Not a debate, but I listened to Edwards' speech

[dennis99ss]

Before the FDP on saturday, and was wondering if his message strikes people as being on point. i don't want to debate the points made, but was actually wondering if his message makes sense....

He was stating his Two Americas theory, wherein a minority of people are well off, and whose children do not have to worry about paying for college, etc. and the other, with a majority of America, where the family lives paycheck to paycheck, and one event, whether it be a lowering of hours at work, healthcare event, some unforeseen event, causes the family to go over the cliff.

I was just wondering if his message is on point. Do you think it is? I am not looking to see if you agree with his politics, but just wonder if his message is really reality, at least as far as you are concerned.

I guess I should learn how to spell

 

[Sirius]

I think it makes perfect sense.

 

[jrydberg]

I guess I'd say there's room in between those two categories to drive a semi through. I don't live paycheck to paycheck. Neither do any of my friends and relatives. But we do have to worry about paying for college and many other expenses.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by jrydberg
I guess I'd say there's room in between those two categories to drive a semi through. I don't live paycheck to paycheck. Neither do any of my friends and relatives. But we do have to worry about paying for college and many other expenses.

Also, no amount of social engineering will solve this problem. It has always been like this and it will always be like this.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

I think it's pretty on point. Although, I do think there are some people who fall into a middle ground.

Alot of this depends on your lifestyle. Are you single/married/kids?

Where do you live? Etc.

For instance, I am single and live paycheck to paycheck, literally. BUt I still manage to scrape up $$ for inexpensive vacations (like my 3 nights in Disney in Dec.). If I had kids I might be in much worse shape.

Even a wealthy couple may have some problems if they have 5 or 6 kids they have to worry about tuition for.

I think very few people can live the lavish lifestyles of the rich and famous. I think most people fall equally into the paycheck to paycheck or paycheck to next month or next year category.

Most of my friends are the same way as me, ages 25-35.

 

[amid chaos]

I've said for years that there will be people who can pay for their kids to go to college...

... and then there will be people who due to their economic situation will get it paid for....

... and there then is the biggest group in the middle who can't pay for college but can't get the money for it either....we are called the middle class.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Yes, thats very interesting. I would also like to hear his views on some of the other issues that are more immediate.

 

[N.Bailey]

I've listened to John Edwards a few times and to be honest, I would like to hear more from him. I know his parents come from labor unions, so I feel he would be more in touch with the everyday person. He's against NAFTA, and I gotta admit, I don't support it either. As for the issue in this post, I don't think he's too far off the mark. Sure, there are some that fall in the middle, but the majority, I believe are at one end or the other.

I would never vote for Kerry if he has Edwards as his VP nominee, but I would have considered Edwards had the Dem's elected him.

 

[dennis99ss]

Because of Kerry? or because Edwards should not be second chair?

 

[dmadman43]

Of course, Edwards is in the former and got rich from preying upon the latter. I don't think the spread is dichotomous as Edwards describes. There is a huge middle class, I believe, that do not live paycheck to paycheck but, also may find it difficult to deal with a financial tragegy. But, as cold as it sounds, that's NOT the the Federal Govt's problem to solve, it's each individual
s problem to solve.

As for being able to "pay for college". There is more than enough money available for ANYONE that wants to go to college that wants to. To be sure, it won't fund the majority of kids going to Harvard, Duke, Yale, Cal Berekely, or Stanford, but there is a college for most everyone that wants to go and has the grades to do so, and enough money to assist them. Where is it written that if your parents can't pay for college, other taxpayers should?

 

[dennis99ss]

I take that as "No, I do not agree"

Next

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
Because of Kerry? or because Edwards should not be second chair?

I don't know who this was directed towards, but if you were talking to me, I would never vote for a president based on their running mate. I don't feel a VP plays any real part in the government. Course, if something were to happen to the president, that would definitely change. I still can't vote based on maybe something happening to the president.

For dmadman43,
I don't know a lot about Edwards. Maybe in the end, I wouldn't have been able to support him either. I would have liked to hear more though.

 

[dennis99ss]

tks....just wondering

 

[Beast]

Sounds to me like more "class envy" that liberals just LOVE to push.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
I take that as "No, I do not agree"

Next

Didn't realize I was being that vague

 

[arminnie]

Originally posted by dmadman43
There is more than enough money available for ANYONE that wants to go to college that wants to. To be sure, it won't fund the majority of kids going to Harvard, Duke, Yale, Cal Berekely, or Stanford

Stanford admits its students on a "need blind" basis and then commits that they will provide a financial aid package that will allow the student to attend. I think that most of the other very top private schools do also.

I'm sure about Stanford as I am an alum and have served on admission committees.

I know this is OT but wanted to clarify that point.