2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow to lose a GE: nominate a socialist who proposes $18T in new government spending.
Yeah, I know. We're just going to sit down with each and every voter and calmly explain that he's not "that kind" of socialist, and the $18T isn't really "new" spending, and then everyone will just love it.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)so we can't spend money on our citizens yet we can pay trillions for war in oil nations?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)they must fear our Bernie?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)At great peril to her campaign.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I brought beer:
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Then well be all like
Some people are already acting like drunken fools...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They're just concerned is all.
The only way to fight right wing propaganda against Bernie is to post it here like it's the gospel truth!
Or something.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)if discuss means fling meaningless poo ad nauseum.
BRB, going to get my dictionary...
Response to dorkzilla (Reply #29)
dorkzilla This message was self-deleted by its author.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How adorable.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Its going to be a loooooooooong primary. I say we buy stock in beer and popcorn!!!!!!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)and scoot over just a little more so I can get on the sofa . Won't take up too much space, promise.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Are you suggesting that socialism is the same thing as communism?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Or, doves are similar to hawks.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)If he can't win, then why bother? Do O'Malley and Webb get this level of attention from you too?
Remember: every minute of your life you waste on Sanders is a minute you'll never get back. And since he's "unelectable" your efforts are in vain anyway, because you will have no effect on the outcome.
Now, back to those right-wing talking points, shall we?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Silly me
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's flamebait. Actual discussion involves some level of mutual respect.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Took me a minute to get that one.
Freaking priceless
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)We are practically living that movie with Trump and the Republicans
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)ancianita
(36,133 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Let's find a candidate who is just like the Republicans, and can still attract the Democratic base voters. That way, we'll have a Democrat in the White House and everything will be just fine. No strange ideas. More of the same. Business as usual. Very comfortable. I think I'll have a beer and watch Duck Dynasty.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Good truthiness with a touch of sardonic humor.
SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)think
(11,641 posts)then I guess YOU have a problem....
Please note that the Medicare for All information in this graphic is from the same source used by the Wall Street Journal.
Image is from the Reddit thread here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3l1cz6/hey_wall_street_journal_ftfy_in_response_to_18/
Source for the Medicare for All figures used by WSJ and in the above image:
http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf
DanTex
(20,709 posts)socialists who want $18T in new government spending. It's so simple!
think
(11,641 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)I could swear that's almost verbatim from the thread over yonder.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)The first was calling himself a socialist
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Not just the sticker shock, but also the fact that there's no hope whatsoever of getting it through congress, even if we had big majorities in both houses. It's basically just gratuitously handing the GOP a big bat to whack him with.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)All full of your deafening non-replies to the many people correcting you.
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)money or write tax law.
As a Senator Bernie has some power over that chart. As President he has none. He has to get Congress to go along with his ideas. And his endorsements from the Democratic Senate are zero. The rest are repubs.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Get some new material, you're embarrassing yourself.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)McCarthyism is SO 1950s....
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)New memes are SO expensive.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Get what you pay for...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts).
But health care is nevertheless a good place to examine why these big numbers can be so misleading. At the moment, total health care spending in the United States runs over $3 trillion a year; according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, over the next decade (from 2015-2024), America will spend a total of $42 trillion on health care. This is money that you and I and everyone else spends. We spend it in a variety of ways: through our health-insurance premiums, through the reduced salaries we get if our employers pick up part or all of the cost of those premiums, through our co-pays and deductibles, and through our taxes that fund Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, and the VA health care system. Were already paying about $10,000 a year per capita for health care.
So lets say that Bernie Sanders became president and passed a single-payer health care system of some sort. And lets say that it did indeed cost $15 trillion over 10 years. Would that be $15 trillion in new money wed be spending? No, it would be money that were 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 wouldnt have lost $1,000. Youd be in the same place you are now.
By the logic of the scary $18 trillion number, you could take a candidate who has proposed nothing on health care, and say, So-and-so proposes spending $42 trillion on health care! It would be accurate, but not particularly informative.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)1. Everyone in America will benefit from single payer health care.
2. The cost for said health care will cost HALF of what we're on course to pay now.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)going to vote for Bernie anyway.
Reddit was on it, dog gone it, and the chart above is being used left and right to debunk that Rupert Murdock-owned rag.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)and start promising unicorns.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)(Snip)
Accounting for cost inflation in health care and extending that out for 10 years, on our current trajectory we would spend more than $30 trillion, compared to the $15 trillion of a single-payer plan, which would totally supplant it.
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/15/wall-street-journals-scary-bernie-sanders-price-tag-ignores-health-savings/
...but your unicorn argument is original and clever.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Particularly since the government already pays for about half of the health care in the US through Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc. Those programs are going to expand to everyone without spending a single extra dollar? No.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)annual health care expenditures. It's actually a little less than 20%.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)(administration & drug purchasing).
The actual amount spent on health care is much higher, thus the savings from all those areas is higher.
So lets say that Bernie Sanders became president and passed a single-payer health care system of some sort. And lets say that it did indeed cost $15 trillion over 10 years. Would that be $15 trillion in new money wed be spending? No, it would be money that were 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 wouldnt have lost $1,000. Youd be in the same place you are now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That's plausible. Like I said, nobody serious thinks that single payer would cut health care cost by 50%.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Even 20% is a lot of dough.
demmiblue
(36,885 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but there's not gonna be a tootsie roll inside
the socialist bogeyman is last century. most people agree with what bernie wants to achieve, whatever it is called.
and the only people that are going to respond negatively to that term are people who would never in 1 million years vote for anyone other than a Republican. This is a non-issue.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)but congrats on larding the subject line with "socialist."
That's new.
Z_California
(650 posts)We'd be seeing a lot of Barack HUSSEIN Obama posts from this propaganda crew.
Z_California
(650 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)So their RW propaganda is allowed for entertainment purposes.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)At least, that seems to be the attitude of the Clinton supporters here.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I thing the are able to determine if that 18 trillion in spending is acceptable.
Disclaimer: I don't support Sanders.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)provide free education at publicly-funded schools, rebuild our infrastructure, etc.? That's not such a wonderful thing to run on either unless you're a Republican.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)Vinca
(50,303 posts)or not the proposals to help non-Wall Street Americans have any hope of being considered by Hillary. All the proposals are positive things and Bernie has provided a way to pay for it all. But, truth be told, the "paying for" may be difficult for Clinton since the lion's share of the cost would be paid by tax increases on her wealthiest supporters/donors.
djean111
(14,255 posts)spews enough RW talking points. It is, actually, entertainment at this point.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)if a certain politician would be willing to at least hear out people telling her to abandon support of right wing policies, Sanders would melt, but no, she would rather let the Lynn Evelyn de Rothschild and the Debbie Wasserman Schultz tell her what to do.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)They all agree.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)I knew it.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...the Wall Street Journal's attack on Bernie Sanders? And trying to promote it here?
OMFG
bullwinkle428
(20,630 posts)Here's a little hint : anything that comes from a Murdoch-controlled source should automatically be considered a big fat LIE.
azmom
(5,208 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)it's been turning out so well for us.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)A "democrat" believing Fox news talking point, or smearing an actual Democrat with it?
Maybe a poll is needed
bvf
(6,604 posts)Z_California
(650 posts)Hey, it worked in 2008
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)David__77
(23,503 posts)...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)offsetting all, or part, of the outlay. But, if he has really proposed anything like that, only about 30% of the electroplate will see the wisdom. I don't think that's a smart move, assuming it's true and reported accurately.
Response to DanTex (Original post)
jfern This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jappleseed
(93 posts)What's next you going to call for nuking Iran.... Opps too late.
Ron Green
(9,823 posts)Please.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)you'd fit right in.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)(Hint. Their mascot is an elephant.)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Cuz that reply makes no sense.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)GitRDun
(1,846 posts)WaPo's article does a pretty good job debunking it.
It would be good to see the Sanders total plan, how everything fits together.
Absent some big uh-oh in his total plan, this meme is ineffective.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And if you think the GOP won't be blasting that number over the airwaves continuously for six months, you're wrong.
Sure, for that $18T we get lots of great stuff, like universal government-provided healthcare, free college, and so on. The problem with the American public is that they want the good stuff but they also don't want taxes to go up. So even if you explain to people that the same money that is now going to insurance companies would instead be going to the government, which would use the money to pay for healthcare and cut out the middleman, it's still a hard sell.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)They are saying it includes large dollars being spent anyway.
That's why I said we need to see something that pulls it altogether. Until we see that, it looks to me like an attack meme not 100% based in reality.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)WaPo is talking about dollars that people are currently spending on things like healthcare or college. Basically, instead of giving that money to health insurance companies or universities, instead that money would go to the government, and the government would pay the health care providers and universities. So, sure, it can be thought of as re-routing the money through the government. But, still, it is new government spending.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)If it's universal health care, taxes go up insurance premiums disappear, that's break even for Joe Citizen.
There's no way to really evaluate either Sanders or Clinton's proposals without a budget, or something like it.
Another example. If either candidate wants to increase spending on infrastructure, hopefully they have the decency to propose an increase in the gas tax which has not been raised in forever.
You are free to disagree...but for me this is a big zero on the importance scale without more information.
ms liberty
(8,596 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I just read through another long post trying to make this point.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Then don't complain when the Pentagon gets that money instead of people who need healthcare
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)take a meat axe to our insanely bloated military and shut down most overseas military bases. That would free up some trillions.
You will have some powerful enemies though. The kind that don't mind a little assassination in the name of "national defence" wink wink, if you know what I mean.
It wouldn't be the first time.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)who will put this country a further 18 trillion in the hole to give $$ away to lay-about welfare queens.
It's just too easy for the GOP spin machine .. and just because about 10% (25% of 40%) of the electorate are besotted with Bernie doesn't make him remotely electable.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)than to label it a "RW" talking point. Also, Sanders supporters seem free to just make stuff up about HRC, take her quotes out of context and use RW smear tactics and it's ok, but god forbid anyone cast BS in an unflattering light, Oh no, can't say nuthin' bad about St. Bernie.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And you do realize the WSJ deliberately omitted to subtract the healthcare savings from the bill, right? Repeating the false numbers of the Rupert Murdoch owned WSJ is same as spewing Fox News RW talking points. The OP is not asking a sincere question. OP is trying to smear Sanders with a false RW meme.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)actually pan out. $5 trillion in more taxes plays only slightly better than 15 trillion, and still ain't gonna happen.
And making shit up about HRC is a Fox "News" tactic from way back.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The estimate for $15 trillion /10 years comes from a single-payer bill already filed in Congress. Since that covers everybody, it replaces the up to $42 trillion dollars estimated to cost Americans over the same time span.
To claim Sanders plan requires additional spending on top of what we're spending is just a RW talking point. Of course the Health industry and big Pharma is going to lie (and hope RWers spread the lie), they are more or less knee-capped by single payer. Good, they've already made obscene profits, time to cut them off.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)BY THE GOVERNMENT will take more taxes.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Single payer replaces all of it. No more VA, no more Medicaid, no more municipalities covering their employees, etc. Yes, govt spending/taxes goes up, but private money spent on healthcare goes down more. Every first world country has gone to a universal health system and seen a savings. Even some third world countries have universal care. Healthcare spending in the US is about $10,000 per PERSON, the highest in the world, and about 2.5 times higher than the next highest. And the quality of care in US is ranked about #37 or so. We pay more for less than any other country. ACA did some good by increasing coverage, but does little to control cost.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Explain to them they won't have to go to the Emergency Room to have their rotten teeth pulled out, or go to Walmart to buy a temporary cavity fixer to try to hold on..
Explain to them that they don't have to choose between having their injured knee x-rayed or fixing their car.
ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)...credit.
Just like the respect Bernie showed the students at Liberty U. yesterday.
Go Bernie!!!
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)This plan will be easy to attack in negative ads
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Is calling that a hit piece.
http://huff.to/1KQVtdo
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Right in that article.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Get your 'script checked if that's all you're reading there. Make that appointment soon, kay?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)And repeating only that part of it for all the good you think it will do. We're done here round robin.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And it's the only thing on the page in 72 point font with no clarity beyond it but don't let it stop you from belittling the intelligence of everyone around you by proping up the pet figure while ignoring everything else. It's cool.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)And that's with Obamacare... Without it it's closer to $50 trillion... or just die because you can't pay.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Very revealing
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Figures