Reply #9: Thank you so much! I'll reply point by point- [View All]

[diamondsoul]

"1. Dean is counting on repairing relations with U.S. allies, to give them (and the U.N.) greater control in Iraq, and, consequently, to share costs more broadly.

No guarantees there, since Bush has bolloxed it up so badly."

Ahhh, but I believe Kucinich could do it much faster than any of the others. Kucinich already has a good relationship with UN member Nations and a good number of other foreign leaders. That's going to be the key to balancing the budget any time in the relatively near future, getting as close to completely out of Iraq as possible. I just don't see Dr. Dean negotiating that very quickly.

Also, there is indeed a humanitarian obligation at work. The difference in their positions is just that Kucinich thinks providing financial assistance without our physical presence is better for the countries involved and the region over all.

"2. Dean does propose a greater federal responsibility for healthcare, but the amount of funds allocated is more modest (generally) than the proposals from other candidates. (On edit: Not by much, though. Dean's healthcare proposal, he argues, is more likely to pass in Congress -- remember, a Democratic Congress couldn't pass healthcare -- and is very focused in certain areas that are in desperate need, such as mental health care, childhood insurance, and in-home services for the elderly.)"

The healthcare thing, no offense but it drives me nutty when people point out the Clinton plan. *LOL* The biggest reason Congress members gave for voting down the Clinton bill was that they couldn't make any sense of it, it wasn't because it was "Universal". The thing was just so convoluted and complicated they couldn't figure out how the hell it was supposed to work! Kucinich's healthcare plan is simple, financially sound and easy to follow and make sense of. It's got a very good chance of passing at least in a Dem controlled congress. Dean's may pass a Republican Congress, I couldn't say for sure, but with current resistance levels to all things Democractic, I wouldn't count on it.(I've watched a number of House votes lately that were clearly decided by partison loyalty and nothing else. *sigh*)


"3. Dean does not favor trimming the defense budget at this point. For starters, he'd never get Congress to go along. But he also believes that there are defense responsibilities (in fighting terrorism, for example) that do call for current levels of funding. Also, much of that budget goes toward soldier and sailor salaries and benefits, and he wants to make sure those monies are protected, including full funding of special combat pay. We also have force strength problems with all the commitments made by the current administration, including Iraq, and it will take time to de-escalate."

Actually the soldiers benefits have been cut. Kucinich is aware of what can safely be cut from the defense budget as a member of the House Ways and Means comittee. He wants to trim the pork there because he knows where the pork IS, and then he wants troops provided for and veteran's benefits restored. None of that will happen as long as we remain in Iraq, though.

And oof! I think I have to stop here for tonight and come back in the morning. My brain seems to be going on hiatus and I can't stop it. *LOL*