Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, February 24, 2020

Bernie Sanders, the clear front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, was asked over the weekend how much his various plans would cost if implemented. He didn't know.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"So, here's what we now know about Sanders' plans for America:
1) He isn't sure how much they will cost.
2) He isn't totally sure how he will pay for them.
3) It's likely they will be paid for by an increase in taxes on the middle class.

Whoo boy. Maybe Sanders is right that America is ready for a fundamental reorienting of how we value ourselves, our society and our money. But if he's not -- and this election winds up being like virtually every other election in which people vote on who is going to let them keep more of their money -- then Sanders (and Democrats by extension) have a big problem."

As much as the policy goals are very much in line with FDR-ish progressive policy, this is the same problem Dems had with Bernie, whom most of them love, in the 2016 primary; too much Fuzzy Math and not a clear plan for where all the money comes from.

Now, there are actually some pretty good answers to these questions and the policies are sound goals, but most of those good answers and good math require incremental steps, which no one in Fast Food America really likes to contemplate.

His opponent in 2016 had most of the same policy goals, same as his opponents this year; they all have less ambitious plans with better math to eventually get to the same place.

Sanders needs to lay out his plans in the light of real numbers and real time-frames for meeting objectives, and he needs to do it now.

And I for one hope he does. If not, Warren or someone else needs to make it clear that they can meet the objectives of their plans in a realistic manner.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-24 02:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Socialism means never having to say you're sorry you don't know how to pay for it and what it will cost.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-02-24 02:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Congress would temper any hair brained scheme of his. It's why I can stomach supporting him, he can promise the moon for free but congress will shut his worst impulses down. Meanwhile, he voted against Iraq, and doesn't have a list of rape or hair sniffing victims following him around.

#3 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-02-24 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Congress would temper any hair brained scheme of his."

Trump has expanded the power of the Presidency with Congress' approval.

President Bernie is essentially without limit.

#4 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-02-24 02:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Dude was honest about the costs and not sure how they would be paid. Makes ME more likely to vote for him.

I'm sick of slick politicians lying about how they will pay for everything. Bush passed tax cuts during the Iraq war. Now how stupid was that? Bush lied about funding the war and this helped to cause the meltdown in 2008. Maybe Bernie should be given some credit for calling for a policy and ADMITTING that it will be expensive. You know,treating the voters like adults,not children told to go shopping and chill after starting an elective WAR.
Americans always say they want the truth but that is rarely true. We love to be lied to if it needs our vanity or make us feel more prosperous than we really are. Bernie is treating the electorate with respect by saying he doesn't know. He wans the policy and will find a way to pay for it. Trump just lies about everything and half the country eats it up.

#5 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-24 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2

More nonsense, same Trump troll.

"While it might not sound as dramatic, what Sanders is isn't a socialist "democratic or otherwise" it's a social democrat. Social democracy is a reformist approach that doesn't do away with capitalism in its entirety (as, instead, socialism eventually suggests) but instead regulates it, providing public services and substantial welfare within the frame of an essentially market-led economy.

The key difference between democratic socialism and social democracy is precisely that the former advocates for social ownership of the means of production, and does not believe in reforms within capitalism (although it does support temporary social democratic actions), but in a revolution of the system.

The platform Sanders is running on is reformist, and what he is proposing is a US that looks much more like Canada, or Europe"which certainly are not socialist nations. "

qz.com

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-24 02:38 PM | Reply

Bernie is a big picture kinda guy, and you need those kinda guys, just not on TV hemming and hawing about how things get paid for... or get voted into law.

He and Warren might actually make a good pairing; he can talk blue sky and she can lay out the details of how and when.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-24 02:42 PM | Reply

As a tentative supporter of Bernie Sanders at this point, I am concerned with how he realistically intends to pay for all that he proposes. It does not seem possible. But honestly, what do I know? One thing is for certain in my mind, if we do intend to 'go for it', that does mean the MIC will take a major financial hit. I'm sure lots of diverse groups in society will have strong opinions about that.

#8 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-02-24 02:43 PM | Reply

One worry about Bernie is how much damage he may inflict down-ticket. I think it's a legitimate concern.

#9 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2020-02-24 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"He and Warren might actually make a good pairing; he can talk blue sky and she can lay out the details of how and when."

I think Warren has lied herself into being unable to accept even if the offer was made to her.

#10 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-02-24 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"One worry about Bernie is how much damage he may inflict down-ticket. I think it's a legitimate concern."

Like I said the other day, if the left does not turn out in sufficient numbers to elect a centrist candidate it's the voter's fault but if centrist voters don't turn out sufficiently to elect Sanders it's the candidates fault.

#11 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-02-24 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#10 |

I may not be up on all of her lies.... perhaps you could fill me in?

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-24 03:04 PM | Reply

How about how much benefit he will cause down ticket?
Is it a given that he will be a drag on Dems in congress? In some cases,sure. But in other cases maybe not. People are sick of the status quo. Trump played that into a surprise victory by lying about his entire platform going in. He has had 3 years to prove he was lying about everything.

Another corporate schill like Biden or Buttigieg will probably lose to Trump because they bring no new voters in. Bernie will bring new voters in. We saw this in VA when we flipped our legislature. The worst thing the Dems could do is nominate a boring has.been with no ideas. Especailly if all the energy is on the other side.

#13 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-24 03:10 PM | Reply

#11 - NW

#14 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-02-24 03:12 PM | Reply

Socialism means

#2 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

The people who told us that

1. Nazis are socialists because it's in the name

2. Nazis are not nationalists even though it's in the name

And

3. The Nazis wrote the affordable Care act

don't get to tell anyone what anything means and not get stupid fccked for doing it, ya stupid fcck.

#15 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-02-24 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

One worry about Bernie is how much damage he may inflict down-ticket. I think it's a legitimate concern.
#9 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2020-02-24 02:55 PM

Democrats are going to hurt down ticket anyway, IMO, with or without Sanders. Many of their gains were in MAGA country and they may have over reached on impeachment. Not saying Trump doesn't deserve removal, just that voters in those districts might see it as an over reach.

If anything, Sanders might bring out some voters who might not otherwise show up.

#16 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-02-24 03:27 PM | Reply

"I may not be up on all of her lies.... perhaps you could fill me in?"

She can't accept the veep slot from a person who supposedly told her that a woman can't win.

#17 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-02-24 03:33 PM | Reply

As a tentative supporter of Bernie Sanders at this point, I am concerned with how he realistically intends to pay for all that he proposes. It does not seem possible. But honestly, what do I know?

Not much.

Most studies, even from rightwing institutes, indicate that M4A would actually cost less than what Americans currently spend on healthcare.

So yes, it is expensive. The status quo is also expensive, likely moreso.

#18 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-24 03:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#17

That sounds like one disputed fact, not "lies".

We might want to be a little more careful about these ongoing purity tests, particularly when we end up with what we have now in the WH.

Plus, it's often surprising what one candidate can accept from another after the heat of a primary.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-24 04:12 PM | Reply

#18

I would agree, but the plan needs to be voter 'splained.

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-24 04:14 PM | Reply

the plan needs to be voter 'splained.

It's easy, and it's very frustrating to see how ineptly Sanders has handled the question on more than one occasion.

All he needs to say is:

"Americans already spend far more than any other nation on healthcare. If taxes go up to pay for Medicare, on average they will be more than offset by what you are no longer paying to insurance companies, hospitals and doctors."

It's not rocket science. What am i missing?

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-24 04:33 PM | Reply

Joe, not most studies, all studies

#22 | Posted by rosemountbomber at 2020-02-24 05:18 PM | Reply

" That sounds like one disputed fact, not "lies"."

When he encouraged her to run in 2016 before he got in the race and has always encouraged women to get involved, and when the other person has a record of misrepresenting and distorting the truth to her benefit it seems pretty clear to me who is telling the truth. But it doesn't even matter in this context because she'd have to explain to her true believers how she can agree to work under somebody who doesn't believe in the abilities of her gender. Liz Warren of 2014 might've been a better VP pick for today but that woman is long gone.

#23 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-02-24 06:12 PM | Reply

Who the hell cares about the budget? We're going to have a country.

#24 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-02-24 06:15 PM | Reply

#23

We might want to be a little more careful about these ongoing purity tests, particularly when we end up with what we have now in the WH. (redux)

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-24 06:59 PM | Reply

Good to see the usual suspects trashing the candidate they don't like. How'd that work out for ya last time, fellas?

#26 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-02-24 07:07 PM | Reply

You guys argue this nonsense while the bottom line is, Trump wins next election, barring a coup or something worse. Bernie attracts young people, free-stuff people, angry poor free-stuff people, and crazy disgruntled free-stuff people. He will lose, except he won't get the (irrelevant) popular vote like sour-puss did. And he'll probably escape to Russia to drink contaminated vodka and die of a heart attack, while wearing one of those stupid fur hats. Not like the Queen of the Woods , who prefers cheap Chardonnay when she gets beat and her political career ends .

#27 | Posted by Spork at 2020-02-24 07:40 PM | Reply

Not like the Queen of the Woods , who prefers cheap Chardonnay when she gets beat and her political career ends .
#27 | POSTED BY SPORK

Much fear in your words.

Telling, that is.

#28 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-02-24 07:46 PM | Reply

Fear of what? Certainly not the Socialist Democrat who's stupid enough to run as one during some of the best economic times we've had in a while. And HE'S the best the Democrats can offer America? Much stupid in your words, grasshopper.

#29 | Posted by Spork at 2020-02-24 07:55 PM | Reply

#29 | POSTED BY SPORK

You, and the rest of the Republican/Centrist/Billionaire ilk are clearly scared of the socialist-in-name-only.

As I said, much fear in your words. Me calling you out as such is not stupid. You calling me stupid is simple projection.

See how that works?

#30 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-02-24 08:31 PM | Reply

Like I said the other day, if the left does not turn out in sufficient numbers to elect a centrist candidate it's the voter's fault but if centrist voters don't turn out sufficiently to elect Sanders it's the candidates fault.
#11 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-02-24 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here's the point I think you are missing when it comes to a swing district like the one I live in. The centrist and liberal Democrats can all come out in sufficient numbers to help Bernie win in the state, but it still won't be enough to get my Democratic representative re-elected. He needs some votes from moderate Republicans as well as Independents in order to win. The fear is that Bernie at the top of the ticket will have a negative effect on this type of down-ballot race. My hope is that Bernie can bring out enough new voters in my district who will counteract the potential loss of non-Democratic moderates and of Independents who are not progressively-inclined. In this way, it does fall to Bernie to live up to his campaign promise to bring out new voters and to bring back Obama voters who went for Trump. Bernie--and the DNC--also have to make sure that the young people who support him VOTE in November They seem really motivated at the rallies, so that shouldn't be a problem if Get Out the Vote initiatives get them registered and then to the polls. And if Bernie can get a few #nevertrump Republicans to vote for him, that would help too.

And that's just in the district I live in now, which goes back and forth between a Democratic and a Republican representative. If you take a district like the one I grew up in in PA, that has had a Republican representing it for years and just this last election flipped to a moderate Democrat, the registered Dems, moderate and progressive combined, didn't get him elected in the first place and won't get him re-elected all by themselves. I've been talking about swing districts, but the same principle applies in swing states.

#31 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-24 08:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#23
We might want to be a little more careful about these ongoing purity tests, particularly when we end up with what we have now in the WH. (redux)

POSTED BY CORKY AT 2020-02-24 06:59 PM | REPLY

Shut up dear. You're a two time loser. Why should we ever listen to you ever again??

#32 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-02-24 10:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Earlier tonight I saw the clip of Bernie praising Castro's literacy program and saying how we have to acknowledge the good things and that it wasn't not all bad. Which reminds me of that interview he and Jane did about how nice the free puppet shows were in Russia. Yikes. Talk about being tone deaf.

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-24 11:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I should add that I saw the clip just after I heard some women from the Me Too movement interviewed about Harvey Weinstein. (The one on NPR with Roseanna Arquette made me cry.) But anyway, a connection between the two stories came to me. Telling someone who lived under an oppressive regime to consider the good things like literacy and low cost cultural entertainment is like telling someone in the Me Too movement, the man who abused you did a lot for the church, put a roof over your head, sent you to college. All that may be true, but it is beside the point and not much comfort.

#34 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-24 11:29 PM | Reply

We might want to be a little more careful about these ongoing purity tests, particularly when we end up with what we have now in the WH.~ SNorky

Given the Democrats as presented I really don't think we have too.

But keep swinging!

#35 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-24 11:30 PM | Reply

#34 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Tweets gal, stick to tweets ...

#36 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-24 11:31 PM | Reply

Rosanna Arquette Responds To Partial Guilty Verdict In Harvey Weinstein Case

www.npr.org

#37 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-24 11:36 PM | Reply

"Tweets gal, stick to tweets .."

Generally speaking, it is safer, I'll grant you that.

#38 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-24 11:51 PM | Reply

#37 The part of the interview that made me cry is at the very end when the interviewer reads back to Arquette comments she had made about the Me Too movement in 2018.

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-25 12:04 AM | Reply

#37 The part of the interview that made me cry is at the very end when the interviewer reads back to Arquette comments she had made about the Me Too movement in 2018.
#39 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Why? Its been a joke in Hollywood since forever ... she's lying.

#40 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-25 12:11 AM | Reply

#40 Is she? I was telling a friend about the interview and he asked if Arquette had been raped by Weinstein. I said I didn't know. This is the part that moved me to tears--she isn't talking about herself or Weinstein per se but the Me Too movement in general:

ARQUETTE: This is not a witch hunt. This is not a witch hunt. This is men who have done really horrible things and gotten away with it for years. And, well, it's time to be held accountable for these past actions that money and power were able to hide their sick behavior. And that is what it's all about--no more. We say no more.

I think the Me Too movement has sometimes gone too far, but there is also something empowering and good about it.

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-25 12:34 AM | Reply

Is she?

Yes! She just didn't "pay attention" ... because it was about $$$$

I like Arquette, but he was a joke since at least 2008 ... Watch Entourage ...

#42 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-25 12:47 AM | Reply

I think the Me Too movement has sometimes gone too far, but there is also something empowering and good about it.
#41 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

AGree, but I don't think he's really a #MeToo thing ... this was more acknowledging what was already known.

#43 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-25 12:48 AM | Reply

The platform Sanders is running on is reformist, and what he is proposing is a US that looks much more like Canada, or Europe"which certainly are not socialist nations."

Untrue. Bernie would create a far left government even by European standards. Bernie has stated his plan to ban private healthcare. The closest example to that is Canada, who as one of the worst systems among the developed nations. He's also offered free college. So you can party for your choice of years on the taxpayer dime before picking up that gig at Starbucks.

Bernie is not be honest. Yes, college is free in Germany. Yes, healthcare is paid for by the state. But before you can attend college, you must be selected by the state to do so, and you'll study in the area which you're directed to study. And medical care is a mixed system of public and private providers. It's typically OK, until you need to see a specialist. That's when you benefit from getting supplemental insurance, which gets you fast access, or you simply fly back to the US.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 06:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I look at it this way. Bernie is offering a life where someone else is ultimately responsible for your well being. He promises you healthcare, education, housing, food, and money. And he gives it to you by conscripting you in to the Army. He wouldn't have been lying, the army provides all those things. But was not brought up is all the down sides that comes with being in the Army.

Bernie has barely mentioned the financial costs of his plans. The social costs might be far worse for the average voter. And he's not lying, he's just not telling the full truth.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 06:41 AM | Reply

Bernie is offering

#45 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT

A living wage, a workable healthcare system, and affordable tuition.

IOW, all of the things you had and squandered because you're a bootlicking bttch, boomer.

#46 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-02-25 07:19 AM | Reply

MADBOMBER

"Bernie has barely mentioned the financial costs of his plans. The social costs might be far worse for the average voter. And he's not lying, he's just not telling the full truth."

So it's a lie of omission?

Without which he wouldn't be able to sell his plan?

And it's not his fault if voters didn't ask the questions?

That all sound very premeditated to me.

#47 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-02-25 07:22 AM | Reply

Madbomber, what are the HDI, quality of life, health outcomes, etc of the european countries you spend so much time in? What is it about those places that makes them so consistently higher ranking than the United States?

Here's where you try to pivot and say you only oppose Bernie because he isn't proposing a VAT, even though you just made it clear in #45 you have a fundamental policy disagreement with him (not a funding one).

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-25 07:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

An accurate headline for most stories about Bernie's campaign would be:

Radical American Politician Shakes US Political Establishment to its Core With Centrist Canadian Policies

#49 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-02-25 07:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Bomber-boy is full of crap.

#50 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-02-25 08:03 AM | Reply

"Here's the point I think you are missing..."

You could have just said you ceded the point to me instead of giving me the ELI5 treatment.

#51 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-02-25 08:31 AM | Reply

LOL, HC. You're funny!

#52 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-25 08:37 AM | Reply

"AGree, but I don't think he's really a #MeToo thing ... "

Of course he was.

"Watch Entourage ... "

I watched Entourage last summer. Enjoyed it.

#53 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-25 08:41 AM | Reply

"A living wage, a workable healthcare system, and affordable tuition."

A living wage? Does he have a wand he can wave that will make people of lower economic value become more valuable?

And as for healthcare...Bernie is running off into uncharted territory, and doing so without conducting any sort of risk assessment. Why not copy the German, French, or Dutch systems. These have been shown to work for the citizens of those countries, which in itself is a form of risk reduction.

And he's not offering affordable education. He's offering free education. Which will be paid for in many cases by people who didn't want to attend college.

"IOW, all of the things you had and squandered because you're a bootlicking bttch, boomer."

I'm not following, Champ. I feel like I'm in a pretty solid place for a 45 year old.

#54 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 09:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#47

His voters haven't asked the questions because either A) they don't want to know the answer, or B) don't think that they will be adversely affected by any negative outcome.

But if nominated, you can bet that everyone else will begin asking those questions. Even the Dems have been hesitant to be too critical of Bernie out of the risk of isolating his hardcore supporters. In a General Election, the strategy will be to bring all this risk to light. The Bros likely won't care, because they have a smaller stake in society. But There are lots more who will care.

But, I think if these issues were brought to light now, you'd see less support for Bernie. He's basically selling a system that looks exactly like the system we're in now, but paid for by someone else.

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 09:13 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Madbomber, what are the HDI, quality of life, health outcomes, etc of the European countries you spend so much time in? What is it about those places that makes them so consistently higher ranking than the United States?"

It depends on the methodolgy used to calculate those outcomes. It's a little dated now, but the WHO did a famous study back in 2000 that placed the US at 37th in the world. But if you go back and look at the methodology, only about 35% was based on the quality of the care, the remaining 65% was addressing the egalitarian characteristics of the care, such as fair financial contribution, or whether or not the same level of care was available to the rich as it was the poor. In some cases, countries with poor healthcare scored higher in those areas than the US, because the care was more readily available to the poor.

But as I've said numerous times, if Bernie wanted to make a change in how healthcare is received, why not follow a German or French model? Why not the Dutch model...it seems to be the best. Instead, his plan is to ban the provision of private healthcare completely. I think that even you can admit this makes no sense.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 09:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Here's where you try to pivot and say you only oppose Bernie because he isn't proposing a VAT, even though you just made it clear in #45 you have a fundamental policy disagreement with him (not a funding one)."

That's because funding is a different question. As I've said many times, the big difference between the US and Europe is the VAT. Europeans as a whole, rich and poor, determined that they were willing to pay a high VAT in order to provide goods and services. The Bros only appear to want the goods and services, which Bernie is offering to them at the expense of higher income earners.

In 2016, Bernie's economic plan assumed no change in behavior as a result of increased taxes. That's a very flawed assumption. It assumes that those earning high income will continue to do so at the same rate as they did before the tax change. It also assumes that they or their employers don't make a countermove that offsets those tax increases. And with doctors and providers it may be even more pronounced. Under the system he's proposed, doctors could only work for the government at the rate the government was willing to pay. This is also a huge risk factor, as many doctors may simply choose to get out of the business, which would reduce the number of patient hours available, even while the number of patients was increasing.

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 09:28 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

In France, thousands of Transportation Union members went on strike to protest Macron's proposed change to their pension system. Who is to say doctors in the US wouldn't do the same? Generally, doctors are financially well off enough that they could go on strike for an extended period of time. The other consideration is black market healthcare...doctors seeing patients based on market rates rather than rates provided by the government.

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 09:44 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

was asked over the weekend how much his various plans would cost if implemented. He didn't know.

Who cares? seriously ... who cares ... just don't tax me more...

The other consideration is black market healthcare...doctors seeing patients based on market rates rather than rates provided by the government.

This is why in order to make any of this FREE "healthcare" stuff work they all need to be nationalized. Its just a matter of time.

ObamaCare didn't work, BernieCare won't work ... but taking over the healthcare system ... that oughta do it ;-)

#59 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-25 09:58 AM | Reply

"Who cares? seriously ... who cares ... just don't tax me more..."

You're being undertaxed as it is, as we're running record deficits. How about "don't leech off me more"?

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-02-25 10:13 AM | Reply

#56 That doesn't answer my question. There's no need to bring up a flawed study from 2000 that you don't like unless you want to pretend all studies are that flawed.

At the end of the day, you know America lags those countries in many respects, largely due to the public policies they've enacted that we haven't. And then you excoriate anyone here who tries to improve our quality of life.

#61 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-25 10:21 AM | Reply

"And then you excoriate anyone here who tries to improve our quality of life."

No. I'm excoricateing those who would improve your quality of life at someone else's expense. Furthermore, I've offered solid examples of real-world systems that manage to increase access, but not at the expense of everyone who already has access. That's the difference between what Bernie is proposing, and what you would see in a country like France. In France, you still have healthcare options. Bernie's plan is to eliminate that choice, leaving you with whatever care the government chose to give you. Fact.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 10:53 AM | Reply

Maybe Patients and doctors will be OK with a full nationalization of the healthcare system. Who knows. Maybe Americans would be OK with Bernie nationalizing all key economic elements. I don't think they would...I think they would revolt. But I could be wrong.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 10:56 AM | Reply

Republicans are totally cool with socialism, when it's for them.

President Trump: "We're signing a monster. A big, beautiful monster. Forty to fifty billion dollars to our farmers. Our farmers will be taken in, I keep saying go buy larger tractors."

I'm sure the mouth breathers on the thread will explain why this form of "wealth redistribution" is fine with them.

#64 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-25 11:07 AM | Reply

Who cares? seriously ... who cares ... just don't tax me more...
#59 | POSTED BY MATTRESS

The party of narcissism speaks again.

It's spokesperson, a self entitled trust funder, who hasn't accomplished anything in its life, doesn't want to give up what it's parents gave it.

It prefers everyone else take care of it. The way it's parents did all their lives.

Basically, Mattress, you're a fat spoiled baby. The literal representation of the Republican Party.

#65 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-25 11:14 AM | Reply

I'm sure the mouth breathers on the thread will explain why this form of "wealth redistribution" is fine with them.

#64 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2020-02-25 11:07 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Sanders will give me an extra 20k per year. You'll get nothing.

We'll both pay the 8% VAT and higher taxes after.

That comes from his promise that my employer will give me what they paid for my Healthcare

#66 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-02-25 11:28 AM | Reply

"It's spokesperson, a self entitled trust funder, who hasn't accomplished anything in its life, doesn't want to give up what it's parents gave it."

Assuming that is true...what's the difference between the two of you?

You're self-entitled, only no one gave you anything, so you think you should be able to take it from someone else.

So Andrea is not a parasite. You are.

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 11:48 AM | Reply

Bernie's five year plan will be a great leap forward.

#68 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-02-25 12:54 PM | Reply

- you should be able to take it from someone else.

Progressive taxation is as American as FDR and apple pie, and is fair in a crony capitalist economy that naturally flows money upwards... no matter how much people whine about that fact. Especially when they aren't really themselves in the top tax brackets.

People who would like to keep capitalism as opposed to real socialism, not the kind of social democrat policies that are being proposed, again, might want to consider that fact; if they don't want the gov to own industry and the economy, they need to let gov regulate it so that it provides opportunity for most people, not just a steady diet of, "the rich get richer".

Which is where guillotines come from.

#69 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-25 01:15 PM | Reply

No. I'm excoricateing those who would improve your quality of life at someone else's expense.

LOL. "Someone else" pays for strong social programs in every single nation that has them.

Your beef isn't with how these progrmas are paid for. Your beef is with the programs themselves, as is evidenced in your #45. Stop hiding behind the funding mechanism.

#70 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-25 03:53 PM | Reply

"Your beef isn't with how these progrmas are paid for."

It's 100% with how these programs are paid for. You seem to think you can have low taxes by making someone else pay higher taxes. Once state income taxes are factored in, the rate in the US are higher than much of Europe. And there is no country that has attempted to impose a 70% (or higher) tax on high income earners.

As I've said many times, if Bernie was proposing a VAT to fund his programs (like what you see across Europe), it would force All Americans to make the determination whether they wanted to endure higher costs for greater government funding. Instead, Bernie is offering to pay for goods and services by making high income earners pay for it. Low income earners would see a perceived boom in the form of expanded services, which not paying anything more in federal income taxes. In fact, Bernie has stated that he doesn't think billionaires should exist, and has stated that he plans on cutting the wealth of billionaires in half.

It's funny. There was a time when Bernie scolded millionaires and billionaires. Now that he is a millionaire, he just goes after the billionaires.

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 04:28 PM | Reply

"LOL. "Someone else" pays for strong social programs in every single nation that has them."

And you think funding for strong social programs is just as achievable by making a small amount of high income earners pay the bill rather than distributing the cost across the whole of society?

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 04:30 PM | Reply

It just floors me that Bernie alluded to Castro being a decent dude...because he implemented literacy programs. He should go look up the National Socialist's 25 Point Program. Sure, there was lot's of bad stuff, but there was the abolition of unearned income, confiscation of war profits, the creation of a middle class, land reform for to benefit the good of the people...etc.

#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 05:20 PM | Reply

It's 100% with how these programs are paid for.

Please. You've said more than once you're a libertarian. You don't want a strong social safety net; you want the wild west.

Let's cut to the chase.

Do you think the United States should have a universal healthcare system? Yes or no.

Do you think the United States should mandate paid family leave for a duration that is in line with what other wealthy western nations require? Yes or no.

Do you think the United States should provide child benefits as provided in many other wealthy western nations? Yes or no.

Do you think the United States should provide sickness benefits as provided in many other wealthy western nations? Yes or no.

If you're being honest, the answer from you to all of those questions is "no." You don't care how it's funded. You don't want those things. You said so yourself in #45. Stop hiding from what you are.

#74 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-25 05:21 PM | Reply

"If you're being honest, the answer from you to all of those questions is "no." You don't care how it's funded. You don't want those things. You said so yourself in #45. Stop hiding from what you are."

It's not that I don't want them. I certainly don't need them. But...if they were free chicken...who cares. But it's not free. Those things must be paid for. And If the top 1% or .1% or whatever of income earners want to bear that cost, then great. But I don't. And I doubt you do. And I'm positive none of the BernieBros do...which is why he's planning on funding everything on the backs of top income earners.

But even with the massive increases in funding, there is a $25 trillion dollar hole that his supporters would have little interest in filling.

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 05:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Oh, and to be clear. I want no part of Bernie's healthcare plan. The other ---- is pretty much immaterial for me. I don't want or need it. Or I already have it. But the elimination of private healthcare would affect me. So..fxxk that and fxx Bernie.

#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 05:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I feel like I'm in a pretty solid place for a 45 year old.
#54 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

You post here for 6 hours a day, 7 days a week.

You're a fccking joke and everyone is laughing.

#77 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-02-25 07:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You're a fccking joke and everyone is laughing."

Really? Me? A Joke

You'd do better just begging the rich for the free ---- you want over voting for Bernie. You'd have a better chance of getting it.

Maybe they'll even let you shine their shoes, champ;)

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 07:13 PM | Reply

Please. You've said more than once you're a libertarian.

#74 | POSTED BY JOE AT

He's either:

1. Unemployed and/or still at the age where his parents don't mind him living at home

Or

2. Retired

There isn't anyone from other demographic can log the hours and hours and hours on end that he does.

Click on his name. You'll see.

Period.

#79 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-02-25 07:16 PM | Reply

Maybe they'll even let you shine their shoes, champ;)

#78 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I'd piss on them first.

And I wouldn't squat to do it.

That's how men piss.

I know you never met your dad so he couldn't reach you this sort of thing.

#80 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-02-25 07:18 PM | Reply

Piss one them!?!?!?!?!

I'm beginning to doubt your conviction, sir. I mean, it's clear you're not willing to put forth actual effort for all the stuff you want...but you're not even willing to shine a shoe? For free healthcare? Free college? Free whatever?

It would seem to me that deal would be more than fair? Shining a shoe to ensure that someone with higher means takes care of your family for you?

Do you not love them? Your family, I mean.

Maybe your wife should consider trading you in for a newer model...something that works a little better.

#81 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 07:24 PM | Reply

Don't you have older kids? This means you're older. I feel like you should have grown out of this phase.

Are you the old creepy guy at the Bernie rallies? I mean, other than Bernie himself?

#82 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 07:26 PM | Reply

#82 got 13 years of school for free.

So will her offspring.

That's not socialism.

The next 4 for the kids who she tried to cheat off of would be though.

Peculiar thing, that...

#83 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-02-25 07:45 PM | Reply

""So, here's what we now know about Sanders' plans for America:
1) He isn't sure how much they will cost.
2) He isn't totally sure how he will pay for them.
3) It's likely they will be paid for by an increase in taxes on the middle class."

^
I guess, if the middle class starts at $250,000, Mitt Romney style.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-25 07:51 PM | Reply

"The next 4 for the kids who she tried to cheat off of would be though."

I can see that.

After all, why should only the academically talented kids be able to benefit from it?

Isn't only fair that some of that GPA be distributed amongst the students who weren't as smart, or dedicated, or ambitious?

Sounds like socialism to me.

#85 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-25 07:54 PM | Reply

"Isn't only fair that some of that GPA be distributed amongst the students who weren't as smart, or dedicated, or ambitious?"

I'm down for distributing at least some of the stuff people didn't earn; e.g., the stuff that goes into their trust funds and the like.

Go ahead and tell me why you're not, okay?

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-25 07:57 PM | Reply

#75 I thought so.

Just say "the answers are no."

You don't care about the funding mechanism.

You care tha they cost anything at all, regardless of how they're paid for.

No need to deny how libertarian you are.

Have a great night.

#87 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-25 07:59 PM | Reply

but congress will shut his worst impulses down.

#3 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE AT 2020-02-24 02:26 PM | FLAG:

You're relying on the least fiscally disciplined group imaginable that have racked up $23.5 trillion in debt and suffer no consequences for it, to maintain fiscal discipline.

... holy ---- that's optimistic.

#88 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-02-26 10:05 AM | Reply

A VAT and higher taxes on the rich and corporations would provide enough funding for MFA. Military cut would help too. I agree with madbomber that we should have everyone in the game.
If the program is non means tested and truly universal,then yes everyone should have skin in the game on some level. If Americans as a people are too selfish and tax averse even when morally, and more importantly, financially it makes sense to do it. Then I guess americans as a people are too divided,stupid and SWINISH to have nice things. Which is probably the case unfortunately.

#89 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-26 02:01 PM | Reply

Madbomber gets A bad rap, but he seems a fair minded dude to me. I just don't get his bootlicking attitude about the oligarchs.
I mean is he one himself? Playing poor on this site or something? His positions are logically consistent, but only seem to benefit the very wealthy or connected.

#90 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-26 02:16 PM | Reply

Maybe madbomber is a paid oligarch troll, that would explain all the time he spends on here.
He's actually trolling ,for,THE MAN,LOL!!

#91 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-26 02:27 PM | Reply

"I just don't get his bootlicking attitude about the oligarchs."

Oligarch is basically the new Bourgeois. Or reactionary. Or fascist. A term used by the left to establish someone as an opponent.

I'm thankful for the rich. They pay my fair share of the taxes. We all should be thankful. I don't see how you can't get that.

#92 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-26 07:58 PM | Reply

"I'm thankful for the rich. They pay my fair share of the taxes. We all should be thankful. I don't see how you can't get that."

Are you even familiar with the literary character Pangloss?
Or is the fact that you channel him here daily merely a testament to the genius of Voltaire?

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-27 01:29 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort