I have several reasons, some specific, some general. I'll go over them:
I would say that I lean more towards Obama in relation to Iraq/Afghanistan; on his statements regarding tax cuts for companies that don't off-shore jobs; repealing tax cuts on big oil companies; gay marriage; abortion rights.
I would say that I lean more towards McCain in relation to illegal immigration; his position on lower tax rates for 401k/IRA and when you have to take out money; his position on health care; his position on social security.
On more general reasons, I think that we need someone younger, fresher, and who can work with Congress. The complaint for many years is that DC gets nothing done. Congress is going to be run by the Democrats and if anything is going to get done, it will be with Obama as President, not McCain. I am concerned about the relative inexperience of Obama, but I believe he is intelligent and will surround himself with the same. I believe he won't have "yes-people" all around him and will actually listen to opinions that differ from his. I think that he will have a harder time staying away from the more liberal Democratic leaders. which is a concern. The Pelosi's, the Frank's, the Jackson-Lee's, the Watter's of the world scare me much more than Obama.
However, the independent nature of McCain is appealing to me. I do believe that he would at least try to involve both parties to find solutions. But, in the end, how will he get anything done? The Democratic majority in Congress will hate him and not do anything he wants, thus making an already do-nothing Congress even more-so. Some Republicans will also turn on him,, since he has turned his back on them. He can wave his veto pen all he wants, but until the President gets line-item veto power, it's useless. Congress will just attach all their spending crap to military bills and he'll have to sign them. He obviously understands the military more than Obama and these days, that is an asset. I like how he is against the Bush policies regarding torture. And while I know Obama is trying to paint him as a continuation of W, and in some cases I think that is true, in others I don't. He isn't W, he isn't Cheney. He is a hot-head and I'm not convinced he'll have people around him to reign him in. I question his judgement in selecting Palin - yes, the base loves her, but please don't insult our intelligence trying to convince us she is ready or capable of being President. She isn't. Biden, whether you agree with his politics or not, is more qualified.
I think that about lays out where I'm at. I'm not sure I can reconcile all these factors by the time I vote and even if I do, the odds are very good that I will vote for neither.
Oh, I forgot the last thing. As Scooter stated, to me these are 2 undesirable choices (3 if you count Hillary). That belief is more than likely the biggest reason I haven't decided.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Here's a bang-for-the-buck analysis of the health plans: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/pm126
"The complaint for many years is that DC gets nothing done. Congress is going to be run by the Democrats and if anything is going to get done, it will be with Obama as President, not McCain."
Yes, but what are they going to "get done?" Nothing good. Wouldn't you rather they did nothing than screw up immigration and health care, for instance?
So Steph, do you want to go on record as saying that the health care reform that will come out of a Barry-Pelosi-Reid troika will be a success?
Congrats to Michael! I've been afraid to use the term "troika."
Define "success". Compared to the current situation, it'll be better for alot of folks who don't currently get health insurance through their employer. Compared to McCain's plan, it's preferably because there's not as much short term cost (i.e. Obama's costs are more uniform over time) and given the current economic situation, we'll be better off without the short term bump. Personally, I'd like to see single payer so I'm not too enthused about Obama's plan.
I forgot where I first saw it but:
"Affordable healthcare, brought to you by the same folks who brought you affordable housing."
BTW, I was hugely enthusiastic about Bush's health savings accounts and I give him props for it, at least in principle. In its first years, the premiums on the high-deductible plans were low in comparison to the premiums on regular plans so they were both cheaper and you essentially got to keep your own money. Unfortunately, for some reason, when we looked into them last year, the premiums were way up, so that there was only a small savings on the premium while the deductibles were high. Weird how that worked out. Anyway, the admin did a poor job of selling this approach that made so much sense.
We're 47th in the world in life expectancy.
Speaking of affordable housing, I spent some time in the midst of a housing project a few weeks ago. It was filled with immigrants, largely Somali, and it had just the coolest atmosphere. Nothing like the projects my husband grew up in Chicago.
I had no idea we still had housing projects. I thought Section 8 (I think that is what it is called) had replaced that.
My condo in Denver was primarily populated by Ukrainies. That was an eye opener in many ways.
Don't know much about how it all works, but we definitely have "projects" (old and new) as well as Section 8; and the project my husband grew up in is still there in Chicago. Our office is in the commercial space of a high rise luxury apartment building. We hear tales of the Section 8 people that live here; one, according to the tale, is a crazy man who routinely knocks on people's doors wielding a knife.
I guess we just don't have very many here in Texas. There was one near downtown Houston when I moved there in 1985 but the real estate was way to valuable so the residents there got Kelo'd or urbanly renewed or something.
I don't remember any in Denver either.
Not exactly. Some buildings were torn down, others rebuilt. According to this article there are income paramaters for living there, so there must be some sort of quasi-governmental assistance going on.
Rental rates for The Historic Oaks fluctuate, he says, because each case is considered on an individual basis. In every case, the monthly rent expense will not exceed 30 percent of the family's adjusted income.
Maximum income levels have been set for prototype households, but other mitigating circumstances can come into play when applying to live at The Historic Oaks, such as the number of children and dependents in a family or the presence of excessive medical bills.
The maximum yearly income for a one-person household is $11,350 to qualify for living in The Historic Oaks. For three people, the income level increases to $14,600. For a six-person family, the yearly income cannot exceed $18,850. For eight people, it's $21,400.
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1999/08/16/newscolumn1.html
As for what will get done, you need to stop believing all the rigth-wing nut jobs railing about the country going socialist/marxist/communist. We all know that isn't going to happen.
Let's take immigration for example. Anything they do is better than what we have now. Will I like what they do, probably not, Will it be better than what we have now, yes. It's something, it's a start. And in four or eight years, the new administration/congress/supreme court can change it/fix it/trash it.
LJ, Did you mean to post that on this thread?
Michael, I was thinking about that olk monstrosity on Memorial. Maybe that wasn't a housing project.
"old" monstrosity,
LJ, of course you did. I forgot about your original post.
Post a Comment