i also watched a bit more of the debate, and i want to make a general comment about financing and universality.

in the long run, somebody like klobuchar is probably right: if you're going to have private universities, and wealthy people are going to spend a lot of money to go to them, then it doesn't actually make sense to bail them out when they get into huge amounts of debt. that's trickle-up economics, it's a backwards transfer of wealth.

but, this is a very long war, and sensible issues around financing should be left to the republicans, not the democrats. and, i'll tell you why...

supposing that the democrats win and bring in universal health care and wipe out student debt, they will eventually lose office, and almost certainly be replaced by the republicans when they do. if the republicans come into office and inherit a sound fiscal situation, they're still going to have to push through cuts to satiate the blood lust in their base. remember: republicans don't really care about deficits, what they care about is demonizing groups of people and then attacking them when they get into office. so, they have to carry out the public execution - they have to feed the captives to the lions. so, all that democrats are really going to accomplish by being fiscally responsible is forcing the republicans to make deeper cuts. the base needs it's blood.

if, on the other hand, the democrats pile up their legislation with excessive spending, then they're giving the republicans something to cut out when they win the office back, whatever office it is.

and, of course they will win the office back. and, no, you can't convince "moderates" to vote against them. nor will democratic voters punish their own for overspending. this is all relative, so it's just a question of where you place the scales.

so, democrats should really, seriously be pushing for and trying to legislate the most expensive, bloated plans they can come up with. that is, they should earmark areas that can be cut by future republican administrations by overspending in their own bills. as the party of spending, the democrats are in control, here: they determine what gets cut in the future, by what they legislate in the present.

liberals in canada can learn a similar lesson by observing the ford government. they're literally eliminating disability. well, the previous government was too fiscally responsible - there wasn't an easy target to attack. if the wynne-mcguinty government had focused less on deficits and spent more recklessly on frivolous projects, ford would have been able to make easier cuts.

and, if obama had pushed through more extensive spending when he had control of both houses, trump wouldn't be cutting food stamps. he'd be cutting programs for pet insurance, or something.