Umm... Report: Bernie wants $18 Trillion in new spending.

[SonderWoman]

Bernie Sanders’ vision for America would increase government spending by trillions of dollars if he were elected president and implemented all of his proposals. The independent U.S. senator from Vermont running for the Democratic presidential nomination has called for far-reaching government programs that total $18 trillion dollars in new spending over a decade, according to the Wall Street Journal, which released a fiscal analysis of the candidate’s proposals Tuesday.

Sanders’ spending plan would require an estimated $15 trillion for a government-run, universal health-care system. Tens of billions more would be spent on infrastructure, a Social Security expansion and free tuition at public colleges. “One of the demands of my campaign is that we think big and not small,” Sanders recently said in a speech to the Democratic National Committee.

The programs are so expensive because they would address an array of festering problems, said Warren Gunnels, Sanders’ policy director. “Sen. Sanders’s agenda does cost money,” Gunnels told the Journal. “If you look at the problems that are out there, it’s very reasonable.”

Link: http://www.alan.com/2015/09/15/report-sanders-wants-18-trillion-in-new-spending/#

[HooptieWagon]

1. RW talking points now?

The stench of desperation is becoming powerful.

[Luminous Animal]

3. The weathervane is pointing right.

[Fawke Em]

9. LOL

[HooptieWagon]

13. I love that gif.

[arcane1]

10. Exactly. This, and the Chavez smear all on the same day.

Coincidentally right after he started leading the polls, and getting a ton of attention for yesterday's speech.

I wonder how many "household products" subscriptions they've managed to sell so far

[SonderWoman]

84. So you're confident we can run up $36 Trillion...

And not have middle class taxes go up?

[cascadiance]

133. Not if we have the 1% pay their taxes properly like we did before Reaganism set in!

And get unions powerful enough so that we can all start making salaries like we did 10-20 years ago.

And Walton family and Walmart doesn't have US taxpayers pay for government assistance when they INTENTIONALLY don't pay their workers enough so that they can get the government to pay their salaries that Walmart should be paying them instead of inflating the Walton families obscene wealth. THAT is the kind of government spending that we have NOW that the wealthy don't want you to get rid of that Bernie will.

And instead of us paying more to the obscenely wealthy in social security benefits because those making a lot of money tend to live a lot longer than those of us who don't, have it be a pure flat tax so that they no longer as billionaires only have to pay the same taxes that those making $116k a year pay, that is not only paying for our retirement but paying many death and disability benefits of so many others too.

It's crap like that which will change with Bernie in charge where we will get the wealth where it should be retrieved, and reverse the current tax and revenue policy (or corruptly paid for lack of it in many instances) that will get us back to the wealth divide that was a lot more healthier earlier than it is now.

[passiveporcupine]

175. You are getting distorted numbers and running with them

this started from the Challenge the Record e-mail that David Brock sent to Huffpo. Not only did they run a nasty attack against Bernie about being buds with a dead communist, but they also attacked his numbers for single payer...only OOOps...they only took the numbers they wanted and left out the ones they didn't.

If and when I can find that info, I'll post it...but until then, it's not true and to post this without knowing the truth is just posting rw talking points. They do this all the time. Huffpo, btw, is one big rw talking point.

[SonderWoman]

8. I'm not the one who will have to explain the math to citizens.

[Fawke Em]

14. The only people buying this shit are the Faux News folks

who aren't going to vote for him anyway.

People are debunking this left and right on social media.

[Luminous Animal]

16. Yeah, but you seem to having no problem misleading them.

[Fawke Em]

20. That's good, because it's already been done - and in a graphic.

Citizens like graphics:

[Luminous Animal]

36. Where did you get that?

[Fawke Em]

46. Labor for Bernie, but, hang on. I'll see where they got it.

Reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3l1cz6/hey_wall_street_journal_ftfy_in_response_to_18/

And I love their Bernie image.

[daleanime]

82. Thanks....

[SonderWoman]

65. Good. I hope citizens do like graphics because...

That's going to be a tough sell. Even among current Dem house and senate.

[shawn703]

143. Only for the mathematically challenged

$2 in savings for every $1 in new spending isn't a really hard concept to grasp.

[Cheese Sandwich]

113. This deserves a thread

It seems pretty good.

[magical thyme]

131. the switch to 'Medicare for all' + end of 'corporate welfare' pays for his entire budget plus

$18T in savings and additional revenue!

It's easy to explain. Add the top line -- that's all reduced spending, closing loopholes, ending corporation welfare. That's $36+T in savings and increased revenue.

Add the bottom line -- that's spending on health care for all, boosting SS, infrastructure, child care, etc.
That's spending on investment, job-creating, revenue-generating, getting money into the hands of people who will spend it. $18T total in spending money that then *circulates* as opposed to being hoarded or gambled on wall st.

Works for me!

[RoccoR5955]

179. So according to this graph

The total outlay of federal funds is $18.303 trillion
The total savings is $36.854 trillion.

That is a total profit of over $18.5 trillion!
I like it!

Of course not the way that they put it, but I can look at it and see the total savings outweighs the total outlay.
Are you sure that this is not a PRO Bernie statement, or am I a crappy mathematician?

[hifiguy]

42. Sad, ain't it?

They got nothin' else.

[Luminous Animal]

2. "Wall Street Journal’s Scary Bernie Sanders Price Tag Ignores Health Savings"

The screaming headline on Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal reads “Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion.” This would comprise “the largest peacetime expansion of government in American history,” the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper warns.

The provenance of the figure is in many ways besides the point. Readers are intended to bug their eyes out at such a massive sum, and tsk-tsk at the deeply unserious, budget-busting promises of a democratic socialist. It’s the numerical version of a smear campaign.

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.

….

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/

[Fawke Em]

6. Here's another.

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. We’re already paying about $10,000 a year per capita for health care.

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/?postshare=6981442333730096

Oops! You add The Intercept link. I'll remove, but the Post agrees with us.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Excellent. Thanks.

[bvf]

62. Thanks to you and Luminous Animal for the links.

Good reading.

[arcane1]

4. "Festering problems" are as good thing now? That explains supporting the status quo.

I'd prefer to actually fix these problems.

[WillyT]

5. LOL !!!

[Gothmog]

7. Good luck in selling that price tag

[SonderWoman]

17. Yup.

I'm all for raising taxes on the rich, but there aren't enough rich people in North America to fund that. And then any middle class wage increases will be evaporated by hefty new taxes on the middle class.

[Luminous Animal]

19. It is less than what we currently spend on healthcare.

[Fawke Em]

22. Apparently, that poster doesn't know about all the savings, either.

But I think that's on purpose.

[SonderWoman]

24. Yeah because the govt is excellent at running things....

I'm 100% sure we will eventually have a Repub president who will fuck this all up and stick the middle class witg the bill.

[ibegurpard]

30. Oh you don't like the government running things?

Does Hillary share your view I wonder?

[Armstead]

31. OKay....You just hit the Hannity button there

That is EXACTLY what right-wing commentators constantly say to shoot down everything about liberalism.

[HooptieWagon]

44. Bingo!

Hillary supporters spouting RW talking points...

[SonderWoman]

61. You guys say the most ridiculous things.

This is $18 trillion in NEW spending. It's like reality doesn't even matter to some here.

[Fawke Em]

66. No. It's not.

Try reading the other links above debunking that claim.

[LondonReign2]

69. That would conflict with her agenda

[SonderWoman]

71. So your "debunking" relies on a magic wand?

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

[sibelian]

180. Maths and magic aren't the same thing.

Although I can see how you might have got them confused.

[bvf]

74. Much easier not to, probably. n/t

[Z_California]

139. Well, her source is Hannity's partner in crime

Remember Hannity & colmes, where Alan would pretend to be the liberal straight man? His best comeback ever was "Awww come on Sean..."

[Comrade Grumpy]

38. You're contorting yourself into spouting right-wing talking points.

Think about that.

[arcane1]

59. Again n/t

[cyberswede]

39. Implying the government is bad at running things is RW poppycock

and the republicans will fuck things up regardless of who the next D president is.

50 Years Later, Medicare And Medicaid Are A Smashing Success
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/07/30/3686092/medicare-medicaid-50/

44 Years Of Medicare Success
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-progress-report/44-years-of-medicare-succ_b_247834.html

[SonderWoman]

68. I stated Republicans, read my full post.

And no one can realistically say that medicare and soc sec have been run good. They are great programs that should be around forever, but they have absolutely been run horribly mostly due to republican policies. If you can guarantee we will never see a repub administration again I may see your point.

[Ed Suspicious]

135. So we need to insulate ourselves from republicans

because republican government doesn't run stuff "good." Private sector does run stuff "good?" How very Reagan of you. I think you need to define good.

[ljm2002]

147. Private health insurance companies...

...have lots of Republicans in them.

They aren't "run good" either.

In fact, their administrative overhead runs 15% to 25% on average, while Medicare's runs about 3%. Sounds to me like the gummint does a pretty good job there, comparatively.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. I know exactly what you are.

No, I'm not allowed to say without being penalized, but I know, and I'll never forget.

[LondonReign2]

64. You are not very good at this sort of thing

Actual colors come shining through with unhinged statements that parrot Fox

[SonderWoman]

72. I'm not the one who will have to explain the math to citizens.

[LondonReign2]

76. No, you are the one that will parrot rightwing nonsense like "the government isn't very good

at running things" and "taxes BAD".

[SonderWoman]

78. I never said taxes are bad....

Just that in all honesty the truth is middle class taxes will go up.

[ljm2002]

148. That's good...

...because your grasp of it is tenuous at best.

[sibelian]

181. Good thing, too. You clearly don't understand it yourself.

I commend your leaving explanations to people who understand things. One must know one's limitations, naturally.

[in_cog_ni_to]

80. They've done a damn fine job with Medicare.

It can be done and when Bernie is elected, it WILL be done....as save money doing it.

[mhatrw]

152. So you are happy that we currently pay twice as much for

our healthcare than all the countries with universal healthcare?

You like it that way?

[LondonReign2]

29. Um...Math: It's Hard, Isn't It?

[SonderWoman]

81. 3% of the population makes over $200k year...

Even less make over $250k a year. This is $18 trillion in NEW spending. On top of current debt and deficit.

[LondonReign2]

85. No, no it is not new spending. There are several links in this thread that you could read that show

otherwise. The most glaring thing you are missing is how the cost savings offset this.

[SonderWoman]

94. So why not use those "savings" to pay off debt?

Because then it wouldn't be NEW spending. You realize how much the interest on our existing debt alone is?

[LondonReign2]

108. I'd love to pay off the debt. You know the last we ran a surplus? After taxes were raised by

B. Clinton. Raised taxes. And the economy didn't crumble, imagine that.

But the deficit is at a quite manageable level at the moment if you rely on Krugman's analysis-- lower than it really should be given that we should have been stimulating the economy since the financial crisis rather than half-assed austerity.

Unfortunately, Third Way thinking has held sway recently and the Third Way "Democrats" had agreed with Republicans that the government needed to drastically shrink. Not just the deficit, but government outlays themselves. They've been on board with Republicans that want to "shrink the government until they can drown it in the bathtub".

So the cost savings shouldn't go to paying off the debt IMO -- which Republicans scream about right up to the point where they take office and explode the debt again-- or shrinking government, they should go towards the social programs and economic stimulus programs that Republicans have shredded with the willing help of sensible woodchuck Dems.

[magical thyme]

134. his top line creates 36T total in savings and increased revenue.

Spending 18T of that on infrastructure, healthcare, child care, bolstering, SS, etc, leaves $18T toward paying off debt.

Plus that $18T spent on the people will *circulate* eventually adding to tax receipts.

[Ed Suspicious]

138. You realize national debt is not household debt, right?

You realize we do keynsian economics as dems, not Chicago school, shock doctrine crap.

[Warren Stupidity]

164. So you are an anti-tax, balanced budget, anti-government "democrat"?

Interesting.

[Ed Suspicious]

141. 400 people in 2011 held more of the country's wealth than

HALF of the country. I think we can squeeze enough out of the rich if we wanted to.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

[upaloopa]

40. I always think it funny that they don't

understand their taxes go up too.
If you want the system other countries have you need to have their tax system too.
There is no "free" lunch or college tuition.

[cyberswede]

52. Who is "they?"

(This plan actually reduces the amount we're on course to spend on health care, btw)

[ibegurpard]

70. the "takers"

You know all those entitled people taking money out of the pockets of the hard-working wealthy...

[RussBLib]

73. many Europeans do in fact pay higher taxes

but the money largely goes to fund the social programs that we don't have, such as free college, healthcare, and a safety net.

I'm afraid Americans are just too greedy to see beyond their own pocketbooks to the greater good for society. The politicians could overcome all the squawking if they stuck together and had a backbone, and if they weren't already sold down the river to various special interests.

[SonderWoman]

77. That's exactly my point. Thank you.

Truth is, yes, middle class taxes will have to be raised.

[upaloopa]

196. Many people don't need government programs

so they don't to pay taxes for people that do. You would need a complete mind set change in this country to become like the EU.

[SonderWoman]

75. Not my problem. Let them explain it to the American people.

[in_cog_ni_to]

83. "Other countries" pay waaaaaaay less taxes than we do

and get a hell of a lot more for it.

[SonderWoman]

88. Which countries? Other countries also have 1/5 of our population.

And the middle class in France pays a 30% tax rate.

[ancianita]

119. In Australia it's higher, which is how they afford single payer, college for all and new babies.

[upaloopa]

197. Ok which ones?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

185. I think there are other parties more suited to your stated tastes.

[upaloopa]

198. What are you talking about?

You think if I don't believe you can have government programs without paying for them I should join another party?
If so you live in fantacy land

[leftofcool]

200. What? You don't agree with having your taxes raised to pay for your neighbor kid's tuition?

Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it.

[virtualobserver]

11. ...over 10 years.....we spend about $3 Trillion a year on health care alone now....

which would be $30 Trillion over the next 10 years just for that.

I

[99Forever]

12. Bwahaha....

...the wheels are coming off the Weathervane bus.

Desperation isn't pretty to watch.

[bunnies]

15. Gods forbid we spend money to help Americans.

Right?

[left-of-center2012]

21. Where would the money come from? Answer ...

From the linked article:
"Sanders’ tax increases would target corporations and Americans earning an income of $250,000 or more per year. He would also urge increases in the capital-gains tax, the estate tax and personal income-tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, the Journal reported."

[SonderWoman]

28. That's a lot of govt taxation. Up to him to sell it.

[mhatrw]

155. We want the top 0.1% to pay their fair share. Do you?

We are concerned about wealth inequality in the United States. Are you?

We know that single payer healthcare will cut our nation's healthcare costs roughly in half. Do you?

[Vinca]

23. Taking care of the American people isn't cheap.

I'd rather our trillions go to healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. than to subsidies for gazillionaires and war.

[Armstead]

25. OMG...Sanders is against Supply Side Economics. He disagrees with Reagan!

Fucking Commie Bastard. Wants to give all my money to some Welfare Queens.

Just thought I'd save you the trouble of takin your newest "talking point" to its logical conclusion.

[Autumn]

26. Umm... no he doesn't. He wants to spend what we already spend more wisely.

If you have to use RW talking points to attack Bernie you have already lost.

[SonderWoman]

32. The site is called Liberaland.

And Bernie fans have used Ann Coulter, SE Cupp, National Review, and plenty others. I'm sure you recced those threads too.

[Luminous Animal]

34. I though you found many Bernie "fans" tactics odious? Yet, here you are, pushing the right wing's

agenda.

[SonderWoman]

37. It's not a rw tactic to post an...

Article from a site called Liberaland.

[bvf]

93. So the name of the site imparts credibility?

Doubleplusungood, for sure.

[Barky Bark]

183. Alan Colmes is/was Sean Hannity's whipping boy.

I give very little credence to Alan Colmes.

[Autumn]

43. Then if you are sure of that link my recs please.

You used a Right Wing talking point. I should rec your OP for that alone

[Capt. Obvious]

50. And Alan Colmes builds this piece entirely off of...

the Wall Street Journal. It's right there in your excerpt. Good job though not giving air to the Wall Street Journal.

[ibegurpard]

27. ummm...you don't lowball your initial offers

Otherwise you get less than you want or can even live with. Let's put people to work instead of shoveling money at banks and corporations who use it to buy back stock instead of hiring people.

[SonderWoman]

35. I'm all for spending money to create jobs.

Modest spending can be offshoot by taxes, $18 trilliin though? I'll leave it up to him to explain.

[Go Vols]

47. He did in your link

Sanders would raise taxes in a way that Democrats have previously supported.

Sanders’ tax increases would target corporations and Americans earning an income of $250,000 or more per year. He would also urge increases in the capital-gains tax, the estate tax and personal income-tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, the Journal reported.

[djean111]

33. Ummm.....Bernie will deal with correcting that. But thanks for your concern!

Remind me again about how awful it is to repeat RW talking points? or is that only true about Hillary......

[TDale313]

41. RW Talking Points.

But clearly Hill supporters are getting desperate if they're stooping to parroting this crap.

[upaloopa]

48. So how do Bernie's programs get paid for?

It is January 2017. Bernie takes the oath of office.
He goes to Congress and asks for single payer and free college tuition.
What happens next in your vision?
The President doesn't write laws.

[redstateblues]

87. he will take to the bully pulpit, demand it

and then wave his magic wand. So simple don't you see?

[upaloopa]

127. Ok too bad President Obama didn't get a magic wand

Think of all the stuff he could have done.

[jeff47]

146. Well, let's just look at the single-payer part.

That isn't actually a plan proposed by Sanders. It a different plan in the House. It is expected to cost $15T over 10 years.

We currently spend $3T per year on healthcare. So over the same 10 years, that's $30T.

What changes is who pays. Right now, that $30T is paid via co-pays, deductibles, and lower salaries - your employer isn't paying for health insurance out of the goodness of their heart.

$30T also assumes costs don't go up. If you add in the expected increase in costs, that comes to $42T over 10 years.

So, why should we pay $30-42T via co-pays, deductibles and lower salaries instead of paying $15T via taxes?

[upaloopa]

159. I asked how does it get done not what is it.

Plans are only as good as their execution

[jeff47]

165. By asking why are we wasting $27T. Over and over again.

No one (except for Clinton supporters) is claiming Sanders is a messiah who will be able to change everything the moment he takes office.

Instead, we expect this to be the long, hard slog we've been fighting for the last 100 years. Talking about wasting $27T so that insurance company executives can leech off us might be helpful. Might not. But the fact that it won't happen instantly isn't going to make us give up.

[Barky Bark]

184. Progressives will be riding Bernie's coattails

and removing Republicans from power.

Hillary? Not so much.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Unless we're unbelievably stupid, health care costs should drop

We currently spend far more on health care than any other country, per person. This is due to our being the only industrialized country with a health care payment system like we have.

If we switch to a system that resembles what other countries do, as Bernie wants to do, our costs should become similar to theirs.

[hifiguy]

49. The last time I saw anyone spin like this

it was this guy, right before Bugs Bunny got the best of him:

[beam me up scottie]

51. Umm...to spend HERE. Instead of starting new wars. Why the NERVE of that man!!!

Don't you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself?

[deutsey]

91. Unbelievable, isn't it?

Linking to Alan Colmes, of all people.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Well the op also posted a video of a Republican calling Bernie a pedophile supporter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251549982

So nothing she does now surprises me.

[deutsey]

97. Disgusting

[beam me up scottie]

107. Yep, 5 members of the jury got it right.

I don't know what happened with the other two.

[SonderWoman]

117. 85% of DU are for Bernie. Stop pretending it's science.

And if there's one thing we know about Bernie fans it's they are absolutely not impartial jurors.

[beam me up scottie]

118. Your post was hidden because you brought an old right wing smear about a Dem candidate to DU.

Even HC supporters call foul on Republican tactics.

Well the honest ones do, otherwise they'd ALL be posting that shit.

Stop complaining about it, that hide was well deserved.

[Capt. Obvious]

122. No, that hide was the result of unprovoked alert stalking

This site is 90% Bernie supporters so the simple math shows that it's 37% chance that 1 in 5 unprovoked alerts on HRC supporters will be hidden. I'm only shocked that the Clinton group isn't just tumbleweeds rolling across the page now.

[beam me up scottie]

123. The Bernlerters are everywhere!

EVERYWHERE!!!

[Capt. Obvious]

124. Them and Big Rec

ruining my front page experience.

[beam me up scottie]

126. And I have PRooF that admin doesn't care:

"abandon all hope ye who enter here"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=4733

Look at it.

LOOK AT IT.

[beam me up scottie]

169. Capt. Obvious was being facetious.

He's funny like that.

[TheFarS1de]

191. Apologies Captain

Wrong reply .

[SonderWoman]

102. A channel 4 nbc news report from Vermont. The horror!

So why did Bernie cast those no votes?

[beam me up scottie]

106. Why not ask the Republican in the video you posted?

Oh wait, you can't.

He lost to Bernie and went to prison.

So sad when that happens to assholes who call liberals pedophile protectors.

[in_cog_ni_to]

192. OMG - that says everything.

Can't say it surprises me though.

[beam me up scottie]

193. Yep.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

The swift boating of Bernie on DU started months ago.

[SonderWoman]

96. More insults from the 'still got nothing' crowd. As usual.

And Bernie said he will continue drones. That stuff ain't cheap.

[beam me up scottie]

110. You expect polite discourse when all you've got are right wing talking points?

Pity your op wasn't a big hit.

Better luck next time.

[LondonReign2]

173. Bernie has said he will REDUCE the use of drones and be more selective in their use

Do tell, what is Hillary's position on the use of drones? Wait, I'll help you:

"As Secretary of State and now as a presidential hopeful, Clinton has defended the government’s use of drone strikes, calling them “one of the most effective and controversial elements of the Obama Administration’s strategy against al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists” in her book, Hard Choices. She added that “dozens of senior terrorists had been taken off the battlefield by drones.”"

Man, this "Bernie is a hawk, vote for...Hillary" has to be one of the dumbest logic fails I've ever seen.

[whatchamacallit]

53. Another chamber pot is emptied onto the cobblestone streets of DU

Look out below!

[Avalux]

55. We have the $$ to do it, just need to get our priorities straight.

The fear of scarcity that the GOP and others promote is a fallacy. There's more than enough, if those at the high end pay into the system just like the rest of us. I'm going to parrot Bernie now - in a powerful wealthy country such as ours, it's morally wrong that millions and millions of us don't have access to medical care/treatment when we need it, regardless of whether or not we can afford.

So the question is - how do we get these selfish money hoarders to pay? That's up to us; one person can't do it himself/herself. With enough support from the populace, anything is possible though.

We are faced with two choices for our future. Either continue the status quo until we fall, or change now. I am choosing to change now and I hope that enough of us get involved in grassroots efforts and do the same to bring about real government overhaul from the bottom up. Peaceful revolution if you will.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

56. ...

[ancianita]

57. You get it from the MILITARY that runs the U.S. global garrison war economy. Stop affording THAT

and we CAN afford any programs we want to afford.

[uponit7771]

90. +1

[SonderWoman]

105. Any day now:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/252270-sanders-i-wouldnt-end-drone-program

[ancianita]

116. That's not the costly part of the military; spending to protect global corporate activity is.

Global privateers already own so much of their own air bases, ships, weaponry, etc., that they can take over the infrastructures of non-essential bases (Germany, France, etc.) as we defund them, and maintain those bases at their own expense. That's trillions right there. End old, failed weapons production by defense contractors.

Tons of military budget redlining should be done. We could still maintain an unbeatable global presence by cutting the military budget in half.

Drones have been around for decades and save costs of our always using troops.

Are you arguing against this idea? Just curious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense#Budget

[Darb]

58. What a bullshit, hack job. Wall Street Urinal.

No context, no detail, no legitimacy. This is what our politics has become. Sad.

[restorefreedom]

60. this was just on fox news

good to know where you are getting your talking points

[Broward]

63. This is just the beginning, but I think Bernie will be well prepared

to shoot down the coming onslaught of tired conservative talking points.

[bvf]

67. Wow!!

That's a lot!

Thanks! Excuse me while I read though the thread, OK?

[daleanime]

79. Yes, he does want new spending....

and yes, we can do it and the results would be so much better then what we at getting now.


Next question.

[SouthernProgressive]

86. It's the free ice cream and pony campaign. What's not to like. nt.

[beam me up scottie]

92. Nice Republican talking point. They used that on Obama too.

[SouthernProgressive]

99. Republ talking point. lol.

I don't like it so it's a republican talking point. I also hear Sanders is the new frontrunner according to some here. Amazing what passes on one side. Ice Cream campaign is fine and not right wing as you have dreamt up. When Sanders has a record of voting to arm foreign armies, increase spending to the MIC, and doing political backroom deals to keep spending for a failed fighter jet alive; all while campaigning as if he had never done any of this. Ice Cream campaign isn't just not right wing, it's fully acceptable.

[saturnsring]

132. So is Hillary's email non- scandal that keeps showing up here

[beam me up scottie]

136. "LIBRULZ JUST WANTS FREE STUFF" is a right wing talking point.

But you're free to use it if it floats your boat.

I love watching the fallout.

[SonderWoman]

100. Not my problem. Let them explain it to the American people.

[beam me up scottie]

104. Just because you can't understand his plan doesn't mean the rest of America won't.

[SonderWoman]

112. Oh I understand it. Good luck selling it the American people.

[beam me up scottie]

114. Then explain it to me so I can sell it.

[Armstead]

156. Your sales putch seems to start with "Those awful communistic LIBERALS..."

Damn those LIBERALS. Damn them. Didn't they read Ayn Rand?

[ibegurpard]

109. you forgot unicorns...

[beam me up scottie]

115. And 'messiah'.

[Armstead]

154. No,no,no....It's the ice cream and unicorn campaign.

Please get your talking points straight.

[frylock]

187. Don't forget about the welfare queens.

[uponit7771]

89. According to WSJ... Come on people

[Fred Sanders]

161. ^^^^^^^^^^^...the print version of Fox pulls a figure out of Murdock's ass and calls it "research".

I am an equal opportunity basher of all things mixing opinion with feces and being presented on a silver platter as prime rib, which is what is regularly disgorged by the RW media and eaten up by other media without any critique....on principle.

I must confess, sometimes I do shoot the messenger.

I hope this is a lesson in who the real enemy is of us all and all will stop using these sources.

Ever.

As famously said by journalist A. J. Liebling, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one".

And since the odious Citizen's United decision and with the pending 2016 election, where the effect of that remarkably stupid decision will be felt full force like I think few can even imagine - one could also now say "Freedom of speech is guaranteed only to those who own a press".

[in_cog_ni_to]

98. ...

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3l1cz6/hey_wall_street_journal_ftfy_in_response_to_18/

[SonderWoman]

101. So you're admitting that $0 will go to debt reduction.

[ieoeja]

149. That graph shows that Sanders plan will cut spending $18T.

I know that politics tends to bring out verbal people who aren't very good at math. But this is remedial shit for crisakes.

$36T Current spending
-18T Sanders spending
-----------
$18T spending cut

Given that Sanders plan does not say what to do with the left over $18T, one could assume it will spent on debt reduction. What the fuck else would he do with it? Put a Scrooge McDuck vault in the White House and go swimiming in it?


The headline is backasswards as headlines often are.

[jeff47]

151. Add up the savings: ~$37T

Subtract the expenses: ~$18T

Net result: about $19T. We could use that to reduce the debt.

Or we could actually understand macroeconomics and realize government debt is not the same thing as household debt. We could also realize the "We're owned by China" right-wing talking point is utterly false, and that China actually owns a very small portion of our debt. (It turns out, governments can borrow money from their citizens and corporations! They don't have to borrow from other countries! Because macroeconomics is not your family budget)

But I'm sure you'll reply shortly with a very large number and talk about that number is very large. I'm also sure you won't include US GDP in that post to provide an actual sense of scale.

[Roy Ellefson]

172. huh? why debt reduction?

No reason to devote money to debt reduction...is this a right wing site?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

190. Especially since the "debt" is mostly traded in the bond market.

[deutsey]

103. Ah, let's just allow all those problems to continue festering

They're nothing another big tax break for the rich and a strong dose of austerity for the rest of us won't solve.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. THIS IS HUGH11111!!!! CALL CONGRESS RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!111!!11

[restorefreedom]

120. this is great news! tbtb are wetting themselves

in fear. bernie is resonating and they damn well know it.

let the bullshit fly....no one is buying anymore. people are sick of oligarchic rule

the "party" is over...get it..party?

[bobbobbins01]

121. Bernie already discussed this today.

The numbers are inaccurate and he will have an official response soon, but he did mention that this doesn't take into account the offsetting savings the American people will get by no longer having insurance, so that definitely cuts that number down dramatically. Plus its the WSJ so of course its BS.

[Doctor_J]

125. If you want austerity you can vote republican

If you want the hyper rich to start paying their fair share, Sanders is probably a better choice

[PATRICK]

130. Simple and true

Wall Street trying to escape in a smokescreen.

[azmom]

128. That's kind of low to me.

IF we are truly going to unfuck America, we're going to need more. But my motto has always been go big or go home.

[PATRICK]

129. Well at least they aren't crying about

the tax hikes for billionaires(or rather, removing the pig trough of giveaways from the past decade at least).

But of course they will under the generic "taxes are bad" even if they don't raise them for the 99%. And most of the savings and rewards of the spending would cycle back immediately into the society and real, honest-to-God growth instead of the dragon hoards of derivatives and other inactive meaningless numbers blocking both progress and necessities.

Austerity for billionaires. Wouldn't hurt them at all but we could provide free psychiatric counseling as a 1% exception.

[Z_California]

137. I really want to "Ignore" the RW HRC shills here

But on the other hand I feel like I need to keep an eye on what they're posting, which today is pure right wing bullshit propaganda that never would have been allowed on this board in years past.

What is happening to DU? Very ugly scorched earth politics.

[HooptieWagon]

140. Oh, cmon...

You have to admit their spin is hysterical. I'm lmao here...

[jfern]

142. And Hillary supporters complain about right-wing lies

But post right-wing lies themselves.

[Hoyt]

144. To be fair, that's 18 trillion before taxes and monies we would have paid for insurance premiums

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.

[jeff47]

153. On just the healthcare part

That $15T number comes from a proposed bill in the House. It isn't a proposal by Sanders.

Ignoring that for the moment, we will spend about $42T on healthcare under our current system over the next 10 years. If you want to pretend healthcare costs will suddenly stop rising, it's about $30T over 10 years.

Spending $15T instead of $42T sounds like a pretty good deal.

[Hoyt]

157. How are you going to cut it to $15T with the current Congress? Don't believe it.

[jeff47]

158. So we should spend $27T more because we're afraid of upsetting Republicans?

Yeah, that's worked so wonderfully over the last 40 years.

It's not something the current Republicans in Congress would pass. So we need to work on replacing them. And continuing our path of cowardice will not replace them.

The way you pass it is to start talking about the massive amount of extra money we are spending. Over and over again. You get to the point where opposing it is as poisonous as other Republican dreams, like ending Social Security.

Which means it won't pass quickly. But no one here is claiming the battle we have been fighting for 100 years will end the instant one person is elected.

[Hoyt]

160. I like Sanders'positions on a lot of things, but I'm convinced he can't make them happen.

In fact, I don't even think he can start us on a path toward most things. That's why I think he is as unelectable as McGovern, Humphrey, Muskie, Kucinich, etc. Not the way I want it to be, but the way I believe it is.

[jeff47]

166. And which position is so out of the mainstream?

Even single payer has majority support.

The problem is we've spent the last 40 years letting the Republicans decide what we will push for. That is what we need to break. And electing one of the primary architects of that failed strategy will not do that.

[Hoyt]

174. But Congress does not support single payer. The opposition, though wrong,

will defeat any single payer legislation proposed by Sanders.

I think Clinton could twist enough arms to get something done.

I'll support Sanders if he gets nomination, but I don't think he will. I think he'd have little chance in the GE. I remember Dukakis.

[jeff47]

176. So what?

Congress didn't support cutting birth control. Then the Republicans spent a lot of time and effort fighting for it, and now they do.

Congress didn't support shutting down the government over and over again over right-wing bullshit. Then the Republicans spent a lot of time and effort fighting for it, and now they do.

Congress doesn't support single-payer.

Golly....wonder what we should do about that....

[Hoyt]

177. Well, giving the Prez to the GOP won't help.

[jeff47]

178. Yes, so crushing turnout by turning off those thousands showing up at Sanders rallies

might not be a good plan.

To be blunt, Clinton has no chance in my swing state. At best, Democrats think of her as "meh". She simply can't tap in to the same forces that created "Moral Mondays".

Meanwhile, we're going to need lots of mops to clean up after all the orgasms Republicans have in the voting booth when they vote against Clinton. They really, really, really, really, really, really hate her.

The way you win statewide races in NC as a Democrat is winning turnout. 2008 Obama won it because high urban turnout handily beat rural turnout. 2012 Obama lost it because urban turnout was way down, while rural turnout was way up. Same thing happened to turn our Senate seats red - centrist, uninspiring candidates couldn't get enough Democratic turnout.

Clinton will not get high "blue" turnout, and will massively boost "red" turnout. She can't win the state. And she is unlikely to campaign here to try and change that.

Sanders or O'Malley have a chance. They only have the "standard Democrat" level of hatred from the Republicans, and they actually can tap into the "Moral Mondays" movement. That does not mean either one is a "lock". But they actually have a chance.

And if you compare 2008 to 2010, 2012 and 2014, "sensible centrists" are not doing well all over. Even when "crazy liberal" ballot initiatives win.

And that doesn't even get into 30 years of opposition research against Clinton by the Republicans. You're gonna ignore what Republican operatives say. You aren't everyone.

Because of all that, I think it's a big mistake to think Clinton is the best GE candidate. We don't need the person who does best in national polling, because crushing it in CA and NY won't win the election. We need to win rural-urban divide states, and centrists like Clinton have a very shitty record of doing that recently.

[LondonReign2]

171. So tell me, which things will Hillary make happen?

[mhatrw]

150. "Lies My Hedge Fund Manager Told Me" n/t

[jkbRN]

162. Umm,

so your friend Alan Colmes is employed by Fox, Rupert Murdoch is the owner, and WSJ talking points--which Rupert Murdoch also owns.

This post is insanely pathetic.

[MisterP]

188. it's spelled alan colmes: it has to be lower-case

[hifiguy]

163. This has been demolished.

Right here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251596173

This OP is a RWNJ talking point.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. Whereas Hillary's "more muscular foreign policy" will be cheap, right?

What about her ramping up of the drug war at the behest of her private prison lobby pals?

[LondonReign2]

170. Here's the problem: in this thread alone you've spouted anti-tax rhetoric, said the government is

terrible at running things, and pounded the table on deficit reduction.

All Republican talking points.

Do you see any issue using the same arguments that Limbaugh, Hannity, and their ilk use on a daily basis...on a place called Democratic Underground?

[sibelian]

182. She posted stuff about Bernie being silent partner of the MIC.

Do we really need to think terribly hard about her motives?

No.

[LondonReign2]

194. As well as a Republican smear ad claiming Bernie protects pedophiles

Healthy dialogue is useful, right wing talking points not so much. I'm not sure why this person hasn't been tombstoned.

[sibelian]

199. Tombstoning's a very erratic process as far as I can see.

Use the wrong word - BOOM.

RW talking points - ummmm....

[Doctor_J]

186. she's a Fox news/Hate Radio republican

Nothing but right wing talking points, ever

[Rosa Luxemburg]

189. so how do you account for trillions being spent on futile wars

yet our country is collapsing within. My school has leaking pipes, mold and asbestos and a leaking roof. Children are going hungry, I have a hard time driving to work with the potholes and sinking bridges, broken street lights, homeless people begging, people dying through lack of healthcare and you talk about wasting money on our country. Why are nation building overseas and yet when it comes to our country we can't have it? This is a RW talking point.

[MoveIt]

195. Alan Colmes

is a false construct.

[arcane1]

201. Over 200 replies, and 4 recs