Flipping The Script: Questions For Sanders Supporters

Bernie supporters are looking at the long haul and the steps to get there. Whatever.

Every other President has been able to get what they want within a week or two, surely Bernie will give us our ponies soon after the inauguration as well. Don't harsh my mellow man.

and they have options for trade and technical schools. Unless we improve our public schools from pre-K to 12th, this is not going to help the people who need it most. Admission requirements will soar, and the poorest (red) states will not go along with the scheme anyway. Leading to unequal outcomes. That does not seem to be acknowledged.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Colleges are already full and overcrowded and underfunded in many areas. Their admins will have no choice but to raise entrance requirements to limit the university's overall costs. That will leave a lot of people out in the cold.

He has always said college should be free for those who qualify. I know what that means: you have to make the grades to get in.

He also supports more trade and technical school and apprenticeships. That you don't know that is a fault of the media or your own lack of research.

- See more at: http://www.aft.org/election2016/candidate-questionnaire-bernie-sanders#sthash.t8Odxkr9.dpuf



I actually pointed all this out to Mike Rowe when he went on his uniformed rant.

To your broader point -- any outcomes will depend on the ability of individual kids -- and also whether or not they are motivated. If a kid doesn't set goals and work to meet them, it is not society's job to force them. BUT all kids should have equal access to those opportunities, as well as encouragement to attain more than dropping out and flipping burgers or dealing drugs -- the cost should not be a barrier to entry.

Admission standards -- I am confident that as a nation we are smart enough to figure out the correct balance between admissionb requirements and the goals of Bernies plans. Again it is not mutually exclusive to allow financial access, and having reasonable academic standards for entry...And if kids know that they will be able to afford a post secondary education, that is an aditional motivation to work harder in K-12.

And I am also sure that we can connect that with vocational and specialized non-academic career training. That would not be starting from scratch -- there are many such programs and ideas already.

Large systems like the US economy can't tolerate big changes without far-reaching repercussions, many of which aren't understood until it's too late.

If we make public college free, people think that it will be just as it is now, except you won't pay for public schools. That is wrong. There are some results we can count on:

1) Enrollment will skyrocket
2) That will cause them to have to be extremely selective in who they accept

Who will choose to pay $100-150k for a private school when they could go to a public school for free? Very, very few - only those coming from families for whom $150k is nothing. The vast majority of students will apply for public school. And because it has become so competitive, only the top 1% will have any hope of getting in. And that largely means white kids from upper middle class cities and towns. And without the cheaper option of public school, many kids who would otherwise benefit from a public education will have to choose between private or nothing, and many won't be able to afford private.


Saying "we'll figure it out" isn't an answer. It's just kicking the can down the road and thinking a solution can be found. There are many problems for which solutions can't be found, and I think the above is one of them.

And it doesn't even address the issue of how private schools will be able to remain in business. They won't. Which is what happens in other countries with free public schooling. The schools are terrible compared to US schools, and the private schools go out of business.


Imagine if Bernie decided to pass a law stating that one supermarket in every city will be free. What will happen? There will be lines out the door all day, every day. So bad that only people willing to queue the day before and wait all night will be able to get in. Thinking it would be different with college is just incredible naivete.

Historically, many public colleges have either been free or comparitely low cost. We also had a thriving private college system.

It produced opportunities for many that have since disappeared.

Public colleges are already selective to an extent in who they accept. If enrollment has to be more selective...I would much rather it be on the basis of academics than financial status.

If elected Bernie would not be able to snap his fingers and create this instantly. It will be negotiate and analysed and modified as needed. But it is a goal we should pursue.

I have to guess you don't know how horrible most inner city public schools are. I have a few friends that have taught, and kids are passed forward to graduation with only basic to no reading and writing skills. They are severely overcrowded and extremely unsafe and totally underfunded compared to schools outside the city. They have been in crises for a couple of generations, and the courts have struck down attempts to distribute money more fairly. (Citing some kids did indeed have to flip burgers)

It is no where near a matter of choice for the kids to "set goals and work to meet them, it is not society's job to force them."
Many of us urban dwellers noticed immediately that the emphasis on college only was going to leave a lot of great kids way behind.

For the first number of years, the expanded Medicaid buy-in was 0% (yeah, that's right, zero percent) and is never going to be larger than 10%. And states run by RepubliCONs still refused to participate.

How does anyone believe we'll get RepubliCON states to buy-in for college tuition at 30%?

I think they are all feesable. They just need someone with the courage to move us forward.

1. He's not a Republican, and he support a long overdue increase in the minimum wage. It's overdue, and it needs to happen.
2. He's not a Republican, so he doesn't support the rape of the environment in the service of a non-cost-effective way to blow stuff up in order to get oil from the ground.
3. He's not a Republican, and he is very aware that college education has gotten beyond the reach of many people. He wants college to be considered a continuation of public schooling.

Answers give information and resolve questions. The above just rephrases Bernie's positions while answering nothing.

Laws don't trump the laws of capitalism or those of supply and demand.

If Bernie were a king and simply mandated his viewpoints become law, then we would experience a massive energy shortage, a depression the likes of which we've never seen, unemployment in the mid-double digits, jobs and business departing the USA at a rate unimagined, college being something that only the top 1% of students can hope to achieve, and the quality of our educational institutions falling to mid to lowest standards in the world.

Bernie understands nothing of economics or capitalism, so he would try to fix the above problems by just making more and more laws, thinking that he just needs to tweak the system. And every change would make things worse and worse, until the USA quickly got into a Greek-like situation where our economy simply stopped functioning.

Bernie is so dangerous because he's a foolish man, without the humility to realize that he really has no clue what he's talking about. Arrogance and stupidity is a dangerous combination.

... or higher, if that's what the cost of living there warrants.



http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-much-you-need-to-make-in-each-state-to-rent-a-two-bedroom-apartment-2015-6

2. Fracking. Your solution is to poison all the ground water while further polluting the atmosphere. These problems far outweigh any benefits mankind may get from fracking.

3. College. Your argument is that Republicans won't agree. With that logic, we should abandon anything that helps the working class. Lame beyond belief.

Regarding college - If we all know that Republicans aren't going to go along with anything that a Democratic administration does, why did Bernie specifically design a plan that relies on them? Why not have the federal government pick up the whole cost, bypassing that issue? Bernie just put the educations of half the country in the hands of madmen. Why?

... successful we're going to have to change the makeup of Congress and state legislatures.




Rather than capitulate and say "the mean, old Republicans won't let us" we'll toss them out on their butts.


On edit:

"If the Democratic Party would fight as hard for the Working Class as the Republican Party fights for the Ruling Class, the Republicans would be a powerless minority party within a few election cycles.

The Democratic Party knows this, the Republican Party knows this, the Ruling Class knows this- and they've been astonishingly successful at making sure the Working Class never learns this.

The status quo was rolling along just fine, until Bernie Sanders came along and mucked it up with his crazy ideas about democracy, equality and justice."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027749863

Most single people live in one bedroom apartments or studios. Certainly in NYC.

... Americans living in 18 square foot cages like the working class in Hong Kong are forced to endure?

Also, most one-bedroom apartments don't look like that.

It seems odd for that graphic to use a two-bedroom apartment as the default instead of a one-bedroom apartment if they are talking about a single income.

There are many single people living in NYC and most of them live in studio or one-bedroom apartments.

... support their child on one income. That's called a "living wage."

Since we are talking about one income.

Most single people do not have children. Of the ones who do, many receive child support.

I think the point could still be made effectively with a one-bedroom figure provided.

First of all, I’ll just say that I hold nothing against Clinton supporters. They have every right to voice their opinion and support whichever candidate they feel holds their best interests at heart. I’ll simply state why Clinton, I strongly feel, does not hold mine.

What are the consequences if we don’t raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour? What are the consequences if we leave it up to the states to do this on their own? A few very important ones. States in the deep South have constituencies that still hold a very racially biased view of things. I know many white people in more urban areas may be able to argue that $15 may be too fast, too soon, but they look at things from their own social point of view. Not saying anyone is outwardly racist, but the way in which we view society and what directions should be taken are strongly influenced by our own position in the societal hierarchy. I don’t trust conservative state leaders to do the things that are in the best interests of their people - note, Kansas, and many other states in the South. I’m from the South, and used to be a conservative myself when I was being raised. I now live in Washington state, and many out here do not simply understand how people really believe in the South. You simply have to live and have roots there. People are suffering in poverty, and they’re relying on multiple jobs just to make ends meet. $12 is not enough, and supposedly Clinton is now supporting $15 (or something to that effect), it seems. I watched the latest debate, and she flipped again. Her response was that she supported $15 but that $12 was good enough. Not good enough for the people.
Fracking. Enough said on this one. This is one issue where we need a president with a combative stance on this since this is so very closely tied to a particular industry. I think we all need to revisit history. Look at what the U.S. did during the buildup to WWII. Whole companies did their part for the war effort and began making bombs, bullets, tanks, etc., in a matter of months. Why can’t we do the same now? Easy answer - because those in power do not see the profitability of going to alternative energy. And Clinton wants to continue on our suicidal course to climate change, and you support that? We need bold action, not bold statements. Besides, I live in Washington state, and our weather is significantly changing. My wife, who is a native to this state, keeps saying every year how the bloom cycles are changing for many of our plants, and how things are so different now. I grew up in the South and remember November days hardly being above 55 degrees. Now they’re seeing weeks of 70+ degree weather. Something is happening, and it’s not good! We don’t need a leader who has a track record of spreading the toxic practice of fracking. Enough said.
Again, I’m guessing you’re not from a low income minority family. College is too, too, too, too pricey these days. And it’s college! Isn't earning an education an act that should be supported and rewarded? We’re punishing young people by requiring them to take on this huge amount of debt just to get a job that doesn’t pay as much as it really should. Where is the money going to come from? Well, our society hasn’t totally gone into chaos from spending trillions of dollars in war, why do we now say that it’s too expensive to help our young people get the education they need to help drive the economy by getting into good jobs? We’re seeing increasing stratification in our society, in all respects.

Have you thought of what will happen if we just go with the status quo? Have you thought of the inner mechanisms that currently control our political system? I think that’s where Clinton supporters miss the mark.

'Flip the script' is a term used when standing up to the establishment to give your view as a person with limited voice. You seem to be arguing the establishment's POV while attempting to use the language of the disenfranchised.

You, my friend, have been reading far too much corporate propaganda.

Economic revolution does not mean " Oh, lets see what huge corporations wish us to do." then we'll act. No. It means that we take the lead and Republicans step back.
I so agree with you.

1) the minimum wage in NYC is for all practical purposes, far higher than $15 already. It is precisely the rural areas that most need a living minimum wage because the competition for labor won't drive wages to the arbitrarily high values you see in NYC, LA, Boston SF or Seattle.
2) low energy prices discourage research and development. Phasing out fracking will allow energy costs to climb in a manageable manner while renewable research catches up.
3) Free college not only seems good, it is good. I'd prefer that they do this by expanding Pell grants... which brings me to...
4) The President articulates a vision and an agenda. It is up to lawmakers to work out the details. A president's responsibility to reality is to determine that the goal is plausible, the rest is details outside the scope of his job.

Seems they are more likely to want to block such an agenda, as they have been throughout the Obama presidency (and Bernie's ideas are even further to Obama's left).

As best I can figure, it means; "Republicans won't let us have nice things, therefore we need a president who can make us comfortable with getting screwed, and not get our hopes up for ridiculous things like keeping Social Security."

My feeling is that our habit of pushing candidates who consciously avoid getting our hopes up is precisely why "the majority of the lawmakers are Republicans".

I am asking what Bernie could do differently as president in order to achieve his goals with a Republican-majority Congress. I would certainly want him to be successful if he did become president.

If Bernie wins the nomination, and subsequently the general election, he pushes the Overton window back where it belongs.

We won't spend 2017 debating whether prisoners should be tortured, whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry, whether Social Security is a good idea, whether we should enact a total ban on Muslims and whether those who fail to maintain the security of national secrets should be prosecuted or impeached.

I think that if you look at the voting record while President Obama has been in office you will see Republicans lining up unanimously against virtually everything Obama proposed. As Bernie has repeatedly said, he can't do it alone. My question is what can we do to ensure that his agenda could actually have a change to become a reality? It seems like for that to happen, his election to the presidency would essentially be part one of a multi-step process that would also need to involve a major shift in Congress.

I don't want a president to work with this congress. I want one who will shame them, and make voters realize that we deserve better.

?1456083579

I am asking you to consider what would need to happen in order for a Sanders presidency to be successful in achieving the goals that he has articulated on the campaign trail thus far. In the face of what will likely be a Republican-majority Congress, and in light of the obstructionism we have seen with respect to President Obama, it seems at least to be a question worthy of consideration. Maybe simply raising the issues will either shame them into doing the right thing or encourage voters to elect different representatives.

At this point in our collective psyche, medicare, medicaid, Social Security, public education and public highways would be considered impossible, were it not for the facts on the ground.

Single payer healthcare, paid family and medical leave and fewer wars are things the people want. If Sanders is elected, he'll be the proof of that statement - even if he achieves few of those goals in his first term.

Sanders campaign isn't about him; what he'll do, what he'll deliver. He's a messenger of the people, and will force congress to explain to their constituents why they don't deserve health care or college.

I think it's arguable that Clinton might get more of her initiatives passed, but that agenda has little chance of meanginfully improving the lives of americans. Yay, modest decreases in fracking relative to that promised by Trump. Yay, moderate middle of the road justices to replace Ginsberg, Scalia and Breyer, to reinforce the idea that corporations are people.

With bullshit talking points.

I'll address why:
1) Sanders has never stated that he expects us to go from $7.25 to $15 an hour tomorrow. His specific plan is a "phase in" plan. But I suspect you knew that and your only point is to shit on Sanders.

2) Sanders has never stated that he expects us to go from oil and natural gas to solar and wind in a year or less. His plan is a transitional and specific plan away from oil, natural gas and nuclear energy to solar, wind and other technologies. He has proposed actual legislation to address these issues and will continue to work to address these issues. But I suspect you knew that and your only point is to shit on Sanders.

3) Sanders has never said he is leaving public education funding at the whim of teapublican governors.
You approached all this as if he has given no thought or consideration to how to really make things better. He has considered standardized testing, vouchers, career and technical education and a affordable college education. Many, many nations make it work and it is not beyond our ability to make it work for us. The legislation he has put forth is a comprehensive plan, that makes a great start to addressing the needs. What is the alternative? Keep half-assing it and continue wringing our hands and hope it fixes itself why millions of people, including me, keep drowning in student loan debt??? But I suspect you knew that and your only point is to shit on Sanders.

and you didn't answer them. I don't know why you think asking about the real costs that plans can have on people's lives constitutes a "hit piece". It's not an inconsequential thing to ask if energy prices will soar. It's not an inconsequential thing to ask how red state families are supposed to get that 'free college tuition' when their governments aren't likely to participate. It's not a hit piece to ask if Bernie has considered that any 'revolution' has downsides and negative consequences. It won't be all sunshine and rainbows.

Or you would not approaching this in the context you are.
Your criticism is specific to Sanders and not to similar programs proposed by Clinton. Or are her programs perfect and just Sanders are flawed?
I did address your concerns.
You stated:
"Why does Bernie, in his speeches, refuse to acknowledge the potential negative consequences of acting too fast?"
I gave you a link to actual legislation he has proposed that actually speaks to the phased in approach you are talking about. You do realize that the argument you are making is the same as teapublican conservatives, the "doing thing "X" will lead to doom and gloom". Then we do thing "X" and guess what? No doom. No gloom. Nothing is without risks or need for adjusting, Sanders knows that and has said as much.

Energy. There are several states and countries that get a decent amount of there energy from wind and hydro and solar now, today. Yes, it's not on the same scale as we would do nationally, it's still a reasonable model to examine. What are the alternatives? Do you not believe in human caused climate change? Do you not believe we are running out of time to effect the change we need before millions of people around the world are impacted by rising sea levels? Many cities, including in the US, like Miami, are already experiencing growing issues.
Wringing our hands and second guessing ourselves is no longer an option. We have to, at the very least, start moving to a solution as business as usual is no longer an option.

Look, cut to the chase. Will your taxes go up? YES. Will some cost go up? YES. Will some cost come down? YES. Will our quality of life improve? YES...eventually. The days of free rides and luxury without consequences are fading fast.
If we really want a better world for ourselves and those that come after us than we are going to have to work for it, sacrifice for it, realize those living now may never see it and we have to not just want it but get off our asses and fight for it.

is because day after day I see countless posts asking demeaning questions about how Hillary's plans can achieve anything resembling progress, or if they even exist at all. I'm looking to see if the people who take up those talking points have given that same level of thought to Bernie's plans, because when I have, I've come away with more questions than answers.

Regarding energy, the alternative is to be responsible in how we evolve. If we were to eliminate fracking, nuclear power, and continue to slash the amount of coal we burn, we would be facing an energy deficit. There simply is not enough clean power to meet our needs, and while we absolutely need to be investing in those technologies so we can shift to them in the future, that doesn't help us in the present. Telling people to suck it up and pay more isn't a plan, especially when the centerpiece of the campaign is that people don't have enough money.

You just said "the days of free rides and luxury without consequences are fading fast". That's not at all what Bernie is selling. Listening to him speak, he promises us more of everything for almost no cost. And when I dare to ask some serious questions about the details, I get accused of missing the big picture. Without details, the big picture is just a blob of color.

I gave you links. Go to them. Explore those sites on your own. Actually read his legislation. Neither I nor Sanders is saying it's perfect. It's a start. It the actual conversation we need to be having. Not one of compromises and half-ass solutions.
I, to a point, agree that getting answers from some here is near impossible but that does not preclude you from seeking those answers with an honest desire for answers and an open mind.
Is everything Sanders says the perfect answer? No. He would be the first to admit that.

Lastly, you are missing the point. The "the days of free rides and luxury without consequences are fading fast"
is the WHOLE POINT of Sanders entire presidential campaign

What happens if the Congress remains in Republican hands?

Obviously, this would be problematic for whichever Democrat wins the White House, but considering how stubbornly the Republicans blocked nearly everything Obama tried to do, it's hard to envision them passing the legislation to make these visions become reality.

State in unequivocal terms that those are the things we intend to implement; a strong acknowledgment that these policies would be better for us long term. No apologizing or giving in to any narrative that tries to make it sound impossible or wrong for America.

Step two) watch as the general public gets on board with the idea. If the whole of the DNC were pushing this agenda rather than fighting it, the groundswell would be even greater than it already is with just Bernie sending out the rallying cry. Note: Since the DNC isn't behind these ideas, step two is to get the groundswell to put pressure on the DNC to adapt to the demands of an increasingly active voter block of liberal democrats and independents. (I think they'd rather tear the democratic party apart than to adapt, but at least they'll understand the stakes).

Step three) Put our collective energy into figuring out the answers to your questions, though I'm not sure I give a crap about economic growth if its at the expense of the environment and if it all goes into the pockets of the global 1 percent.

I do understand that the GOP will stand in the way of these policy changes. The sad part is that so will the DNC. What I don't understand is what you think Hillary will offer that's good, that the GOP won't stand in the way of. What would she be willing to give up for some token good that she can call her legacy? I'll grant you though, whatever she offers up, she'll have DNC support on it.

if you temper the language. There's widespread support for a higher wage, if not an exact number. For affordable college, if not free. For universal health care, if not single-payer. I don't know why we can't seem to see this.

But to save time

Previous exchange
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1759848


Education:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1763545

Plus -- kick the GOP bums out on the state level so they'll comply...If they don't eventually the people in those states should demand to be on an equal footing with otehr states and pressure their government to wise up


.

To think we can just kick the R's out everywhere. It was stupid when Bernie said that party wouldn't exist if people knew what they stood for, and it defies realism to build a plan based on winning over every state government.

Don't put the historical loss of so many state and local races on Bernie. That's copping out, passing the buck, avoiding "reality."

It's horseshit.

The Republicans have been strong because as an overall party they motivated voters, while the Democrats have not had a clear consistent message -- or record -- of fighting for the interests of average people for decades.

Blaming Bernie for that is just avoidance and passing the goddamn buck.

I said that Republicans are going to control a significant number of states, no matter how well he runs, which means that any plan based on making states capitulate is working off a terrible assumption. It's the very fact that he can't change state races that makes his larger plan unworkable.

Just go through history and look at everything accomplished that people said could never be done.

I was responding to one of the many posts trying to understand how people can support Hillary. I expressed my deep concerns regarding several of Bernie's proposed plans. Let's take three issues, for the sake of brevity.

1) Minimum wage: I think we can all agree that the living conditions in NYC are far different than in a rural town. While both candidates support large increases to the federal minimum wage, there are serious economic questions regarding whether less affluent areas can absorb an increase to $15 as quickly as other areas. Like the bill New York just passed, phasing in the increases, and seeing the economic impact being made before going even further, is a prudent way of making sure that we balance the need for a higher wage with our interest in making sure not to stunt economic growth. Why does Bernie, in his speeches, refuse to acknowledge the potential negative consequences of acting too fast?

The conditions are different but this staged increase was not the idea of either of the campaigns, though by the time 15 an hour becomes law in CA for example, that will be like pissing in the wind. By 2022 due to the increase in rent costs, that will eat whatever increase people got. At other periods of history the same arguments have been made and every time they prove to be wrong. In fact, for San Diego, just to 11:50 an hour, currently prop I, would mean a 250 million stimulus to the local economy.

There are oodles of studies but these increases tend to stimulate the economy, and actually create jobs.

2) Fracking: Banning fracking would be an easy solution, as would eliminating nuclear power. But if we do that, we do not currently have the supply of clean renewables to satisfy our energy needs. We would therefore have to either burn more coal for the time being (a worse option for the environment), massively reduce our energy needs (unlikely), or return to buying gas and oil from other countries (which is both costly, and supports unfriendly regimes). The end result is that, until clean power sources scale, we would face large price increases in energy costs that lower and middle class families can't afford. Has Bernie thought through the effects of a complete ban on fracking?

Ok to quote the people from San Diego 350.org, if we do not get off those it will be academic. By the way, solar rooftop is part of the solution never really emphasized. Fracking is also causing moderate quakes already due to the creation of instability in the land, and polluting water supplies you and I need to live. I am positive that banning it, would accelerate the development of the proper technology, or the deployment of it. Like many other sources of energies, most of what is still on the ground will have to remain on the ground... and you are right on one thing, it will require a Manhattan project level of research to get the new energies to replace fossil technologies, We are already pretty far gone with climate change to keep dancing around it.

3) College: Free tuition sounds good, I'll admit. But for starters, the plan relies on Republican states to chip in 30% of the cost. That won't happen, as we have seen with the Medicaid buy-in. Furthermore, that plan does nothing to address the costs of room/board, fees, and other ancillary costs that colleges can continue to raise at will to make up the difference. The quality of education would be questionable with millions of new students flooding into the system, and there has not been much talk of how to keep those tuition costs from rising exponentially when the government is paying the bill. This plan would require large tax increases at the state level to cover their share of the cost. Does Bernie have answers for any of these issues? And why did he build a plan that relies on Republicans to opt-in, when the ACA proves they won't?

Free college has been actual policy in the US before... see CA before Reagan. Sanders plans to do it the same way European nations currently fund it. NO not by taxing you, but taxing fast trades in Wall Street. The tax is minimal per trade, but there are millions of these trades a year. As to the quality of education, if you think private education is better, I have a bridge to sell you. At a policy level we are already seeing brain flight a real thing, due to kids not being able to afford American education. Many of those kids will chose to stay over there, and not come to the US. and you know what? I cannot blame them for it.

And I just gave you the consequences. What you posed was from a very status quo, right wing kind of analysis.

You once again failed to address the key problem with the 'free college' plan. It involves 30% of the money coming from the states. Few have that money lying around, so yes, it will require tax inxcreases on us. If Bernie's plan was fully federally funded, it would make far more sense. As it stands, aside from being unlikely to ever be fully implemented, it looks like a way of hiding tax increases.

fine, let their people vote them out of office. Serious. There is so much you can coddle recalcitrant state governments. And their kids will do that brain flight INTERNALLY, instead of abroad.

1. He's always supported an incremental increase. He just thinks the end-game should be higher than Clinton's $12. Here's a bill he sponsored with Sen. Merkley last summer. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/pay-workers-a-living-wage-act?inline=file

2. You can ban fracking outright and we'll still have enough reserves to last us for quite a long time. In the meantime, you institute other pro-environmental solutions. In any case, he has a plan and has thought it out: http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-energy-policy/ (It's long, but you asked).

3. I already spoke a bit about this elsewhere in the thread. There won't be "millions" flooding in unless they make the grades.

There are many points in history where things have changed only because people refused to believe the people who said it could not be.