Bernie Sanders's Proposals

Status
Not open for further replies.
$18 trillion but it's not like the people of this country aren't already paying for health care, education, etc. I imagine many of us probably wouldn't pay any more with these proposals; our taxes might go up but we wouldn't have to pay for health care, etc., privately anymore. So, the benefit is that not only do more people have access to all these services, but we also wouldn't have to worry about losing them if we lose our job or have any other financial hardships.

I imagine a lot of the extra budget required would be made up for by increasing taxes on the wealthy, as well, which is fine because they don't pay much right now, especially compared to other countries.

Try to take some basic rights to people in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Holland, Belgium etc. They would riot - hell a large majority of people in UK would riot if any serious attempts are made to privatize the NHS.
Sure you can have private health care in most of those countries but that's not exactly cheaper than having it all taken care by your taxes. I'd understand if there was long term proof that mass education, healthcare, security can be cheaper by being handled by private companies. Especially when companies don't really care about people who can't afford their product.
 
Thankfully there are a wealth of posts above you that pretty clearly rebut it.

I was wondering how comprehensive Sanders got in laying out the money distribution. I understand a lot of it is re-allocation of funds, but I was interested in reading up on details as I am not well informed when it comes to this stuff.
 
I was wondering how comprehensive Sanders got in laying out the money distribution. I understand a lot of it is re-allocation of funds, but I was interested in reading up on details as I am not well informed when it comes to this stuff.

Well the main thing is to compare the costs associated with for example in the US and other developed countries. Really the US should be aiming at keeping costs at least comparable to other counterparts around the World.

Cost-comparison-1-828x621.png




Also this is effecting those at most risk like the elderly.

FT_14.12.2_healthCare_640.png


sauce - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ican-seniors-struggle-more-with-health-costs/
 
I'm still reading the article, but I'd like to see a good rebuttal on this piece. You seem to be pretty dead set against the info presented. Can your provide links/info that would help me understand how the budget plan for these programs lay out? I mean this sincerely. I am not educated enough on the matter.

Just read the thread. There are enough rebuttals written by other people.

Also common sense. If something didn't bankrupt other countries, it shouldn't bankrupt America.

BTW, I'm not "dead set against the info presented". I am dead set not to trust any non-hard news presented by News Corp. And that's also common sense.
 
Infrastructure is the one thing that absolutely must get done, regardless of all the politically charged systems swirling around it or what party is in charge. Usually a pretty damn good ROI on such things. Neglected for far too long.

Not only that but putting money into infrastructure provides more job opportunities for those who are struggling for work. I really like Bernie Sanders if I lived in the US he would be one of the top candidates I would consider.
 
Just read the thread. There are enough rebuttals written by other people.

Also common sense. If something didn't bankrupt other countries, it shouldn't bankrupt America.

BTW, I'm not "dead set against the info presented". I am dead set not to trust any non-hard news presented by News Corp. And that's also common sense.
You can't think of any countries bankrupted as a result of excessive state welfare?
 
I'm still reading the article, but I'd like to see a good rebuttal on this piece. You seem to be pretty dead set against the info presented. Can your provide links/info that would help me understand how the budget plan for these programs lay out? I mean this sincerely. I am not educated enough on the matter.
Already posted in this thread:

 
An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece

Gerald Friedman's research was cited in a Wall Street Journal story about Bernie Sanders's proposals for government spending. Friedman responds to that story below.

It is said of economists that they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. In the case of the article "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion," this accusation is a better fit for the Wall Street Journal that published it.

The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html
 
Man, can you imagine? Can you imagine a country, where everyone is health insured by the government and you don't have to pay to go to College? Wow!
 
You usually end up with more waste trying to crack down on the fraud rather than just letting it rock, at least with welfare systems.

Contracts are another issue entirely.

This. It's so expensive to prevent the minimum amount of welfare/food assistance fraud that you waste more money trying to reach an impossible zero level than accepting a minimal risk. Private companies insure or build in margins of loss for this very reason.

Contracts on the other hand can definitely be ripe for large scale abuse.
 
I'm Scottish. I don't have to.

That's the joke, I'm German. Half of europe probably doesn't have to.

It's just super tiring hearing all these naysayers how it can't be done and how it's socialist.
When in reality it's been done almost in all developed countries except for the US.
 
http://www.thenation.com/article/wh...ts-totally-wrong-about-bernie-sanders-agenda/

There are a litany of great rebuttals to this claim now. Of course the wall street journal is only looking to made a big headline, not the specifics.

Its unfortunate to see great proposals like Bernie's get overshadowed by ignorance. Even by his own party, the 'socialist' label is misrepresented by those who just want the powerful to remain so.
 
I've already seen republicans start dismissing socialism and citing 18trillion. Even saw one person on GAF. Guess it worked.
Yep, expect to see it quoted consistently throughout election season until Sanders either loses the Primary or the General. If he wins (I hope he does), expect to see it quoted throughout his presidency as he tries to get them implemented.
 
I will say this much. The WSJ smear job signals that the Right is taking Sanders and his ideas seriously and they are trying to get out ahead of it with a narrative. A smart one too. Simple and scary: 18 trillion.

It will be repeated, memorized and parroted ad nauseam.

I wouldn't even be surprised if Hillary uses it for short-term gain(which I hope she doesnt because it will hurt long-term liberal prospects if the Democratic establishment gets behind anti-liberal narratives)

Sanders would be wise to respond intelligently and not dodge this. Not only for the sake of his campaign but the future of the movement. Counter with simple, concise logical rebuttals and numbers.
 
I will say this much. The WSJ smear job signals that the Right is taking Sanders and his ideas seriously and they are trying to get out ahead of it with a narrative. A smart one too. Simple and scary: 18 trillion.

It will be repeated, memorized and parroted ad nauseam.

I wouldn't even be surprised if Hillary uses it for short-term gain(which I hope she doesnt because it will hurt long-term liberal prospects if the Democratic establishment gets behind anti-liberal narratives)

Sanders would be wise to respond intelligently and not dodge this. Not only for the sake of his campaign but the future of the movement. Counter with simple, concise logical rebuttals and numbers.

he kind of did on facebook, at least

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/posts/903130453075293
 
I've already seen republicans start dismissing socialism and citing 18trillion. Even saw one person on GAF. Guess it worked.
Clinton has already been playing off people fear of the word socialism and she has been trying to tie Bernie Sanders and Hugo Chaves together. She has just been doing this subtlety by hiding behind her super PAC's.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/55f73339e4b00e2cd5e79e11

Similarly, Think Progress and Vox have also been terrible and have been purposefully misleading about some of Sander's proposals and speeches trying to make him out to be anti-immigration.
So what did Senator Sanders actually say about immigration? In an interview with Sanders, Vox.com editor Ezra Klein brought up the concept of an “open borders” immigration policy. Sanders rejected the notion—open borders and unlimited immigration, of course, being a position that no elected official supports. Sanders went on to point out—a point which he later reiterated to journalist Jose Antonio Vargas and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce—that in some cases the importation of new foreign workers can negatively impact the wages of workers in the United States. Note that Sanders didn’t say immigrants are taking jobs or lowering wages. He was specifically referring to non-immigrant, temporary foreign worker programs, also known as “guestworker” programs, which are full of flaws that employers take advantage of to exploit American and migrant workers alike, and to pit them against each other in the labor market.

The reality is that what Sanders supports on immigration is careful and nuanced, and it’s the correct path forward for American immigration policy. In a nutshell, Sanders is strongly in favor of legalization and citizenship for the current unauthorized immigrant population, which will raise wages and lift labor standards for all workers, and he’s against expanding U.S. temporary foreign worker programs, which allow employers to exploit and underpay so-called guestworkers. Limiting guestworker programs will reduce wage suppression and improve labor standards for U.S. and migrant workers alike.
http://www.epi.org/blog/bernie-sanders-is-correct-on-immigration/

I will say this much. The WSJ smear job signals that the Right is taking Sanders and his ideas seriously and they are trying to get out ahead of it with a narrative. A smart one too. Simple and scary: 18 trillion.

It will be repeated, memorized and parroted ad nauseam.

I wouldn't even be surprised if Hillary uses it for short-term gain(which I hope she doesnt because it will hurt long-term liberal prospects if the Democratic establishment gets behind anti-liberal narratives)

Sanders would be wise to respond intelligently and not dodge this. Not only for the sake of his campaign but the future of the movement. Counter with simple, concise logical rebuttals and numbers.
Sanders already did exactly that if you look a couple pages above. Also considering Clinton's camp started the "Obama is an undercover Muslim" thing, I wouldn't be surprised if she did .
 

Clinton has already been playing off people fear of the word socialism and she has been trying to tie Bernie Sanders and Hugo Chaves together. She has just been doing this subtlety by hiding behind her super PAC's.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/55f73339e4b00e2cd5e79e11

Similarly, Think Progress has also been terrible and have been purposefully misleading about some of Sander's proposals and speeches trying to make him out to be anti-immigration.

Sanders already did exactly that if you look a couple pages above. Also considering Clinton's camp started the "Obama is an undercover Muslim" thing, I wouldn't be surprised if she did .
He is going to need to do more then make a Facebook post and standing behind some rebuttal pieces that will get a fraction of a fraction of the coverage and mindshare as the original hit job. This is the right wing echo chamber. They are kings of poisoning the well.
 
The Medicare For All one is hugely misleading. If something like that ever happened you bet there would be significant price control and cost saving measures put into place. It would effectively kill the "for profit" nature of healthcare in the US and move to have the prices reflect other nations with single-payer.
The US spends 18 trillion on health care so the Medicare for all plan is actually a reduction of 3 trillion over the previous decade I believe
 
Social security benefits for the disabled definitely need an increase. The disabled get embarrassingly little support in this country.

Yeah, my mother makes like poverty level income despite being fully disabled with a painful deteriorating condition that came about for her being a corporate slave in America. Her reward for her hard work as a patriot is....like $20k a year plus having to pay for her healthcare which doesn't even cover the injections she needs to live the next few decades.
 
Yeah, a lot of Sander's proposals are stuff we are going to eventually have to do anyway if we don't want to face major problems in the future - or more problems than we are already facing.

We'll eventually need a more comprehensive public system to contain health costs and ensure access to everyone.

We'll eventually need to take steps to ensure at least some form of access to higher education. We probably already should have done something like what Sanders is proposing in the 90's before private student loan debt exploded to collectively around a trillion dollars. That alone is a huge drag on the economy and ruins people's lives.

We'll eventually have to invest in our infrastructure to repair what we have and make expansions and improvements to accommodate our growing population. I'm not sure what the alternative there is: Let bridges collapse across the country and gas mains explode under major cities?

Ect. Ect.

It's really not a question of if for a lot of this stuff in terms of whether we'll do it, but when and how much pain we are willing to tolerate before it happens.

My favorite part of this whole thing is the economist cited in the WSJ article writing an article to rebut the column's main points. That is always funny when it happens.

Thank you for the issues based thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom