Ocasio-Cortez bans press from town hall

[UglyCasanova]

Medicare for all as she advocates is fiscally more responsible than keeping our current system and everyone who has read the literature knows it.

Yes, I’m sure you’ve read through "the literature". Regardless whats said on the DU there’s no way this country is ok with tacking on $40 trillion over a ten year span. It’ll never happen.

 

[BUTCH1]

She'll certainly get the whole Socialist movement on it's way, it will just take longer but as we all know
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually runout of other people's money."

I guess you fail to understand no POTUS can just say "OK, now everything is free", our system is built on checks and balances. As for "other people's money", it seems perfectly fine for GOP D-bags to "spend" future generations $$ so a whopping tax cut for the top 1% can be had today. Maybe you should be worried about THAT vs you're theoretical "communist" soap opera.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, I’m sure you’ve read through "the literature". Regardless whats said on the DU there’s no way this country is ok with tacking on $40 trillion over a ten year span. It’ll never happen.

So you are going to continue to double down on your claim of adding 40 trillion, despite providing you with the context of the claim?

Fucking dumbass.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I guess you fail to understand no POTUS can just say "OK, now everything is free", our system is built on checks and balances. As for "other people's money", it seems perfectly fine for GOP D-bags to "spend" future generations $$ so a whopping tax cut for the top 1% can be had today. Maybe you should be worried about THAT vs you're theoretical "communist" soap opera.

nope, we clearly need to continue to bless the jerb creators so they can keep on creating more well-paying jerbs
/s

 

[UglyCasanova]

So you are going to continue to double down on your claim of adding 40 trillion, despite providing you with the context of the claim?

Fucking dumbass.

It adds anywhere between $32 to $40 trillion to the federal budget. I get the arguement that we wouldn’t pay private insurers, but there’s no denything the fact the federal budget massively balloons. There's no way the country ever gets on board with it. There's no way half the country will burden it. And when you start telling the other half that a third of their income disappears in order to make this work, you’ll start seeing poll results plummet.

 

[compcons]

Your reply makes no sense. How does Ocasio-Cortez plan to pay for the things she’s promising?

This reply is so late, but I can't pass up the:
"Don't we just push that along into our national debt like that tax reform thing the Republicans passed?"

Or
"The same way Republicans have been paying for shit for decades, put it on the credit card."

 

[ivwshane]

It adds anywhere between $32 to $40 trillion to the federal budget. I get the arguement that we wouldn’t pay private insurers, but there’s no denything the fact the federal budget massively balloons. There's no way the country ever gets on board with it. There's no way half the country will burden it. And when you start telling the other half that a third of their income disappears in order to make this work, you’ll start seeing poll results plummet.

You continue to not get it.

 

[compcons]

I agree conservatives don’t give a shit either. Politicians are the scum of the Earth, promising "free" stuff and that gets them the votes (and I’m sure extra perks from the industries that benefit) but the reality is they just put it on the credit card and tell the kids you deal with it. Cortez is obviously no different.

Dammit. Now my reply looks particularly lame. But yes. This is what I said. Honestly I typed it before I read this. It seems a bit plagarisitic though.

Once conservatives get their party back, we can start having reasonable debates about stuff. Unfortunately, Republicans actions are not reflective of their stated policy objectives. Its refreshing to see at least some of them realizing it.

 

[UglyCasanova]

This reply is so late, but I can't pass up the:
"Don't we just push that along into our national debt like that tax reform thing the Republicans passed?"

Or
"The same way Republicans have been paying for shit for decades, put it on the credit card."

I’m not defending Republicans they’re just as spend happy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Dammit. Now my reply looks particularly lame. But yes. This is what I said. Honestly I typed it before I read this. It seems a bit plagarisitic though.

Once conservatives get their party back, we can start having reasonable debates about stuff. Unfortunately, Republicans actions are not reflective of their stated policy objectives. Its refreshing to see at least some of them realizing it.

Not really. His emphasis on cutting spending is standard GOP & falls on America's most vulnerable people. It always does. He simply reduces that to abstraction rather than addressing it as real people.

 

[ivwshane]

Not really. His emphasis on cutting spending is standard GOP & falls on America's most vulnerable people. It always does. He simply reduces that to abstraction rather than addressing it as real people.

That and he can't even get the basic facts right let alone understanding semi complex policies.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yes, I’m sure you’ve read through "the literature". Regardless whats said on the DU there’s no way this country is ok with tacking on $40 trillion over a ten year span. It’ll never happen.

but somehow spending more money out of pocket for in many cases worse coverage is somehow a superior solution?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I’m sure you’ve read through "the literature". Regardless whats said on the DU there’s no way this country is ok with tacking on $40 trillion over a ten year span. It’ll never happen.

You don’t even understand what you’re talking about. $40 trillion is government spending but it replaces private spending that is even more. It’s overall less money.

Regardless though, you voted for Trump. If you actually cared about deficits you would have voted for Clinton because Trump promised wildly irresponsible fiscal policy from the start. If anything, Clinton’s sin was trying to actually be responsible.

Your own voting preferences show that you don’t really care about fiscal responsibility so no one should care about your concerns here.

 

[UglyCasanova]

but somehow spending more money out of pocket for in many cases worse coverage is somehow a superior solution?

You’re assuming you’ll be spending less money if the gov runs things.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Regardless though, you voted for Trump. If you actually cared about deficits you would have voted for Clinton because Trump promised wildly irresponsible fiscal policy from the start. If anything, Clinton’s sin was trying to actually be responsible.

Trump was voted for to burn the place to the ground. That’s it. Destroy the status quo.

 

[Jhhnn]

You’re assuming you’ll be spending less money if the gov runs things.

He's assuming our govt can do as well as other advanced countries, like France, Canada & so forth.

Which means that the GOP won't be running it, of course.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump was voted for to burn the place to the ground. That’s it. Destroy the status quo.

So that's what we should do? Really?

 

[fskimospy]

Trump was voted for to burn the place to the ground. That’s it. Destroy the status quo.

Trump explicitly called for policies that would explode the deficit. In contrast, Clinton’s policies were paid for. If you actually cared about the deficit Clinton was the clear choice. Your choice shows you didn’t actually give a shit. That was my point from the start. Your deficit concerns only relate to democrats. You’re perfectly willing to vote for republicans who desire to, and do, cause far more, far more damaging debt.

Why should we possibly care what you ask about this?

 

[BUTCH1]

Trump was voted for to burn the place to the ground. That’s it. Destroy the status quo.

Huh?, Republican's have always "supposedly" stood for fiscal responsibility, they were just so thrilled at that big, juicy, tax cut they all said "F-it, let's rock!, let the grand-kids figure this out, I wan't to be richer right now!". The "status Quo" didn't have to result in a plain and simple cash-grab and saddling future generations with debt.

 

[UglyCasanova]

He's assuming our govt can do as well as other advanced countries, like France, Canada & so forth.

Which means that the GOP won't be running it, of course.

And I look at what our government does currently and realize no it can’t. Not a question of Rep vs Dem running it, neither are up to the task. What does the government currently do well? I’m scratching my head and coming up short.

 

[ivwshane]

Trump was voted for to burn the place to the ground. That’s it. Destroy the status quo.

And yet you still voted for him. So you don't really care about deficits, you don't really care about the children, you don't care about small government. You are a low information voter who is sold on campaign slogans and not much else.

 

[ivwshane]

You don’t even understand what you’re talking about. $40 trillion is government spending but it replaces private spending that is even more. It’s overall less money.

Regardless though, you voted for Trump. If you actually cared about deficits you would have voted for Clinton because Trump promised wildly irresponsible fiscal policy from the start. If anything, Clinton’s sin was trying to actually be responsible.

Your own voting preferences show that you don’t really care about fiscal responsibility so no one should care about your concerns here.

This will be the third time its been pointed out to him. He doesn't care. He's a "both sides" bitch, who voted for the candidate, in his own words, that wanted to burn it all down.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Trump explicitly called for policies that would explode the deficit. In contrast, Clinton’s policies were paid for. If you actually cared about the deficit Clinton was the clear choice. Your choice shows you didn’t actually give a shit. That was my point from the start. Your deficit concerns only relate to democrats. You’re perfectly willing to vote for republicans who desire to, and do, cause far more, far more damaging debt.

Why should we possibly care what you ask about this?

Trump didn’t win because of fiscal conservatism. I’ve said earlier in the thread we haven’t been presented with anyone that’s fiscally conservative in decades if not longer. Clinton had promised, not ways to pay. Raise minimum wage (not a gov expenditure but will drive jobs offshore or automate so less tax revenue). Not raise taxes on middle class. Free college. Infrastructure spending (I agree with this one). How do we pay? The rich will pay it all (lol). Half the country doesn’t pay anything and we aren’t raising taxes on a chunk of what’s left. So pipe dreams, empty promises, and more debt.

 

[Jhhnn]

And I look at what our government does currently and realize no it can’t. Not a question of Rep vs Dem running it, neither are up to the task. What does the government currently do well? I’m scratching my head and coming up short.

So, all this GOP talk about American Exceptionalism just means we're exceptionally incompetent?

Damned govt can't do anything right!

Where's that GIF of Grandpa Simpson yelling at the clouds when I need it?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Huh?, Republican's have always "supposedly" stood for fiscal responsibility, they were just so thrilled at that big, juicy, tax cut they all said "F-it, let's rock!, let the grand-kids figure this out, I wan't to be richer right now!". The "status Quo" didn't have to result in a plain and simple cash-grab and saddling future generations with debt.

Republicans aren’t fiscally conservative. They may like to play the part but the reality is they aren’t. Yes they were way more interested in cutting taxes than spending which proves my point.