Newsflash: most people don't like huge tax increases.

[DanTex]

In the Bernie bubble, people just love paying massive amounts of money to the government, but that's not political reality, particularly not in the US. And this is one of the many reasons that nominating Bernie would be a bad idea. Months of GOP ads detailing just how big the Bernie tax hikes would be. Multiple trillions of dollars, and not just on the wealthy.

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying more taxes for better government programs and redistribution. My problem with it is that if Bernie wants me to pay a huge amount of money, I feel he owes me the respect of putting out proposals that have at least a slight chance of actually working. But he's not doing that, instead he's putting out fantasy projections based on Madoff-esque accounting. When he promised 5.3% GDP growth and claimed he was going to save more money on prescription drugs than the total amount spent on prescription drugs, it was a slap in the face to anyone who can do arithmetic.

Now, the good news is that none of Bernie's proposals have any chance of passing through congress, so none of us are going to end up paying huge amounts in taxes to support programs that can't possibly work. The flip side is that if by some act of God, Bernie actually gets single payer passed, then the tax increases he's currently proposing will be a drop in the bucket compared to what he's actually going to need to pay for it. This is the lesson that Vermont learned, and it's why they balked on SP even after the political hurdles had all been cleared.

So, sure, Bernie, raise my taxes, but stop trying to sell those tax hikes with lies. Because doing so is, in effect, fraud.

[LexVegas]

1. Because most of the Berniebros don't pay taxes yet. Their parents do. nt

[MADem]

4. This is a fair point.

If you're not the one writing the check, it's all good, man.

[Human101948]

15. As a 68 year old Bernie supporter I suspect I am paying for you bro...

I'm retired and I probably pay more taxes than you.

And I am willing to pay more for a sane system of social services.

[BlueStateLib]

65. Your willing to pay 30% more taxes?

You already paid for your healthcare so single payer isn't going save you a cent

[Kelvin Mace]

80. Seriously? This is the intellectual rigor of your argument?

If I pay a tax that gets me a single payer insurance policy, I STOP paying for the insurance I currently have. Why would I pay for for two policies?

Also, the estimate for Sander's single payer system would cost me $8,000-$11,000 a year, versus the $15,000 my wife and I now pay. Seems like a good deal to me.

[kristopher]

84. Intellectual Rigor? It's an "are you still beating your wife" argument.

It's designed to plant the idea that Bernie is going to send everyone's taxes through the roof.

Best response:



Over, and over and over.

[DanTex]

87. That's only the income tax component, it doesn't include the payroll taxes.

[kristopher]

91. What?

[DanTex]

93. You didn't know that there's a payroll tax hike also in Bernie's plan? LOL.

[kristopher]

94. Huh?

[apnu]

103. Yes, I checked it. Its a $1.61 hike

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

Hardly back breaking for anybody. Boo hoo, one less Starbucks... if buying a small coffee and nothing more.

[DanTex]

105. That's just one of the payroll tax hikes, the one that pays for family leave.

[apnu]

120. Ok then, show me where this 30% number comes from.

[BlueStateLib]

97. A 68 year old has over already paid for medicare

[Kelvin Mace]

113. Right, and should be retired

at which point they don't pay payroll taxes which is how this being collected.

[HERVEPA]

89. "You're", not "Your"

[apnu]

99. Who is going to pay 30% more in taxes

I see no where on Bernie's site that he's talking about a 30% tax increase for anybody.

He's talking about closing a shit-ton of loop holes for the rich and corporations, plus taxing revenue held in off-shore accounts.

None of which will affect the tax burden for 90% of America.

Where is this 30% number coming from?

[revbones]

117. Ssh. Facts don't fit the narrative they're creating... nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Yes they do ... I just did BabyGirl 1SBM's taxes ...

She had about $600 withheld ... she will be getting (about) a $585 refund check.

[bkkyosemite]

57. That's BS

[ForgoTheConsequence]

106. You're right, I probably don't pay much compared to you.

Working at a non-profit that makes sure people are fed doesn't pay a lot. Sorry my vote matters less than yours because I make less money.

I'm sure this will be a winning strategy for Clinton.

[Jbradshaw120]

109. That's not entirely fair.

And to begin with I will fully recognize that you said most but not all. But most people I know started working at 15 (I'm 27) and thus started to pay taxes. Especially with the economy the way it was many of them started working to help their family keep the house or pay the utilities. They can see those taxes coming out of their checks as well.

[Baobab]

114. Actually, Bernie is wildly overestimating taxes needed. For example in the case of single payer, we

we are already paying more than enough.

Also, we spend literally half of every tax dollar on the military and defense in one way or another.

If that goes down we can increase everything else we need and not pay more. We already spend more than every other country on the planet, combined.


------

See The Current and Projected Taxpayer Shares of US Health Costs
David U. Himmelstein, MD, and Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH


Objectives. We estimated taxpayers’ current and projected share of US health expenditures,
including government payments for public employees’ health benefits as well as tax subsidies to
private health spending.

Methods. We tabulated official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services figures on direct
government spending for health programs and public employees’ health benefits for 2013, and
projected figures through 2024. We calculated the value of tax subsidies for private spending from
official federal budget documents and figures for state and local tax collections.

Results. Tax-funded health expenditures totaled $1.877 trillion in 2013 and are projected to increase
to $3.642 trillion in 2024. Government’s share of overall health spending was 64.3% of national
health expenditures in 2013 and will rise to 67.1% in 2024. Government health expenditures in the
United States account for a larger share of gross domestic product (11.2% in 2013) than do total
health expenditures in any other nation.

Conclusions. Contrary to public perceptions and official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
estimates, government funds most health care in the United States. Appreciation of government’s
predominant role in health funding might encourage more appropriate and equitable targeting of
health expenditures.

[Jefferson23]

2. lol

[Orsino]

21. This is serious.

I doubt I could afford even one trillion dollars in additional taxes. Not if I want to keep up my hyperbole habit.

[Jefferson23]

24. Yep...lol.

[runaway hero]

3. man you hate bernie

when this is over will you stop hating him?

[MADem]

6. ? A fact - based objection (the numbers don't add up) is "hatred?"

[kristopher]

88. Speaking of facts

Last edited Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)

MADem wrote:

You give me a "citation" where the numbers are made up by the guy trying to make the sale, and then want me to buy that?
You might as well have said "Because HE says so!"
You do realize this isn't up to him? You seriously think Congress will touch this with a ten foot pole?
And no--he has no coat tails, so don't even pull that argument out. If he had coat tails, he'd have a few more of those super delegates he only recently stopped disdaining and started depending on to make up his nomination gap.

What I gave you isn't "made up" any more than any policy proposal is always "made up" before being written into law. It's the standard starting point by which you answer the question: What is the proposed tax policy of the candidate? But we know that you don't even believe your own crap since you acknowledge that point when you retreat to the standard Clinton "No we can't!!".

[MADem]

124. LOL--the only "impartial source" in that mishmash at the bottom is

e-file for the taxes!

You give me a "citation" where the numbers are made up by the guy trying to make the sale, and then want me to buy that?

You might as well have said "Because HE says so!"

You do realize this isn't up to him? You seriously think Congress will touch this with a ten foot pole?

And no--he has no coat tails, so don't even pull that argument out. If he had coat tails, he'd have a few more of those super delegates he only recently stopped disdaining and started depending on to make up his nomination gap.

[DanTex]

7. I think he's a good man, with the right goals, and I don't think that the fantasy economic

and healthcare projections were his idea. But in the end, it's his campaign, and if he let his advisors convince him that peddling fantasies and counting on the ignorance of the electorate was a better idea than being honest about the costs, that's on him.

[runaway hero]

36. fair enough

Hillary will win this, I guess I don't see why you're going so hard. The man has to win 1000 delegates in a row, when has that ever happened?

[bkkyosemite]

59. 170 Economists......and let's see there is that big wheel guy who thinks Bernie is on the

right track..maybe you just don't like paying any taxes.

[DanTex]

90. 170 people who call themselves "economists".

[revbones]

118. Sure. Most people use their field of practice in what they call themselves.. nt

[kristopher]

81. World's Most Famous Economist Says Bernie Sanders Could "Change the Face of the Country"

World's Most Famous Economist Says Bernie Sanders Could "Change the Face of the Country"
Zeeshan Aleem
February 16, 2016
Thomas Piketty, perhaps the most influential economic thinker of the left in the Western world, is impressed by the rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

In a post for Le Monde republished on Tuesday by the Guardian, the French economist outlined why he felt the populist senator's ascent spells "the end of the politico-ideological cycle opened by the victory of Ronald Reagan at the 1980 elections." Piketty argues that regardless of Sanders' fate in this particular contest, he has created an opening for similar candidates in the future —"possibly younger and less white" — who could successfully make it into the White House and "change the face of the country."

What's most interesting about Piketty's analysis is that he doesn't see Sanders as following in the footsteps of Europe's social democratic models, but rather leading the United States toward a possible return to the nation's pioneering 20th century experiments with extremely progressive taxation and social spending....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/worlds-most-famous-economist-says-224500690.html

[DanTex]

85. Maybe he can bring a huge ideological shift, although what is much more likely is that

he loses the primary to Hillary. But either way, he's not going to deliver 5.3% GDP growth for a decade.

[kristopher]

92. We can start small

[runaway hero]

33. op has going in on him so much.

that's all. Hillary is going to win the primary so I don't see why.

[Orsino]

5. Newsflash: most agree that the wealthy should pay more.

This just in: lying about an opponent's plan raising taxes on everyone is an old, old right-wing tactic.

[DanTex]

8. Bernie's plan raises taxes on the middle class as well. And like I said, that's even

if you believe his fantasy math. If any of his plans become reality, the middle-class tax hikes will be even bigger.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

67. More than offset by lower healthcare "taxes," so the net effect is lower taxes.

Easier to follow along if you change "costs" to "taxes."

[DanTex]

68. Under the fantasy scenario, maybe. Not for everyone of course.

But the fantasy scenario is just that.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

108. People who really believe a candidate can deliver on promises lives in a bubble. I love reading

critiques and comparisons of competing fantasies. For those people, this whole process went over their head.

[KeepItReal]

69. To have Universal Health Care/Medicare For All?? Where do I sign up for higher taxes?

The end of medical bill bankruptcies and unaffordable prescription drugs in America is not some fantasy.

There are real world examples of this working.

[DanTex]

70. Well, no, because the costs for Single Payer are much higher than Bernie lets on.

If you want universal healthcare, the best route is to protect and improve Obamacare.

[KeepItReal]

79. ACA is a joke! Private health insurance is a scam and has been from DAY 1.

Take in insurance fees, have high deductibles (you pay tons before insurance kicks in), and then they limit how much your insurance will actually pay for services. You pay the rest.

And zero price controls on drugs or services.

Thanks to ACA private insurance can't just deny coverage.

[apnu]

98. You are right.

The ACA sucks. In order to get that one concession, not denying coverage, the Democrats had to wet kiss the insurance industry. This in a time when they had a 60 vote majority in the Senate and House control.

That goes to show you how deeply ingrained the insurance scam is in America. It has been going on for so long its cultural.

Its for that reason Hillary and Bill Clinton failed in their attempts to get Single Payer off the ground in the 1990s.

It is also the reason why Hillary backs a, probably easily corrupted, incremental approach to reforming health care further in the United States.

[choie]

126. Stop being so damn selfish

we are all in this together- I don't mind paying more taxes if it's for the collective good of our country.

[Armstead]

9. "free stuff"

[DanTex]

12. Another substance-free response. Fortunately the Democratic electorate is rejecting his

dishonest numbers. In this party, people like me who care about whether plans will actually work outnumber people like you who don't.

[Armstead]

45. "Substance free" is assuming that nothing can be adjusted and negotiated

"We can never have a universal single payer plan because the numbers on this specific campaign proposal are not perfect. So the whole goal is just a pony."

That's substance free.

[DanTex]

50. "Substance free" referred to your response. I said nothing about "free stuff" in the OP.

Bernie's asking for huge tax increases under false pretenses. That's plainly dishonest. He wants to wait until after he's elected to reveal how much the thing will actually cost.

Of course, we'll never get to see that, because Hillary will beat him, which is a good thing.

[Human101948]

10. yep, we shouldn't even realize that BETTER HEALTH CARE COSTS LESS IN OTHER OECD COUNTRIES....

Health care spending in the U.S. far exceeds that of other high-income countries, though spending growth has slowed in the U.S. and in most other countries in recent years.3 Even though the U.S. is the only country without a publicly financed universal health system, it still spends more public dollars on health care than all but two of the other countries. Americans have relatively few hospital admissions and physician visits, but are greater users of expensive technologies like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines. Available cross-national pricing data suggest that prices for health care are notably higher in the U.S., potentially explaining a large part of the higher health spending. In contrast, the U.S. devotes a relatively small share of its economy to social services, such as housing assistance, employment programs, disability benefits, and food security.4 Finally, despite its heavy investment in health care, the U.S. sees poorer results on several key health outcome measures such as life expectancy and the prevalence of chronic conditions.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

11. Wow...

You should be embarrassed as a democrat for typing out this disgusting right wing smear.

[DanTex]

14. Math is not a right-wing smear. Fantasy economic projections are part of the right-wing

playbook, and Bernie fans should join me in calling on him to come up with some realistic numbers.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

16. Right...

This is the sort of drivel you expect from a Libertarian site, not a proud Democratic site.

[DanTex]

23. Math is not libertarian.

[floppyboo]

62. Your OP has nothing to do with math and everything to do with perception

"most people don't like huge tax increases."

That is not a math argument. It is also false.

Here is math:

46% don't think they are paying enough. Only 27% think they pay too much.

[DanTex]

63. 5.3% GDP growth over a decade is #berniemath.

[floppyboo]

71. Can you explain?

This is exactly the kind of thing that keeps getting thrown out there with no explanation.

You wrote: "When he promised 5.3% GDP growth and claimed he was going to save more money on prescription drugs than the total amount spent on prescription drugs, it was a slap in the face to anyone who can do arithmetic."

But that 'and' in the middle between GDP and drugs needs some contextual explaining. I may be not up to speed here, but, written as is, you could just as well have said 'I made 10 widgets and strawberries are on 50% off'.

How are these related? Is this Bernie's argument?

[DanTex]

78. Yes. Bernie's campaign has touted economic analyses that included outlandish

predictions like a decade of 5.3% GDP growth. 5.3% is higher than during any 10-year stretch since WW2, and in the next decade we are facing demographic headwinds in the form of an aging workforce. This strategy: putting forward fantasy economic numbers to sell big policy items, has mostly been used by the GOP. Paul Ryan did it with his budget, and the GOP candidates have done it to sell supply-side tax cuts. But even the GOPers haven't gone as far as forecasting 5.3% growth. They come up with numbers in the 4% range, and economists and policy analysts rightly scoff at them, because even 4.5% GDP growth for the next decade is fantasy. And then along comes Bernie with his 5.3%, trumping them all.

His healthcare plan is a similar story. When he came out with semi-detailed cost estimates, his numbers were widely panned by liberal economists and health policy experts, even by people who are in favor of single payer in principle. One of the more egregious examples is that his estimated value for drug savings was higher than that total amount spend on drugs (which is obviously impossible), but there were a lot of other areas where his numbers were totally unrealistic.

[floppyboo]

121. ya, sounds like my sister

explaining to her husband why she buys 3 identical shirts she likes on sale. But is this right?
Is Bernie saying:
Drugs cost $100/month now through some insurance company that doesn't recognize generic drugs. You can get them for (say) $50, so you save $50 under the current system.

The savings on 'what was [spent] drugs' is half here. I'm really missing something. I don't doubt that my understanding is completely fallible. It would be good if you could spell that out for me if you have the time. Thanks in advance.

[Human101948]

17. How does every other OECD country deliver better health care at lower prices?

No, my friend, you are the right wing supporter by saying "No se puede"

[DanTex]

22. Even the ones without Single Payer do, so simply switching to SP isn't going to fix that.

Every part of the US healthcare system costs more than in Europe. This idea that if we just switch to SP and get rid of insurance industry profits then our costs will magically drop to EU levels is a total fantasy.

[Human101948]

31. However, by dragging your feet and protesting loudly you guarantee nothing will change...

and that is surely a Republican response to every proposed change in our half assed ssytem.

[DanTex]

47. Obamacare was already a huge change. Progress is possible, but not if it's based on fantasy.

[Human101948]

116. It is a jury rigged half measure that feeds the insurance and drug companies...

Obamacare is not the solution. It is prolonging the agony. Time to rip the bandage off the feswtering wound that is American health care.

[kristopher]

96. Yes, math....

[Odin2005]

13. Did I take a wrong turn to Free Republic???

[hrmbaja]

73. Probably

[Bluenorthwest]

18. I've been paying healthy income taxes for the last 35 years, paying more taxes to make the country

better is in no way a problem for me. I'm not a Republican. I'm far more concerned with how the taxes are used than with how large the taxes are. My peers in countries with higher taxes and better social programs have better standards of living than I do or their other American peers. It's not a simple 'they pay more taxes' formula. They get many things in return that I'd rather have than just more digits on a balance sheet.

It's not me I want for. It's those in need. I'm fine. Aren't you?

[DanTex]

19. As I said in the OP, I'm also willing to pay more taxes to make the country better.

But I have a problem with huge tax hikes being sold with fantasy math. Don't you?

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Your headline opposes tax hikes. Your entire theme is that you are not willing to pay more.

Your worldview is limited and simplistic, all about using catch phrases that have no meaning at all. I'm not a Republican, so your sort of 'logic' will not sell me. I'm not greedy and I'm not needy.

No need to fear. We have to take care of the infrastructure and we need to remain a modern nation. Our cities are embarrassments when it comes to public transportation, our schools are inadequate, or prisons are overfilled and our justice system is abusive. Our health care system is a global object of derision and a great burden on far too many Americans.

Saying 'fantasy math' does not make our responsibilities vanish. Characterizing things is not the same as having principles.

[DanTex]

39. That's outright false. The headline says they are not popular, which is true.

I explicitly state in the OP that I would be willing to pay more taxes, but I want them to be sold honestly. Did you even read it? Or is your personal animosity towards me so great that you just bang at the keyboard.

[HumanityExperiment]

64. Odd...

Here's the kicker, "I would be willing to pay more taxes, but I want them to be sold honestly"

Point out the 'dishonesty' and we'll debate that, otherwise your OP is bunk

While you continue to live in 'political reality', the rest of us will live in reality where the power of the people force the politician's hand

You have to ask yourself this simple question, who are politicians more afraid of? their donors or the voting public?

Simple fact that you nor HRC get is that there is an actual movement afoot, that the very people that vote, that are growing in #'s supporting Bernie will drive the politicians to actually vote for the very policies you say 'can't pass'...

Current 'media' and 'journalism' are incapable of reporting on a movement, so continue to post these goofy OPs, continue to pretend you're not losing ground and supporting a candidate that's seeing her chances slipping away, you do provide good comedy though, there is that going for ya

[DanTex]

66. The dishonesty is the fantasy projections like 5.3% GDP growth, and the

assumptions that have gone into his healthcare proposals (including at one point saving more than 100% of prescription drug costs) that have been widely panned by liberal and pro-single-payer healthcare policy researchers.

Sure, I get that there's a "movement afoot". Actually there are a few movements, Trump is also driving a "movement" over on the other side. And it looks like Trump's movement, unlike Bernie's is actually going to win the nomination.

But movements can't change math.

[HumanityExperiment]

74. yeah math, about that...

22 primaries left, 56% needed through each of those primaries for Bernie to beat HRC

Obviously you are cherry picking statements made by Bernie to try to craft your narrative, I get that, the more you have to work to maintain that 'political reality' bubble the worse you look so let's break down your reply shall we?

How many jobs will be created by the Infrastructure initiative Bernie's proposing? How many ancillary jobs will be needed to support that initiative?

How much growth potential will a new sector of industry that the US is leader of when renewable energy initiative is pushed and passed? Should the US be the worlds leader for manufacturing and support within the renewable industry field?

How much added infrastructure will be needed to teach, train and support the healthcare initiative Bernie supports and proposes?

there's your 'political reality' that you and HRC want to maintain and prop up and then there's actual reality that the rest of are working towards

Remember the '60s economy and taxation, the initiatives and movements that decade had to deal with and politicians motivated by an engaged voting public? Yeah... it can happen again, but you go ahead and bury your head in the sand...

[awake]

20. once you include the saving from signal payer healthcare the middle and lower classes..

..will end up with more money than they have now. The only people who will notice a tax increase are the same people who have been getting tax breaks since the 1980s. If you think Bernie's plan will not pass congress then nether will any tax increases. I am so tired of reading the same fear tactics on this sight that one hears on Fox News. Most of what is written by Hillary supporters here is a distorted attack on Bernie, it would be great to read how Hillary plans are better solutions to today's problems.

[DanTex]

27. That's only if you assume that Bernie's fantasy numbers on healthcare savings are realistic.

But they're not even close. As Vermont found out, in reality, implementing Single Payer requires enormous tax increases.

[Human101948]

38. "Fantasy numbers" sound like a Frank Luntz phrase...

I don't buy it.

[DanTex]

83. Actually, "fantasy" and "magic asterisk" are terms that progressives have used for a while to

describe the nonsense economic projections that people like Paul Ryan would put out to try to sell supply-side tax cuts. And now Bernie's doing the same to try and sell single-payer.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

77. Bernie didn't claim that...

An independent economist who revealed he is still supporting Clinton claimed that.


What I've learned is the DNC being for single payer was a fat lie; people advocating for it for years like Krugman all of sudden go against it when a politician pledges to implement it. I get the picture, the DNC and liberal media has been stringing progressives along to keep them in the party, suggesting the promises are just over the hill if we get the congress back. I remember though when Obama first entered office and we controlled everything and nothing of progressive value happened.

No more for me. No more DINOs. No more Warhawks. No more corrupt corporatists. No more bullshit hawkers. No more Clintons.

[DanTex]

82. Bernie's campaign touted those projections, so he owns them now.

And the fantasy healthcare numbers came straight from his campaign.

Krugman is not suddenly against single payer, he's against fudging numbers the way Bernie has. A lot of pro-single-payer economists and health policy researchers have pointed out how ludicrous Bernie's numbers were, because they have intellectual integrity, and don't place ideology over honest policy analysis.

[kristopher]

111. You are not truthful about Friedman's analysis - it's valid and you know it's valid.

We've had this discussion before.

The analysis Krugman was touting never happened.

Krugman and the Gang of 4 Need to Apologize for Smearing Gerald Friedman
Posted on February 21, 2016 by William Black | 15 Comments
William K. Black
February 21, 2016 Bloomington, MN

If you depend for your news on the New York Times you have been subjected to a drumbeat of article attacking Bernie Sanders – and the conclusion of everyone “serious” that his economics are daft. In particular, you would “know” that four prior Chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) (the Gang of 4) have signed an open letter to Bernie that delivered a death blow to his proposals. Further, you would know that anyone who dared to disagree with these four illustrious economists was so deranged that he or she was acting like a Republican in denial of global climate change. The open letter set its sights on a far less famous economist, Gerald Friedman, of U. Mass at Amherst. It unleashed a personalized dismissal of his competence and integrity. Four of the Nation’s top economists against one non-famous economists – at a school that studies heterodox economics. That sounds like a fight that the referee should stop in the first round before Friedman is pummeled to death. But why did Paul Krugman need to “tag in” to try to save the Gang of 4 from being routed?

Krugman proclaimed that the Gang of 4 had crushed Friedman in a TKO. Tellingly, Krugman claimed that anyone who disagreed with the Gang of 4 must be beyond the pale (like Friedman and Bernie). Indeed, Krugman was so eager to fend off any analysis of the Group of 4’s attacks that he competed with himself rhetorically as to what inner circle of Hell any supporter of Friedman should be consigned. In the 10:44 a.m. variant, Krugman dismissed Bernie as “not ready for prime time” and decreed that it was illegitimate to critique the Gang of 4’s critique.

In Sanders’s case, I don’t think it’s ideology as much as being not ready for prime time — and also of not being willing to face up to the reality that the kind of drastic changes he’s proposing, no matter how desirable, would produce a lot of losers as well as winners.

And if your response to these concerns is that they’re all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.

The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is “very much part of the problem.” Paul doesn’t explain what “the problem” is, but he sure makes it sound awful. Logically, “the problem” has to be progressives supporting Bernie.

Two hours later, Paul decided that his poisoned pen had not been toxic enough, he now denounced Sanders as a traitor to the progressives who was on his way “to making Donald Trump president.” To point out the problems in the Gang of 4’s attack on Friedman was to treat them “as right-wing enemies.” Why was Krugman so fervid in its efforts to smear Friedman and prevent any critique of the Gang of 4’s smear that he revised his article within two hours and amped up his rhetoric to a shrill cry of pain? Well, the second piece admits that Gang of 4’s smear of Friedman “didn’t get into specifics” and that progressives were already rising in disgust at Paul’s arrogance and eagerness to sign onto a smear that claimed “rigor” but actually “didn’t get into specifics” while denouncing a scholar. Paul, falsely, portrayed Friedman as a Bernie supporter. Like Krugman, Friedman is actually a Hillary supporter.

Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now. If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.

If we combine both of Paul’s screeds we see that the only way to disagree with a prominent economist is to demonize them as either “corrupt” or “enemies.” They are apparently inerrant...

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/krugman-gang-4-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html

[TheBlackAdder]

25. Are there certain classes one needs to take to write like a Fox News "journalist?"

[DanTex]

26. You tell me: ignoring math is standard practice at FOX.

[TheBlackAdder]

35. So is ignoring all forms of reality, pushing false and misleading OPs 24x7.

[DanTex]

42. Yes, Bernie fans here are doing that on a number of fronts.

But here I'm talking just about the fantasy economic and healthcare numbers.

[TheBlackAdder]

49. It sure looks like one of the requirements of a FOX News "journalist" is a lack of reflection...

.


And a need for attention, and the need to have the last word, and...


.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Your posts in this thread contain no math, they contain verbiage about math and words about numbers

are not numbers but editorial devices. You are not doing math, you are characterizing political policies. Math requires numbers. You use strings of random conservative talking points. What you push is not math. It's rhetoric.

[DanTex]

44. That's true. The math has been done by people like Krugman and Romer.

It's common knowledge that Bernie's projections are fantasies. If you haven't been paying attention, use google.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Snide comments out of a man who claims his rhetoric is math and is driven by a desire for low tax

rates are a poor choice. All you have are talking points and repeated catch phrases. 'Fantasy math, fantasy math'. It's full tilt stupid, sorry Dan but how many times have you typed 'Fantasy' when asked for facts, figures or specific opinions in this thread? It's all you have done. It's disgusting, but you cohort has nothing to work with but trash talk and bias, so do what you must.

In 08 you hated Hillary and said she can't be trusted, this year you attack Bernie. There is not one Democratic candidate you have not denigrated and trash talked at one time or another. You have smeared Hillary and you have smeared Bernie. You are here to smear. That's why your content is nothing but smears.

[DanTex]

60. You're getting silly now. I explicitly stated that I'd be happy paying more taxes.

I dunno, I guess discussing what I've actually written is too difficult for you. I get that you don't like me, but blatantly misrepresenting my words as the opposite of what I actually said, I think your personal animosity is getting the best of you.

[forjusticethunders]

28. If you think the numbers on Bernie's plan are unrealistic

Is there a single payer health care plan that you do find realistic?

One thing though: The reason why the compensation of doctors and nurses has to be high is because the amount of money needed to complete undergrad + med school + residency is pretty ridiculous. A plan to reduce/eliminate high costs of education would go a long way towards reducing the cost of medical practice.

[DanTex]

32. Vermont had a realistic plan ready to implement, but they balked when they

saw how big the tax increases really needed to be. Bernie's plan isn't designed to be implemented, it's campaign propaganda. If he somehow get Single Payer through congress, the tax increases will get bigger in order to actually pay for it.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Failed to answer the question put to you, just as you failed to address what I said to you about my

professional peers in other countries paying higher taxes and having better quality of life because of it. You can't discuss the subject at hand because you are a talking point walking.

[DanTex]

52. Are you kidding? I plainly answered: Vermont's plan was realistic.

It's great that your friends in other countries pay more in taxes. But if someone wants to raise my taxes here in the US, then the least they can do is be honest about how much their grandiose plans would cost. Doing it Bernie's way is dishonest.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. So Vermont's proposal is the only form of univerasl health care you have ever heard of?

I guess you have no contact with any of your international peers. Right now you are being shafted on taxes and you don't even know it. You need to get out more.

[DanTex]

61. The only realistic plan I've seen in the US. In foreign countries, costs are much lower for a lot

of reasons, and it's obviously not "single payer magic" because a lot of European countries don't have single payer systems.

Did you even know that? Or are you part of the "everyone else has single payer" crowd.

[mymomwasright]

29. Doomed!

It will never get any better! Why even try to get better! Just settle for status quo because that's what it's about! BS! Find a way!

[DanTex]

34. Fantasy math isn't going to make anything better.

[Human101948]

43. Frank Luntz would be bursting with pride to see you repeating that phrase like a Republican parrot

It only works on stupid people.

[DanTex]

48. He'd be proud of Bernie's economic projections, that's for sure. Him and Paul Ryan.

[hrmbaja]

75. Yup. He's a walking and talking

Teddy Ruxpin.

[EdwardBernays]

40. Is this today's meme Dan?

Hard to keep track of the daily Clinton campaign lie.

[Gothmog]

51. Pelosi will not let down ballot congressional candidates run on the Sanders platform

Sanders plan to raise taxes would kill down ballot candidates http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/politics/nancy-pelosi-bernie-sanders-taxes/

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi maintains she isn't taking sides in the Democratic primary for president, but pushed back against Bernie Sanders' pledge that he would raise taxes to pay for his health care plan, saying flatly on Wednesday, "We're not running on any platform of raising taxes."

Speaking at the House Democratic Caucus' annual retreat here, Pelosi sidestepped a question about the growing concerns of fellow Democrats over the impact Sanders could have on 2016 House and Senate races, saying, "I'm very proud of all three of our candidates."
But the top House Democrat didn't mince words when it came to Vermont Senator Sanders' health care proposal, dismissing the notion of a single-payer health care plan, curtly saying, "That's not going to happen."

[Octafish]

54. That's what Ronald Reagan and Rick Snyder say.

Bunch of Republicans have lied that into America's heads so that they don't understand much of anything else.

The fraud part comes in when they have to borrow money for all the wars and banksters. Ask the people of Flint.

[floppyboo]

55. Pew research begs to differ with the OP - care about taxes? 42%=not too much/not at all

This is from 2015 http://www.people-press.org/2015/03/19/federal-tax-system-seen-in-need-of-overhaul/

[Kittycat]

56. Newsflash: most people don't like paying $500 for prescription drugs

[Zen Democrat]

72. Most people are fed up with the plutocracy that allows the mega-rich to go taxless.

Those bastards all tell you there's no free lunch, but the fact is they are living free off the middle class for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

"No free lunch" is another class warfare slogan like "poor people don't create jobs."

Well in this economic system, the entitled-rich don't create jobs, and they certainly don't pay taxes. Also, they don't shop on Main Street. These people need to pay up; they owe it to their country.

[Kelvin Mace]

76. Since I look at my insurance premiums as a "tax" imposed by insurance companies

And a single payer system would result in lower "premiums" (my new insurance tax would be less than I pay currently for health insurance), I consider the Sanders plan a tax CUT.

[HERVEPA]

86. Newsflash: Most people don't like posts with whopper lies that have been debunked many times

[HERVEPA]

100. Yeh, right. You are such a shill. And a poor one at that. One note.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/30/ezra-klein-and-terrible-horrible-no-good-tax-calculator

[DanTex]

102. Unfortunately, your ad hominem attacks don't affect the laws of mathematics.

[HERVEPA]

115. Fortunately your drivel does not affect the laws of economics

[Flyingbird5066]

101. Clinton's supporters and donors are the people who don't pay taxes because they put $ in caymans

But vote Democratic because they support legalized abortion, affirmative action and gay rights.

[DanTex]

104. I'm a Hillary donor, and I have no money in the Caymans.

I do support abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights, and yes, those are good reasons to vote D.

[Flyingbird5066]

110. I agree with abortion rights and gay rights myself and have mixed feelings about affirmative action

My problem is with democrats who only care about these issues. Hillary's base is made up of people who are socially liberal but mostly spout right wing economics. They are a group of people called Wall Street Democrats who many on this site like to pretend doesn't exist.

[libtodeath]

107. Once more I wonder if I logged into free republic by mistake.

[Flyingbird5066]

112. Clinton supporters often make me wonder that.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

119. Pay attention, Dan, I'll explain what you really need to know

Hillary's camp wants more of the same, which means another Goldman Sachs Admin willing to cut pro-corporate deals that benefit the rich and your 401K (fuel the bubble) at the expense of the middle class.

Bernie's camp is calling "Bullshit" on more of the same and is seeking a redistribution of wealth comparable to the Great Compression.

There's a word for people like you who fail to see the big picture, it's myopic.

[Newkularblue]

122. Translation

Please let us selfish f##=! keep kicking the can down the road for our kids, and thier kids...

Or if you like

Dont take away my free (on borrowed money) stuff you free stuff wanting lazy hippie commie pinko slacker.

[asuhornets]

123. Bernie is selling

ice cream castles in the summertime..

[pat_k]

125. Translation: America is so corrupt it couldn't...

...possibly accomplish things other nations have. Things like a progressive, more equitable, tax system; one that does not suck money from the bottom to the top; one that rewards real work more than passive investments. Things like universal health care; higher rates of college completion; and programs that effectively reduce levels of poverty.

Nope. No can do. We just have to accept:

Rank on Infant Mortality: 167
#223 having lowest rate, so 56 countries have lower rates)

Rank in College Completion: 19 of the 28
(with 1 representing highest rate among wealthier Democracies studied by OEDC)

Rank Number #1 as the richest, most unequal, country,
due to it's gaping wealth inequality. (Allianz’s new Global Wealth Report 2015)

Rank: 2nd in Child Poverty among thirty-five economically advanced countries
(the only country of the 35 with a higher child poverty rate is Romania)

Rank: Worst among Western democracies in election process by the Electoral Integrity Project.

Nope, this so-called "great" nation of ours couldn't possibly redeem itself by working to change the shameful way we conduct ourselves.

The fact is, the only guaranteed way to lose is to surrender without a fight.

And members of our Democratic Party -- the supposed "good guys" -- have been surrendering without a fight for far too long.

It is a moral imperative that we do what we can to engage in the battle to redeem ourselves. We are working to elect people who are calling for meaningful change. We don't expect to win overnight. We are not idiots. We do believe we can elect more and more people willing to stand up, promote, and gain support for, real change.

That's how it gets done.

By refusing to surrender.

"... I dream things that never were; and I say, 'Why not?'"
--Bobby Kennedy

A majority of Americans agree on about 70% of the "socialist" agenda. They just haven't had a standard bearer calling for the real change we want, and need.