Comments by "Christos P" (@JohnCarterIsMyName) on "Pelosi DESPERATE To Stop Medicare For All" video.

@uzumakiangelus ... Maybe if you weren't a Trump University dropout and knew something about govt spending then you would know that DC politicians fear unemployment going up at all. That you didn't see your error in your own statement proves once again that you failed out of Trump University. Millions of jobs were lost and Criminal Trump LOST the 2020 election. Try again LIGHTWEIGHT
3
Pelosi told the truth. There is a finite amount of money set side to negotiate drug prices. It is not politically tenable to get more money to pay to lower the Medicare age to 60 let alone Medicare for all. Biden could cut the defense budget by $300 billion per year but it would raise the unemployment rate 2%. That $300 billion could pay for Medicare for All. Free College. Free Day Care. It would cost democrats the House and Senate by cutting the defense budget and raising the unemployment rate 2%. The defense budget is more about lowering the UE rate than providing added defense for the country.
2
Imagine cutting the jobs of 500,000 people so we can have Medicare for All? That's what it will take. Cutting the defense budget which ultimately cuts civilian contractor jobs. What politician do you know in the current era. Republican, Independent, or Democrat, would cut 500,000 jobs for Medicare for All?
2
@mrcounterpack .. Actually it is a good argument. If a politician loses their job or the party loses control of House and Senate, then it was all for naught. Republicans would just repeal it. The FACTS are that Americans vote out politicians when the UE rate goes up. That is why Medicare for All doesn't have much support now. UE is a short term issue that voters remember when they vote. That is a FACT. It does not matter what the research shows to voters that see the UE rate go up.
2
@mrcounterpack .. You keep AVOIDING the issue. Politicians will NOT vote for Medicare for All since it will raise the UE rate 2%. Go ask them. I have NOT argued for or against Medicare for All. I have given the reason that it will not get a vote at the current time. The economic merits of Medicare for All completely sidestep the re-election issue to pass Medicare for All. Politicians have to see that their job will be preserved to pass a bill. Ask Manchin and Sinema why they don't support M4A. Ask the 50 republicans senators why they don't support M4A. Do you see the picture now?
2
@FemmiFatale ... Have fun trying to get republicans voted out office for not supporting Medicare for All. That means you're already down to 50% of DC voting no. 328 million M4A is not an apples to apples comparison to 500,000 DoD contractor jobs and another 1.5 million other jobs that would end. The current climate is that most politicians including many democrats won't vote for M4A. Whine at the politicians not the messenger.
2
@Mastario .... No. They are holding on to their jobs very well. Republican voters are mentally manipulated by the socialist language which accounts for 50% of DC not supporting M4A. Then there are some democrats that do not support M4A like Manchin and Sinema.
2
@uzumakiangelus .. Please explain why 50 republicans along with Machin and Sinema oppose M4A. Republicans have brainwashed their supporters on the socialism garbage. Manchin and Sinema live in red states. That make M4A a non-starter in the current political climate.
2
@uzumakiangelus ... Until the green new deal goes into place there is zero chance that politicians will cut defense spending since it will drive up the UE rate. That means if they don't cut spending from the budget that does kill jobs then it's not going to happen. The merits of M4A are irrelevant to bread and butter issues of having a JOB. That is most voters #1 priority in their lives. Come up with a way for no one to lose their job and politicians will support M4A. We've only heard the phrase "It's the economy stupid" for the last 40 years when it comes to voters #1 priority. A voter's priority is not the overall national economy. It's their personal economy. Politicians\parties that cause financial hardship to a voters personal economy lose elections.
2
@Mastario .. I didn't just say No. I said that voters will not accept the trade off of M4A at the expense of their job. Most voters vote on how good the economy is doing for THEM. If the national economy makes them struggle financially then politicians\parties lose elections. Don't WHINE at me because politicians can't have their constituents' personal economy negatively impacted for a short time so the country benefits overall. You quoted polls that have ZERO meaning. The questions didn't ask "if it meant 2 million people losing their job, would you support M4A" Try again LIGHTWEIGHT
2
@Mastario .. 69% in the ABSTRACT us meaningless. When you ask voters if they would trade M4A but 2 million people would lose their job, which might include them, then the numbers fall well below 50%. That is why politicians don't support M4A. I'm not going on a tangent with you on the details of M4A You've solidified your LIGHTWEIGHT status
2
@mrcounterpack .. Yes. Sam was SHORTSIDED in his analysis since he never considered the political calculus that prevents M4A from being the law of the land. Arguments go in 3 means of persuasion. Logical. Emotional. Physical. Logically M4A appears to be a good idea by itself however it is countered by the logical argument that jobs will be lost. Voters understand tangible arguments like job losses and would rather stay with the status quo until a catastrophe happens. The emotional arguments are that every person would be covered and once again in the abstract everyone feels good however this is also countered with people had to lose their job for this to happen. Voters don't want to feel responsible for that. The physical argument is avoided by most politicians except Criminal Trump. That is why Criminal Trump won the crazy and violent vote. Talking about punching people in the face, cops not treating suspects well, etc. That is where republicans have crushed democrats on the issue when they scream Commie Socialists. That makes 26 red states get angry and want to fight to stop what they have been told is communist socialism. You all just want Pelosi to slam through M4A even if it costs them both houses of congress in 22 and the WH in 24. Because M4A would be repealed on Jan 20 2025 if that happened. Americans need to be convinced enough to pound their red state congress people and senators. That's not happening now.
2
@breadmeister .. You need to adjust your tin foil hat
2
@HuskyOps ... As I told other posters. I support M4A BUT I pointed out the political reality in the congress here in DC. M4A will not pass under the current political climate. Welcome to REALITY
2
@heregoes8839 .. You need to adjust your tin foil hat
2
@heregoes8839 .. 100% FALSE. Biden never rejected anything since he hasn't been a senator since 2008. If M4A passed, then he would sign it. Pelosi would bring a M4A bill to the floor if the filibuster rules were altered to they could pass it with only democrat votes. Pointing fingers at the wrong people means you have no clue what is going on in DC.
2
@heregoes8839 .. Biden would sign M4A ... none of your WHINING is going to change that.
2
@mrcounterpack .. We did a study that showed 500,000 DoD related jobs would be lost with cuts to DoD funding. I clearly spoke about DoD cuts specifically. I'm not missing the short term since I never mentioned my personal position. I said POLITICIANS would not support it since SHORT TERM they would lose their job if they made a major change like Medicare for All and 500,000 people lost their job. All politicians that voted in favor of the change would be voted out. Don't blame the messenger next time. It shows a poor education.
1
Tin Forge ... Hey look. Another BOOMER from the 1960s. DOD's spending has been tracked accurately for the last 20 years. Try again LIGHTWEIGHT
1