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

Onceler said:
That's a totally disingenuous argument. I hope you're not implying that I'm arguing in favor of war over providing healthcare.

Have you crunched the #'s? Are you so certain that the money we save from withdrawing from Iraq covers the costs we're talking about here?

I am not opposed to universal healthcare, and philisophically, I believe in what you're saying about the priorities of what it means to be the greatest country in the world, but I am NOT impractical, and I am not in favor of diving headlong into a plan that considers only need & benefit, and not cost & potential financial pitfalls, which could be enormous.

As I said, Hillary's plan, which talks quite a bit about all of the wonderful benefits everyone will receive, talks very little about where we're getting the money to pay for anything, aside from "modernizing" to cut costs....
Click to expand...

No, I’m not implying that you are, I’m stating outright, that American culture is. We are a militaristic culture.

If we withdrew from Iraq, Afghanistan, closed our bases, and cut our military budget, do I think we could pay for single payer health care? Uh, yeah. But we value our military might far more than we do human lives, as a society. I do not understand how you don’t know that? Or why it would be controversial for me to point that out?

It’s controversial for anybody to say, healthcare not warfare, and mean it not in the sole context of the Iraqi war, but in the context of our defense budget and our military might around the world. Which is what I am saying. But it’s not controversial to point out which our society values more.

And it values warfare more.
 
Superfreak said:
yep, there is no one that pretends they don't like Hillary better than Darla. It makes me laugh. She is almost as big of a Hillary girl as Toppy.
Click to expand...

You know, following bush into the white house is like following his mother into a cocktail party – no matter what, you’re gonna look goooooood.
 
Darla said:
No, I’m not implying that you are, I’m stating outright, that American culture is. We are a militaristic culture.

If we withdrew from Iraq, Afghanistan, closed our bases, and cut our military budget, do I think we could pay for single payer health care? Uh, yeah. But we value our military might far more than we do human lives, as a society. I do not understand how you don’t know that? Or why it would be controversial for me to point that out?

It’s controversial for anybody to say, healthcare not warfare, and mean it not in the sole context of the Iraqi war, but in the context of our defense budget and our military might around the world. Which is what I am saying. But it’s not controversial to point out which our society values more.

And it values warfare more.
Click to expand...

we are spending like 700B in military. single payer would cost probably closer to 1T. so your going to have to weaken our military by 50% and add a tax.
 
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...

Yeah, I've been telin you that. ;)

Obama is the most straight conservative, John Edwards is the most straight liberal, and Hillary is more economically conservative than Edwards.
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080115/ELECTIONS/591803561/-1/rss01

This shit cracks me up. So now Obama is the establishment candidate and Hillary is the one who will bring change? ROFLMAO.

The Clintons have no restrictions on how low they will go. Do they actually expect people to fall for such stupidity?
Click to expand...

this is EXACTLY what i dont get. you got these clinton defenders who are supporting this evil person for president.

Democrats.. this is your opportunity to take control JFK style with Obama. Yet you want another crook in the office.
 
Onceler said:
That's a totally disingenuous argument. I hope you're not implying that I'm arguing in favor of war over providing healthcare.

Have you crunched the #'s? Are you so certain that the money we save from withdrawing from Iraq covers the costs we're talking about here?

I am not opposed to universal healthcare, and philisophically, I believe in what you're saying about the priorities of what it means to be the greatest country in the world, but I am NOT impractical, and I am not in favor of diving headlong into a plan that considers only need & benefit, and not cost & potential financial pitfalls, which could be enormous.

As I said, Hillary's plan, which talks quite a bit about all of the wonderful benefits everyone will receive, talks very little about where we're getting the money to pay for anything, aside from "modernizing" to cut costs....
Click to expand...


Hillary's plan is pretty lame. But, the reality is that it seeks to cover all americans. And I thought she was in favor of letting the bush tax cuts for the rich expire, in 2010, to pay for her programs?

Obama's plan isn't universal. We desparately need universal healthcare.

Edwards is the only plan that's universal, and allows americans to buy into public insurance programs. Which will outcompete the private insurance market. And which as a result, could ultimately lead to single payer insurance, which is CHEAPER than the system we have now.
 
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...

My sentiments exactly.
 
Chapdog said:
this is EXACTLY what i dont get. you got these clinton defenders who are supporting this evil person for president.

Democrats.. this is your opportunity to take control JFK style with Obama. Yet you want another crook in the office.
Click to expand...

Knock it off. I've never been a hillary cheerleader, or an obama cheerleader. I'm still on the fence over who would be my second choice after edwards. I was leaning towards obama, but I might reconsider. But, I'm being realistic about Obama. I'm looking at him closer now, because he's the presumptive front runner in the minds of many pundits now
 
Chapdog said:
we are spending like 700B in military. single payer would cost probably closer to 1T. so your going to have to weaken our military by 50% and add a tax.
Click to expand...

Absolutely any serious plan would need a payroll tax, and maybe you are one of the lucky few, but I already get money taken out of my check to pay for my health insurance. Few companies these days can afford to foot the whole bill.
On top of that payroll deduction for my insurance, every single time I go to the doctor I have to pay. Every single time I fill a prescription I have to pay.
And like most Americans, I have a cap for catastrophe, after which, I am double-fucked. Unlike most Americans, I know it.
Anyway you slice it, I, an average American, am doing much better with a single payer plan.

However, we would need a serious study of its costs. Not someone saying "probaly would cost" on a message board.
 
Chapdog said:
this is EXACTLY what i dont get. you got these clinton defenders who are supporting this evil person for president.

Democrats.. this is your opportunity to take control JFK style with Obama. Yet you want another crook in the office.
Click to expand...

I’m supporting Edwards.

But Hillary is no more evil than anyone who voted for the Iraqi war. Or, anyone who supported it at all.

You're a hysterical Hillary-hater, not a real critic. I don't give a shit what you think of her Chap.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah, I've been telin you that. ;)

Obama is the most straight conservative, John Edwards is the most straight liberal, and Hillary is more economically conservative than Edwards.
Click to expand...


Well, I never take credit for being a brilliant guy who comes to all my conclusions through independent deductive reasoning. :)

I've been reading a lot of stuff from David Sirota, Paul Krugman, and Josh Marshall about Obama, that have further informed my opinion on him. And it appears, he is not at all what I would want in a progressive, Democratic candidate.
 
blackascoal said:
My sentiments exactly.
Click to expand...


Well, you’re taking a leap of faith that he’s going to govern more to the left than he is campaigning.

I’m taking a leap of faith that Edwards was faking it in 2004, and we are seeing the real deal now.

Hillary supporters are taking a leap of faith and believing that while she voted for the war, she would not have taken the country to war.

Let’s face it, the idea that liberal voters are besides themselves with wonder at their wonderful luck in attracting such candidates, is a myth.
We all wish we had something better.


I also imagine that we all also feel relief when we watch the Democratic debates vs the Republican debates. The candidates we have to choose from, are sane! And after you watch an R debate, that’s big.
 
Clinton is on CNBC telling us how individuals need to get a better handle on their debt.

Perhaps she should focus that same concept on the government.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

You're accusing Obama of being a "Clintonista" and at the same time prefering the actual Clinton.

The problem with politics in America is that it's looked at as a winner take all game of shuffleboard. There are going to be several issues, policies, appointments, and statements by Obama that I do not agree with, however, that holds true for whomever is elected.

Hillary is a war hawk and twice made a fool of herself by agreeing with the Bush war machine while pretending to be "fooled."

Hillary is firmly in the pocket of Israel and will do whatever dance she's told to dance for Israel .. which is why she voted for war on Iraq and threatening military action against Iran.

Since she's claiming credit for her husbands tenure in office, where was she when Bill ran away from ending the disparities in crack/powder cocaine sentencing .. even though Bill KNEW the devastating impact it was having on minority communities? The biggest explosion of prison population in American history happened under Bill/Hillary.

If you got fooled by Lieberman it's because you didn't do your homework and wasn't listening to those who were screaming that Lieberman is a fraud.

It's not an all or nothing sum game and I expect Obama to do what is in the best interest of the nation, not just me or the left. In the end, America will be better off .. and that is really the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top