Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Our children-

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:51 AM
Original message
Our children-
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 02:52 AM by asdjrocky
"We have to fight for our future—for our America. Because when we look our children in the eye, what will we tell them? Will we be forced to say that we left this mess to them, because the challenges were just too great? Or will we be able to look at them and say that in the face of great challenges, we changed our country. We rose to the day. We fixed a broken system and made our country stronger, safer and more prosperous than ever before. This is our moment."

-And our children's children. Will they know these words? Will they know this was a time of great change, and that these very words, fueled that change?

Will we make the change?

"This is our moment."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. Is that why he didn't support universal health care until now?
For the children?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Yeah...
maybe he should tell the children their parents will be harassed by bill collectors if they default on their insurance payments...and that their wages may be garnished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. IMO, if the premium truly is affordable, then the parents should insure their kids
It's the responsible thing to do. Of course, this is conditioned on the premium being truly affordable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. Which, I agree,
would be much worse than having a Mom die of breast cancer because she couldn't get preventive care.

Or a dad with high blood pressure, unable to get his medication.

I always try to be nice, but frankly, that is a BS statement.

Thanking you for an early framing of the RW talking points in the general. With ideas like that on our side, the poor and the working poor, and the middle class will never get to go to the doctor.

I guess you live your life tax free right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. By the way,
Buddy, he was not in the Senate in 93.

Again, I look on the table and see nothing there.

Pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. Edwards has the right message which is looking out for all Americans
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 10:06 AM by EV_Ares
instead of the corporations. This guy has some good points on his healthcare which he has always been for. There is a time and place for everything and if you remember Hillary brought hers up at the wrong time and the issue is on the frontburner now which is the ideal time to get this message out which is why everyone is on the bandwagon with a healthcare program now following in his steps.

The Edwards Health Plan
A quick rundown of John Edwards's just-released health plan (pdf). The short answer: It's good.

Here's how it works: On first blush, the plan is much like the Wyden initiative, though it puts the onus of the responsibility for funding health coverage on employers, a decision I don't quite understand. The employers can satisfy that responsibility by either providing comprehensive care, or helping employees purchase from a menu of insurance options provided by newly formed, state-run "Health Markets."

As of now, the plan doesn't explain how much employers must provide towards health market coverage, but it's a safe bet to assume that it's somewhat less than the total cost of health care, and so the incentive will be for employers to encourage their employees to purchase from the HMs. And that's where things get interesting. The HMs will offer a menu of private options that are totally community rated. The plan "will require insurers to keep plans open to everyone and charge fair premiums, regardless of preexisting conditions, medical history, age, job, and other characteristics." These days, though, community rating is a common enough.

Where the Edwards' plan takes a big step forward is in mandating, along with the private options, that HMs offer "at least one plan would be a public program based upon Medicare." And the intent is explicit: "Health Markets will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it. Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan."

In other words, the public sector will finally be allowed to compete with the private sector, and consumers will be able to decide which style they prefer. For Democrats, this is a significant step forward. From there, the plan offers the usual mix of sliding subsidies to ensure affordability, individual mandate to universalize coverage, pay-for-performance promises, and public health fixes. You've heard those bits before. What's new, and what's important, are the community rated health markets that include public insurance. Indeed, the plan satisfied every plank of my progressive health reform test from last week.

The plan will cost between $90 billion and $120 billion a year, and according to Edwards, taxes will have to be raised to pay for it. Readers should remember that this is the first full health reform plan from a major candidate in the 2008 election. As such, it has widened the field of the debate, and unless the other candidates want to explain why they lack the boldness of Edwards' plan, they'll have to offer similarly comprehensive proposals. What they will have to match is full community rating, a public insurance option, total universality, scaleability towards more public involvement, and a willingness to propose something comprehensive enough to require revenue increases to fund. In other words, the goalposts have been moved. To the left.

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/the_edwards_hea.html

Hopefully, we will get this as it does what most Americans need.

Under the Edwards Plan:
Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price.
Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices.
Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.
The Edwards Plan achieves universal coverage by:
Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
Making insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
Creating regional "Health Care Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance.
Securing universal healthcare for every American will require the active involvement of millions of Americans.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The problem I have is that his words do not match his deeds
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 10:17 AM by Evergreen Emerald
He has historically voted while in office, for the corporations and against the little guy. His record is not now as he speaks.

I do not trust the transformation--too quick--too turnabout. Kucinich is the real deal. Edwards appears to have changed his spots to put himself in a nitch that was held by a lower tierd candidate.

I will note, that I am very happy he has stopped with the negative campaigning...It has raised his esteem in my eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Kucinich is the or a real deal. He has been on track as long as I can
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 10:14 AM by EV_Ares
remember. However, Edwards has always gone to battle for the guy who can't fight the battles for himself. He had some votes for the corporations and I would have to go back to see exactly how and why. As you know you can't just look at a vote and say it is for whatever the way the votes are put up. The republicans did that to us several times when they were in control. Also, if you are going to look at someone who has voted for the corporations, you probably will eliminate the others except Kucinich, especially Hillary who has chosen Murdoch as one of her best friends. Fox should love that along with all of his other media and of which he plans to expand in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. actually, if you look at Clinton's votes
they do represent the "little guy." And the Murdock issue: keep your friends close and your enemies closer. When Obama went after those who were not progressive--even had a homophobic man speak for him--supporters suggested that it is time to open our tent. They gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Murdock would be a great ally. If she can bring him to her, and diffuse the ugly lies spewed by Fox news, perhaps that would be a good thing. Sounds like an ability to bring all sides together would be helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. LOL, yeah, I will let you buy into that one. Murdoch is not going to be any
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 10:29 AM by EV_Ares
ally except for the fact to give her all the money he is giving her and we will see what he gets in return for it. As for her votes overall, she is corporate. Granted she does some things in a broad spectrum that is good. All the dems do, which is why it is the better party overall as far as I am concerned but her votes are all 100% totally calculated along with every other move for what they are going to do for her "first" which is why we got the Iraq vote and the one on top of that turning around and enabling Bush for Iran. She is smart, calculating, knows what she wants but in my opinion certainly not the better choice of the candidates we have. I can accept Edwards, Obama, Kucinich and Biden, they would all be good. You can find something in all of them you are not crazy about but overall, each one of them would be a good leader for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. your opposition is based on the fact that Murdock gave her money?
Look at her deeds. Actions speak louder than words.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 91 percent in 2006.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 100 percent in 2005

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 80 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 84 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on social policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can...

She was promoting universal coverage before it was cool. Furthermore she helped to create the SCHIP program. And most importantly she was dead on in the debate the other week where she said political will was the most important thing needed to push health care reform through and we know without a doubt she has that.

She has fougt unrelentingly for a woman's right to choose as well as women's rights both domestically and abroad

Create a Strategic Energy Fund - Hillary has proposed a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject $50 billion into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels. Hillary's proposal would give oil companies a choice: invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. Hillary's proposal would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share for drilling on public lands. Instead of sending billions of dollars to the Middle East for their oil, Hillary's proposal will create a new clean energy industry in America and create tens of thousands of jobs here.

Champion a Market-Based "Cap and Trade" Approach - Hillary supports a market-based, cap and trade approach to reducing carbon emissions and fight global warming. This approach was used successfully to limit sulfur dioxide and reduce levels of acid rain in the 1990s. By capping the amount of emissions in the environment and allowing corporations to buy and sell permits, this approach offers corporations a flexible, cost-efficient method to do their share to reduce emissions and combat global warming. The program will reduce emissions, drive the development of clean technologies, and create a market for projects that store carbon dioxide.

20% Renewable Electricity Standard by 2020 - Hillary believes we need to shift our reliance on high carbon electricity sources to low-carbon electricity sources by investing in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind. As President, she'll work to require power companies to obtain 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Make Federal Buildings Carbon Neutral - Hillary believes that the federal government should lead the way in reducing carbon emissions from buildings. Buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the federal government owns or leases more than 500,000. Hillary would require all federal buildings to steadily increase the use of green design principles, energy efficient technologies, and to generate energy on-site from solar and other renewable sources. By 2030, all new federal buildings and major renovations would be carbon neutral, helping to fight global warming and cutting the $5.6 billion that the federal government spends each year on heating, cooling and lighting.

Protecting Against Exposure to Toxic Chemicals - Hillary wants to make the products we use safer, especially for children. There are tens of thousands of chemicals used in the U.S. and hundreds of new chemicals introduced each year, but little health testing is conducted for many of them. Hillary would require chemical companies to prove that new chemicals are safe before they are put on the market, and would set more stringent exposure standards for kids. She would also create a "priority list" of existing chemicals and require testing to make sure they are safe. To improve our understanding of the links between chemicals and diseases like cancer, Hillary would create an "environmental health tracking network" that ties together information about pollution and chronic diseases.

Hillary's Record

In the White House, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier, to expand early learning and child care, to increase funding for breast cancer research, and to help veterans suffering from Gulf War syndrome who had too often been ignored in the past. She helped launch a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy and helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which moved children from foster care to adoption more quickly and the number of children who have moved out of foster care into adoption has increased dramatically.

She was instrumental in designing and championing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has provided millions of children with health insurance. She battled the big drug companies to force them to test their drugs for children and to make sure all kids get the immunizations they need through the Vaccines for Children Program. Immunization rates dramatically improved after the program launched.

Hillary has been a leading member of the Environment and Public Works Committee since she was elected to the Senate. Today, she chairs the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee and in that capacity has promoted legislation to evaluate and protect against the impact of environmental pollutants on people's health and clean up toxic waste.

Global warming and Clean Air
Spoken out forcefully about the need to tackle global warming in hearings, speeches, rallies and on the Senate floor and co-sponsored "cap and trade" legislation.
Worked to reduce air pollution that causes asthma and other respiratory diseases by writing and helping to pass new laws to clean up exhaust from school buses, and other diesel-powered equipment.
Supported legislation to reduce pollution from power plants, including harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide - emissions that contribute to poor air quality, smog, acid rain, global warming, and mercury contamination of fish.
Aggressively fought the Bush Administration's ill-advised attempts to weaken clean air laws.

Improving Water Quality and Protecting Drinking Water
Helped to overturn the Bush Administration's attempt to allow more arsenic in drinking water.
Cosponsored legislation to protect lakes, rivers and coastal waters by fighting the spread of destructive invasive species, such as the zebra mussel.
Helped ot pass new clean water laws, including measures to protect New York City's water supplies and clean up Long Island Sound.

Protecting Public Lands
Fought oil company efforts to pen the Artic Wildlife Refuge in Alask and Pacific and Atlantic coastal waters to drilling.
Cosponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which prohibits road construction and logging in unspoiled, roadless areas of the National Forest System, and voted for additional funding and manpower to combat forest fires in the west.

Reducing Dangerous Chemicals and Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste
Supported legislation to restore the "polluter pays" principle by reinstating a chemical company fee to fund cleanups of highly contaminated "Superfund" waste sites.
Cosponsored the "kids-Safe Chemical Act," which requires chemical companies to provide health and safety before putting new chemicals in consumer products.
Proposed legislation to create an environmental health tracking network to enable us to better understand the impact of environmental hazards on human health and well-being.

Tackling the Toxic Legacy of 9/11
Pushed for health care benefits for first responders, residents and others whose health has been impacted from breathing the toxic dust and smoke in New York City after 9/11.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/20/134810/677

Hillary Clinton co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977. In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter (for whom she had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation, and she served in that capacity from 1978 through the end of 1981. For much of that time she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million, and she successfully battled against President Ronald Reagan's initial attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.

Following the November 1978 election of her husband as Governor of Arkansas, Clinton became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979, her title for a total of twelve years. Bill appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.

Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system. One of the most important initiatives of the entire Clinton governorship, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association to put mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size in place. She introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.

And a bit of stuff from the White House years:

Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage. She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare. She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.

The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.

Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.<124> She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.<125> She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.<43> The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.<43> Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.<43> In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.<43> As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House Conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997),<126> Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997),<127> and Children and Adolescents (2000),<128> and the first-ever White House Conferences on Teenagers (2000)<129> and Philanthropy (1999).<130>

Hillary Clinton traveled to over eighty countries during this time,<131> breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon.<132> In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself.<133> She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.<134><135> She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

"...Hillary Clinton traveled to over eighty countries during this time,<131> breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon.<132> In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself.<133> She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.<134><135> She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries..."

More:
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/israe...
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/darfu...


The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%
easures to protect New York City's water supplies and clean up Long Island Sound.
end, lifelong she has supported and fought for the little guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Some people think Murdoch's donations justify anything they say about Clinton
in spite of her decades long record. Instead, they believe what other politicians say, even when their records say otherwise.

Basically, their opinions are built on the shallowest foundations
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. That is only about voting on bills that are allowed to get to the floor
Nothing that is a serious threat to corporations gets that far, and Clinton and others make sure of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. please tell me the basis of that conclusion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Have you ever seen anything get to the floor restricting "free" trade?
How about laws repealing Taft-Hartley? How come HR 676 can't get out of committee?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. seriously: it's all Clinton's fault? Really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. I said that corporations dictate our legislative agenda
Only bills that aren't too offensive to them get on to the floor to be voted on at all, so plenty of Dems can have a "liberal" voting record without threatening our masters too much. This is true of plenty of people besides Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. "LIttle guys" like defense contractors and Wall Street brokers? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Exactly.
After I read his "plan" last night, I couldn't sleep. It's just more of the government telling ME what I MUST do. And then threatning people with collections and wage garnishments. At least Hillary's plan has options. I like Biden's plan more, but in the event he doesn't make it, I'll vote for Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Punt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Funny,
I've never found myself in a positive Biden thread talking like this.

I find this interesting that Biden supporters would do this. I look for it from a hill-nippers at DU, or from one of the DK people on occasion, but I have to say I do find this interesting.

I've never even said a word about Biden, useless it was good.

I plan to to go back and look at Biden, beyond the BK vote. I'll take a real good look at his record, and what he is saying now. I'm quite certain I can find some problems there. Let's face it, the old guy has been in the Senate for like a hundred years, right? We sure know he likes to vote funding for a war. He's a lawyer right? Hell their all lawyers right? I wonder how much pro bono work he's done.... hmmmmmmm.

Is this where we want to go with this?

I really thought Biden was a decent guy, that was mostly reflected by his supporters.

This is really too bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I've written my reply to your
post. However, I am saving it until after Jan. 3rd. I may not even need to say it, so I will wait and see. If Edwards makes it, and Biden doesn't, you will know exactly where I stand, and so will everyone else.

I would also like to recommend that, based on your comments, you have a "come to Jesus" meeting with the other JE supporters, and ask them to restrict their hateful replies about other candidates as well. I mean, fair is fair, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. We don't have meetings.
We're just people who happen to support the same candidate, and for some very good reasons I might add.

However, I can not speak for other Edwards supporters, I can only speak for myself and my actions, not for others. And I think you know where I stand, and the way I have conducted myself here.

And "come to Jesus", not too sure about that comment.

Anyway, peace, and good luck to your guy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. So, I take it you aren't paying taxes?
AFter all, the government says you must pay taxes. Whatthehell is your problem for using tax money for public goods like health care? Why is health care different from roads, schools and fire protection?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. What he is proposing is that private insurers insure healthy people
--and government will insure the sick people. The private insurers will be allowed to divert health care dollars away from sick people that way. His proposals that insurance companies not be allowed to cherrypick will be flat out unacceptable to them, just as real universal health care would be. So why does he want to get hung for a lamb instead of a sheep?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC