[TimG]

mike777, on Feb 6 2008, 04:06 PM, said:

In any case the cornerstone of the Dems plan is that it is affordable so do not worry.

Forgive me if I am unimpressed that a politician tells me their plan is "affordable".

[kenberg]

mike777, on Feb 6 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

" obsession that seems to seize some conservatives when someone says Clinton"

You may have missed some of the recent news, conservatives are voting for Mrs. Clinton over McCain.

As for defense issues, if they slash the defense budget and move the savings into helping the poor or our children or teachers or students this will limit what mischief they may do overseas in trying to steal oil, export democracy or bomb and kill hundreds of thousands of innocents.

It's true that McCain Hatred seems to be overpowering Clinton Hatred.

My daughter told me she listened to Huckabee where he said "I'm a conservative but I don't hate anyone". No wonder conservatives say that he is not really one of them.

[mike777]

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 04:25 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 6 2008, 04:06 PM, said:

In any case the cornerstone of the Dems plan is that it is affordable so do not worry.

Forgive me if I am unimpressed that a politician tells me their plan is "affordable".

There have been alot of Dem debates but have you heard:

1) Any of the Dem Candidates show facts that it is not affordable?
2) Any of the moderaters asking questions with facts that it is not affordable?

If not there will be more debates so let us see if anyone has facts showing that it is not affordable.


3) Most importantly, if they do have such facts, so what? As I said that will not stop anyone voting for it based on some facts. Just raise the taxes on the rich or limit access to health care or put price controls on all those very rich doctors and evil drug companies.

[helene_t]

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 11:04 PM, said:

A recent study done in The Netherlands (I think) concluded that preventive health care often costs more in the long run because of the costs associated with longer life. Unhealthy habits may save in the long run because the unhealthy people drop dead while the healthy ones see health care providers during their extra years.

People are supposed to stop wrking when they are 65 no matter their helath so there is no point in keeping them alive beyond that age from a gvt finance point of view.

The European Commision wants us to work till we are 70 so maybe preventive medicine will make more sense in the future.

[TimG]

mike777, on Feb 6 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

1) Any of the Dem Candidates show facts that it is not affordable?

How about if they tell us how much it will cost so that we can decide for ourselves whether it is "affordable"?

[mike777]

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 05:29 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 6 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

1) Any of the Dem Candidates show facts that it is not affordable?

How about if they tell us how much it will cost so that we can decide for ourselves whether it is "affordable"?

Well it is a debate you would think someone at sometime would have asked that question? Either one of the candidates of another one or the moderator might ask.
Perhaps asking this is not allowed.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Feb 6 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 11:04 PM, said:

A recent study done in The Netherlands (I think) concluded that preventive health care often costs more in the long run because of the costs associated with longer life.  Unhealthy habits may save in the long run because the unhealthy people drop dead while the healthy ones see health care providers during their extra years.

People are supposed to stop wrking when they are 65 no matter their helath so there is no point in keeping them alive beyond that age from a gvt finance point of view.

The European Commision wants us to work till we are 70 so maybe preventive medicine will make more sense in the future.

Hopefully North America will soon get a commission to set these rules also. At the very least Congress could set rules on how long people must work or are allowed to work. We really need a commission to tell us how long it wants us to work. Perhaps they can tie all of this with health care.

Now if we can just get those French work/firing rules where you cannot be fired at will and you get a lawyer free of charge if they call you in. Is most of Europe the same?

[luke warm]

mike777, on Feb 6 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

I also do not understand the hatred spewed at Mrs. Clinton but I do hear it alot from women. When I ask for an explanation out spews pure venom.

With Republicans retiring in droves from the Congress it looks like a huge victory for the Dems in Congress.

I understand about 20% more Democrats in total are voting in the primaries than Rep. This really looks like a huge victory for whoever the Dem party nominates.

With Obama or Mrs. Clinton and with a combination tax increase and huge slash in the defense budget we should see alot more government money for teachers and students, Nat health care for all, more government aid for children and preschoolers.

Mrs Clinton will put a stop on foreclosures of homes and freeze interest rates for 5 years. Both will provide better housing and food for the poor.

Finally we should see some real Gun control if not outright banning of many guns/rifles and perhaps even a ban on the death penalty.

Both will put much more progressive judges on our courts and fewer restrictions on abortions or government money for abortions.  Civil rights for all including those accused of crimes will grow and not just for a privileged few.

Both will bring our troops home fast and talk with those who hate us rather than try and kill them.

Both will form a partnership with allies and listen to advice from them rather than bully them. More farm and other subsidies for alt energy sources. Force Detroit to make greener, cleaner cars. Stop harmful oil drilling in Alaska, coastlines and other places.

Both will stop global warming and return our planet to a green, clean and peaceful place where we are not hated for being an oil stealing, global warming, killing innocents, wiretapping, torture, deny civil rights bully.

mike777, on Feb 6 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

As I understand it both plans will save 100's of billions in health care costs.
I am guessing alot comes of that comes through preventive care and making sure we eat and drink the right stuff and exercise more and stop smoking.

In any case a plan that covers everyone and costs less at a higher quality has got to be good. If it costs a bit more than some think, I doubt anyone will be shocked and I doubt that would cause anyone to vote against it or any of the ideas they propose.  The Dems should have all the votes they need to pass anything.

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2008, 04:06 PM, said:

Why should I care whether Joe Lieberman is President or his separated-at-birth twin McCain is?  Both would be a lot better than Bush, or Huckabee, or Thompson.

Are you conceding the race to the Republicans?

I'm saying that I don't work for the Democratic party, and I'm going to pick the guy I think will be the best President, no matter what letter he has next to his name. I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's, and I think McCain is more likely to accomplish them. If it weren't for McCain's age and personality I'd vote for him over Clinton in a heartbeat. At least he's owned by domestic companies and not by foreign countries.

And who knows, I still might vote for him, but only if Obama loses in the primaries.

[Winstonm]

My reflections on Super Tuesday is that it needs a new tag.

Suckass Tuesday has a nice ring to it.

My personal favorite would be Does It Really Matter Tuesday.

[kenberg]

I don't understand.

The Republicans have pretty much settled on a candidate, a man who was counted out just a dew months back and who is hated by many in the party's conservative base.

The Democrats will be nominating either the first women ever or the first Black ever to head their ticket, and at polls across the country both are clearly viable candidates.


This doesn't matter?

Are you having a bad day?

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's

Could this mean you aren't really a Democrat? Sure, you could be a registered Democrat, but if you like the Republican policies more, maybe you aren't really a Democrat.

[kenberg]

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's

Could this mean you aren't really a Democrat? Sure, you could be a registered Democrat, but if you like the Republican policies more, maybe you aren't really a Democrat.

I guess then I am not one either.

I mostly vote for Democrats, I sometimes vote for Republicans. In the Maryland governor's race six years ago I cast a write-in vote for my dog. Let's see, if not voting for a Democrat makes me not a Democrat then not voting for a human makes.... Maybe I don't want to follow that through.

[Al_U_Card]

Super Red White and Blues day?

[jdonn]

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's

Could this mean you aren't really a Democrat? Sure, you could be a registered Democrat, but if you like the Republican policies more, maybe you aren't really a Democrat.

Or maybe people sometimes vote for a candidate based on factors other than which policies they like more.

[TimG]

kenberg, on Feb 6 2008, 08:49 PM, said:

I guess then I am not one either.

I mostly vote for Democrats, I sometimes vote for Republicans. In the Maryland governor's race six years ago I cast a write-in vote for my dog. Let's see, if not voting for a Democrat makes me not a Democrat then not voting for a human makes.... Maybe I don't want to follow that through.

I can certainly understand voting for both Republicans and Democrats based upon the personalities of the candidates, or if you have a specific pet policy item that is more important to you than the overall party platform (I don't imagine many, if anyone, agree with all of a party's platform -- many pick which subset of policy items is most important to them in any particular election). But, when jtfanclub said he like McCain better than Clinton on the policies, it sounds like this is an overall thing rather than a specific item. In fact, he said on personality, he would vote for Clinton in a heartbeat.

I think that if you agree with McCain's policies that much more than you agree with Clinton's policies, maybe you're not really a Democrat. Not that I'm saying that is a bad thing. It just seemed very strange to me that a self-professed Democrat thought it was a good thing that the Republican party was nominating someone who is perceived to be more of a "Democrat/Independent".

[Winstonm]

Quote

The Republicans have pretty much settled on a candidate, a man who was counted out just a dew months back and who is hated by many in the party's conservative base.

The Democrats will be nominating either the first women ever or the first Black ever to head their ticket, and at polls across the country both are clearly viable candidates.


This doesn't matter?

You only validate my observation. The stories are gender, race, and age.
Little details like illegal wiretapping and amnesty for the co-operating phone companies, the co-opting of the NIE before the Iraq invasion, and a $9 1/2 trillion debt with a $3 trillion dollar budget proposal (exluding war costs) are unimportant.

I'm voting for Nero - at least he could play the fiddle.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Feb 6 2008, 08:07 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's

Could this mean you aren't really a Democrat? Sure, you could be a registered Democrat, but if you like the Republican policies more, maybe you aren't really a Democrat.

Or maybe people sometimes vote for a candidate based on factors other than which policies they like more.

Probably many people do, but it strikes me as a pretty dumb thing to do in the current political situation in the US. The president brings with him many many people, which all have quite a bit of power, and he usually picks them among his own party. So if you only care about which face you see on TV, then of course you can pick whoever you find sexy, but if you care at all whether we should protect the environment or not, whether we should get closer to universal health care or not, if you have an opinion on the "family values" vs "gay rights" "debate", etc. etc., well, then the only sensible thing to do is to pick the party you mostly agree with and vote among party lines.

(And I didn't even include more controversial statements issues like abortion, common-sense- versus blind-ideology-guided foreign policy, etc )

[Gerben42]

I am as usual struck by the huge difference between my own environment and the USA.

That things like gay marriage and abortion are topics for a PRESIDENTIAL campaign. I mean, being against these things affect only a relatively small group in a negative way, namely those who are gay and want to marry, and those who are pregnant and want an abortion. It does not affect anyone else in a positive way. Being against these things is not going to raise your paycheck, or cover your healthcare, or bring your sons home from Iraq.

You can be against it for yourself, but for me it is not acceptable to be against it for OTHERS. That is simply intolerance.

Of the democratic candidates, I hope Obama wins. He seems like a good leader.

[TimG]

Gerben42, on Feb 7 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

That things like gay marriage and abortion are topics for a PRESIDENTIAL campaign. I mean, being against these things affect only a relatively small group in a negative way, namely those who are gay and want to marry, and those who are pregnant and want an abortion.

I think the abortion issue may affect more people than you think, check out this article for some figures. To say that the issue only affects women who want an abortion is ignoring a whole gender (without which there would be no demand for abortion).