How to lose a GE: nominate a socialist who proposes $18T in new government spending.

[DanTex]

Yeah, I know. We're just going to sit down with each and every voter and calmly explain that he's not "that kind" of socialist, and the $18T isn't really "new" spending, and then everyone will just love it.

[WillyT]

1. LOL !!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

121. The op is a right winger surely?

so we can't spend money on our citizens yet we can pay trillions for war in oil nations?

[WillyT]

122. No... It's More Like This:

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/128051549

[Rosa Luxemburg]

123. Her we go - Hillary and her Republican colleagues on the attack

they must fear our Bernie?

[AgingAmerican]

139. She attacks him from the right

At great peril to her campaign.

[dorkzilla]

2. Oh this should go over well!

[beam me up scottie]

11. Scootch over.

I brought beer:

[dorkzilla]

23. Awesome!

Then we’ll be all like

Some people are already acting like drunken fools...

[beam me up scottie]

27. Oh, c'mon dorkzilla!

They're just concerned is all.

The only way to fight right wing propaganda against Bernie is to post it here like it's the gospel truth!

Or something.

[dorkzilla]

29. He says he likes to discuss politics

if discuss means “fling meaningless poo ad nauseum”.

BRB, going to get my dictionary...

[beam me up scottie]

56. He thinks that's what he's doing?

How adorable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Brought some more

[dorkzilla]

80. We’re gonna need a bigger bucket!

Its going to be a loooooooooong primary. I say we buy stock in beer and popcorn!!!!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. Well maybe fill in the olympic sized pool

[Aerows]

106. Please pass me the butter

and scoot over just a little more so I can get on the sofa . Won't take up too much space, promise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. I got a blanket too...get comfy

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Red Scare.....again?

[DanTex]

4. Not sure why people keep talking about "red" anything.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Because people keep keep try to scare people with the word Socialist.

[DanTex]

12. Well, it's true that a socialist is thoroughly unelectable, but I'm asking about the "red" part.

Are you suggesting that socialism is the same thing as communism?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. No more than saying that Catholics are similar to Anglicans.

Or, doves are similar to hawks.

[arcane1]

19. Then you need not waste one second of your life discussing him.

If he can't win, then why bother? Do O'Malley and Webb get this level of attention from you too?

Remember: every minute of your life you waste on Sanders is a minute you'll never get back. And since he's "unelectable" your efforts are in vain anyway, because you will have no effect on the outcome.

Now, back to those right-wing talking points, shall we?

[DanTex]

21. I like discussing politics.

[arcane1]

126. Oh, is that was this was all about.

Silly me

[Ken Burch]

132. Using McCarthyite rhetoric is not "discussing".

It's flamebait. Actual discussion involves some level of mutual respect.

[virtualobserver]

10. not sure

[Aerows]

108. LMFAO

Took me a minute to get that one.

Freaking priceless

[virtualobserver]

110. I love that movie

We are practically living that movie with Trump and the Republicans

[HooptieWagon]

33. He's a one trick pony.

[ancianita]

5. How to lose GE. Let the GOP oversee bank charters.

[HassleCat]

7. I agree. Let's play it safe.

Let's find a candidate who is just like the Republicans, and can still attract the Democratic base voters. That way, we'll have a Democrat in the White House and everything will be just fine. No strange ideas. More of the same. Business as usual. Very comfortable. I think I'll have a beer and watch Duck Dynasty.

[RiverLover]

102. Rec this too.

Good truthiness with a touch of sardonic humor.

[SouthernProgressive]

8. If that is how to do it, then we don't have any concerns. nt.

[think]

9. If you can't explain the $15 trillion for Medicare for All includes what is paid now on insurance

then I guess YOU have a problem....


Please note that the Medicare for All information in this graphic is from the same source used by the Wall Street Journal.






Image is from the Reddit thread here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3l1cz6/hey_wall_street_journal_ftfy_in_response_to_18/


Source for the Medicare for All figures used by WSJ and in the above image:

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

[DanTex]

31. Exactly! A clever infographic with some numbers and voters will be magically converted into

socialists who want $18T in new government spending. It's so simple!

[think]

49. So you don't understand that 10 years of health insurance costs are included in the $15 trillion?

[DanTex]

52. I do, but good luck selling those numbers to the American electorate.

[bvf]

65. "...good luck selling those numbers..."

I could swear that's almost verbatim from the thread over yonder.

[redstateblues]

84. Bernies biggest mistake so far

The first was calling himself a socialist

[DanTex]

87. Most of it is the single payer, and yes, advocating for that is a mistake.

Not just the sticker shock, but also the fact that there's no hope whatsoever of getting it through congress, even if we had big majorities in both houses. It's basically just gratuitously handing the GOP a big bat to whack him with.

[Scootaloo]

103. You've made three OP's declaring your inability to grasp the concept.

All full of your deafening non-replies to the many people correcting you.

[GeorgeGist]

125. So we need the stupid vote?

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Read it and weep.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3l1cz6/hey_wall_street_journal_ftfy_in_response_to_18/

[upaloopa]

62. The President does not make law, spend

money or write tax law.
As a Senator Bernie has some power over that chart. As President he has none. He has to get Congress to go along with his ideas. And his endorsements from the Democratic Senate are zero. The rest are repubs.

[beam me up scottie]

14. That was 2008. Google 'socialist' and look at how many pics of Obama come up.

Get some new material, you're embarrassing yourself.

[HooptieWagon]

35. OP embarrassed themself long ago.

McCarthyism is SO 1950s....

[beam me up scottie]

38. At least he's recycling.

New memes are SO expensive.

[HooptieWagon]

42. Maybe she's using H1B visas to staff her Internet team?

Get what you pay for...

[beam me up scottie]

46. That would explain a lot.

[Luminous Animal]

15. "No, Bernie Sanders is not going to bankrupt America to the tune of $18 trillion"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/?postshare=6981442333730096

The answer isn’t quite so dramatic: while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we’re already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it’s by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. His plan for free public college would do this: right now, it’s paid for by students and their families, while under Sanders’ plan we’d all pay for it in the same way we all pay for parks or the military or food safety.

….

But health care is nevertheless a good place to examine why these big numbers can be so misleading. At the moment, total health care spending in the United States runs over $3 trillion a year; according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, over the next decade (from 2015-2024), America will spend a total of $42 trillion on health care. This is money that you and I and everyone else spends. We spend it in a variety of ways: through our health-insurance premiums, through the reduced salaries we get if our employers pick up part or all of the cost of those premiums, through our co-pays and deductibles, and through our taxes that fund Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, and the VA health care system. We’re already paying about $10,000 a year per capita for health care.

So let’s say that Bernie Sanders became president and passed a single-payer health care system of some sort. And let’s say that it did indeed cost $15 trillion over 10 years. Would that be $15 trillion in new money we’d be spending? No, it would be money that we’re already spending on health care, but now it would go through government. If I told you I could cut your health insurance premiums by $1,000 and increase your taxes by $1,000, you wouldn’t have lost $1,000. You’d be in the same place you are now.

By the logic of the scary $18 trillion number, you could take a candidate who has proposed nothing on health care, and say, “So-and-so proposes spending $42 trillion on health care!” It would be accurate, but not particularly informative.

[Go Vols]

64. Thank you

[Broward]

16. How to lose America: continue to let conservatives dominate both parties.

[PoliticAverse]

18. It was in the Wall Street Journal so it must be true, right? n/t

[cyberswede]

20. It doesn't seem hard to explain to me.

1. Everyone in America will benefit from single payer health care.
2. The cost for said health care will cost HALF of what we're on course to pay now.

[Fawke Em]

24. No one's buying it but the right wingers who aren't

going to vote for Bernie anyway.

Reddit was on it, dog gone it, and the chart above is being used left and right to debunk that Rupert Murdock-owned rag.

[DanTex]

28. Yeah, I forgot about the magic 50% cost savings. While we're at it, might as well just go ahead

and start promising unicorns.

[cyberswede]

39. Not sure why you call it magic.

But how did the Journal arrive at $18 trillion? They added up the 10-year price tags of seven programs Sanders has endorsed in his candidacy for president. It turns out that $15 trillion of the $18 trillion, or 83 percent of the total, comes from just one of these programs: establishing a single-payer health care system.

(Snip)

Accounting for cost inflation in health care and extending that out for 10 years, on our current trajectory we would spend more than $30 trillion, compared to the $15 trillion of a single-payer plan, which would totally supplant it.

https://theintercept.com/2015/09/15/wall-street-journals-scary-bernie-sanders-price-tag-ignores-health-savings/

...but your unicorn argument is original and clever.

[DanTex]

45. Nobody serious believes that single payer would cut health care spending in half.

Particularly since the government already pays for about half of the health care in the US through Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc. Those programs are going to expand to everyone without spending a single extra dollar? No.

[cyberswede]

60. Nobody but Professor Friedman at UMASS

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

[DanTex]

61. That paper estimates $596B in annual savings, which is not 50% of the $3.13T in current

annual health care expenditures. It's actually a little less than 20%.

[cyberswede]

68. That figure reflects savings in only part of the total cost

(administration & drug purchasing).

The actual amount spent on health care is much higher, thus the savings from all those areas is higher.

But health care is nevertheless a good place to examine why these big numbers can be so misleading. At the moment, total health care spending in the United States runs over $3 trillion a year; according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, over the next decade (from 2015-2024), America will spend a total of $42 trillion on health care. This is money that you and I and everyone else spends. We spend it in a variety of ways: through our health-insurance premiums, through the reduced salaries we get if our employers pick up part or all of the cost of those premiums, through our co-pays and deductibles, and through our taxes that fund Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, and the VA health care system. We’re already paying about $10,000 a year per capita for health care.

So let’s say that Bernie Sanders became president and passed a single-payer health care system of some sort. And let’s say that it did indeed cost $15 trillion over 10 years. Would that be $15 trillion in new money we’d be spending? No, it would be money that we’re already spending on health care, but now it would go through government. If I told you I could cut your health insurance premiums by $1,000 and increase your taxes by $1,000, you wouldn’t have lost $1,000. You’d be in the same place you are now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

[DanTex]

69. That figure is the total estimate of the savings from that study. Around 20%.

That's plausible. Like I said, nobody serious thinks that single payer would cut health care cost by 50%.

[HooptieWagon]

105. So youre against a 20% savings in health costs?

Even 20% is a lot of dough.

[demmiblue]

22. Lol!

[restorefreedom]

25. you can work on that lollipop all day

but there's not gonna be a tootsie roll inside

the socialist bogeyman is last century. most people agree with what bernie wants to achieve, whatever it is called.

and the only people that are going to respond negatively to that term are people who would never in 1 million years vote for anyone other than a Republican. This is a non-issue.

[morningfog]

26. Right wing clap trap from HIll's Shills.

[bvf]

30. You're late with the talking point.

but congrats on larding the subject line with "socialist."

That's new.

[Z_California]

55. If this was 2008

We'd be seeing a lot of Barack HUSSEIN Obama posts from this propaganda crew.

[Z_California]

34. Isn't there a rule about posting RW propaganda here?

[HooptieWagon]

40. I think Hillary Group was grandfathered.

So their RW propaganda is allowed for entertainment purposes.

[GoneFishin]

86. .

[Broward]

48. Well, at least the right wingers on this board are outing themselves.

[Jim Lane]

100. Anything negative about Clinton is an impermissible RW meme. Other RW stuff is perfectly OK.

At least, that seems to be the attitude of the Clinton supporters here.

[Agnosticsherbet]

36. Let's leave it to Democratic Primary voters and not raise the socialism alarm.

I thing the are able to determine if that 18 trillion in spending is acceptable.


Disclaimer: I don't support Sanders.

[Vinca]

37. So does this mean Hillary has no desire to expand Social Security and Medicare,

provide free education at publicly-funded schools, rebuild our infrastructure, etc.? That's not such a wonderful thing to run on either unless you're a Republican.

[saturnsring]

44. I thought the post was about Bernie

[Vinca]

73. It is. If the Clintonites are attacking him on those issues they need to tell us whether

or not the proposals to help non-Wall Street Americans have any hope of being considered by Hillary. All the proposals are positive things and Bernie has provided a way to pay for it all. But, truth be told, the "paying for" may be difficult for Clinton since the lion's share of the cost would be paid by tax increases on her wealthiest supporters/donors.

[djean111]

74. Really? No, it is an OP by a Hillary supporter who thinks we will all support Hillary if he

spews enough RW talking points. It is, actually, entertainment at this point.

[DonCoquixote]

41. of course

if a certain politician would be willing to at least hear out people telling her to abandon support of right wing policies, Sanders would melt, but no, she would rather let the Lynn Evelyn de Rothschild and the Debbie Wasserman Schultz tell her what to do.

[haikugal]

59. They aren't telling her what to do...

They all agree.

[saturnsring]

43. Did he say it'll be huge and you're gonna love it

[Prism]

47. My God. Bernie Sanders is being controlled by Angela Lansbury!

I knew it.

[ljm2002]

50. You are seriously buying into...

...the Wall Street Journal's attack on Bernie Sanders? And trying to promote it here?

OMFG

[bullwinkle428]

51. So now we're now taking numbers generated by the WSJ as gospel?

Here's a little hint : anything that comes from a Murdoch-controlled source should automatically be considered a big fat LIE.

[azmom]

53. Chicken little is that you?

[daleanime]

54. So let's just keep doing the same things we've been doing.....

it's been turning out so well for us.

[Doctor_J]

57. which is more despicable

A "democrat" believing Fox news talking point, or smearing an actual Democrat with it?

Maybe a poll is needed

[bvf]

67. There's a two-for-one special on this today! n/t

[Z_California]

58. Scorched Earth politics from the HRC crew.

Hey, it worked in 2008

[elehhhhna]

124. quel surprise

[David__77]

63. One thing for sure: I'll vote for who I want to be president.

...

[Hoyt]

66. To be fair, that's 18 trillion before taxes and monies we would have paid for insurance premiums

offsetting all, or part, of the outlay. But, if he has really proposed anything like that, only about 30% of the electroplate will see the wisdom. I don't think that's a smart move, assuming it's true and reported accurately.

[Jappleseed]

71. Hillary and her cadre are making faux news look centrist.

What's next you going to call for nuking Iran.... Opps too late.

[Ron Green]

72. Enough of the right-wing bullshit.

Please.

[m-lekktor]

75. David Brock should hire you!

you'd fit right in.

[DCBob]

76. Yeah.. that's how I see it also.

[Armstead]

79. I know of a poliical party that woud be happy for you to join them

(Hint. Their mascot is an elephant.)

[DCBob]

99. I think you are confused.

Cuz that reply makes no sense.

[beam me up scottie]

82. Well that explains your sig line.

[GitRDun]

77. To me this OP is a swing and a miss.

WaPo's article does a pretty good job debunking it.

It would be good to see the Sanders total plan, how everything fits together.

Absent some big uh-oh in his total plan, this meme is ineffective.

[DanTex]

83. It's still $18T of new spending (and, yes, that number is pretty accurate, maybe even low).

And if you think the GOP won't be blasting that number over the airwaves continuously for six months, you're wrong.

Sure, for that $18T we get lots of great stuff, like universal government-provided healthcare, free college, and so on. The problem with the American public is that they want the good stuff but they also don't want taxes to go up. So even if you explain to people that the same money that is now going to insurance companies would instead be going to the government, which would use the money to pay for healthcare and cut out the middleman, it's still a hard sell.

[GitRDun]

91. Not according to WaPo

They are saying it includes large dollars being spent anyway.

That's why I said we need to see something that pulls it altogether. Until we see that, it looks to me like an attack meme not 100% based in reality.

[DanTex]

92. It is new government spending. Yes, the dollars are being spent now, but not by the government.

WaPo is talking about dollars that people are currently spending on things like healthcare or college. Basically, instead of giving that money to health insurance companies or universities, instead that money would go to the government, and the government would pay the health care providers and universities. So, sure, it can be thought of as re-routing the money through the government. But, still, it is new government spending.

[GitRDun]

96. Well, you make WaPo's point

If it's universal health care, taxes go up insurance premiums disappear, that's break even for Joe Citizen.

There's no way to really evaluate either Sanders or Clinton's proposals without a budget, or something like it.

Another example. If either candidate wants to increase spending on infrastructure, hopefully they have the decency to propose an increase in the gas tax which has not been raised in forever.

You are free to disagree...but for me this is a big zero on the importance scale without more information.

[ms liberty]

85. Awww, bless your heart...n/t

[Logical]

88. Ahh, how cute. Whining about Bernie. Your fear is showing. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

89. You, too?

I just read through another long post trying to make this point.

[Doctor_J]

90. If you want austerity, feel free to vote republican.

Then don't complain when the Pentagon gets that money instead of people who need healthcare

[Warren DeMontague]

93. O NO

[workinclasszero]

94. Well make the 1% pay their fair share,

take a meat axe to our insanely bloated military and shut down most overseas military bases. That would free up some trillions.

You will have some powerful enemies though. The kind that don't mind a little assassination in the name of "national defence" wink wink, if you know what I mean.

It wouldn't be the first time.

[whatchamacallit]

95. You forgot the link to Rupert Murdoch's laissez faire toilet paper

[Dems to Win]

97. Shrug. Better than going into GE with nominee who voted for IWR. nt

[Persondem]

98. Telling it like it is ... the RW line will be that BS is a draft dodging socialist

who will put this country a further 18 trillion in the hole to give $$ away to lay-about welfare queens.

It's just too easy for the GOP spin machine .. and just because about 10% (25% of 40%) of the electorate are besotted with Bernie doesn't make him remotely electable.

[HooptieWagon]

107. Yes, we hear that RW talking point from Hillary supporters daily.

[Persondem]

129. Perhaps then it's a legitemate concern. Especially since you have NO answer other

than to label it a "RW" talking point. Also, Sanders supporters seem free to just make stuff up about HRC, take her quotes out of context and use RW smear tactics and it's ok, but god forbid anyone cast BS in an unflattering light, Oh no, can't say nuthin' bad about St. Bernie.

[HooptieWagon]

130. You do know who owns the WSJ, right?

And you do realize the WSJ deliberately omitted to subtract the healthcare savings from the bill, right? Repeating the false numbers of the Rupert Murdoch owned WSJ is same as spewing Fox News RW talking points. The OP is not asking a sincere question. OP is trying to smear Sanders with a false RW meme.

[Persondem]

131. The "right" numbers still leave a 5 trillion dollar hole in the budget, assuming the benefits

actually pan out. $5 trillion in more taxes plays only slightly better than 15 trillion, and still ain't gonna happen.

And making shit up about HRC is a Fox "News" tactic from way back.

[HooptieWagon]

133. Nope. Still wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

The estimate for $15 trillion /10 years comes from a single-payer bill already filed in Congress. Since that covers everybody, it replaces the up to $42 trillion dollars estimated to cost Americans over the same time span.

To claim Sanders plan requires additional spending on top of what we're spending is just a RW talking point. Of course the Health industry and big Pharma is going to lie (and hope RWers spread the lie), they are more or less knee-capped by single payer. Good, they've already made obscene profits, time to cut them off.

[Persondem]

134. The government is not spending that money. To get that plan paid for

BY THE GOVERNMENT will take more taxes.

[HooptieWagon]

135. It is the entire amount spent, govt, business, and private.

Single payer replaces all of it. No more VA, no more Medicaid, no more municipalities covering their employees, etc. Yes, govt spending/taxes goes up, but private money spent on healthcare goes down more. Every first world country has gone to a universal health system and seen a savings. Even some third world countries have universal care. Healthcare spending in the US is about $10,000 per PERSON, the highest in the world, and about 2.5 times higher than the next highest. And the quality of care in US is ranked about #37 or so. We pay more for less than any other country. ACA did some good by increasing coverage, but does little to control cost.

[Bonobo]

101. Explain to them they won't have to pay $50 copays when they cut their fingers, or $250 for a cavity.

Explain to them they won't have to go to the Emergency Room to have their rotten teeth pulled out, or go to Walmart to buy a temporary cavity fixer to try to hold on..

Explain to them that they don't have to choose between having their injured knee x-rayed or fixing their car.

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

104. Nonsense. It's time to give the American people more ...

...credit.

Just like the respect Bernie showed the students at Liberty U. yesterday.

Go Bernie!!!

[Gothmog]

111. Most voters will not get over the sticker shock

This plan will be easy to attack in negative ads

[JackInGreen]

112. The source sited

Is calling that a hit piece.
http://huff.to/1KQVtdo

[DanTex]

113. And yet agrees that there will be $15 trillion in government spending on single payer alone.

Right in that article.

[JackInGreen]

114. You should

Get your 'script checked if that's all you're reading there. Make that appointment soon, kay?

[DanTex]

115. Personal insults. Yes, Bernie fans are big on those. And yet, the $15T number is right there.

[JackInGreen]

116. And you can keep reading

And repeating only that part of it for all the good you think it will do. We're done here round robin.

[DanTex]

117. The number is right there. What can I say? You can ignore it, but there it is.

[JackInGreen]

118. Yep

And it's the only thing on the page in 72 point font with no clarity beyond it but don't let it stop you from belittling the intelligence of everyone around you by proping up the pet figure while ignoring everything else. It's cool.

[Fearless]

128. Happen to mention that the current system will cost us $30 trillion? Net savings of $12 trillion.

And that's with Obamacare... Without it it's closer to $50 trillion... or just die because you can't pay.

[LostOne4Ever]

119. I'm sorry but when did DU turn into a conservative forum again? (nt)

[DanTex]

120. It's been a while. The Obama bashing has been going on for years.

[Fearless]

127. Not even changing the wording of the Super PAC script huh?

[Thinkingabout]

136. He proposes to raise $6 trillion in taxes, don't know where the other $12 trillion will come.

[Cheese Sandwich]

137. Thanks for spreading an entirely bogus right wing talking point

Very revealing

[AgingAmerican]

138. So you are for austerity

Figures