Election 2016

Bernie Sanders, the 18 Trillion Dollar Man

Wants taxpayers to "feel the Bern."

|

truthout.org

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, has spent the summer making significant gains in national polling as well as in polling in the early contest states, Iowa and New Hampshire. In the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Sanders is actually up by 10 points over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and tied with her in Iowa.

What is driving support for Sanders' campaign? The promise of lots of free shit certainly helps. The Wall Street Journal has analyzed Sanders' campaign proposals and estimated that his plans for new federal programs would cost $18 trillion over the next ten years. The bulk of that—$15 trillion—would be spent on expanding Medicare to include all Americans in an attempt to impose a "single payer" (the government) healthcare system in the United States, something Republican frontrunner Donald Trump says he's supported other countries doing.

The $15 trillion number comes from a similar proposal in Congress for a single payer system, introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), which comes with that price tag. Sanders declined an interview request from the Journal but the paper spoke to his policy director, Warren Gunnells, who called the $15 trillion number for a single-payer system alone a fair estimate.

Gunnells defended the high cost of Sanders' proposals by calling them "very reasonable" given "the problems that are out there." The explanation is disingenuous. President Obama and supporters of Obamacare insisted Americans were dying in the streets as if it were Victorian England, because there wasn't enough government intervention in healthcare or whatever. When Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, Obama spent most of the political capital he earned from his landslide victory pushing Obamacare, not immigration reform or police reform or rolling back the war on terror. If $15 trillion over ten years is a reasonable cost to solve the "problem" of healthcare in America, it's impossible to argue that without at least implicitly blaming President Obama's contributions.

What's more, Sanders' spending programs are aimed at offering free things—healthcare and public college, primarily—for everyone. Sanders has dropped the pretense held by some liberals and progressives that government spending should focus on the needier elements in society. Even as he rails against "income inequality," Sanders is promising to pay for the healthcare and education of all Americans, even its richest.

And while he promises higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for all that free stuff, even setting aside the fact that there are serious diminishing returns on higher tax rates, his tax plans "only" cost taxpayers $6.5 trillion over ten years, far short of what's needed if Sanders wants to deliver on his promise. The Wall Street Journal spoke with an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who acknowledged taxes would have to go up for the middle class too to pay for Sanders programs. So Sanders will raise taxes on middle class families so that he can "give" free stuff to the rich.

Sanders' proposals show a total lack of priorities, and are divorced from progressives' self-identification as compassionate people who care for the poor. Sanders isn't campaigning to help poor people. He may use that rhetoric, warning of income inequality or how economic conditions hurt the working poor. But his solutions have nothing to do with helping poor people, and everything to do with getting free stuff to everyone. As we're seeing in the polls, that's a far more popular position.

Other free stuff in Sanders' $18 trillion of proposals includes $1.2 trillion to increase Social Security benefits (more taking from the poorer to give to the richer), $1 trillion to build roads and bridges, $750 million to "make college affordable" (and public college free), $319 billion for paid medical and family leave, and, uh, $5.5 billion (over ten years!) for "youth jobs initiatives."

NEXT: Trump as Political Pick-Up Artist: The Donald is "Negging" His Rivals Brilliantly

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But does he wear the tracksuit?

    1. Doesn’t he have a bastard son hidden in a Ben & Jerry’s milk vat?

      How’d you like to go through life like this: “Hello, my name is Mike and I’m Bernie Sander’s bastard”?

  2. Sanders is actually up by 10 points over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire

    That’s the live-free-or-die state, isn’t it?

    1. Most are going with death, apparently….

      1. What part of “free” don’t you understand, you teathuglican ape?

        1. ah; so the problem all along has been with interpretation of that slogan. Thanks for clearing that up. I never thought of ‘free’ in the no-cost sense but it seems obvious, doesn’t it.

    2. Pay for other people’s “free” stuff, or watch the President sell our national security secrets to anyone with $500,000 lying around to pay for one of Bill’s speeches?

      “Live unfree or die” is a little less cut and dried a choice, unfortunately.

      (I lived in NH for a few years, have my license plate with that motto hanging in my office. They almost changed it to “Visit Scenic New Hampshire” at one point!)

    3. It’s also located right next to VT & MA. You do the math.

    4. There is no state requirement to insure your car. Which drives Judge Judy bat-shit crazy

    1. Who’s everybody? I prefer to pay my own way through life, thank you very much.

      1. I prefer to pay my own way through life, thank you very much.

        And everyone else prefers you to pay their own way through life as well. You can ignore politics, but that doesn’t mean politics will ignore you.

  3. Alternate alt-text: “Guess what I’M sitting on!”

    1. Is it, “a thing that goes up?”

    2. “”Guess what I’M sitting on!””

      The Constitution?

    3. “Bernie, did you sit on the apple pie?”

      “I hope so”

      1. “I didn’t know they had heated seats in here!”

        “They… don’t, Senator Sanders.”

        “Well then, i’m going to need a paper towel and some Clorox.”

  4. Warren Gunnells, who called the $15 trillion number for a single-payer system alone a fair estimate.

    Personally, I’d say that’s a bit light. Unless they’re just talking about the initial up-front cost.

    1. NIH estimated private insurance premiums in 2010 were over $2.5 trillion. Probably over $3T today. So that’s $30T over ten years just to replace private insurance

      1. plus, what, 30-45% for added gov’t overhead.

        1. A generous estimate.

        2. What they don’t take up in overhead will be cut from services.

          1. Ding ding.

            They will simply cut services as necessary to hit whatever arbitrary budget they set.

            1. Hello, universal VA!

      2. The thing is, most people can’t even comprehend that number.

        1. Most people see a number with more than five digits and assume it’s SEP.

  5. The Wall Street Journal spoke with an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who acknowledged taxes would have to go up for the middle class too to pay for Sanders programs. So Sanders will raise taxes on middle class families so that he can “give” free stuff to the rich.

    This is the dirty little secret that progressives like to sweep under the rug when discussing their Scandinavian paradises: the crushing middle class tax burden.

    1. And here I thought we already have a crushing middle-class tax burden.

    2. Well, the crushing middle class tax burden does have the effect of equalizing income. So, he’s got that going for him, which is nice.

    3. They say their taxes are aimed at “the rich,” but somehow they always hit the middle class.

      1. “they always hit the middle class.”

        There aren’t enough rich people to pay for this stuff, even if the government took everything they had. Naturally, the middle class has to pay for this stuff. After all, when compared to the poor the middle class are rich.

      2. If you make more than the $15/hr minimum wage, you’re rich and should be happy to surrender a huge chunk of the difference in income taxes. But making the US more like Europe will require more than that. It will also require a hefty VAT.

        1. It will also require a hefty VAT.

          This right here will be the funding mechanism for any of this socialist garbage.

          As a sales tax, it will be regressive as fuck.

          Thus, leading to calls for an even higher minimum wage.

    4. What we really need to help the poor are more sales taxes.

  6. Wait! Is someone besides The Dunauld running for the office of President of these here United States?

    1. No one who’s anyone. They’re all nobodies – losers. And they won’t #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

      1. They can’t even buy pants! Not like Trump, who has bought pants of all different colors and styles! Expensive pants, too. He can afford expensive pants because he’s RICH, unlike his loser opponents.

          1. You misspelled ‘YUGE.’

        1. Taylor: I’m a-gonna give you a double stitch.

          Mussburger: No, single stitch is fine.

          Taylor: But the double stitch, she lasts forever!

          Mussburger: Now, why would I get a double stitch? To pad your account. Single stitch is fine.

          [End memory sequence]

          Mussburger: “Damn!”

  7. $5.5 billion (over ten years!) for “youth jobs initiatives.

    AKA conscription

    1. I thought that was “youth volunteer opportunities.”

      1. “Jobs” is an easier sell than “volunteer” for a demographic with a 12% unemployment rate.

        1. You don’t sell slavery, silly.

          1. Fish are more than happy to swallow a hook so long as it’s properly baited.

            1. Evidently you don’t fish for blue gills. Bastards are always stealing my bait.

              1. Even after the dynamite?

              2. Use a #8 or smaller hook. At least it’ll give you the satisfaction of catching the little buggers.

        1. You’re my new favorite.

  8. $5.5 billion (over ten years!) for “youth jobs initiatives.

    AKA conscription

    1. An ex of mine worked in a museum in the ’70s during the Carter equivalent of this. They got a bunch of city kids, paid by the government, who were going to “help” at the museum. Of course, it was a disaster.

      1. Did the magic Egyptian radiation leak from the mommy’s coffin and bring the exhibits,to life?

  9. President Obama and supporters of Obamacare insisted Americans were dying in the streets as if it were Victorian England, because there wasn’t enough government intervention in healthcare or whatever.

    Sooooooo, when did Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch decide that Reason needed to be more like Jezebel?

    Can I get a puhleeze in the next Robby Soave article?

    1. I mean, ugh….I can’t even…

    2. Wow. I mean – really?

    3. It’s literally killing me.

      1. I know, right?

    4. Needs more GIFs and swearing to be a Jezebel post.

  10. So, if we just give over the entire US economy, Utopia will dawn? Honestly, I’m surprised it hit 100% of non-government GDP so on the head.

  11. If you say “I want to make the US like Sweden” that sounds good, even if what it really means is “I want to make the whole country as poor as Mississippi”.

    Vonnegut was spouting off on this 40 years ago:

    So let’s divide up the wealth more fairly than we have divided it up so far. Let’s make sure that everybody has enough to eat, and a decent place to live, and medical help when he needs it. Let’s stop spending money on weapons, which don’t work anyway, thank God, and spend money on each other. It isn’t moonbeams to talk of modest plenty for all. They have it in Sweden. We can have it here. Dwight David Eisenhower once pointed out that Sweden, with its many utopian programs, had a high rate of alcoholism and suicide and youthful unrest. Even so, I would like to see America try socialism. If we start drinking heavily and killing ourselves, and if our children start acting crazy, we can go back to good old Free Enterprise again.

    http://jsomers.net/vonnegut-1970-commencement.html

    Funny writer, though

    1. The level of cognitive dissonance required for him to have written this on one hand, and to have written Harrison Bergeron on the other is simply staggering.

      1. One explanation I read for that was that his story was meant as a parody of what critics of socialism believe about socialism.

        1. Jesus… really?

          Too bad he’s not around to see it all come true.

    2. “They have it in Sweden.”

      Milton Friedman once said that there is no poverty among Swedish Americans. The fact that people of Swedish descent are middle class no matter what country they’re living in tells me that there’s something about Swedes that leads to success and that this is unrelated to their social democracy. Otherwise, why would all the Swedes living in Minnesota actually be richer than the Swedes in Sweden?

      1. The same argument, perhaps with some merit, perhaps not, could be made about the poverty among black populations all over the world.

        1. Unfortunately it could. I try not to draw too many conclusions from that, though, until there’s enough evidence…you know, for obvious reasons.

          Africa does have very rapid economic growth going on right now, though, so high poverty among Africans could be coming to an end.

          1. Also, Swedes were crazy murderous psychopaths who weren’t particularly rich pretty much until the 1800s. As a result, I’d argue that success among people of Swedish descent is mostly the result of Swedish culture which developed in the 19th century, rather than anything related to genetics.

            1. I’m assuming the 19th century is when they became multi-cultural and diverse right?

            2. I thought we called this the “protestant work ethic”?

              1. “I thought we called this the “protestant work ethic”?”

                +1, the Vikings weren’t rich.

                1. The Swedes weren’t very rich even after conversion to protestantism. They were a protestant nation at the time of the 30 years war and they were a military power but were much poorer than a lot of the other European powers. Sweden actually has a very similar history to Japan, in that they were a backwards, stagnant rural society that rapidly industrialized between the 1860’s and WWI.

                  1. They also had the good sense to stay out of WW I and WW II, and had pretty much the only economy standing in Europe after 1945.

            3. Africa does have very rapid economic growth going on right now, though, so high poverty among Africans could be coming to an end.

              Some parts do. But when your starting part is near zero, someone chucking a walnut over the border is basically 100% growth.

              Africa does have very rapid economic growth going on right now, though, so high poverty among Africans could be coming to an end.

              Some parts do. But when your starting part is near zero, someone chucking a walnut over the border is basically 100% growth.

              Don’t count out the genetic arguments just yet. There’s a lot of data out there to suggest that genetics form the foundation of our cognitive thought styles, patterns and capabilities. Cognitive differences between ethnic groups has been observed. And I don’t mean like a white versus black thing, I mean there have been differences observed between Flems and Danes et cetera. See the work of Charles Murray for more info that.

              And it makes intuitive sense. The reason I’m typing this message out to you right now, instead of the banana on my desk, is owed in no small part to our genetic differences. Our physical brains are built from genetic codes passed down to us, of course there’s variation, just like with all our other body parts.

              1. You know who else made “scientific” arguments in favor of inherent racial differences?

                1. You know who else made “scientific” arguments in favor of inherent racial differences?

                  Warren Tay and Benard Sachs?

                2. Margaret Sanger?

              2. Junk science bullshit alert.

                  1. Know it’s not, it’s called ‘not being a racist’. The onus is on you to provide some real science backing your statement, not quackery.

                    1. Know it’s not, it’s called ‘not being a racist’. The onus is on you to provide some real science backing your statement, not quackery.

                      I cited the work of Charles Murray and linked to an easy-to-digest interview he gave very recently. The anus is on you to bother looking at it instead of calling everyone a racist, as you are wont to do.

              3. I mean there have been differences observed between Flems and Danes

                I’d like to know more about this. Could you point me to any studies or the like where I could get information on sample, effect size, etc.?

                1. I’d like to know more about this. Could you point me to any studies or the like where I could get information on sample, effect size, etc.?

                  This is a link to an informational page, I can’t link you to the paperback book on my bookshelf unfortunately but here is a bibliography of sorts.

                  And check out the link I posted further upthread which leads to an interview he gave recently discussing the topic.

                  Also here’s this book review by Charles Murray, reviewing a book by Nicholas Wade which deals with this topic. (note: I haven’t read Wade’s book, the review has some useful tidbits though)

                  I would recommend starting with the youtube interview to get the broad strokes and then go from there.

                  1. This is craniometry 2.0, and it’s just as worthless. Murray’s ‘research’ has gotten plenty of critiques.

                    The Mismeasure of Man

                    1. And you went straight to the critiques of work you haven’t even examined because you believe what you want. I’m not trying to convince you of anything Cyto, I can’t reason you out of a position you didn’t reason yourself into.

              4. genetics form the foundation of our cognitive thought styles, patterns and capabilities

                I find it amusing that a lot of people who put forward this argument turn around and claim that homosexuality is totally a choice. Not saying you – just that I see it a lot.

                1. I’m honestly not sure of what to think about homosexuality in regards to genetics, there seems to be evidence going both directions. Similar to this genetics of intelligence kerfuffle.

                  I’m open to the evidence. The people who aren’t open are the ones who are hellbent on declaring that all differences between ethnic groups are purely imaginary, which just seems absurd. If different ethnic groups can have evolved more specialized lungs to breath thin air or larger large intestines to stay hydrated longer, why is it so far fetched that different ethnic groups would have differentiated brains with different cognitive specialties? It’s as though we’re allowed to acknowledge that evolution and natural selection differentiated every single part of our bodies, EXCEPT the brain, because that would be racist or something.

          2. I have a friend who is a 65 year old Jamaican woman.

            She is part of a very vibrant church community which is engaged in a great deal of communication with a black church in Kenya. They’ve been helping Kenyans emigrate to Mass, and sending charity stuff over there.

            She says that the difference between Black Americans and Africans is pretty startling; the Africans are far more motivated, less lazy (her words), and entrepreneurial.

            And judging from the 6 year old girl in one African family who has twice cut me off on her little bike as I am driving through the neighborhood, utterly fearless.

            1. That 6yr old has appointments to keep, stop being an obstacle, granpa.

            2. She says that the difference between Black Americans and Africans is pretty startling; the Africans are far more motivated, less lazy (her words), and entrepreneurial.

              Thing is, those stupid Africans don’t know that the entire system is set up to oppress black people, so they go on to get an education, work hard, start businesses, and be successful. If they knew that the system was rigged against blacks then they wouldn’t bother.

        2. “black populations all over the world.”

          Bzzt. Black immigrants into America are doing just fine.

          1. Immigrants are a self-selecting group. The best and brightest tend to leave potential limiting environments at higher rates than the stupid and indolent.

          2. The difference between black immigrants and US born blacks is pretty interesting. This is from WaPo:

            “In terms of socioeconomic profiles, foreign-born blacks have a median age of 42, compared with 29 for U.S.-born blacks. Twenty-six percent have a college education, compared with 19 percent of native-born blacks, and black immigrants are less likely to live in poverty (20 percent vs. 28 percent) and have higher incomes. About 48 percent of black immigrants who are 18 or older are also married, compared with 28 percent of blacks born here, a finding that is likely related to the higher median age among immigrants.”

            I’d like to see differences in out of wedlock births since that’s a serious problem in American inner cities.

        3. A good part of that black population is living under kleptocratic regimes that intentionally keep their people in poverty. Transplant those people to someplace with more opportunity and they tend to do quite well.

        4. One could say the same thing about the entirety of humanity for over 99% of its existence. And while it’s definitely overly simplistic to simply say “colonialism and slavery,” it’s not as if black populations have competed on an equal level playing field everywhere in recent history.

          1. it’s not as if black populations have competed on an equal level playing field everywhere in recent history.

            Yes yes the world hates blackness or something. But maybe, just maybe, there’s some reason, cultural or otherwise, that explains why blacks were in a position to be enslaved by Europeans and Arabs and not the ones generally to do the enslaving of Arabs and Europeans.

      2. Hitler?

        1. Let’s compromise. Albert Speer?

      3. Thing is, they don’t have it in Sweden as much as they used two over 25 years ago. Their experiment imploded around 1990. They were forced to reverse course and Sweden’s welfare state has been gradually but inexorably shrinking since.

      4. Self-selecting immigrant populations would presumably have more risk-taking and entrepreneurial tendencies than the average Swede who stays put in the icy wasteland they call home. Maybe that’s balanced out by other factors that also cause emigration like poverty and absence of education, but my experience with first and second-gen immigrants today tends to make me think that they’re the creme de la creme of the ass-busting, entrepreneurial poor of their respective countries.

    3. Sweden has one of the highest rates of rape in the civilized (ha, ha) world. Is that what socialists really want? Lots and lots of Scandinavia-style socialized rape and patriarchy?

      Then there’s the uncomfortable fact that Scandinavian countries are roughly are economically and socially free as the United States as a whole and would fit very comfortably into the range of urban, blue states in terms of their social policies and outsized predilection toward cartels and controls. It’s not like Sweden is some sort of Marxist worker’s paradise; it’s a much smaller, less hospitable version of New York.

      With much more rape and less ethnic diversity, natch.

      1. The odd thing is that self-described socialists keep pointing at the Scandinavian countries as an example to emulate, when the Scandinavian countries are not actually all that socialist – they’re just welfare-state capitalist economies. They also ignore that those countries are, by and large, poorer than the US, although in their eyes it’s a feature and not a bug that everybody makes $40,000 and everybody pays 50% income taxes and VAT on top of that.

        1. And Norway is the only one of those countries richer than America and that’s because of its oil industry. So the one rich country in far northern Europe is rich because they’re evil bastards contributing to global warming.

          1. Norway may be richer than Americans, but Norweigans aren’t. They’re poor. Europeans in general are just poor. Norway’s government gets all the money, and the oil price plunge has sent them scrambling. Cut a quite a bit from the sovereign wealth fund. Capitalism isn’t just generating wealth, it and fracking are fucking over welfare statism.

            1. Norway’s per capita GDP is $50,000 higher than America’s. Even with their high taxes, their large government doesn’t change the fact that they are an immensely wealthy country. They’re rich as hell because of their oil. Norwegians absolutely are rich, by any measure.

        2. The people who do that are social democrats who call themselves “socialists.” Hardcore, “collectivize all means of production” revolutionary socialists despise that they get conflated with the former group or that people view Scandinavian countries as socialist models.

  12. Fortunately, the Fed’s ability to blow bubbles of ever-increasing amplitude is nearly exhausted. Peak debt is going to be glorious.

  13. “… working poor …”

    The second most vapid, meaningless progressive catchphrase, only narrowly edged out by, “living wage.”

    At least “working poor” might after some logical gymnastics and some frantic goalpost moving, be able to be construed to have some sort of objective meaning.

    1. No, “working poor” actually has a meaning. It’s those poor people who work as opposed to those poor people who are supported on the tax dollars of others. This is a very important distinction and it annoys me when liberals conflate people on welfare with actual poor people.

      1. The term “working poor” is supposed to conjure up an image of “non-working rich” and stir feelings of envy and resentment against those rich people who exploit poor workers.

      2. Agreed, Tonio.

      3. Well there is overlap. A lot of working people do receive welfare in some form, and welfare alone isn’t making too many people rich. Still though, all these categories shouldn’t be conflated as if everyone in them is in the same situation.

    2. Inequality, man! It’s not fair that working people are poor, when rich people don’t work at all! They just sit back as their wealth magically grows in our corporate capitalist economy, while the poor work for them! That’s what capitalism means: if you’ve got money it grows, and if you don’t have money you work for a capitalist! Aaaauuugghhh!

    3. Social Justice

    4. Working poor often is equal parts bad luck and poor decision making. I had a friend who had clawed her way out of being a nineteen year old teen mom by becoming an L&D nurse. Married a guy she was dating after he hospitalized himself twice from bike wrecks without carrying insurance, then bought a house and had a kid with him. Then, inevitably divorced. She worked really hard, but just didn’t understand why she should care about $100 here or $50 there. And she was always right at the edge of broke (or broke). That’s working poor. But you can’t fix a person who won’t care about money except when they are short of it. They are going to be poor unless they are damn lucky or marry someone who cares about money.

    5. working poor = taxed poor.

    1. The lack of self-awareness is stunning, but unsurprising.

    2. Commie popes gonna commie.

    3. Baby-making is Catholic 101. This is nothing new.

      1. So is guilt-tripping.

        1. Oh, so now we have to step up the guilt?!

          /Jewish mothers

    4. I wonder if this is a preview to an announcement of his lovechild….

    5. Wait until Ehrlich and the Church of ZPG hear about this!

  14. So Sanders will raise taxes on middle class families so that he can “give” free stuff to the rich.

    Sanders’ proposals show a total lack of priorities, and are divorced from progressives’ self-identification as compassionate people who care for the poor

    This is slightly disingenuous.

    This is the logical result, but not Sanders’ intention. His intention is that he raises taxes on everyone with a job to pay for healthcare for the poor. The fact that Bill Gates gets free healthcare (and childcare) is just a side effect. The fact is that Sanders knows that there are far fewer Bill Gates’ in the world than there are poor people. So Bill Gates’ drain on the system will be far less than his input, so no harm no foul.

    1. So I might as well support Bernie. Right now I’m getting fucked on taxes and get nothing out of it. At least this way I get “free healthcare”.

      1. And it will be worth every penny.

        1. I’ve already bought the ticket, might as well ride the ride … into oblivion.

      2. Maybe you should get an abortion. Just to feel part of These United States.

        1. Hmm…maybe I’ll get Taco Bell for dinner, at least it will feel like I had an abortion.

          1. Whatever you order, make sure to get a side of nacho cheese. Every item on the Taco Bell menu is vastly improved by nacho cheese.

            1. I add sour cream to everything.

              1. Get both. Oh, and the mini cinnabons.

                1. You’re trying to fatten me up. For what? I have no idea, but I’ll be watching you.

                2. Keep the bad ideas a flowin.

                  1. “Bad ideas a-flowin'” is a pretty accurate description of anyone’s GI tract after eating Taco Bell.

                    1. Oddly enough, it pretty much describes Sander’s platform too!

        2. Can I get Bernie Sanders aborted?

          1. If you can cram him into your uterus I don’t see why not.

    2. He also gets the satisfaction of knowing that Bill Gates can’t get better healthcare than a poor person, which seems to be just as (if not more) important to progressives as ensuring that the poor get healthcare.

      1. I would like to see him try to stop Bill Gates from getting better healthcare than a poor person.

        1. Canada tried… but failed.

      2. Bill Gates will just go to some foreign country that hasn’t taken a shit on their healthcare system.

      3. There has never been a communist or socialist country where their elites (nomenklatura) didn’t have much better healthcare.

      4. I’ve seen people standing at podiums (podia?) say this very thing. “There’s something reassuring knowing that a rich guy is going to stand in the same line as a poor person to get that knee surgery. They’ll have the same delays and runarounds as everyone else.” I shit you knot. Wait. I think that was in Sicko. A guy was talking about the Canadian system.

  15. “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

    ? Thomas Sowell

    1. They recognize the scarcity, they just intend to take what they want from teh evul one percents.

    2. Economics is the study of how to reconcile unlimited wants with limited resources.

      This is literally built right into every microeconomic model. We solve the equation: “Maximize Utility given the following constraints ….”

      Amazing that this core principle of economics doesn’t resonate down to the public schools. Wait. Not “amazing”. “Predictable”.

      1. Economics is all about trade-offs. Politics is all about something-for-nothing.

      2. Bear witness to the miracle that is macro-economics…

  16. President Obama and supporters of Obamacare insisted Americans were dying in the streets as if it were Victorian England,

    For what it’s worth, the people alive in the Victorian era were better off at that time than any other period preceding it.

  17. Look on the bright side: Under single payer, your doctor will be an armed agent of the state. S/he will now be able to shoot you on the spot and claim “He lunged for my stethoscope, I feared for my life.” And he can still bill the state for the office visit.

    1. Plus, all of your private medical information will be stored in a single centralized location that the government will never ever access without your knowledge or permission. Nor will it be a prime target for hackers because the security will be top-notch government quality.

      1. +1 OPM Sub-Contractor

      2. Gee, I thought the right to privacy was the penumbra cited in SCOTUS decisions in Griswold and Roe v Wade.

    2. I can see politicians declaring doctors’ orders to be the equivalent of lawful orders.

      “You better back off the salt and add some more fiber to your diet, or the nice people at the local jail will do it for you.”

  18. With a big Republican majority in Congress I’d like to think that they’d block all this nonsense. But when I see how often they’ve worked with Obama to shove this crap down our throats, I’m not so sure. Then again, it might be entertaining to see how bag things can get…

    1. “how bag things can get”

      It will be a brand new bag.

    2. The Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats. They’ll both spend freely as long as we can issue bonds at record low interest rates and then hand out goodies to preferred constituencies.

      Our best chance to to go broke and do it quickly. Embrace the suck.

  19. “Sanders promises chicken in every pot.”

    Or do I have the wrong Sanders?

    1. I thought it was an excise tax on every pot and a carbon tax on every chicken?

  20. At least with a Trump/Sanders contest we will finally get to witness the natural end result of a welfare state, xenophobia and fighting over spoils.

    1. Just like an alcoholic or drug addict, we need to hit bottom and admit we’ve got a problem before healing can begin. JK. Healing will never begin; we’ll endlessly finger point and blame pass.

      1. Wrong healing will begin. Canada did it in the 1990s.

      2. Healing will never begin; we’ll endlessly finger point and blame pass.

        So true. First, if it’s between Sanders and Trump, Trump has it in the bag because a socialist presidential candidate doesn’t have a chance in hell. Secondly, despite Trump being cronyist, and protectionist (referring to trade) anything he does will be portrayed as a failure of capitalism because of the GOP label. ….leading to the next candidate being even more of a cronyist douchebag. repeat indefinitely

  21. You can try to explain this to Bernie supporters but at best you’ll get some hand-waiving about the “multiplier effect” of all the people who have money and will spend it and thus grow the economy.

    It’s astoundingly magical thinking akin to plugging the power strip into itself and declaring you’ve discovered a perpetual power source.

    1. “plugging the power strip into itself and declaring you’ve discovered a perpetual power source.”

      You mean that doesn’t work?

    2. actually, what i get from them is that when you raise taxes on the rich to 75-90%, they will invest a lot of that money rather than choose to pay the taxes because they’re so punitive. those investments will cause an explosion of r&d and infrastructure improvements that will lift the middle class to unprecedented heights. according to them, that’s how this country was built and then reagan ruined everything and we’ve been learning the wrong lessons ever since.

      1. what i get from them is that when you raise taxes on the rich to 75-90%, they will invest a lot of that money

        Only in unicorn-fairy land where the capital gains tax rate won’t also be raised.

        those investments will cause an explosion of r&d and infrastructure improvements that will lift the middle class to unprecedented heights

        The cognitive dissonance is stunning. I thought when the rich “invest”, they only give it to other rich people? And that Wall Street is evil?

        I’m also not entirely clear on how the vaunted “working class” is going to benefit from all of this “investment”. Re-enacting Sherman’s March to the Sea through someone’s disposable income is going to put a bit of a dent in consumption and thus non-R&D employment (i.e., most of it).

      2. Weird way to justify 90 pct tax rates

      3. I assume you must be a BS supporter. Anyway he seems intent on limiting on how much wealth one can accrue. Knowing this….why would the rich want to invest?

        Can you explain how you have determined this will lead to an r&d explosion and infrastructure improvements knowing that these billionaires make their money from investments to begin with?

        in what way did reagan ruin everything? no disrespect but it sounds like you are just making shit up. what wrong lessons might those be?

    3. Great analogy. Think I’m gonna use that.

  22. Witness the strawmen galore. It’s almost like balloon-juice is populated by progressive versions of John.

    Because white middle class people fear the working class “blahs” and resent the upper class elite (who they see as godless pro-abortion/pro-gay/pro-alien bastards). They are amazingly insecure in their positions?afraid that the government is gonna take their stuff and give it to the lower class (and that there will be a reasoning) and that the elite are constantly looking for more ways to screw the middle class/send jobs overseas. It is not a fear/resentment directed simply up or down?.it is omnidirectional.

    1. Pot, meet kettle

      When it comes to how the right wing base feels about economic issues, I think the bottom line is that most of them have no idea what the fuck is going on, and don’t care to, either. To the extent that they understand it, it’s in terms of vague generalities that speak to the things they do care about (identity politics) ? “blacks on welfare are picking your pocket, and politically correct liberals are letting them!” “Hispanic illegals are taking your jobs, and politically correct liberals are letting them!”

    2. “They are amazingly insecure in their positions?afraid that the government is gonna take their stuff and give it to the lower class (and that there will be a reasoning) and that the elite are constantly looking for more ways to screw the middle class/send jobs overseas.”

      Well…the government will take their stuff and give it to the poor and will also help the elite screw the middle class. I like that at no point does he provide any reason that this is irrational fear. He just claims it to be paranoid, even though the government pretty much admits this is the plan.

      The rich don’t have enough money to provide all the services leftists want to give the poor. So where’s the money going to come from? Massive taxes on the middle class, just like they have in Europe, probably partially through consumption taxes like the implementation of a VAT. Meanwhile, cronies get immensely rich by having the state give them kickbacks for various goods and services no one actually wants. See: Al Gore becoming incredibly wealthy through green job boondoggles.

      If the middle class is worried the poor will rob them and the rich will fuck them, then this is a rational worry based on the stated goals of the politicians the slobbering morons at Balloon Juice doubtlessly support.

      1. I don’t disagree with you. I’m drawing more attention to the first sentence which purports to describe their irrational fears and hatred of the OTHERS. Which he then proceeds to nullify with the rest of the statement.

        They’re an odd bunch over there.

        1. Of course, they are consistently outdone by DU

      2. I think they will square this circle by simply redefining “the rich” to be anyone making over $50,000 a year.

      3. The rich don’t have enough money to provide all the services leftists want to give the poor.

        Moreover, the rich have the ability to adjust their taxable cash flows to avoid taxation in a way the middle class doesn’t. It’s pretty unimpressive to say you’re rich and are willing to pay more, when you know your tax return is adjustable so that you won’t.

        Also, the rich have access to the system in a way the middle class doesn’t. If someone stands to benefit from increased government spending, it’s hardly generous of them to demand a tax and spend regime. A guy willing to pay an extra $5,000 in taxes to get a $5 million contract isn’t doing any favors.

    3. afraid that the government is gonna take their stuff and give it to the lower class

      So… this isn’t happening?

  23. Even as he rails against “income inequality,” Sanders is promising to pay for the healthcare and education of all Americans, even its richest

    This beautifully illustrates his true motives. It’s not about raising people up, it’s about eliminating the possibility of the rich to raise themselves up.

    1. It’s funny how socialists will on the one hand lament about how those profit-seeking corporations will do anything to make a profit because all they care about is making more and more money, but on the other hand dismiss the notion that taxing away all their profits will take away their incentive to innovate and create wealth.

      1. It’s really apparent when the topic is tax exiles: corporations are greedy soulless entities because they’ll send American jobs overseas, and hide their earnings in overseas tax shelters, just so they can avoid paying their fair share…but if we tax rich people and rich companies at high rates, they won’t do anything like move overseas – that’s just crazy talk from libertarians!

        1. Look. Taxing the rich and the corporations is not intended to cause them to move overseas, so how could it possibly happen?

          1. And if those evul kkkorporations DO take their jobs overseas, that just means the socprogs were right about how evul they were. Win/win!

          2. A year or two ago Chris Matthews literally said on his TV show that if we raise taxes, people will just work harder to make up the difference. Boy, I had a good laugh over that one.

        2. They know what to do about that: “Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.” (K. Marx, 4th Plank of Communist Manifesto.)

  24. “If $15 trillion over ten years is a reasonable cost to solve the “problem” of healthcare in America, it’s impossible to argue that without at least implicitly blaming President Obama’s contributions.”

    Well, we had to pass it for the idiots to see what was in it.

    Smart people somehow manage not to stupidly shoot themselves in the foot.

  25. the paper spoke to his policy director, Warren Gunnells, who called the $15 trillion number for a single-payer system alone a fair estimate.

    Which means multiply the $15 trillion number by a factor of 2 or 3.

  26. I want a new political party. It should be called the PhuckNoes. Whatever a politician suggests should be responded to with “Fuck No.”

    1. And we need a strict two-term limit: one term in office, one term in prison.

      1. All laws have a expiration date of one year, and Congress can only pass one law a year.

  27. How is $750 million nearly enough to make public college free? I think someone dropped a zero or two.

  28. My friends are posting this hand-waving “Don’t look at the man behind the curtain! It really won’t cost $18 trillion!” dreck from WaPo.

    So let’s say that Bernie Sanders became president and passed a single-payer health care system of some sort. And let’s say that it did indeed cost $15 trillion over 10 years. Would that be $15 trillion in new money we’d be spending? No, it would be money that we’re already spending on health care, but now it would go through government. If I told you I could cut your health insurance premiums by $1,000 and increase your taxes by $1,000, you wouldn’t have lost $1,000. You’d be in the same place you are now.

    […]

    Since Sanders hasn’t released a health care plan yet, we can’t make any assessment of the true cost of his plan, because there is no plan. Maybe what he wants to do would cost more than $15 trillion, or maybe it would cost less. But given the experience of the rest of the world, there’s a strong likelihood that over the long run, a single-payer plan would save America money. Again, you may think single-payer is a bad idea for any number of reasons, but “It’ll be too expensive!” is probably the least valid objection you could make.

    Fuck the 1500 character limit. Just click on the damn article.

    1. “a single-payer plan would save America money.”

      Veteran’s Affairs Care for everyone.

      1. A lot of people before the last couple of years would tell me how great VA healthcare was, and how we should have single-payer healthcare because we’d all get healthcare as great as the VA.

        Interestingly enough, none of the people who told me that were veterans. Also, nobody’s told me that recently.

      2. You could do this with any sector you want.

        We could eliminate your grocery budget by giving everyone free food! If I told you I could cut your grocery bill by $100 and increase your taxes by $100, you wouldn’t have lost $100. You’d be in the same place you are now.

        Nobody will notice that the only food we end up getting is rice and beans.

    2. Look, Bernie will bend the cost curve with his awesome biceps. He’ll force that bitch to bend over and hold that shit medical inflation to a reasonable rate. Get with the program, punk.

      Why can’t you feel the Bern?

      1. Bernie’s a socialist. He thinks he can just impose wage and price controls to bend that cost curve. And he’s right. Too bad about all those other geezers who are going to have to do without health care, though.

    3. If I told you I could cut your health insurance premiums by $1,000 and increase your taxes by $1,000, you wouldn’t have lost $1,000. You’d be in the same place you are now.

      Except for the part where I get to decide how to spend my money. But now I’m just being antisocial.

    4. If I told you I could cut your health insurance premiums by $1,000 and increase your taxes by $1,000, you wouldn’t have lost $1,000. You’d be in the same place you are now.

      and so…why bother?

  29. do you know why this man is smiling?

    “I haven’t told them about their turn in the barrel.”

  30. I wonder how much extra Secret Service protection a President Bernie Sanders would need. A lot, I would assume.

  31. You know, a progressive friend just pointed out something to me.

    President Sanders + Republican Congress = Two-year long government shutdown.

    I think I might have to support him now.

    1. Eh, Republicans will have to find their misplaced spines, first.

    2. Between the GOP’s penchant for screwing it up and executive power, too risky. Hell the xenophobes might just give Bernie what he wants in exchange for the wall.

  32. A lot of people here take it as a given that Corbyn and Bernie signal the rise of the left. I am not so sure. Is a rush to the extreme end with no regard for political reality a really healthy sign for a movement? Is the increasing shrillness a good sign? Corbyn might not make it to the next election. his MPs HATE him. He got in because the loons that have always been around were inspired to buy a three pound membership and loon it up. The anti-gay marriage movement was at its hardest and hottest before it basically flopped and died. Maybe the political equivalent of the boom-bust chart, and the left is at the top of the charted cycle.

    1. Bernie could signal a shift to the left in America, but Corbyn does not signal a shift to the left in Britain. The Tories and UKIP combined for 50% of the vote. The Lib Dems got another 8% so the actual leftist parties (Labour, Green, and SNP) only got like 40% of the vote. They got beaten badly in the popular vote by people who went and voted for various right-wing parties.

      Then they went and elected a leader WAY to the left of where the party was when they got beaten. That doesn’t seem to signal strength, it signals that they went bugfuck crazy after a bad loss and fled even farther from what voters actually seem to want.

      1. Yeah this. I don’t think Bernie signals much better it seems to be exactly the same thing happening as what you described in your last paragraph, except that Bernie has far less mass appeal and probably won’t beat Hillary.

        1. Charles C.W. Cooke pointed out that since the 1970’s, Labour has only won 3 elections and they were all from moderate Blairite Labour Parties. They got consistently steamrolled back in the 80’s when trying to run left.

          That will likely continue.

      2. LibDems are a left party by any sane standard. Even in UK, they are considered “progressive” and should rename themselves Social Democrats. As I say, party that wants journalists to be licenced by government cannot lay any claim to liberalism.
        And, it may pain me, but half the votes UKIP got were from old school Labour voters. People who are leftists, but not of the progressive/SJW stream. Add in shittiness of Cameron conservatives ($15 minium wage!) and it’s pretty sad. Worst part is, Corbyn was elected on a back of a huge wave of support from people who weren’t Labour members before, but joined the party to elect him. If Conservatives fuck up, he could end up as a PM, and lead UK into another lost decade like the 70s. Hopefully there’s another Thatcher growing up right now.

  33. There are several key points that Sanders has mentioned in his campaign that The Wall Street Journal fails to mention in their uninformed article. He has never said anything about raising taxes on the middle class, only on billionaries and wealthy corporations that already have tax loopholes that give them privilage of paying little to NO taxes in some cases. Those that have tax havens in the Bahamas, Cayman Islands and other places. Secondly, the money that would be spent to provide two years of free schooling for everyone, he has repeatedly stated will come from taxing Wall Street speculation. Just as you would tax gambling, so would there be a tax on Wall Street “betting”. I’m surprised that the Wall Street Journal of all things failed to notice this point. But then again, this comes right after a Hillary Super Pac started attacking Sanders, so I wouldn’t doubt that there is some affiliation here. Until now the media was largely ignoring or laughing at Sanders, but not that it has finally dawned on Clinton that she has a real challenge with him, they are ramping up their attacks. I encourage everybody to look thoroughly into issues themselves and not just accept what any one media outlet is spoon-feeding them. Of course the wealthy media elites are going to hate Sanders… he is not beholden to them so he can call them out of their corruption. Most mainstream television media is owned by 6 main Billionaire corporations.

    1. Wrong.

      ” He has never said anything about raising taxes on the middle class, only on billionaries and wealthy corporations that already have tax loopholes that give them privilage of paying little to NO taxes in some cases.”

      The fact that he hasn’t said he wants to raise taxes on the middle class is irrelevant. His plan would necessitate higher taxes on the middle classes. All the European countries who have the policies Bernie wants have very high taxes on the middle class, particularly through consumption taxes. As a result, if Bernie hasn’t said he wants to raise taxes on the middle class, all it means is that he’s not smart enough to understand the implications of his own policies. There will be increased taxes on the middle class, even if Bernie wants to pretend otherwise.

      “I’m surprised that the Wall Street Journal of all things failed to notice this point. But then again, this comes right after a Hillary Super Pac started attacking Sanders, so I wouldn’t doubt that there is some affiliation here.”

      You think the Wall Street Journal is Team Hillary? You realize the Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, right? Why would they be running cover for Hillary Clinton?

      1. Furthermore:

        “Secondly, the money that would be spent to provide two years of free schooling for everyone, he has repeatedly stated will come from taxing Wall Street speculation.”

        When you tax something, as a general rule that money shifts to another area. What that means is that the type of people currently speculating on Wall Street would likely speculate on a) stocks in other countries so that America wouldn’t be able to grab that money or b) would just start spending their money in some other fashion. As a result, a tax on Wall Street speculation cannot be used to fund something long term because that tax would slowly dry up as people shifted their money to sectors that are now comparatively more profitable. This is the same reason smoking taxes can’t be used to fund anything – over time, people stop buying cigarettes because of high smoking taxes and the revenue from those taxes vanishes. You’d run into the same problem with Bernie’s ‘tax speculation’ plan.

        1. I don’t know if that logic is sound. Have you ever known anyone who quit smoking because the taxes were too high? I certainly haven’t.

          1. That’s anectdotal nonesense, even the slightest look at the numbers would prove that taxation leads to lower consumption. Even your friends on the left would agree here, as this is often the justification for many taxes on “bad” things (if drinks, plastic bags, gas, etc.). This effect is even greater in the financial sector though, as while it could be difficult to quit smoking, it really ain’t hard to change your behavior if it’s losing you money, when the goal of your behavior in the first place is to make money.

          2. An estimated 50% off all cigarettes smoked in NYC are bought off the black market. Ask yourself why.

      2. Bingo he never speaks to what the scandinavian disposable income is and how high their tax rates are on the middle class.

    2. There is so much false or misleading information in here, I don’t even know where to begin.

      1. Hey I don’t know if anybody has noticed, because the media certainly hasn’t been discussing it, but even Trump wants to institute Universal Healthcare and raise taxes on billionaires.

        1. Read a little more on this site, we’ve been making fun of Trump for this exact reason a bunch recently. He is a restrictionist crony moron, and is now getting support from the “small government” party. As the joke goes, Trump is for old white people who don’t know jack shit about economics, while Sanders is for stupid college kids who don’t know jack shit about economics.

        2. “even Trump wants [something]”

          … does not mean much, given that Trump is about as libertarian as Sanders.

    3. Do you think if you throw around the word “billionaire” enough times, people won’t notice how greedy you are?

      1. If Corey is so greedy, then how come he’s not a billionaire? Huh? Huh?

        1. Why settle for being just a billionaire when he could be a trillionaire? We’re just a few good socialists away from such economic success!

    4. You know who else went on and on about billions and billions?

      1. McDonald’s?

      2. Carl Sagan?

    5. He will have to fleece the middle class to pay for these programs.

    6. He is beholden to unions…not much better than being shills for corporations

    7. He is beholden to unions…not much better than being shills for corporations

    8. Total income in the united states is about $11 trillion per year. According to a common meme, the top 1% make 25% of this, or about $2.8 trillion. Assuming Sanders proposals actually only cost $18 trillion over ten years, you would need to tax the top 1% at a rate of 64%. That’s not the top marginal rate, that is the total effective rate.

      If I started taking 64% of everything you earned, how would you react? If someone else came along and whispered in your ear that, for a modest fee of only 5% of what you earn, they could convince me to add enough exceptions and loopholes that you’d only have to part with, say, 20% of what you earn, would you take that person on up on it?

      1. Just to follow up on this: the average income of someone in the top 1% is $717,000. Their effective tax rate is 33.6% and the top marginal rate is 39.6%.

        To get a total effective tax rate of 64% for the average 1%-er, you would have to increase the marginal rate on the top 3 tax brackets: a 100% tax on all income above $406,750 (up from 39.6%), a 100% tax on all income above $405,100 (up from 35%), and a 47% tax on all income above $186,350 (up from 33%). If you go with a less draconian tax of 90% on all income above $405,100, then you need a 60% tax on the third-highest bracket.

        Of course, you aren’t just increasing taxes on the 1% at that point.

        (These are for single filer).

      2. If I started taking 64% of everything you earned, how would you react?

        I’d kill you.

        Bernie might want to ponder that.

    9. Politicians never campaign on their intention to raise taxes on their constituents. Bernie doesn’t count the 1% among his constituency, so he’s perfectly comfortable in promising to raise their taxes as an appeal to envy. But a $1.5 trillion expansion in the US social welfare state is not going to be funded by the 1%. To all but the most innumerate, it is obvious that the brunt of increased taxes is going to bear upon everybody who still has a job that pays above minimum wage.

    10. Corey Wayne|9.15.15 @ 3:49PM|#
      “There are several key points that Sanders has mentioned in his campaign that The Wall Street Journal fails to mention in their uninformed article. He has never said anything about raising taxes on the middle class, only on billionaries and wealthy corporations that already have tax loopholes that give them privilage of paying little to NO taxes in some cases. Those that have tax havens in the Bahamas, Cayman Islands and other places….”

      Hey, Corey, you left out ‘the jooooooooze!’
      And there’s a special on tin foil hats, aisle 6, but you’ll have to enter a Walmart!

  34. and also conveniently left out is how he’ll pay for the stuff we’re financing with debt NOW. i like sanders a lot, but his worldview is what keeps me from getting too close. it’s not enough to find a candidate that is honest, etc….you have to get the policy right. he doesn’t.

    1. I’ve said it before – Sanders sticks to his principles, it’s just that his principles are wrong and awful.

  35. “in an attempt to impose a “single payer” (the government) healthcare system in the United States, something Republican frontrunner Donald Trump says he’s supported other countries doing”

    And something Hilary tried to impose back when she was first lady.

    Yes Ed you have Trump on the brain syndrome.

    Here let me explain why:

    And while initial denial by virtually everyone, especially the so-called pundits none of whom anticipated Trump’s unprecedented surge in the polls, turned slowly into much publicized anger, now comes the bargaining phase

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..ential-run

    You see you totally failed to predict trump let alone understand why he is so popular. And for some inexplicable reason this sends you into a batshit insane rage.

    Now i am a libertarian having lost every fucking election in the history of the world I have no investment in trump or his opponents. So obviously if you were a libertarian you would feel the same way….but you don’t so you are not a libertarian…so please fuck off and get a job at gawker already.

    1. “And for some inexplicable reason this sends you into a batshit insane rage.”

      The irony…the lack of awareness.

      “So obviously if you were a libertarian you would feel the same way….but you don’t so you are not a libertarian…so please fuck off and get a job at gawker already.”

      You’re a fucking moron.

  36. The man is a complete and utter douche bag. No substance whatsoever. You would think that he would have pointed some of that faux outrage at the VA once that scandal broke but nope. Nothing. The story just faded away. He is a complete lackey for the unions. He’ll rail about campaign finance saying the process is rigged due to all of money from corporations and the Koch brothers but the billions in progressive union money and cash from Bill Gates and Tom Steyer? Crickets. He doesn’t have to address the reality of his proposals because he is elected by a dewey eyed, fucktard electorate here in VT who simply believes that the money is simply there to be taken (stolen) from the “rich” and evil corporations. He is a hypocrite of the highest order as are the majority of his constituents. Just hoping he can make Shillary spend a significant amount of her money. Then at least he will have served some useful purpose.

  37. Oh yeah…not to beat a dead horse’s ass but this came out in the past week. I’m sure that there is nothing to see here… (note the $200K severence package).

    http://vtdigger.org/?s=sanders…..mit=Submit

  38. “Bernie 2016: Because Obama Knew Too Much About Economics”

  39. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  40. Uh, what does the US spend on health care per year? That’s how much it would cost. “But we’ll save money!” No, you won’t.

  41. Is the $750M to make public college free a misprint? That doesn’t seem like nearly enough. If it isn’t, that actually sounds like quite a bargain.

    1. According to Wikipedia, we have 21 million kids currently enrolled in college, so given that 750 mil is equivalent to about 35 bucks a student, I’m gonna say it may be a typo. (Assuming Wikipedia is right)

  42. What you’re describing is not new. For a long time now, socialism has been about a kind of paternalism: diverting resources from non-necessities to things deemed necessities such as health & education. It does come out to be somewhat redistributive anyway, because a person can consume only so much health or education, so if everyone’s entitled to an equal amount & people pay according to ability, there’s still a net flow from rich to poor.

    The funny thing is Sanders’ couching the non-necessities in terms of variety of deodorant or sneakers. How much total resources go into maintaining the variety of such goods? Surely a minuscule amt. compared to the total prod’n of them. You might save a pittance via economies of scale if only 1 type of each were stamped out, Soviet style. He’d have more of a point if he criticized the prod’n of deodorant per se, where he could argue that nobody would need it if nobody had it, because we’d all smell the same. Abolishing sneakers would be a tougher sell, because presumably their abolition would be made up by other types of footwear, perhaps even more expensive ones.

  43. Our Federal government has made voting a career field that requires little or no education, yet provides the most remuneration for the least amount of labour possible, a one day work year.

  44. Yep, a spender, like Bush and Obama. But I’d vote for Uncle Bernie for the rest of the reasons over all but Johnson and perhaps Paul.

  45. “youth jobs initiatives.”
    Is he suggesting we lower the minimum wage? I have a sinking, yet accurate, feeling that he isn’t.

  46. Bernie: “In those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ’em. “Gimme five bees for a quarter,” you’d say.”

  47. What this article fails to mention is that the $15 trillion ten year price tag – averaging $1.5 trillion a year – for the public health system would be replacing our current health expenses. And in 2014, we spent around $3 trillion. So $1.5 trillion a year for Bernie’s plan is actually half the cost of what we’re spending now.

    Which anyone who isn’t trapped inside a knee-jerk anti-government bubble could have predicted, since America has the single most expensive health care system in the world, and every public system costs less.

    1. “$18 trillion over the next ten years”.

      1. And of that $18 trillion, $15 trillion of it will go towards health care. Notice how I specified “for the public health system” in my previous comment?

  48. Yeah, but…like…Scandinavia.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.