Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Is Bernie Sanders crazy?

Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:55:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
From the Wall Street Journal: Price tag of Sanders plan: $18 trillion. While his ideas are good intentioned, I can not see how the people voting for Sanders are not concerned about how this kind of government spending would impact America. It's like having a list of things that you'd love to have, but not understanding that someone has to pay for it. The article explains a little about how he proposes to get the revenue to pay for his "list", but I just can't see it coming to fruition. I don't believe college tuition should be free, if you want higher education, you should expect to pay for some of it. Even if he were elected, which he probably won't be, I can't see Congress passing much of his plans.

How about figuring out what the government can spend less money on, and shift those funds to pay for other programs, it's called a balanced budget. Neither party that I know of in the past 20 years has worked hard to get our deficit under control. Maybe the average American doesn't understand budgeting very well, but common sense should tell people that we can't keep spending money like were never going to have to "pay the piper" one day.

And for the Sanders supporters, look at the source of the info...it's not Fox News. Just saying that IMO a vote for Sanders is a vote for MORE government. Again, I'm not bashing his ideas, as no doubt they would be useful, but the reality of the costs will most likely mean that they can not be done. I applaud his vision, as it seems that he truly wants to help Americans, but think about the COST.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 4:09:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:55:37 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
From the Wall Street Journal: Price tag of Sanders plan: $18 trillion. While his ideas are good intentioned, I can not see how the people voting for Sanders are not concerned about how this kind of government spending would impact America. It's like having a list of things that you'd love to have, but not understanding that someone has to pay for it. The article explains a little about how he proposes to get the revenue to pay for his "list", but I just can't see it coming to fruition. I don't believe college tuition should be free, if you want higher education, you should expect to pay for some of it. Even if he were elected, which he probably won't be, I can't see Congress passing much of his plans.

How about figuring out what the government can spend less money on, and shift those funds to pay for other programs, it's called a balanced budget. Neither party that I know of in the past 20 years has worked hard to get our deficit under control. Maybe the average American doesn't understand budgeting very well, but common sense should tell people that we can't keep spending money like were never going to have to "pay the piper" one day.

The only reduction in government spending that would have a meaningful impact would have to happen in defense, healthcare, and pensions. Those three make up 3/4 of the federal budget and it is political suicide to touch them. Even just talking about being more efficient with how they're managed results in attacks from the other side.

I support Sanders for his attitude about politics in general and some of his common sense ideas (e.g. including veteran's health costs when considering the costs of defense). I wouldn't expect him to get much of what he wants done, but I think his attitude is one that is sorely needed in the White House.

And for the Sanders supporters, look at the source of the info...it's not Fox News. Just saying that IMO a vote for Sanders is a vote for MORE government. Again, I'm not bashing his ideas, as no doubt they would be useful, but the reality of the costs will most likely mean that they can not be done. I applaud his vision, as it seems that he truly wants to help Americans, but think about the COST.
Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:09:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 4:09:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:55:37 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
From the Wall Street Journal: Price tag of Sanders plan: $18 trillion. While his ideas are good intentioned, I can not see how the people voting for Sanders are not concerned about how this kind of government spending would impact America. It's like having a list of things that you'd love to have, but not understanding that someone has to pay for it. The article explains a little about how he proposes to get the revenue to pay for his "list", but I just can't see it coming to fruition. I don't believe college tuition should be free, if you want higher education, you should expect to pay for some of it. Even if he were elected, which he probably won't be, I can't see Congress passing much of his plans.

How about figuring out what the government can spend less money on, and shift those funds to pay for other programs, it's called a balanced budget. Neither party that I know of in the past 20 years has worked hard to get our deficit under control. Maybe the average American doesn't understand budgeting very well, but common sense should tell people that we can't keep spending money like were never going to have to "pay the piper" one day.

The only reduction in government spending that would have a meaningful impact would have to happen in defense, healthcare, and pensions. Those three make up 3/4 of the federal budget and it is political suicide to touch them. Even just talking about being more efficient with how they're managed results in attacks from the other side.

I support Sanders for his attitude about politics in general and some of his common sense ideas (e.g. including veteran's health costs when considering the costs of defense). I wouldn't expect him to get much of what he wants done, but I think his attitude is one that is sorely needed in the White House.

And for the Sanders supporters, look at the source of the info...it's not Fox News. Just saying that IMO a vote for Sanders is a vote for MORE government. Again, I'm not bashing his ideas, as no doubt they would be useful, but the reality of the costs will most likely mean that they can not be done. I applaud his vision, as it seems that he truly wants to help Americans, but think about the COST.

I agree about his attitude, although it makes me weary when someone is described as a self proclaimed socialist. We the people have basically 2 parties to choose from, and it seems like the people in Congress, the House, and the White House, are on such a different level than the middle class, that the average American doesn't really have a voice. No money=no influence, I'm all for foreign policy, and protecting our interests, but what about our country. When will we be able to get a politician whose concerned about the middle class, when it seems the only way to get into a prominent position to affect change requires millions of dollars. IMO, the average American has been tired of business as usual in Washington for a long time, but nothing changes, they just keep pandering to us. Social issues are important, but IMO, the economy, and making things better for the middle class should be a high priority.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:11:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:55:37 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
From the Wall Street Journal: Price tag of Sanders plan: $18 trillion. While his ideas are good intentioned, I can not see how the people voting for Sanders are not concerned about how this kind of government spending would impact America. It's like having a list of things that you'd love to have, but not understanding that someone has to pay for it. The article explains a little about how he proposes to get the revenue to pay for his "list", but I just can't see it coming to fruition. I don't believe college tuition should be free, if you want higher education, you should expect to pay for some of it. Even if he were elected, which he probably won't be, I can't see Congress passing much of his plans.

How about figuring out what the government can spend less money on, and shift those funds to pay for other programs, it's called a balanced budget. Neither party that I know of in the past 20 years has worked hard to get our deficit under control. Maybe the average American doesn't understand budgeting very well, but common sense should tell people that we can't keep spending money like were never going to have to "pay the piper" one day.

And for the Sanders supporters, look at the source of the info...it's not Fox News. Just saying that IMO a vote for Sanders is a vote for MORE government. Again, I'm not bashing his ideas, as no doubt they would be useful, but the reality of the costs will most likely mean that they can not be done. I applaud his vision, as it seems that he truly wants to help Americans, but think about the COST.

First, its not 18t on top of anything. It is paying THROUGH goverment (across 10 years). The number is dramatic, but not as much as you want to think it is. We spend ~3t/year on healthcare as it sits now. When you think about single-payer as just ONE part of this plan, the number seems much more sane.
Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:29:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 5:11:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:55:37 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
From the Wall Street Journal: Price tag of Sanders plan: $18 trillion. While his ideas are good intentioned, I can not see how the people voting for Sanders are not concerned about how this kind of government spending would impact America. It's like having a list of things that you'd love to have, but not understanding that someone has to pay for it. The article explains a little about how he proposes to get the revenue to pay for his "list", but I just can't see it coming to fruition. I don't believe college tuition should be free, if you want higher education, you should expect to pay for some of it. Even if he were elected, which he probably won't be, I can't see Congress passing much of his plans.

How about figuring out what the government can spend less money on, and shift those funds to pay for other programs, it's called a balanced budget. Neither party that I know of in the past 20 years has worked hard to get our deficit under control. Maybe the average American doesn't understand budgeting very well, but common sense should tell people that we can't keep spending money like were never going to have to "pay the piper" one day.

And for the Sanders supporters, look at the source of the info...it's not Fox News. Just saying that IMO a vote for Sanders is a vote for MORE government. Again, I'm not bashing his ideas, as no doubt they would be useful, but the reality of the costs will most likely mean that they can not be done. I applaud his vision, as it seems that he truly wants to help Americans, but think about the COST.

First, its not 18t on top of anything. It is paying THROUGH goverment (across 10 years). The number is dramatic, but not as much as you want to think it is. We spend ~3t/year on healthcare as it sits now. When you think about single-payer as just ONE part of this plan, the number seems much more sane.

Okay, but is it feasible and doable. His plan proposes that the revenue will come from additional taxes on the rich, financial transactions, etc. Is Congress really going to be able to pass higher taxes? Like I said, his plan sounds like something that would benefit people, but I just seriously doubt they can get more laws through Congress to increase taxes to get more revenue. My point is why don't we stop spending so much money, and look to reduce spending, and re-prioritize where the money we have goes. We can't just keep taxing and spending. Even if the taxes were raised on the 1-2% elites, I don't know if that would generate enough revenue to pay for this. Seems like the middle class would have to have our taxes raised as well. Neither party is being fiscally responsible.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:34:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Okay, but is it feasible and doable. His plan proposes that the revenue will come from additional taxes on the rich, financial transactions, etc. Is Congress really going to be able to pass higher taxes? Like I said, his plan sounds like something that would benefit people, but I just seriously doubt they can get more laws through Congress to increase taxes to get more revenue. My point is why don't we stop spending so much money, and look to reduce spending, and re-prioritize where the money we have goes. We can't just keep taxing and spending. Even if the taxes were raised on the 1-2% elites, I don't know if that would generate enough revenue to pay for this. Seems like the middle class would have to have our taxes raised as well. Neither party is being fiscally responsible.

The mantra "reduce spending" has become godly. What Sanders is saying is, we spend this money anyway. There are ways to pay for the services we all use, and that will be funded through additional taxes. Yea, we will get it from the 1%, from the corporations, and some additional money from the middle class, but the services we all pay for already will be funded through the government.

Getting it passed is a different story. That is hard to impossible, granted. Somewhere someone needs to talk about it though, and Sanders is doing that. The solution to all problems is not a tax cut, and defunding PP. THAT is not a real budget management - just more lip-service.
Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:06:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 5:34:17 PM, TBR wrote:

Okay, but is it feasible and doable. His plan proposes that the revenue will come from additional taxes on the rich, financial transactions, etc. Is Congress really going to be able to pass higher taxes? Like I said, his plan sounds like something that would benefit people, but I just seriously doubt they can get more laws through Congress to increase taxes to get more revenue. My point is why don't we stop spending so much money, and look to reduce spending, and re-prioritize where the money we have goes. We can't just keep taxing and spending. Even if the taxes were raised on the 1-2% elites, I don't know if that would generate enough revenue to pay for this. Seems like the middle class would have to have our taxes raised as well. Neither party is being fiscally responsible.

The mantra "reduce spending" has become godly. What Sanders is saying is, we spend this money anyway. There are ways to pay for the services we all use, and that will be funded through additional taxes. Yea, we will get it from the 1%, from the corporations, and some additional money from the middle class, but the services we all pay for already will be funded through the government.

Getting it passed is a different story. That is hard to impossible, granted. Somewhere someone needs to talk about it though, and Sanders is doing that. The solution to all problems is not a tax cut, and defunding PP. THAT is not a real budget management - just more lip-service.

I'm not concerned about PP, as they provide some needed services, and yes I would like a tax cut, if it was possible. Between property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes, I believe I pay enough taxes. My taxes pay for services I use, but if the money was handled more responsibly, I believe people in general could pay less (and a lot of people would like to pay less). I said "if possible", I'd like a tax cut, being that it probably isn't doable in the near future, then managing the budget responsibly and efficiently comes into play. Further taxing of corporations (mainly small businesses), IMO would have a negative impact on small business owners. I'm not sure what you mean about the mantra of reducing spending has become godly? Fiscal responsibility should be demanded by the people.

Don't you handle your finances on a budget, and generally stick to it? Yes, we can borrow some money via credit purchases from time to time, but we eventually have to "pay up". I'm just advocating for fiscal responsibility, instead of increasing taxes. My fear is that if the government keeps raising taxes, in 10-20 years from now, what kind of tax rate will I be paying? The more government programs we continue to add, the more revenue will be needed to pay for it. Instead of tax and spend, whoever is in charge should be more responsible. I think that's fair and logical.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:32:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The mantra "reduce spending" has become godly. What Sanders is saying is, we spend this money anyway. There are ways to pay for the services we all use, and that will be funded through additional taxes. Yea, we will get it from the 1%, from the corporations, and some additional money from the middle class, but the services we all pay for already will be funded through the government.

Getting it passed is a different story. That is hard to impossible, granted. Somewhere someone needs to talk about it though, and Sanders is doing that. The solution to all problems is not a tax cut, and defunding PP. THAT is not a real budget management - just more lip-service.

I'm not concerned about PP, as they provide some needed services, and yes I would like a tax cut, if it was possible. Between property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes, I believe I pay enough taxes. My taxes pay for services I use, but if the money was handled more responsibly, I believe people in general could pay less (and a lot of people would like to pay less). I said "if possible", I'd like a tax cut, being that it probably isn't doable in the near future, then managing the budget responsibly and efficiently comes into play. Further taxing of corporations (mainly small businesses), IMO would have a negative impact on small business owners. I'm not sure what you mean about the mantra of reducing spending has become godly? Fiscal responsibility should be demanded by the people.

Don't you handle your finances on a budget, and generally stick to it? Yes, we can borrow some money via credit purchases from time to time, but we eventually have to "pay up". I'm just advocating for fiscal responsibility, instead of increasing taxes. My fear is that if the government keeps raising taxes, in 10-20 years from now, what kind of tax rate will I be paying? The more government programs we continue to add, the more revenue will be needed to pay for it. Instead of tax and spend, whoever is in charge should be more responsible. I think that's fair and logical.

I will add more later, but here is the nugget. Lets say you pay ~$12,000-$16,000 per year for healthcare RIGHT NOW. Lets further say, single-payer were put into place. Now, you are taxed higher, say an additional couple points. You may be getting a better deal, right? Taxes went up, you are paying less. That's all. Every solution is cutting taxes. Some call for raising taxes - while providing more services.
58539672
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:55:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:55:37 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
From the Wall Street Journal: Price tag of Sanders plan: $18 trillion. While his ideas are good intentioned, I can not see how the people voting for Sanders are not concerned about how this kind of government spending would impact America. It's like having a list of things that you'd love to have, but not understanding that someone has to pay for it. The article explains a little about how he proposes to get the revenue to pay for his "list", but I just can't see it coming to fruition. I don't believe college tuition should be free, if you want higher education, you should expect to pay for some of it. Even if he were elected, which he probably won't be, I can't see Congress passing much of his plans.

How about figuring out what the government can spend less money on, and shift those funds to pay for other programs, it's called a balanced budget. Neither party that I know of in the past 20 years has worked hard to get our deficit under control. Maybe the average American doesn't understand budgeting very well, but common sense should tell people that we can't keep spending money like were never going to have to "pay the piper" one day.

And for the Sanders supporters, look at the source of the info...it's not Fox News. Just saying that IMO a vote for Sanders is a vote for MORE government. Again, I'm not bashing his ideas, as no doubt they would be useful, but the reality of the costs will most likely mean that they can not be done. I applaud his vision, as it seems that he truly wants to help Americans, but think about the COST.

I wouldn't call the man crazy, but he is (at least by our standards) a radical. As he has claimed himself, he is a socialist, which normally is a great way of committing political suicide in the US. I would personally prefer that Sanders not get the nomination for the Democratic party, but not just for his views.

Sanders can promise all these impressive, and arguably effective, policies, but he will never get them passed. Not unless he has a supper majority in both houses of congress for the entire length of his term in office. He is simply to radical and leftward thinking to ever get cooperation from the right and even the center-right. Him becoming president would only further expand the political divide and create another Congress that gets little accomplished. But I can tell you this with quite a bit of confidence. If he doesn't get that super majority, their will be no single-payer, no immigration reform, and definitely no reform in Wall street.

I would personally like someone who is a bit closer to center to become president. Someone who can actually start lessening the divide between the parties and get stuff done. Their exact policies are more of a secondary concern for me right now.
Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:44:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:32:50 PM, TBR wrote:
The mantra "reduce spending" has become godly. What Sanders is saying is, we spend this money anyway. There are ways to pay for the services we all use, and that will be funded through additional taxes. Yea, we will get it from the 1%, from the corporations, and some additional money from the middle class, but the services we all pay for already will be funded through the government.

Getting it passed is a different story. That is hard to impossible, granted. Somewhere someone needs to talk about it though, and Sanders is doing that. The solution to all problems is not a tax cut, and defunding PP. THAT is not a real budget management - just more lip-service.

I'm not concerned about PP, as they provide some needed services, and yes I would like a tax cut, if it was possible. Between property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes, I believe I pay enough taxes. My taxes pay for services I use, but if the money was handled more responsibly, I believe people in general could pay less (and a lot of people would like to pay less). I said "if possible", I'd like a tax cut, being that it probably isn't doable in the near future, then managing the budget responsibly and efficiently comes into play. Further taxing of corporations (mainly small businesses), IMO would have a negative impact on small business owners. I'm not sure what you mean about the mantra of reducing spending has become godly? Fiscal responsibility should be demanded by the people.

Don't you handle your finances on a budget, and generally stick to it? Yes, we can borrow some money via credit purchases from time to time, but we eventually have to "pay up". I'm just advocating for fiscal responsibility, instead of increasing taxes. My fear is that if the government keeps raising taxes, in 10-20 years from now, what kind of tax rate will I be paying? The more government programs we continue to add, the more revenue will be needed to pay for it. Instead of tax and spend, whoever is in charge should be more responsible. I think that's fair and logical.

I will add more later, but here is the nugget. Lets say you pay ~$12,000-$16,000 per year for healthcare RIGHT NOW. Lets further say, single-payer were put into place. Now, you are taxed higher, say an additional couple points. You may be getting a better deal, right? Taxes went up, you are paying less. That's all. Every solution is cutting taxes. Some call for raising taxes - while providing more services.

I did some research, since honestly I didn't know much about single payer care. This pdf doc (link below) shows a fairly comprehensive reason why it is a bad choice, it is well documented within the report. On the flip side, I also read another 5-6 articles boasting reasons why single payer is so much better. However, if countries like Australia, and Britain are having more private funded health care, then my concern is that maybe single payer doesn't work out like some would like.

https://www.heartland.org...
http://www.coalitionoftheobvious.com...

Besides, if you work hard, and have the ability to afford better care, why wouldn't you. If I have to have heart surgery, and I can afford to pay the best doctor in the world, then why wouldn't I, if I worked hard to be able to afford it? That being said, should a homeless man, who can't afford the best doctor still have access to care, well yes. Doctors are no different then the rest of us who want to work hard, and provide for our families. It sounds like single payer wants to more evenly pay doctors the same. The doctor that gets trained at a more prestigious facility, and is a "better" doctor, should get paid more for his services, shouldn't he or she? Most professions, there is a difference in pay, based off a lot of factors, and not everyone is paid the same. There are some people who work harder than others, and should get paid more. Maybe there is a fine line between equality and fairness, but you see my point.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:55:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
right, like an extra 1.8 trillion per year is just chump change.

Free college wont work unless the government confiscates and caps all the universities so that they can't raise the tuition to infinity like they historically have been doing since the beginning of federal loans and grants.. Also, standardize all universities to have the same exact tuition per student.

Then I could vote for crazy Bernie.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:51:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 7:55:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
right, like an extra 1.8 trillion per year is just chump change.

Its not "Extra" necessarily.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:52:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 8:51:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:55:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
right, like an extra 1.8 trillion per year is just chump change.

Its not "Extra" necessarily.

As long as you agree with the rest of my post.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 9:04:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 7:55:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
right, like an extra 1.8 trillion per year is just chump change.

Free college wont work unless the government confiscates and caps all the universities so that they can't raise the tuition to infinity like they historically have been doing since the beginning of federal loans and grants.. Also, standardize all universities to have the same exact tuition per student.

Then I could vote for crazy Bernie.

You're definitely right about the increase in educational costs. I'm pretty sure the plan would have to force federally-funded schools to be managed to keep costs down. That could be a big problem. I don't hate public education the way a lot of conservatives do, but I agree it's very poorly managed from top to bottom. Doing that at the college level seems like a mistake. It would also force a lot of state schools to make some serious changes to their sports programs or go private.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 9:12:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 9:04:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:55:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
right, like an extra 1.8 trillion per year is just chump change.

Free college wont work unless the government confiscates and caps all the universities so that they can't raise the tuition to infinity like they historically have been doing since the beginning of federal loans and grants.. Also, standardize all universities to have the same exact tuition per student.

Then I could vote for crazy Bernie.

You're definitely right about the increase in educational costs. I'm pretty sure the plan would have to force federally-funded schools to be managed to keep costs down. That could be a big problem. I don't hate public education the way a lot of conservatives do, but I agree it's very poorly managed from top to bottom. Doing that at the college level seems like a mistake. It would also force a lot of state schools to make some serious changes to their sports programs or go private.

If you are going to go ahead and fund higher education using a group fund, then it has to be available to all people, regardless if they are college worthy or not. If that means tailoring the system so that the elites no longer pick and choose, then so be it, Exceptionalism in this country is going out the door anyway, so I don't see an issue with wrecking the college system status quo.