How things look at this moment really doesn't matter that much. Maybe McCain will do much better come fall, maybe he will do much worse, maybe Obama will take Democratic nomination, maybe Hillary will. If one thing has been proved by US primary process this year, it has been that pundits and polls don't predict much of anything accurately, and factors that no one takes into account may change everything at almost any moment. Claiming that "McCain will get steamrollered by either Clinton or Obama" or responding "Obama yes, Clinton no" as if any of us have any dependable clue should probably be avoided by those concerned about their reputation as political prophets.  

Jon Edwards did not "singlehandedly" shift the party in that direction.  No one noticed the guy.  He was a blip in the 2008 election.

Maybe in terms of public awareness this was true. But he was the first major candidate who made a call for universal healthcare -- Obama and Clinton merely hurried left to follow him. Moreover he did it by calling for a tax increase.  Previous to Edwards, Democrats might have jawboned about universal healthcare, but no one that I know of made it a platform out of fear of the "tax and spend" label.

He was preaching his "two Americas" speech as far back as the last presdiential election and as such I give him credit for at least 4 years worth of consistency.

I didn't pay that close attention to his detailed campaign positions, but the man came across to me as honest, earnest and inspirational. A white obama might be an exaggeration, buts it close. He is the classic patrician rich white liberal who wanted to help poor, oppressed folk by giving them 'free' stuff.

Romney on the other hand impressed me as a smart urbane guy trying to pretend he shared the same views as the Jerry Falwell of the world. As a result he comes off sleazy -- nothing like Edwards.*

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

I didn't pay that close attention to his detailed campaign positions...

• "Edwards will increase the reward for working by raising the minimum wage to at least $9.50 an hour by 2012 and then indexing it, tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for adults without children and cutting the EITC marriage penalty"

• "Edwards supports the Employee Free Choice Act..."

• "Edwards proposed a new tax credit to help low-income, working Americans save for the future. The credit would match savings up to $500 per year"

• "...Congress capped interest rates on payday and other loans to military families at 36 percent, a cutoff that many states use to prevent loan sharking. Edwards will extend this cap to all payday loans..."

• "John Edwards will invest in home visits by registered nurses to low-income new parents, providing matching grants to states to serve 50,000 families"
  

Those positions at least have some figures attached to them or specific promises - even if Edwards hadn't actually done the exercise to see how much they would cost, you can take a stab at figuring it out yourself. The trickiest one, of course, if knowing what effect a huge increase in the minimum wage would have on employment, outsourcing, and GDP.

His vague policy positions:

• "Edwards will create a million short-term jobs to help individuals move into permanent work"

• "Edwards will invest more in rural community colleges, link training to actual business needs, and support rural small business centers"

• "Edwards will create a million vouchers over five years to help low-income families move to better neighborhoods"

• "Edwards believes that it is better to invest in struggling neighborhoods than abandon them. He will reform and expand the HOPE VI program to replace dilapidated housing in areas of concentrated poverty."

• "Edwards will subsidize bank accounts for working families"

• "To help the estimated 2.2 million families already facing foreclosure, Edwards will create a Home Rescue Fund to help families get into more affordable mortgages and let families shed excess mortgage debt that exceeds their home's value through bankruptcy"

• "Edwards proposed expanding access to preschool programs, investing more in teacher pay and training to attract good teachers where we need them most, and strengthening high schools with a more challenging curriculum"

• "Edwards will promote economic diversity within school districts and across district lines by giving bonuses to middle-class schools enrolling low-income students and double current federal magnet schools funding to attract middle-class suburban students to high-poverty urban neighborhoods"

• "Edwards will enact a College for Everyone program to pay public-college tuition, books and fees for students who agree to work part-time during their first year at a school"

• "Edwards will help fathers find work, require them to help support their children..."

• "The U.S. has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world. Edwards believes we should have more support for teenagers struggling to beat the odds"

How would he create a million jobs? How would he link training to actual business needs? How much would a million housing vouchers cost (and what neighborhoods would the people move to)? How much would he deposit in the bank accounts of "working families"? How much would a "Home Rescue Fund" cost? What effect would shedding "excess" debt have on the economy?

You, wetkarma, understand economics well enough to know what such policy proposals actually mean. The most important question is, on top of the money he would need to implement a national healthcare program, how much more would he have to raise taxes to pay for all that new welfare spending? Because that's all his anti-poverty proposals amount to: welfare.

Several times here on TnT I asked people who have spoken in favor of Edwards to justify their support in the context of his platform, but no one ever did. I think I know why: even to you Edwards "came across to me as honest, earnest and inspirational." But doing the hard part - thinking about how he'd actually run a country - is something no one bothered to do.

A few months back when it seemed that Edwards had a (somewhat remote) real chance of being elected, I wondered what an Edwards Administration would mean for the nation. I decided to hope that it would be a repeat of President Clinton's first term (inept and liberal) and that 2010 would return the Republicans to a majority in the House. Then it would be constant bickering and fighting about Edwards' new welfare programs, Congress would let him have a few token victories that Edwards would use to further cement his party's reputation as Champions of the Poor, and that he would do thankfully little long-term damage.

How would he create a million jobs? How would he link training to actual business needs? How much would a million housing vouchers cost (and what neighborhoods would the people move to)? How much would he deposit in the bank accounts of "working families"? How much would a "Home Rescue Fund" cost? What effect would shedding "excess" debt have on the economy?

all excellent questions -- and generally the same type of questions which preempts me voting for him. However, held to that same standard it preempts me voting for Obama and Clinton as well. These candidates too are offering breads and circuses in their campaign -- I give Edwards points for him saying "I will raise taxes" vs. the rest of the Democratic field which seems to see "reverse the Bush tax cut" as the silver bullet which will cure the budget deficit, pay for universal health care and create jobs for everyone.

I liked Edwards because I thought he was honest. I like Obama because I think he is eloquent. I like Clinton because I think she is very intelligent and has a good grasp on foreign policy.

Its very unlikely that I'd vote for any of them. I think there should be room in politics to like the other candidate even if you think their ideas are wrong, after all - at the end of the day they are still Americans and you don't get to kill their spouses and throw their children off cliffs.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

...the rest of the Democratic field which seems to see "reverse the Bush tax cut" as the silver bullet which will cure the budget deficit, pay for universal health care and create jobs for everyone

So a discretionary war that costs $275,000,000 a day and is currently running around $500B in total costs had nothing at all to do with this deficit? Where did the money to finance this come from then, if not the national treasury? Mr. Bush's Diner's Club Card?

Spread it on!

So a discretionary war that costs $275,000,000 a day and is currently running around $500B in total costs had nothing at all to do with this deficit?

• Federal tax receipts are higher today than ever before,

• The cost of the war in Iraq is much less than the annual budget deficit, and

• The increase in non-war spending dwarfs the increase in spending due to the war,

one must conclude that we would have massive budget deficits whether or not we started a war in Iraq. That conclusion is inescapable, but it is anathema to liberals nonetheless because they want to spend even more in the future.

Perhaps you should aim your perpetual liberal-baiting disdain (and the strawmen that go with it) to spending on the administration that managed the mind-boggling task of spending more borrowed money than all previous administrations combined. Damn those spendy liber...whoopsy! conservatives and their entitlement programs, making like drunken sailors with a 2-day leave and a trillion or two in credit to to whore around with. (My sincere apologies to any drunken sailors out there that may be offended by being compared to the current presidential administration)

President George W. Bush and the current administration have now borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 U.S. presidents combined.

 Throughout the first 224 years (1776-2000) of our nation's history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions according to the U.S. Treasury Department.  In the past four years alone (2001-2005), the Bush Administration has borrowed a staggering $1.05 trillion.

Tisk, tisk.

# The cost of the war in Iraq is much less than the annual budget deficit, and

# The increase in non-war spending dwarfs the increase in spending due to the war

Only if you take the administration at their word, which is never a good idea:

What's more, in its projections for fiscal year 2010 and beyond, the administration has projected zero dollars for the wars. Based on these "projections" and only a thin slice of the funding necessary to continue status quo operations in Iraq, the administration has argued that its 2009 plan will set the government on track to balance the federal budget by 2012.

    Withholding Iraq/Afghanistan war funds from the budget estimate not only makes a balanced budget seem possible, it also prevents a clear view of how war spending affects the federal deficit, according to Craig Jennings, federal fiscal policy analyst at OMB Watch, a nonprofit government-watchdog organization. This year's budget slashes funds for health care, education and housing programs in the interest of "balancing the budget," while billions of dollars in war funds, not yet formally requested, are exempt from scrutiny.

    Jennings pointed to how the omission of war costs from the annual budget has distorted thinking on the federal deficit in past years.

    "In 2006, the administration spent $120 billion on war," Jennings said. "Almost half of the budget deficit was because of war funding, but we never had this conversation nationally, because it wasn't included in the budget. When you have supplemental funding, it looks like free money. It makes it seem like there are no consequences to spending it."

More tisk, tisking at these real world deals would seem more appropriate than your incessant use of Strawmen Of The Future™.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

More tisk, tisking at these real world deals would seem more appropriate than your incessant use of Strawmen Of The Future^TM

Never mind the delusional leaders we have now: do the math.

I agree with probably every criticism you may raise regarding the Bush Administration. Never mind that: do the math.

Neither has proposed any cuts to federal spending other than ending the war in Iraq.

I don't disagree that they may not offer up any new cuts in federal spending - even though I wish they would, as it's profoundly out of control - but the possibility exists that they might. At this point, even a token reduction in cuts would be better than nothing.

I agree with probably every criticism you may raise regarding the Bush Administration. Never mind that: do the math.

Fair enough.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

I'm $25,000 in credit card debt from my lifestyle choices. I spend $7000 a year on average more than I take in from income. So, I should have no problem with taking out a $200 a month car loan because that is dwarfed by my total debt and much less than my other annual waste, right?

Spread it on!

So, I should have no problem with taking out a $200 a month car loan because that is dwarfed by my total debt and much less than my other annual waste, right?

Facts? What facts?

Facts? What facts?

Is that how you convince people with facts? Tell them to 'look it up'?

I should ask, what do you think caused the federal budget deficit to increase so dramatically? I mean, it was what, like $400 billion a couple years ago? How much do you think the Bush tax-cuts-for-the-rich cost? How much do you think federal tax receipts have gone down? How much do you think the war cost?

Give me your facts. I could use a bitterly ironic laugh.

We've been through this before.    I presented facts.  Now it is your turn.

No, you were discussing a hypothetical future, and you got your facts wrong. (I corrected you then - go back and see.)

I was talking about how to fix the problem with the deficit - and that started with an assumption (perhaps unsaid) of what I thought caused the problem.  My numbers may have been off but the argument is largely still valid - the vast majority of the deficit is due to the tax cuts and war spending.  My belief is that if you eliminate the major sources of the deficit, the deficit will then mostly be eliminated.  

Of course this is all an aside.  What facts where you talking about?

What facts where you talking about?

2. Federal spending has gone up during the Bush Administration. How much has it gone up? How much of that increase was due to the war in Iraq?

Question #1 does not have a precise or straightforward answer, but you may answer it as you wish. I'm sure your answer will in some way illustrate your beliefs.

Question #2 has a fairly precise answer. Do you know what it is? (That you gave a wildly inaccurate figure in an earlier discussion does not preclude you from looking for the correct answer now.)

Very good questions, I'll await your answers.  

...I'll await your answers

(In billions of nominal dollars except as noted.)

US Federal Spending:

2001    1,863.2
2002    2,011.2
2003    2,160.1
2004    2,293.0
2005    2,472.2
2006    2,655.4

US Federal Tax Receipts

2001    1,991.4
2002    1,853.4
2003    1,782.5
2004    1,880.3
2005    2,153.9
2006    2,407.3

US Federal Budget Surplus/Deficit

2001    128.2
2002    -157.8
2003    -377.6
2004    -412.7
2005    -318.3
2006    -248.2

Annual Cost of War in Iraq

2003    53.0
2004    75.9
2005    84.6
2006    101.9

Non-Iraq Deficit (total deficit without Iraq spending)

2003    -299.8
2004    -298.9
2005    -194.5
2006    -108.1

US Federal Spending (Constant 2000 Dollars)

2001    1,820.6
2002    1,929.2
2003    2,018.2
2004    2,082.1
2005    2,167.3
2006    2,247.1

Percent Increase in Non-Iraq Spending over 2001 Baseline (Constant 2000 Dollars)

2003    8.13%
2004    10.58%
2005    14.97%
2006    18.69%

Did the war in Iraq increase the deficit? Of course, but there would still be a massive deficit even without the Iraq spending. Did the Bush tax cuts reduce revenue? Yes, but since there are marginal effects from any change to tax rates it is impossible in practice to know precisely how much. (Note that the largest portion of Bush's tax cuts took effect in 2003, and that revenues grew after that. That correlation is undeniable, but it proves nothing more interesting than that tax revenues are primarily driven by the state of the economy rather than by minor changes to the structure of the tax system.)

The harsh reality is that real spending increases in the non-Iraq budget are driving the deficit. That is a structural problem with the federal government rather than a problem caused by too low tax rates. Put simply, the government under the Bush Administration has grown over 18% even if we ignore the war in Iraq. The population of the US grew by less than 5% over the same period. If we allowed federal spending to increase at the rate of inflation plus the rare of increase of the population, there would have been nearly a $150 billion surplus in 2006, even with Iraq spending.

The answer to the nation's deficit/debt problem does not lie in getting out of Iraq or raising taxes. The only solution is to stop federal expenditures from growing faster than inflation and population increases demand. That inconvenient truth is especially unpleasant for the people who wish to increase the size of the welfare state.

What, you never had a teacher who gave you homework? Christalmighty, man, in my day we had to actually get up off our bony little asses and go to the library to find facts. We didn't have Google and tubes.

I like your comparison for the most part but Edwards did run exactly the same campaign in '04 as in '08. I can see your points about the lack of sincerity in some of his positions but they aren't new positions for '08. This time, he just ran into stiffer competition. I actually think he might have been better served to stake some new positions out this time around but I really don't think he did. He may have been a Johnny come lately but he wasn't a flip flopping Johnny come lately.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.