It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
and how much do you think it would cost to send all the illegals and anchor babies back? i don't trust any side of politics, they are all full of hot air. i like bernie but the last thing we need is double the government, the government has shown time and time again it couldn't run a cash register at mcdonalds much less a country.




posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Money only has power as money because it has something of real value backing it. If simply printing money were that simple, than you or I would be able to print up pretty paper and call it money and exchange it.

For every dollar that the Fed prints with nothing of value being made to back it, all the rest of the dollars currently in existence are worth that much less. Haven't you noticed the cost of food becoming that much more expensive? Part of it has to do with the scarcity imposed by California's drought and insane water policies, but the other part has to do with the steady influx of empty dollars into the economy steadily devaluing every dollar you or I have.

It's called Fiat currency. Zimbabwe has discovered what happens if you print too much money. Everyone is a millionaire in Zimbabwe and they certainly don't look wealthy to me.

If Bernie just wants to keep rolling the printing presses until they break and it takes me a bucket load of dollars to buy a simple loaf of white bread, I've discovered yet another reason why I won't be voting for him. I like being able to afford things.


edit on 15-9-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AlaskanDad



Income inequality is not a bad thing.

Explain to me again why a neurosurgeon and a hamburger flipper out to be making the same amount.



First explain to me why CEO's make so much more than said neurosurgeon???

Then we should discuss the fact that the topic of this thread is "Sanders wants to spend 18 T dollars to make a better US of A.


Apples to oranges. Surgeons and burger flippers are employees... CEO is owner.

owner gets to pick how much of the company's revenue he gets paid. Employee doesn't. That's the loss the employee takes to have a job and not work tirelessly unpaid for years to build a business and make it profitable.


As the owner of my own small service based business I am CEO. I also don't have a six figure salary so don't paint with a broad brush that all CEO are elite rich 1%.

Already with all the taxes and # I pay I make a ton less than the burger flippers do since im putting in 80 hrs a week and paying a lot more in taxes, and fees that the business owner pays so the employee doesn't have to. Commies like Sanders want to kill all entrepreneurship and innovation in this country so were all mindless slaves to the machine. Because I'd he gets his way there'd be no point in being a business owner . So hope you are happy with Apple or Microsoft because there will NEVER be another new or better company out there in the future to replace them since no one will want to be a business owner.

If you make $15,000 at your job as a burger flipper your employer is paying $30,000 actually. He eats extra taxes and fees that you don't have to pay. Payroll tax, unemployment insurance, etc.

So good luck as a freelance burger flipper ... Make $15k on your own and only see $7,500 of it. (Or like $2,000 under a socialist like Bernie) That's life of a business owner.

Unless you're one of the very few lucky CEO to hit the corporate lottery and become insanely wealthy. In that case who cares if you only see $500mil of your $1bil. I'll take $500mil any day...
edit on 15-9-2015 by WP4YT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Wow you wrote all that in reply to something that I had already stated was not Mr Sanders plan.




I say he should just make money like the FED does, though Sander has his own ideas.


But the status qou is working just fine???



Why is the Federal Reserve forking over $220 million in bailout money to the wives of two Morgan Stanley bigwigs?




edit on 15-9-2015 by AlaskanDad because: added url



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: WP4YT

You're so wrong; The CEO is selected by directors having major stake and capital. Ceo's are appointed for all companies activities for running/managing as per directors policy and earning profit for distribution as dividend among share holders.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

The man is the CEO of his own company and you are calling him a liar? A CEO is a title and it operates differently depending on whether the company is privately owned or publically traded.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

So just because I disapprove of Bernie, I must be for the status quo?



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AlaskanDad

So just because I disapprove of Bernie, I must be for the status quo?



I withdrawing from this thread, as a certain member has continued to ask off topic questions.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AlaskanDad

So just because I disapprove of Bernie, I must be for the status quo?



I withdrawing from this thread, as a certain member has continued to ask off topic questions.



You never answered where we were getting the $18 trillion which was on topic.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
A real basic question here. 18 trillion price tag. Sanders folks can account for 6.5 trillion with the new tax proposals. Supporters and non can agree we have a little problem here. Not the type of problem that everyone digs in the couch cushions and pony up. What's the solution?



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
A real basic question here. 18 trillion price tag. Sanders folks can account for 6.5 trillion with the new tax proposals. Supporters and non can agree we have a little problem here. Not the type of problem that everyone digs in the couch cushions and pony up. What's the solution?


I believe the plan, such as it is, has been for the government to inflate its way out of it which is what has been steadily happening. The side consequence (or main goal) is that it has eroded actual wealth for any not carefully traversing the complex regulatory financial obstacle course. 95% of the value of the dollar has been wiped away in just the last century since the 16th amendment.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

But us TEAParty folks are nuts and fringe kooks when we complain about this.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: greencmp

But us TEAParty folks are nuts and fringe kooks when we complain about this.



And how!

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

-Friedrich Hayek



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
So actually his plan is to cut 36 trillion over the same 10 year period from wasteful spending and tax loopholes etc...



And here's what WSJ didn't bother telling you and decided to go full on sensationalist:


But how did the Journal arrive at $18 trillion? They added up the 10-year price tags of seven programs Sanders has endorsed in his candidacy for president. It turns out that $15 trillion of the $18 trillion, or 83 percent of the total, comes from just one of these programs: establishing a single-payer health care system.

The $15 trillion figure is derived from an analysis of a similar single-payer bill, H.R. 676, introduced in 2013 by Rep. John Conyers. Gerald Friedman, a labor economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, conducted the analysis.

What the Wall Street Journal won’t tell you is that $15 trillion in national health spending over 10 years would represent a massive savings for the United States. Right now we spend at twice that rate for health care. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year 2013 alone, the U.S. spent $2.8 trillion on total health expenditures, not including the $250 billion tax break employers get for providing health insurance to their workers.


The Intercept



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So all of these poor families under $50,000 a year are draining on the country, yet the top .1% are skirting the system through off shore banking, tax loop holes and other "creative accounting" methods...And we're supposed to admire and defend these people?

Meanwhile, middle class people are picking up the tab. Got it.


Yet the reality of the situation does not support your claim. The top 1% are paying 47% of the taxes collected. The next 19% are picking up another 39% of the taxes collected. The bottom 80% are picking up the remaining 14% of taxes collected.

What part of this:
www.aei.org...
Is so goddamned difficult for some people to grasp? Is it intentional disregard for simple statistics and mathematics, or just stubbornness?
Look at this graph:


Somewhere between 45 to 50% of American taxpayers are paying a negative net tax rate!!! That means they are taking more from the government than they are paying in. Meanwhile, we've got the "top" 40% paying for 100% of the nation. You're telling me that we should take up torches and pitchforks and swarm the castle to demand the fairly small group that's currently shouldering 47% of that burden pay more so we can give away more to this huge swath of America that sits there claiming between 2.5-Times to a whopping 18.2-Times what they're paying into this system in payments from the rest of us? SNIP that! This ridiculousness must stop!

www.storyit.com...

A man and his wife owned a very special goose. Every day the goose would lay a golden egg, which made the couple very rich.

"Just think," said the man's wife, "If we could have all the golden eggs that are inside the goose, we could be richer much faster."

"You're right," said her husband, "We wouldn't have to wait for the goose to lay her egg every day."

So, the couple killed the goose and cut her open, only to find that she was just like every other goose. She had no golden eggs inside of her at all, and they had no more golden eggs.




FLY AWAY GEESE! FLY AWAY!



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: amicktd
Personally, I wouldn't care if Bernie's plans cost 100 trillion dollars. At least he makes me feel he cares about the American people and not the corporations.


This kind of attitude is delusional for several reasons.

1) It DOES matter if we can afford something regardless of your warm and fuzzy feelings and...

2) Bernie has no intention of actually doing any of the things he is promising just like the last liar that you all fell for...Obama.

We need a leader not a pie in the sky liar.



Your arguments are delusional. His proposals aren't that expensive - Bush turned a $250Billion budget surplus into a deficit in a year and trillion dollar deficits by the time he left. These programs are direct investments back into the American working class. This is in direct contrast to Jeb Bush's tax cut which amounts to a trillion dollar gift to the 1% (half going to top 1% money earners).

Bernie Sanders has a very long incredibly consistent voting record to back up everything on his platform. You have to be incredibly misinformed or deliberately deceptive to claim he's all talk. If Sanders was the type of politician you claim him to be then the Democrat party would be grooming him as a backup for Hillary instead of long shots like Biden who aren't even interested.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
So actually his plan is to cut 36 trillion over the same 10 year period from wasteful spending and tax loopholes etc...



And here's what WSJ didn't bother telling you and decided to go full on sensationalist:


But how did the Journal arrive at $18 trillion? They added up the 10-year price tags of seven programs Sanders has endorsed in his candidacy for president. It turns out that $15 trillion of the $18 trillion, or 83 percent of the total, comes from just one of these programs: establishing a single-payer health care system.

The $15 trillion figure is derived from an analysis of a similar single-payer bill, H.R. 676, introduced in 2013 by Rep. John Conyers. Gerald Friedman, a labor economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, conducted the analysis.

What the Wall Street Journal won’t tell you is that $15 trillion in national health spending over 10 years would represent a massive savings for the United States. Right now we spend at twice that rate for health care. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year 2013 alone, the U.S. spent $2.8 trillion on total health expenditures, not including the $250 billion tax break employers get for providing health insurance to their workers.


The Intercept


Thanks for this. The original article was behind a paywall so many probably didn't see the details. As I thought they used fuzzy math to attack Sanders, but they went even farther this time. This entire wallstreet article is outright manipulative deception. When you see this kind of outright hold-no-punches lies being told through the media its an attempt at character assassination. It means he's the real deal and the think tanks that manufacture candidates are afraid of him.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
So actually his plan is to cut 36 trillion over the same 10 year period from wasteful spending and tax loopholes etc...



And here's what WSJ didn't bother telling you and decided to go full on sensationalist:


But how did the Journal arrive at $18 trillion? They added up the 10-year price tags of seven programs Sanders has endorsed in his candidacy for president. It turns out that $15 trillion of the $18 trillion, or 83 percent of the total, comes from just one of these programs: establishing a single-payer health care system.

The $15 trillion figure is derived from an analysis of a similar single-payer bill, H.R. 676, introduced in 2013 by Rep. John Conyers. Gerald Friedman, a labor economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, conducted the analysis.

What the Wall Street Journal won’t tell you is that $15 trillion in national health spending over 10 years would represent a massive savings for the United States. Right now we spend at twice that rate for health care. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year 2013 alone, the U.S. spent $2.8 trillion on total health expenditures, not including the $250 billion tax break employers get for providing health insurance to their workers.


The Intercept


See that I ask and someone produces something

So basically to save the money we will cut jobs in the medical industry, and remove profit...ok. It's an answer. I assume the entire insurance industry is gone too. But again it's an answer

The entire point of a single-payer health care plan, aside from covering everyone in the country, is to minimize costs, by reducing administrative bureaucracy, the profit motive and middlemen. It costs far less than the current system, which spends more per capita than any developed health system in the world.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

"End Regressive Healthcare"

If you like your doctor, he'll probably quit because he's not going to be too eager to become a doctor in a nationalized medical system.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

How does Germany, France, the Netherlands -- any of these countries have the doctors they do? I wonder how they deal with the problem of incentive in those countries?



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join