2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHere is how the "unicorns" and "rainbows" are paid for
It's not with pixie dust.
Can we stop with the juvenile crap and if you have a problem then specifically address these proposals?
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
metroins
(2,550 posts)The public option (highly liked) was dropped from PPACA.
Sanders other ideas are much more controversial.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...then what do you suggest?
metroins
(2,550 posts)And choosing a few core ideas that can actually get passed. Such intertwined regulation will not be passed in whole.
We may not like it, but the republicans are citizens and bills will likely require compromise.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Directing the conversation.
Not starting at a point of what the Repukes or corporate blue dog dems want.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)and they often start negotiations to the right. I have been unhappy with Democrats since Clinton was president
anothergreenbus
(110 posts)"Not starting at a point of what the Repukes or corporate blue dog dems want."
Telling your constituents that you had to start with the republican plan because, you just had to. What?
Talk about deceiving your constituents. It's a lie to say nothing is possible.
think
(11,641 posts)while dumping on any effort to make real change happen.
Bernie is more than clear that these are things we will have to work and fight for.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)anothergreenbus
(110 posts)Let's face it, it's what they do--deceive themselves and then force their deception on others.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)To make sure that progressive candidates like Sanders did not make it to even lower positions in state legislatures, the American public really and truly might have seen the public option being put into law.
I don't know how long you have been on DU, but du'er MadFloridian used to post some informative OP's about Rahm Emanuel's history. Apparently, long before he was made Chief of staff to the President, he spend years of his life going to small towns and making sure that only more neo-con types received the Democratic Party endorsement.
A Sanders Presidency will be the beginning of undoing the damage that rat bastard has done.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...and HRC.
3 peas in a pod.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)They ever went as far as teaming up with the Republicans in Vermont in an attempt defeat Bernie(as mayor).
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And the Upper Echelon is still at it, considering that Bernie won't be on the ballot in Washington DC due to some bureacratic snafu!
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)And when they're active, motivated and organized voters - you listen to your constituents, or you don't get re-elected. Instead, they self-fund their own candidate and elect them. The corporations be damned. 
If I was a super delegate, and didn't support Bernie in any state or district that went for him, I would be thinking very hard right now where my loyalty stands. It doesn't matter if Hillary gets the nomination or not.
I'm just saying'
riversedge
(70,182 posts)talking points.
Californeeway
(97 posts)I'm not being a defeatist but the Republican House is a really obvious hurdle to his agenda and something we have to fix first before any of the other stuff can happen. But when he's asked about that he always wiggles out with vague language about 'revolution.' I can like a lot his ideas but still be honest with myself about how vague he's being about the House and how it effects implementing his agenda.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)I say 'YES WE CAN'...that is my faction!
SHRED
(28,136 posts)It sure beats the hell out of "but what do the Republicans want".
GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)Spot on
madokie
(51,076 posts)take no prisoners
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Californeeway
(97 posts)In fact, if you aren't honest with yourself about the difficulties you will face undertaking any given task, you are more likely to fail. So no, pointing out that Bernice's plans are weak is not defeatism. We are just being honest with ourselves about how difficult the task is and what a long arduous battle it will be.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)I guess we are suppose to compromise from an already compromised position.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Californeeway
(97 posts)is not the same as refusing to fight. It just means your battle plan is weak.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)that benefits the true progressive agenda. I'm sure TPP will pass along with other stuff that benefits Wall Street, big Oil, big Pharma, and I'm sure more wars will be on the table. At least with Bernie, you know where he stands and what he'll fight for. Hillary is a shape-shifting chameleon who would sell her soul to the devil to be in power. Americans know this.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)just a go along agenda.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Let's determine how much we can pass when Sanders becomes president and half the senate owes him for his coattails, and Nancy Pelosi has her gavel back and Tim Canova AT her back.
Gothmog
(145,079 posts)Sanders' plans for adopting his proposals depend on these new voters. Here is how Sanders thinks that he will be able to force the GOP to be reasonable http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what
That’s a phrase Sanders uses often, but what does he mean by it? Sanders has said that if he wins the presidency, his victory will be accompanied by a “huge increase in voter turnout”—one that he thinks might end Republican control of Congress. But Sanders acknowledges that the House and Senate could, in spite of his best efforts, remain in GOP hands come next January.
Given that likelihood, Sanders offers an alternate means for achieving his political revolution. He says he knows that a Democratic president can’t simply “sit down and negotiate” with Republican leaders and forge a series of compromises. Anyone who's observed the GOP’s behavior over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency would not dispute that, and in any event, no compromise with Republicans would ever lead to single-payer anyway.
So what then? How would a President Sanders get Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to pass any of his big-ticket items? This is the model he proposes:
What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...]
And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change.
The rest of the DK article debunks that concept that Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell could be influenced by these new voters but we never get to this issue and Sanders himself admits that he will not bet elected without this revolution. So far we are not seeing any evidence of this revolution. Again, Sanders's whole campaign is based on this revolution and so it is appropriate to ask where these new voters are?
It is hard for me to take Sanders' proposals seriously including the ones you want to talk about unless and until we see some evidence of this revolution.
Again, where are these millions and millions of new voters?
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)I didn't see the $10,000 per year savings my wife and I would get by removing private health insurance from the equation.
I didn't see that box.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)It works for you. But others get the bill and dont reap the same benefits as you.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Think a little bigger alright?
And calling me selfish is nonsense.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)And they know how much they are currently spending. So the calculator is an excellent tool.. For example, my tax bill increases $9000. But i currently pay less than $600 for healthcare. Thats a big net loss. That kind of loss would force me to early retire and move out of California.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)itsrobert
(14,157 posts)$0.00
SHRED
(28,136 posts)itsrobert
(14,157 posts)So you would be wrong.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)And fuck everyone else.
Nice.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Its part of my benefits i paid with work and sweat. And you telling us veterans we should get fucked.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Your misreading it.
I don't begrudge your benefits why do you begrudge my wish?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)
that plan is what everyone should be getting.
My Dad was a vet but did not have Tricare--his bills were astronomical, a real hardship. My MIL has Tricare--similar meds, docs are next to nothing.
I don't think Bernie would be in favor of any cuts to medical coverage of the military.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)get less quality insurance packages that costs much more 'out of pocket'. There shouldn't be any out of pocket costs in todays insurance for anyone.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)though I don't find that to be a surprise.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Like the savings part. For instance my wife and I paid over $10K this year and in 2014 we paid over $14K to take care of our health and we have insurance.
I'm adding it all up, premiums, copays, deductibles, costs not covered, and out of pocket. All the things that go away under a Medicare for all plan.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Nt
SHRED
(28,136 posts)And fuck everyone else.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)We earned our benefits. They werent given to us for free. It is part of our contract when we signed up. Paid for by blood sweat and tears. Have you seen your buddy killed?
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Maybe if I yell you'll understand?
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)?
SHRED
(28,136 posts)What I mean is collectively we are all paying for your healthcare. I'm fine with that.
The feeling is not reciprocated on your part and I find that disturbing.
Live Bait
(93 posts)I agree.
Medicare for All.
BTW: Tricare will be fine under the new MFA plan, and you'll still enjoy the same benefits you signed up for.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Do you not understand that?
SHRED
(28,136 posts)The tax code is more than a simple calculator.
Everyone knows that.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Kensan
(180 posts)I tried to point that out in a post inside the Hillary group, but everyone was having a meltdown over their fictitious $10k+ tax increases. If you read the Q&A, you will see they made major "modifications" to their tax model. In the real world, that is not how the tax code works.
Suffice to say, the objective was to just scare people. And it appears to be working....only because critical thinking skills have all been suspended in the never ending pursuit of finding solace in anything that confirms pre-existing conclusions.
Please read the Q&A with a clear mind, and see if you still find this calculator to be a useful tool. I'm a CPA, and have prepared tax returns for almost 30 years. This calculator is essentially propaganda of the worst kind. The sole purpose is to demonize Sanders as an out of control tax and spend democrat. You know...the standard right-wing attack on any government spending for the public good.
As I said in the Hillary group post, I am all in favor of comparing the candidates' tax plans, but there must be a comparison using a rational methodology. This is not.
It's obvious to me it's nonsense propaganda.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)itsrobert
(14,157 posts)n/t
SHRED
(28,136 posts)And I provided a link.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to $1.38 Trillion. Won't happen, so cost of his health plan goes up proportionately. I am for single payer, have been since 1980s, but we deserve honesty on cost. I suspect he is similarly living in a fantasy world on other proposals, most of which I am for.
Corporate666
(587 posts)But the simple fact is that 30% of our spending goes to doctors and nurses. 30% goes to hospitals. 15% goes to drugs. 15% goes to insurance companies. 10% is "miscellaneous" (ambulance services, physical therapy, etc).
Even if insurance company net profits were 50% (and they aren't), that means we could save 7.5% on medical costs, if you ignore increased utilization and all that.
Doctors and nurses in the USA make 2 to 5 times more than what the same worker in the UK (for example) make. There is simply no way we are going to get to European spending levels for health care unless we also get to European service and pay levels. Nobody has ever talked about that dirty little secret because nobody wants to tell doctors and nurses they need to take a 50%-80% pay cut. Also, nobody wants to tell people that being more like Canada means that a heart operation will take 5 months (like in Canada) instead of 3 days like it takes to get in the USA. And a hip replacement, cataract surgery, knee replacement and such will take 3-4 months to get, versus 3 weeks like they currently take in the USA.
He also didn't include utilization increases. He assumed a single digit increase whereas a RAND study showed that when people go from paid care to free care, utilization of services rises over 30%. That's a good thing - it means people are getting treated when they didn't get treated before - but it means we will need an awful lot more care providers or that wait times will go through the roof. It also means costs will rise far, far beyond want Sanders claims.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Why does the United States spend so much more? The biggest reason is that U.S. healthcare delivers a more expensive mix of services. For example, a much larger proportion of physician visits in the U.S. are to specialists who get higher fees and usually order more high-tech diagnostic and therapeutic procedures than primary care physicians.
Compared with the average OECD country, the U.S. delivers (population adjusted) almost three times as many mammograms, two-and-a-half times the number of MRI scans, and 31 percent more C-sections. Also, the U.S. has more stand-by equipment, for example, 1.66 MRI machines per 6,000 annual scans vs. 1.06 machines. The extra machines provide easier access for Americans, but add to cost. Similarly, occupancy rates in U.S. acute care hospitals are much lower than in OECD countries, reducing the likelihood of delays in admissions, but building that extra capacity adds to cost. Aggressive treatment of very sick elderly also makes the mix expensive. In the U.S. many elderly patients are treated in intensive care units (ICUs), but in other countries they would receive only palliative care. More amenities such as privacy and space in hospitals and more attractive clinics also add to U.S. costs.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/why-do-other-rich-nations-spend-so-much-less-on-healthcare/374576/
Fluothane
(32 posts)I pass gas for a living. Why is it that when you are going to have surgery I tell the nurse to order a chest film for your new onset cough? An ecg for obscure chest discomfort when you are under 50 years of age? Is it because I do not understand that a resting ecg is practically worthless? I do it because I know that if you flip your T waves under my care and I do not have a baseline ecg; some scumbag trial lawyer will sue me, my group and the hospital I am affiliated with for all they can get.
Until you get this problem removed from our healthcare system, nothing will change with regards to "high tech diagnostic and therapeutic procedures". Physicians and other healthcare practitioners will continue to order expensive tests as well as refer patients to specialists all for the same reason that I am ordering that damn ecg. No one wants to risk throwing away all that they have sacrificed for. Bernie's single payer plan will not change any of this.
Corporate666
(587 posts)...and your article shows me correct.
It specifically states that physicians in the USA are getting 2-3 times more pay which drives costs. It mentions that the gov'ts of foreign countries are able to regulate the quantities of each caregiver group to ensure high supply and keep costs down.
Furthermore, if you rad your own article, it also states that the number of tests (mammograms and MRI scans) is much higher here. Which costs money. Not doing those tests is, by definition, rationing of care.
There is no way to get to European health care cost levels without addressing physician pay - period. Eliminating all health insurance company overhead and profit won't make bit a tiny dent.
Fact.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)But these things are apparent--
The doctors are part of problem and will have to be brought into line with other developed countries.
We will have to limit the anount of life prolonging procedures that are given to people who are close to death.
We will have to cut downon the number of MRIs and other expensive tests.
Because the fact is that all these practices do not result in better health care.
Fluothane
(32 posts)Once you bring me into line with other European practitioners and my pay is cut by 50 or 80 percent, who is going to cover my greater than $200,000 in loans? Definitely could not afford that monthly cost with a 50 percent reduction in salary. Also, malpractice insurance is just under $30,000 per year. Another zinger that could not be paid with a huge pay cut.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)That’s right, $4,926.63 for the whole year! (It says $5025.63 because they want a voluntary $99.00 yearly PAC contribution that they add to the the bill.) This is the fifth straight year that I’ve paid less than $5,000 for my malpractice and my premiums have been as low as $3,000 for the year.
So, why so little? If the cost of medical malpractice is breaking the back of healthcare in this Country, why is my bill so low? Is it because I’m such an outstanding doctor that my insurance provider long ago recognized that I would never be sued? Well, I’d like to think that were true but, no...
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/malpractice/
Most practices are in this range. Ob/gyn is more in the range you mentioned.
Education cost is another thing. There are ways to address that but like most education today, the real objective seems to be to turn students into debt slaves before they even get into the work force.
Fluothane
(32 posts)What I stated earlier is what I pay for malpractice insurance and it is on par with other providers in my region for anesthesiology. I do not know who the guy in the video is but he is definitely either in pediatrics, internal medicine or family practice. Specialities that are lower risk with less procedures. He also never mentions what type of insurance he has or what his liability entails. I would also bet that he is working in a state with tort reform such as Texas, Alabama, California etc.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)The tort thing has been propagandzied by Republicans who didn't like that trial lawyers were funding Democrats by and large.
In their review of malpractice payouts over $1 million, the researchers say those payments added up to roughly $1.4 billion a year, making up far less than 1 percent of national medical expenditures in the United States.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/catastrophic_malpractice_payouts_add_little_to_health_cares_rising_costs
Fluothane
(32 posts)I agree that malpractice payout is a small contributor to overall medical costs. However, expecting a practitioner to pay $30,000 or even $70,000 that some of my neurosurgeon colleagues pay is completely unrealistic on a European pay scale. School loans are an even bigger complication with this method of thinking.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)He's not laying it all out. People believe this junk. It will cost 2 to 3 times what he says. Those costs will be paid by us. That may be a good thing, but he's not being honest.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)different from what is stated at the link you provided.
Corporate666
(587 posts)He makes claims about how his spending will be paid for, but his claims are unfounded and/or outright lies. Is it correct that Trump will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, just because he said that? Of course not. Same with Sanders - just because he says something does not make it true. I am sure some people will point to the this or that economist who agrees with Sanders' position, but I often see people reposting the "list of scientists who say global warming is bunk". Does that mean global warming is bunk? No. It just means some small number of scientists make the claim that it is. For any political topic, there will be people who suffer confirmation bias and let politics get in the way of facts, and it's no different with the economists who Sanders points to as supporting him.
Cases in point:
1) Rebuild America Act. Sanders says "Paid for by making corporations pay taxes on all of the “profits” they have shifted to the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens". He is lying in his description of what is going on. It is not that companies have "shifted" profits to foreign countries. It is that a fundamental part of the tax code is that entities do not pay tax on economic activity in foreign places. If an individual buys a Japanese car, do you get a tax bill from the Japanese government? Of course not. That would be silly. But that is exactly what Sanders is proposing. He wants companies like Apple to pay US income taxes on an iPad made in China, shipped to India, sold by Apple India to an Indian person and the money is sitting in Apple India's bank account. The problem with this is that it would lead to double taxation. And what if every country felt they had a right to the taxes for every company with an office in their country, regardless of where the economic activity took place? A company might sell a $100 item in Australia, earning a $20 profit... and 100 countries demand $5 in taxes on the sale. It doesn't take an economist to see that this proposal cannot work. And the net effect would be that Apple would just close their US operations and move their HQ to somewhere else. And what could the US gov't do? Nothing. No more than the US gov't can control what China Rail does. Sanders frames the issue as "rich fat-cat companies screwing over the hard working little guy" because he's engaging in class warfare and pandering to people who don't really understand the tax system, but he's just creating a boogeyman and stirring rage. Ironically, exactly the same thing Trump is doing, just a different boogeyman.
2) College for all with a FTT. This has already been tried (in Sweden) and it failed. When the tax was implemented, 60% of all financial transactions on the Swedish market moved to London. The same would happen in the USA. Furthermore, any economist would agree that liquidity is a good thing for any market, and a FTT decreases liquidity. Not to mention it would hamper growth, innovation and investment and would result in a reduction of capital gains revenues. Sweden showcased that it is a poor generator or revenue, yet Sanders makes the knowingly false claim that everything would be the same, and revenues would be the tax rate multiplied by the activity - as if nothing else will change. That is wrong and he knows it. At a minimum, excess burden is a proven economic fact and it would result in lower revenues.
3) Raising the SS cap. Well, again he ignores the excess burden and change in behavior of high income earners, as if nothing would change. Furthermore, he presents it as them "paying their fair share", as if the wealthy are getting a handout from SS. They are not. The system is already progressive and there are caps on what SS pays out - so presenting it as the wealthy getting a free ride is a lie on Sanders' part.
4) Close the carried interest loophole. This is something that may well be a good idea, however the treasury department has said it would generate $1.8 billion in new revenue, far below the $5.5 billion Sanders wants to spend against it. His estimate does not taken into account behavioral changes or excess burden yet again. And $5.5 billion to create 1 million "youth jobs"? That is $5,500 per job. For a youth job that will likely generate little to no tax revenue, that is a LOT to spend.
5) Renewable clean energy. Bernie is flat out lying about the "handouts" to oil companies. He is using a very loose definition of what a subsidy is - it is not money being paid from the government to the oil companies. It is also (mostly) not special tax breaks to the oil companies. It's just standard US tax code. One of these 'handouts' is government R&D spending by the DOE. This isn't a handout because it's research that the oil companies largely wouldn't do because it's not cost effective. So it's sort of like the gov't investing in battery or solar technology. It lowers the price of oil and gas for consumers. Another is the enhanced oil recovery credit. This provides a tax break to oil companies using alternative production means when the oil price is below a certain amount. When oil prices are low, producers have no incentive to spend more money on expensive production methods. but those expensive methods keep prices down at the pump, so the government encourages oil companies to use them through a tax break. Hardly a handout because it's something the oil company wouldn't do if the tax break wasn't there - they only do it because the government pushes them to. One of the biggest ones is the section 199 deductions. This isn't an oil industry handout - it applies to ALL manufacturing and production companies, including mining, manufacturing, electrical utilities, clothes manufacturers, etc. It is there to encourage USA production, and if it is ended, it would be a targeted tax increase on the oil industry - they would be the only manufacturing sector not to be eligible for this tax break. It would also slow down investment in new wells and increase gas prices at the pump. Another one is depletion allowance. It basically allows oil companies to treat a well as an asset and depreciate it based on how "used up" it is. The purpose of this tax credit was to encourage oil companies to invest in wells that were not "home run" producers, this generating more oil production and lowering costs. It's not a handout. It's the US gov't pushing oil companies to do things they would not otherwise find economic benefit in doing. I am sure they would be happy not to waste money on lower producing wells, but then oil prices would go up. All in all, the oil industry pays a much higher tax rate than average across all sectors. And if additional taxes are levied at them, it means gas prices at the gas pump are going to rise. Sanders often claims his tax increases for health care really aren't increases, because people will not be paying health care costs... well, the opposite holds true. If he cuts tax breaks to the oil industry, then gas prices rise and that is effectively a tax increase on all Americans. He can't have it both ways and call medical costs a net tax break without calling oil tax hikes a net tax increase - it's the same thing.
So net/net - Sanders is willfully misrepresenting basic economics in his claims. He cherry picks the best of the best numbers to illustrate how much will be raised, he dramatically underestimates spending, he ignores economic facts that will mean lower revenue (like behavioral changes and excess burden losses), and willfully ignores other truisms, like the fact that people pay medicare premiums which he does not account for in his single-payer system and increased medical service usage (studies have shown over 30% increased utilization, I believe he assumed 5% increased usage).
It's no different than Trump saying he's going to get Mexico to pay for the wall. A politician can say whatever they like - it doesn't make it true.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)For people to think $15 minimum wage, universal-comprehensive healthcare, and tuition free college are not attainable in the wealthiest country in the world.
Who, by the way, spends trillions on war and death.
For people to consider these pipe dreams or otherwise unattainable I say they are terribly brainwashed.
Pawns and fools.
Tools of the system that oppresses them.
Break the chains.
Rebel!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=129794
Corporate666
(587 posts)Doesn't address what I wrote.
If Sanders has ideas that some people like, that doesn't mean he is capable of circumventing the laws of economics or capitalism. I watched Sanders claim on TV that public colleges would not hurt private colleges if the public ones were free.
That is patently false. Anyone should know what will happen - enrollment will rise dramatically at the free colleges, making the paid colleges go out of business. Except the free ones don't have the capacity to accept all those students, so they would do what they did in Europe, which is enact more and more strict entry requirements. Public colleges would become for the top 1% of students and everyone else would be SOL. And since those top 1% of students would have qualified for grants anyway, it would be a giant mess for all the kids who would otherwise have gone to cheaper public colleges who now can't hope to get in and can't hope to afford a private college.
Brainwashed is to think that because we want something to be so, that it will be so. Or that we can legislate outcomes. If that were true, then making murder illegal would have stopped murder.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)you are one of the very very few posters who actually look the facts and figures at the foundation of Sander's platform. If you search my posts, I have brought up a lot of these same issues. Unfortunately, lots of people don't care about maths, facts, or reality.
Corporate666
(587 posts)is a powerful thing. People believe what they want to believe.
Trump was on TV saying he will enact tariffs on foreign imports - people cheered and applauded him onwards. It's been tried and we know the effect - Smoot Hawley made the depression deeper and longer than it had to be and was massively detrimental to our economy.
Likewise, Sanders stands up and talks about Wall St, Bankers, the rich, and on and on. He says he will do things that have been tried and have failed, and people cheer and applaud him.
In both cases, people suffer confirmation bias. They want it to be true, so they believe it's true. Like an abused spouse thinking her abuser won't do it again, and THIS time it will be different.
I would point out
(1) Actually, the US already taxes the income made by Apple India but this is deferred until it is repatriated back to the US. The US is one of the few countries with a worldwide tax system. Almost every country uses a territorial system (just tax profits made in that country). Not surprisingly, many countries are looking to move their headquarters out of the US (so-called corporate inversions) so they can avoid being taxed on their non-US income.
Where Sanders does have a valid point is on practices such as "transfer pricing" and "earnings stripping".
Corporate666
(587 posts)The USA doesn't tax income earned abroad by foreign corporations. Only if that money is repatriated back to the USA - but it is not required to be repatriated anymore than you or I are not required to spend our money in Germany - but if we did we would pay their sales taxes. The tax isn't deferred - it's not due at all.
And what Sanders wants to do is eliminate the ability of a corporation to deduct taxes already paid in another country... so that Apple India would pay US tax on all their sales just as Apple USA pays tax on USA sales.
Of course, that plan would never work and would result in most companies fleeing the USA and just importing. But Sanders uses rhetoric to encourage people to feel like victims and give them a boogeyman to hate, then sells himself as the great boogeyman slayer who will kill the beast and deliver (social) justice. Of course, he knows his plans are economically disasterous, but that doesn't matter - he just needs people to vote for him - not to actually deliver on his promises to them.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)A member since 2010 and only 15 posts?
Not that that is bad but it's strange to me.
Lurking.
Dealing with serious health issues.
Running a business.
Trying to stay alive, happy and prosperous - same as all of us!
SHRED
(28,136 posts)
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)We cannot pretend to be having normal negotiations as if we are dealing with regular traditional Republicans when that party has been taken over by racists who want to do away with voting rights act, or dominionists who want women and gays to have no equal rights, or people like Trump who would be happy to be a dictator in a violent police state.
This is the fallacy in the whole argument--we are in a situation where the RW is prepared to sign away not only our civil rights but our national sovereignty with the TTIP. It is not a matter of compromise anymore, we have compromised our way into a freaking corner and have to push our way back out.
Good thing we didn't compromise so much with the British, we might have never made it as a country in the first place.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)probably have ended earlier, etc. Just saying.
Gothmog
(145,079 posts)What we learned from our calculator
Play around with different incomes other than your own to get a better idea of how each candidate deals with the poor, middle class, and wealthy.
In short, what you'll see is:
Clinton proposes keeping things mostly the same.
Sanders wants to implement massive increases across the board, including on the poor.
Cruz and Trump propose big cuts for everyone — but the wealthier you are, the more you keep in your pocket
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Gothmog
(145,079 posts)I trust Prof. Krugman on this and that amusing but wrong analysis you cite depends on some sad and wrong made up numbers as to cost savings http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0
On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
Again, as noted by Prof. Krugman this plan does not add up and so I trust Vox and Krugman. Using made up numbers is really sad
SHRED
(28,136 posts)We know that.
Gothmog
(145,079 posts)Gothmog
(145,079 posts)If voters check their taxes on this calculator, then Sanders' platform would have no chance of passage
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...could work considering everyone's situation is different and the tax code so complicated.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)that will never be made.
It's gonna be awesome!
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Because it has worked so well.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Political revolution, I say!
