 Now, what is the, oh, let's put it another way, what is the number one critique of the right against this? What is the number one critique of the right against it? Now I'm going to show you a clip now of Octavio Cortez because I want you to see how she deals with this objection. Now, granted, the guy asking the question I don't think is on the right. I think it's Como, I think he's on the left, but I think he's called, he would be called a moderate Democrat, not a progressive. Now notice his objection, but when I looked around at all the criticisms the right has against Octavio Cortez, this is always the objection. This is always the objection. So pay attention and let's analyze this as we go along. Here is, I think, Como interviewing Alexandria Octavio Cortez on CNN. Here we go, and second play, there we go. You want to spend a lot of my tax money on these proposals that you and Bernie and others have, Medicare for all, college tuition, maybe even housing, that the green new deal that you have, it is all very expensive, especially on the single payer side, and that it gives people sticker shock. Even in Bernie's home state, they got sticker shock. They couldn't get it done in his state because of how expensive it is. And that was an 11% increase in taxes, 9% to 11%. Even that was too much for people. How do you pay? How do you sell it? So this is the argument everybody makes. All these things expensive. Now notice what's implied by that. They're all pretty cool. Yeah, we want these, free tuition, cool, free health care, cool, green, yeah, we're carbon, we don't like carbon. Job guarantees, that's cool. Now you got to pay for it. Ooh, it's very expensive. Now notice what she does with this. Notice how she answers the question. And then I want to get into some economic arguments at the back of what she says. But notice how she answers the question. And this is why I think, this is why I think she is, she's on the winning side on these arguments and why these issues, the left, is going to win, whether they get elected or not, whether they win the next presidency or not. They will win on these issues because of how they answer this question. So first of all, the thing that we need to realize is people talk about the sticker shock of Medicare for All. They do not talk about the sticker shock of the cost of our existing system. You know, in a Koch brothers funded study, if any study is going to try to be a little bit slanted, it would be one funded by the Koch brothers. It shows that Medicare for All is actually much more, is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now. And now notice, that's clever, right? In a Koch funded study, Koch funded study, it has to be true. Medicare for All is cheaper than the system we have for now. I don't know. I doubt that's true, but maybe it's true. What's the quality like? How many people die in line? You know, what's innovation? What happens to innovation in healthcare? What happens to a million other things? If all you care about is cost, which is all she was asked about, and she says, look, every, if she was smart, you know, if she, she could follow this up by saying, every other country in the world who has socialized healthcare spends less money than you, we do. Wait, we're not done with this, wait, right, less money than we do. So, you know, friends spends less money than we do, Germany spends less money than we do, Scandinavia spends less money than we do on healthcare. So we're richer than they are. So why can't we afford it? Why can't we afford socialized medicine? If the cost argument is the argument. Let's not forget that the reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday Americans make is a tax. Now, again, that's pretty clever. I'm sorry, I know you guys think she's a moron, but there's no basis for that. That's clever. Now, I'm sure she didn't originate this. She's getting it from somebody. She's getting all of this in some way. But yeah, I mean, the Supreme Court ruled that our insurance premiums are actually a tax, kind of, not exactly what they ruled, but it's okay. So we're ready paying for healthcare through a tax. All we want to do is make it, what? And so while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15th, we pay it every single month, or we do pay a tax season if we don't buy these plans off of the exchange. So we're paying for the system. We Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is. And we're also not talking about is why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who die because they can't afford access to healthcare? Now, that's a blatant lie. But again, very, very effective. What about all the people who can't afford healthcare and they die as a consequence? That is part of the cost of our system. Why don't we talk about the cost of reduced productivity because of people who need to go on disability, because of people who are not able to participate in our economy, because they're having issues like diabetes or they don't have access to the healthcare that they need. They're not working, that's bad. I think at the end of the day, we see that this is not a pipe dream. Every other developed nation in the world does this, why can't America? And that is the question that we need to ask. We have done these things before. We write unlimited blank checks for war. We just wrote a $2 trillion check for that tax cut, the GOP tax cut. And nobody asked those folks how are they going to pay for it. She's right, by the way, the Republicans just passed a massive increase in spending on the military, right, military spending. How are they going to pay for it? Where's the money going to come from? Nothing, no answer, right? I mean, if you want to talk about costs, you got to talk about costs on the other side of the aisle as well. So my question is why is it that our pockets are only empty when it comes to education and healthcare for our kids? Why are pockets only empty when we talk about a 100% renewable energy that is going to save this planet and allow our children to thrive? We only have empty pockets when it comes to the morally right things. That's everything, right there, that is it. That's why she's going to win. That's why her message is a winning message. That's why, unfortunately, we are all frigging doomed. Because what did she just say? Why is it that we won't spend on what's morally right to spend on? Why she wins is because she declares, stakes a flag on the moral high ground. She will not, she is not going to discuss economics with you. She's not going to get into it. She's going to say, it's moral to help people. It's moral for people who have diabetes to have insurance. It's moral for poor kids to get an education. It's morally right. It's morally just. We have money for everything else, but we don't have money to do the right thing. Listen to this again, this is everything, if you will. From my perspective, this is why the left always wins. They always win because they have, in an altruistic world, in a world where altruism is the standard of morality, they have the moral high ground. And then Republicans, when they counter this, have lost the moral high ground because they accept the morality of the left. They agree with altruism. They agree with sacrifice. And they even agree on the economics that spending money you don't have is okay. We just want to spend it on the military. And she's saying, you're spending it on all these other things. What about the poor baby over here? He's dying. He needs help. We're not willing to help him. What about this kid who's got student loans through the roof? We can't help him. We don't have a trillion and a half dollars to wipe out college debt. Really? But that's the moral thing to do. The moral thing to do is to help them. They assert and they capture the moral high ground in the context of altruism. And what do the Republicans say? It costs too much. It's too expensive. It won't work. It'll have unintended consequences. It won't work. It's too expensive. No, it's really. It's too expensive. All right. I want you to hear that a little bit in the end again. Let's see if I can. Empty pockets when it comes to the morally right things to do. They heard it. But when it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war, we seem to be able to invent that money very easily. And to me, it belies a lack of moral priorities. A lack of moral priorities. What are you going to say? Unless you're willing to challenge the morality of altruism. Unless you're willing to challenge the morality of altruism, you can't say anything. Republicans have nothing to say. Look at the guy's face. His eyes are closed. He's completely, he's gone. He has no clue. He has no answer. He basically, you'll see what he says right at the end. It's kind of funny. But there's no answer. The only answer is, is a moral answer. The only answer is to question who moral claims, to question on the basis of morality. That's the only argument against Bernie Sanders. It's the only argument against the left. And it's the only argument Republicans cannot make. They cannot make it. Because they bought into this morality. It's the Christian morality. It's the meekshel in heaven through earth. It's the summon on the mount. What are Republicans going to do? Nothing. Let's go back a little bit. Here we go again. It comes to unlimited war. We seem to be able to invent that money very easily. And to me, it belies a lack of moral priorities that people have right now, especially Republican party. Well, and that's why there are elections. That's his comeback. That is his comeback. And that's all you have to know about why she wins. Hands down. That's why there are elections. Because you're not going to be able to convince people to have their taxes raised. Look at California. California manages to convince people to raise their taxes all the time. Why? Because the left makes the argument that raising taxes is the moral thing to do. It's the help. They're poor. It's the help. They're uneducated. It's not to shut down schools. And she brings moral passion to the debate. I mean, I think she's wrong on everything. But she says it with moral conviction. She speaks the language of morality. Obama did the same thing. And in a fight between a pocketbook and ethics, ethics always wins. Ethics always wins. What are you going to say? We can't afford it. Nobody's interested. You're talking about saving lives. What are you talking about money for? Altruism is incredibly powerful. And altruism is universally accepted as the moral code. And unless we're willing to challenge that altruism, there's no hope.