My 70+ yr old white democratic mom told me today she isn't going to vote for Obama. She was a JFK and Martin Luther King loving democrat all her life.

But she said, she just can't feel safe or comfortable about Obama. Just too much of a roll of the dice for her.

So, I am not so sure you are right about that.

We discussed it today. Lots of people believe it's just best to tell people ,'yeah, we'll vote for him'(but, they don't actually intend to vote for him at all) they just say they will...just because they don't want to argue with his very vicious supporters.

It's just easier that way.

mercadia:

Woofer: I would love to hear your thought on this;

<link>

How do you think each candidate's plan stands in terms of this issue?

Barack Obama`s plan is the sounder one I believe, for several reasons. (Not just because he`s my candidate.) First, I will analyze Hillary`s position:

I hate to say this but I think that her plan is vote pandering. She places the blame squarely on ``unscrupulous mortgage brokers`` with their ``predatory lending practices.`` She does not blame the borrowers (and many were involved in get-rich quick schemes--you know the kind of gimmicks that they sell on TV at 2 a.m. as to ``how you too can get rich on real estate, just like I did!`` There were abusive practices by some mortgage brokers, but that doesn`t begin to cover it. Her plan of moratorium only delays dealing with the problem (maybe, she thought, until after the nomination is secured). She doesn`t even begin to tackle the big lenders such as Ameriquest, Countrywide and Washington Mutual let alone the really big fish like Bank of America and Citigroup who were making scads of money buying ABC (Asset Backed Commercial) paper through the really big investment houses like Merril Lynch and Goldman Sachs! They were likely much more culpable in this mess than the mortgage brokers. They liked the really big returns for themselves and their clients (who were getting lousy returns on their investment portfolios for reasons I will not go into here) and kept pressuring on down the line to get more of the same. Citigroup and Bank of America execs were hardly doing due diligence in protecting their depositors money. And now they (and the bond insurers) want a bailout from the government! She wants to toughen up licensing requirements for mortgage brokers and penalties for malfeasance. She also wants to eliminate prepayment penalties on mortgages but that only helps the real estate `flipper`at the expense of the home owner who will pay higher rates to cover the lenders`loss of income. That is only hanging the brokers out to dry and penalizing homeowners--not fair! But since there are relatively few mortgage brokers, not too many votes lost and she wouldn`t have to forego the huge amount of money given by the big financial institutions and investment outfits through Washington lobbyists. Her plan does nothing to stop it from happening all over again. Sorry to sound so cynical but that`s the way I see it.

Obama`s plan is much more comprehensive, I believe. (I would love to know how Wall Street reacted to his lecturing them on their large responsibility in this mess! He wrote an article on the problem for the Financial Times of London back in August--one assumes because he couldn`t get American financial publications to publish it) He wants more and better legislation dealing specifically with mortgage fraud and has sponsored legislation to that effect--it takes all players into account. Even though there is currently a lot of laws on the books dealing with fraud, some of it is outdated and with the deregulation of so much, the enforcement teeth are just not there. Laws that are not enforced might as well not be there. He also wants to earmark funds (no enforcement will get done if there is no money given to enforcement) for better policing (at the state and federal level). This is important as there is a hodgpodge of state regulations covering fraud. This would be done by mortgage fraud specialists who would have the ability to regulate and go after the big boys (like Elliot Spitzer did in New York over investment fraud. Spitzer is probably one of Wall Street`s most unfavorite people--it must gall them that he parlayed his notoriety gained in going after them into the governorship of New York State.) Obama would bump up the penalties to be equal with those for securities fraud. In turn, these fines would be used to finance a fund to help refinance owner-occupied homes (filtering out the get-rich guys) and broker deals between the homeowners and the lenders. A number of people in the mortgage industry feel that Obama`s plan is the most workable and works to catch the culprits while helping the innocent.

aloofness, rudeness, coldness, hypocrisy, arrogance & smug sense of entitlement, also echoed most recently by His Queen of Arrogance, Her "Excellency" Michelle Obama. Nominating him will be the worst mistake the Democratic Party has made in 25 or so years, IF they make that foolish mistake. You're quite right when you write, "These voters aren't swayed by his rhetoric and aren't that impressed by his record." Actually, I'd delete the "that" and add, "at all." He is an almost total turn-off to this lifelong Democratic voter & volunteer. If the Party makes this mistake, I'll either abstain or swallow deep, hold my nose & cast my vote for Senator John McCain, who has served his country long and well and deserves and has earned, our respect.
Great post, thank you. I hope you will consider putting it up on other Frays as well, if you have not already done so.

Woofer, can you repost it in the other thread and break it up into shorter paragraphs? My eyes begin to cross.

LaurieAnnM:

My 70+ yr old white democratic mom told me today she isn't going to vote for Obama. She was a JFK and Martin Luther King loving democrat all her life.

But she said, she just can't feel safe or comfortable about Obama. Just too much of a roll of the dice for her.

So, I am not so sure you are right about that.

We discussed it today. Lots of people believe it's just best to tell people ,'yeah, we'll vote for him'(but, they don't actually intend to vote for him at all) they just say they will...just because they don't want to argue with his very vicious supporters.

It's just easier that way.

Sorry your mom has been harassed by some overly enthusiastic Obama supporters. Sometimes people get so caught up in the ``cause`` that they forget that its a dumb idea to bully voters and insult the opposition candidate. I have been guilty of focusing on the negatives of the Clintons because sometimes, if there are a lot of negatives, that is easier than focusing on the positives of one`s own candidate--thus the amusing illustration of an Obama supporter not being able to name Obama`s accomplishments. (Of course the same tack was tried with a Clinton supporter to the same effect.) There actually are a great many Obama accomplishments (forgive my partisanship but in Obama`s career, he has co-written or sponsored over 890 pieces of legislation--Hillary only 20). But it takes work to ferret out the good points of one`s candidate and it is quite easy to sling the dirt--there`s plenty of it around.

mercadia:

Woofer, can you repost it in the other thread and break it up into shorter paragraphs? My eyes begin to cross.

Sorry, Mercadia, but I am a bit computer challenged and don`t know how. Sorry, I do tend to run on a bit in my posts.

I can't get behind his health care plan, we really need a mandate. He plan is going to make health care more expensive in terms of premiums and tax dollars than Clinton's would. He has three guys advising him economically, but his health care plan seems more geared toward people liking him than sound economic reasoning. This is strange because his subprime plan seems the opposite (more conservative and may lead to people liking him less in the short term), which may have a lot to do with the fact that Obama's campaign finance chairman is Penny Pritzker (who was the chair at Superior Bank, a major subprime lendor that is now bankrupt).

He really worries me.

Lunesta:

aloofness, rudeness, coldness, hypocrisy, arrogance & smug sense of entitlement, also echoed most recently by His Queen of Arrogance, Her "Excellency" Michelle Obama. Nominating him will be the worst mistake the Democratic Party has made in 25 or so years, IF they make that foolish mistake. You're quite right when you write, "These voters aren't swayed by his rhetoric and aren't that impressed by his record." Actually, I'd delete the "that" and add, "at all." He is an almost total turn-off to this lifelong Democratic voter & volunteer. If the Party makes this mistake, I'll either abstain or swallow deep, hold my nose & cast my vote for Senator John McCain, who has served his country long and well and deserves and has earned, our respect.
Great post, thank you. I hope you will consider putting it up on other Frays as well, if you have not already done so.

I don`t find Michelle Obama to be arrogant at all--perhaps a bit too honest for a politicians wife but she will learn. If I were looking through her eyes I probably would be quite touched by the outpouring of enthusiasm for the political process that she sees in young people today and she is rightly proud of them and her country. I doubt that she would confirm that she has never before been proud of her country but as a black woman who has faced many obstacles that just don`t exist for me as a white woman, I think I can cut her a little slack. I had a number of black friends when I was an undergraduate (back in the 1960`s) and I saw the very real daily insults and rejection that fell on them. I think the fact that Barack Obama is likely to become the nominee is a great accomplishment for our nation--I am prouder than I have ever been of our nation--I think that is what she likely intended to say. Why aren`t you impressed with his record? Since I am, I'd just like to know why you're not. Hope you don`t mind my asking.

woofer my mom, hasn't been harassed at all by anyone. She has no computer. She lives in a nice upper middle class small town. She feels this way because of what she has seen on TV and this incredulous over the top promotion of a human being as the next coming of the great of the greats. It's bizzare.

I know she also told me she feels very angry at what sge has seen on TV where his supporters and campaign people have so viciously critisized The Clintons. She really feels angry about that because she thinks the Clintons did so much for democrats and especially Civil Rights issues.

But she has not been persoally harrassed. So, it isn't that.

It's the crazy pushing of Obama as Messianic along with the way his camapign and supporters viciously attack The Clintons in general.

mercadia:

I can't get behind his health care plan, we really need a mandate. He plan is going to make health care more expensive in terms of premiums and tax dollars than Clinton's would. He has three guys advising him economically, but his health care plan seems more geared toward people liking him than sound economic reasoning. This is strange because his subprime plan seems the opposite (more conservative and may lead to people liking him less in the short term), which may have a lot to do with the fact that Obama's campaign finance chairman is Penny Pritzker (who was the chair at Superior Bank, a major subprime lendor that is now bankrupt).

He really worries me.

I think that his health care position (I wouldn`t call it a plan exactly) is fiscally sound in that it recognizes that any system will be unaffordable if costs are not contained. I am a bit troubled by Hillary`s mandate for all. I agree with Obama that people aren`t typically uninsured because they are purposely negligent--they simply can`t afford coverage. If others are happy with the health insurance that they have, why force them to be part of the system? That having been said, reducing claims against the system will make it more affordable for all.

My sister was a principle (now retired) in a firm that helped large corporations be medically self-insured. (Yes, we argue politics all the time--she`s a McCainiac). Anyway, she assures me that there is an enormous amount of cost mismanagement in the system. I think Obama is right to focus on this issue.

I lived for a number of years under the Canadian system. While far from perfect, for most people it works reasonably well. The biggest problem is a lack of specialists because they get their education and training in Canada and then head to the U.S. where they can make mega-bucks. When and if the U.S. gets national health care, a number of them will likely go back home. Even though they will have a much lower cap on their earnings there, the upside is that they do not have to face enormous malpractice insurance premiums for two reasons: 1) The government insures them and 2) because the law societies in Canada consider it unethical to take malpractice cases on a contingency basis. This greatly reduces malpractice claims to those that are really valid and eliminates frivolous lawsuits that even good doctors face in the U.S.

Why specifically does Obama worry you?

He told you specifically why, Woofer. His health care plan.

It creeps me out that you won't accept that people can feel unsure of Obama.

Why can you not accept this?

Why?

LaurieAnnM:

woofer my mom, hasn't been harassed at all by anyone. She has no computer. She lives in a nice upper middle class small town. She feels this way because of what she has seen on TV and this incredulous over the top promotion of a human being as the next coming of the great of the greats. It's bizzare.

I know she also told me she feels very angry at what sge has seen on TV where his supporters and campaign people have so viciously critisized The Clintons. She really feels angry about that because she thinks the Clintons did so much for democrats and especially Civil Rights issues.

But she has not been persoally harrassed. So, it isn't that.

It's the crazy pushing of Obama as Messianic along with the way his camapign and supporters viciously attack The Clintons in general.

I agree with you that some of his supporters go over the top in acting like he is the Second Coming. Please forgive their exuberance. I think that the Clintons did help a number of people--including, apparently many African-Americans. But there is a great deal of negative material on them that is hard to dismiss. As just a recent example of problems for the Clintons, the Peter Paul lawsuit against the Clintons is coming up on March 3, and if what he says is true (he says he has iron-clad proof), Hillary stands to be indicted for campaign finance infractions coming out of her election campagin in 2000. It was initially picked up by the major news services back when he initiated his lawsuit but it was promptly dropped (some say because the media was afraid to go after the Clintons because much of the ownership of the media are friends and supporters of the Clintons--others say it is because Peter Paul was, himself, indicted for some kind of operation related to Fidel Castro. Paul insists he got involved through connection to a U.S. government covert operation and that he was falsely indicted). In the past, if the media didn`t report on it, it never happened. That is until about two years ago, when youtube started up and Peter Paul was able to get his most damaging videos on youtube. From there it went all over the web and now the media is starting to cautiously poke its nose in again. Don`t know if it is a mere smear or if there is substance--I guess we will have to wait and see.

LaurieAnnM:

He told you specifically why, Woofer. His health care plan.

It creeps me out that you won't accept that people can feel unsure of Obama.

Why can you not accept this?

Why?

Perhaps Mercadia could answer for himself, Laurie Ann. Let me ask why someone trying to sell their candidate ``creeps you out.`` Would it disturb you if someone was trying to convince others that Clinton was a sound candidate?

I don't appreciate your smear on Hillary...shades of the sick puppies in the republican aisle like Ken Starr who dogged her and Bill for years. Your smear turns my stomach.

On that note. Nice chatting with you.

Goodbye.

Woofer, this is what bother me:

Obama advocates for transparency in the health care system, which will apparently lower costs enough for people to buy health care. Clinton also advocates for the *same* thing. They *both* want increased regulation and transparency (both in health care and the economy). They *both* want that, not just Obama.

And maybe I'm oversimplifying, BUT

Obama does not require a mandate, which means that the people who do not buy health care but still require medical treatment will push those costs back up (which we, in turn, will end up paying for). And we're not talking about low income people who just can't afford it, we're talking about "free-riders:" Americans who *can* buy insurance, but *don't,* because they want to spend the money on Ipods and other things. Then they go to the hospital for emergency procedures or basic check-ups and we end up paying for it, through tax dollars or higher premiums. According to Obama's people, his plan estimates about 2 million "free-riders," will still remain even after he lowers prices. Those "free-riders" will continue to keep prices higher than they need to be. Of course, no one can certain--that is just their estimate. Obama suggested that the end to this problem could be allow parents to insure their kids until age 25, as long at the parents want to insure their spoiled, irresponsible kid for that long,

A mandate will lower costs further. Mandates require everyone to participate (which will definitely eradicate "free-riders") and will make insurance even easier for lower income people to afford. In turn, requiring lower income people to buy health care further lowers the prices further, which will make it even easier for them to afford.

Under both plans, if lower income people cannot afford health insurance, the government will offer a subsidy or tax credit to help them. We will pay for the subsidy's through our tax dollars.

However, Obama's subsidy will end up having to be larger, due to the fact that health care will remain more expensive than it has to be. Under this plan, we will pay more through taxes and through higher premiums. Under Clinton's plan, the subsidy will be lower because health care will be cheaper. So, we'll save money through less taxes and lower premiums.

Clinton's plan makes more sense to me (what am I missing here?) It seems like it will make insurance easier for lower-income people to buy and with a smaller subsidy. Not requiring a mandate seems like it's hindering the system and that the money save on premiums, which will be less, by be counteracted by an increase in tax dollars, which will be more. Even if he makes up for the subsidies by reducing spending somewhere else, why is it necessary to keep premiums higher than they need to be and governmental spending larger than it needs to be?