2016 Postmortem

slipslidingaway

(21,210 posts)

38. kick - FAIR: according to @WSJ: $18 trillion. Actual cost of Sanders' programs: -$2 trillion

Reply to Catherina (Original post)

Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:09 PM

Sep 2015

to find later

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

FAIR: according to @WSJ: $18 trillion. Actual cost of Sanders' programs: -$2 trillion [View all] Catherina Sep 2015 OP

But but but the headline said!!!! Fearless Sep 2015 #1

free market! government bad! Doctor_J Sep 2015 #20

Also, this just in... Water... wet. Fearless Sep 2015 #31

I'm shocked to learn that Media Matters didn't help to debunk this. frylock Sep 2015 #2

Me too! Duckhunter935 Sep 2015 #3

^^^ (nt) jeff47 Sep 2015 #4

Shocked Shocked Not cantbeserious Sep 2015 #6

Yeah kenfrequed Sep 2015 #33

Big Intro Headlines Can't Really Hide True Facts... ChiciB1 Sep 2015 #5

If we were allowed to have debates, those headlines would lose their sabrina 1 Sep 2015 #42

Big K&R! cyberswede Sep 2015 #7

Ok, so let's assume these numbers are ok. 15 trillion - 10 trillion = 5 trillion Persondem Sep 2015 #8

So we should run away? daleanime Sep 2015 #25

Politics is a rough business. You do not give your opponents free ammo. Persondem Sep 2015 #26

But you should let your opponent have their way..... daleanime Sep 2015 #30

Agree with OP. Problem is, even Vermont gave up trying to explain that to their citizens. Hoyt Sep 2015 #9

WSJ?? Funny how the Clinton supporter all of a sudden like Rup Murdock. What next? Fox News? nm rhett o rick Sep 2015 #10

If all you've got for a rebuttal is a lame try at guilt by association then you've already lost Persondem Sep 2015 #13

The WSJ article was refuted by FAIR, as is clearly stated in the OP. frylock Sep 2015 #14

I am using the OP's numbers. As stated in my post upthread.nt Persondem Sep 2015 #15

Yes, it's going to come from more taxes.. frylock Sep 2015 #16

So try "duhhh" on the American voting public and see if that helps you get Persondem Sep 2015 #17

Perhaps the voters would rather spend that 5T on another war.. frylock Sep 2015 #19

Nice to see you trying another tactic - change the subject!!! nt Persondem Sep 2015 #21

So does this effect Sanders in the primary or GE? frylock Sep 2015 #22

I doubt he'll make it to the GE, but the effect there would be deadly. The ads write themselves. Persondem Sep 2015 #23

Sanders has a groundswell of support from voters who will never be effected by his tax proposals. frylock Sep 2015 #24

He proposes Tax Raises on the Top 1%, a tax on certain Wall Street Transactions KoKo Sep 2015 #43

Nice ideas, but that doesn't come close to the trillions needed for SP. Persondem Sep 2015 #45

Get rid of the Private Insurance Companies double dealing with Big Pharma KoKo Sep 2015 #46

None of those expenses are currently paid by the government. Persondem Sep 2015 #48

As I said, funny how the Clinton supporters are all of a sudden friends of the WSJ. rhett o rick Sep 2015 #27

Well if yours is truly a rightiousness cause, then you should have no Persondem Sep 2015 #34

Again it's funny how that Clinton supporters become friendly with the WSJ if they like the rhett o rick Sep 2015 #35

You obviously have nothing but dreams and generalities. Bye.nt Persondem Sep 2015 #36

At least I have that. What do you have? Side with the Oligarchs and hope they will treat you well? rhett o rick Sep 2015 #37

No trouble at all. rhett o rick Sep 2015 #39

I checked it out. Nothing in there refutes the Trillions in new taxes. nt. Persondem Sep 2015 #44

Then you didn't really "check it out". Are you against single payer? nm rhett o rick Sep 2015 #49

I like the idea of SP. And there were NO numbers in the article or the link. Persondem Sep 2015 #50

And where did the WSJ get their numbers? Seems you trust them. nm rhett o rick Sep 2015 #51

Ok, so I have provided a link to the source of the WSJ article with all kinds Persondem Sep 2015 #53

The Wall Street Journal is a Right Wing Rag. Funny how Clinton supporters now rhett o rick Sep 2015 #54

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Sep 2015 #11

This is the end game for Murdoch. Major Hogwash Sep 2015 #12

Apparently the Clinton supporters love the WSJ and Murdock. nm rhett o rick Sep 2015 #28

Will all of the outraged hillarians from yesterday please check in? Doctor_J Sep 2015 #18

They are too busy... TheFarS1de Sep 2015 #47

K&R AtomicKitten Sep 2015 #29

K & R LWolf Sep 2015 #32

kick - FAIR: according to @WSJ: $18 trillion. Actual cost of Sanders' programs: -$2 trillion slipslidingaway Sep 2015 #38

I think it shows a certain hypocracy for those that are opposed to Sanders to all of a sudden rhett o rick Sep 2015 #40

The cost to the government is (around) $18T though. There's the rub. They tried this in Vermont, DanTex Sep 2015 #41

Wait. The article agrees that the cost to the government is $18T Recursion Sep 2015 #52

But displaces the costs of private insurance and saves overall money by doing it. Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #55

Right but there's no such thing as "overall money" Recursion Sep 2015 #56

95 percent of Americans would pay less than they do now for health insurance and medical care. Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #57

There's absolutely no way you can say that with any confidence Recursion Sep 2015 #58

Link. Show me the 10% payroll tax. Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #59

Read the bill Recursion Sep 2015 #60

Bullshit. The following progressive financing plan would meet the specifications of HR 676: Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #61

Those numbers don't even come close to raising that much money Recursion Sep 2015 #62

You're just making things up. Cite evidence or expert analysis. Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #63

Do some math on your own Recursion Sep 2015 #64

OK so nothing. I thought so. Don't spread right-wing talking points. Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #65