I know Dem Obama supporters hate to hear this, but....

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Hillary Clinton really is more progressive on domestic issues, than Obama. No way I'm voting for her in the primary, but I can't deny it. Obama is to the right of Hillary on domestic and economic policy.

Krugman slices and dices the candidates economic plans to deal with looming economic meltdown.

"Responding to Recession"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin


Basically, the repubs are deer in the headlights, offering naught more Bushonomics: more tax cuts for the rich, and let the free market sort it all out.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.

Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.

The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments.

I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.
Click to expand...
 
you don't think we already know that obama is less neo-liberal then Hillary?

lets see.. buys into idea that tax cuts.. not tax increases for the middle class will stimulate the economy.

ssi plan says to put donut hole between 100-200k before lifting cap.. hitlaries doesn't.

healthcare plan brings all stake holder to table. hitlaries topdown sith lord dictatorship does it behind clossed doors.

The list goes on and on.
 
Last edited:
I actually don't hate to hear it, and I agree with it. I know that Obama has been the one in debates to ask more questions like "how are we paying for this?", which is important. He also said in a debate something to the effect of how we can keep taxes low, and how too often Democrats are pie-in-the-sky with programs without thinking of the ultimate consequence of having to raise taxes to pay for them.

I'm still wary of the universal healthcare plans that are out there. I think the term sounds good, and help is needed, but the probability of another bloated money pit is high, imo.
 
Onceler said:
I actually don't hate to hear it, and I agree with it. I know that Obama has been the one in debates to ask more questions like "how are we paying for this?", which is important. He also said in a debate something to the effect of how we can keep taxes low, and how too often Democrats are pie-in-the-sky with programs without thinking of the ultimate consequence of having to raise taxes to pay for them.

I'm still wary of the universal healthcare plans that are out there. I think the term sounds good, and help is needed, but the probability of another bloated money pit is high, imo.
Click to expand...


Cheers. I would certainly vote for Obama in a general election. But, I'm taking a closer look past the veil of Obama-mania, and the dude is looking very DLC.
 
to me the best thing that can actually happen to America at this point is:

Obama versus McCain

the worst thing:
Hilary versus Romney
 
I'm still not buying it. It looks to me that the Clinton and Edwards plans are campaign documents and Obama's plan is a realistic assessment of what a Democratic president can get done with a small majority in the Senate.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm still not buying it. It looks to me that the Clinton and Edwards plans are campaign documents and Obama's plan is a realistic assessment of what a Democratic president can get done with a small majority in the Senate.
Click to expand...

you got it. obama can/will actually accomplish things.. not to mention just based on his demeanor and his orate skills can really help us overseas.
 
Cypress said:
Hillary Clinton really is more progressive on domestic issues, than Obama. No way I'm voting for her in the primary, but I can't deny it. Obama is to the right of Hillary on domestic and economic policy.

Krugman slices and dices the candidates economic plans to deal with looming economic meltdown.

"Responding to Recession"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin


Basically, the repubs are deer in the headlights, offering naught more Bushonomics: more tax cuts for the rich, and let the free market sort it all out.
Click to expand...

I'm sure if a republican candidate had proposed helping families buy heating oil with government handouts, Cypress would be characterizing it as a clever way to line the pockets of oil companies while seeming to help the poor.
 
But Democratic Primary voters want to hear how much money you are going to throw and problems to take away peoples temporary pain. Can you imagine going to a dentists that didn't do a root canal when it was needed but just kept shooting you up with novacaine every so often. You would develope an absess and maybe even a blood infection but he wouldn't let you feel any pain. Liberal dems just want temporary and soothing solutions but anything that might require some discomfort before you come out better off on the other side is just too much to ask of the poor and down trodden.
 
Just for kicks, I just checked out Hillary's healthcare plan on her website. Talk about a "fairy tale" - she sounds like Santa Claus.

When it comes to paying for so much increased coverage, which will be better for everyone (matching what Congress currently gets), she only refers vaguely to a plan for "modernizing" medicine so that costs are reduced, and emphasized that millions will get a "tax credit" for insurance that will offset increases in the need for tax revenue.

We can't keep doing this. It's unacceptable to create a massive program that will hang like an albatross around the neck of the American economy, without any concrete, measurable means of paying for it.
 
Chapdog said:
to me the best thing that can actually happen to America at this point is:

Obama versus McCain

the worst thing:
Hilary versus Romney
Click to expand...


I'd rather have Romney, than either McCain or Huckabee, if I was limiting myself to republicans.
 
okay, let's get down to brass tacks.

Obama is not a "moderate" Dem. Harry Truman was a moderate Dem.

Obama is evidently a DLC dem. A clintonista, who is even nominally to the right of hillary clinton.

Obama uses reich wing talking points, and take a look at who's on his economic advisory team:


-Austan Goolsbee: U. of Chicago neoclassicist and “Sicko” critic

-David Cutler: Harvard economist who believes that high health costs are good for the economy

-Jeffrey Liebman: another Harvard economist and former Clinton adviser who favors privatizing social security

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/obamas-economic-advisers/



Look, I realize that Obama is a substantial improvement over McCain, Gulliani, Huckabee. And I don't think he's a Lieberman democrat.

But guess what? I was fooled by Lieberman in 2000. I believed all the hype about him being a reasonable "moderate" democrat.

I think the terms "moderate" and "centrist" have been shifted so far to the right in the last 20 years, that they would be virtually unrecognizable to Truman democrats.
 
Last edited:
Oh nooooees! One of his economic advisers is a "Sicko" critic? He is DONE! He can't win now!!!!111shiftplusone!!

Boy! That makes him positively Republican! I mean, nobody but Republicans can possibly find a flaw in Sicko!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top