John Edwards: They aren't going to just give their power away

John Edwards:

This isn't about petty politics or good intentions.

Corporate greed and influence in Washington are stealing our children's future.

The moral test of our generation is whether we're going to allow this broken system to go on without a fight or take on corporate greed and stand up for the middle class and American jobs before it's too late.

They aren't going to just give their power away.

Saving the middle class is going to be an epic battle, and that's a fight I was born for.


http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releas es/20071215-fight-ad/
----

John Edwards: the Fight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90kiOdnkw 3Y
----

So Who's Fighting who, and for What?

The assertion:

Corporate greed and influence in Washington are stealing our children's future.



How so?

Do those "greedy corporations"  just stroll into Congress and demand that legislators, just give them concessions?

Well sometimes -- but usually its much more subtle than that. Usually they just hire someone to do this convincing for them.

And those they employ, know the "behind the scenes" working of Washington quite well -- They don't become highly paid Lobbyists for nothing!

Lobbying is hard work! The stress level and the burn out rates in the Lobbying industry is high. Lobbying Firms must resort to snapping up "retiring Congressmen", in a system known as the "revolving door". Sometimes Lobbyists need a break too, and they go back into Politics for a spell (just ask Fred Thompson).


Lobbying Firms also have been known to recruit this country's best talent, in places like Harvard and Princeton.  Recent graduates, are probably easier to train, and ready to "go that extra mile" in order to make a name for themselves:

from the Princeton Review Career page:

Lobbyist: Day in the Life

First and foremost, lobbyists must be adept at the art of persuasion, which is the mainstay of their job. They must figure out how to sway politicians to vote on legislation in a way that favors the interest they represent.

When normally opposing groups find a common area of interest and can present a united front they are extremely effective.


Lobbying can be direct or indirect.

Direct lobbying means actually meeting with congressmen and providing them with information pertinent to a bill being voted on. The lobbyist imparts her information with the help of graphs, charts, polls, and reports that she has hunted up or created. Needless to say, this is usually information that the politician might not otherwise have access to, that casts the matter in a light favorable to the interest the lobbyist represents.

Sometimes, lobbyists will even sit down and help a politician draft legislation that is advantageous for their interest.

Maintaining good relations with politicians who can be relied on to support the lobbyist"s interest is key. While lobbyists and their employers cannot themselves make large campaign donations to politicians, they can, and do, raise money from other sources for reelection campaigns.

Indirect lobbying, sometimes referred to as grassroots organizing, is a bit less glamorous. Grassroots lobbyists enlist the help of the community to influence politicians by writing, calling, or demonstrating on the organization"s behalf. This means long hours spent on the phone and writing letters, trying to rouse the community to get involved. These lobbyists also report to politicians about the concerns and reactions they have gotten from community members. Indirect lobbying is also done through the media. Grassroots lobbyists write articles for newspapers and magazines and appear on talk shows to generate interest in and awareness of their issues.

There are no licensing or certification requirements, but lobbyists are required to register with the state and federal governments. Most lobbyists have college degrees. A major in political science, journalism, law, communications, public relations, or economics should stand future lobbyists in good stead.

Many lobbyists also come from careers as legislators, as former politicians often capitalize on their years of government service and their connections to old pals still in office. This is the "revolving door" that recent legislation has begun to regulate.

Indeed, networking is the name of the game in lobbying, where people are hired as much for who they know as what they know. Someone who can schmooze at high levels will start his lobbying career from an accordingly high perch, while others face a long hard climb upwards.

http://www.princetonreview.com/cte/profi les/qualityOfLife.asp?careerID=88
----



So how are Corporations, stealing our Children's future?

By sheer numbers and dollars spent, to block legislation, or otherwise, insert clauses to laws, helpful to their Profits Margin -- and little else.  That's what unchecked greed gets you, in a Free Market society, where Corporations make up the rules, and the People must take a back seat.

Here's the list of the most influential power-brokers in Washington, and chances are you never even heard of them:

Top Lobbying Firms, 1998-2007

Lobbying firm - Total [retainer fees]

Patton Boggs LLP
$251,392,000

Cassidy & Assoc
$247,275,000

Akin, Gump et al
$205,225,000

Van Scoyoc Assoc
$167,198,000

Barbour, Griffith & Rogers
$126,640,000

Williams & Jensen
$123,404,000

Ernst & Young
$112,871,560

Hogan & Hartson
$109,293,907

Greenberg Traurig LLP
$96,708,249

Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc
$95,637,500

PMA Group
$92,680,132

Preston, Gates et al
$88,720,000

Verner, Liipfert et al
$88,595,000

PriceWaterhouseCoopers
$85,534,945

Holland & Knight
$74,969,544

Alcalde & Fay
$70,290,660

Clark & Weinstock
$69,725,000

Timmons & Co
$69,068,000

PodestaMattoon
$68,955,000

Washington Group
$68,820,000

In addition to campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies.

Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington's legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/ove rview.asp?txtindextype=l
----

THIS -- is the "Broken System in Washington" that Edwards talks about in that Ad!

This is "the moral test of our generation":

whether we're going to allow this broken system to go on without a fight or take on corporate greed and stand up for the middle class and American jobs before it's too late.


Have you every wondered why we don't have:


- Universal Health Care

- Energy Independence

- Fair tax policy

- Fair trade policy

Well who do you think can afford to hire "enough" Lobbyists to get their way?

How much did you give to Sierra Club last year? What about the Natural Resource Defense Council? Chances are it wasn't enough! Big Oil no doubt gave more to many of these Lobbying Firms -- and yet another year slipped by, with NO REAL ACTION, toward Energy Independence, and stopping Global Warming!

That's just Wrong!  This system of Government of our IS Broken!

When are we gonna show a little backbone -- and do something about it? (that is something that Edwards often asks, too)


Those Mega-Million-dollar Lobbying Firms have "built a Wall around Washington"!  That Wall keeps out the voices and concerns of ordinary Americans like you and me!

It's time for that Wall to come down!

Part 1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B6_RBXw6NSw
----

Part 2: John Edwards' Speech: DNC Fall Meeting

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vB4CVHTzzvw
----

We do not have to settle for a system
that protects Exxon Mobil's Profits --
But does NOT protect the Planet!

History will judge US, on this moment,
in this Election --
Did we grow too cautious for a Campaign Check,
or Did we grow together and Protect our Planet?
...

Part 3

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NpxMHcqqxgg
----



Other candidates think that to change the system you got to "work within the system" -- if that approach worked, we'd already have - Universal Health Care, Energy Independence, Fair tax policy, Fair trade policy!

I guess "working the system" really only works for those who can afford to "pay to play"?

Hmmmm ... maybe I should contact MY Lobbyist?

Wait a minute, who's that?

Who's going to Lobby for ME?

Who's going to Fight for MY Issues?



Who's going to "represent WE the People"
in that power-broker circus, called DC?

Who's got the guts, and the experience to take on this "epic fight of a generation"?

That Fighter sounds like John Edwards to me!


The question is, Is America ready to step up, and help fix this Broken System?

If not now, when?

Ever?

Learn more about why Lobbyist's influence MUST be reigned in:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/25 /9933/5164/863/414091
----



Display:


Re: John Edwards: They aren't going to just give t (none / 0)

How does Senator Edwards plan on taking away power from corporations and businesses?

How much collatoral damage does he expect?


by world dictator on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 12:10:12 AM EST

Re: John Edwards: They aren't going to just give t (2.00 / 1)

He addressed this very clearly in response to a question by Bob Schieffer this morning. He explained that right now, corporate interests have almost unlimited power in Washington, so any idea of compromise with them is really a form of surrender.

He compared it to being a lawyer against an insurance company and asking the company to admit its mistake and pay for care it had refused. They would laugh out loud.

So by energizing the American people, throughout the campaign and after, to mobilize public opinion against this auctioning off of democracy, we'd achieve a greater degree of balance -- in which the voice of the people would be greater than that of the special interests. At that point, when corporations seeking special favors and trying to block important legislation, find that their republican allies in Congress are unwilling to take the heat of voting against such popular measures as universal health care, a sane trade policy, a fairer tax system that rewards work, retirement security for those who have worked all their lives, and access to excellent education from pre-K through college to create opportunity, then and only then would corporations be much more willing to agree to what the American people want and need.

He pointed out that when he had made his case in the courtroom and it was clear that the jury was going to rule in favor of his client, then suddenly the insurance companies became much more willing to admit error and make things right.

Thats how he gave hope to ordinary people and hell to corporations -- by taking the case to the people with the power to pass judgement.


by desmoulins on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 02:12:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards: They aren't going to just give t (2.00 / 1)

hahaha. Thats the worse idea ever. Energizing the people? Yeah, that worked so well in 94 when we tried to pass health care reform. Million dollar media blitz's have a funny way of changing public opinion. Besides, how can he rally the people when he cant even rally the people of his own party? What's he polling at nationally again?

That excerpt reminds me of one of John Madden's silly quotes on his video game. "They key to winning,is to score more points than your opponent."

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about energizing people. The more people, the better. But I think we're going to need a better plan rather than relying on Americans not to be so lazy.


by world dictator on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:36:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards: They aren't going to just give t (2.00 / 1)

I guess you're right. We shouldn't try. We should just let the health-care industry lobbyists propose a health care plan. AFter all, they donated nearly a million dollars to Clinton's campaign, so they deserve to call the shots.


by desmoulins on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

more than just rhetoric (none / 0)


It will take more than just rhetoric.

John Edwards will take the power out of the hands of Lobbyists. He will:

-- Take on the Lobbyists' Power with a Constitutional Line-Item Veto:

-- Prohibit Lobbyists from Giving or Raising Campaign Cash:

-- Today, lobbyists approach politicians with campaign checks in one hand and wish lists in the other. Federally registered lobbyists gave over $23 million in the 2006 campaign. Edwards has never taken a dime from federal lobbyists or PACs. He will sever the connection between money and lobbyist influence by:

     * Ending lobbyist campaign contributions:

-- Lobbyists should be able to make their cases on the merits, not by influencing politicians with donations. Edwards will prohibit all federal candidates from accepting campaign contributions from federal lobbyists.

     * Stopping lobbyists from bundling:

-- Lobbyists solicit donations from others and direct them towards candidates to maximize their impact, a practice known as bundling. Edwards has never allowed any lobbyists to bundle donations for him. As president he will ban federal lobbyists from bundling for federal candidates.

-- Close the Lobbyist Revolving Door:

     * Banning top government officials from becoming lobbyists:

     * Banning lobbyists from taking top government jobs

-- Expose Lobbyist Contacts to Sunlight

-- Prohibit Executive Branch Employees from Accepting Corporate Gifts

http://johnedwards.com/iowa/issues/govt- reform/index.html

---------

John Edwards -- The Plan to Build One America

End the Unique Power of Lobbyists

-- Prohibit lobbyists from donating to campaigns or fundraising for them.

-- Fight lobbyists' bread and butter - earmarked pork-barrel spending - with a constitutional version of the line-item veto.

-- Close the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street by banning former top officials from lobbying their colleagues and lobbyists from taking executive branch positions related to their former clients.

-- Expand the congressional ban on lobbyist gifts and travel to executive branch officials.



Learn more about why Lobbyist's influence MUST be reigned in:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/25 /9933/5164/863/414091


by jamess on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 10:02:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you think oil, insurance, and drug companies... (none / 0)

...will just give their power away, then John Edwards isn't your candidate, you have other choices.

On the other hand, if you believe we have to fight the executives, lobbyists, and bigots to take our country back, so does John Edwards.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 10:14:30 AM EST

No one thinks... (none / 0)

...they will "just give their power away" and no-one is saying that. No-one.

This is a straw man argument that Edwards has brought against Obama. He's putting words in Obama's mouth, then knocking down the straw man he himself put up. It doesn't make him come off looking particularly honest.


by Mystylplx on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 02:21:52 PM EST

After watching the Democrats in the Senate... (none / 0)

...surrender to President 24% again and again and again, it's going to take some convincing to get the American people to take the time to show up and vote for a Democrat again next November.

They will be looking for a FIGHTER. Not a compromiser, not an accomodater, not a capitulator.

So we've got one candidate who thinks lobbyists are a good thing. We've got another candidate who hopes we can all just get along. And we've got one candidate who's ready to FIGHT -- John Edwards.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 03:10:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree. (none / 0)

There's a core of the Democratic party who wants a 'warrior' rather than a diplomat, but that's NOT most Americans. Most Americans want someone who will get things done without lots of partisan bickering. Particulary independants, who are the ones who generally decide Presidential elections.


by Mystylplx on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 03:23:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree. (none / 0)

I'm sure a lot of people want that.  And if you're not honest enough to tell them that it won't happen unless and until the Republicans stop their partisan opposition to any major Democratic initiative, then they'll continue wanting it, without understanding why they never get it.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:00:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree. (none / 0)

But before you can do that you have to show people that Democrats aren't engaging in the same mindless partisanship--you have to be able to draw a contrast the voters will be able to see with their own eyes.


by Mystylplx on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:04:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree. (none / 0)

How do we show that?  By continuing to make concessions to the Republicans (who make no concessions of their own in return) in the name of demonstrating our good faith?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely not. (none / 0)

But you have to be willing to make concessions in return for their concessions. This isn't a football game where it's 'us vs. them,' at least not in the minds of most voters.

So we demonstrate our 'good faith' by showing good faith. If the Republicans don't respond in kind then we point that fact out, and do it from the high ground.

Obama's right--there's just as much partisanship among Democrats as among Republicans, and as long as that's true the high ground is forever denied us. But as soon as that changes the voters will respond.

But taking a confrontational partisan approach just blurs any distinction between the two parties in the minds of the voters. We can't just tell them we are the non-partisan party that wants to get things done without partisan bickering--we have to show them.

And Barack Obama is the candidate to do that, IMO.


by Mystylplx on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:24:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And Barack Obama is the candidate to do that... (none / 0)

That's why he's my sixth choice.


Waiting for the Glorious Train Wreck.
by Rooktoven on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:28:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely not. (none / 0)

So we demonstrate our 'good faith' by showing good faith.

This is pretty much a truism.

Okay, so if the Republicans make a concession, we'll make a concession in return, thus showing our good faith.  I get that part.

And if the Republicans don't make a concession, how do we show our good faith then?  By announcing, "Well, IF they had made one, we would have made one in return"?

How is it that right now, it would come across as mindless partisanship if I told the public "the reason nothing is happening is because of Republican obstructionism," but somehow when Obama is President, the message will come through loud and clear?  Do you really think people will say "Well, he campaigned on a promise to be reasonable, therefore it must be the other guys who are being unreasonable"?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I really hate to run out on this... (none / 0)

...but 'real life' (you know, it's that thing we do between bouts of blogging :) is calling. Loudly.

So I'm done for the day.


by Mystylplx on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:35:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Partisan Bickering will happen no matter what. (none / 0)

You can choose to fight, or you can be a pussy, basically.


Waiting for the Glorious Train Wreck.
by Rooktoven on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisan Bickering will happen no matter what. (none / 0)

Must be nice living in a world of black and white like that.


by Mystylplx on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisan Bickering will happen no matter what. (none / 0)

It's not a matter of black and white.  If you are being hammered over and over, the bully won't stop because you ask if he wants to compromise.

The bully stops when you kick him in the balls.


Waiting for the Glorious Train Wreck.
by Rooktoven on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisan Bickering will happen no matter what. (none / 0)

Yeah, Edwards forces everyone to buy Insurance to lower their risk ratio.  Well I guess he's kicking someone in the balls.


by Piuma on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You make it sound like... (none / 0)

...Republicans are just so much bigger and badder than Democrats that we have little chance against them. Do you get that they see Democrats as the "bully?" Recently they've been on top, but this fight has rolled over and over and over. We HAVE kicked them in the balls, plenty of times, and they've kicked us in the balls. At some point someone needs to say, "Hey! Is this really what we want to be doing?"


by Mystylplx on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not hardly. (none / 0)

The excesses of the last 13 years are far greater than anything Dems did in power.  Democrats have been bringing knives to gun fights.


Waiting for the Glorious Train Wreck.
by Rooktoven on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not hardly. (none / 0)

So let's bring a gun this time and ask them if they want to sit down at the "Big Table" NOW.


by Mystylplx on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No one thinks... (none / 0)

But just what does Obama's 'unity' theme mean in practice?  Obama's calling for a ceasefire when we've got the Radical Right on the run.  That lets them ride out the political fallout from Iraq - they're already doing that with 'the surge is working'.  How do we get 60 seats in the Senate with a ceasefire?

Look at Obama's approach to healthcare - he backed away from universal healthcare without a fight.  I don't get that - why not propose universal coverage, and if you can't strongarm the votes in Congress, then rewrite the bill in committee?

I want a Democratic President who will work with sane Republicans like Lindsay Graham, but who knows how to play a strong hand.  To quote, of all people, Nixon:  "We will negotiate, but we will negotiate from strength."


by Canaan on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No one thinks... (none / 0)

None of the candidates plans will produce Universal Coverage. Obama is just honest enough to admit that.

Again though, as I said above, I REALLY have to go. "Oh dear! I'm late, said the rabbit."


by Mystylplx on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

If the Government has the right to tell me I must have Health Insurance and I must pay for it, and at the same time tells me it is my absolute right to decide which plan I pay for, public or private, then why don't I have the same rights with my retirement and my child's education?  Why can't I take the money I pay toward Social Security and invest it in my Morgan-Stanley account instead?  And why can't I take the money the Government forces me to pay for my daughter's education and give it to Crossroads Private Academy  instead of Calabasas High School?


by Piuma on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:13:09 PM EST

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

Damn, you should write for the National Review.


Waiting for the Glorious Train Wreck.
by Rooktoven on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

You just made my point.  


by Piuma on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:32:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

No he made the point that your arguments are indeed right wing. and they are.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:30:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

Of course they are right wing.  That is my point.  The Individual Mandate opens the door to a right-wing attack on the sanctity of Social Security and Public Education.  That's why I think it is politically foolish.  What is the response?  I have received no answer by either Edwards or Clinton's supporters about this.  The only response is to call me Right Wing for pointing out the dangerous Trojan Horse aspect of what is called for by two of our three top candidates.  


by Piuma on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:36:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

you are  naive. you seem to think we can avoid this fight. this is why peo quest obama- you aren't going to avoid this. do you think this is the first time this has happened? hillarycare tried to work with them,and they used it to attack her and her plan. look one of the issues i see here is  a certain naitete masquerading as sophstication about politics from you. there is no easy win here. all of it will be struggle. period.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

I'm talking about the basic philosophical structure of the plan and you try to switch the subject to the struggle.  It is a huge mistake to allow private industry to satisfy a public mandate.


by Piuma on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

i think you are confused. its irreelvant what the plan is to teh GOP. It will be labeled as far left and super liberal. as I said naive.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:46:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

to put this in real world context- they fault SCHIP- there is no chance in hell they won't fight you on this and you have as much or little chance of winning as you are willing to fight for it and understand you must hit the ground fighting for it by shaping public oipinion etc.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:50:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

The reason for the SCHIP mandate is we require parents to care for their children and it only expands that level of care we require.  Try to stay on topic.  I'm only talking about the Individual Mandate.  How does that not potentially have repercussions on SS and Education?


by Piuma on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

the reason for the mandate is because we require the system to take care of sick people. no one sick can be turned away because of inability to pay if its an emergency. the same argument applies, and to degree is even stronger. And the topic as ever is leadership ability and understanding the nature of what leadership is required. Policy without correct leadership is failure.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 06:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

let me remind you that the leadership style expoused by obama is the same clinton 1992. it will have the same level of sucess because it lacks context.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 06:16:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

Not the case, in fact there are two major criticisms of Clinton which helped lead to her failure.  One, the process was too closed - Obama makes it open and more inclusive of all the players. And two, her program was too well defined in details, it allowed for them to nitpick it apart.  Obama has kept the plan intentionally less defined and stuck to the principles and broad goals we must achieve.  That's the problem with going for mandates now.  They aren't a goal, they are a problem solving mechanism, and perhaps not the best one.  The goal is lowering premiums, the problem is risk, the mechanism mandates.  


by Piuma on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:04:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

a) clinton plans failed before she started because she went behind closed doors with the insurance companies to hammer out what she thought was a deal. she lost before she started. so will obama.again like i said, you proceed as if you are doing somethng new- you are just repeating the clinton era mistakes except this time you dont have an excuse because we know whats coming when he gets in office.

b) you aren't going to save money or reduce costs if you dont address the free rider issue- its the definition of insurance that hurts your argument. its about pooled risk.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:24:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

But we already let private industry satisfy a public mandate when it comes to schooling your kids.

There's nothing new here.  We're going to require you to do something, the government will give you help if you can't afford it, but if you want to go with a private option you'll do it with your own money.  That's a very standard paradigm.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 06:52:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

The difference in the paradigm is unlike schools we everyone pays for public education whether you use it or not, with the Health mandate we can give it all to a private company and not contribute at all to the public plan.


by Piuma on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 06:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

your argument is increasely just wrong. the mandate requires you to have health insurance, not from whaat source you obtain it. it's exactly like public school- we require everyone pay for whether y ou have children or not. its not a matter of if you use it. its a matter of the greater public good. and even more so here since the assumption is that everyone healthy or unhealthy, without or with insurance- will use the underlying service. so long that is the case your argument will always fail. all mandates do is reflect the reality of how the service operates in fact even if we don't call it that. all your approach does is ensure companies like walmart will continue to free ride off the system withotu paying anything.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 07:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

by the way- you and myst keep posting some pretty silly on their face arguments, and others are willing to indulge you, but when you ask 'why can't you take your ss an invest it privately' you really fundamentally don't get what ss is for. it's a safety net, not your stock profolio. government exists to create a minimum line  in a modern liberal economy not the top line of which y ou can obtain. edwards point is to create a base, not a roof. your argument pretty much ignores the need for a base.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

Edwards plan is not providing a public base.  Kucinich's plan is.  Obama's plan has the flexibility to move to that.  Edwards/Clinton's plan stands against that by saying the base is your choice - public or private. It allows private enterprise in to provide a safety net that is the exclusive responsibility of the Government.


by Piuma on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he giving to? (none / 0)

he provides for a public plan. and the comparison is to obama which provides none. "look over there."


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:45:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he ? (none / 0)

he provides for a public plan. and the comparison is to obama which provides none. "look over there."


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he ? (none / 0)

Please try not to misrepresent while making your point.  Obama has a public plan, what he does not say at this point is the Government requires you as a citizen to have that safety net.  He says to business that they must provide a benefit to workers just as they provide fair working conditions etc.  The employer mandate doesn't undercut any of our principles.  But the individual mandate is abrogating Government's responsibility of the safety net it is mandating.  That's a huge leap.  And a very risky one when we know it is the Republican's agenda to attack the safety nets of Social Security and Public Education.  And to what end do we make that risk.  To provide Insurance companies with a larger pool and lower the risk ratio.  It is the wrong solution to that problem.


by Piuma on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 05:54:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's he ? (none / 0)

a plan that allows peo to buy into the private sector isnt a public plan. like with universal healthcare slapping the label on it doesn't make it so.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 06:12:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.