The Cost of Bernie: $18 Trillion How is this surprising?

How is this surprising?  My socialist/Communist good friend Wordslinger, along with 2seaoat and the others here just LOVE SPENDING MONEY.  Here their hero, Socialist Bernie Sanders proves Margaret Thatcher's famous words.

Posted on September 14, 2015 by Steven Hayward in 2016 presidential election, Bernie Sanders

The Cost of Bernie: $18 Trillion

That’s the tally the Wall Street Journal‘s news pages (not the editorial page) have calculated for all of Sanders’ proposals:

That’s the tally the Wall Street Journal‘s news pages (not the editorial page) have calculated for all of Sanders’ proposals:


In all, he backs at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade, according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal, a sum that alarms conservatives and gives even many Democrats pause. Mr. Sanders sees the money as going to essential government services at a time of increasing strain on the middle class.

His agenda includes an estimated $15 trillion for a government-run health-care program that covers every American, plus large sums to rebuild roads and bridges, expand Social Security and make tuition free at public colleges.

To pay for it, Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent running for the Democratic nomination, has so far detailed tax increases that could bring in as much as $6.5 trillion over 10 years, according to his staff.

Even Trump would find those numbers yuuuuge! I’m starting to think of Obama as unambitious.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/the-cost-of-bernie-18-trillion.php

I heard today that single moms cost Half a trillion a year for the government to support

Good grief we're screwed just on pensions !

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/bush_budget_09.html

Salinsky wrote:Bernie has 'em scared and lying.
Go, Bernie.

WOW...that's a GREAT response...and so TYPICAL TOO!

Wordslinger wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:We really don't have elections anymore, we have an auction...unknown

And as things stand, nearly all the pimps elected to congress should be wearing NASCAR racing suits with the logos of who owns and sponsors them on prominent display!

Screw Amerika Inc. -- Corporate control of our government through campaign spending.

There's only one significant candidate in the history of presidential politics who has ever been able to avoid this.
And Joe Biden just came out of hiding to tell us that candidate is Satan himself.  lol

Rachael Maddow (of all people) told us last night on her tv show,  that he has not yet bought the first campaign ad.  Not even one ad!

That's probably the single most bizarre aspect of this whole bizarre thing.
It totally destroys the myth that EVERYONE accepted before all this that you have to buy your way to the Presidency.  lol

I guarantee you one thing.  This is the worst development the commercial media could ever imagine happening.  If it catches on,  those fuckers are gonna lose a whole lots of money.  If I was them,  I'd try to stamp his candidacy out quick to put the myth firmly back in place.   lol

On the other hand,  the Trump Show is giving the cable tv news industry the biggest ratings bonanza it's ever had.  So even if they don't get flush from his political ads,  he's making them flush in other ways.  lol

It would be nice to think that our country’s number one financial newspaper reported actual financial facts. Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal tends to forget about the truth when they talk politics. In a recent article, WSJ threw integrity out the window, reporting that Bernie Sanders would cost the American people $18 trillion.

They are, of course, nothing but a right-wing propaganda machine, fear-mongering their way into 2016. Now that Bernie is gaining some traction and may just be an actual contender for the Democratic nomination, the Wall Street Journal felt it was time to put their lying hooks into him, the lies began:

Of the $18 trillion, for example, $15 trillion is for a massive, single-payer universal health care system. The cost of that system isn’t something they got from the Sanders campaign or anything released by Bernie himself, but an estimate from a proposed bill in 2013 that went nowhere. The statistic doesn’t take into account increased tax revenue, since insurance premiums would essentially be a payroll tax, at a greatly reduced rate.

I think you have to understand what you are talking about before you simply take the Wall Street Journal numbers as the gospel. I listened to Bernie clearly say that the Wall Street Journals numbers are wrong, and he will respond specifically why they are wrong. He argues that there is not a more cost efficient system than the single payer medicare for all system.

So pending the numbers being responded to by Bernie, I would ask if 1.8 trillion would be spent under his plan, what is the current amount being spent for the same areas? It is idiotic to say that a new car is going to cost $1,400 a year to operate, if you do not do a comparison to what the actual costs of the old auto. So absent the total spending, is Bernie's proposal a savings or is it more costly than the old car?

[quote="2seaoat"]I think you have to understand what you are talking about before you simply take the Wall Street Journal numbers as the gospel.  I listened to Bernie clearly say that the Wall Street Journals numbers are wrong, and he will respond specifically why they are wrong.  He argues that there is not a more cost efficient system than the single payer medicare for all system.

So pending the numbers being responded to by Bernie, I would ask if 1.8 trillion would be spent under his plan, what is the current amount being spent for the same areas?   It is idiotic to say that a new car is going to cost $1,400 a year to operate, if you do not do a comparison to what the actual costs of the old auto.  So absent the total spending, is Bernie's proposal a savings or is it more costly than the old car?[/quote

Who could make this up?

Wordslinger wrote:Once again, Semi-sane Markle's facts are fantasy.  The figure of 18 trillion doesn't come from the Wall St. Jounal -- it comes from Powerline.com -- a right wing political blog that honors nutcases like Drudge, Michele Malkin, Limbaugh, etc.  But cut the old, cheap, lying curmudgeon some slack ... he's lost here so often of late ... LOL

I pulled it from that blog just for you since I KNEW you would jump at, what you thought, was an easy personal attack. Y'all are SO EASY!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

You failed to answer the question. What is the cost of the present system, and what is the cost of the medicare for all system. The costs on a proposed system should have plenty of debate, but if people are not going to be honest on how expensive and wasteful our current system is in regard to every Western developed nation......then the person is fooling only themselves.

2seaoat wrote:You failed to answer the question.  What is the cost of the present system, and what is the cost of the medicare for all system.   The costs on a proposed system should have plenty of debate, but if people are not going to be honest on how expensive and wasteful our current system is in regard to every Western developed nation......then the person is fooling only themselves.

I take it you did not read the article. Like my good friend and socialist/Communist Wordslinger, read the article.

The estimate is an ADDITIONAL $18 TRILLION.

That means in ADDITION to what is being pent today. How am I not being clear?

Let's see you can have a country run like a Business (republican...Trump) or like a Charity (Democrat....Bernie)......

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

Here is the actual article with all its flaws. First, an estimate requires somebody making the assumption that our current system is efficient and cost effective and determining the real cost to employers, government, and as a percentage of GDP. The thought that we are near last in health care costs as a percentage of our GDP, screams that Medicare for all has a significant savings with economies of scale. Second, the massive one trillion invested in America infrastructure creates jobs and revenues. There has been NO calculation in this article on the growth of revenue beyond their lame argument that Bernie's proposed taxes will have a shortcoming.......the assumption being that there will be NO growth in the GDP with investments in infrastructure. The Wall Street Journal EDITORIAL is flawed. When Bernie answers with realistic projections on GDP growth, we will see true BALANCE in budgets, but the most important part which is NOT discussed in the EDITORIAL is the freeing up of the private sector from the historical burden and added costs which made American products not as competitive in the international markets. This could be a huge stimulus to economic growth and instead of simple balance, we may see revenues exceeding expenses and a true surplus again. Do not give me a Blog Mr. Markle.....read the Editorial.....it is the start of a policy debate, it is not any more certain as to the numbers than a hurricane forecaster a week out throwing darts within ten miles where a hurricane will make landfall. This debate is healthy for America and it should be drilled down to detail to allow good policy to prevail.

I already posted the link to the article in the Wall Street Journal.

I see where your and the other far left Progressives still have a difficult time with reading much less comprehension.

The WSJ is, sadly, not even close to what it once was. We can thank Rupert Murdoch for that. This article is a hit piece on Bernie Sanders. The facts are wrong, but everyone who doesn't look past the surface will remember the $18 trillion figure. The lying in this election has reached fever pitch, and it won't get any better from here.