Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion

$815Bx10=$8.15T. Now compare that to the tens of billions (the Wall Street numbers include spending that would happen regardless) that Sanders' programs would cost yearly. Programs Sanders is willing to raise taxes to pay for. It wouldn't be anywhere near $18B and unless Congress said yes to his programs and no to his tax hikes (not likely) it wouldn't do anything to the deficit/debt. If Congress was that idiotic, it would be on them, not Sanders.

 

Ill compare anything you want as soon as you answer my question. Refuse again and you will illustrate you are incapable of accepting pure facts. That means you lost. Last chance before you get ignored. (Cant say I didn't try)

 

Did you even read my post before replying?

 

the military budget runs approximately 500 billion a year do the math
that is only 5 trillion over 10 years so even if you cut military spending to 0 where are you going to get the other 13 trillion? that is over 1 trillion a year you will have to raise taxes by.
if you took 100% of the earning of the top 20% wage earners a year you couldn't reach one trillion

 

I win.

 

$815B for the 2015 fiscal year.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you're just repeating yourself. I answered your question and you respond by asking me to answer it? That's not a win, it's an inability to read.

 

hell make it 1 trillion a year and you cut it to zero. what the hell are you going to do to raise the other 8 trillion and we aren't even adding the Obama deficit to it that will continue which is 1.7 trillion a year

 

No you responded to my question with a strawman.
For example. If one asks what is 1+2 and you say "Pizza" you have responded but you have not answered the question. My question has a factual answer. Is there a reason your fingers wont let you type it?

 

That is right. I pay a private insurance company. If we were all on medicare, instead of paying the private insurance company who keeps some of that as profit, you pay into the medicare fund, which doesn't extract a profit from your premiums for healthcare

We need to get the private sector insurance out of healthcare, for it adds to the costs. Some things we should not involved the private sector in, and one of those is healthcare, in the form of for profit insurance companies. Let the doctors and the nurses make their income by actually treating and caring for the sick, but get these arse sitters who dip their pelican sized beaks in the flow of healthcare dollars. It's just immoral to interpose yourself so you can make profits, by the scheme of private sector health insurance. There is no need for them, and their profits adds to the costs of serving the sick folks.

What if we treated the defense of americans from enemies, by interposing a company between the soldiers who defend us, and those being defended? That is, you pay a private company profits to handle your national defense? And then they decide what they will pay the soldiers who do the fighting.

So, we should defend the people from human enemies, by gov't running that defense, and we should defend the people from disease and illnesses that seeks to also take their lives, by medicare for all. And kick these parasitic middle men out on their arses and let them get a real job.

 

Bernie co-sponsored 315 bills in 24 years.

Only one passed the House.

Hillary co-sponsored 371 bills.

10 passed the Senate.

Bernie is big on bark & ideology, very low on productivity.

Leadership is about getting (*)(*)(*)(*) done, Bernie!!!

 

No, I answered your question, I even showed you the math. You ignored it and just asked me the question again (and again in this post).

Come back when you're ready to be serious, I have no time for trolls.

Sure, if you ignore all the amendments he added to bills that went on to become law and his accomplishments in committee.

 

It's ONLY a 50% increase in federal spending.

 

Bernie, yeah, let's vote for yet another Left Wing clown that hates America.

No, Bernie, America Was Not Actually Founded ‘on Racist Principles’

the United States was not founded on inadequate or abominable or “racist” principles, but upon extraordinary, revolutionary, and unusually virtuous propositions that, tragically, have all too often been ignored. As written, there is not a great deal wrong with the central tenets of the Declaration of Independence; rather, the disgraces that pepper the history books derive from the selective manner in which those tenets have been applied. If one is so minded, one can reasonably propose that Revolution-era America was chock-full of hypocrites, and that the lofty ideals to which the Founders paid eloquent lip service were routinely disregarded when deemed inconvenient. But to conclude that those ideals themselves are rotten is to commit an elemental reasoning error. As one would not examine an incident of marital infidelity and presume that the wedding vows must necessarily have been defective, one should not infer from the Founders’ betrayals that their essential precepts were in some way unsound. They weren’t. Man, as ever, is imperfect.

Likewise, one should refrain from blaming the founding generation for the perfidy of its heirs.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424056/bernie-sanders-american-founding-principles-racist

 

Are you kidding? That's 12% of everything everyone in the nation produces, every year for a decade. How is that in any sense not much money?

 

You answered your own question not mine. We have a term for this, its called a strawman. Its the best way to lose your integrity on a forum as well as lose your argument. Also do not call me a troll, personal attacks are against forum rules. If you do it again I will report your post.

Here was my post:
18 Trillion not billion. There isn't enough weed on planet earth that can pay that note. The human mind cant even grasp how large this number is.
Here lets do some math. Letst legalize weed and conservatively say with our profits we will apply 10 million dollars per day to pay off the 18 trillion dollar debt.
Tell the forum how many years we will need to legalize pot for in order to pay off just our current debt.

Here was your response that you stated was the answer:

$815Bx10=$8.15T. Now compare that to the tens of billions (the Wall Street numbers include spending that would happen regardless) that Sanders' programs would cost yearly. Programs Sanders is willing to raise taxes to pay for. It wouldn't be anywhere near $18B and unless Congress said yes to his programs and no to his tax hikes (not likely) it wouldn't do anything to the deficit/debt. If Congress was that idiotic, it would be on them, not Sanders.

Last edited by DavidMK; Yesterday at 08:41 PM.

 

18 trillion isnt alot of money then why cant we pay off the debt? Come on man use some logic.

- - - Updated - - -

He admits SS isnt solvent as is but he wants to increase benefits? Throw in "Free" healthcare and "free college" to things he has no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue how to fund outside of spend spend spend and add to the debt.

 

No its not and its not even close.


Even round it up to 800 billion and times it by ten ( come on you can do it) you dont even get half way to 18 trillion. ( i made it as simple as possible for you)

 

Expand the gov, but greatly reduce the costs of health care: It now costs over a decade about 25-27trillion $ to the US citizens.

30% reduction in costs not bad.

 

That 15 trillion is NEW spending.

 

The current health care spending is 16-17% of the GDP. You are already paying a lot more.

 

Its not, it replaces in large part current spending.

The calculation is moot anyway, Sanders doesnt even have a detailed plan on this so any calculation will be based on faulty numbers (and this one was actually based on another plan) .

The purpose is to REPLACE the current system and yes that will cost trillions but it will lower the cost for citizens by trillions AND insure more people.

 

Sanders... is.... proposing... NEW... federal spending.....

Its right there for the eye to see.

 

Nope,

Here is where sanders plan is based on :

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding HR 676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf


This increases gov spending but reduces private spending from around 50-55% to 20% . Together with reducing costs in hospitals and for medicine (as you can negotiate for a 300+million people) .

Again it replaces large parts, this isnt just added on top of the already excisting system .


Again, currently the US pays around 16% of its GDP for health care, comparable countries only pay somewhere from 8-11% .

 

That has to be the only analysis in history that shows Single Payer would actually cost more than the current American healthcare system.

Here is a link to the actual Freidman study which showed single payer would actually save about 600 billion annually.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2013/07/31/friedman-analysis-of-hr-676-medicare-for-all-would-save-billions/

Wall Street Journal appears to be making up the numbers.

 

In the documentary, 'Who stole the American Dream' He says exactly what I stated. He points blame rightfully so at both parties for pandering to the rich/elites, the banks, and the tax code, then says at the end the only way to fix it is to vote democrat. Very truthful and informative documentary right up to that point.