That’s because it’s so hard to get the information out (even Sanders doesn’t do a good job of explaining it). The people aren’t educating people how it will actually work. All they know are the short talking points for and against M4A
You shouldn’t have to switch doctors if all we’re doing is eliminating health insurance companies who act like mafia type middlemen and extract their useless for profit fees.
THIS ^… Is a problem I’ll admit
This is just false. M4A will literally save money over the long run once we get rid of the price gouging of big pharma and health insurance companies
I can when I’m talking about cutting the defense budget by 60% at minimum.
medicare at least doesn’t negotiate drug prices.
you can say it all you want…doesn’t make it any less complex in real life, or more realistic.
sky,
The idea that the war budget is hard to cut is certainly believable, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to cut. Listing programs and personnel to be cut at this point wouldn’t really be great campaigning. I think “I will cut war spending” is a perfectly cromulent part of a platform and “I will cut the F35, close bases in 18 countries, reduce uniformed personnel by 30%, close 25% of US bases, cut the number of Air Craft Carrier groups by 4, return to reducing the number of nuclear weapons” etc…or whatever is like not going to work in a stump speech at all.
I want less war and I think the only way to accomplish that is to decrease our readiness to project power and I want someone who has that as a goal. Not someone who thinks we need to have the ability to invade everyone everywhere at any time, but let’s just hope the next President isn’t a senile idiot.
I’m not saying it’s impossible to cut. I’m saying it’s impossible to make a campaign promise like what meb said because there is literally no accurate way to do that until you get down in the weeds of actual project budgets. Also, the fact that it’s a 4-year process from start to finish makes it doubly difficult.
I guess i’m too close to it to see it from a layman/everyman perspective, because “cutting the defense budget” to me is different than “cutting war spending”.
Ending endless war isn’t just “pull all our troops out of everywhere full stop.” The recent Syria debacle is a perfect example. A tiny force made up of intelligence personnel and special operations troops was enough to prevent the atrocities and war that is happening now. So in that case, ending endless war meant actually using specialized troops in a specialized manner. Now it’s s shitshow and the only way to stop it would be to send in a significant ground and air force…which of course we won’t do.
Hmm I’m sure I’ve heard a candidate who who’s foreign policy agenda sounds a lot like this. Oh, I know! Tulsi Gabbard who Democrats are trying to brand as a Russian asset
She’s pro dictator, there’s already too many of those candidates running for president.
cutting all the waste in defense spending would be nice but I’ve never seen any political candidate get any traction doing anything but DEFENSE SPENDING IS GOOD WE WILL SPEND SPEND SPEND
can’t listen to someone who actually worked in the area, but you do you, man.
And where did I say you can’t cut it. I’m saying that TO ME, because I know how it works, that campaign promise is an empty one…either way (cut or increase)
The only promise anyone is making is “cut defense spending” or “raise defense spending.” I think you should give everyone credit for understanding that a three-word slogan affecting a trillion-dollar industry isn’t going to cover the minutiae.
i know. which is why that promise rings hollow to me.
Why? Why does not spelling out exactly how much will be cut from which programs make it a hollow promise?
If I say as President I’ll increase funding for Planned Parenthood by 500 billion, is it hollow if I don’t specify where every penny will go? Is it hollow if I don’t even know where every penny will go during my campaign?
Afaik she’s pro fighting the actual bad actors, which sponsor terrorism that threatens the US and against spending trillions of dollars on wasteful wars and regime change. IOW she’s willing to protect the American homeland while refusing to continue fighting for regime changes that most feed the military industrial complex. She’s far from a Russian asset. That’s just more smear by corporate media
We were never really allies with Rojava. We were quite explicit about that. Obama wasn’t an ally. Trump isn’t. The US isn’t and it never was. In theory we could have stopped Turkey, but that was never really part of US policy.
None of the candidates will be particularly good for Syria. What we can hope for is to make it less likely for the US to do something like we did in Iraq.
There’s no way she’s better than Bernie on this. She’s an isolationist and Bernie is a peace lover. I’ll take the peace lover any day. Also she has no chance.
So, the “War on Terror” sucks.
Like Edward Snowden happened and all, but no one did anything about it. Thanks Obama. How about dismantling all that? Is that an impossible campaign promise? Absolutely equivalent to “let’s double it” because neither conveys the complexity of NSA appropriations?
