a decent, hard-working, upstanding public servant. Where is the respect Edwards deserves?
My point is, stay with the topic and discuss the real reason this article is posted here, not why you wish it were.
You exhibit neither common sense, nor a spirit of liberalism.
You are insane.
I couldn't have said it better. Why would giulianni have come up in the SFC article, or any other speaker for that matter. It wasn't an article about speakers and the fees they charge.
Moreover, THE ARTICLE WAS DECEPTIVE as it implied that UC Davis and the taxpayers paid for the speech when it was apparently the Mondavi Center that did so through the sale of tickets and use of development funds.
Yeah but, the right so despeartely needs Edwards to be a hypocrite.
Not really, the left's full of them.
Oh, and I thought you were concerned about the waste of taxpayer funds.
Good to see that you have exposed yourself with this last comment.
Speaking of hypocrites, more reich wing christianity exposed:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Liberty_Univ._student_brings_explosives_to_0522.html
(oopsies, a little off topic!)
Whew! Thank God he was just a good, Christian boy, and not some kind of turrist!
Who would Jesus blow up?
It's basically all they have with which to attack him. What's funny is to hear Rush Limbaugh, the king of all hypocrites, criticize Edwards or Gore for their alleged hypocrisy.
Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz told FOX News that the speech at UC Davis, "was funded by sponsors and ticket sales," and the school has said ticket prices for the event ranged from $17.50 to $45.
I stand corrected in several of my posts. Taxpayers did not pay for this speech.
That said, still seems odd charging 55k for speech on poverty.
Let's see John Edwards charged $55,000 for a speech that included travel and airfare. There were 1,787 in attendance and the average cost was $31.00. This was the highest he has charged for a speech at a college.
Rudy speaks at OSU and charges $100,000 for the speech, $47,000 for the travel (Gulfstream) requires 5 hotel rooms for his entourage, a balcony view, sedans and SUV for travel, restriction on news coverage, who he'll meet and what questions they can ask. His visit essentially wiped out the student speaks fund.
I bet if that was printed before that poor woman in Iowa spent all that time and money to prepare her farm for Rudy's visit she would have known that Rudy really wasn't coming for a visit. She didn't have the 5 rooms for the entourage and my God where was her "balcony" in Iowa.
And you think that Edwards has no right to speak about poor people? Get real!
But...Giuliani makes no pretenses of giving a damn about poor people ...therefore his excesses are OK. See how it works?
Nergoz, how silly of me.
Terrorism and terrorism is the only thing the Republicans can speak about. If they can't make us fearful what would they give speeches about? Poverty? Health care? The Middle class? Education?
Let's see now... right wing speech and rant topics, important points:
Liberals are evil, 9/11, social programs are socialist, Wurope is socialist, France sucks, the Clenis, Gay people are responsible for 9/11, how awesome we are, the Clenis, Patriotism, 9/11, Gore and Edwards are hyppocrites, how awesome other rightwingers are, the media is liberal, the Clenis, Feminism is stupid, Environmentalists want to wipe out the human race, Senator Kennedy's drunk driving manslaughter incident (used in Massachusetts), and Fisting (okay, that's just mAnn "They're Fisting" CoulterGeist:-))
I think that's it in a nut shell. Like so many, he has an unabashed I'll get mine attitude and that is all that matters in life. Apparently some of the conservatives posting today believe that only if one takes a personal vow of poverty should they speak about the concerns of poor people. Edwards came up from hard working class people. He has real time experience as to how that feels. Moreover, even after making his fortune much like Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates he still gives a damn about the challenges of middle class and poor people. That's admirable in my opinion since he’s not even one of them anymore. In reality most politicians are wealthy people and some are wealthier than others. Another indisputable truth is that some politicians have compassion and empathy and some don't, and all too often the don'ts have an R attached to their name.
Wow. This is major spin. The topic of Edwards speech was POVERTY. Either MMFA is dishonest or they're too stupid to see the hypocrisy in Edwards' speech fee.
Actually, see this from a recent MMFA article that will help you understand:
Cavuto suggests it's hypocritical for Edwards, a wealthy man, to want to eradicate poverty. That is essentially what Beck and Cafferty and Tucker said, too. And it's what The Washington Post's Bill Hamilton suggested when he justified front-page treatment for the article about Edwards' house sale by pointing out that it involved a "presidential candidate [who] just happens to be a millionaire who is basing his campaign on a populist appeal to the common man."
This is simply insane.
It is no more an example of "hypocrisy" for a rich man to want to help the poor and middle class than it is "ironic" to experience rain on your wedding day. That just isn't what the word means.
An example of hypocrisy would be a politician who claims to care about the poor and middle class while pursuing policies that line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the nation. A "compassionate conservative," for example. That's hypocrisy.
A rich man who says he cares about poverty and pursues policies designed to fight it? That isn't hypocrisy, that's empathy.
John Edwards has made his universal health care proposal one of the cornerstones of his campaign -- and said he would pay for it by raising taxes on himself, and very few others. Yet the media present this as some sort of moral deficiency and behave as though Edwards' focus on poverty and health care and economic proposals intended to help the poor and middle class means his personal finances deserve special scrutiny.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705120002?f=h_top
Lovely recollection of past demolitions of this collective charge of hypocricy by those who don't even understand the word. Thanks!
Wow, did you miss the point.
There is nothing hypocritical about a wealthly man wanted to eliminate poverty. The hypocrisy is a wealthy man taking a large fee from a college to deliver a speech on poverty.
Where is the hypocricy in settling for about half the going rate, and then donating almost 90% of that to charities? Another case of baseless hate-wing defamation of an honorable man, who asks only that we address the inequitable nature of the changes to our society over the past 27 years.
Oh, and "from a college"?
Yes, compassionate conservatives are generally the ones paying the high taxes for the rest of the social liberals who expect "someone else" to pay the bills. Just take a look at the mess that they have in France with a tax rate in excess of 50%, meaning the wealthy work 50% of their year just to pay their taxes. If you make more than $200,000 a year now, we pay 36% for Federal taxes and we pay a fair share of state taxes, depending on state, so we are not too far away from the destructive policies of France. Poverty will be eradicated by more people keeping more of their money to do good in their communities, not by some political wonk who thinks he knows what is the best thing to do with our money. Former Senator Edwards is creating a divided America and he will lose because of it. Socialiism is a dying economic model, except in nation states like Venezuela where they have a source of revenue outside of income taxes. Unfortunately, Venezuela will become a "banana" republic when the petrol dollars run out and President Chavez can no longer buy votes with free services and high taxes on the rich.
I think if Edwards had a twenty year history of philanthropy he'd be taken seriously. But he's a former trial lawyer and now current politician. I question his credibility. Maybe he's aways been a champion for the poor but I doubt it.
"It is no more an example of "hypocrisy" for a rich man to want to help the poor and middle class than it is "ironic" to experience rain on your wedding day. That just isn't what the word means."
Anyone who can defend the rich helping the poor and slam that idiotic song in the same line deserves a medal!
yo, "the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis " Davis is one of the best endowed universities in the world. I can't remember where I saw the stats, but it was while helping my kid look for a university. My point is the "taxpayer funded" part is somewhat disingenuous.
The reason Edward's is being a hyocrite is because he's the "two Americas" candidate. He views his strength as helping the poor while Guiliani's running as someone who's tough on terrorism. If Guiliani gave a speech that was somehow pro terrorist THEN he could be viewed as a hypocrite. This is apples to oranges.
"If Guiliani gave a speech that was somehow pro terrorist THEN he could be viewed as a hypocrite. This is apples to oranges."- Sebastion Shaw
It sure is. Now, if Edwards had given a speech that was Pro-poverty, your analogy would work.
This stuff is so sillly. Yet, some listen to it. The students wanted to hear Edwards, and that is what made the talk cost something. Some would argue it was a talk that served the students and thus served the taxpayers and society who the students would one day contribute to. Edwards did almost win the Presidency on the Kerry ticket and has a real shot of winning this time on his own ticket. Edwards always argues Americans deserve opportunity to bring up their families in high quality conditions and to have the power to fight for the poor. I don't think any of these pundits would say Edwards could do more for the poor by giving away all his money. His money empowers him to really fight for the poor.
"he had a real shot..."
I'm laughing too hard man. Edwards has no chance. This class warfare thing never wins and it won't win now.
Sorry, it's off topic but cmon. Hilary, maybe. Obama...who knows, I'd say probably not. but Edwards?
if that's your horse I hope you're not a bettin man.
Give me a break! How can you even claim to be journalists? There is absolutely no comparison between what Rudy Guliani charges for speaking fees and what former Senator Edwards charges for a speech on "POVERTY". The irony is not how much Rudy charged, but that the hypocrite, John Edwards, charged $55,000 for a speach on poverty. Take off the stupid blinders.
What you say about Rudy Giuliani is true. I have first hand knowledge of this. I call him the "Speech King Diva" because of all his demands to be treated like a king. Don't give Giuliani a dime. Give the speaking fees to a worthy charity instead.
Or, hire Edwards, who appears to do exactly that (88+% to charity) AND get a more meaningful speech as well.
Interesting that Edwards takes the fee...then gives most of it to charity. Why take it in the first place if you're speaking on poverty?
Here's a theory. Edwards takes the fee because he knows how to use that money better than the students and people who attended. Just like he knows the best way to use your money and my money.
Hmmm.
Was he speaking before a group of poor people about poverty?
Your reasoning makes no sense.
"In one speech last year at Oklahoma State University, Giuliani requested and received travel on a private Gulfstream jet that cost the school $47,000 to operate. His visit essentially wiped out the student speakers annual fund"
Why would anyone pay to listen to Giuliani speak? I'd pay to NOT listen to him.
This sounds like it was a leak to the Chronicle from another Dem candidate. The speech happend in Jan. 06, where is the news peg? If it was a legit story I'm pretty sure it would have been in the print edition. Nice work Hillary!
Never ceases to amaze me how the party of wealthy America uses class envy to motivate its working class foot soldiers against wealthy dems.
Working class Rethugs will constantly vote against their economic interests in the pie-in-the sky belief that they too may some day be stinking rich. Meanwhile, their kids are getting a crappy education (in school and out), they get zippo health care and polluted air and land, and their jobs are taken from them, just like the rest of us.
I wan't a Rethug govmint too! I don't care if my whole family gets shafted, long as the issues of Gods, guns & gays stay at the forefront of the Zeitgeist!
"Pie in the Sky..."
Blaming the rich(not all the rich. Just the rich that don't think like you apparently) for your woes or the woes of others is easy. It absolves you of any personal resonsiblity. It's the rich people's fault(again, not all the rich).
I guess my stepdad, who started from nothing 30 years ago, who's now wealthy, got that way by exploiting all those poor people he's hired over the years. Couldn't have been his 60-70 hour work week, his choice to become educated, his willingness to take risk, and make wise investments.
Nope, he exploited those people who worked for him and if those workers aren't as wealthy as he is well dammit, let's take some of his money and give it to them.
I'd love to know what you do for a living sir.
N
Could someone PLEASE explain to me how a rich guy talking about poor people is being a hypocrit? If Edwards said that no one should take money for public speaking, then this would be hypocritical. If he said everyone should not make more than 50k a year and was making as much as he is I would see the point.
The problem is simply those attacking Edwards just don't get it. Edwards knows he is rich, does not hide the fact, and wants to help the poor. It seems those that are atttacking him seem to think that if you are rich, you are disqualified from advocating help for the poor. If I want to talk about rights for the disabled, must I first be disabled myself? To discuss women's rights, do I need to get a sex change? These ideas are just as silly as the idea that the rich can't fight for the poor.
And the idea that Edwards is the one dealing in class warfare is laughable. Those who say he can not discuss the issue are the ones using class warfare. You are the ones dividing the rich from the poor and not allowing debate or discussion between them. You are the ones keeping it as "us vs. them". Edwards, and those like him are trying to help, and instead of debate about the subject, it is more important to dig through his past, and find made up "dirt". Dismiss the person rather than discuss the issue. A tried and true tactic to those on the wrong side of the facts.
Oklahoma State is a much poorer university than UC-Davis in a much poorer state: An endowment of $382 million versus $630 million. I went to UCLA but I am pretty sure every UC operates in a similar manner: part of the fees students pay per quarter goes to events such as this. IIRC Davis had a much higher fee than UCLA, maybe around $100.
So yes, students do pay for it, though obviously if they are getting student aid it is covered by that aid. And of course there is the issue that UC-Davis students undoubtedly WANTED Edwards to speak and OSU students WANTED Giuliani to speak. So the schools gave the kids what they wanted.
Ahh, good to see the wingnuts bringing up class warfare; remember, its only warfare if the lower 99% try to fight the 1%, if the 1% wall off the riches of the nation to the 99% it's just the glorious free market at work! Gotta love it!
There is great suffering in the Southern states. Corporate globalist Republicans fear Edwards in a way that they do not fear the others perhaps.
Those who have lost their homes, those who have lost their jobs, those who count pennies and dimes for gas to work, they fear them hearing him and having hope I imagine.
For some hope can be a very dangerous thing.
Hope for what? They'll be saved by the former "trial lawyer?"
If you're counting on anyone but yourself to save you over the long haul you're in for a tough life. Again, why are these poor southerners poor? The rich stole their money? Took their jobs?
i know...the rich have been feeding them bad advice, thus causing them to make poor choices and bad decisions.
If you're not disabled or mentally challenged and you're not making the money you'd like to make then you should probably look in the mirror. Other posters have brought up mechanics, first responders, and teachers as examples of the exploited or at least, the underpaid.
They are NOT!. Almost anyone can do these jobs! And if you "can't" do these jobs because (fill in your own reason) what does society owe you?
Government owes people true representation according to the Constitution, not what is bought by the lobbying industry of the upper class so that the people are reduced to slaves who serve those who pay the most.
True representation is the hope.
You're a slave, are ya? You should call a good attorney. I'm sure Edwards would rep you pro-bono.
Ehull seriously, I think you HATE yourself and your financial situation and you PROJECT that on everyone else here. WTF Dude? Are you listening to yourself?
Teachers are NOT underpaid? You obviously were never a teacher or you wouldn't be saying stuff like that. Lets be specific, entry level teachers don't get paid enough. that is a fact. Teachers have to work 10-15 years to see a decent wage that can raise a family. Not to mention having to get a Masters degree and maybe even a doctorate (which costs money... ALOT of money) in that time frame as well.Teachers have the ability to create jobs indirectly by bringing out and nurturing the best and brightest kids who will then go to college and get good jobs and/or start their own business or philanthropic ventures which could create jobs.
Whats wrong with paying teachers more? Forget about how much more, OK? Whats wrong with giving our troops raises for extended tours and broken promises? Why can't firefighters get more (they get paid pretty good though)? Why can't all of these hard-working tax-paying people get more if the standard of living across the country is skyrocketing and our economy is supposedly doing better? Our economy is the greatest right? That what cons are always railing about our great economy...
Hypocrites.
Either that Ehull, or you are so full of pride and hubris that you think YOU DON'T NEED HELP from anyone, and can do it ALL alone by yourself. Therefore, everyone should be just like you. First of all, that is impossible. To say you did it on your own without any help be it from the government, friends, family whatever is flat out lie. And I have to tell you dude, you are nothing special. I work for everything I got. As do most people you continue to berate on here.
On the other hand, I do expect something back to which I give 25-33% of my income too. If the economy is doing great, then I expect some sort of benefit more than what I am getting now and I should be able to notice it. I don't think that is unreasonable.
One additional note to clarify, you don't have to be a teacher to know they are underpaid, but if YOU KNOW one you might understand.