Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


(21,210 posts)
38. kick - FAIR: according to @WSJ: $18 trillion. Actual cost of Sanders' programs: -$2 trillion
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:09 PM
Sep 2015

to find later

But but but the headline said!!!! Fearless Sep 2015 #1
free market! government bad! Doctor_J Sep 2015 #20
Also, this just in... Water... wet. Fearless Sep 2015 #31
I'm shocked to learn that Media Matters didn't help to debunk this. frylock Sep 2015 #2
Me too! Duckhunter935 Sep 2015 #3
^^^ (nt) jeff47 Sep 2015 #4
Shocked Shocked Not cantbeserious Sep 2015 #6
Yeah kenfrequed Sep 2015 #33
Big Intro Headlines Can't Really Hide True Facts... ChiciB1 Sep 2015 #5
If we were allowed to have debates, those headlines would lose their sabrina 1 Sep 2015 #42
Big K&R! cyberswede Sep 2015 #7
Ok, so let's assume these numbers are ok. 15 trillion - 10 trillion = 5 trillion Persondem Sep 2015 #8
So we should run away? daleanime Sep 2015 #25
Politics is a rough business. You do not give your opponents free ammo. Persondem Sep 2015 #26
But you should let your opponent have their way..... daleanime Sep 2015 #30
Agree with OP. Problem is, even Vermont gave up trying to explain that to their citizens. Hoyt Sep 2015 #9
WSJ?? Funny how the Clinton supporter all of a sudden like Rup Murdock. What next? Fox News? nm rhett o rick Sep 2015 #10
If all you've got for a rebuttal is a lame try at guilt by association then you've already lost Persondem Sep 2015 #13
The WSJ article was refuted by FAIR, as is clearly stated in the OP. frylock Sep 2015 #14
I am using the OP's numbers. As stated in my post upthread.nt Persondem Sep 2015 #15
Yes, it's going to come from more taxes.. frylock Sep 2015 #16
So try "duhhh" on the American voting public and see if that helps you get Persondem Sep 2015 #17
Perhaps the voters would rather spend that 5T on another war.. frylock Sep 2015 #19
Nice to see you trying another tactic - change the subject!!! nt Persondem Sep 2015 #21
So does this effect Sanders in the primary or GE? frylock Sep 2015 #22
I doubt he'll make it to the GE, but the effect there would be deadly. The ads write themselves. Persondem Sep 2015 #23
Sanders has a groundswell of support from voters who will never be effected by his tax proposals. frylock Sep 2015 #24
He proposes Tax Raises on the Top 1%, a tax on certain Wall Street Transactions KoKo Sep 2015 #43
Nice ideas, but that doesn't come close to the trillions needed for SP. Persondem Sep 2015 #45
Get rid of the Private Insurance Companies double dealing with Big Pharma KoKo Sep 2015 #46
None of those expenses are currently paid by the government. Persondem Sep 2015 #48
As I said, funny how the Clinton supporters are all of a sudden friends of the WSJ. rhett o rick Sep 2015 #27
Well if yours is truly a rightiousness cause, then you should have no Persondem Sep 2015 #34
Again it's funny how that Clinton supporters become friendly with the WSJ if they like the rhett o rick Sep 2015 #35
You obviously have nothing but dreams and generalities. Bye.nt Persondem Sep 2015 #36
At least I have that. What do you have? Side with the Oligarchs and hope they will treat you well? rhett o rick Sep 2015 #37
No trouble at all. rhett o rick Sep 2015 #39
I checked it out. Nothing in there refutes the Trillions in new taxes. nt. Persondem Sep 2015 #44
Then you didn't really "check it out". Are you against single payer? nm rhett o rick Sep 2015 #49
I like the idea of SP. And there were NO numbers in the article or the link. Persondem Sep 2015 #50
And where did the WSJ get their numbers? Seems you trust them. nm rhett o rick Sep 2015 #51
Ok, so I have provided a link to the source of the WSJ article with all kinds Persondem Sep 2015 #53
The Wall Street Journal is a Right Wing Rag. Funny how Clinton supporters now rhett o rick Sep 2015 #54
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Sep 2015 #11
This is the end game for Murdoch. Major Hogwash Sep 2015 #12
Apparently the Clinton supporters love the WSJ and Murdock. nm rhett o rick Sep 2015 #28
Will all of the outraged hillarians from yesterday please check in? Doctor_J Sep 2015 #18
They are too busy... TheFarS1de Sep 2015 #47
K&R AtomicKitten Sep 2015 #29
K & R LWolf Sep 2015 #32
kick - FAIR: according to @WSJ: $18 trillion. Actual cost of Sanders' programs: -$2 trillion slipslidingaway Sep 2015 #38
I think it shows a certain hypocracy for those that are opposed to Sanders to all of a sudden rhett o rick Sep 2015 #40
The cost to the government is (around) $18T though. There's the rub. They tried this in Vermont, DanTex Sep 2015 #41
Wait. The article agrees that the cost to the government is $18T Recursion Sep 2015 #52
But displaces the costs of private insurance and saves overall money by doing it. Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #55
Right but there's no such thing as "overall money" Recursion Sep 2015 #56
95 percent of Americans would pay less than they do now for health insurance and medical care. Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #57
There's absolutely no way you can say that with any confidence Recursion Sep 2015 #58
Link. Show me the 10% payroll tax. Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #59
Read the bill Recursion Sep 2015 #60
Bullshit. The following progressive financing plan would meet the specifications of HR 676: Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #61
Those numbers don't even come close to raising that much money Recursion Sep 2015 #62
You're just making things up. Cite evidence or expert analysis. Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #63
Do some math on your own Recursion Sep 2015 #64
OK so nothing. I thought so. Don't spread right-wing talking points. Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #65
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»FAIR: according to @WSJ: ...»Reply #38