Fox News Reminds Us Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Platform Is...Pretty Reasonable

This is pretty funny.. Maybe Hannity is losing it.... or he's not talking to anyone except Trump.

Fox News Reminds Us Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Platform Is...Pretty Reasonable

ometimes, you get an indication that someone on Fox News is getting high on their own supply. Or maybe Sean Hannity's graphics team is just getting sick of him. But it seems more likely that President Trump's late-night-phone-companion is so deep into the Lib-Bashing Vortex that he is starting to lose his grip on things. The result is that, Wednesday night, Hannity found himself bashing a political platform that included "support seniors" and "clean campaign finance."

The segment was designed to attack the platform of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old Democratic Socialist who defeated a titan of the New York Democratic machine in a primary Tuesday night.

At one point, Hannity's production team decided to throw up the policies on the screen behind him. Except they failed to run the graphic through the normally rigorous process of Fox News scaremongerization and white-resentment optimization. They just put it up there, spin-free, and it looked...pretty reasonable?


Sean Hannity just presented this agenda as a negative pic.twitter.com/mYoByIRyr5

— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) June 28, 2018
Hannity seems to think these positions are self-evidently extreme. But:

Medicare for All has the support of 63 percent of registered voters.
Tuition-free public college has 63 percent support.

There isn't much polling on "housing as a human right," but there is strong majority support for rent control. We also already subsidize affordable housing, though far more money flows to higher-income homeowners through tax deductions.

A federal jobs guarantee is a new initiative, but one poll in May suggested it has 46 percent support. Another poll indicates strong majority support in every state.

Three-quarters of Americans support criminal justice reform.
There's not much polling on abolishing ICE, but in a Fox News poll last year, 83 percent supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
look at this pic.twitter.com/ePDHhAQpf4

— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) June 28, 2018
In a 2015 poll, 85 percent of Americans said the campaign finance system must be "completely rebuilt" or see "fundamental changes."

A survey in May suggested voters from both parties in key battleground House districts across the country want "overwhelming, broad-based, and intense support for curbing big banks' influence in Washington, and holding financial companies accountable for discrimination." In one survey, 72 percent of likely 2018 voters supported a modern Glass-Steagall Act.


Everything else in the graphic is pretty self-explanatory. Either you believe LGBT citizens have civil rights—support for same-sex marriage now stands at 67 percent—or you do not. And if you can't get behind "supporting seniors" or "solidarity with Puerto Rico"—which, is, after all, part of the United States—then it's hard to see what any politician can do for you.

The amazing thing is Hannity laid all this out as, "This is the future. This is your modern Democratic Party." He's showing it to millions of people. There aren't likely to be too many converts among his viewers, but isn't this the kind of platform that would win Democrats elections?

More than just discounting these policy prescriptions, though, Hannity's tone communicates that he finds the very idea we'd be interested in every American having housing to be absurd. He does not even acknowledge this as a possible goal of society, despite the fact that research indicates it leads to profoundly better economic and personal outcomes. That would mean The Losers getting something They Don't Deserve.

And that is the cancer at the root of the Fox News resentment machine.

Thanks in no small part to the current president, the whole apparatus has been so completely oriented towards bashing people and filling your mug with liberal tears that the whole concept of a representative government that serves the people in real ways has gone by the wayside. In fact, it barely seems to factor in at all.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...ocasio-cortez/

 

The Medicare Trust fund is broke in 2026. This will mean that either premiums and/or taxes will rise; payments to doctors, hospitals, and other providers will grow more slowly; some benefits may be trimmed; or a combination of all three.

Under "Medicare for all" when does the Medicare Trust fund go broke?

 

Her platform is exactly where the party's platform should have always been before they became republican-lite. She went back to the party's Progressive roots as it should be.

 

I don't have a number, but one thing that would help would be to close and sell off the VA hospitals.. That is the most expensive healthcare there is.. and let veterans get their healthcare anywhere they choose.

Israel has universal healthcare.. Most developed countries do.. I think we can afford it.

 

It's radical leftist. There is no such thing as a "right" to a job.

Abolish ICE? Then how do we get rid of people illegally here, including gang members? Should we send them postcards and politely ask them to leave?

Libs live in a fantasy land.

 

She's a niche politician like Bernie Sanders and she could hold office for a long while just by telling poor people she will give them things they want. For a broader audience of adults however, who know nothing is "free" and the less government there is the better, she will hit a brick wall.

There is a young generation of libertarians who want less government and more freedoms. Whoever taps into that constituency will
truly have found a path to the presidency. That's the future for a society who has lived like there is no tomorrow for decades based on lies told by progressive democrats beginning in the early twentieth century.

 

She is a little wannabee communist.

She is appealing to those on the left who have turned to the dark side, of which there are many.

 

I don't think so.. You can't operate a country of 300 million with small government. Libertarians are always pretty vague, don't you think?

 

I am amazed that so many on this board don't know the difference between Communism and Democratic Socialism.

 

Right....because demanding the abolition of ICE, claiming the existence of ICE black sites and expressing support for open borders passes for "reasonable" among Trump-hating lunatics...and Saudi Arabia terrorists I suppose.

 

That's pretty important.

Until you have a number, its difficult to consider the policy. You might as well poll: Would you like to get a bunch of free stuff if you didn't have to worry about the costs?" Or: "Would you like to go on a cruise?" Lots of folks will answer "Sure!" that will answer much differently once you say: "would you like to go a cruise that costs X amount?"

Do you think the folks at Esquire are ignorant of that, or are the counting on you to be ignorant of that?

The Urban Institute analyzed Sanders single-payer plan, and if it were the law of the land in 2017 it would have required $2.5 trillion in federal revenues to finance it just in 2017. This compares to expected federal tax receipts in FY2017 of $3.46 trillion (Table S-1). In short, we'd need an increase in federal tax revenues of 72.2%!

Worse, Sanders' Medicare-for-All plan would have a hidden cost of $625 million to $1.1 trillion in deadweight losses in 2017 alone . Per year!

So, go back and re-poll: Would you like medicare for all if meant you paid 72% more in taxes than you pay now?

Obama promises a $2500/yr REDUCTION in costs and only got Obamacare through with a single vote margin, have a blast trying to pass something that increases taxes by 72%!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...r-plan-is-a-singularly-bad-idea/#398c22885502

 

Nah, this chick is a looney socialist.

 

Bet she beat the pants of the Republican't that runs against her.

 

It's New York City. They're insane.

 

We are already spending that money and much more. All you need to do is let business buy into the program.

 

Hmmm but I don’t want Medicare.

 

So other countries can pull it off, but we can't? Why is that?

 

Socialism isnt reasonable.

 

I'm not amazed at all.

 

Yes. As "reasonable" as removing all the door locks on your family home. Very reasonable.

It'll be fun to wake up every morning and see who is living in your home now.
Or how many of your possessions you still own.

Don't mind the feces on the carpeting or the hypodermic needles Don't be a bourgeoisie stick in the mud.

 

You keep making up these claims with no evidence.

#1 you need a number if you are going to support the idiocy of universal heath care

#2 How long should people wait for care? Have you seen the disaster wait times in England?

#3 Where is your evidence that VA hospitals are the most expensive health care anywhere?

#4 Most of the countries you compare us to aren't even 20% of our population so on what planet are they relatable to us?

#5 Its amusing watching you bemoan the VA for their issues then want the entire country to be under the same government for their care. Perfect thought process.

 

Single payer , private delivery has worked well for many, many years... and yes Sweden, Denmark and Finland have excellent healthcare.

VA is owned and run by the government.. They own the facilities and employ the doctors, nurses, etc..

That's NOT private delivery.

 

The healthcare systems of countries with single-payer or national healthcare systems including Canada and Britain and the Scandinavian countries all beat the hell out of our health outcomes in EVERY CATEGORY except cancer treatment. And they do it for far, far less cost.