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.
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.
I say he should just make money like the FED does, though Sander has his own ideas.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AlaskanDad
So just because I disapprove of Bernie, I must be for the status quo?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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