Boom - Bernie

[DanieRains]

This is how I'm gonna pay for it.

Sorry folks.

Bernie has been doing math a long time.

I bet his numbers make more sense than Trump / Ryan.

[HarlanPepper]

1. Well that settles it for me.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

2. Bernie IS the "make sense" candidate... why Bernie's inevitable!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[rzemanfl]

3. Your post is utterly unintelligble. n/t

[chillfactor]

5. well said!! n/t

[DanieRains]

6. I Take It Yet Not Watching Bernie's CNN Town Hall

Boom.

[sheshe2]

4. You Op sure told me!

Bernie knows math?

[Celerity]

27. ...

[DanieRains]

7. Amazing! Sick Americans Going To Doctors

Not graveyards and bankruptcy courts.

[Gothmog]

8. sanders' plan to pay for proposals does not add up

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

9. "Bernie has been doing math a long time."

[Cosmocat]

10. S A V E T H I S S P I N F O R T H E Rs A N D "M I D D L E" V O T E R S

We are going to eat this $Hit sandwich (vote for him in the general) and go down in flames with it.

You need to start hitting the asshole Rs and the mushy middle who aren't going to buy it.

[Happy Hoosier]

11. SHOW THE DAMN NUMBERS!

Running down some random "plans" is fantasy math.

Put it on a spreadsheet. Show me costs, revenues, and assumptions. Show me that the numbers add up, because they most assuredly do not.

What Sanders is doing right now is complete fantasy.

[brooklynite]

12. Here's another piece of math Bernie should focus on...

...he'll need 60 votes in the Senate to get his MfA bill passed.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

14. What, exactly, will Pete get passed?

Assuming the Senate stays the same, no Dem POTUS is going to get anything passed. So should we just stop talking about what policy they stand for?

[ehrnst]

15. False dilemma fallacy...

When one can't rebut the actual argument...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

16. Not at all.

If the argument is that one shouldn't vote for Sanders because what he is proposing will never get passed, it would be nice to know what other nominees WILL get passed. Those things would help me decide to change my preference.

Of course, we know the answer is that nothing will get passed, which, then, makes the argument against Sanders not mutually exclusive and, therefore, not a reason to uniquely reject Sanders.

And as to the "actual argument," I fully realize the Senate will block almost everything. Our hope is to get more people voting for the things we want and, hopefully, getting some people in Congress that will push it, too. I think Sanders is our best hope for that and not a moderate. I realize people don't all agree with that. That's fine.

[ehrnst]

17. Yep, still false dilemma in terms of how you framed the post you responded to.

You're welcome.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

19. How is that possibly an either/or fallacy.

My post you are talking about:

Assuming the Senate stays the same, no Dem POTUS is going to get anything passed. So should we just stop talking about what policy they stand for?

Nowhere in there do I say there are only two options and that you have to pick between them. Maybe you could argue that I frame their post differently than they intended, but there is no false dilemma created by my post.

[ehrnst]

20. Yes, they are. Read them. (nt)

[Cuthbert Allgood]

22. So you really have no warrant for your argument that you can explain.

Got it. Because I made a pretty clear counter argument with data and warrant. You don't get to just drop your claims and expect them to be accepted.

There is no false dilemma in what I posted because I do not limit all possible options to two.

[ehrnst]

25. Nope. It's still a false dilemma. You are wrong.

[PTWB]

23. How so?

It seems reasonable to me.

[ehrnst]

26. Read the thread. I've explained it. (nt)

[PTWB]

28. I read the thread and didn't see a logical explanation which is why I asked you to clarify.

I suspect you’ll be unable to do so.

[ehrnst]

30. I did. You just didn't understand it, apparently.

You've done a good job for Mr. Cuthbert.

It just didn't turn out like he hoped.

[PTWB]

33. Can you point me to a specific post number?

I’m not seeing a single post isn’t he thread where you explained anything. But I am looking forward to reading whatever your explanation was!

[ehrnst]

34. Like I said,

You did a good job for Mr. Cuthbert.

[PTWB]

35. So no specific post number?

Idk what you mean by did a good job for cuthbert. All I did was ask you to explain what you hadn’t.

Thus far you’ve been unable to do so.

[Gothmog]

13. NYT-Bernie Sanders Outlines Funding for His Plans, but It May Not All Add Up

Link to tweet

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, under growing pressure to explain how he would pay for his very expensive policy agenda, released a checklist on Monday evening that he described as a full explanation of how he would finance all of his proposals.

The actual document is somewhat limited, and in some cases the revenue Mr. Sanders identifies doesn’t match the costs of his plans.

For example, he estimated Sunday night on “60 Minutes” that the price tag for his “Medicare for all” plan would be about $30 trillion over 10 years, but the revenue he identifies for it in the new outline totals about $17.5 trillion. It is possible that the gap could be filled by existing appropriations for Medicare and Medicaid, but Mr. Sanders did not mention those in his outline or in the Sunday interview...…

Ms. Warren released a comprehensive plan in November to pay for her own version of Medicare for all, and the resulting scrutiny of the details was a major factor in her campaign’s decline. Mr. Sanders largely avoided that level of scrutiny by not releasing such extensive details.

His announcement on Monday came nominally in response to a question about whether his plan for free college was equivalent to President Trump’s promise to build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it: a rallying cry for supporters, but with no realistic path to happening.

[ehrnst]

21. Her honesty and her gender are being used against her. (nt)

[dansolo]

31. Actually her numbers didn't add up either

Warren should have never wrapped the M4A albatross around her neck. She was stuck trying to come up with how to pay for Bernie's plan, and she failed. Now that Bernie is getting the scrutiny that should have happened months ago, people are beginning to realize that his math is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

[myohmy2]

18. +1

...

[Gothmog]

24. Even With New Pay-Fors, Bernie's Agenda Still Has A $25 Trillion Hole

Link to tweet

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has made some extraordinary promises in his campaign for president, including free health care, a federal jobs guarantee, universal forgiveness of all student debt, and radical expansions of nearly every government program from Social Security to housing subsidies. When asked at a CNN town hall last night how he would pay for this gargantuan expansion of government, Sen. Sanders presented moderator Chris Cuomo with a new document that Sanders claimed detailed how he would pay for his proposals. But don’t be fooled: these numbers still don’t add up, and Sanders should be pressed to explain his magic math at tonight’s debate.

The first problem is that the list of Sanders’ proposed spending increases is incomplete. Sanders has proposed costly plans for K-12 education, expanding disability insurance, paid family leave, and more that were not accounted for in the new document. He also grossly understates the cost of his Medicare for All plan by citing a flawed analysis that neglected to incorporate the costs of specific benefits Sanders proposes, such as universal coverage for long-term services and supports, and failed to account for how offering universal health-care benefits more generous than those offered by any other country on earth would increase utilization of health services.

Sanders and his surrogates regularly claim that critics are wrong to focus on how much Medicare for All increases government costs because it would reduce the total cost of health care. But independent analyses from the Urban Institute and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget have concluded that even with the aggressive price controls he has proposed, Sanders’ Medicare-for-All framework would actually increase national health expenditures by up to $7 trillion. Sanders himself also admitted in a 60 minutes interview this weekend that his Medicare-for-All plan would likely cost around $30 trillion, yet the list of “options” Sanders has offered to pay for them (options which, it should be noted, he has never explicitly endorsed enacting together) would together cover less than 60 percent of that amount by the Sanders campaign’s own accounting.

In January, the Progressive Policy Institute published comprehensive cost estimates of the proposals offered by each of the leading candidates for president before the Iowa Caucus. After incorporating new proposals that Sanders has released since the publication of our analysis and minor methodological updates, PPI concludes that Sanders has now proposed over $53 trillion of new spending over the next 10 years – an amount that would roughly double the size of the federal government. Our estimate is, if anything, overly charitable to Sanders, as it accepts most of the Sanders campaign’s cost estimates outside of Medicare for All and assumes significant overlap in the costs of his proposed federal jobs guarantee and other spending proposals. Other analysts have estimated the total costs of Sanders’ proposals could be anywhere between $60 trillion and $100 trillion over 10 years. ,,,,

Sanders’ proposed pay-fors don’t even come close to covering these costs. The document Sanders published last night, along with others released earlier in his campaign, claim to collectively raise less than $43 trillion in new revenue – meaning that he’s at least $10 trillion short. But the revenue projections Sanders uses for his tax proposals are well outside the mainstream of what independent analysts at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Congressional Budget Office, Tax Policy Center, Penn Wharton Budget Model, and others have estimated. After reconciling Sanders’ latest list of pay-fors with these independent estimates, PPI concludes that even if Congress were to adopt every single revenue option Sanders has offered for consideration, it would fall almost $25 trillion short of his proposed spending increases over the next decade – leaving a gap nearly equal to the total value of all goods and services produced by the U.S. economy in one year.

[PubliusEnigma]

29. There is no such thing as a free lunch. No matter what Bernie says.

[Gothmog]

32. Joe Biden on sanders not being honest about the costs of his programs

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

36. Sanders has yet to explain how he'll pay for half of his agenda

Link to tweet