I agree that there are hurdles and differences, but - in no way - does that say that it can't be done here. Yes... it'll be more difficult, but saying those countries are so different that it can't be done is just as naive as saying, those countries do it so we can too. The reality, like I said, is that it's about priorities. You say I'm nuts for thinking it could be done. Well, we have a navy 5 times bigger than any other in the world, the biggest military, we give away huge tax breaks to millionaires, big business, big oil, etc. If you think it's so crazy, then give me an accounting of how much we can save if we changed those areas. Then, let's see how much we need to pay for education. AT VERY LEAST, we could give an incentive to make it vastly more affordable for people. Saying it's nuts to believe in Sander's policies is an easy way to avoid trying to do the right thing. At very least, we could move in the right direction. You're making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Actually, Sanders did a very diligent accounting of what he'd do, and where the money would come from. It was folks like you who discounted it as a pie in the sky dream without looking into it. He did offer ways to pay... people assumed it was impossible though, so I never saw an honest accounting of the savings calculated against the cost. And again, I don't even need to prove 100% effectiveness. At very minimum... less Cold War jets and more affordable college IS doable. Don't tell me it can't be done when it hasn't been tried. I admit that it's politically pretty unfeasible, but it could be done if we had political fiat. It's about the will to do it; not whether or not we're technically able.
I mean.. yes, there are fundamental differences between us and other countries. Is that saying that we can't use them for a model for anything? What makes their school system different? Could we model after it? Why are we paying for charter schools with no standards? Could some of that go to college? How about getting rid of the for-profit education system entirely? Saying it just can't be done is a convenient excuse for someone who isn't interested in trying.
You make it sound ridiculously simple. Are you familiar with the concept of federalism? It is the backbone of our entire Republic. The education system in this country is inseparably linked to state government. The reform you speak of, that would be necessary for this type of shift, would have to come at every state level. And if your answer is another simplisitc "change that," it shows how ignorant you are on this issues. Changing it would require a re-write of our Constitution. The federal government cannot decide to strip the state of a power that is not delineated to the federal government by the Constitution (education is not).
And none of that accounts for the underlying political discourse on the matter. I'd wager a strong majority of our country does not believe higher education is a fundamental right. Hell, about 40 % of the country takes issue with the government taxing others to feed the less fortunate. How do you think they will feel about taxing others so someone doesn't have to get a loan? I'd wager about 65-70 % of the country would stand against such a proposal. And you can't claim it is like gay marriage, where even with a strong opposition, there is Constitutional assurance. There is absolutely zero argument to be made that there is a Constitutional guarantee to higher education.
My point is, "reform what needs to be reformed, tax the wealthy, and cut spending," is not as simple as you make it out to be. Taxing the wealthy would not pay for a fraction of the costs. As to cutting spending, what do you cut? How can you justify cutting entire programs that benefit the whole of the country simply so those who decide to go to college at a public institution can go debt free?
Even the simplest answer that you provide: "stop wasting money on Cold War jets!" isn't that simple. What happens to the town that houses the factory that assembles the carrier, where thousands of people are employed? And the town with the factory that Part A is built in? And Part B? And Part C? You are talking about tens of thousands of US jobs that rely on these military contracts. Further, these jobs go away, entire towns sink into depressions, resulting in business closing and leaving. Suddenly you have several smaller versions of Detroit. Economically bankrupt resulting in crime ridden, poverty stricken, deadzones. Think I'm being dramatic? Its the story of hundreds of small cities and towns in Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc following the recline of the steel, auto, and coal industries.
And I am not suggesting that we can keep creating obsolete technology to keep factories open. But there is an effect to each action. By wiping out the debt of millennials, you may very well leave thousands of members of an older generation unemployed, unemployable (because they have no other skills), and destroy entire communities as a result.
My above ramblings are the things that are weighed when making such decisions. And if you say that Bernie Sanders offered a plan nearly nuanced enough to address those obstacles, then I am going to call you a bald faced liar.
Exactly where and when did he talk about how he would pay for his policy? It wasn't on his website....it wasn't in any of his interviews, and he never talked about it in debates. Did you guys have a beer one night?
Exactly.
I doubt it. He is running for the democratic nomination in the California governor race in 2018. I get a sense that being elected Governor is as high of political office as he wants to go.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is the person that I think could energize the Democratic party and perhaps become an appealing candidate in 2020 that people can get excited for.
Read this and educate yourself before boldly declaring a power-less, influence-less, nobody Congresswoman, out of the most culturally isolated state in the Union, with more skeletons in her closet than Jimmy Hoffa and more conservative leanings than a moderate Republican like Lindsey Graham, is the inspirational future of the Democratic Party and liberal movement all because she "felt teh burnz!!!!"
This post is the epitome of how silly and uninformed the Sanders movement is. Tulsi Gabbard would be a disaster yet I have heard so many Sanders supporters on social media, Reddit, etc, boldly claim her to be the future of the party. When pushed on why, their depth of understanding of her is little more than. "she felt teh burnz so Twitter says I should like her!" Such is the level of depth of understanding most Sanders supporters have.
If they took the time to do even the slightest bit of research, they would know that Gabbard is fairly conservative on a good deal of issues. Her support for Sanders was little more than an opportunistic power play. Prior to that, she had no influence in the Party. So she went all in on a guy with no Party support at the time he was getting increased coverage. In doing so she raised her own profile, but it was merely opportunism. And it didn't pay off. Despite Sanders gaining more influence in the Party, she gained none. Which is why she is now taking another route and meeting with Trump and reportedly posturing for a role in his administration. Yet another attempt to gain influence, regardless of policy.
And none of that speaks to how terrible of a national candidate she would be. I strongly suggest you read
this article and actually read up on her policy background rather than just assuming that because she backed Sanders and Twitter says that makes her cool, she is a suitable presidential candidate.
