I am observing the biggest leftward cultural shift since 2008

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have older teen boys and I agree with OP but with a caveat that they would not agree with the label of being more “left” than my generation. Fox and friends (and establishment Dems) have done their work of associating the “left” and “socialist” with negativity. But here is what they think:

- there are few differences between GOP and Dems
- politicians from both sides of aisle are tied to corporate money
- while they sympathize with the plight of Palestinians they would never speak out about the issue (or any other) on college campuses bc of the fear of doxxing and retribution. In other words, they clearly see their freedom to speak being squashed.
- they do not agree that so much federal funding should be spent on the military and do not agree with funding foreign wars
- they also do not agree with so much money being allocated to govt contractors and think the money would be more efficient if services provided by govt bc it cuts out the middle man (they see the 30-40 years since Reagan as proof that the idea that the private sector can always provide services better than then public sector silly since costs have only gone up for the individual without improvement of service)
- they see huge issues with both Dem and GOP policies on immigration/healthcare/housing).

They would support a candidate who wants to overhaul immigration (allow more legal, figured out how to stop the illegal), reform healthcare (single payer is fine with them compared to the current system) and help lower housing costs (through subsidizing, more building, etc)

They are not tied to a candidate from a certain party or who labels themselves as any one thing. They want a candidate who is willing to acknowledge and identify problems (even if those are problems from policies that the candidate’s own party supported) and have ideas (any ideas!) for how to solve them.

In a single payer system (the government) for health care, where is the signal from the consumer (patient) back to the government that a consumer is paying too much for health care. Uncle Sugar is collecting the taxes and paying the medical bills. There's no competition between providers. They hit the mark where supply meets demand and then every provider figures out it's a rigged game and takes their abilities elsewhere in a global economy.

You've seen DoD/Pentagon $800 hammers. The government doesn't do that well. Now you want the government to do that for 340 million people?

2 points:

1) in the current system (where the affordable care act has subsidized many more people being able to pay private sector insurance companies for coverage), healthcare costs have only gone up (out of pocket for individuals AND spending in aggregate on healthcare) while overall population health is not any better (looking at statistics like life expectancy, maternal mortality etc). So while in theory the competition approach should have worked to drive costs down and improve services, it hasn’t worked. With a single payer system there is ability to leverage greater negation power to drive down costs. Everyone I know who is on traditional Medicare (single payer) loves it. So we are at a junction point where we can continue with the current system of private payer which has not worked with trying something new which has worked for those 65+.

2) DoD is the leading spender on contracts. That $800 hammer is not because the DoD is building the hammer with govt employees but bc they are providing grants to private contractors to build the hammer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have older teen boys and I agree with OP but with a caveat that they would not agree with the label of being more “left” than my generation. Fox and friends (and establishment Dems) have done their work of associating the “left” and “socialist” with negativity. But here is what they think:

- there are few differences between GOP and Dems
- politicians from both sides of aisle are tied to corporate money
- while they sympathize with the plight of Palestinians they would never speak out about the issue (or any other) on college campuses bc of the fear of doxxing and retribution. In other words, they clearly see their freedom to speak being squashed.
- they do not agree that so much federal funding should be spent on the military and do not agree with funding foreign wars
- they also do not agree with so much money being allocated to govt contractors and think the money would be more efficient if services provided by govt bc it cuts out the middle man (they see the 30-40 years since Reagan as proof that the idea that the private sector can always provide services better than then public sector silly since costs have only gone up for the individual without improvement of service)
- they see huge issues with both Dem and GOP policies on immigration/healthcare/housing).

They would support a candidate who wants to overhaul immigration (allow more legal, figured out how to stop the illegal), reform healthcare (single payer is fine with them compared to the current system) and help lower housing costs (through subsidizing, more building, etc)

They are not tied to a candidate from a certain party or who labels themselves as any one thing. They want a candidate who is willing to acknowledge and identify problems (even if those are problems from policies that the candidate’s own party supported) and have ideas (any ideas!) for how to solve them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have older teen boys and I agree with OP but with a caveat that they would not agree with the label of being more “left” than my generation. Fox and friends (and establishment Dems) have done their work of associating the “left” and “socialist” with negativity. But here is what they think:

- there are few differences between GOP and Dems
- politicians from both sides of aisle are tied to corporate money
- while they sympathize with the plight of Palestinians they would never speak out about the issue (or any other) on college campuses bc of the fear of doxxing and retribution. In other words, they clearly see their freedom to speak being squashed.
- they do not agree that so much federal funding should be spent on the military and do not agree with funding foreign wars
- they also do not agree with so much money being allocated to govt contractors and think the money would be more efficient if services provided by govt bc it cuts out the middle man (they see the 30-40 years since Reagan as proof that the idea that the private sector can always provide services better than then public sector silly since costs have only gone up for the individual without improvement of service)
- they see huge issues with both Dem and GOP policies on immigration/healthcare/housing).

They would support a candidate who wants to overhaul immigration (allow more legal, figured out how to stop the illegal), reform healthcare (single payer is fine with them compared to the current system) and help lower housing costs (through subsidizing, more building, etc)

They are not tied to a candidate from a certain party or who labels themselves as any one thing. They want a candidate who is willing to acknowledge and identify problems (even if those are problems from policies that the candidate’s own party supported) and have ideas (any ideas!) for how to solve them.

This is where it gets interesting. I feel this is sort of one of those contradictory planks in the Democrat party. A) Democrats are globalists they support global supply chains global businesses. B) Global interests depend on the military much more than they want to admit.

911 is an excellent example. The liberals want liberal visa entries for businesses and schools, but when the people on business and school visas turn around and bomb the trade center, every Democrat voted to go to war. Every one of them it was unanimous. Does New York say hey maybe we shouldn't let in Muslims, no they vote for a Muslim Mayor. Because globalism is more important and they are comfortable with their military.

Democrat diplomacy isn't good enough; they have to have the military. The businesses like JP Morgan et al. have interests all over the world they want protected. They stir the bucket in other countries often with clandestine operations propping up dictators and what not.

I am all for reducing the military spending, but I also embrace isolationism, which most Democrats will not do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have older teen boys and I agree with OP but with a caveat that they would not agree with the label of being more “left” than my generation. Fox and friends (and establishment Dems) have done their work of associating the “left” and “socialist” with negativity. But here is what they think:

- there are few differences between GOP and Dems
- politicians from both sides of aisle are tied to corporate money
- while they sympathize with the plight of Palestinians they would never speak out about the issue (or any other) on college campuses bc of the fear of doxxing and retribution. In other words, they clearly see their freedom to speak being squashed.
- they do not agree that so much federal funding should be spent on the military and do not agree with funding foreign wars
- they also do not agree with so much money being allocated to govt contractors and think the money would be more efficient if services provided by govt bc it cuts out the middle man (they see the 30-40 years since Reagan as proof that the idea that the private sector can always provide services better than then public sector silly since costs have only gone up for the individual without improvement of service)
- they see huge issues with both Dem and GOP policies on immigration/healthcare/housing).

They would support a candidate who wants to overhaul immigration (allow more legal, figured out how to stop the illegal), reform healthcare (single payer is fine with them compared to the current system) and help lower housing costs (through subsidizing, more building, etc)

They are not tied to a candidate from a certain party or who labels themselves as any one thing. They want a candidate who is willing to acknowledge and identify problems (even if those are problems from policies that the candidate’s own party supported) and have ideas (any ideas!) for how to solve them.

This is where it gets interesting. I feel this is sort of one of those contradictory planks in the Democrat party. A) Democrats are globalists they support global supply chains global businesses. B) Global interests depend on the military much more than they want to admit.

911 is an excellent example. The liberals want liberal visa entries for businesses and schools, but when the people on business and school visas turn around and bomb the trade center, every Democrat voted to go to war. Every one of them it was unanimous. Does New York say hey maybe we shouldn't let in Muslims, no they vote for a Muslim Mayor. Because globalism is more important and they are comfortable with their military.

Democrat diplomacy isn't good enough; they have to have the military. The businesses like JP Morgan et al. have interests all over the world they want protected. They stir the bucket in other countries often with clandestine operations propping up dictators and what not.

I am all for reducing the military spending, but I also embrace isolationism, which most Democrats will not do.

Good point. This same contradiction will come for the Republican isolationists as well, but their weakness will be crypto.

Eventually we will fight a war to prop up crypto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have older teen boys and I agree with OP but with a caveat that they would not agree with the label of being more “left” than my generation. Fox and friends (and establishment Dems) have done their work of associating the “left” and “socialist” with negativity. But here is what they think:

- there are few differences between GOP and Dems
- politicians from both sides of aisle are tied to corporate money
- while they sympathize with the plight of Palestinians they would never speak out about the issue (or any other) on college campuses bc of the fear of doxxing and retribution. In other words, they clearly see their freedom to speak being squashed.
- they do not agree that so much federal funding should be spent on the military and do not agree with funding foreign wars
- they also do not agree with so much money being allocated to govt contractors and think the money would be more efficient if services provided by govt bc it cuts out the middle man (they see the 30-40 years since Reagan as proof that the idea that the private sector can always provide services better than then public sector silly since costs have only gone up for the individual without improvement of service)
- they see huge issues with both Dem and GOP policies on immigration/healthcare/housing).

They would support a candidate who wants to overhaul immigration (allow more legal, figured out how to stop the illegal), reform healthcare (single payer is fine with them compared to the current system) and help lower housing costs (through subsidizing, more building, etc)

They are not tied to a candidate from a certain party or who labels themselves as any one thing. They want a candidate who is willing to acknowledge and identify problems (even if those are problems from policies that the candidate’s own party supported) and have ideas (any ideas!) for how to solve them.

In a single payer system (the government) for health care, where is the signal from the consumer (patient) back to the government that a consumer is paying too much for health care. Uncle Sugar is collecting the taxes and paying the medical bills. There's no competition between providers. They hit the mark where supply meets demand and then every provider figures out it's a rigged game and takes their abilities elsewhere in a global economy.

You've seen DoD/Pentagon $800 hammers. The government doesn't do that well. Now you want the government to do that for 340 million people?

The $800 hammers are charged by private contractors. I trust the government employees more than private companies which are there just to fleece the tax payers. The medicare and medicaid programs are run better than the big private health insurance company I work for, which is deny, deny, deny.