Sat 05/05/07 06:43 AM

Updated: 11:42 a.m. ET April 23, 2007
DETROIT - Presidential candidate John Edwards said Saturday he opposes a
free trade agreement between the United States and South Korea, telling
Michigan Democrats it would be bad for the auto industry.

The deal needs the approval of both countries' lawmakers. It would
immediately eliminate U.S. tariffs on Korean vehicles, Edwards said, but
leave in place a discriminatory tax based on engine size that
disproportionately affects American cars.

"There are so many more Korean cars sold in the United States than are
sold in Korea," Edwards told about 2,000 Democrats gathered at their
annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner.

He added that South Korean workers are thrown in jail for fighting for
decent wages.

"We need trade that works for American workers, which means there need
to be real labor standards, real environmental standards" in the deal,
Edwards said.

The former senator and vice presidential candidate from North Carolina
praised Michigan's role in advancing the U.S. labor movement, calling it
the birthplace of the middle class.

Iraq a 'bleeding sore'
He also talked about some of his policy proposals, which include a
withdrawal of forces from Iraq, universal health care and a repeal of
some of President Bush's tax cuts.

Edwards called the Iraq war a "bleeding sore," and said Bush should sign
legislation that would fund the war but also set a withdrawal date for
troops.

Bush opposes a withdrawal date.

"If George Bush vetoes this bill, it is George Bush who's not funding
the troops _ not the Democratic leadership of Congress," Edwards told
about 2,000 Democrats gathered at their annual Jefferson-Jackson Day
dinner.

Edwards, who has been out of office since 2004, is competing in a tough
Democratic field that includes Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York
and Barack Obama of Illinois.

He has been trying to use his Southern roots to distinguish himself as
someone who can appeal nationwide. He has made alleviating poverty a
central theme of his candidacy.

Edwards, like other Democratic candidates, has been actively wooing
support from labor unions.

Edwards: Tax hikes on rich possible
Says leveling with voters more important than the political consequences



Updated: 3:13 p.m. ET April 30, 2007
SAN DIEGO - Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said Sunday
he would consider raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to fund
programs such as universal health care.

Edwards has long said he wants to repeal the tax cuts on upper-income
earners enacted during the Bush presidency, but Sunday he seemed to go
further, by saying he was open to raising them higher than they were
before George W. Bush took office. He also said he would consider taxes
on "excess profits," including those made by oil companies.

Edwards said it was more important to level with voters than to worry
about the political consequences of advocating higher taxes.

Of course you might not appreciate an honest candidate
I think its refreshing esp after the last 8 years!!

NEVADA, Iowa - Labeling global warming an international emergency,
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards called Tuesday for a cap
on greenhouse gas pollution and stricter auto emissions standards.

The former North Carolina senators said his proposal to limit emissions
could revitalize the economy and create up to a million jobs by creating
a new energy economy.

"Energy not only cannot be a hindrance to the American economy, it can
be the fuel for the American economy," Edwards said.

And he is talking about taxing his self...
Interesting for a politician.......

NEVADA, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Tuesday
defended the construction of a sprawling, 28,000-square-foot house in
North Carolina, arguing that his home is a model of energy efficiency.

"The house was built from the beginning, both in its location for
passive solar and the use of active solar, to help provide some of the
energy for the house," Edwards said in an interview with The Associated
Press. "It doesn't provide all of the energy, but it provides some."

Sitting on 102 secluded acres, the 28,000-square-foot estate that
Edwards and his family call home has a main house with five bedrooms and
six-and-a-half baths. It's connected by a covered walkway to a bright
red addition known as "The Barn," that includes its own living
facilities along with a handball court, an indoor pool and an indoor
basketball court with a stage at one end.

Edwards said he hired a design expert during construction to offer
energy efficiency options and his family has taken efficiency to the
smallest detail.

Five-star energy rating
"Elizabeth, I saw her climb up, I literally saw her with piles of
fluorescent light bulbs changing them out," Edwards said of his wife.
"We are also committed to making the house carbon neutral."

Edwards argued that his house meets top federal efficiency standards
because of the careful planning.

"It's the reason we got this five-star energy rating, which is a federal
standard," he said. He declined to discuss his monthly bill.


Edwards was in Iowa to tour a biomass energy conversion area where
researchers are devising ways of producing energy from renewable
sources. He used the tour as a backdrop to spell out his plan for
dealing with the international emergency of global warming, rejecting
suggestions that steps such as capping greenhouse gas emissions would
dampen the economy. Instead, he argued, facilities like the one he
toured can spark a new, energy-driven economy.

"Energy not only cannot be a hindrance to the America economy, it can be
the fuel for the American economy," said the 2004 vice presidential
nominee.

I don't care if his house does have a 5 star energy rating, I don't like
be lectured to about sacrificing by somebody who lives in such splendor.
This is America, he has every right to build that kind of house if he
wants to but don't lecture me on how I need to cut back.

Edwards will say and do anything to win.. because he is losing against
Hilary and Obama. He is a trail lawyer who got rich off of lawsuits
that ended up hurting Americans...

They all have one thing in common.

THEY ARE ALL PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS.

This makes their agenda highly suspect.

I always like the candidates who want to raise my taxes. I particularly
like the ones who would prefer to go a step further and simply decimate
the manufacturing base by removing enough operating capital out of the
economy that nobody can buy products manufactured here. That way we all
get a nice vacation. When we aren't working for Walmart we can draw
unemployment.

Flip side of the coin, I particularly like the version of free trade
that permits other countries to manipulate their currency and economy in
such a way to have unfair trade advantages. I would prefer to hire
someone from a certain far away country, for example, than to hire a
neighbor. That way when his pay check is not enough I don't have to
explain free trade to him. If I want to fire him he can't go postal in
the neighborhood, or at least if he does it costs him a lot more to do
so.

Personally I don't object to his $400 haircuts either. He most likely
paid $200 tax on the income he had to earn to pay for the haircut. So in
that sense it may have actually been a $600 haircut. Bully for you
Edwards. Wait, if it was paid for by contributions, then it was not
earnings, therefore not taxable. Simply a business expense, where if I
had the same haircut I would have to pay the tax on the earnings. So
therefore he gets a significant tax cut (no tax whatsoever) for
something I would have to pay through the pocket. And so he wants to
raise my taxes? And so he wants to raise my taxes a lot? That wouldn't
be hypocrisy I can see. The tax would be raised on all the wealthy, not
excluding him, except that he wouldn't have to pay because it would be
nontaxable. Wait, that's unequal treatment. I'm getting dizzy here so I
better quit before I fall down and see the stars spinning.

Edwards: Wealth Hasn't Changed Advocacy
Published: 5/7/07, 10:45 PM EDT
By MIKE GLOVER
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Presidential candidate John Edwards said Monday
it's silly to suggest that his wealth and expensive tastes have hurt his
credibility as an advocate for the poor.

"Would it have been better if I had done well and didn't care?" Edwards
asked.

Edwards noted that some of the most acclaimed anti-poverty advocates
came from privileged backgrounds, including Franklin Roosevelt and Bobby
Kennedy.

"You could see and feel the empathy they had," said Edwards, speaking
from his home in North Carolina during an interview on Iowa Public
Radio.

Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, has made poverty a central
issue of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and
recently released a book on the subject, "Ending Poverty in America." He
also has formed a center for the study of poverty issues at the
University of North Carolina.

His credibility on the issue has been challenged by critics who point to
his 28,000-square-foot home in North Carolina and his $400 haircuts. He
rejected the criticism, saying a look at history shows that personal
wealth doesn't disqualify people from advocating for the poor.

"It feels a little silly to me," Edwards said. "This is an issue I care
deeply about."

Edwards is the son of a mill worker who achieved wealth as a trial
lawyer.

The mission of his campaign is to ensure that all Americans have a
chance for such success, he said.

"It's just where my heart and my passion are," said Edwards, adding that
his emphasis on poverty issues resonates with activists, because few
other candidates focus on the issue.

"The reality of poverty is a very complex thing," said Edwards. "One
problem compounds the next problem."

I love these Politicians or Presidential Candidates on how they can save
the economically Crisis that this Great Country of our has. How to cut
back and provide saving in hopes to pay off the money owed.

Then they hired Aides or Advisorys and ask them "So, how do we save
money or cut-back on which programs in order to provide Federal Funding
or raising money for our Troops."

The Funny things about it if you think carefully. These advisory
themselves are really paying themselves. Tax dollars are used to pay
these peoples salaries and in turn they pay taxes.

Instead, I like to see for once a Presidential Candidate without any
help come up with a feasible plan to either lower interest rating, or
taxes and know how to probably Budget "THE BUDGET".

?

anyone is better than george.

John Edwards' Big Ideas Costly
Published: 5/11/07, 4:05 AM EDT
By NEDRA PICKLER
The question is whether other voters will cheer when they see the price
tag - more than $125 billion a year.

Edwards is quick to acknowledge his spending on health care, energy and
poverty reduction comes at a cost, with more plans to come. All told,
his proposals would equal more than $1 trillion if he could get them
enacted into law and operational during two White House terms.

To put the number in perspective, President Bush has dedicated more than
$1.8 trillion to tax cuts. The cost of the Iraq war is nearing $450
billion. And this year's federal budget is about $2.8 trillion.

"I think for me, as opposed to the additional tax relief for the middle
class, what's more important is to give them relief from the
extraordinary cost of health care, from gasoline prices, the things that
they spend money on every single day that are escalating dramatically,"
Edwards said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

To pay for some of his priorities, Edwards would roll back Bush's tax
cuts on Americans making more than $200,000 a year. He also said he
would consider raising capital gains taxes to help fund his plans and
raise or eliminate the $90,000 cap on individual earnings subject to
Social Security taxes to help cover the projected shortfall in the
system.

Edwards also has proposed spending cuts such as cutting subsidies for
the banks that make student loans for a savings of $6 billion a year. He
would also save money by trimming the number of Department of Housing
and Urban Development employees, negotiating Medicare prescription drug
prices and cutting agricultural subsidies for corporate farms, although
the campaign did not yet have estimates of how much that would bring in.

Edwards' ideas have already opened him to accusations of being just
another tax-and-spend liberal, a label put on Walter Mondale, the 1984
Democratic presidential nominee who said he would raise taxes and then
lost 49 states to President Reagan.

The Republican National Committee accused Edwards of making his first
campaign promise to raise taxes. "Edwards' America Will Pay More Taxes,"
said a news release from the conservative Club for Growth on the day
Edwards announced a plan for universal health care that would cost $90
billion to $120 billion.

Among other annual spending:

_$15 billion-$20 billion to help achieve his goal of ending poverty in
the U.S. within 30 years. That includes $4.2 billion to increase the
earned income tax credit, which refunds payroll and income taxes to
low-income people; $4 billion to create 1 million short-term jobs to
help the unemployed climb out of poverty; and $3 billion for $500 work
bonds to help low-income workers save.

_$13 billion energy fund to develop and encourage more efficiency and
renewable energy use. That includes $3 billion in tax credits for the
production of renewable energy and $1 billion to help the U.S. auto
industry modernize with the latest fuel-efficient technology. He said
the fund would be paid for by selling $10 billion in greenhouse
pollution permits and by ending $3 billion in subsidies for big oil
companies.

_$1 billion rural recovery plan with initiatives like increased
investment in rural small businesses, education, health care and
resources to fight methamphetamine abuse.

_$5 billion in foreign aid to combat international poverty, including $3
billion to help pay for primary education for every child in the world.

Edwards also has promoted other ideas he has in the works, such as an
education plan that includes his goal of eliminating financial barriers
to college, a border security plan and federal spending on stem cells.
But he's yet to announce details or costs.

Still, Edwards has been the most forthcoming Democratic candidate when
it comes to describing the details of how he would like to run the
country. His chief rivals - Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack
Obama - have offered few hints about their policy proposals.

Edwards said his spending proposals also would take precedence over
eliminating the more than $200 billion deficit. He said he would work to
lower the deficit and would not let it grow.

"Those things cost money, and there's a balance between that and the
need to reduce the deficit," said the former North Carolina senator.
"And so the threshold question is where is the priority? ... If we're
going to do those things, I think it's very difficult to eliminate the
deficit - in the short term, impossible."

My words:

The truth is hard we are in trouble and need real leadership, not more
lies.Are you willing to give up a little for your children. You have
stated your willingness to give to the worlds poor and their future, How
about yours and your children!!!!

there are 2 things i'll bet the farm on that we will have a democrat for
president and the one that rasies the most money will win but. it will
be a democrat

ARGHHH!!!! This is why I so hate talking polotics. I see these
absolutely staggering figures, whether they are tax figures, spending
figures, payoutor payroll figures, and then all the talk of the budget
and the deficit and I all I can think of is all the poeploe I know who
are struggling to survive, all the poeple I don't know who don't have
but the clothes on thier back, just here in the US. Where does the
money come come from when there's a deficit, to keep the spending
going???

I don't know how most Americans even conceptualize this kind of money?
And then on top of all this, WHY ARE SO MANY politicians filthy rich?
It it that they have nothing better to do than to gain fame to go along
with their riches so they enter the political areana?

Why aren't more politicians just plain old middle class. I don't know
how these rich political figures can even begin to understand the life
of lower and middle class, much less create a political strucure
beneficial to us?

I find it more difficult to vote for the extrememly rich than I do to
vote for some incumbant who has values, high hopes, good intentions and
come from the middle class. I don't care what the views are, what the
promises are, why can't we get 'REAL' people in office???

hell of alot better than we have now.

does it really matter

Five minutes of town hall questions.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVvll0n0epA&mode=user&search=