Yeah , too many people like me who would vote for any of the other Dems but just wont vote for Bernie and may actually vote for Trump instead. How much is it gonna cost ? I don't know! That isn't an acceptable answer .... nor are the estimates of his plan.
Voting for Trump instead makes no sense. Trump has implemented more socialist policy than Sanders has proposed let alone actually get passed.
Going after Bernie is not going to work. Bernie has proven time and again to be immune to such line of attacks just like Trump. Populists with loyal fanbases are not easy to takedown. Even if these attacks were impactful and say led to Bernie dropping 5 points nationally in the next week from 30 to 25, that's still enough for Bernie to keep winning states with his already built-in loyal 25% support. Furthermore, with 5 other candidates still in the race, those 5 points will likely be scattered among them and squandered, thereby allowing no single candidate to truly benefit from it. So, whoever wants to go head-to-head with Bernie, needs to the sweep the leg of Buttigieg and Klobuchar immediately. That's whom Biden and Bloomberg should be targeting right now if they want any real shot of going up against Bernie. This field has to narrow immediately or it's over.
The added cost is just shy of 100 trillion dollars before he decided to add free schooling pre school for every child in America... not sure what the cost for that will be. While the majority of programs Sanders proposes are wonderful ideas, they simply are not feasible. Sanders is like that drunk unemployed uncle promising you a new Porsche upon graduation. He means well perhaps, but no new Porsche will be arriving. The other argument I hear is that Finland and Norway have all these things... well Norway’s GDP % is 50% and Finland the highest at 57-59%.... Sanders plan before daycare for all would be 71-74%... FAR beyond anything in Western Europe. So everyone can keep saying how awesome their loveable unemployed uncle is but no one is getting a Porsche.
I don't disagree with your bottom line .... and I think that's why Pete went so hard after Amy in the last debate - hoping to eliminate her and narrow the field - then on to the next target. But I don't see her dropping out until after her state votes at the earliest which is Super Tuesday. They really need to pick a moderate sooner than later or Bernie's gonna have too large a lead to overcome even if he doesn't have enough to win the nom outright ... it's gonna be damn hard not to nominate him in a brokered convention and may come with consequences if they went another route.
I just watched some of Bernies South Carolina town hall where he claimed he would pay for “tuition free” public colleges and trade schools for every American and eliminate student debt with a “modest tax on wall street speculation” - there is no such thing as a modest tax that raises trillions of dollars. This whole “free college” thing really needs to be fleshed out. There is so much left unexplained. The first and most important things that come to mind are 1. Tuition free but the cost of a living for a year is going to be $20,000 per student. Is that included? Or will you have to take out loans? 2. How much free education can one have? Is this unlimited and at any age? 3. What is going to happen to private institutions and is the current system equipped to absorb all of these student who will now be seeking “free” education? Its a freaking mess.
If Bernie wins South Carolina, it's over. Those of you hoping for some "coalescing" are SOL, he is going to be the nominee barring some major fundamental shift in the landscape. And for those of you still whining about how he is gonna pay for plans, go to his website and read them here.
Okay, so let me get this straight: You would rather Bernie lie to you in more moderate conventional terms and be less aspirational so he could then not deliver on anything he ran on when he gets into office? It's better to think small, while baiting the electorate, and then when he gets into office, lie again? interesting.
Pete was much better because he gave no plan to do anything. Because he promised nothing. It's certainly one way to get elected.
I don't think Bernie wins SC, looks like he's gonna end up 2nd, but that's gonna be okay with the win Bernie just had in Nevada... and Super Tuesday should be good for Bernie as well.
you're just being intentionally dishonest. Here is Pete's plan for healthcare and college tuition. Debate his policies on their merits, but it's nonsense to act like Pete has not articulated his positions here. In addition, Pete is the only major candidate who has explained how he plans to pay for all his policies, while Bernie has a $25 trillion gap in his proposals. Bernie won't even commit to estimating a range for the cost of his agenda. Why is everyone ok with this??
His top marginal tax rate is 52% on those making over 10 million per year. The M4A surplus tax is 4% (Medicare is currently 2.9%). How are you getting to 73%? His joint income tax rate doesn't increase until after 500k, and the single income tax rate doesn't increase until after 250k. And then it's only a relatively small marginal 3% increase for those jointly making up to 1m, and single up to 500k. If the income tax is raised on your family by more then 3% then congratz your ballin.
What's left out of this is the cost of the healthcare systems for Pete and Biden. It's not completely federal spending, it's not a new proposal, but it's going to cost Americans around 40+ trillion over the next decade. That isn't accounted for in these graphs. Who is the one being intellectually dishonest? I like that it shows Bernie's plans cost less then 50 trillion over the next decade though, can we start using that number instead of the 100/90 trillion number people keep throwing out? 50 trill would be accurate if Bernie doesn't follow up on his jobs guarantee proposal, which I'm hoping he doesn't, it seems he's not taking it very seriously.
We don't know how much Bernie's M4A plan will cost. He won't even give us a number. Bernie is being disingenuous by saying a moderate tax increase will pay for his wishlist of proposals. The Urban Institute says that Pete's plan would cost $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, while Sanders' single-payer plan would increase federal spending by $34 trillion in the same time frame. It would be ADDITIVE to existing healthcare costs.
I'm also curious how M4A proponents explain why Vermont's single payer plan failed but national rollout would not. Is there not a way to cut healthcare costs via price controls before signing up the government for an insanely massive bill? Why not do this in stages? Implement a public option with complementary price control legislation, prove out that the government is effectively able to handle 100 MM+ more Americans on Medicare, build public consensus, and then move to single payer. That feels like a much more reasonable path forward that putting all our eggs in the M4A basket, when that was a losing issue in 2018.
We don't even know how much our current plan will cost over the next decade. It's not possible to accurately estimate healthcare cost to the T. It's estimated our current plan will cost between 40 to 50 + trillion https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/09/medicare-for-all-health-care-096367 Petes healthcare plan does not cost 1.5 trillion, over 10 years, it will cost 1.5 trillion on TOP of the 40 to 50 trillion our system currently cost. M4A is estimated to cost 30-35 trillion TOTAL, not on top of our current spending.
