Yep...it's so progressive that you'll have to create an entire department of government just to administer it. It will be large, inefficient, and slow to act. No thanks, I'd rather a universal system that is quick to act and will be efficient in order to keep costs down.
Really, because at this point in my life (50+ years to live), I'm unwilling to vote for any candidate that will bankrupt the country to give the citizens their every desire.
I don't blame Nader for the Dems not representing real progressive viewpoints. I just blame Nader for 8 years of George Bush who has been anti-progressive viewpoint. Nader could have probably been head of the EPA, the FDA or some other responsible job under a Gore Administration. We'd have a million less dead Iraqis, and the money wasted on Iraq was probably in the order of what is needed to pay for years of single- payer. However, the politically unsophisticated Nader prefers to have his 5 minutes on Meet the Press every 4 years. Maybe if he can possibly spoil the election in a state or two, Nader might even be reported on again before November. If he can't spoil a state or two, don't expect to see him on the Mainstream Media again. Nader can't even get the nomination for the Green Party (they are for single payer) if he tried. However, no nominations needed for his party of one. Oh well, Nader might be able to raise some under the table GOP money if he promises to try to spoil a state or two.
Netted, of course, against the ones the Saddam would have killed on his own. Really? Do you have any facts to back that up, or are you just guessing? With trench coats in a dark parking garage, or while black helicopters fly by, or while wearing tin foil helmets. Geez...what a conspiracy theorist. It might just be that Nader has a need for self-promotion and an ego to feed. Nah...that's too darn simple.
OK - well if that is the gauge, Saddam would have had to kill about 20,000 people per year in the last four years to match the current total Do you have any historical data to prove that he was killing people at this rate? I am aware that there were lots of casualties during the suppression of the kurds, but they have pretty much been off limits sicne 1991. Hell, Saddam and his people could execute 20 political enemies per day every day for the last four years and still not even get to half that number. If there was anywhere close to 20,000 people beign killed by Sadam per year after 1991 - you better believe we would have heard about it beforehand Iraq costs 2 billion a week according to CRS - Hilarycare costs 110 b per year - do the math.
you are of course, correct. who needs healthcare if one is getting blowed up? double your pleasure, double your fun.
Well I think that is true about the ego on Nader's part. I'm not saying his campaign is a GOP plot or that Nader intends to help the GOP. Nonetheless, such third party runs have been contributed to for years by the major parties if they think it is helpful. Say John McCain spends $100 million on his campaign. He doesn't get much more for an additional $1 million. Nadir could get a lot out of that extra million as it may double his expenditures. The GOP operatives try to calculate what is the best use for the next million. Geez. This type of stuff has been done before with such parties as the Raza Unita Party in Texas. (I was told this by participants who learned of the source of some of their funds after the fact.) I have heard that the Greens may have gotten some money this way.
I do believe Nader's 2000 run had more monetary support from registered republican donors than any other single political group. Not sure about Perot, but I'm sure some dems sent his campaign money (not that he needed it...)
