Is Dean putting power in the hands of the people, really?

[AP]

I think this is worth debating, so stick with me for a second before you hit reply and accuse me of flame-baiting and knee-jerk Dean bashing.

I just read MGKrebs's post which says: "I think the Dean "mania" is as much about the empowerment we have been given through the internet driven campaign as it is about him." This is a common sentiment people repeat in defense of Dean's campaign. Some say that that sense of empowerment is MORE important than Dean's politics.

Now, I aslo read Maired's post today which says: "Dean isn't planning on making any substantive changes...Find something among his policies that is going to change the direction in which wealth flows. There isn't one.

He's not going to cut the obscene war-industry budget...He's not going to take the hands of the wealthy elites out of our pockets on healthcare. Instead he's actually planning to give them $88G MORE per year while still leaving 10M people without healthcare. He's not going to end the drugs war, which means that while, if he follows through, he's going to switch some money out of the prison industry, he's just going to funnel into the same elite pockets via the healthcare industry...He says he's going to balance the budget. But on whose backs? Obviously not the wealthy elites' backs, so guess whose backs that leaves! (I added my own comment to this post which noted that Dean's education plan is actually a government subsidy to the banks which give out higher education loans...so the list of policies which relate to wealth transfers is long, I think.)

It has always been my feeling that that wealth transfer is the bottom line when it comes to politics. Republicans would be all for abortion and gay marriage and they'd hate christian fundementalists if they could figure out a way to turn those issues into policies which shifted wealth and power to the wealthiest. And I wonder, how empowered are the people when they're empowering someone who isn't really interested in channeling ECONOMIC power down to the middle and working class?

Discuss.

[Don_G]

1. We Need To Start Somewhere

And leaving power in the hands of Dimbo and his ilk to run a secret government isn't the way to do it. He may be moderate about a lot of things but I don't think that's bad and I do think he can open up the decisions made by the government to the public.

[sfecap]

2. "The wealthy elites"?

You mean like John Edwards and John Kerry?

John Edwards - Total asset valuation:

$8,707,072 - $36,500,000

Top 5 Assets :

Note Receivable J Edwards for Senate Cttee $5,000,001 - $25,000,000
EVERGREEN MUNI MONEY MARKET FUND $1,000,001 - $5,000,000
Buyout provision of Interest in Law Firm (see Part IX) $500,001 - $1,000,000
Building, 714 St. Mary's St. Raleigh, NC $500,001 - $1,000,000
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK $250,001 - $500,000

Asset Category Breakdown:

Other $5,501,003 - $26,015,000
Cash, Savings $1,447,010 - $5,981,000
Real Estate $880,005 - $1,850,000
General Investment $686,015 - $1,665,000
Stocks or Bonds $193,039 - $989,000




John Kerry - Total asset valuation:

$198,794,683 - $839,038,000

Top 5 Assets:

HEINZ H J CO $4,000,004 - $20,000,000
DEL MONTE FOODS CO $3,500,004 - $16,000,000
DF TEMPORARY INVESTMENT FUND (2) $3,000,004 - $12,000,000
UNITED STATES TREASURY BILLS (1) $2,500,003 - $11,002,000
FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS INC TELECOM $2,000,002 - $10,000,000

Asset Category Breakdown:

Stocks or Bonds $173,867,611 - $734,449,000
General Investment $13,506,025 - $60,192,000
Real Estate $5,350,007 - $25,750,000
Other $1,877,011 - $6,884,000
Cash, Savings $3,144,027 - $6,662,000
Business Partnership $1,050,002 - $5,101,000

http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/

Yeah, class warfare is good for the Dems...

[AP]

4. I wonder what percent of Edwards's wealth was earned income taxed at

the highest rates we tax income in the US?

I have a ton of respect for anyone who got rich working hard for a living. Show me a person who did it that way, and I'll show you a person who has a decent understanding of how most Americans experience life in America.

[sfecap]

8. What difference does it make?

Contrary to popular belief, wealthy people do pay taxes, and they pay a lot, and they can damn well afford to. (But you know that...)

Corporations are another story...

[AP]

17. I have more respect for someone who worked for a living to get rich

than someone like Bush who probably got 99% of all the money he's ever had through some corporate shenanigan taxed at cap gains or dividend income rates, or got it from a trust fund which escaped inheritance tax rates, and barely worked for it.

Notice how Bush has got everything he's ever had not by working or earning it, but, literally by losing and fucking up (and that includes the presidency).

[sfecap]

34. I understand, now.

Does that mean you respect me? :-)

[AP]

38. I don't know anything about you.

[SahaleArm]

63. False - Most wealth is accumulated through Capital Gains.

A taxable rate of 20% + AMT is much less than the old top tax bracket of 39.6%.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

78. Sorry but Kerry's entire life as a liberal fighting for us

makes any assessment of his wealth completely meaningless with regard to his record.
Kerry has passed any sort of litmus test you can come up with.

[Eloriel]

3. First, define your terms -- which you should've done

to start with.

What sorts of policies are you looking for? Taxation seems obvious, but what else? I could tick off a number of things, but I'm not going to play a silly game started by a supporter of some OTHER candidate whose plan (whether conscious or not) is just going to be to bat things down.

WHAT SORTS OF POLICIES TRANSFER WEALTH OTHER THAN TAXATION?

Edit: I would also point out that this is especially necessary because your thread title isn't what you're actually asking. Your thread title is about "power," your text is about "wealth." There are far more ways for people to have and experience power than merely money, tho that's an important one.

Eloriel

[AP]

6. Economic power is political power.

If you have a wealth middle class, you have a middle class which has time to organize and to care about something other than working to pay off their credit card debt and pay their mortgages, and you have people who can afford to hire a lawyer if your rights are infringed.

One thing that brought an end to the vietnam war was that middle class parents got pissed about what was happening to their kids and back then we were still in the golden economic age, whent the middle class had a little money and power.

As for transfers of wealth, Maired's post does a nice job of setting them out. I'll just pick one: Dean's education policy is just another kind of loan which guarantees payment to big banks underwriting the loan, and makes the taxpayer subsidize the loan.

That's a transfer of wealth to banks which should be accumulating to taxpayers, recent graduates and to universities.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. I remember when Clinton promised to do this, but didn't

In Clinton's first inauguration speech, he asked us why a bank should get interest from school loans if they took no risk by lending it? If the taxpayers guarenteed the loan and takes the risk, why shouldn't the taxpayers make the profit? It's just efficient government.

At the time I was getting student loans myself, so it resonanted. Nothing ever becamse of his proposed program as far as I know. I suppose Dean is suggesting taking on more risk from the bank, as an "education policy"?

[sfecap]

12. Banks don't really get the interest.

Investors do.

Banks securitize the loans, sell them at a discount, and service the notes.

They get paid to handle the paperwork.

(Greatly simplified version...)

[AP]

16. So where does the 7000 in interest you pay on a 30 year 2000 dollar loan

go?

[sfecap]

35. To the investors who bought the securities...

...and the banks get a bit for administering the deal.

The loans are securitized. (Bundled) They are marketed as bonds (usually) to investors who buy the bonds, and collect the interest over the term of the bond.

The banks get the cash, and use it to make more student loans.

It's much like the mortgage markets.

[AP]

39. Ah yes. Reducing the risk for investors by making the taxpayer the

insurer of their profits.

If the banks are making more loans that get students further in debt, where's the benefit.

Why aren't schools and students benefitting from education? Why are taxpayers guarantying the success of banks and investors? Why do investors reap all the rewards? How are we going to have a wealthy poltically powerful middle class if we're all just wage slaves paying off our student loans and our mortgages?

[sfecap]

10. Who should underwrite the loans?

If not banks?

[AP]

14. The government would get more bang for its buck if it just gave

grants to pay down principle, rather thant subsidize interest payments with a tax credit.

I believe that's what Pell Grants did, and becuase they cost banks their interest profits, they've been reduced.

Edwards's plan is to pay up front for one year of school if you work. That reduces the principle by 1/4 (or more if students use the money they earned to pay for tuition).

Remember, a 2000 loan to pay for college can turn into 2,000 dollars in principle and 5,000 in interest. The banks love the interest part, and taxpayers end up subsidizing a part of that interest if people get a tax credit for it. Taxpayers might be better off if they just give the money as a grant to the college up front, so students can take out smaller loans. It might be cheaper in the long run. And the best part is that you're not subsidizing bank profit.

A system which guarantees profits for banks is silly if you're trying to get people educated. It's better if you make sure students can keep more of their money in their pockets (rather than paying it in interest).

[sfecap]

36. I'm not going to argue the philosophy, but...

...nobody is going to loan money without getting interest.

[AP]

40. What's wrong with taxpayers financing programs which are grants

which reduce the amount students have to borrow?

Don't you get what I'm saying?

Pell Grants are disappearing because the banking industry doesn't like them. They WANT people to be hooked on debt paying high interest rates (rates, by the way, which your elected representatives who are in the pockets of the bank lobby are in control of).

This is WHY Edwards's program reduces the amount that people have to finance. This is why Wall Streeter Dean has a program which could potentially INCREASE the amount of an education people finance.

[Eloriel]

19. Well, after I posted what I did, I realized that Mairead's post

was setting Kucinich's positions as the standard. If ya'll want to argue the undoable policies of an unelectable candidate are the standard, you certainly can.

But without me. I'm with Howard Dean: getting it done is more important than having it perfect from the start.

Eloriel

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Dean's health care plan

Your post quotes the assertation that Dean's health care plan will leave 10M people without healthcare. I heard Dean talk about this on CSPAN, and he said that he figured that about that many people would opt out of joining the system. That was the very part of his health plan that appealed to me. I am very very leery of having to join a health care plan that may not pay for me to go to the integrative physician that is my MD. In fact, I'd resent having to pay my money for such a program. I know that most people follow conventional medicine, but that doesn't cut it for me, and I'd resent having to pay to support a system I don't believe in.

So I see Dean's health care plan as definately taking people into account, and empowering them to choose whether to opt in or out.

[AP]

7. The important part...and you'll have to talk to Maired about this...

...is that his plan constitutes a further transfer of 88 Bil to the health care industry.

Some of the other plans say that the problem with health care is that too much money is going to things that don't promote health, like drug company profits.

[HFishbine]

13. Sincere Question

If one were to consider the framework you construct as a measure of a candidate, who do you think stacks up best here?

[AP]

15. Which candidate is least about ensuring proifts for big corporations and

is about building up middle and working class wealth?

That's easy: Kucinich, Edwards and Sharpton or all on relatively the same page.

Kucinich has a record of standing up to the transfer of wealth to the wealthy with his battle against privitization of the power company in Cleveland. Edwards has made a career of transferring wealth from rich to poor (almost a quarter of a billion dollars in his lifetime). Sharpton's meta-message is equal opportunity on a level playing field.

Gephardt, Kerry, M-B and Clark might be good on this issue too, but unlike Kucinich and Edwards (and Sharpton), they aren't running on this issue. Kucinich and Edwards have put the idea of building up the economic (and therefore political) power of the middle and working class front and center.

Edwards knows that banks are making too much money off of educating working and middle class Americans. That's WHY he wants to have the government help reduce indebtedness by at least 25%. Dean worked on Wall St. He knows how banks make their money. That's WHY he wants to have taxpayers subsidize their profits. He thinks that's the way America should work -- finance and free markets.

[HFishbine]

18. Thanks for the answer, but....

Since you used Dean's health care plan as an example of wealth transfer to corporations, what do we see when we look at Gephardt's and Edwards'?

As for Edwards' career of transfering wealth from rich to poor, I just hope he doesn't intend on Americans suffering a personal injury as a means to get their share.

I think if you apply an even hand, you're really only left with Kucinich, MB, and perhaps Sharpton.

[AP]

20. Americans have already suffered a tortious injury at the hands of Repubs.

Don't you agree?

Wouldn't you say, Republicans have a duty of care to the middle and working class, they breached that duty, the breach has resulted in an injury, and the breach is the proximate cause of the injury?

Incidentally, that's Maired who talked about health care above. But, I'll add that Edwards says that a big problem with the cost of healthcare is that there's too much profit in it for the healthcare and drug industry. Dean want's to put even more money into it.

MB doesn't talk about middle class opportunity so much as she talks about women's issues. And you've not given any good reason for taking Edwards out of the tier which wants to transfer wealth and power back to the middle and working class.

Every single one of his policies and his entire campaign revolves around this theme.

[HFishbine]

22. I'm just suggesting

that we be even handed. Afterall, some good points were made about framing a review of the candidates in this light of "where's the money go."

I haven't crunched the number on Edwards' health care proposals, but since he wants to expand coverage through existing insurers, mandating that parents indure their children, I think it's obvious that Edwards' plan would funnel more dollars into the hands of corporations. In fact, since Dean's plan calls for expanding the State Children's Health Inurance Program, whereas Edwards would require insurance through private carriers, it seems as if Edwards' proposal is even more beneficial to corporations.

It's disengenuos to ignore that Dean also has proposals for reducing health care and drug costs.

Your response to MB misses the point, not matter what she mostly talks about, she and Kucinich are the only two candidates who would nationalize health care insurance.

So, if one is serious about examining where the money is going to go, one cannot exlude Dean because of his health care plan and not legitimately also exclude Edwards. If one takes an honest look at who's prepared to do the most to transfer wealth and power back to the middle class, MB and Special K some out on top.

[AP]

24. Edwards's plan is designed to take the huge profit margin out of

health care. The government would tightly regulate the costs and the coverage for the insurance plans for children and would provide a government plan to catch anyone who can't get the private coverage.

The whole plan revolves around controlling the costs, which means narrower profit margins for insurance companies.

As for national health care, remember, the UK has national care, and had it under Thatcher. It's not the be all and end all. You can have a poorly funded, expensive health care problem that channels a ton of public wealth into profits for the health care companies.

My point about CMB is that these candidates, in their campaigns, are establishing a contract with the public. They're saying what they'll do in a paragraph, and saying to the public, "hold me to it." CMB may have a few liberal ideas, but her one-paragraph contract with the electorat has less to do with middle class opprotunity than Edwards's or Kucinich's. Edwards is saying "judge me on what I give to the middle class".

Dean is saying, judge me on whether I balance the budget and fight for a national health plan.

Edwards's contract is the definition of liberal, in my mind. Dean's isn't. Hoover promissed to balance budgets and Thatcher presided over a government which provided single payer health care. There's more to being a liberal than what Dean thinks there is to it.

[HFishbine]

28. "Narrower profit margins for insurance companies?"

Really? You make that point because it fits with the picure you'd like to paint of Edwards, but is it true? Is there some independent source (even the Edwards' campaign, if you think it's there) that will verify this is Edwards' plan -- to narrow the profits of insurance companies?

Edwards is my senator, and if you are buying into the "one-paragraph" contract, at least the way you perceive it, you are being sorely mislead.

I can assure you that Edwards has had no problem in official votes as a senator funneling his share of pork to highly profitable corpororations -- one in particular for a project that the EPA and state environmental agencies agree will diminish the air and water quality of my city.

I like Edwards just fine. But trust me, if the Edwards campaign should try to run with this notion that Edwards does not transfer wealth to the wealthy at the EXPENSE of the middle class, he won't get away with it.

[AP]

30. Read this and get back to me.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/healthcare.asp

"The only way we can tackle the health care problem is to ask for responsibility from everyone: responsibility from parents to make sure their children have health care; responsibility from government to help families insure their kids and deal with the rising costs of health care, and responsibility from drug and insurance companies to bring costs down for every American."

Senator Edwards' Record On Health Care
John Edwards co-authored legislation to lower the cost of skyrocketing prescriptions by bringing generics into the marketplace faster and stopping big drug companies from abusing their patents. As a lawyer, Edwards frequently represented families in their times of greatest need. They were families who were holding their health insurance companies and health providers accountable and fighting overwhelming odds to get the financial support they needed and deserved. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Senators John McCain and Kennedy, Edwards fought successfully for Senate passage of a patients' bill of rights to increase access to medical specialists and emergency rooms, and finally hold HMOs accountable for their actions.


Also: Fact Sheet: Reducing Costs and Improving Quality Within Medicare

[HFishbine]

33. Getting back to you

Nothing about "narrowing profit margins for insurance companies."

I won't deny all the good things Edwards has done for the working class. As I said, I like the guy, hell, I voted for him once already. The point is he's not immune to the charge of transfering wealth to the wealthy. If you're going to make that charge against other candidates, be prepared for it to hit Edwards too.

[AP]

37. What do you think "bringing down costs" of insurance and drugs means?

It's coming out of profit margins.

Obviously, entities providing a service have to get paid. However, there's a big difference between making insurance companies provide a well-regulated, cost-controlled insurance program for kids, and greasing the skids for profit making for companies which are providing no- or low-value services to the public.

When Dean uses the tax code to subsidize premium payments which make money for private companies, that's more like greasing the skids of proift makers, and taking the risk out of making money for big companies, while putting the the burdens and the risks on the taxpayer.

[HFishbine]

46. You're not listening

First of all, "bringing down the cost of insurance and drugs" by no means means sqeezing profit margins. Maybe you are intentionally being simple because you wish to cling to your notion that Edwards is going to stick it to "the man." But costs for insurance and drugs can be brought down by other means, such as cutting overhead -- administrative an operational costs for example, as Dean proposes.

Secondly, it is Edwards' plan that uses the tax code to grease the wheels for more money to go to private insurers through a MANDATED expenditure by parents that would require them to buy health insureance from private insurers. Just read the link you offered above.

Dean on the other hand would insure kids through CHIPS, a state administered program that would not put one more dime into the pockets of private insurers. Get your facts straight.

[AP]

73. horse...dead...you're still beating it.

It's sounds more like you're be intentionally simple because you want to cling to the notion that Edwards isn't looking to costs cutting to be the a big part of the solution.

Health care takes up 20% of the GDP. It's the largest industry in America. The drug industry is the highest profit margin in the history of the world.

Has the quality of health care increased commenserate with the rising percentage of GDP? Has the drug industry cured a single disease since polio with those profits? (Actually, their profits have a lot to do with the fact that they DON'T cure diseases.)

So, if you want to read Edwards's health care plan and stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and sing la la la la when I tell you that he wants to address the rising costs with the commensartate improvement in care, go ahead. Your denial horse is dead, but keep beating it.

[TLM]

49. How many people does the evil heathcare industry employ?

You find plenty of room to attack Dean with this nonsense that any tax money that goes to any group or company that isn't destitute is somehow the same thing as picking our pockets and handing it over to some rich bastard who keeps it all.

When in fact the lion's share of this money goes right back into the health care system to pay doctors and nurses, pay for medical equipment and R&D that is used to give better treatment to patients.

You start out with the premise of bashing Dean at all costs, then try to make the facts fit into to that end. You do this over and over... it is really disapointing.


And you mention drug company profits... Dean has a fanatastic record on limiting the drug companies, keeping them from bribing doctors, and lowering costs in VT.



Too many of America’s citizens are struggling to keep up with the sky-rocketing cost of prescription drugs. While other candidates are putting forth ideas on how to control drug costs, Governor Howard Dean has been busy putting his ideas into action. For eleven years, Dean balanced Vermont's budgets and took on the brand name pharmaceutical industry to lower costs for Vermont’s citizens. His actions have produced results: for the third consecutive year, an independent research company has named Vermont the nation’s “Healthiest State” (http://www.morganquitno.com/hc03press.htm).

Dean’s cost containment actions include closing loopholes to make generic drugs more readily available, allowing for the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada, and curbing strategies used by the pharmaceutical companies to promote more expensive drug choices. The following is a more complete description of some of the actions Governor Dean put in place in Vermont which are having a major impact at the national level.

Drug Patent Reform. Governor Dean was the driving force in creating Business for Affordable Medicine (BAM), a coalition of governors, business interests and organized labor with one objective closing loopholes used by brand name drug manufacturers to prevent or delay lower-priced generic drugs whose patents have expired from reaching the marketplace. BAM is attempting to reform the Hatch-Waxman Act to achieve this objective.

Governor Dean created and coordinated unanimous passage of NGA policy on the need to reform the Hatch-Waxman Act. (February 26, 2002). Prior to efforts of BAM, all efforts to close the loopholes in Hatch-Waxman had failed. Governor Dean's leadership with other governors and his work on Capitol Hill helped set the stage for a successful Senate amendment to this year’s Medicare drug benefit legislation. The Senate passed the BAM reform amendment by a vote of 94-1, and it has also been included in the House’s version of the legislation. If enacted, this legislation would make cost-effective generic drugs available earlier.

Preferred Drug List (PDL) and Supplemental Rebates: There are several proven strategies that states like Vermont have been using for several years to lower drug costs in the Medicaid program. Vermont has been a leader in these measures, and Governor Dean wants to expand them nationally:

Through Preferred Drug Lists (PDLs), states ensure that doctors and patients use less expensive medications where clinically possible. Vermont started with one class of drugs - gastric acid reducers which includes the highly-advertised drugs Prilosec and Nexium, and put a less expensive therapeutically-equivalent alternative drug on the preferred list. The results have been remarkable: Vermont’s Medicaid expenditure on gastric acid reducers has been slashed by 43%.
Another important step is forcing Pharmacy Benefits Managers (PBMs) to have transparent contracts with the manufacturers to disclose any financial incentives they might receive from drug manufacturers. Vermont was one of the first states to implement such an agreement, and this is another step that Governor Dean wants to take nationally.
Finally, Vermont last summer expanded the PDL and began to negotiate supplemental rebates with drug companies, in addition to those the companies provide in accordance with federal Medicaid law.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group known as PhRMA, filed suit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, questioning HHS’s authority to grant states the ability to use PDL’s. Governor Dean organized 22 other Governors who sent a letter of support to Secretary Tommy Thompson on August 12, 2002. In addition, Governor Dean organized a press conference on this suit with other Governors at the National Governors Association summer meeting.

Disclosure of Gifts to Doctors. Last June, Governor Dean signed a bill into law which, among other things, made Vermont the first state in the nation to require pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose the value, nature, and purpose of any gift, fee, subsidy, or other economic benefit provided to any physician, hospital, nursing home, pharmacist or health benefit plan administrator in Vermont.

Re-importation for personal use: Governor Dean has endorsed the strategy of United Health Alliance’s Medicine Assist program, enabling U.S. citizens to obtain prescription drugs from Canada via fax. Canadian drug prices are, on average, half those in the United States. Governor Dean has held press numerous conferences encouraging people to take advantage of the plan to make their prescription drug costs more affordable.

[no name no slogan]

50. Kucinich's plan covers alternative medicine, too.

I would recommend you read his plan and what it covers. (www.kucinich.us) It's probably better than whatever medical insurance you currently have.

All his plan does is get rid of privately-held insurance companies and their control of our healthcare system. Delivery of healthcare would still be done by the current doctors and clinics that we have now-- NO government-run clinics. Think Canada's system, as opposed to the UK's system.

There's nothing to "join", as everyone is included in the pool. The plan is paid for by a 7.7% tax on businesses, and provides wider and better coverage than what most people in the country have today.

[JNelson6563]

11. flame-baiting, knee-jerk post

haha Just kidding AP. I think it is a good post in spite of my disagreements with it. Thanks for your civil and thoughtful tone.

Here's the thing. First we have to stop the bleeding. That would mean the severe pigs-at-the-trough system now in place. Once we make amends with our previously insulted allies and cut off the Bush donor subsidies that will help. Maybe we could put folks in charge of oversight postions that aren't deeply invovled in the industry they're to police and will return to work for in the future. Not only Dean but any of the Dems who might win would certainly undo that little method of Team Bush.

Putting our tax dollars to better use like building roads, providing health care, making trade more fair I think it will have an accumulative effect.

There's that whole Iraq thing, part of fixing old relationships mentioned above, handing over power and the resources of that country would go a long way in ending that quagmire.

Think of this too, the psychological benefits of a President winning the WH by the backing of masses of people. This will serve well to remind the unwashed masses just whose country this really is. They just may continue to flex their muscle. I believe they would and with the encourgement of Dean.

Julie

[Egnever]

21. flame-baiting and knee-jerk post

Just one more in the long line from you.

I dont want gun control. I do want the budget balanced. I do want people covered now! not somewhere down the line when it becomes so bad that the whole country revolts. I like atention given to children before dumping them on schools unprepared. I know Iraq was wrong. I think civil unions are long overdue. I think malvo should be dead. The list goes on and on.

The fact that he allows me to help make sure these things hapen is only one big added bonus!

But thanks for the kneejerk flame baiting post. At least you are consistent!

[MGKrebs]

23. Incorrect premise.

"This is a common sentiment people repeat in defense of Dean's campaign."

Not a defense of the Dean campaign at all. It is a response to those who say we have some sort of "cult of personality" going. An opinion on what circumstances may cause that perception.

A response to those who say we "repeat" stuff reflexively, presumably to support our delusional star trip.

There are so many other ways you could have phrased your premise, but you chose condescention and disrespect. Welcome to the ignore list.

[AP]

25. Jeez. Nice hair trigger.

I can't believe we're debating whether people here say Dean's enegizing the grass roots is more important than his actual politics.

In fact, I think there's a thread here in first couple pages which basically says the same thing.

[Scott Lee]

26. Better than Bush, and better than the other Dem candidates

You endorse Maire's attack on Dean in these areas (among others), but fail to provide factual support for them. To wit:

Dean won't cut bloated military budget

I have found no stated Dean policy to substantiate that claim. What I did find were some Dean proposals to negate such a statement, though.

Here, he not only supports the Truman Commission, which was put in place to combat war profiteering, but endorses additional rules to battle the military industrial complex. That doesn't sound like a hawkish Pentagon budget inflator to me.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10450&JServSessionIdr003=h13khaejc1.app195a&news_iv_ctrl=1421

Dean panders to the wealthy instead of helping Americans get affordable health care.

Here, he talks about Health Care and cites a budget number that is suspiciously close to your claim of "giving 88.3G to the wealthy" instead of working for affordable healthcare for all Americans..

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_health

As you can see, he plans to spend 88.3 B on his healthcare vision for the benefit of Americans in general, not as a giveaway to the rich.

In fact, Dr. Dean has the most progressive and least rich-pandering healthcare plan out of anyone.

He's not going to end the Drug War

Again, I found nothing from him officially saying he would not end the Drug War, so I would assume you are presuming this from his lack of statement to the conntrary. I did find, however, some policy statements showing he is at complete odds with the constitutional infringements of the Drug War on US citizens. Read more here...

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights

"I will nominate federal judges with outstanding legal credentials, records of professional excellence, and demonstrated commitment to the constitutional principles of equality, liberty, and privacy."

That right there attacks the 4th amendment intrusion posed by the Drug War.


Is Dean the liberal/left Messiah? Hell no. Is he the most friendly to working America and seekers of a more just, equitable and safe society? Obviously.

[AP]

27. Take it up with Maired. However, I'm prepared to argue that Dean's

antipathy to progressive taxation and his education plan don't help the flow of wealth from rich to poor and middle class all that much (if at all).

[Mairead]

29. I don't really expect this to matter to you, Scott

but just for the record:

Dean won't cut bloated military budget

I have found no stated Dean policy to substantiate that claim.

I do not favor decreasing the Pentagon budget, but do support restructuring the way money is spent to ensure the most effective use of taxpayers’ dollars possible. http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_issue_dodbudget

(He also said during at least one of the debates that he wouldn't cut it. You can look that one up yourself, if you're interested.)

-------------------------
As you can see, he plans to spend 88.3 B on his healthcare vision for the benefit of Americans in general, not as a giveaway to the rich.

If you look closely, you'll find that that 88G is IN ADDITION TO the 1.5T (or whatever it is today) that's being spent. Of that amount, somewhere between 25% and 33%, according to a Harvard study which I'm sure you can look up if you're interested, goes for overhead, including profit. That's in contrast to, I believe, 8% in Canada, and on the order of 5% for US Medicare.

In fact, Dr. Dean has the most progressive and least rich-pandering healthcare plan out of anyone.

If you seriously believe that, perhaps you could explain to us, then, in what way it's 'most progressive' and 'least rich-pandering', particularly when compared to the non-profit plan proposed by Kucinich, the doctors' group (including several former Surgeons General), and the Just Health Care proposal floated by the Labor Party.

-------------------------
He's not going to end the Drug War

Again, I found nothing from him officially saying he would not end the Drug War, so I would assume you are presuming this from his lack of statement to the contrary.

In part because of the lack of ANY statement about the drugs war or drugs, in part because of his generally conservative stances on things such as the death penalty, war, etc., and in part because of his lie about there not being enough science to support even medical-use marijuana.

"I will nominate federal judges with outstanding legal credentials, records of professional excellence, and demonstrated commitment to the constitutional principles of equality, liberty, and privacy."

That right there attacks the 4th amendment intrusion posed by the Drug War.

Would you mind pointing out where Bush says he'll nominate right-wing ideologues with poor credentials, terrible records, and no commitment at all to principles of fairness? I think you'll find that he claims to be nominating the same high-quality jurists Dean proposes to nominate. (My point, in case it isn't obvious, is: what do you expect him to say?)

[TLM]

51. Dean said he won't cut the pentagon budget...

but that what he will do is redirect that spending to domestic needs like first responsders.

[Mairead]

55. Check your facts. His policy statement says nothing of the kind.

I do not favor decreasing the Pentagon budget, but do support restructuring the way money is spent to ensure the most effective use of taxpayers’ dollars possible. I am deeply committed to maintaining a high quality professional force established during the Clinton years. I also believe much more must be done to provide for the well-being of our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen and their families. This Administration campaigned on a promise to improve the conditions of the men and women serving in uniform in fact, the Bush Administration has done the opposite.

[AP]

76. He also supported 87 bil pyt

in principle. He said undo the tax cuts (which he proposes to do) and he had no problem with the 87 bil.

Once he has your tax money (accumulated regressively) he doesn't mind hading it out to private companies.

[Scott Lee]

82. He said that as a challenge to Bush's war

And you know it. To make the point that 87 B spent at home for truly important things was better used than it was for a war to prop up Bush's ego.

And he did it knowing Bush would never repeal such tax cuts. Brilliant. Makes Bush out to look like a war greedy bastard who cares little for the more urgent needs of the Anmerican citizen. I guess everybody got it but you.

[AP]

84. If Dean were president, he'd repeal the tax cuts and, therefore, give the

87 bil to the reconstruction.

Just because Dean tried to have it both ways in the debate so the Deniacs could argue plausible deniability, the clear implication is the guy didn't have any problem with how the 87 bil was being spent (eg, on Halliburton, which has a director from whom he's gotten money, and which he criticizes infrequently while on the stump).

[Scott Lee]

92. That was a debate tactic to show Bush cares more about war

than he does about the domestic dilemmas faced by the rest of us. Nothing more. You seem to be a reasonably intelligent person. I can only conclude that you are in denial of this obvious fact for no other reason than your sheer gut hatred of Dean.

Is that all you have? Really?

[AP]

94. see post 91.

[Scott Lee]

68. Facts matter to me - so how come the antiDeaners come up short

Some more you can add to the record:

On retaining the defense budget -

I do not favor decreasing the Pentagon budget,

Where does he say he's not going to cut said budget? As you can see, he says he doesn't favor cutting it; but you and I both know that circumstances could change and he has left that open. For instance if there can be demonstrated less of a need to have such a swollen defense budget, he then might reconsider and cut it anyway.

For the uh, RECORD, I'm against this bloated military budget and have been for years. But you are being less than honest by putting words in Dean's mouth. Listen to what he SAYS rather than what you want to hear him say.

but do support restructuring the way money is spent to ensure the most effective use of taxpayers’ dollars possible.

That's pretty straight forward. Basically he's telling you it would be no more blank check to the warmongers in government. Fiscal responsibility (horrors!) for the defense department.

On his Healthcare plan:

If you look closely, you'll find that that 88G is IN ADDITION TO the 1.5T (or whatever it is today) that's being spent. Of that amount, somewhere between 25% and 33%, according to a Harvard study which I'm sure you can look up if you're interested, goes for overhead, including profit. That's in contrast to, I believe, 8% in Canada, and on the order of 5% for US Medicare.

Overhead and profit, all necessary here to make things work. Surely you aren't supporting the idea of more people going without healthcare merely because you don't like the percentage being figured into overhead and profits? That's quite selfish of you!

If you seriously believe that, perhaps you could explain to us, then, in what way it's 'most progressive' and 'least rich-pandering', particularly when compared to the non-profit plan proposed by Kucinich, the doctors' group (including several former Surgeons General), and the Just Health Care proposal floated by the Labor Party

I should have said "possible" in there somewhere, because ther's not a snowballs chance in hell that Kucinich's, nor that of the Labor Party would ever become reality in this country (as much as I might like it). That's not cynicism, that's acknowledging fact. Dean's proposal simply has the best chance at becoming real and benefitting the most.

On the Drug War:

You admit that you cannot pin Dean down to a commitment not to end the drug war (which you stated earlier) so you're coming along. But please, what's with the "well Bush promised to select only the best" hogwash? If you look at Bush's history and Dean's history, who is more likely to be protecting the basic rights and freedoms in the Constitution? HINT: It aint Bush.

[drfemoe]

31. Wealth Flow

Let me be clear. The President's tax cuts are part of a radical agenda to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and our public schools through financial starvation.

In Oregon last week, the state had to close schools three weeks early because there was no money. In New Hampshire this week, the sheriffs made it clear that, because there was no money, they couldn't provide the basic law enforcement protection communities expect in this time of heightened alerts about terrorism. All across the country, hospitals and health care systems are cutting back and cities are cutting services because there is no money.

What America needs now is a Democratic Party with the backbone to stand up for fiscal responsibility and against this President's recklessness with the facts, and our future.

No Republican president has balanced the budget in 34 years and if this president succeeds, no future American president from either party will be able to do so without massive tax increases that will break the backs of the American people or without destroying Medicare, social security, our schools and even our nation's security. My central commitment upon taking office will be to repeal these tax cuts to put our fiscal house in order, and save the very fabric that holds our American community together.

We will not be able to meet our fundamental obligations to teach our children, care for our parents, and defend our nation if we bankrupt our country.

If we fail to defeat this President and end his radical agenda, we will have lost the central ideal proclaimed from one American generation to the next throughout our history: "We are one nation, and we are all in this together."
http://deanvolunteers.org/DeanVolunteers/press_view.asp?ID=803

What's yer question?

[Monte Carlo]

32. This is what concerns me about Dean is this...

What worries me about the success of Dean so far is what has caused it. Now, don't get me wrong, I think he's a great guy, and I'd happily vote for him against Bush, but I think maybe he's excelled because of his campaigning organization, not because he's the best candidate in the Democratic field.

He's certainly saying a lot of the right things (a goof here and there), and he's been quick, direct, and clear saying it. They don't let idiots into Tufts(?) medical school. Vermont is not known for its bustling cities, but he's done pretty well for himself and the state for 20 years. He's been at this Presidential campaign thing for a long time now, before anybody else, and he's shown he means business.

The role the nominee will have to play, however, is great. Not only will that person have to beat Bush in November, he will become the leader of the Democratic Party. He will have to endure the brunt of the GOP media blitz that WILL be coming. I'm concerned that Dean just isn't the best choice for the job. I'm willing to listen and learn, but that's my feeling right now.

[AP]

41. He didn't go to Tufts medical school. He went to Albert Einstein.

[TLM]

52. I think you answered your own question....

" but I think maybe he's excelled because of his campaigning organization, not because he's the best candidate in the Democratic field."

The reason his organization is so strong is that he excites and inspirers and motivates people like nobody else running, that alone makes him the best candidate to beat bush... who do you want as captian of the team, the guy with the most idealistic play book who can't win a game, or the guy who gets teh whole team and the fans so excited and motivated that they try harder and won't give up?


"Party. He will have to endure the brunt of the GOP media blitz that WILL be coming. I'm concerned that Dean just isn't the best choice for the job. I'm willing to listen and learn, but that's my feeling right now."

Dean has shaken off the worst the other dems could throw at him... and his massive campaign organization has shown their ability to check the media spin and push the media to cover Dean. We will have no problem beating Bush.

[RetroLounge]

42. Well, your 1000th Dean Bash has finally convinced me

Tell me who your candidate is and show me all the positive things about him, and I'll switch.

What utter and complete crapola.

Does anyone, ANYONE really think all this "My Candidate is better than your, your guy sucks" bullshit will affect the outcome of anything?

Just a big circle jerk...

[AP]

43. Why is it wrong to take a close look at what these candidates really stand

for?

Why is that a bash?

Cite one thing I've said here or anywhere that's merely a bash?

[veganwitch]

54. i think the question is a valid one

and if you read the post rather than just react, you might see that.

dean's campaign promises the people "power" but the economic system (and lets admit that money is equivilent to power) under a dean presidency still means that those who have money now, are going to continue to have it.

capitalism is failing, was failing and will continue to fail.

the question was a valid one, and if dean is The Candidate, he sould be able to answer it.

[AP]

75. thanks.

[gristy]

44. What a load of crap

Now, I aslo read Maired\'s post today which says: "Dean isn't planning on making any substantive changes...Find something among his policies that is going to change the direction in which wealth flows. There isn't one.

Here's one: tax cut repeal. Why do you think that a tax cut repeal has no effect on the flow of wealth?

[AP]

45. The point is that he wants to repeal the middle class tax cut part

and he's wants to use that money to balance the budget, rather than ask the rich to pay a little more in taxes so that the tax burden is spread out more fairly.

I believe Clinton had a record as governor of really trying to spread the tax burden fairly. Dean doesn't have the same record, and when he spoke to the Cato Inst he told them he doesn't share the democrats enthusiasm for tax policy (" He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington," according to a Cato board member who heard the speech.)

Since the tax code is the primary way that Repulbicans make sure wealth flows to the wealthy, it's interesting that he looks at the Democrats' countermeasures as worthy of scorn, and it sort of explains why he doesn't care to leave the middle class breaks in place.

[drfemoe]

48. more non-facts from AP

and he's wants to use that money to balance the budget


We are going to repeal the Bush tax cuts. You can't pay for health insurance if you have those tax cuts. Most middle-class people never got a tax cut from George Bush, and I'm sure they'd rather have health insurance for everybody than the $100 they got from George Bush's tax cut. For less than a third of George Bush's tax cuts, we can cover every man, woman and child in America, and that's exactly what we should do, and we should not wait.
Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico Sep 4, 2003

[AP]

70. Fact:

Dean "was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

Do you know what form Democrats hyper-enthusiasm for tax policy comes in? Progressive tax codes and encouraging sociall valuable behaviour through tax credits and tax deductions.

The tax deductions and credits Dean proposes are valuable to banks, and he won't even pay lip service to progressivity.

[drfemoe]

80. GMAFB

If you think I'm going to spend time trying to twist my brain around that freeper 'logic' from the 'weeklystandard' so I that can make some arguement or other, you are quite mistaken.

If freeper jargon hits home with you, comfort yourself with it.

I can't even tell what you are so upset about ? :shrug: Please don't try to explain. I value my brain cells.

[AP]

83. I don't see Dean challenging either his quotations or the author's

version of his events. In fact, last I checked, Dean was linking to the Cato Inst on his website to support various positions of his.

I bet he's the only candidate using the Cato Instituted to buttress his policy arguments.

[drfemoe]

97. Your Source:

The Weekly Standard
Weekly Standard editors comprise a "who's who" of neoconservative figures. Currently led by William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the magazine has, since its founding in 1995, encouraged the cultivation of an American empire.
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/spheresInfluence.html

A search of deanforamerica turned up one link for "cato"
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=stopashcroft&JServSessionIdr003=0f0m2l9dj1.app195a

And what is my beef supposed to be with the Cato Institute?
http://www.cato.org/about/about.html
...
Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
...
Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, Japan, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society's problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

[AP]

99. Dean's own web site links to Cato Inst to support his positions.

The guy who wrote the article is a Cato director.

They're obviously on the same page in some respects.

Dean is not trying to distance himself from libertarians or the Cato Inst.

The Cato Inst is funded by people like the Koch brothers who are trying to find a political philosophy that results in ends which makes them wealthier.

[TLM]

53. The bashers are so hellbent of attacking Dean they'd claim that

fully funding special education is just a ploy to give money to those wealthy retarded special interests.

These folks are emotionaly invested in their guys and can not deal with the fact Dean is winning.

[jpgray]

62. LOL! Thank God the dispassionate TLM is still here! (nt)

[drfemoe]

81. I'm going to unvite myself from

any more senseless, ancient, freeper, illogical, red herring Dean baiting threads.

They can chant their anti-Dean tripe to each other all day long for all I care. I'm not gonna try and stop 'em.

[sandnsea]

47. Reagan Democrats

A kneejerk reaction against Carter. I didn't understand them then and I don't now. No substantive changes, just a kneejerk against Bush. Whoever's got the razzle dazzle. Write a check activism. That's America.

[veganwitch]

56. the washpost had an article about this...

back in october.

it essentially said that dean's "power play" worked like other empowerment/self-help guru's. and it works for those that need "empowering." for those that dont need empowering, or that sort of vehicle doesnt work on them, they dont get as excited as much about him.

power play being how he gets his message across, not so much the message itself.

i would have to read the article again to remember more specifics.

[Rose Siding]

57. It must be named

It wouldn't surprise me to see that in the WaPo. Cynics would need to weave a demeaning explanation for a growing and not insubstantial number of people who are becoming interested and involved in the political direction of the country.

*demeaning in the implication that if you "need" empowering, you are somehow less than if you don't.

I'd be interested to know how many people already felt/feel politically "empowered" considering repubs currently run the entire US govt.

I'd also wonder how many Dean supporters feel that the "message" is lost in a "power play".

[veganwitch]

58. are you sure not confusing the washpost with the nypost?

the washpost is the "left" rag. the washtimes is the nazi-rag.

in newyork, its the other way around. (i get them mixed up, myself, sometimes).


and i didnt get from the article that they were placing judgment on those people who get empowered by dean. just that for some people, that form of delivery works, for others, it doesnt.

ill have to back to see the date to find it online. the title is something like "dean's power play"

[Rose Siding]

59. I don't think the war supporting WP is very left

Some of the 2000 Kool Kidz call the post home. The WashTimes is more blatantly anti-dem but even Howie Kurtz is WP.

I'm glad to see the tone wasn't one of judgement. I misunderstood.

[veganwitch]

60. thats why left is quoted

once the war started, and even before, its started kissing bush's ass.

i canceled our subscription when they did not cover the antics of the FCC in August (?) until the day it happened.

i get it free from the recycling bins.

[jpgray]

61. No--Dean wants to get votes. What he says is meant to get him votes

Come on, he's way better than Bush, but just about the only candidate with any small chance of putting power to the people is Kucinich, and, maybe because of that, Kucinich will never win.

Even the most hardcore Deanie would never be able to go issue to issue with Kucinich--but they do have one weapon--electability. Kucinich will never be elected in 2004. I'd have to assassinate every Dem candidate, and buy four weeks of TV time to expose Bush, and our banking system, and our corporate criminals, and our petty partisan nothings, and so on and so on and so on.

[Donna Zen]

64. Defense

So why does Dean have two republican defense lobbyist on his team to advise him in matters military? One is Ralston and I can't remember the other one's name, but they both come from William Cohen's office.

Also, all of these questions will soon be moot, because the elephant's in the living room and it ain't moving:

In 1960 there were 5 taxpayers working for every retiree drawing benefits pre-medicare and medicaid. Now there are 3, soon this will shrink to 2. The work force will grow by 32 million and SS will grow by 13 million.

By 2020 SS, M & M will rise to 11.3 % of GDP.

By 2018 SS will pay out more than it takes in.

By 2030 SS, M & M, military pensions and civil service pensions will take up all available revenue leaving not a penny for anything else.

I believe that we are being held to an argument on the fringes. AP and the others are correct that unless the money is redirected, unless monies are rescued from the fat-cat military, and unless we stop focusing on programs which will not be resourced, then we will either trip over the elephant or watch the floor cave in.

Cutting medical costs does matter, redirecting tax dollars to actually solve problems rather than make you feel good, does matter. If someone told the American public what needs to be done, they would never get elected. What we must look for is someone with the ability to push this problem into the open and bring the public on board once that person is elected. That's the way the pubs do it. Nothing Dean is saying tells me this is the plan. Look for the lurking socialist.

[Bread and Circus]

66. Ralston's on Dean's team....OMG that's Cohen's and Shelton's..

guy. They sneakily fired Clark and leaked it to the
press to promote this guy.

This doesn't say anything bad about Dean but I am kinda shocked.

[Donna Zen]

69. Doesn't say anything?

Well, it does tell you who he's listening to. The biggest problem is that he must rely on their advice. There is so much pork and waste in the military budget that needs to be captured and moved if we are to talk in any meaningful way about solutions.

[Bread and Circus]

65. I have argued this very point many times....but I get shouted..

down.

Frankly, Dean doesn't really talk about campaign
finance reform in any meaningful way. Actually his
whole campaign is about "raising money" which sends
things in the wrong direction.

Opting out of public finance is a step further in the
wrong direction.

Rather, we should be heading toward a system where folks
like Bush can't "do us in" just because he can raise a big
warchest.

But the Deanies will say "this is how we are going to beat them".

I say, "good luck".

We will always be outraised and outspent by the Republicans.
Doesn't anyone realize they can use the internet and credit
cards too?

The way to beat them is with superior candidates, integrity,
and pressing to change the system.

Our party is letting us down. I can't tell the pigs from the
humans as much as I used to.

[quaker bill]

67. Wealth transfer happens in many ways

Of which, cutting the defense budget is by no means the most effective.

I am all for cutting defense but have never considered the economic argument to be the most compelling reason. I would choose to cut defense simply to discourage future unilateral adventurism in foriegn policy. I agree that far too many of our resources are devoted to defense and that other forms of government spending would be more effective toward correcting maldistribution of wealth.

That being said, defense spending does redistribute wealth by creating economic demand and thus employment. Again I agree that there are more effective ways to get about this. The point being that the shift away from defense to other spending programs as a means to address wealth distribution is only effective on the margin.

The argument made that shifting government spending from one industry to another will result in just another means to get money into the hands of the elite, is true. The problem with this argument is that it is equally applicable to any set of policies one could adopt in a capitalist system. Capitalist systems concentrate wealth in the hands of the elite, pick any path you wish, and eventually to cash ends up in the same place. So positing this notion as a critique of any set of policies proposed by any candidate is exactly pointless.

In so far as balancing the budget, clearly running a large deficit is charging my current expenses to my children's accounts. With the exception of short term borrowing during a financial crisis to be paid back as soon as possible, it is simply immoral.

Repeal of the Bush* tax cut, across the board, is a good first step. We railed that this tax cut program was heavily tilted toward the rich, thus it is also true that the revenue that comes from repealing it will largely come from the rich. We will need all of this money back and more to resolve the problem Shrubya* created.

Dean proposes to "End Corporate Welfare". This is the most direct form of government largess to the elite. He proposes using this money to provide healthcare benefits to the uninsured. While his program is neither as large nor as socialist as some here would prefer, it is clearly a substantial transfer of wealth from the elite to the working poor.

Dean's college education plan is neither as large nor as socialist as some here would prefer, however, it is clearly another substantial transfer of wealth from the elite to the working poor.

Putting the public education system back together is clearly another substantial transfer of wealth from the elite to the middle class and the poor.

While this issue is worthy of some debate, the debate is better served by a complete and informed analysis rather than single issue potshots at Dean. Another dimension of discussion would also be useful. It is one thing to advocate wonderful ideas that can attract 50 to 100 votes in the House or Representatives. It is another still to advocate ideas that earn majority support and actually become law. The latter notion is part of the POTUS job description.

[Donna Zen]

72. Why this?

I am all for cutting defense but have never considered the economic argument to be the most compelling reason. I would choose to cut defense simply to discourage future unilateral adventurism in foriegn policy. I agree that far too many of our resources are devoted to defense and that other forms of government spending would be more effective toward correcting maldistribution of wealth.

The level of defense would actually either not change or increase if accountability were built into the system all the while freeing up resources.

Also, moving money into other areas does redistribute the wealth in a meaningful way. Bombs do one thing, blow up. By their very nature they create no new wealth. Schools create new wealth, R & D creates new wealth, intercity development creates new wealth, investment in new technologies creates new wealth. There is a difference between wealth and money. All spending is not equal nor is it equally bad. What ties the congress's collective tongues is fear of being called "soft on defense."

[quaker bill]

77. Your analysis is one dimensional

I think we agree on the main point that too many resources are devoted to defense.

Living in a town with a large defense industry, I can assure you that employment in the defense industry contributes to the tax base, the construction of schools, libraries, universities, and on and on. I agree with you that these things are wealth. I only posit that the analysis of defense spending is not as uncluttered as most state it. Taxes spent on defense employ regular people, just like spending on schools, R&D, inner city redevelopment....

Yes, the end product of the defense industry, is something I hope to never see used. I am no proponent of defense spending.

[Donna Zen]

79. Getting money out of defense

does not necessarily mean people currently working in the defense industry lose their jobs. However, those jobs, while adding to the tax base, do not create more wealth. The schools are financed locally and at the state level. The feds fail to contribute in any meaningful way. In fact, "No Child Left Behind" will cost your community either more money or services cut.

The money we are talking about is welfare for the rich, not the guy in the work force. The real money is made by CEO's, consultants and their legions of followers and is increasingly not taxed. Also, we are currently increasing the movement of those defense dollars off-shore and through loopholes.

The income gap is growing.

[Scott Lee]

71. Why are Dean Haters so obsessed with pidgeon-holing Dean?

They go above and beyond the call to show that something he said ten years ago, or out of context on a recent talkshow, is inconsistent with something else he said that has been twisted in another way.

They defy gravity by painting him as a hypocrite or "liar" because he changed his mind on some issues over time.

They wait, crouched like a hungry panther, to spring on anything he says or does that might contrast what he said or did years ago.

Everything he says, to these odd folks, must be etched into stone and prominently propped up on a spotlighted pedestal where the Deanophobes can point with righteous indignation "AHAAA!! He has just violated point #1453!"

I'd ask if there's a point to this silly behavior, but I know I'll get the usual empty rhetoric, like how necessary it is to prep The Dr. for the attacks that will surely come from Rove Inc., blah blah blah. But you know what? I don't believe it. What I do believe is that some of you have gotten yourself so thoroughly worked into an antiDean lather that, like a drunk denied his liquid lunch, nothing matters except getting that next buzz on.

Pathetic. Re-focus! Re-center! Howard Dean, Good! Bush, Bad!

[AP]

74. Why are Deaniacs afraid of Dean being held accountable for his actions

and words?

I know why.

[FrenchieCat]

85. Wow!

Heard he got that "you've got the power" from Tim Robbins, the motivational speaker. Guess that ones working really, really well.

After reading this, Dean's not sounding so good. Although I'm strongly for my candidate, I didn't realize the depth of the Dean Policy "issues". He's going to be a hard sell come anytime soon....

[JI7]

93. no way, that's a joke right ?

"Heard he got that "you've got the power" from Tim Robbins, the motivational speaker."

not sure if you were joking or if it's true, but this line made me laugh for some reason.

[AP]

95. Isn't it Tony Robbins? Gore was a big Robbins fan.

He made the Clintons listen to him at Camp David.

[JI7]

96. yeah, tony robbins

that's who i actually thought of as i read it as i know he is a motivational speaker. i didn't even notice the poster put tim rather than tony. and i think gore would have been better off taking advice from bill clinton than listening to tony robbins.

[WyLoochka]

86. You are dead wrong on your

claim that Dean "isn't really interested in channeling power down to the middle and working class."

Fer gawd's sakes Dean advocates the growth of labour unions all over the globe to help combat the transfer of wealth and power to the already obscenely wealthy. I believe Gephardt would have to agree - but would he dare say that? Kucinich, Edwards, Sharpton and Moseley-Braun would likley agree too (actually I think only Lieberman would be odd man out here) - but they have not demonstrated the ability to get enough people to listen to them to qualify as the leader. Dean is demonstrating that ability increasingly day by day.

Can a successful global labour movement that can push back effectively at multi-national corporations be accomplished tomorrow? Obviously not. 'Ya gotta start with where we are at this time. I have more confidence in Dean, that he knows the score of where we stand now and what we have to do to take our country back than in any of the others, although I like them all.

[AP]

87. If he's not enthusiastic about progressive taxation...

...(as regressive taxation is the NUMBER ONE tool Republicans use to shift wealth and power up the ladder) and if he continues to propose Wall St friendly policies (like his new guaranteed loan program for higher education, and the sort of energy deregulation he pursued in VT) then he can tall about the international labor movement all he wants -- he still isn't addressing the transfer of wealth from the middle class (who are largely in ununionized professions) to the wealthy.

[janx]

88. I can't wait until the primaries are over...

I am so tired of these candidate bashing threads.

[AP]

89. Where's the bash? Put it in words.

[janx]

90. I can't wait until the primaries are over.

I really can't.

[AP]

91. I can't wait for the primaries to turn into a debate about ideas and...(+)

...policy, rather than personality and psychology (both mine and the candidates').

I really can't.

[BevHarris]

98. All good points, on both sides, but I think people vote on gut feel

and then justify it with logic.

Gut feel: We like Clinton, he likes us.
Gut feel: (before) George Bush is one of us, a beer drinkin' good guy with a backbone.
Gut feel: (before) Al Gore is boring and talks to us like we're in kindergarten
Gut feel: (after) George Bush out of control and not particularly bright, plus he lies
Gut feel: (after) Al Gore is reassuring and stable

I think the candidate that wins the Democratic primary will do it because he projects the right "gut feel" to voters, and unfortunately only a few intellectually inclined folks, like you, AP, will dig into positions and implications.

Right now, in my opinion, Dean projects a great "gut feel" to many grass roots organizers. However, I've talked to many who don't follow the Internet, who get their news from CNN (yet they are liberal). They feel Dean is abrasive. To my amazement, many of the folks I talk with who depend on TV for their impressions, yet want to go Democrat, are leaning towards Gephardt. A lot of them like Clark, too.

I think you need to win the TV crowd to win the presidency.

Don't know if my perspectives hold water -- I'm not an expert in this area, that's for sure.

Bev Harris
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

[Octafish]

100. Dean LOVES Walmart.

Vermont had zero Walmarts when Dean came into office upon the death of his predecssor.

When Dean quit to run for President, Vermont had four Walmarts.

Gee. VT only has 602,000 or so people.

Wonder what all those Walmarts did to the mom and pop shops?

Wonder if non-union Walmart provides a glimpse of America's future under a Dean administration?

PS: THIS is some of what Dean wanted buried when he asked his papers be sealed for 20 years.

[HFishbine]

101. You Really Want to Take This Out of Your Arsenal

It only invites a reminder that Tersa Heinz Kerry has more than $1M invested in Walmart.

Walmart couldn't do all those terrible things without the capital support of people like John Kerry's wife.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/news/recent2003/kerry_walmart101603_2003.shtml