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

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That is some majorly flawed rhetoric. So your going with the talking point that the elite have all the water cuz of all that boot strapping hard work? Wealth and poverty are not traits of character they are economic conditions. There are a ton of ultra wealthy people who didn't do anything for their wealth other than fall out of a vagina, and plenty of poor people who do more hard work than 10 wealthy people combined.

a reply to: neo96

Oh for Pete's sake I wasn't holding FDR up as some perfect paragon of virtue. I'm saying he used infrastructure projects to put people to work and improve infrastructure. An idea which can be repeated.

And yeah the precious medal theft sucked a big one, but you are flat wrong about Social Security. I enjoy it when the elderly who spent their lives working and raising our children are able to eat when they can no longer work. It's preferable to letting them starve.

a reply to: Malynn

I mean, wealthy people DO breed. You're right that not all the wealthiest people bootstrapped themselves -- I was looking at the numbers earlier. This was pretty eye opening:

The “self-made” man or woman, the symbol of American meritocracy, is disappearing. Six of today’s ten wealthiest Americans are heirs to prominent fortunes. Just six Walmart heirs have more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined (up from 30 percent in 2007).

I found this pretty disturbing:

In 1979, the richest 1 percent of households accounted for 17 percent of business income. By 2007 they were getting 43 percent. They were also taking in 75 percent of capital gains. Today, with the stock market significantly higher than where it was before the crash, the top is raking even more from their investments.

I think this is one reason we've such a crazy explosion in inequality so quickly:

George W. Bush’s biggest tax breaks helped high earners but they provided even more help to people living off accumulated wealth. While the top tax rate on income from work dropped from 39.6% to 35 percent, the top rate on dividends went from 39.6% (taxed as ordinary income) to 15 percent...

Link

And it's just going to snowball:

Taking a close look at last year's list of wealthiest people, the UFE discovered that roughly 40% of the individuals who appeared on the 2011 Forbes list received a "significant economic advantage in their lives by inheriting a sizeable asset from a spouse or family member." Strikingly, more than 20% received sufficient wealth to make the list from this inheritance alone.

Link
So the argument that the poor retirees and 401k pensioners would be hit by capital gains reform is kind of disingenuous, as 3/4 of all the money made through capital gains went to people in the 1% who's quality of life wouldn't be impacted by reform. Most people retiring on a 401k don't even quality to be in the 1%!!!

It's not just TAXES TAXES TAXES! -- It's about working hard and having some modicum of a life.

When you start off on the bottom, you have a much lower chance of ever getting invited to the watering hole.



And it appears to be worse in the USA than in most other industrial democracies of the world:



So something is very, very wrong in America. Whether or not we want to admit or not, this is just not a sustainable situation for us to be in. Eventually all the Jenga blocks are going to be pulled from the bottom and stacked on top. With that foundation gone, the entire tower will fall over.

Perhaps that's what is planned? Complete social collapse by consolidating all the wealth at the very top?

a reply to: Malynn

The top 20% MM credited with "holding 93% of the water" are vast majority by no means "elite.". Yes Virginia, the middle class pulls up their bootstraps.

It's 2015, and we're still slinging the social programming known as the "Horatio Alger myth" from post Civil War America?

In case you don't know Horatio Alger was:

Alger wrote over 120 books for young working-class males, a well-known early example of which is Ragged Dick, which was published in 1867. His books have been described as rags to riches stories, although often "rags to upper-middle class respectability" might be more accurate.[1] "By leading exemplary lives, struggling valiantly against poverty and adversity", Alger's protagonists gain both wealth and honor, ultimately realizing the American Dream.[2] The characters in Alger's stories sometimes improved their social position through the aid of an older, kindly, wealthy helping person.

Alger is pretty much single handedly responsible for the "bootstraps" metaphor:

The "Horatio Alger myth" is the "classic" American success story and character arc, the trajectory from "rags to riches". It comes from the novels of Horatio Alger, Jr., which were wildly popular after the Civil War in the United States.

Link

It was important in post Civil War America to give people hope, and give the newly freed slaves some sense of optimism. The Alger myth downplays social classes and the real struggles that exist in trying to break into upper social classes.

Even in Alger’s stories, the individual who goes from rags to riches is often aided by a willing and wealthy benefactor. So can we honestly say that a person is self-radicalized, self-taught, or self-made? Is it really possible for someone to become a terrorist, a billionaire, or a great artist completely on their own?

From a sociological standpoint, the answer to both of these questions is a resounding NO. After all, one of the basic principles of sociology suggests that we are social animals living in a social world who are socially created through our social interaction. It goes without saying that we are not self-contained individuals living independently and becoming ourselves through self-reflection, self-direction, or any other solitary experience.

Link

They're good propaganda stories to keep the masses happy and starry-eyed and happy plugging away in their social class, in the hopes of one day achieving greatness. They are very attractive and ego-pleasing stories.

The self-made myth is both popular and seductive because we are attracted to the idea that each of is the master of our own destiny. There is something comforting in believing that you can be whoever and whatever you want to be. Sociologists are less likely to endorse this perspective because we recognize and acknowledge the power of the social world in shaping individual lives. The sociological position does not negate or deny that each of has some agency or individual initiative that we may wield; however, we are cautious to not to swing the balance too far to the individual-only side.

Link

So the next time you hear "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", now you know that term (and the theme of the American Dream) came from a collection of stories written by a man named Horatio Alger, in post Civil War America.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: Metallicus
And what was it that the Iran and Afghan wars cost? And what did the average American gain from those outlays?
Like, there's always enough money to go around if it's for killing brown people.

So far, $1.6 trillion. They MAY cost up to $6 trillion.
www.newsmax.com...

So Sanders' plan would cost anywhere between 3x those wars to 10x those wars.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Dude, it isn't a myth, but it does take personal responsibility and a hell of a lot of work. I grew up poor as hell (as you already know). My parents didn't have running water and were 50 miles of mountain trail from the nearest actual road for the first 5 years they were married. My dad grew up with no electricity or running water. I spent my childhood years growing up in a 24 ft Coachman trailer parked on 40 acres of desert scrub brush dirt ranch and it wasn't until I was nearly a teenager that my parents scrimped enough together to buy a piece of crap doublewide which my dad and I built a house around.

I busted my ass through college and now have a professional license and a position which *would* have me living my dreams... except for the fact that I have to watch massive chunks of my pay go towards crap like insurance which is over 3 times more expensive than it was before the ACA, a lease that is $1000 more than it should be because I live in a city which has income controled subsidized housing for $1000 a month and then makes a $1,000 leap to the next tier which isn't subsidized and which I make too much to qualify for, income taxes, utility taxes to assist the subsidization of others, etc, etc, etc.

The only thing "holding back" people with actual drive from going rags to riches in America, 2015 is a government which allows you to be subsidized to a certain point, then sideswipes you the instant your earnings go above that point and says "Hey jackass, now you get to pay for everybody making less than you, open wide!"

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Fair enough. Let me ask you this though: If you were a teenager today in the same socioeconomic situation, could you still go as far as you have? If the answer is yes -- then can you admit that for someone coming from a similar background as you it is exponentially harder today than when you did it?

I can look at people only 10 years younger than myself and see how in just a decade the world has made it harder for them to do the same things that I or people my age did. Hell, it was probably harder for you to get where you are than for people my parents age (they're in their 70's). Back in their day, college was something somewhat affordable if a trade wasn't for you and you could pull good grades.

I think that is the real problem. The problem isn't that its impossible to get ahead, the problem is that for every successive generation it is getting harder and harder. And that is a product of the increasing inequality.

So I guess what you're saying is that under a certain income level you get a bunch of stuff for free, but if you make above that you have most of it taken away?

That sounds like some kind of donut hole to me, as the more wealthy you become the more things you can write off on your taxes. If you're smart about your money you won't have any kind of actual "income" from a job, but earn from investments, further keeping your money. Instead of you earning your money, your money earns you money. That seems to be the real trick to getting ahead. In the past it used to be real estate investing...(Fun fact: thats how Arnold made his fortune, not bodybuilding!).

I'll admit I'm woefully ignorant of the rental market in town, as I only rented for three years. I think I understand what you're saying about the subsidized housing...are you talking about those section 8 apartments? I bet between that and Weidner buying up all the other rental units in town hasn't helped things. You ought to look into buying a duplex and living on one side and renting the other side out pay the mortgage and cover costs of ownership. You seem like a handy guy, I bet you could do a lot of the "fixit" stuff that would prevent me from wanting to be a landlord. I know a few people that are now retired and make more than when they were working being landlords, and that wealth will now be passed to their children -- giving their kids a leg up as the world gets harder for them.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yeah, I could do it again today and, honestly, no I don't believe it would be more difficult. Hell, it's actually easier today for a kid to get into college than it was 20 years ago when I did it. We actually had to qualify for student loans back then and most of the work we did during the summer was of the back breaking field labor type. (Pick onions for 10 hour days in 115 degrees for a summer... your view on work and entitlements will change tremendously.) To be honest, I truly believe that I have had life easier than my dad had it.

My intent is to eventually move out of this city entirely. I may buy some ratholes here and turn them into rental property income, but I dislike living in this way too huge city immensely and don't see myself ever buying property inside the Muni to live on. I've been working on obtaining one of those DNR auction pieces of land off the road system but close enough to roads to be able to make the commute to work (in the valley, not in Anchortown) in less than 2 hours. Both of my kids, while obviously way too young to think of such matters with any conviction, intend to have careers out in the sticks... my son has been stuck on the idea of logging or mining for the past year and we're pretty sure my daughter will end up getting some sort of biology related field that has her working in wildlife management or horticulture.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well said. I voted Ron Paul in 2008 and that was the last time I'll be voting. I found Ron Paul to be quite a bit more realistic than Bernie, but eh... here we are, again.

I'm of the assumption that a large branch needs to be shoved in the spokes of this system, it's overdue that the entire thing endos face first.

Bernie is the only candidate gaining enough traction to possibly become POTUS and be this said branch. I do not agree with all of his methodology but honestly, I love his approach towards education. Tax the every living # out of the wall street fat cats. Sounds like a big win to me.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: Metallicus
And what was it that the Iran and Afghan wars cost?

Less than a trillion during W's tenure.

And what did the average American gain from those outlays?

No terror attacks on home soil. Unlike the multitudes during H's administration.

Like, there's always enough money to go around if it's for killing brown people.

That doesn't deserve a serious response.

originally posted by: wayforward

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Another point to consider: Government debt isn't SUPPOSED to be paid off. If it gets paid off, then there is no money in the money supply. So people complaining about how long it is going to take to pay down our current debt (or future debts) are barking up the wrong tree.

Government debt shouldn't have existed in the first place, and it is supposed to be paid off. I could come up with one way to create money every day for the rest of my life, but was that really your point?

Why not? Every government since forever has had debt. Even before we switched to a fiat currency and even before we created the FED, the government was operating on debt. Why do you think that a government isn't allowed to borrow money?

originally posted by: wayforward

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
I would rather vote for Sanders to spend 18 T to build a better country, rather than vote for the others that would spend who knows how much on war, prisons and corporate welfare.

Doesn't matter if Bernie was to spent 20 Trillion, because all the other candidates will attempt to do the same. The question is where is the money going to go?

Okay then, give up and don't bother wasting your time voting. If all the candidates are going to expedite the economic collapse, then they are all bad candidates and you shouldn't vote for any of them.

The point of voting is to vote for someone you think will do a good job. If there is nobody who will do the job right, then there is no point in voting. You can vote for a 100% chance of expressing who you think would be a good job, or vote for a 1 in one billion chance of changing the outcome of the national election, which is much worse than the powerball jackpot lottery.

I think I've said the same thing in about a 100 other political forums. I'm sure the control freak crowd will show up anytime and tell you the non-voters are the problem in this country. I actually like Bernie Sanders, he's the only one that has talked about all the issues that I want fixed. The problem is that there is a good chance none of it will happen. The main problem in this country is corrupt politicians and greedy corporations. Right behind them are the dedicated party voters. Some people will vote for any Republican just so a Democrat doesn't get into office and vice versa. Then, the same people who vote based on party affiliation talk about "uninformed voters"...the hypocrisy in the political forums on this site is astounding. Then, you have people like the ones who attacked me in the beginning with no solutions to offer which are just as bad. I give this entire thread a

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
It's 2015, and we're still slinging the social programming known as the "Horatio Alger myth" from post Civil War America?

In case you don't know Horatio Alger was:

Alger wrote over 120 books for young working-class males, a well-known early example of which is Ragged Dick, which was published in 1867. His books have been described as rags to riches stories, although often "rags to upper-middle class respectability" might be more accurate.[1] "By leading exemplary lives, struggling valiantly against poverty and adversity", Alger's protagonists gain both wealth and honor, ultimately realizing the American Dream.[2] The characters in Alger's stories sometimes improved their social position through the aid of an older, kindly, wealthy helping person.

Alger is pretty much single handedly responsible for the "bootstraps" metaphor:

The "Horatio Alger myth" is the "classic" American success story and character arc, the trajectory from "rags to riches". It comes from the novels of Horatio Alger, Jr., which were wildly popular after the Civil War in the United States.

Link

It was important in post Civil War America to give people hope, and give the newly freed slaves some sense of optimism. The Alger myth downplays social classes and the real struggles that exist in trying to break into upper social classes.

Even in Alger’s stories, the individual who goes from rags to riches is often aided by a willing and wealthy benefactor. So can we honestly say that a person is self-radicalized, self-taught, or self-made? Is it really possible for someone to become a terrorist, a billionaire, or a great artist completely on their own?

From a sociological standpoint, the answer to both of these questions is a resounding NO. After all, one of the basic principles of sociology suggests that we are social animals living in a social world who are socially created through our social interaction. It goes without saying that we are not self-contained individuals living independently and becoming ourselves through self-reflection, self-direction, or any other solitary experience.

Link

They're good propaganda stories to keep the masses happy and starry-eyed and happy plugging away in their social class, in the hopes of one day achieving greatness. They are very attractive and ego-pleasing stories.

The self-made myth is both popular and seductive because we are attracted to the idea that each of is the master of our own destiny. There is something comforting in believing that you can be whoever and whatever you want to be. Sociologists are less likely to endorse this perspective because we recognize and acknowledge the power of the social world in shaping individual lives. The sociological position does not negate or deny that each of has some agency or individual initiative that we may wield; however, we are cautious to not to swing the balance too far to the individual-only side.

Link

So the next time you hear "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", now you know that term (and the theme of the American Dream) came from a collection of stories written by a man named Horatio Alger, in post Civil War America.

So is the concept a myth, the stories, or the people who actually do it everyday in this country? What is the myth?

originally posted by: Willtell
Don’t worry Bernie Sanders won’t get elected because he makes too much sense.

He says take care of ALL the people not just the few elite billionaires and millionaires and their puppets in the political structure who protect those precious elite rich ones as they bribe and buy them.

ALL the republican candidates are ALL bought and sold to the devil, and Trump is one of them.



and Hillary, the wicked Witch of the West as well...

What makes sense is real government oversight before giving Congress this kind of money to spend. I remember how many phantom districts received money from Obama's stimulus plan.

Vermont, for example, received money for seven districts, but only had one. And $75 million created exactly 7.5 jobs. And that $75 million didn't even include the money that went to phantom districts: $250 million, if I am recalling correctly.

Is it so unreasonable to demand government oversight reform before giving Congress one more dollar to spend? That's all I ask.

And you better believe that with 13 trillion dollars on the table -- BERNIE IS THE ESTABLISHMENT'S CHOICE. He will win.

And he won't even have to fight dirty thanks to Hillary's email scandal...and when Trump breaks from republicans to split the conservative vote. Bernie will win with a mandate to give Congress that blank check. All by design.

The stars and planets in U.S. politics don't align for the nice, honest guy.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Just because you "feel" something is more worth it does not mean it is.

Please explain using sound reasoning why it is more worth it, and that might convince me. But in practice, I see socialism as a society run by the numbers and on the bell curve. So long as you are not an outlier on any of those curves, society will seem to be great to you, but as soon as anything falls outside the numerical most common and you become a nail ... you get pounded.

And what's the difference with capitalism? It's exactly the same thing. Many will always get screwed no matter how hard they try.

Which is better seems to come down as an opinion more than facts.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Fair enough. Let me ask you this though: If you were a teenager today in the same socioeconomic situation, could you still go as far as you have? If the answer is yes -- then can you admit that for someone coming from a similar background as you it is exponentially harder today than when you did it?

I can look at people only 10 years younger than myself and see how in just a decade the world has made it harder for them to do the same things that I or people my age did. Hell, it was probably harder for you to get where you are than for people my parents age (they're in their 70's). Back in their day, college was something somewhat affordable if a trade wasn't for you and you could pull good grades.

I think that is the real problem. The problem isn't that its impossible to get ahead, the problem is that for every successive generation it is getting harder and harder. And that is a product of the increasing inequality.

So I guess what you're saying is that under a certain income level you get a bunch of stuff for free, but if you make above that you have most of it taken away?

That sounds like some kind of donut hole to me, as the more wealthy you become the more things you can write off on your taxes. If you're smart about your money you won't have any kind of actual "income" from a job, but earn from investments, further keeping your money. Instead of you earning your money, your money earns you money. That seems to be the real trick to getting ahead. In the past it used to be real estate investing...(Fun fact: thats how Arnold made his fortune, not bodybuilding!).

I'll admit I'm woefully ignorant of the rental market in town, as I only rented for three years. I think I understand what you're saying about the subsidized housing...are you talking about those section 8 apartments? I bet between that and Weidner buying up all the other rental units in town hasn't helped things. You ought to look into buying a duplex and living on one side and renting the other side out pay the mortgage and cover costs of ownership. You seem like a handy guy, I bet you could do a lot of the "fixit" stuff that would prevent me from wanting to be a landlord. I know a few people that are now retired and make more than when they were working being landlords, and that wealth will now be passed to their children -- giving their kids a leg up as the world gets harder for them.

It sounds like you are describing a business person, someone who has decided to spend all of their time, with no compensation from anyone, to engage in commerce and investment in an effort to alleviate felt discomforts in the most efficient way that they can imagine and experiment with, all the while carefully minimizing loss and misinvestment. Those individuals are the drivers of our economy and we should encourage them.

As far as the world being a different environment than it was in the past, that simply is fact and no policy can alter it.

"The only thing that is constant is change"

-Heraclitus

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
It seems like if you are upset about how much you are paying in taxes, you need to work harder and make more money. The top income quintile can write pretty much everything off.

Paying to much in taxes? You're not making enough money. I have a friend that was able to write off and pay pay only 6% of his income in taxes last year, and 3% the year before. How can people paying tax rates like that support a functioning government?

Who said government had to be so big that it required more than 6% of your income.

Not so fast OP

You did not even elaborate , however Sanders has answered to said allegations

www.businessinsider.com...

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is pushing back on the eye-popping estimated price tag of his progressive wish list of proposals he has offered on the campaign trail.

The Wall Street Journal reported in a front-page story on Tuesday that Sanders' proposals would total around $18 trillion over 10 years, which the publication said would amount to the "largest peacetime expansion of government in modern American history."

That would include an estimated $15 trillion over a decade for a revamping of the federal healthcare system to a government-run, "Medicare for all" single-payer approach.

"That is not the reality. We will be responding to The Wall Street Journal on that," Sanders told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell of the overall estimate.

"I think most of the expense that they put in there, the expenditures have to do with the single-payer healthcare system," he continued. "They significantly exaggerated the cost of that, and they forgot to tell the American people in that article that that means eliminating the costs that you incur with private health insurance."

Sanders, right now the main Democratic challenger to presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, has not released a detailed healthcare plan as of yet. The Journal relied on an analysis of similar legislation proposed by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) and sponsored by 44 other House Democrats.


The analysis, which was conducted by University of Massachusetts at Amherst economist Gerald Friedman, would "require $15 trillion in federal spending over 10 years, on top of existing federal health spending," according to The Journal.

But the analysis has also been cited favorably by progressive advocates of a single-payer healthcare system, who note that Conyers' bill would purportedly save nearly $600 billion annually by eliminating administrative waste in the private-insurance industry and cutting prices of pharmaceutical medicine.

"In 2014, the savings would be enough to cover all 44 million uninsured and upgrade benefits for everyone else. No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care," Friedman wrote in his 2013 analysis.

The Washington Post's Paul Waldman backed up Sanders on some of his criticism. As Waldman pointed out, the US currently spends about $3 trillion a year — and will spend close to $42 trillion over the next decade — on healthcare. He argued that Sanders' proposal wouldn't add on to that total, but rather reallocate the way the US spends money on healthcare.

"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," Waldman wrote.

Its beginning to look more and more like Bernie Sanders is doing something right. I thought Trump had the right wing fringe in a frenzy but no... sanders is making the ruling class foam at the mouth. Id rather see this country go belly up than see another red cent go to the elete. What more can you expect from the Wall Street Journal , the Faux news of tabloids.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Willtell
Don’t worry Bernie Sanders won’t get elected because he makes too much sense.

He says take care of ALL the people not just the few elite billionaires and millionaires and their puppets in the political structure who protect those precious elite rich ones as they bribe and buy them.

ALL the republican candidates are ALL bought and sold to the devil, and Trump is one of them.



and Hillary, the wicked Witch of the West as well...

Anyone who thinks a single one of the candidates is not bought off is fooling themselves. You don't get to the positions they are in without skeletons in the closet and a lot of money being stuffed in your pocket by large corporations and donors.

So you haven't actually looked into where Sanders' donations are coming from, then..?