Very interesting SH, you express yourself very clearly but I cannot understand nonetheless because what you described is exactly why I would NEVER vote for Bernie and hold my nose (so to speak) and vote for Trump. In fact even now knowing how pompous, etc. he can be now witnessing his first years I would still not for him instead of Bernie. Just different I suppose.
What's foolish is believing there are sane and financially prudent people in Congress. I can name exactly one who I would trust to be financially prudent.
I wouldn't vote for Bernie over Trump like Husker would. However, he is right that free tuition likely wouldn't happen even if Bernie won. It's not because Congress is sane and financially prudent enough not to pass free tuition. It's because the actual tax bill associated with financing free tuition would necessarily become a serious issue. Like most Democratic policy priorities (the green agenda, single payer healthcare, etc.), the costs associated with free tuition are very seldom discussed, and even when they are, they're glossed over. They aren't driven home. Obviously, Democrats and the media aren't going to discuss them if they don't have to, and Republicans are too dumb and incoherent to argue them. They just throw out the buzz term "socialized medicine" when single payer is brought up, and they freeze like a deer in the headlights when green energy and free tuition are brought up. They don't know what to say about those. I'm not sure why, but they're just not very smart people. However, if Bernie won, there'd be an actual bill passed through Congress, and money would have to be appropriated for it. Then people would say, "oh crap, 'free' tuition costs money. Nobody told us that." And that would be enough to kill the idea at least in the immediate term. Same thing happened in California when some of the mental patients in their legislature put statewide single-payer healthcare on the table. The bill came back with a $400B price tag. That killed the idea for awhile. (For reference, California has an approximately $200B budget, so you can see why that price tag stopped even California Democrats in their tracks.) Of course, the proponents of big government always come back. California is preparing to push for single payer again since we've basically decided to write off the whole state and let a bunch of Che Guevara starter kits take it over, but it'll almost surely fail again. Likewise, Bernie would push for free tuition again. And that's what politics is about - fighting people who want to do stupid things and saving them from themselves.
I honestly don't understand the thinking here, because Obamacare DID happen. We DID see massive changes to our health insurance, and both sides of the aisle had to be dragged kicking and screaming into even modifying it a small bit. No Democrats that I heard of had any interest in backing off, and only did it because there was pressure within the house. This idea that the people would "rise up" only works if the Seattles of the world actually are willing to vote their reps out in favor of conservatives. That's not going to happen. And even if it does, it's too late once it gets put into law, because then the shrieks of "YOU CAN'T TAKE OUR (insert thing we've only had for two years) AWAY! PEOPLE WILL DIE!" start and everyone backs off.
Just to clear the air, I'm not running, either, due to conflicts with my work schedule and a desire to spend more time with my family.
If/when Congress writes bills for "free" tuition and healthcare there won't be honest talk about how much it will cost. There will be faulty projections used to sell it. If the picture is so bad it can't be sold publicly, Reps will say "It's great but we won't be able to know the details into the Law is passed." Bernie Sanders is a kook but he is a Capitalist compared to the new generation of Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...mistake/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fec60a5e0019 At least WaPo demands some semblance of honesty in framing the question. That does give me a little hope that when progressive policy drags us into the gutter, it won't be written by people so blindly stupid as AOC.
Another look at the basis of her and Bernie's claims. Medicare for All: Administrative Costs Are Much Higher than You Think | Gary Galles
Obamacare sorta happened, but it was much scaled back. As bad as Obamacare has been, it hasn't been the impact legislation that was intended. Originally, Obamacare was supposed to have a public option. That was the big cost containment mechanism. To keep the insurance and medical lobbies from declaring nuclear war like they did with HillaryCare, the bill was gutted. The point is that when a bill is going to have a major impact on powerful interest groups, they dump sand into the gears. They definitely did it with Obamacare, and they'd do it if someone was seriously going to pass "free" tuition. For a small tax hike, they won't care. For a tax hike big enough to finance free tuition and single payer healthcare, they would. This is true. Once an entitlement is on the books, it doesn't go away.
Or, more likely, the liberal media who have been telling us for years that voter fraud does not exist are now obssesed with the idea since a Democrat is the perceived victim.
Yeah. I have seen my progressive friends on Facebook shrieking about Republican voter fraud during the 2018 midterms, all of whom claimed it didn't happen. Still don't think they would be for voter ID laws.
I would really like to know what the Dems/leftists want. Are they all socialists? If so let them prove it by voluntarily giving up more of their own money first. They can but never do
To be sure, nobody has said voter fraud doesn't exist. Its simply not as significant as many conservatives suggest. It's especially not prevalent enough to implement costly, often draconian, measures to limit access to voting. The NC problem is a single district with a single alleged perpetrator. The fact that this alleged fraud was caught is an example that the system is working. If I stub my toe to I go to the hospital or simply say "ow" and move on? Do I build an armored boot to ensure I don't stub it again or simply recognize that stubbing my toe is a risk and be more conscious of risks while I'm walking?
There are studies that suggest otherwise as there are studies that say you are correct. When politicians are against as something as simple as getting an ID I can't help but be suspicious. Yes, I said it. Getting an ID isn't that hard. Be an adult like the rest of us and get yourself one.
What studies? We have anecdotal evidence and one off examples of voters voting twice. Of the 100+ fraud cases charged by Kobach in Kansas >50% were elderly people that sent in a recently deceased spouse's absentee ballot, hardly evidence of widescale fraud.
Requiring voter's to vote within the last 2 years to be "active" and vote, ensuring absolutely no typos on their registration (assuming the typos were on the form and NOT some data entry person) then also to have a matching ID to their voter registration information and stand in line for an extended time to vote in person in the 21st century all combine to put roadblocks in place to a casual voter. I'm actually in favor of 100% absentee ballots. It allows a voter to sit at home, have he voter pamphlet in front of them with internet access to find other information and make an more informed selection. It also doesn't put the very artificial impediment of forcing someone to schedule time out of their day to go to a polling station which for an hourly worker or elderly person is not an easy endeavor.
I think most people would be fine with this except that at this point, it appears that it's almost impossible to keep those systems secure. Target can't keep people from hacking its data. So do we think local voting websites would be able to ensure secure, private, and legal voting? I'm not convinced it's possible, but would certainly be open to trying to create a hack-proof system. I predict if/when that happens, a push will begin to bring down select sites which are deemed to be in violation of "electioneering" near polling locations, since that location is now your desktop. Social will also be impacted. The irony is that the left has been screaming over alleged (and ridiculous) claims that Russian social media bots influenced voters. This would - if anything - make it much easier for them to succeed in this realm, since you'd have a chance to get people fired up and tell them - "don't wait, send a message and go vote RIGHT NOW!!!" Ultimately, I'd rather have a secure election process than a convenient one.
What makes you believe that a "casual voter" (your term) is in any way a net positive for our country?
