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

Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

your last line is key.. there is no serious studies..

will we still have to co-pay. what kind of preventative medicine will be covered.. how do you deal with nurse unions double digit pay increases.. what of the crazy lawsuits against doctors.. etc. you cannon just take this top down approach behind closed doors like hillary wants to do. Obama says he wants all to have insurance. but want to make is a decision with all the stake holders.. do it together. go youtube it.
 
Darla, merely withdrawing our troops from Iraq will NOT pay for universal healthcare. I understand what you're saying in that we value our might over our welfare, but neither Hillary, Obama or Edwards will make the kinds of cuts in our military that will be required to pay for something like universal healthcare.

I think it's too easy to say "I support healthcare for everyone!" What is wrong with being practical about it? What I want to hear is "I support healthcare for everyone, and here's how we pay for it."

Currently, we're not getting that, and it sets up our country for severe financial constraint in the future. No one ever considers the consequence of this. NY has a mere $4 billion deficit right now, and they are talking about a spending freeze, and that means spending on all of the many programs that help people, and contribute to education, healthcare & everything else that benefits NY's citizens.
 
blackascoal said:
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.
Click to expand...

BAC, I support neither Obama nor Clinton.


I have been quite explicit about the things that piss me off about Hillary for years. And yet, I'm not about to let Obama-mania fool me into thinking that policy-wise, Obama is the second coming of Robert Kennedy, and that he is somehow light-years better than Clinton.

To me clinton has always been a DLC democrat. Better than some Dems, worse than others. Obama was an unknown quantity to me.


What I have found interesting, is that there are some in the progressive community that absolutely hate Clinton. And I honestly don't think, broadly speaking, that she's much different than obama.

Although, with respect to the issue of civil rights, which you allude to, I said previously on this thread, that I thought Obama might be better than Clinton on civil rights.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't expect him to govern to the left anymore than I expect him to be the black president.

I expect him to do what is in the best interest of the American people and the future of this nation. My leap of faith is that he will do just that.

What I do know is that I don't trust Hillary and her affinty to Isreal will lead us into more war.

WAR is still on the top of my agenda and without question, Obama is to the left of Clinton on war.

At some point here my sister, we have to make a choice with the hand we are dealt, not the one we hope for.
 
Onceler said:
Darla, merely withdrawing our troops from Iraq will NOT pay for universal healthcare. I understand what you're saying in that we value our might over our welfare, but neither Hillary, Obama or Edwards will make the kinds of cuts in our military that will be required to pay for something like universal healthcare.

I think it's too easy to say "I support healthcare for everyone!" What is wrong with being practical about it? What I want to hear is "I support healthcare for everyone, and here's how we pay for it."

Currently, we're not getting that, and it sets up our country for severe financial constraint in the future. No one ever considers the consequence of this. NY has a mere $4 billion deficit right now, and they are talking about a spending freeze, and that means spending on all of the many programs that help people, and contribute to education, healthcare & everything else that benefits NY's citizens.
Click to expand...

I know Onceler, that’s why I said “countries” plural, and why I also said we’d have to cut our military budget, and why I also said that anyone who speaks of cutting back our military, outside of the sole context of Iraq, is considered controversial.

I mean really, you are one of my favorite posters here, and will remain so, but doesn’t the fact that you can’t even comprehend that I am speaking beyond Iraq, prove my point?
 
Cypress said:
BAC, I support neither Obama nor Clinton.


I have been quite explicit about the things that piss me off about Hillary for years. And yet, I'm not about to let Obama-mania fool me into thinking that policy-wise, Obama is the second coming of Robert Kennedy, and that he is somehow light-years better than Clinton.

To me clinton has always been a DLC democrat. Better than some Dems, worse than others. Obama was an unknown quantity to me.


What I have found interesting, is that there are some in the progressive community that absolutely hate Clinton. And I honestly don't think, broadly speaking, that she's much different than obama.

Although, with respect to the issue of civil rights, which you allude to, I said previously on this thread, that I thought Obama might be better than Clinton on civil rights.
Click to expand...

Then we agree.

Both are DLC democrats and Robert Kennedy ain't here .. thus we choose based on what is important to each of us.

I like Edwards, but I don't see him winning the nomination. If circumstances change, I might reconsider, but for now I'm thinking Obama .. and not because of any "Obama-mania" but because he represents the biggest change from the status-quo and is the best option to improve the image of this nation.

Additionally, Edwards likes Obama more than he does Clinton which makes for a great endorsement.
 
blackascoal said:
I don't expect him to govern to the left anymore than I expect him to be the black president.

I expect him to do what is in the best interest of the American people and the future of this nation. My leap of faith is that he will do just that.

What I do know is that I don't trust Hillary and her affinty to Isreal will lead us into more war.

WAR is still on the top of my agenda and without question, Obama is to the left of Clinton on war.

At some point here my sister, we have to make a choice with the hand we are dealt, not the one we hope for.
Click to expand...

I understand.

My personal opinion is that after decades of neocon and DLC economic policies, which have devastated this country, the time is ripe for something beyond DLC Democrats and Neoliberal Republican economic policies, and that the Democratic base is about to throw away this once in a lifetime opportunity.

It breaks my heart, it surely does.
 
blackascoal said:
Then we agree.

Both are DLC democrats and Robert Kennedy ain't here .. thus we choose based on what is important to each of us.

I like Edwards, but I don't see him winning the nomination. If circumstances change, I might reconsider, but for now I'm thinking Obama .. and not because of any "Obama-mania" but because he represents the biggest change from the status-quo and is the best option to improve the image of this nation.

Additionally, Edwards likes Obama more than he does Clinton which makes for a great endorsement.
Click to expand...
LOL. So... The person who said he wasn't voting Democrat, is...

:D
 
Darla said:
I know Onceler, that’s why I said “countries” plural, and why I also said we’d have to cut our military budget, and why I also said that anyone who speaks of cutting back our military, outside of the sole context of Iraq, is considered controversial.

I mean really, you are one of my favorite posters here, and will remain so, but doesn’t the fact that you can’t even comprehend that I am speaking beyond Iraq, prove my point?
Click to expand...


No - I'm trying to address the issue in a practical way. What you are talking about DOES NOT EXIST. We could withdraw from countries, plural, but we probably won't under Edwards, Obama or Clinton. We also will not see the kinds of cuts in military spending under any of those 3 that would be needed.

I know you're talking about a perfect world, and what our priorities SHOULD be, but these are not the conditions that will exist no matter who is elected this fall. And yet we have 3 universal healthcare plans that Democrats are enthusiastically saying we absolutely need right now.

So, that takes us to square one: how are any of the universal plans we are seeing going to be paid for?
 
blackascoal said:
Then we agree.

Both are DLC democrats and Robert Kennedy ain't here .. thus we choose based on what is important to each of us.

I like Edwards, but I don't see him winning the nomination. If circumstances change, I might reconsider, but for now I'm thinking Obama .. and not because of any "Obama-mania" but because he represents the biggest change from the status-quo and is the best option to improve the image of this nation.

Additionally, Edwards likes Obama more than he does Clinton which makes for a great endorsement.
Click to expand...

Do you think that Obama would pick Edwards as his VP? I could get happy about that.
 
Darla said:
Do you think that Obama would pick Edwards as his VP? I could get happy about that.
Click to expand...
Would Edwards take a second shot at the VP? I wouldn't.

And why would he? What strength does Edwards have that would shore up one of Obama's weaknesses?
 
Onceler said:
No - I'm trying to address the issue in a practical way. What you are talking about DOES NOT EXIST. We could withdraw from countries, plural, but we probably won't under Edwards, Obama or Clinton. We also will not see the kinds of cuts in military spending under any of those 3 that would be needed.

I know you're talking about a perfect world, and what our priorities SHOULD be, but these are not the conditions that will exist no matter who is elected this fall. And yet we have 3 universal healthcare plans that Democrats are enthusiastically saying we absolutely need right now.

So, that takes us to square one: how are any of the universal plans we are seeing going to be paid for?
Click to expand...


We’re on two different pages.

I’m not ready to settle, in order to ever have single payer, you have to agitate for it. You think anyone is ever going to give anything to the ordinary people out here? You have to demand it. That’s where I am coming from.
 
Damocles said:
Would Edwards take a second shot at the VP? I wouldn't.

And why would he? What strength does Edwards have that would shore up one of Obama's weaknesses?
Click to expand...

If you read this thread, and have to ask that second question, then what can I say?

The answer to your first question is, I think so. He’s young, why not?
 
blackascoal said:
Then we agree.

Both are DLC democrats and Robert Kennedy ain't here .. thus we choose based on what is important to each of us.

I like Edwards, but I don't see him winning the nomination. If circumstances change, I might reconsider, but for now I'm thinking Obama .. and not because of any "Obama-mania" but because he represents the biggest change from the status-quo and is the best option to improve the image of this nation.

Additionally, Edwards likes Obama more than he does Clinton which makes for a great endorsement.
Click to expand...


I think Dems will rue the day that they didn't nominate Edwards.

This country is on the precipice, and 30 years of reaganomics got us here. I think we need bold changes, and bold leadership. I only see that coming from Edwards. The incremental baby steps, and bipartisan fuzziness coming from Obama (and clinton) I don't think will cut it.

But, with regard to competent stewardship of american foreign policy, and a modicum of respect for civil rights and the environment, Obama is certainly an improvement from the BushCo. nightmare.

I'll definetly vote for him if he's the nominee. I don't pay much attention to endorsements, (christ, Kucinich told his supporters to caucus for obama in iowa, WTF?), but it'd be a nice feather in Obama's cap to get Edwards support.
 
I don't think many of the "strengths" listed for Edwards are something that Obama needs to win the election. There is a reason that Edwards is losing, it isn't because everybody wants his form of government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top