About all those houses…

DLS- That's why Clinton instituted welfare reform. There are abuses in anything involving money--- remember Enron? it doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater!!!

neocon- Those bailouts also go into investment portfolios and golden parachutes for CEO's, whose performance doesn't seem to be tied to their generous severance packages. Production increases are seldom passed on to American workers whose pay has stagnated under GOP rule, while their energy, healthcare,housing and education costs have gone through the roof. Who bails them out??

Look closely at the friends of the GOP and you find the Ken Lays and the Abramoffs. Or remember Republicans trips to the Marianas Islands where workers were denied US benefits and treated like slaves in the garment factories.

We all know that trickle-down economics usually doesn't end up trickling down, which is why John Edwards talked about the two Americas.

Don't we have more poor now than we did in the 1960s?

And what about other results? That quote from New York City again: "Each of these [five] children has a different daddy. It's my job to have them, Mr. Mayor, and it's your job to care for them!"

Naive proponents of government interventionism have still not learned to fear the adverse consequences. (It's a matter of faith, I suppose.)

The medical analogy works well -- these government programs are like medications. Unfortunately, they produce side effects? What do proponents do? They instinctively demand more, new medications. ("We need new, need more, policies and programs..") These create their own side effects in turn, and what you end up with are many medications and many side effects. Ugh.

It's enough to have me say we'd be better off with plain, simple redistribution, with taxes above a generous threshold of incomes (possibly progressive if needed to secure approval by enough legislators) and redistribution of the taxes equally to all in the form of a single, standard, fixed, guaranteed minimum income.

"IMHO, Bush didn't deserve to win either election"

He didn't deserve 2000 -- he was the GOP's desperation candidate that year. 2004 is less certain. In both cases, the Dems chose to lose (and didn't look good trying to steal in 2000 what they lost).

Obama looks stronger than McCain right how and I believe it's a Democratic Year.

Obama 2008 -- One House, One Spouse

The GOP makes no bones about the fact that they are in bidness to help corporations and businesses. Bidness gets all kinds of perks and the GOP does what they promise to do. Good or bad.

The democrats on the other hand promise if elected we will help the poor man, help the working class man and then vote to allow tax breaks for the rich. They promise to provide more jobs like Hillary in New York that oversaw a net loss of jobs. No one to blame there. The entire state is democratic to the core.

They promise to help the poor and then vote to ship jobs overseas then blame the GOP.

The difference between the two parties is that the GOP promises to help the rich and DOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
The democrats promise to help the poor and DONTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.

And Krit everyone of those corporate bail outs employ 1000;s and 1000's of your democratic colleagues that will join the ranks of the poor if they are not helped. EVERYONE of those things could have been prevented by a senate and House that has more then enough votes to do so.

Once again the Democrats understand in this country that capitalism and free enterprise and a consumer driven free market functions best when certain things are done and done consistently. Those things are not supported by the democrats and once in office they NEVER ever do anything about them.

Once again LBJ launched the greatest attack on poverty in the history of the USA. The results..........the poor are still poor.

As for a solution?

TERM FRICKIN LIMITS............They need to spend time legislating and solving problems...........not seeking donations for reelection.

You can't be a Senator/ Presidential candidate and NOT be "rich".
In a capitalist society, there will always be class differentiation. Poor being poor is everyone's fault. Does that mean we as good stewards of conscience should let them eat dirt?

Neocon- Yes I do believe that the Democrats help the poor---maybe not always successfully- but look at past presidents like Carter and Clinton whose foundations do help the poor. I also believe that the GOP has become the friend of industry--offering bailouts and corporate tax breaks whenever possible, and protecting businesses like the auto industry and the oil industry from any attempts to cut into their profit margins.

And the kind of money that Biden has is really not much when you consider the cost of living on most of the East Coast and those daily train commutes.

That would be correct, Jazz. I looked Biden up on OpenSecrets.org, and he ranks as the 108th member in the Senate in terms of wealth
Net Worth:
"From $-302,980 to $277,997"
That sound like about what my parents have, and they're roughly upper middle class, but not really high up on the ladder. Biden is a middle class guy. Hate to use a cliche, but he's "one of us."

Unfortunately, just because people don't deserve something, doesn't mean they can't get it. IMHO, Bush didn't deserve to win either election, but that didn't stop him from doing just that.

Neocon: Meanwhile the poor will still be poor and it will still be the GOP's fault.

What alternatives are you proposing, Neocon? Try to be as specific as possible. I'm particularly interested in your idea that "the poor will still be poor". That implies no class mobility, and that's a big problem in a democracy, don't you think? Presumably the Dems have pretty much guaranteed that. Well, show me the data. IMO, the GOP has been even less stellar in that regard. So please avail us of your ideas. If you can't, then I think it's reasonable to suggest that the GOP should STFU until they can. I mean really. It's nothing personal. It's just that NOTHING I've heard from the GOP side convinces me that they don't deserve a "time out". That's not to say I think the GOP is worthless, should be disbanded, or anything like that. What I am saying is that, IMO, the GOP DOES NOT deserve regaining the executive branch. I understand the argument that government works best when it's divided, but I also understand that that's not always true. IMO, more important at this point in time is the necessity to weed out the ideological dead wood that has accumulated by the cord in the executive branch in the last 8 years. I'm not a very partisan voter, but Bush has pushed me to the limit. To the extent that McCain fails to convince me he'll significantly change the disposition of the non-elected officials in the current executive branch, that is the extent to which I am inclined to vote against him.

Apparently for a lot of folks it's about Obama. But to me it's more about McCain. To me, Obama will always be an unknown quantity. But I am willing to take a chance on him unless McCain can convince me his years in government is more of an asset than a liability. I am done with Bush. I want the 2000 McCain. PLEASE John!

Once again this is not about Biden. It is about the party. The philosophy. The extent to which the party truly helps the poor. I opined the first day that I actually think Biden is a decent enough fellow. I think he would have made a great choice for Hillary..........however

People like Krit11 (not meant negatively)continually believes that the Democrats help the poor. I continually believe that millionaires help themselves. Perhaps Joe Biden is not a multi millionaire. He is however a member of the Democratic party which is corrupt and destitute of values just as is the Republican party.

The fact that anyone truly believes that the Democrats are going to help the poor is what keeps them in their life of luxury. Its what keeps Teddy kennedy in the Senate for 5400 years. Its what keeps the democrats in power and it is also what keeps the poor..........POOR.

Rich poor people translates to votes for Republicans......not Democrats.

Actually, unless the reports I saw were inaccurate, Biden is one of the least wealthy members of Congress, coming from pretty poor roots and not getting all that rich in Washington afterward.

Well, some of the politicians listed above are interested in leveling the field to give everyone a chance-- while others prefer to stack the deck so that the millionaire's club remains well-connected, exclusive and rich.

The truth is that Obama is a millionaire.
Biden is a millionaire.
McCain is a millionaire.
Clinton is a millionaire.
Gore is a Millionaire.
Bush is a millionaire.
Cheney is a millionaire.
Reid is a millionaire.
Pelosi is a millionaire.

Should I go on?
Get the picture?

These people are going to solve the problems of the poor? LAUGHING OUT LOUD here. They have been promising that for 50 years. The poor are still poor.

This time it will be different. ROLLING MY EYES here.

The only thing that will happen the day after the election in november is that they will all begin planning their next election campaign and start seeking contributions.

Meanwhile the poor will still be poor and it will still be the GOP's fault.

I think that Dems would be happy to back track on this if El Rushbo and the other Republicans say they were wrong to constantly refer to Kerry as a gigolo living off his wife's fortune.

Look, is this rough? yes, is it unfair? Not in a race where you are looked at as weak if you don't punch back. After the "Obama would accept losing a war to win an election" comment Obama had no choice. Bitch slapping back actually is a change from politics as usual, Seeing the McCain camp get the vapors over this is pretty hysterical.

Look, I wrote in a vote McCain in the 2000 general election, I was completely impressed with his candidacy. Sadly he sold his soul to the very people who spread terrible lies about his family. I can't back him up anymore.

The best answer would have been, “you’ll need to ask Cindy about that, since she takes care of those properties” or something to that effect.

Actually, the best answer would have been... "one". The next best would have been to know the number. Clearly, what he actually said was arguably the worst possible answer, but I don't think passing the question to Cindy would have been much better. That would have (and has) made him look like he's out of touch even in his personal life. It would have (and has) made him look like a kept man -- much like how Bush painted Kerry.

Now he's suggesting that because he was a POW for five years more than 30 years ago, he's entitled to be a kept man and live the rich life. Maybe so, but it doesn't entitle him to be president. To me, the deeper significance of the house gaffe is that it is another example of the fact that he's not very intellectually curious. He doesn't know how to send an email for goodness sake. One of his pet peeves about his wife is that she loves technical gadgets. And if he's so clueless about his own personal life, can we trust him with the nation's?

In this economy, with many folks losing the ONE house they own, it doesn't play well with the little people--i.e. those with incomes in the under six figure range--- that a candidate for the presidency doesn't know how many he owns.

Kerry came off as an elitist in 2004 (of course the "regular guy" he ran against was also an elitist-- just a better disguised one, LOL)-- and so did Bush Sr, when he flunked the price of a gallon of milk test in '92. It just doesn't play well in Pokeepsie and Peoria.