What would you like to hear a Democrat candidate say?

I feel forced to vote Democrat for the foreseeable future.

Policies I Like
Sofia, this is a good question.

On the domestic front I could get excited about the following:
Universal Health Insurance.
I'd like Social Security to be put on a sound basis and to function about as in the past.
I'd like to see the media conglomerates broken up. I want more diversity of ownership.
We need attention to our ballooning deficit. However, talk of tax increases (aka roll-backs of the Bush tax cuts) can be deadly at election time.
I appreciate a commitment to pluralism and equality of opportunity.

On foreign policy:
A firm commitment to the idea that the US is but one nation in a world wide community of nations, and that the world is best governed through cooperation and consensus.
A diminution of the roll of the defense department in determining foreign policy. The Pentagon needs to be the servant of the civil government, not the other way around.
Identification of terrorists as our chief enemies, and a relentless search for Osama and his henchmen.
We need a reevaluation of how we use "intelligence."
A recognition that terrorists derive their power in the world because large populations live in poverty and under unjust systems of government . The root cause of terrorism is not Satanic evil.
Total abandonment of the Book of Revelation as a guide to middle east policy.

This is at least a starter.

Hazlitt helped me organize my thoughts -- my answers are based on Hazlitt's!!



On the domestic front I could get excited about the following:

Universal Health Insurance.
Essential and must be a strong structure allowing for much greater patient choice in every area, including what kind of treatment one will accept, how one will end one's life.

I'd like Social Security to be put on a sound basis and to function about as in the past.
Yup!

I'd like to see the media conglomerates broken up. I want more diversity of ownership.
This is numero uno for me. All the above, but top of my list of issues in general is serious campaign finance reform. Yes, it will take time and some blood, sweat and tears, but we have to start and start NOW.

We need attention to our ballooning deficit. However, talk of tax increases (aka roll-backs of the Bush tax cuts) can be deadly at election time.
Just get elected and do it!

I appreciate a commitment to pluralism and equality of opportunity.
On the widest possible basis: racial, ethnic and national. We should be looking out for our neighbors on the planet to the greatest extent possible, using the same standards. No separate standards for other countries...



On foreign policy:

A firm commitment to the idea that the US is but one nation in a world wide community of nations, and that the world is best governed through cooperation and consensus.
Here here!

A diminution of the role of the defense department in determining foreign policy. The Pentagon needs to be the servant of the civil government, not the other way around.
And its budgets, white, red, and black, made wholly visible and cut dramatically once defense (and defense alone) is factored in. Intelligence should be completely separate.

Identification of terrorists as our chief enemies, and a relentless search for Osama and his henchmen.
No. Don't go along with this one. The moment we set up a class of people called terrorists, we run the risk of blaming the wrong people out of an emotional reaction, enabling injustice by the government in the name of "fighting terrorism."

We need a reevaluation of how we use "intelligence."
We sure do!

A recognition that terrorists derive their power in the world because large populations live in poverty and under unjust systems of government . The root cause of terrorism is not Satanic evil. Total abandonment of the Book of Revelation as a guide to middle east policy.
End the rhetoric that religion or "God" could and should be the most important guide of any US policy. Begs the questions: whose religion? whose god? Again, the label "terrorists" troubles me. Too useful to those trending towards totalitarianism...

P.S. On the candidate selector site, my choices turned out to be: Kucinich, Dean, Mosely-Braun, Kerry.

Have been keeping up with the thread. Very appreciative of thoughtful answers. It helps to see what issues are important to members.

I have questions for anyone who feels like answering: With the population aging--Social Security will not long be solvent on worker's contributions. How would you want your candidate to solve the growing need and shrinking source of funding?

Universal Health Care. Administered by the govt? Do any members look at Europe's govt healthcare system, and feel uncomfortable about us following the same path?

These aren't criticisms. I really like the clarity of ideas and preferences shared so far. I was trying to see if any members had even more specific ideas as to how to arrive at their preferred policies. If I didn't believe with certainty that Universal Health Care would a crashing disaster, I'd be for it, as well. Maybe, I'm wrongly pessimistic...?

Social Security has been tampered with from day one, the money constantly drained out by both parties. I favor a safety net that allows one to draw Social Security at 62, for minimum benefits, or 65, for maximum benefits. As it now stands, a person my age cannot draw full benefits before age 70. The government has to know that the ones most needing the money are the ones who will be broken down from too much work before they reach age 70. How to fund it? Take the wasted money from the military. There is so much wasted money trying to control Latin America and the Middle East that if used for SS the system could be solvent in no time.

Tartarin, I agree with your concern about identifying terrorists as the chief enemy. I suppose the human enemy must be the specific persons who commit the acts. The real enemy is poverty and injustice. We might throw in ignorance, as long as we recognize the problem that one man's ignorance is another man's enlightenment. This may be one of those areas of thought where we need to fine tune the way of talking about it.

Sofia, I fear that I will not be able to give you an answer to your liking, and maybe not even to my liking perhaps, on the Social Security funding question. I am frankly not a numbers person. Here is what I observe. Conservative thinkers all predict vast under-funding for SS. They have been predicting this since the 1930s. To them, it's always been nothing but a giant Ponzi game. Liberal thinkers have shown over and over that the funding is perfectly plausible. I do not think we are speaking here of pie-in-the -sky dreamers. By the way, I suppose you know that the SS trust fund is now being used up to compensate for the tax cuts and to fund the war.

My feeling is that Conservatives (speaking here of the business part of the Republican party) finally see that SS is something the population at large does not want to give up. So if they can't end it, they want to privatise it so they can get control of the money and charge huge commissions on the buying and selling of securities. In the meantime, the retirement package of tens of millions of families and old people goes up and down with the stock market making their retirement problematic at best. The conservatives may have won the propaganda war on this one. There are huge numbers of workers out there who have never had the gumption to save a penny, but who are convinced they'd be millionaires by now if only they could invest their SS deduction in the market.

I agree with EB. It can only be millionaire congressmen who imagine that people can stay gainfully employed until age 70. At age 62 1/2 I used to wonder if I'd make it to my car in the parking lot after work. If a person has a job that pays a good salary, it is usually very demanding work. Older people tire much faster than their younger counterparts.

A trust fund should be just that. First you have a donated amount of money which goes into an account which is invested in securities. A trust fund is a kind of lock box in which the capital produces income which is rolled over until it becomes available to whoever benefits from the trust fund.

There are occasionally, in real life, exceptions -- or "lock-box keys" for special occasions. In the case we're talking about, Congress should never have a key to the capital and should never be allowed to allocate funds in any way except for the purpose they are dedicated.

So, the fund starts with a "gift" -- taxpayers' money, lottery money, you name it. It then, generation after generation, receives money from people of working age as well as receiving income on the original "investment," and gives out money to people of retirement age -- both at specified rates always calculated to come out even (at worst) or do better (at best). Don't forget: the core of the fund -- the capital -- is invested and produces additional income. I have no problem with each individual worker being given tax deductions for additional retirement funds.

Sofia -- I don't have any quick answers to your pessimism about Universal Health Care, but I do know that systems work in Scandinavia, Britain, and Canada. They don't always work perfectly, but they are far superior in general (my experience has been only with Britain) than what we have in the US. Those who have the bucks can avoid some of the limitations of basic, universally available system by paying medical providers outside the system for additional care. But that system is there to provide the best care possible to ALL those who need it. We don't have that. We tend to avoid sharing by calling it "communism" or "socialism" as though our democratic republic would fall apart if we indulged fellow citizens in their wish for a decent life they couldn't otherwise attain.

I live in a prosperous community which has a very good hospital and a large variety of GP's and specialists -- surprisingly good for the population (7,000 city, 25,000 rural county). Not everyone is well off, and there has been a problem with providing free health care for those who can't afford to pay, or who can afford to pay very little.

The little community health care building was busting at the seams and its staff on overload. In an amount of time which would make even Howard Dean blink, this community (this summer) raised an enormous amount of money to build, equip and staff a large new architect-designed (mimicking the old limestone German farmhouses of the area) community health center.

So there are areas in this country where good people of good conscience get together to provide what is not provided by the larger community -- state or nation. But Mississippi and northern Maine can't do that. East LA can't do that. Communities with large low-income and often new immigrant populations can't do that. Why shouldn't we help -- not capriciously and inconsistently but with regular funding which allows the community health care provider to plan efficiently, knowing it will have a steady source of funds?

tartarin, I see the health care problem much as you do.

The system that we have works only for those who have the money to afford it.

The millions who do not have insurance either go without heath care or they throw themselves upon the mercy of the hospital emergency rooms. The cost of this charity is passed on to regular paying consumers. Why not simply have universal coverage for everyone?

Another point is that government agencies are frequently better run and more cost efficient than private companies. In my experience anyone who has dealt with SS finds them very much on the ball. Is it not true that the cost of paperwork and administration in private insurance companies is higher than in government agencies? It seems to me that the biggest unnecessary expense connected with medicare has been fraud on the part of doctors and corporations.

Bingo, Hazlitt. Fraud combined with extraordinary over-prescription of drugs and tests. Combined with the insurance docs have to take out. The system is full of problems. Perhaps there's someone here who can articulately lay out the bugs and let us discuss how they might be fixed?

Just heard some excerpts from a Dem "debate" on NPR. I wish Dean and Kucinich could work together.

Dean
Tartarin, although Dean gets my juices flowing, I doubt he can beat Bush. That is barring some occurence that undermines Bush's popularity.

Listen, Haz, the sign of blood moving through the veins in a heretofore moribund American public is enough for me at the moment. Bush's numbers are pretty far down. Rove will do something about that, we can be sure. But as long as the blood continues to move through the veins and more oxygen is carried to the American brain, Rove may have more to contend with than he thought.

I took the 2004 cadidate poll and Mosley-Braun got 100%...Bush got 0%. Surprisingly Dean, who I really like, was kinda in the middle. Who knew? I better do some more reading.

One things for sure, a black woman will not be a viable candidate in today's America even if she is the most qualified, so what's a boy to do? I'd vote for Charles Manson if he ran against Bush...at least he's a fvcking lunatic right up front.......

Tart, I agree with you that the mere fact that Dean's being listened to and that he's whipping up debate is a great plus.

Edgar, I cannot imagine myself voting Republican as long as there are men like Bush, Rumsfeld, DeLay, Chaney, and a long list of others calling the shots in the Republican party. I don't think being a Republican makes a person bad, still, there is no way I could ever vote for one. What they did during the Clinton administration was forever unforgivable. What they are doing during the Bush administration is a social, an international, and an environmental disaster. In my view, everything they touch is made worse. The worst of all is rule by unbridled propaganda, lies, secrecy and deception.

Hazlit
I have not hinted that I might vote Republican. The only time I did I came to regret it very soon. However, I happen to feel that if the Democrats don't dig in their heels soon I will go back to voting Green or something.

Edgar, my reference was to your former statement that you saw yourself voting Democratic for the forseeable future.

I am one of those who feels that a vote for the greens is probably a wasted vote and only helps elect Republicans as the Naderites did the last time in Florida.

I desperately want a Democrat who can lead. If it doesn't happen, well, what's the difference?

"We have got to move away from the neo-Fascist movement that has overtly taken over a much to large sector of America in the way of Politics, press, Judiciary, corporate, economic and social way of life. This road is a narrow, dirty, foul way if we continue as has been the downard recent direction........."

I would like to hear him say that if elected he will see to it the GWB, Dickless Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the entire gang will be tried as war criminals along with Saddam Hussein (if alive) and Osama Bin Laden and be sent to live in exile with them and that John Asscroft will be given work release to scrub peep show stalls and abortion clinic floors.