A Follow Up Message to the Obama Crowd [UPDATED]
By dcmediagirl on February 18, 2008 at 3:35 PM in Barack Obama, Cults, Democrats, Guantanamo, Iraq, Obama, Presidential Candidates
Since my last post seemed to irritate the Obama acolytes on this blog, leading to some baffling comments, I’m going to make another try to cast oil upon the waters. Think of this as a do over, if you will (and I hope you do).
Let’s say that an alien from the planet Zorton landed on earth. This species is known not only for its skepticism but also for its keen insight and cleverness. In other words, Zortonians are the diametric opposite of professional political reporters and Washington pundits.
Anyway, let’s say that this alien wanted to get the lowdown on the presidential race so far. Let’s also say that it (the alien) isn’t satisfied with the “change” slogan. Remember, this species is clever. The alien doesn’t understand why it’s necessary to repeat the word “change” over and over again when it stands to reason that when one President leaves office and another takes his/her place that constitutes “change”. So forget change.<>
The alien would like someone to provide five simple bullet points summarizing Obama’s platform, and perhaps a few words on how the Senator plans to achieve his goals (i.e., tax cuts, tax increases, troop withdrawal timetable, Guantanamo closure timetable). Remember, the Zortonian wants to know solely about Barack Obama, and it wants specifics. So please help our friend from Zorton. And hey, if you’re an Obama supporter trying to trawl for converts, maybe you’ll accomplish that as well. You never know.
The comment section is open and ready for your input.
UPDATED COMMENT FROM LARRY JOHNSON: Man, DCMedia Girl, you rock. What a funny but insightful piece. Kudos to jacek and grannyhelen for making serious efforts to have a substantive policy discussion. Worth reading what both had to say. Bad on Banquos Ghost. Dude, seriously, calm down and simply answer DCMedia Girl’s challenge. It is very simple and reasonable. Your refusal to accept the challenge suggests that you don’t know what to say or that there is really no substance on the part of Obama. Thanks to jacek, at least some substance can be attributed to Obama.
Which only further pushes the point that he MUST, if nominated, choose Clinton as a running mate. He’s taken her bullet points, and in order to “own” them, he needs to bring the real owner along.
I will be hoiunded by the paparazzi as Angelina Jolie’s boy toy before that ever happens.
I don’t like being called “acolyte”. I am not involved in a religion. Frankly, I find you very insulting and presumptuous - perhaps this reality can “touch” on you - in addition to finding you very, very condescending. As far as playing the parlor game you suggest, I’ll play it when you can qualify for me Hillary’s “35 years of experience”. Big hint: failing the DC bar exam was not good experience to qualify for the presidency. Nor was being an influence-peddling corporate lawyer and career first wife. Perhaps that reality can “touch” on you. I frankly don’t believe I owe you personally any explanations of my support for Obama until you can at least acknowledge if not apologize for the conceited, condescending, insulting, and ultimately vacuous tone you take with Obama supporters. Sorry, but that’s the consequence of alienating people. They may not just want to explain themselves to you.
BG:
All you do is speak about YOU.
Who cares about YOU?
Give us your arguement, a real one, on Obama.
Or can’t you?
simon, we mostly agree, but gotta differ here. Most people should speak more from their personal to own their place. I believe you don’t want a selfish poster, and I respect that. But people who spend all their time talking about “YOU” and less about themselves strike me as often overstepping.
Yes, I would like a real argument though, with Premise, Support, Conclusion.
It can be a syllogism, or whatever form they wish, Inductive, Abductive, Deductive, don’t care…but…yes, it would be nice to see some facts, and not an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy, or Appeal to Emotion Fallacy, or Ad Hominem Circumstantial…blah blah.
BG and I have been having this discussion for about 3 days now.
He continually speaks of himself, and his pseudo relationship to me, in an attempt to deliberately deflect the issue.
I know enough about BG, I want to know what he thinks about Obama, which, apparently, is not much.
Or he would have offered something of substance.
He hasn’t.
Or he can’t.
What is backing someone based on their ability to speak and inspire as opposed to substance? Requires faith, right? That’s religion.
Their ability to speak and inspire…that’s it in a nut shell.
You likely thought Obama was behind the words and meant it from the heart when he said, “Yes we Can!” He allowed you to go on thinking that when a reasonable person would have had zero difficulty saying, ” My friend gave a speech once that really resonated with me. Here it is. See if you like it as much as I do”.
He hustled his followers and that’s not a good sign.
Then why are you here? Look at the top of the Blog: No Quarter. Hasn’t Mr Larry Johnson made that clear? No quarter is asked or given- if you can’t stand the heat, etc, etc, etc. Sorry you poor little feelings are hurt, maybe you can go back and snivel to Senator Hope- he might give a nice warm glass of milk and some cookies.
Banquo,
Don’t be so insulted. Your golden boy has lifted almost word for word Deval’s speech, and has copied Hillary’s economic plan and had the stones to say he “came up with this in August”.
This is rot. Clinton’s program has been laid out with details for months, while Mr Change has been chanting change…..and giving no details about ANYTHING inspite of repeated requests to do so.
It is obvious that Obama has a weak health plan with a gaping hole excuding millions and leaves the door open for Insurance Co’s to continue to run their scams.
Further, Obama has no clear strategy about Iraq that includes a timetable and contingencies for materiel and personnel which can take a year or more to move, let alone the Green Zone which is really a huge city within a city that presents many other difficulties that this Mr Democracy has no clue about.
Obama has taken advice from his national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzeninsky who is the failed securty chief of the old Carter administration. Carter and Brzenisky failed miserably with the Hostage Crisis, and in fact this is what brought down the one term Democratic President Carter.
Carter, a Fundamentalist was one of the worst Presidents ever.
Susan Rice and other FOREIGN POLICY advisors, are all leftovers from Carter, and if Obama is tired of the “OLD WASHINGTON”,…what is he doing taking critical advice from the OLD WASHINGTON??
More troubling is Carter’s condemnation of Israel and his hostility towards Israel in his new book, that has been widely criticized. Carter’s book has created a firestorm in the Jewish community throughout the world.
Also Zbig is known to be favorable to Palestine and openly hostile to Israel. Obama’s pastor in Chicago Rev. Jeremiah Wright,is the spiritual leader who Obama took “The Audacity Of Hope” directly from one of Wright’s sermons. Wright bestowed an award on Louis Farrakhan , the man who called Judaism a “gutter religion” and and called Jews, “bloodsuckers”. Wright called Farrakhan “one who epitomized greatness”.
Last month Obama said, “Like a member of my own family there are things he says that I disagree with” regarding his long time minister. Obama has distanced himself from Wright when he started running his campaign.
It is well known that George Soros backs Obama and part of the deal is Israel. Soros, the multibillionaire Hedge Fund meister is openly hostile to Israel and has voiced his sympathies for Palestine without restraint. Soros, a self hating Jew who is extremely hostile to Israel, claims that the United States’ special relationship with Israel is the result of Jewish pressure, and should be ignored, or worse…rejected.
Obama cannot shake his long and close affiliation with Rev. Wright, and his black supremist and anti semitic views are beginning to alarm Jewish voters.
Obama has plenty to answer for. Without plagarizing.
His foreign policy and national security teams are loaded with ex Carterites. All failures and certainly all OLD WASHINGTON.
Reverend Wright told The New York Times that,”Obama feared his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell”.
.
hedge fund?
Obama will be there…
heh.
LOL - So you’re incapable of explaining why you support the guy, and you’re insulted that anyone would expect that you COULD explain, but you are comfortable revealing that you don’t actually know anything whatsoever about the candidate you oppose.
How utterly bizarre. I’m afraid you’re no assistance whatsoever to our poor, rational friend from Zorton.
In High School, in Chicago, Hillary started a day care center for migrant workers’ children. I’m about her age and that was the last thing on my mind then. She saw a need and acted to fix the problem.
She is a hard worker who is very effective in her efforts
As usual, it’s all about you and how offended and insulted and deeply, deeply wounded you are, yadda yadda.
Why don’t you try disproving these epithets by–you know–actually providing the 5 bullet points she requested?
Have you ever read Hillary Clinton’s biography at Wikipedia? Not the short version at the top of that page, but the full version? It astounded me — i had NO clue she’d done and accomplished all she had. Try it. Wikipedia.com — search for “Hillary Clinton”
Then come back here, and report.
BG:alienating people.
DCmediagirl:
Question on the five bullet points. Do get the points from a) his speeches or verbal statements b)his published body of material c) his years of public service in the Illinios and US Senates?
Banquo’s Ghost, this is why so many Clinton supporters are baffled by some of you Obama supporters. dcmediagirl is just asking, what is his platform? Look, in the next few weeks, one of them is going to be our nominee. It would be nice to know where Obama stands on issues and his plans to accomplish them. For instance, I will tell you Senator Clinton’s plans for troop withdrawals. She has asked for, and not received any specific plans from the Bush administration on troop withdrawals. Apparently, the Bush administration will sit this out to the bitter end. So, she has said that she will ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to give her plans to withdraw the troops as quickly as possible, in a safe manner, and she wants those plans within 3 months of her taking office. She intends to have all of the troops out by the end of 2009, but, she wants to do this safely. We have a lot of troops, equipment, allies, and civilians over there.
Could you please tell us Senator Obama’s plan for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
I got this from Obama’s website.
~Begin troop withdrawals immediately upon assuming office.
~Withdraw 1-2 combat brigades per month.
~All of those brigades will be withdrawn within 16 months (May 2010).
~Some troops will remain to protect the embassy and diplomats (embassy is technically American soil)
~Some troops will remain in the region to deal with any Al Qaida forces.
Now, one may like or dislike aspects of this plan to their heart’s content. To say he has no plan, however, is to be a liar, or an ignoramus.
Hey booner. I didn’t say he didn’t have a plan. But, I have listened to Senator Clinton’s speeches and his speeches, and the debates. I knew Senator Clinton’s plan from listening. I didn’t have to go to a website to look it up. In regards to his plan, I still find Senator Clinton’s more reasonable. We don’t really know what we will face in January 2009. That’s why she would ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a more detailed plan. It’s similar to Senator Obama stating unequivocally that he would meet with all foreign leaders. Perhaps, you should send lower diplomats first to our enemies and work out some agreements about the meeting, as Senator Clinton has suggested. You don’t want the President of the United States to be used as some toy for some tinhorn dictator. This is why I am supporting Senator Clinton. Like it or not, she has more experience in domestic and foreign affairs. And, like it or not, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have destroyed our government, our economy, and our standing in the world. This time, we really do need experience, in my opinion. But thank you for responding. I noticed that Banquo’s Ghost still has not bothered.
Could you please tell us Senator Obama’s plan for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
It would be idiotic for anyone at this point to promise to take any specific course of action on 1/21/09, as the situation will be different, at many levels of relevant detail, from what it is now. If you put the most experienced professional military people in charge, rather than those who will say what you want to hear, and tell them, this is the goal, find a way to achieve it and tell me what the risks and caveats are, they will do that.
Especially if they don’t fear getting fired for political incorrectness, e.g., reading a State Dep’t report on the country in question. Probably either Clinton or Obama is smart enough not to fly in the face of expert opinion even after being wrong again and again, which makes either one better than President Junior, but that’s faint praise if there ever was such a thing.
If someone is trustworthy and has the right kind of intelligence, then it’s a fair bet that the right kind of specifics will be forthcoming, especially if there’s a huge constituency of activists raising holy hell if they start to feel betrayed or let down.
If someone has a whole lot of great-sounding specifics to talk about right now, but has a history of enhancing his/her own personal fortunes at the expense of his/her allies, who are left feeling a bit sold out, then those great-sounding specifics may or may not ever see the light of day.
Mr./Ms. Candidate:
1. Do you share my values, concerns, fears, hopes?
2. How does your past history bear that out?
3. Are you a fighter, or do you wimp out when the chips are down?
4. How do you deal with slanderers? Do you make sure either to defuse the slander or at least make the slanderer suffer for it enough that they think twice before doing it again? That is, do you stick up for yourself? — because if you don’t, what good are you going to be to us?
5. Are you inclined to sacrifice your party, that is, your most likely potential allies, in order to further your own efforts, or do you keep your focus on the bigger picture, which is that we have to defeat the moneyed elites of Wall Street and the M-I Complex who are bent on destroying or subverting government of, by, and for the people?
As for HRC, look. The Rethuglican party is dispirited. About the only thing that can get the Pig People off their butts and down to the polls will be the chance to vote against the person Rush and the other hatemeisters have been telling them for 15 years is the co-Antichrist.
Racism is tired and ashamed of itself. Hillary-hatred is a newer and far more virulent kind of idiocy. It’s by no means fair, and I wish it were not so, but the effort to induce this hatred has not been effectively countered by Ms. Clinton, and that’s the ugly truth.
F.
…………………….(chirping of crickets)
Amazing isn’t it? Love those crickets. It’s sad, really. I had hoped that reason would win him over. Guess not.
Yesterday, I was called an “asswipe” on these pages for supporting Obama. Is that “reason” that you are using to win me over?
Larry: rescue your web site. It is becoming the home of a vacuous mob.
I’m very sorry that someone would do that, Banquo. I was referring to my post above, explaining Clinton’s position on the withdrawal of troops. I would never call someone something like that. We might disagree on our candidate, but I am sure we do not disagree on the destruction of our beloved country these past 8 years and the need for repair.
I also apologize. I did not see that. You may report that incident to me by sending me the link to that specific comment. susanunpc at gmail dot com
I want to know who did that. And I want to read the comment to be sure what was actually said (not disbelieving you but I must verify).
Banquo’s Ghost -
I agree! I haven’t heard that one in a long time. Snaps to the person that pulled that one out!
The AA community is not all with Obama. This preacher Pastor Manning,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgtIqeV-6mk,
criticizes the AA community for leaving the Clintons.
Cornell West was criticizing Obama last year, how he kept the AA at arms length.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXj3_pjTTwg&NR=1 .
Tavis Smiley has been villified for his support of Clinton. People have even called and harassed his PARENTS and his brother, who live in a different city and so someone really had to hunt them down. Very ugly.
Okay, as an “agnostic” on Hillary vs Obama (with no emotional investment in either candidate) let me take your alien challenge (btw - would that be “grey” or “reptilian”…? Anywho…)
1. Civil rights. I actually think this is Obama’s strong suit, as it plays to his experience both as a constitutional law professor and as a community organizer, in addition to the personal empathy he more than likely has being a black man in this country.
Link to Obama’s issues page discussing civil rights is here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/
Parts I like are ending the politicization at DOJ, expanding federal hate crimes legislation and putting a stop to racial profiling.
2. Rural policy. I read this a while back, and Obama basically took Edwards’s plan and made it his own. As Edwards’s plan was exemplary I have no problems with that
Of course Obama doesn’t really have life or professional experience that speaks toward implementing this plan, but it reads like it was written by someone who knows what they’re talking about so I’d hope he’d put a competent Secty of Ag in charge to implement a lot of this.
link: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/rural/
Parts I like: protecting family farmers by meat packing enforcement and regulation, country of origin labeling, regulating CAFO’s. Also the acknowledgement that meth is a problem in rural communities (although any plans to do anything about it are pretty darn general) is a good thing.
At that point it starts to go downhill for me, because I don’t agree with Obama’s “let the invisible hand help us” approach to economics, health care, etc. etc. I prefer Clinton on economic issues. She is also head and shoulders above Obama on women’s issues. I see them similar on poverty - Clinton slightly better b/c she has a world view of seeing problems though the lense of women’s issues, and poverty most dramatically affects women and children.
Clinton is head and shoulders above Obama on health care…
So, at least I tried
How many people have a clue about the “invisible” hand implications or the fact that his economic advisors are “Chicago boys”. Unfortunately our horserace obsessed media would never bother to explain that this is right wing Republican economic policy based on the radical libertarian notion that markets should be unregulated, taxes cut to bare minimum, nearly everything run by for-profit corporations(including schools) and all our ills will be solved (the “invisible hand of the free market”). The fact that everytime we move in this direction it is a disaster does not dissuade these fanatics. Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago was the godfather of this economic policy and Ayn Rand was the godmother of its underlying philosophy of radical individualism. She believed that society is healthiest when everyone acts in their own self interest. Alan Greenspan was a member of Rand’s club and Ronald Reagan was a big fan. Their policies of deregulation brought us the delights of the S&L meltdown, the dot-com collapse and our current mortgage meltdown. How’s that working for y’all?
Republican tax cutting in the 80’s and again in recent years ballooned our debt. Privatization of social security plans as advocated by Friedman followers were failures in both England and Chile, in part because of fraud. And how about the delightful news that downer cows have been sold to meat processing plants? According to free market fundamentalists the market should take care of these problems without government regulation. Right. A rancher has expensive cattle that ill so he is motivated by what to not cheat and sell them anyway? His self interest is to make a profit not do the moral thing. The short term profit motive almost always outweighs the fear of getting caught when a system rarely enforces its own rules. Either way you will probably be ruined, but the surer bet is to sell the cows. (This instance was only uncovered because someone secretly videotaped the cows. We have so few inspectors that the government would only have found out years later if these cows have mad cow disease.)
I do not know what is most disturbing - the fact that Obama’s advisors seem to be influenced by this radical ideology or the fact that his followers have no clue about this.
Some of you Obamapods should read Naomi Klein’s book, The Shock Doctrine: Disaster Capitalism on the Chicago School of Economics and their guru Milton Friedman. If these are Obama’s economic advisors, than we will be in HUGE DOODOO when he becomes president.
Since pods are pretty much by definition immune to books, your comment is insult masquerading as advice, and the only reason you mention a book is to give yourself credibility.
Chicago economics is definitely a form of insanity, I agree with you there. I’m not so convinced that Obama is either a true believer or particularly likely to become one, even if he sat next to a Chicago economist on a airplane once or twice. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
F.
Obama really is to libertarian for my tastes…but then again I’ve read my Milton Friedman so maybe I just pick it up easier…?
For anyone who looks at their approach to the economy it should be pretty obvious that Hillary is to the left of Obama…which wouldn’t bother me so much if at least Obama’s supporters as a whole recognized this (if you want to elect someone who has libertarian tendencies that’s your own darn business). But like most things, point it out and you’ll get into a shouting match about how great capitalism is (yay, capitalism! to quote Austen Powers), and that’s about as far as it gets.
Sigh…
I am now reading The Shock Doctrine. It is a riveting book. Are the Chicago Boys economic advisors for Obama? If so, we must double our efforts to keep him out of the White House. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Goolsby (sp?) is one that concerns me…but I wouldn’t quite put him in Milton Friedman territory.
I agree with YOU. Some of the Obama supporters’ comments scare me because they are beginning to sound just like the right wing. I hope this changes or a lot of us are going to abandon Obama. This is dangerous for the Democratic party.
I will respond as well.
1. Tax increases and cuts - really the same question. The plan in a nutshell is to allow the Bush tax cuts to lapse. The tax cuts for the middle class, presumably under $100K, would be maintained. Various other lower economic groups will not have to pay taxes. He has also proposed that seniors making less than $50K will not have to pay taxes. Nice progressive stuff. Where is the cut off? The literature does not state that number, although I will have to pay more taxes. Bummer.
2. Iraq troop qithdrawal - from his plan on his website: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”
3. Guantanamo closure timetable. As far as I have read, he has not proposed a timetable. He has stated that he will close it immediately and restore habeas corpus. If you discount the word “immediate” as usual political stump speechifying (which I do), a more definite plans would be nice.
Favorite endorsement of this entire campaign so far -More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s presidential bid.
The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration’s detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to “restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community.” The attorneys are representing the detainees in habeas corpus lawsuits, which are efforts to get individual hearings before federal judges in order to challenge the basis for their indefinite imprisonment without trial.
The attorneys praised Obama for being a leader in an unsuccessful fight in the fall of 2006 to block Congress from enacting a law stripping courts of jurisdiction to hear Guantanamo detainee lawsuits. The constitutionality of that law, which was part of the Military Commissions Act, is now being challenged before the Supreme Court in one of the most closely-watched cases this term.
“When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration’s bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us,” they wrote. “Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.”
There is some good meat here. In my opinion, it is a pretty good list of proposals that can accomodate actual contingencies in Jan. 2009.
Closing Gitmo is something I should have mentioned under Civil Rights - again, this plays to Obama’s strong suits.
But this makes him sound more like a great Atty Gen than a great President.
I can tell you the thing that drives me nuts with Obama is his health care plan - this is where his lack of specificity really hurts him. In his written plan he doesn’t mention the “penalties” he talked about in the last debate or on MTP on Dec 30 (O’s health care plan is here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf).
The penalties are really a back-door mandate…which makes his attacks on mandates such a dumb move. They will probably involve a mechanism like an income garnishment to collect…which makes his attack on Clinton for talking about garnishments particularly boneheaded.
And more often than not the response to raising these objections engenders screams of “hater” and “Clintonista!” from Obamaphiles, even if these are perfectly valid policy concerns. This is the stuff that gives Obama’s supporters the rep of “cultists”.
Neither is a good plan actually. Why? Hillary;s plan suffers because of the mandates. Although it is nice to say, I pointed out to my fiance, who supports Hillary, that the young college student serving us food at the Irish pub we like to frequent on Sundays will have more than $4000 garnished from her salary. It just won’t work. Obama’s plan will allow those healthy young folks to not opt int, but if they choose to do so at a later date, they have to pay a penalty. It’s both an incentive to prevent free-loaders, and the means to cost-estimate the delayed joining the health plan.
Problem with both plans - cost. Greater problem for Hillary’s plan - political viability getting the plan plassed into law. Greater problem for Obama’s plan - not as many people get covered. Sticky problems, but I prefer Obama’s plan because it has a better chance of being passed into law.
Oh, I just wanted to follow up with a critique on one of Hillary’s plans that I see as being amazingly inept. Her plan to deal with the foreclosures is breathtakingly bad. First of all, the idea that you can “freeze” interest rates for 5 years is blatantly unconstitutional (Art. I, Section 10). Secondly, the idea that you can naively blunder into financial markets, freeze interest rates and not suffer immense economic blowback makes me wonder if the same people planning her campaign are also writing her economic proposals. Lenders are commercial entities, and they chase the highest return for the dollars. This may be hard to believe, but lenders do have a finite number of dollars to invest. If the gov’t (somehow) imposes a cap on the return, the dollars are going to be invested elsewhere. So, her plan may be great for the people needing a bailout for homes they bought, but it screws everyone else that needs a home loan to buy a residence. Completely stupid idea.
I actually think that since the mortgage crisis right now is one of the main causes of our economic problems, freezing rates makes sense as a short-term measure.
But we can disagree on that one.
It may sound good, but imagine what happens to the rest of the economy when lenders FLEE the residential lending market. I am not being too hyperbolic here. Lenders have constraints on how much they can lend, and if they can make more money elsewhere, they will go elsewhere. The economy dependent on construction will come tumbling down.
But Hil’s talking about freezing rates on existing loans where the arm is in effect, no?
That is true, but lenders make decisions on money they WILL have in the future. By freezing those rates, the lenders all of the sudden have a huge gap in their finances for which they did not plan. That results in lenders needing to pull back sharply on going-forward loan commitments. And, if the industry can expect the gov’t to interfere with residential lending, they will leave that field. The gov’t just cannot blunder into this field without doing a lot of unintended damage.
Maybe I’m naive, but wouldn’t a lender want part of a return, even at a lower interest, than no return at all if the house forecloses?
Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking as well. And as long as this is understood to be a short-term thing to head off economic disaster I think one could convince the lenders to play ball (as a recession heading into depression is in no one’s interest).
It does sound “reasonable,” Susan, but that is not how current lending works anymore. The lender who makes your loan is not the entity that ends up owning the loan. Investor own your loan. Sure, freeze that loan, but investors wont be happy, and they wont buy the loans anymore. Lenders are screwed because they constantly churn these loans, but are also subject to very strict federal requirements regarding how much they must have in reserve. If they get stuck holding the ball, then the banks need to cut back on the amount of loans they make in the future. This is WAAAYYYYYY too simplified, but it is the gist.
By the way, good conversation…more of that is needed here.
Thank you for explaining Jacek. That does make sense. So what is the solution? We can’t allow all of these homes to go into foreclosure. That is what happened during the Great Depression. You sound very knowledgeable. Perhaps you should write both campaigns with your ideas.
Sorry I must have missed it. Article 1, Section 10 only applies to states. I don’t see anything in the text that would prohibit congress from imposing an interest rate freeze.
At least Hillary specifies what “affordable” means - it is based on a percentage of income and contains additional subsidies to offset cost.
Obama does not define “affordable”.
Mandates are actually not Hillary’s biggest problem in her plan. It’s the fact that the insurers are - to use her description - included in the “coalition of people who will make universal health care a reality” (or something fairly similar).
The problem with that is that insurers are “make me” organizations. Everything has to be spelled out in regulation otherwise they simply won’t do it. Including insurers in this “coaltion”, therefore, makes me question what her regultion of the industry would actually look like.
Obama’s plan actually doesn’t have a better chance of passing into law and I’ll tell you why: penalties. You may think your girlfriend can’t afford $4000 in premiums (if it’s even that much, which I doubt), but let’s say for the sake of argument that she decides she’s not going to pay into the system now because she can’t, or doesn’t want to, afford it.
Let’s say in our imperfect world your girlfriend gets pregnant.
Let’s say she decides to keep her baby.
She walks into an ob-gyn. The nice lady at the window asks her for proof of insurance. She doesn’t have any. Then she is told that she will have to sign up for a plan and pay “penalties”…or pay somewhere between $10,000 - $20,000 after everything is said and done for the full cost of delivering her baby (with follow ups, tests, procedures, etc. etc.)
Under Obama’s plan, how much are these “penalties”? We don’t know. Is there interest charged? We don’t know. Could your girlfriend’s income be garnished? We don’t know.
Could a private insurer argue that your girlfriend should be charged a higher rate for acceptance into the plan? I mean, she did enroll with a pre-existing condition, which they now have to cover. Will they charge even more for that?
We don’t know.
What we do know is that your girlfriend will be mandated to purchase coverage for her new baby, possibly at the same time she is paying these “penalties”.
And how is that more “affordable” again?
This is why Obama’s plan will have less of a chance of passing. Folks will start to look under the hood and it won’t look pretty.
It does become a political “football.” I personally think that people have problems when they hear “mandate” and how it WILL affect them. When they are given the option of choice and allowing to gamble, but with the foreknowledge that gambling may result in higher costs, they choose the latter. Is it wiser? Probably not. But, people are people.
The attack ad writes itself. And, let me also observe that the “gamble” has a considerably different percentage of success based on gender (as young, healthy women can get pregnant and men can’t).
As a woman and a mother I can’t condone a plan that sets young women up to fail. I can’t condone it morally, and fiscally I think front end mandates make a plan more viable, as opposed to trying to deal with advserse selection on the back end.
Just where I’m coming from.
Well, the attack ads certainly have been written, but I look at these health plans somewhat skeptically. To me, all of these candidates are smoking a bit too much from the populist pipe. (As in, it sounds good and makes us happy, but the chance of it actually happening are very small.) Any of these systems that have been proposed by these candidates is pretty radical. I will take the best system that we can get, and if mandates are politically nonviable, then I will take the next best thing. Any of the plans are better than what we have now, fortunately.
As I am both a radical and a populist I don’t share your concerns on that particular front
Where did you come up with a 4,000.00 garnishment figure? I’m really curious where that figure came from?
I will try to find it, Barb. I have seen ranges for that amount, going as low as $115/month for someone making $30K to $5000. Unfortunately, the Clinton plan does not provide an actual amount yet. So, you are basically left with people’s educated guesses, based upon the average monthly insurance premium. For me in WA, I believe we pay approx. $450/month in premiums for one person. I will try to find it on Ezra Klein’s site, which I believe has had some estimates.
grannyhelen
You sound far too reasonable to be engaged in this conversation.
My biggest problem with Obama also is in his health care plan. I don’t much care for Clinton’s either, but it is closer to what I would like to see than Obama’s.
Frankly, I will vote for him in November if he is the Democratic nominee. I voted for Clinton in the Illinois primary knowing it was probably a “wasted” vote. Interestingly, she won in Saline county (an adjoining southern Illinois county). Unfortunately, knowing the history of the county, I suspect it had more to do with the color of his skin that belief in HC’s ability to be President.
My bigger worry about this election is the tone of voice people seem to be employing in their ‘lectioneering. Seems to me you don’t have to tear down an opponent in order to promote the candidate you favor. I agree that if Obama gets the nod, the Republicans will unleash their most rabid and disgusting smear tactics. Really nasty stuff. On the other hand, I would really like to see a candidate less inclined to enable Isreal’s aggression against the Palestinians. So the very thing that the Republicans would be most likely to attack him on would be a reason for me to vote for him. I would view with suspicion any candidate that Republicans liked.
I thought his remarks on Reagan were pandering to the right and his explanation of those remarks were disengenuous to say the least. He may be ready to reach across the aisle, but I’m not. If Republicans want to work with Democrats they are welcome to but I don’t feel any obligation to reach across to them, let them reach across to us. The fact that many Republicans don’t feel McCain is “conservative” enough should tell you how likely that is to happen.
It seems to me that Americans put too much into their Presidential contests and too little into Congressional races. That’s where the meat is. No matter which party wins the WH, it is the make-up of the Congress which will drive the agenda. The Gingrich congress drove Clinton to the right in 94, and a Democratic Congress can move either of our candidates further left. So I’ll vote Democratic whoever gets the nomination. And for state offices I’ll vote green because everything said here about Chicago style politics is true and then some. And it perviates Springfield politics as well. I don’t trust any of them, Dems or Reps, so I’ll be voting Green for State Reps.
“five simple bullet points summarizing Obama’s platform”
This is a fool’s errand.
“You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.”
Something truncated this post. The comment should have read:
This is a fool’s errand.
“You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.”
——————Mario Como 1985
I remember this kind of quasi religious fervor amongst the Goldwater crowd (and to a lesser extent with the Kennedy and McGovern activists) just before the 1960 Republican National Convention. The difference I see is that those swept up in the current excitement are not as literate as those ignited by the book that Brent Bozell ghostwrote for Goldwater. It’s a different culture and a different anomie.
It’s fulfillment occurred in 1964.
We all know how that ended. Well, at least the ones that weren’t future zygotes or in day care at the time.
I keep checking in at your blog, nothing there. Please start posting again
I would tell the Zortonian that it’s been decades since any U.S. president was elected on the details of their platform.
And the Zortonian would look at the global climate change we’re experiencing, the amount of people living on poverty, and the fact that our civilization can’t quite figure out how to connect sick people with qualified doctors so they can receive medical treatment…
…and would just sigh, shake his head, and wonder why everyone is so hot and bothered about this “election” thing.
I welcome the comments of the Obama fans,as I welcome the comments of Hillary’s friends, what burns my butt is the viciousness of this alleged dialogue, WE ARE on the SAME SIDE. I repeat we are on the same side, their positions are virtually identical the enemy is outside this blog..THAT
enemy is war profiteering, un constitutional actions, signing statements, the WARS, one million Iraqi dead, possible loss of Afghanistan to the hated Taliban, OSAMA STILL abroad….
THEY are the enemy
DO NOT HATE YOUR democratic opponent
this is NOT THE WAY
TOM
Some question if we are on the same side, hence the investigation into Auchi, and Rezko.
But we’ll see.
I agree, Tom. I’m afraid it’s too late.
Stranger things have happened (Reagan choosing GHWB, for example. There was a lot of bitterness between them). But I have little hope that Kennedy, Kerry and Gephardt will remove craniums from rectums long enough to realize they need Hillary supporters to win too.
1) He’s going to end politics as usual.
2) He’s going to bring people together.
3) He’s going to get the troops out pretty soon.
4) He’s going to do something about health care but it won’t be a mandate and kids will be covered. (So much for you fat, middle aged boomers with bad coughs and racing heartbeats).
5) He’s going to give people hope.
Yeah. Pretty pathetic, isn’t it? We’re going to actually lose the election to McCain because of this bullshit? Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
4 more years of Republicans on tap. Blech.
Well, you forgot the corruption,too, no matter how you spin, it won’t go away.
Think about it, how many people has Obama already alienated, like Bush did, people he will need were he to become president?
Who can you trust, now?
Especially Obama, who can’t even think for himself, hence the plagarizing, who would help him, after throwing all this mindless vitriol, cocky no nothings, into the tank?
1) I’m sure this is like talking to a brick wall, but he IS politics as usual. Bill convinced people he would do the same in 92. But now Bill is enemy #1 of the Obamites. Does that make any sense?
2) DITTO. For God’s sake, man… please, please, please read a Wikipedia article about Clinton’s 92 campaign. The Republicans DO NOT WANT TO BE BROUGHT TOGETHER. Obama does not have a frigging magic wand to do it any better than Bill did. Bill gutted Welfare for them and they thanked him with impeachment.
3) One hopes so. Have my doubts, but I have a wait-and-see on that.
4) Will cover half as many people as HillaryCare2 and cost almost as much. Not the end of the world, but hardly better.
5) Giving people hope is good. It’s just not enough to hand out hope without a plan for giving them something to have been hopeful about.
If you look at primary turnout, Dems are coming out, Republicans are staying home. Wave a cross and wrap yourself in the flag, that works for a while, but eventually the lies eat their way through and the dumbshit demographic that you’ve depended on starts deserting you in droves. Not going to the other side, but just not bothering.
If we had nominated John Edwards, the folks who vote for the daddy they never had or for the guy they’d like to have a beer with, or the guy who’ll smite the unsaved, or who’ll kill all the far-away scary and ungrateful brown people, — all of those voters would have nothing to vote against and nothing to vote for, and would stay in their BarcaLoungers (or the lowbrow equivalent) and not even bother voting.
Barack Obama will bring the hard-core racists out, and I really have no idea how many of those are still out there. Definitely some, but while racism is not dead, it’s mostly a spent force in the US.
Hillary Clinton will bring out the whole Limbaugh/Hannity/Sewage/O’Reilly audience because the nightmares that’ve been beaten into their soft little heads since the ‘92 campaign, that have never been effectively countered by the Clintons (it’s tough when you’re up against a motivated billionaire like Scaife), will now be coming true and they can sing Onward Christian Soldiers as they march to the polls.
I think it’s unlikely that enough of them will come out to vote in any case, but if anyone can motivate the Pig People, it’s Hillary Clinton. And since that’s pretty much all the Rethugmasters have left to motivate people with, all of that stuff Larry refers to on the Hate-Hillary sites will be showing up on mainstream media. It’ll be bracketed by disclaimers as to the reliability of the scurrilous claim, sure, but if you’ve been drinking that Red-state Kool-Aid long enough, you just know that where there’s smoke there’s got to be some fire, eh?
F.
Fingal, buachaill,
That was pure Joyce on Owsley Acid.
Tiocfaidh ár lá
1) He looks like a Kennedy in that overcoat. Kind of a cool early sixties look.
2) He shakes his finger when he makes a speech, like JFK.
3) Wouldn’t it be cool if a black guy was president?
4) His videos and songs are so much hipper than that middle aged white woman who is my mother’s age. Jesse Dylan even did one. His dad is some famous guy.
5) I never get sick, don’t have a mortgage, or a family. I donate to him out of my student loan money and I can tell you, America would just look a lot cooler if he was president.
lol..that was really good big ed