[–] [deleted] 4 points 38 points (+42|-4) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

2
30

[–] eggnogg 2 points 30 points (+32|-2) ago 

Then also maybe not spend trillions on wars we start on knowingly false intelligence.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Jack_of_all_Shades 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Hail Hydra!

3
-1

[–] BoiseNTheHood 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

We have the third-highest corporate tax rates in the world, much higher than the ones being paid in Bernie's le Yurop.

1
7

[–] Ravinous 1 point 7 points (+8|-1) ago  (edited ago)

If you do not include all the loopholes yes. But as long as your big enough to set up a shop in Ireland, Switzerland, and the Cayman Islands with 0 to 20 employees, you can divert all your profits and beyond there. Sure you made all this money but your division in the US made a loss and thus you need money from the government to support your failing division.

Note: This is the simplified version but companies like GE, Fedex, Boeing, etc do this every quarterly report.

25
28

[–] edistojim 25 points 28 points (+53|-25) ago 

Bernie's new math:

"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, 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."

Spending 18 TRILLION and taking in 6.5 TRILLION. Typical math for a Democrat. Where's the rest coming from Bernie? Pretty easy question to answer. Its coming from us, the broke taxpayer.

16
19

[–] jallab 16 points 19 points (+35|-16) ago 

And that is the crux of socialism. Money is finite, and human idiocy is not much so.

3
6

[–] eggnogg 3 points 6 points (+9|-3) ago 

Money is anything but finite. Resources are finite, money you can print as much as you want.

2
4

[–] bugmenot 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Just print more bonds and sell them to the Chinese. Then profit until everything collapses.

[–] [deleted] 11 points 11 points (+22|-11) ago 

[Deleted]

7
5

[–] edistojim 7 points 5 points (+12|-7) ago 

To be really fair, Bernie is running on the Democrat's ticket, he caucuses with the Democrats and votes with the Democrats 90% of the time, pretty much looks like a confused Democrat to me. I point out polarized politicians when they are.

0
3

[–] ABitStiffyInHere 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Look at his voting record. He's a Democrat. Flat down party lines every time.

2
0

[–] Moonbat 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Spending 18 TRILLION and taking in 6.5 TRILLION.

You missed the point. This is the more relevant line. It's not polarizing, it's fact. And it is a continuing problem more with dems than with repubs, that their rhetoric doesn't line up with the real world.

3
-1

[–] PIcasso54 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

^Found the Democrat guys!

2
5

[–] tonycongo 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Pretty easy question to answer. Its coming from us, the broke taxpayer.

Easy question that you got wrong. He's said on many occasions he's going to plug up tax loopholes, make large corporations pay their fair taxes, and increase the taxes on the rich.

Unless you're a multimillionaire who owns a multinational corporation I don't think Sanders wants to raise your taxes.

1
3

[–] lloydwitty 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Thank you for adding this. To elaborate on one of your points, he also wants to tax large transactions in Wall Street (basically >million dollar transactions). Taxing them .05% or something nominal like that is his plan. The ones doing the trades wouldn't be hurt at all, and the country would benefit from it.

0
1

[–] Totenglocke 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

What do you think happens when a company has their taxes raised by the government? That's right, they raise their prices to compensate for it.

0
1

[–] obijuanvaldez 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

But at some point you have to come to grips with the Laffer Curve and Hauser's Law. There isn't over $2 trillion of corporate money sitting in offshore accounts because businesses are bad at avoiding taxes. And even if you managed to soak large corporations for extra money, what do you think is going to happen? They're going to their shareholders to report that they just aren't going to make a lot of money anymore? Or will they simply raise prices? Who would pay those increased prices to offset the increased taxes?

0
2

[–] plumpton 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Have you researched the cost of health care in single payer systems? Compare those numbers with the cost of the US privatized system.

20
21

[–] Agedwithaview 20 points 21 points (+41|-20) ago 

don't subscribe to WSJ, was unable to read entire article to fully understand how the calculation was done., am left with only abbreviated essay that was posted...

That being said:

I am guessing this is the new GOP budget calculation model, the one that found the ACA was a $ sink without including any savings - Why are conservatives so against making healthcare available for everyone?

Money to rebuild roads? Again, I question the GOP new math - our infrastructure is crumbling - few states have any available money to fix roads/bridges,/dams on their own - most depend on Federal $'s to get even potholes filled .... gee, I wonder if an increase in the Gas tax is being considered? Maybe, just maybe the WSJ knows something the rest of us don't know - "Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads..."

The rest? don't care, the WSJ never does one of these cost-benefit calculations on military spending - why not?

Maybe the Bernie proposed programs initiatives don't have a complete calculation yet, how do we pay for this?

I have a suggestion - I think Lobbyists should be require to purchase a license? (this is not a tax on free speech, this is a fee for access to elected officials - call it a tax on graft)
I think that the industries that are spending so much on lobbyists should foot the bill. hmmm, Did I just solve the deficit?

2
24

[–] Donbuster 2 points 24 points (+26|-2) ago 

Also, bear in mind that there's literally 9 trillion dollars missing from the pentagon... as in, we have no clue where it got to. That's not wasted money, that's not us paying thousands of dollars for off the shelf hard drives thanks to military contracts, no, that's just the money that is missing, we have no clue where it got to. Even if this cost benefit analysis is accurate, which it likely isn't, that's half the budget right there, find a way to recoup that 9 trillion.

0
1

[–] Agedwithaview 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I don't have it - looked under my mattress and everything....

2
7

[–] obijuanvaldez 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

Why are conservatives so against making healthcare available for everyone?

They aren't. They just are opposed to making it the government's responsibility to tax people to pay for it. No matter which proposal you support, there is no way everyone will get all the care they want for free.

Money to rebuild roads?

I'll just leave this here.

I think that the industries that are spending so much on lobbyists should foot the bill. hmmm, Did I just solve the deficit?

No. The return on investment for lobbying is incredible. Businesses don't throw money at lobbyists to lose money, but rather to get things like a 22,000% return on investment. If you drive up the cost of lobbying you just dry up the incentive to lobby, which might be good but will not solve the deficit. Pensions, health care and education make up the majority of government spending, costs that over time will rise with an aging population living longer and having fewer children.

0
9

[–] nonoyesyes 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

They just are opposed to making it the government's responsibility to tax people to pay for it.

This is the main take away in America. This is why people voluntarily pay 2-3x per capita for health care as other nations (and still maintain lower life expectancies) - so they can pay it to a private corporation instead of the government. They hate the government that much. This is how we had an entire insurance overhaul - without even an OPTION to buy government run non-profit health insurance. Everyone decided they hated our insurance system - so we decided to make everyone sign up for those same plans they hate. This is what happens when legislation is written by lobbyists. We are already paying for MORE than a socialized medical system - we just don't have any of the benefits from it.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/total-expenditure-on-health-per-capita_20758480-table2;jsessionid=18a9hskzs94km.x-oecd-live-02

http://kff.org/slideshow/life-expectancy-in-the-u-s-and-how-it-compares-to-other-countries-slideshow/

0
0

[–] Agedwithaview ago 

Maybe...but do you really think a decline of ROI from "22,000%" to only "20,000%" is going to have them go bribe some other government?

0
2

[–] eggnogg 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Why are conservatives so against making healthcare available for everyone?

Because of the status quo where there is a shitload of money to be made from for-profit health care and health insurance. That's why the average healthcare cost in the US is double compared to say Germany, and you will still die younger.

0
2

[–] TheDude2 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

And not one mention of where the 18 trillion is going to come from.

13
13

[–] 84626433832795028841 13 points 13 points (+26|-13) ago 

A socialist suggesting unreasonable spending? That's unheard of!

3
2

[–] jallab 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

Stranger things my friend.

6
0

[–] nonethewiser 6 points 0 points (+6|-6) ago 

"If we're not spending money to blow up brown people, it's unreasonable spending." - /u/84626433832795028841

1
10

[–] Acerebral 1 point 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

Of course his policies will cost money. I question the validity af any budget numbers arrived at by the WSJ, as well as the deficit between spending and new taxes.

But the US has been underspending for so long on basic things like infrastructure, education, health care,maternity leave, etc... It is not a surprise that a person addressing them would produce some sticker shock. These things are expensive, but necessary.

If corporate taxes go up, taxes on the wealthiest 1% go up, and we close overseas tax haven loopholes, and STILL don't have enough, I will gladly pay more in taxes to see Sanders' policies enacted.

0
2

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It would be nice to see the Pentagon's budget slashed as well.

3
7

[–] Abraham_Linksys 3 points 7 points (+10|-3) ago 

Still cost less than war. imho

[–] [deleted] 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Sir-Real 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

18 trillion the course of 10 years (and these are estimates based off of what?) and human cost is a real deal. You need to think in the frame of "what if it's you?" either getting killed as a soldier or civilian in an unnecessary war while those producing weaponry heavily profit off of the turmoil.

0
3

[–] Axumata 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You'll probably get this shit AND war.

3
6

[–] Diavolo1988 3 points 6 points (+9|-3) ago 

is this less than just the money the FBI embezzled?

0
4

[–] centration 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Just going to throw this out there: Looks like Forbes says we are on track to spend over $3 trillion this year on healthcare. With population slightly leveling off and this type of spending occurring, let's assume that the spending stays consistent over the next decade. That's nearly $30 trillion spent on healthcare. Why not spend another half of that on reforming the system to help out all individuals within the country?

While the article only details that they'll take in $6.5 trillion over the decade, many seem to think the difference will be made up by the broke taxpayer. Though, if we are able to--and mind you, this is a big 'if'--actually follow Bernie's tax plan and close loopholes, shouldn't the 'broke taxpayer burden' be lowered?

Anyways, I still like that he is honest about his stance and is straightforward about the costs of it. Too often we are persuaded by the lowest bidder who can't uphold their end of the bargain, and while the costs may be initially hard to swallow, they are designed with the long-term in mind. Sour now, sweet later, versus the common sweet now, sour later.

load more comments ▼ (18 remaining)