Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • I recently sat down with

  • presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard.

  • This is the full interview.

  • If you have a short attention span like

  • I do you can check out the six-minute version

  • we posted on JohnStossel.com.

  • But the entire interview is interesting, so here it is.

  • We started on an area where we agree:

  • endless wars.

  • She often says she knows the cost of war.

  • So I asked her, what do you mean?

  • I am a soldier.

  • I've been serving the Army National Guard

  • now for over 16 years,

  • and deployed twice to the Middle East.

  • Served in Congress now for nearly seven years

  • on the Foreign Affairs Committee,

  • the Armed Services Committee, and the

  • Homeland Security Committee.

  • And so, from both perspectives,

  • understand the importance of our national security.

  • And as a soldier,

  • I served in a field medical unit in Iraq in 2005,

  • during the height of the war.

  • Our camp was about 40 miles north of Baghdad.

  • And I mean, it was something every day

  • that we all experienced firsthand,

  • the terribly high human cost of war.

  • Of our fellow soldiers,

  • friends of ours who were killed in combat

  • and the cost and the toll that continues now,

  • with veterans coming home with visible and

  • invisible wounds, dealing with post traumatic stress-

  • You've said the best way to honor our troops

  • is to make combat the last option.

  • We don't?

  • We have to honor our service men and women

  • by only sending them on missions that are

  • worthy of their sacrifice.

  • Now like so many Americans,

  • after Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11

  • I made the decision to join our military.

  • To enlist to be able to go after and defeat

  • those who attacked us on that day.

  • To defeat that great evil that visited us.

  • But unfortunately, since that time, our leaders failed us.

  • Where instead of focusing, one,

  • pointedly on defeating Al-Qaeda,

  • they've instead use that attack on 9/11

  • to begin to wage a whole series of

  • counterproductive regime change wars,

  • over throwing authoritarian dictators in other countries,

  • wars that have proven to be very costly

  • to our service members.

  • Like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi ...

  • Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and the ongoing regime

  • change war that's still happening in Syria today.

  • So in Afghanistan you would've gotten out when?

  • Go in, defeat Al-Qaeda get out.

  • That's what should have happened.

  • Instead, what we're seeing now is a very long,

  • protracted, ambiguous mission where no really

  • knows what quote unquote winning looks like.

  • The ensuing nation building that's followed

  • in these different wars

  • that's taken so much of our resources,

  • our taxpayer dollars out of where they should have been

  • dedicated in nation building and serving the

  • needs of our people right here at home.

  • If we just pulled out,

  • there would be more slaughter probably.

  • If we stay focused on our mission

  • and what our mission and objective should be,

  • which is the safety and security of the American people,

  • then we end up saving a whole lot of lives.

  • We end up saving a whole lot of tax payer dollars.

  • The conflict and the complexities and the challenges,

  • for example, in Afghanistan that

  • we're seeing continuing over the years

  • and through today are things that only

  • the Afghan people can resolve.

  • What we've got to stay focused on is how we

  • ensure the safety and security of the American people.

  • There seldom is a discussion

  • that I've heard about what is our mission.

  • Exactly.

  • That's exactly the problem is before sending

  • our men and women into harm's way

  • we're not hearing about,

  • what is the problem that we're trying to solve

  • and what is the clear, achievable goal that we need to

  • accomplish that we're sending them to do?

  • Without that, we end up with a result that we

  • have where we have troops who are deployed in

  • these other countries without a real understanding

  • of what they're there to accomplish and at what point

  • they then accomplish that and then can come home.

  • Let me get your response to this op-ed in the

  • New York Times from some years back about Syria.

  • Five reasons to intervene in Syria now,

  • it would diminish Iran's influence in the Arab world.

  • Let's look at what's happened in Syria because

  • of the regime change war that we've waged there.

  • Because of the regime change war that

  • we waged in Iraq.

  • Iran has far more influence in both of those

  • countries than they did prior to our going in.

  • This is exactly one of the problems where we see how

  • our regime change wars,

  • and intervention has been counterproductive

  • to our own interests.

  • The argument was,

  • "This could keep the conflict from spreading

  • to Lebanon and Iraq."

  • Yeah.

  • Once again, we look at the cost and the consequence

  • that both the Syrian people have paid as a

  • price and the impact that it's

  • had on the region as a whole.

  • We can see how these decisions in Iraq,

  • Libya, and Syria have been counter to our national

  • security interests and something that these

  • articles often fail to recognize or announce,

  • which is that Al-Qaeda has been strengthened.

  • Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and offshoots

  • like ISIS have been strengthened as a result

  • of these policies and these wars to the point where now,

  • we just observed the 18th anniversary

  • of the attack on 9/11 and Al-Qaeda is stronger today

  • than they were in 2001 when they launched that attack.

  • Stronger because when you kill their cousins

  • and brothers, more people hate us?

  • Stronger because our leaders failed us

  • by not staying focused one pointedly on defeating

  • Al-Qaeda and instead,

  • went and spent American lives and resources

  • in waging these regime change wars

  • and seeing how terrorist groups like ISIS

  • were born because of those wars.

  • In Syria, right now, Al-Qaeda and other

  • terrorist organizations that are offshoots

  • and affiliates are in control of this entire

  • city of Idlib in the northern part of Syria.

  • And other countries are,

  • Syria and Russia in particular,

  • talking about attacking Al-Qaeda,

  • getting rid of Al-Qaeda in that city.

  • And it is President Trump and his administration

  • that are the ones saying don't go after Al-Qaeda in that

  • city, and if you do will retaliate against you for doing so.

  • This is a total betrayal.

  • It's a betrayal of every single one of us

  • as service members, every single family member

  • of those who were lost on 9/11,

  • to the first responders who ran into that rubble

  • and that fire to save lives that day rather

  • than running away.

  • It's a betrayal to us as the American people.

  • But there is a human rights crisis there and

  • our hearts go out to them and we want to help.

  • We want to help.

  • What we have been doing has been

  • making the problem worse.

  • This is what is so often the case when these

  • with these regime change wars are waged in

  • the guise of humanitarianism saying exactly that.

  • That there are people suffering under a brutal dictator,

  • authoritarian regime.

  • We have to go in and help them

  • by removing that dictator.

  • But if you look at these examples throughout

  • our country's history, our going in toppling

  • that brutal dictator has not made their lives any better.

  • They have resulted in more death, more destruction,

  • more pain and suffering, more refugees.

  • This is why we've got to stop being the world's

  • police and recognize that if we want to be

  • a force for good in the world, let's

  • actually make sure that what we are doing

  • effects in a good outcome.

  • You met with the dictator, with Assad.

  • Yes.

  • And the liberal media give you grief for that.

  • I would think that they would say,

  • "We should talk to everybody."

  • Better talk than wage war.

  • I agree.

  • You would think that's what they would say.

  • Chris Cuomo, "You need to acknowledge that

  • Assad is a murderous despot."

  • Are you surprised?

  • And then what?

  • I think this is the problem is, you know,

  • we look back to examples like Roosevelt meeting

  • with Stalin, another murderous leader.

  • You look at JFK meeting with Khrushchev,

  • Nixon meeting with Mao.

  • They're examples throughout our country's

  • history of leader ... Reagan meeting with Gorbachev.

  • Leaders who recognize that,

  • in the interest of peace and security,

  • you have to be willing to meet with leaders of other

  • countries whether they be adversaries,

  • friends, dictators, or otherwise.

  • Recognizing what you just said,

  • that the only alternative to that is war.

  • So what's going on with your party?

  • Democrats used to be the anti war party.

  • Unfortunately this is something

  • that crosses both parties.

  • I call out leaders in my own party

  • and leaders in the Republican party as well,

  • who are heavily influenced by the

  • military industrial complex that profits heavily off of us

  • continuing to wage these counterproductive wars.

  • They're heavily influenced by a foreign policy

  • establishment in Washington,

  • whose whole power base is built around

  • continuing this status quo.

  • So much so to the point where,

  • when I'm calling for an end to these wasteful wars,

  • they're saying,

  • "Gosh, Tulsi, why are you such an isolationist?"

  • As though the only way that we can relate

  • with other countries in the world is by bombing them

  • or putting crippling economic sanctions in place.

  • Which is a really sad conclusion

  • when you actually ... that sad state of mind,

  • rather than seeing, hey, we're

  • the United States of America,

  • we have the opportunity to be a force for good.

  • To reach out to other countries,

  • to work with them, to show respect,

  • to find those areas of common interest

  • where we can work together for the wellbeing of

  • our people and the planet and be able to work out

  • those differences that we have

  • rather than resorting to war.

  • Seeing that war is only a last resort

  • to keep our people safe.

  • If you were president a few years back,

  • what would the alternative have been with Syria?

  • How would we have worked with them?

  • Well, first of all, making sure that we don't

  • launch a regime change war.

  • That war began ... A lot of people don't realize

  • in 2011, all the way back in 2011 and it began

  • with a covert mission working

  • through the CIA,

  • to both arm and equip and provide support

  • to a terrorist groups in that country like

  • Al-Qaeda, to overthrow the Syrian government.

  • This is something that has now been published

  • out in the open that this is what happened

  • and it continued to further escalate both

  • through covert and overt means

  • using the department of defense.

  • So if you were president you would come in

  • and say, "This has poisoned our relationship.

  • We're going to stop this and here's what

  • we are going to do."

  • What we do is respect the rights of the Syrian

  • people to determine their own governance and

  • their future.

  • This was one thing that I-

  • But they didn't elect their dictator.

  • They hold elections in Syria.

  • Some people question the validity of those elections.

  • So one thing that I think the international

  • community can do is come together to provide

  • global oversight over those elections,

  • to make sure the people's voices are actually

  • being heard.

  • Now we have the conflict with Iran.

  • Yes

  • They just apparently were responsible for

  • the attacks on Saudi Arabia.

  • What would you do?

  • If I were president today,

  • I would end this cycle of retaliation,

  • this tit for tat that we're seeing.

  • What happened in Saudi Arabia was an act of

  • retaliation to the sanctions and the blockade

  • against Iran and basically stopping them

  • from being able to sell any of their oil on the market.

  • Remove the sanctions.

  • I would get Iran and the United States

  • to reenter the Iran nuclear agreement,

  • to make sure that Iran is not continuing to move forward

  • and building a nuclear weapon.

  • Get those inspectors back in there and I would

  • remove those crippling sanctions.

  • I'm going to quote Lindsey Graham,

  • "A weak response invites more aggression."

  • This is the problem with people like

  • Lindsey Graham is, they advocate for things like punish,

  • "We've got to punish Iran for this."

  • Punishment is not a goal or objective.

  • The question is how does that

  • help us accomplish our objective?

  • "Because," says the Wall Street Journal,

  • "they sense weakness. If we are strong, they'll behave."

  • So if we are strong and we do what Lindsey

  • Graham says, and we come in with a strong

  • response and a counter attack to Iran,

  • a retaliatory attack, how does then Iran respond?

  • These are the questions that these policy makers

  • in the media too often don't ask.

  • Well, what does Iran then do?

  • They would say, "Iran knows we mean business

  • and they'll behave better."

  • And when has that happened?

  • If Iran is given no-

  • World War II.

  • So Iran has given no signs of surrender.

  • They have stated very clearly their military

  • is ready to go to war and that they will withstand

  • any counter attacks that we have.

  • This is, not a joke.

  • I mean Iran is a much larger country than Iraq

  • Three times as many people.

  • Their military is much stronger.

  • Many more people and they,

  • they use both conventional and unconventional

  • warfare tactics.

  • So if we follow down the Lindsey Graham approach,

  • what we end up with is a continuation and

  • escalation of this tit for tat retaliation,

  • attack, counter attack, counter attack.

  • What it'll result in is an all out inferno,

  • not only in Iran, but across the entire region.

  • It's unimaginable to think about how many

  • American lives, how many service men and women

  • would lose their lives in such a war.

  • How many people in the region would be killed,

  • refugees forced to flee, and how many more

  • trillions of our tax payer dollars would be taken

  • out of our pockets, out of our communities

  • to go and pay for a war that is completely unnecessary

  • and that actually undermines our national security.

  • Let's move to a domestic area where you agree

  • with us libertarians.

  • America locks up an unusual number of people,

  • two million at the moment.

  • More than Russia, China.

  • Our criminal justice system is so broken and

  • it's perpetuating the problems that have caused

  • this kind of mass incarceration that we've seen.

  • I have the only bipartisan bill in Congress,

  • that would end the federal marijuana prohibition.

  • This is one easy first step that we can take

  • to begin to end this failed war on drugs that

  • has unnecessarily filled our prisons and that has

  • really been a drain on our resources,

  • both from the law enforcement perspective

  • as well as within our criminal justice system.

  • People say it's a gateway drug and the country has to

  • send a message to children that it's

  • not okay here.

  • Going to let it be legal everywhere?

  • We should.

  • This is a free country.

  • I've never smoked marijuana, I never will.

  • I've never drank alcohol,

  • I've chosen not to in my life.

  • This is about free choice,

  • and if somebody wants to do that,

  • our country should not be

  • making a criminal out of them for doing so.

  • I think this is the whole hypocrisy of this

  • argument that we've heard throughout our lives

  • since this war on drugs has begun which is,

  • "We really care about you.

  • We really care about your kids.

  • So if you are caught using this drug or

  • smoking marijuana, we care so much about you that

  • we're going to arrest you.

  • We're going to give you a criminal record

  • because we care about you and we don't want

  • you to hurt yourself."

  • A record that will follow this person for the

  • rest of their lives and impact their ability

  • to get a job or maybe get a college scholarship,

  • something like that.

  • So once we're an adult,

  • we own our own bodies and we ought to be

  • able to poison them if we want?

  • Yes.

  • But you haven't proposed legalizing heroin

  • or cocaine or meth.

  • that's the direction that we need to take is

  • decriminalizing an individual's choice

  • to use whatever substances that are there,

  • while still criminalizing those who are traffickers

  • and dealers of these drugs.

  • But I'm confused by that because if you say,

  • and I agree that it's my body, let people

  • do what they want.

  • But you call the sellers traffickers.

  • It's sold.

  • They're only traffickers because it's illegal.

  • Isn't that hypocritical?

  • You can use it, but nobody can sell it to you?

  • No, it's not at all.

  • I think there's a difference here

  • where you have those who are profiting off of selling

  • substances that are harmful to others,

  • as opposed to those who are making those choices

  • on their own to do what they wish with their bodies.

  • There are some models of this in other countries

  • who've taken this approach and what we've

  • seen in- Portugal.

  • Yes, in Portugal.

  • What we've seen in Portugal is how they are

  • not treating a drug use as a criminal action,

  • but instead as a healthcare one.

  • That for those who are dealing with substance abuse

  • and addiction that rather than throwing

  • them in prison and giving them a criminal record,

  • we're actually providing them with

  • help and the healthcare treatment that will get

  • them and their lives back on track.

  • And that's been good in Portugal.

  • It's been well.

  • There are even fewer people using the drugs for some reason.

  • That's right.

  • That's exactly right.

  • Talking about this at the debate,

  • you changed Kamala Harris's life.

  • Want to talk about that moment?

  • Look, I was raising I think very valid questions

  • about a record that Kamala Harris herself

  • has said she's very proud of as

  • California's attorney general.

  • And around an issue that I think is central

  • and important to all of us for the reasons

  • that we just talked about.

  • It speaks to the broader issue of leadership,

  • which I think is really what's at question

  • here for all the voters who we're asking to

  • earn their trust and their vote so that we

  • can serve them as presidents.

  • What kind of leader would you be and asking

  • those questions of Senator Harris about the

  • kind of leadership that she provided when

  • she was in a position of power to actually

  • help fix our criminal justice system.

  • Instead, she used that position to further

  • perpetuate a system that was causing disproportionate

  • harm to people of California.

  • Her job was prosecutor,

  • so she's supposed to prosecute.

  • That's true.

  • But as a prosecutor and as a presidential candidate,

  • she's talking about fixing this

  • broken system.

  • She was in a position of power to do that,

  • to make sure that those she was prosecuting

  • were people who were deserving of that prosecution,

  • deserving of that prison time.

  • But instead of enacting those reforms,

  • that would've actually helped people,

  • she chose to do the opposite.

  • And I think that just again,

  • points to leadership and the failure of it.

  • And she was leading in the betting

  • for democratic nominee.

  • Immediately, she fell seven points 10 days later,

  • another seven points from 26% to 12%.

  • You killed her off.

  • I'm for the people, man.

  • I was speaking the truth and

  • speaking for a lot of people, a lot of people who were

  • asking these questions, who were calling for

  • accountability and we're seeing none, seeing

  • none in the mainstream media, seeing none

  • of the debate moderators asking these questions

  • as they should of every candidate saying,

  • "Hey, here's your record.

  • How do you account for that?"

  • That hadn't happened prior to that moment,

  • which I think is a disservice to voters.

  • So now the clear leader is Elizabeth Warren.

  • Are you happy with that?

  • Obviously you would rather it be you.

  • Yeah, no, I'm focused on our campaign and

  • how we can connect, continue to connect with

  • voters in early States and all across the

  • country and sharing with them the kind of

  • leadership that I would bring, the experience

  • that I bring to serving as president and fulfilling

  • that most important responsibility the president

  • has, is as commander-in-chief.

  • And your campaign pitch has been, instead

  • of all this military spending focus on rebuilding

  • communities at home.

  • That's right.

  • Meaning?

  • Meaning there are so many needs that we have,

  • that our families have, that the American

  • people have.

  • And for so long, and I've served at the city

  • council in Hawaii, served as a state representative

  • and obviously in Congress now for seven years.

  • And for so long people are told, "Well, there's

  • just not enough money to make sure that your

  • kids have the most up to date textbooks

  • in your classrooms."

  • "There's just not enough money to upgrade

  • our water infrastructure to make sure that

  • the water coming out of your tap is clean

  • and is not poisoning or harming your kids

  • or your families."

  • "There's just not enough money to make sure

  • that our roads and bridges are safe for people

  • to use, that are not dangerous and posing a threat

  • to your families."

  • Every single time the American taxpayers are told,

  • "Sorry, there's just not enough money."

  • But they're told this by some of the very

  • same people who don't think twice, who don't

  • ask, "Well, how do you pay for this?"

  • When they make the decision to go and launch

  • again these wars of choice, they are unnecessary.

  • They are counterproductive, and they are regime

  • change wars that work against our interest.

  • What to speak of the fact that now we are

  • in a new cold war, we have escalating tensions

  • between the United States, nuclear armed countries

  • like Russia and China, a new arms race.

  • Trump tore up that INF treaty that Reagan and

  • Gorbachev negotiated sparking off billions

  • more dollars to build these missiles that were

  • banned under that treaty.

  • All of this amounts to an incredible cost

  • that whether they realize it or not, every

  • single one of us as taxpayers are paying,

  • where those dollars should either be used

  • to decrease the deficit that we have or to

  • serve the needs of our people.

  • And what do you mean when you say focus on

  • rebuilding our communities at home?

  • That implies that they were doing okay and then

  • now they need to be rebuilt, did something

  • happened that made them worse?

  • The city council district that I represented

  • in Hawaii was one of the first communities that

  • was developed when people started moving

  • to Hawaii and the population started growing,

  • which means the infrastructure in that district

  • was the oldest on the whole island that constantly

  • needed upgrading and for so long it's just,

  • we'll put a bandaid on this, we'll put a patch on that.

  • But really that doesn't solve the problem

  • of the fact that we would have water mains

  • that are underground constantly breaking,

  • exploding, and basically creating a sinkhole

  • in the main roads that people go to school and

  • go to work in every single day.

  • It's these kinds of challenges that our folks

  • in Hawaii are experiencing, but challenges

  • that people are experiencing in many communities

  • across the country.

  • So how did that work, Hawaii, when Hawaii

  • was significantly poorer, was able to build

  • all this infrastructure, but now the government

  • spends much more money, it's going bad?

  • This supports my argument that government

  • usually makes things worse.

  • The government is taking our taxpayer dollars

  • and this is why I've made this a central point

  • of my campaign because we all pay taxes.

  • Where are those tax payer dollars going?

  • The majority of those dollars are not going

  • towards serving those very real needs that

  • we have.

  • Instead, they're going to wage these wasteful

  • wars that have nothing to do with the national

  • security interests of our country, the interest of

  • our troops, the interests of our people,

  • which is a central issue.

  • And I'm often asked by reporters in Washington,

  • "Well, Gosh, okay, fine.

  • You're talking about foreign policy.

  • What about all the other issues that the American

  • people are really concerned about?"

  • But unless we deal with this central issue of

  • where our tax payer dollars are going and

  • the cost of war, we can't begin to address

  • how we find the resources where we come up

  • with the money to be able to pay for these other things.

  • But you would still have a military,

  • you wouldn't totally cut it.

  • Yes.

  • How much would it be cut?

  • How much would be left?

  • I don't think it's an arbitrary number.

  • I think once again, focus on what is our objective.

  • Our objective must be to have a strong and ready

  • capable military able to fulfill their

  • mission of protecting and defending our country

  • and the American people.

  • We've got troops who are deployed

  • in so many countries

  • around the world but the questions that-

  • Something like 80 countries.

  • That aren't really asked, even in the armed

  • services committee where I serve or answered

  • is well, "How many of those bases, how many

  • of those countries actually require a prolonged

  • US presence to serve our interests?"

  • So what happens in the committee?

  • You say, "Hey, how?"

  • Ask that question.

  • Here's the issue is when we talk about this

  • fearful word called BRAC base realignment

  • and closing, people actually vote against

  • that commission from doing their job, which

  • is to look at these bases around the world

  • and here at home and say, "Hey, do we still need them?

  • Are they still performing a necessary function

  • for our national security?

  • And if not, let's repurpose them or shut them down."

  • We should explain this to viewers who

  • don't know what BRAC is.

  • It was created because the military wanted

  • to close some bases, but the local congressperson's,

  • "Oh, not my base."

  • So they then said,

  • "We'll create this committee and we'll-"

  • Exactly.

  • Create a commission who will be the neutral arbiters-

  • You won't take the heat.

  • The member of Congress won't take the heat

  • they'll say, "well, Hey, this commission is

  • the one that decided this, but still the member

  • of Congress fights against what that commission

  • has recommended."

  • Rather, once again, than looking at this from

  • an objective perspective of being responsible

  • caretakers for the taxpayer dollar and looking

  • at what is actually necessary for our military

  • to be able to do the job of protecting and

  • defending our country.

  • So I think there's a huge opportunity to reduce

  • defense spending in that area.

  • There's a huge opportunity to reduce defense

  • spending in this arms race that I'm talking

  • about, this arms race that is making our country

  • in the world less safe and deescalating these

  • tensions with nuclear armed countries so that

  • we are moving closer to that future that both

  • JFK and President Reagan were looking towards,

  • where our people the people who live on this

  • planet don't have to live in fear of nuclear

  • catastrophe coming at any moment.

  • You would reduce the military spending, spend it

  • domestically, but let's fight about that.

  • You want Medicare for all?

  • I want to see Medicare choice.

  • So right now we, as people, we're spending

  • far more on healthcare than any other developed

  • country in the world.

  • Because we invent the best new stuff.

  • Well, I would argue that our big insurance

  • companies and big pharmaceutical companies

  • get far greater profits from us

  • than they do in other countries. We pay far more

  • Our people pay far more for insulin, for example,

  • here in this country than they do across the

  • border in Canada or even in Mexico.

  • Same product, same safety qualifications,

  • but we pay way more.

  • I met a mother the other day whose daughter

  • was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes and they

  • can't afford health insurance.

  • They can't afford it.

  • It would be thousands of dollars every month

  • for their family and they can't afford the

  • $300 per vial of insulin that her daughter

  • needs here.

  • So they go to Mexico and they buy a whole lot

  • of insulin for 30 bucks a vial just across the border.

  • That's just one example of many how the crony

  • capitalist culture that we have is making

  • these profits for big insurance and big pharma

  • rather than saying, "Hey, how can we as a

  • country ensure that the American people are

  • getting quality healthcare?"

  • And by having this Medicare choice plan where

  • you've got every single person, they're able

  • to get that quality health care

  • Medicare choice, meaning you no longer would

  • abolish the private insurance.

  • I've never advocated for that.

  • But you signed onto the bill and that's

  • what the bill said.

  • The bill doesn't expressly eliminate private insurance.

  • I agree with the concept of Medicare for all,

  • what I would call Medicare choice because

  • it provides for that lower cost, quality healthcare

  • for every American, regardless of how little

  • you may have in your pocket.

  • But also allowing for those who, if you want to keep

  • your employer sponsored healthcare

  • plan or if you've got a union that's negotiated

  • a great healthcare plan, or if you just as

  • a private citizen, you would rather pay into

  • a private complimentary plan or otherwise

  • you should have the freedom to do so.

  • And we can afford this?

  • And Bernie Sanders who promotes it admits

  • it will cost $3 trillion.

  • We are already paying more.

  • And I think that's the point that's often missed.

  • We are already paying more.

  • So if we are able to cut out that middle man's

  • profits of the big insurance companies and

  • the profits they're already taking,

  • then we're able to pay less.

  • We as taxpayers are able to pay less.

  • If we pass the law that I've been advocating

  • for a long time now to allow Medicare, allow

  • our government to negotiate lower prescription

  • drug prices for the American people, we bring

  • down those costs.

  • We don't allow them to continue to price gouge people.

  • We reform our patent laws that make it so

  • these prescription drug companies can't exploit

  • the system as they are where they'll get the

  • patent for a certain number of years.

  • They then tweak it and try to block the generic

  • companies from being able to sell that drug

  • at lower prices.

  • We make these necessary reforms to bring down

  • the cost overall for everyone while ensuring

  • that they're still able to get that quality healthcare.

  • But one upside of those patent laws which

  • do make the drugs cost more is that the cool

  • new drugs that we all want are invented here.

  • That insulin you talked about is probably

  • invented here because the government makes

  • you pay about a billion dollars to get through the FDA.

  • You have to make huge profit to bring us better things.

  • Here's the thing with the insulin example,

  • and I think this is emblematic of the problems

  • that we're seeing with what the prescription

  • drug companies by and large are doing, is

  • that the scientists who created insulin,

  • they sold that patent for a dollar.

  • For $1.

  • And we look at how much insulin is costing

  • families whose loved ones, whether it's their

  • children or their parents who depend on that

  • insulin to stay alive and how they are struggling

  • just to be able to afford it and the price

  • gouging that's taking place.

  • This is what I'm talking about with the crony

  • capitalism that I think needs to change.

  • We've got to focus on how we can best serve

  • and support the American people, how we can

  • best empower small businesses, how we can

  • strengthen our economy.

  • We don't do this by continuing to enable whether

  • it's subsidies or this kind of exploitation

  • to occur.

  • And by cutting unnecessary military spending,

  • we can afford this?

  • By bringing down our defense spending,

  • by ending these wasteful wars, the

  • new cold war and arms race, we're bringing

  • back a lot of resources that would otherwise

  • continue to be spent there.

  • With healthcare, we're reducing the cost and this is

  • the key component of this.

  • We're already paying for this one way or the other

  • except right now, I get a certain chunk

  • of money taken out of my paycheck every month

  • that goes to Blue Cross Blue Shield for the

  • insurance for my family.

  • Instead of that amount of money going to Blue

  • Cross Blue Shield, that amount of money would

  • instead be going to a Medicare choice plan

  • except it would be less.

  • But much as I would like to cut the military,

  • I don't see how you can get the money because

  • the military entire budget is 700 billion

  • and that's a long way from 3 trillion.

  • It's actually more.

  • It's actually more, I mean 700 billion is

  • the direct amount of the annual, oh it's around

  • 700 billion every year that goes to the department

  • of defense, but that does not include the

  • hundreds of millions of dollars that go towards

  • the slush fund, the OCO fund, the overseas

  • contingency operations fund, which has no

  • constraints on how the department of defense

  • is spending those dollars.

  • Those are not accounted for within that budget.

  • All right, well let's add $100 billion or $200 billion.

  • It comes nowhere close to what you and your

  • fellow Democrats want to spend.

  • Free college.

  • Medicare for all.

  • We can't afford this stuff.

  • It's just silly.

  • The money that we are going to save by ending

  • these wasteful wars, you're right, it won't

  • cover every other thing that we need to accomplish.

  • We've got to look at every goal that we have,

  • every objective that we have, every need that

  • the American people have to see here's the

  • resources that we have.

  • How can we best use them to serve the interests

  • of the American people.

  • Yeah, sure.

  • I think there will need to be some reforms

  • to the tax code to make it so that it's more

  • fair, to make it so that companies

  • like Amazon are not walking away

  • Scott-free paying zero taxes, and also getting

  • over a hundred million dollars in a tax credit

  • while small business owners are struggling

  • just to be able to pay their taxes and take

  • care of their employees and earn a living

  • in the process.

  • This is a bigger issue that we have to look at

  • across every sector of our economy and

  • in every way that the American people need to

  • see these services improved for them.

  • Free college.

  • Don't you think colleges already waste

  • a lot of money?

  • They do. Absolutely

  • and that's why I think,

  • I think those who are talking about free college and

  • I think that we do need to make sure that

  • our students, our young people are getting

  • opportunity, whether it's for vocational training,

  • apprenticeships, college, community college,

  • there's a lot of opportunities there for people

  • to get the skills that they need, but in order

  • to do this, we have to address the overarching

  • issue, which is why is it costing more and

  • more and more every single year?

  • Well, look how much more it'll cost when it's free.

  • This is the problem is just throwing more

  • money at it isn't going to solve it, so we

  • have to deal with the systemic problem here

  • the root cause of the problem.

  • One of which is, look, I spoke with a college

  • professor recently about this issue and he

  • said, you you want to see why it's costing

  • more and more.

  • Once you look at how much administrators

  • a lot of these colleges are being paid or

  • overpaid, let's actually see where these dollars

  • are going.

  • Let's look at the fact that these universities,

  • many of them don't have any kind of accountability

  • or transparency to say, Hey look, you know,

  • our students graduate, you know, 90% of them

  • are able to go and get a good paying job in

  • the field of their choosing or the field of

  • their training versus another that might have

  • it be like 10% or 20%.

  • You don't have this kind of accountability in place.

  • So how will you have it if you make it free?

  • If the student had some skin in the game,

  • his own money, he might care about how many

  • administrators there are.

  • What we're working on it, and we'll be releasing

  • this in detail in the course of our campaign,

  • is taking a comprehensive approach to this

  • in how we're looking at education beyond high school.

  • Both looking at this overall costs, having

  • accountability and transparency there by looking

  • at how we leverage technology to bring down

  • the cost of education and how we can best

  • provide these opportunities

  • to those who are seeking skills.

  • I'll use myself as an example.

  • I started my bachelor's degree later on in life.

  • I was working full time and I actually continued

  • it while I was deployed on both of my deployments.

  • You know, we had a an education tent in our

  • camp in Iraq and I went and I did classes

  • in that tent online, you know, mortar attacks

  • were coming in.

  • I'd have to run out and go into the bunker,

  • but I was able to fulfill those credits there

  • while doing that.

  • But also I was able to take tests.

  • I tested out of probably somewhere between

  • 40 and 60 credits because I took the test.

  • I already had the knowledge,

  • didn't have to take the class.

  • It's cheaper.

  • A lot cheaper.

  • So there are a lot of things that are available

  • to bring down the cost of education that really

  • aren't ever talked about or discussed.

  • And I think that's at the heart of how we

  • tackle what is a difficult challenge of my

  • generation, which is this heavy student debt burden.

  • One last thing to fight about.

  • The $15 minimum wage.

  • How does that not destroy opportunity for

  • a 17 year old in his first job who isn't worth

  • $15 an hour?

  • We've got to look at how inflation has raised

  • the cost of living.

  • It's raised it.

  • It's tough to live on minimum wage, no question.

  • It is.

  • And our federal minimum wage has not increased

  • along with inflation.

  • I think that's what we're trying to balance out here.

  • How a living wage, which is different.

  • You know here in New York City

  • and in a state like Hawaii and San Francisco

  • or Los Angeles,

  • cost of living is much higher and no one can live...

  • But the Democrats want one minimum wage for

  • the country.

  • I think it's a starting point.

  • And I think that in other places a $15 is

  • higher than what a living wage in that place

  • would be required.

  • So I think we're looking at this as an investment

  • in people, the labor, the people who are really

  • the fuel in the engine that make our economy grow.

  • Why is it the government's business?

  • You have an employer and a worker

  • and they make their own deal.

  • It's pretty good now for the workers because

  • they have a lot of choice.

  • Unemployment's low.

  • And every situation is different.

  • Why have any minimum wage?

  • Because we've seen unfortunately through different

  • examples in our country's past how workers

  • have been exploited.

  • And even though unemployment numbers are low

  • now, if you just look at those surface numbers,

  • what those numbers don't reflect is that very

  • often you have people who are working two

  • full time jobs just to be able to keep a roof

  • over their heads because one full time, just

  • one full time job doesn't cut it.

  • I think this is what we're seeking...

  • But the poor are richer now than they were.

  • So if they're working two full time jobs,

  • it's because they wanted more stuff.

  • The cost of living.

  • Adjusted for the cost of living.

  • I disagree.

  • Even the poor.

  • If you look at the numbers of how many people

  • in this country are living paycheck to paycheck,

  • who are struggling...

  • People have always lived paycheck to paycheck.

  • Who are struggling, and with that one emergency,

  • whether it's a child's visit to the emergency

  • room or an unexpected expense that they have

  • to cover, they don't know if they're going

  • to be able to make the next month's rent.

  • It's terrible.

  • But to say you can't have any job because

  • McDonald's is going to automate rather than

  • pay 15 to...

  • That's whole new challenge

  • I think businesses are looking...

  • Do you want to stop them?

  • No, I think businesses are looking at automation,

  • not because we're trying to pass a $15 minimum

  • wage, but because they're trying to look at how

  • they can make their businesses run more efficiently.

  • Right?

  • Are they incentivized by your higher wage to...

  • No.

  • I think the automation revolution was coming

  • regardless of that.

  • And that's a different, bigger challenge that we

  • need to recognize both with the challenges

  • it presents, but also the opportunities that,

  • you know, if you're going into Taco Bell and

  • you're going and punching in your order on

  • a computer rather than standing at the cash

  • register, then perhaps you're freeing up that

  • labor to do other jobs that only a person can do.

  • So I think there's challenge and opportunity here.

  • I think there is a potential, but I'm looking more

  • into a universal basic income option

  • to be able to help deal both

  • with this automation revolution.

  • And the challenges that people are facing.

  • That would be giving every person regardless

  • a certain amount of money.

  • There are different models.

  • And this is, I'm looking at different models

  • of how this could work, where it has worked

  • and, and importantly, how do you pay for it?

  • You've never run a business.

  • You've never had to deal with hiring workers

  • and having to pay minimum wage.

  • You've always been in politics.

  • So many of you politicians

  • have never run a business.

  • Your father was a politician.

  • Let me stop you right there.

  • Because I grew up in,

  • my parents are teachers by trade and training.

  • That's not running a business.

  • And we grew up in our family's small business.

  • My parents started a restaurant.

  • I apologize.

  • All five of us kids, you know, took turns

  • sweeping floors, wiping tables and serving

  • food and experienced the challenges and the

  • hardships and also the rewards of a family

  • run business.

  • I appreciate that our small businesses are

  • the backbone of our economy.

  • They are the number one employer

  • of people in this country.

  • And I think that's one of the things that we

  • need to correct within our federal policies

  • is how currently, whether you're looking at tax

  • code, trade policy, our overall economic

  • policy, they overarchingly benefit the biggest

  • corporations who can afford to pay for those

  • lobbyists to come and say, Hey, you know,

  • you've got to change the language in this

  • bill or that bill to benefit this massive

  • corporation whereas small business owners,

  • they can't afford lobbyists.

  • They don't have time to think about, well,

  • who's advocating for us in Washington?

  • As a result, they don't have a voice.

  • And they can't afford the compliance officers

  • to understand all these lawyer laws.

  • Exactly.

  • Another major issue and this is something that

  • I will correct as President.

  • Given the background that my family comes

  • from, the experience that we've had going

  • through that together and recognizing how

  • important it is that we are empowering these

  • amazing people who are working hard every day

  • to create these jobs for our economy.

  • Well I apologize for not knowing you had the

  • family restaurant.

  • That's all right.

  • I'm glad we can have a civil argument about

  • some of these areas where we disagree.

  • Few politicians want to do that anymore

  • and I must say...

  • It's unfortunate, isn't it?

  • Of all the people polling over a percent,

  • you're the only one who so far has come and

  • sat down to talk.

  • This is a problem that we're seeing

  • in our political culture today is where people

  • are increasingly unwilling.

  • Our leaders are increasingly unwilling to

  • sit down with those who may be quote unquote

  • on the other team.

  • Even for those who are asking to lead our country,

  • and I think this is how we move forward together.

  • This is the kind of campaign that we're building,

  • the kind of leadership that I bring.

  • We're already, we're seeing Democrats, Republicans,

  • independents, libertarians showing support

  • coming out to our tent house, joining our

  • campaign saying, look, I love my country.

  • You love our country.

  • Let's come together as Americans with appreciation

  • for our Constitution, our freedoms, civil

  • liberties and rights and have this civil discourse

  • and dialogue about how we can

  • move forward together.

  • That would be good.

  • Thank you very much.

  • Thank you.

I recently sat down with

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級

斯托塞爾。Tulsi Gabbard(完整採訪 (Stossel: Tulsi Gabbard (Full Interview))

  • 4 0
    林宜悉 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字