[hey mtangelsfan] How Bernie pays for his proposals

[Angelsjunky]

That is the second time you have brought up a water crisis.  For ****s sake does everything have to be a crisis?

 

Take it from Mark Ruffalo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/05/mark-ruffalo-flint-isnt-an-anomaly-were-heading-toward-a-national-water-crisis/

 

 

I don't know that her platform will actually translate into policy though. Maybe. Count me as skeptical though.

 

 

 

...than Cruz perhaps and I don't think he's got much of a shot. 

 

I see i this way: she's lower risk than Trump etc. She's capable and won't **** it up too bad.

 

these numbers remind me of how a few years ago here in CA there were some props (72?76?) and we were told SPECIFICALLY by gov. moonbeam that our taxes would NOT be raised. the props passed and the day after the election he announced our sales tax or whatever was going up, and they KNEW it was going up before the election, but they didn't want to admit it.

 

i'm wondering, also, why the feds would pay for family medical leave. this seems very much like something employers should take care, not gov't. i'm not in favor of that.

 

Those numbers are hardly offensive, though - again, the costs Bernie is talking about are minimal and save the vast majority of people quite a bit of money.

 

Nice, so with my poverty level pay I will pay for my full-time co-workers to have paid vacations.

 

You're upset about paying $8 a week to pay for universal health care and family medical leave for all?

Bernie's plan is basically a pyramid scheme.  It would be like giving Bernie Madoff investment money.

 

"We know we've blown, mismanaged, wasted, sifted and embezzled your money for decades but trust us now.  Give us your money first, and we promise it will come back to you with interest".

 

Fool me once shame on you, fool me 363 times...................

 

Congratulations, you've said the dumbest thing ever said on Angelspin. Kudos.

[nate]

Why is the Hulk preaching to me about water testing?

[Angelsjunky]

Don't diss the Ruffalo.

[mtangelsfan]

Take it from Mark Ruffalo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/05/mark-ruffalo-flint-isnt-an-anomaly-were-heading-toward-a-national-water-crisis/

 

 

 

I see i this way: she's lower risk than Trump etc. She's capable and won't **** it up too bad.

 

 

Those numbers are hardly offensive, though - again, the costs Bernie is talking about are minimal and save the vast majority of people quite a bit of money.

 

 

You're upset about paying $8 a week to pay for universal health care and family medical leave for all?

 

Congratulations, you've said the dumbest thing ever said on Angelspin. Kudos.

From you, that's a compliment.

But I will bite, why?

[Angelsjunky]

You figure it out, mt, but it might have something to do with comparing Bernie's plan with a ponzi scheme.

[mtangelsfan]

they are asking for money up front for the promise of future benefit, no?

[Angelsjunky]

Christ, mt, what do you expect them to do? What has ever been done? It doesn't mean its a Ponzi scheme.

[wopphil]

So your taxes would increase by $435 a year, or about $8.37 a week.

What's the payoff? Well, you and everyone else gets extended paid family and medical leave, and you and everyone else gets universal healthcare.

Seems like a great deal for a bit over eight bucks a week.

AJ, no offense, but if you really believe you can get all this for the price of $8 a week, you don't need instruction in economics, you need some pre-algebra.

[Tank]

Those numbers are hardly offensive, though - again, the costs Bernie is talking about are minimal and save the vast majority of people quite a bit of money.

 

 

You're upset about paying $8 a week to pay for universal health care and family medical leave for all?

 

my point was, people in state gov't said the costs wouldn't go up, and they ended up going up quite a bit. I see the same thing happening with bernie's "only $8 a week" idea. You should know by now that those numbers are not going to be reliable, and there are plenty of examples of that. 

 

see High Speed Rail, California.

[Tank]

Why is the Hulk preaching to me about water testing?

 

because Leo was too busy preaching to us about climate change.

[mtangelsfan]

Christ, mt, what do you expect them to do? What has ever been done? It doesn't mean its a Ponzi scheme.

 

Ok, so that is a yes.

 

Now, as you pointed out, they have done this before.  Why would I want to invest in something that has such a poor track record?

[Adam]

Because progress

[Angelsjunky]

AJ, no offense, but if you really believe you can get all this for the price of $8 a week, you don't need instruction in economics, you need some pre-algebra.

 

Do the math yourself, wopphil. OK, I'll walk you through it. He makes $16k a year. Bernie's healthcare plan would be a 2.2% tax. 2.2% of $16,000 is $352. $352 divided by 52 weeks is $6.77. His family/medical leave program will cost the "typical American worker" $1.61 a week, although $16k a year is below the typical worker. $6.77 + $1.61 = $8.38 per week.

 

Everything else that Bernie is proposing won't effect someone making $16k a year. So yeah, it would cost him about $8 a week.

[Angelsjunky]

my point was, people in state gov't said the costs wouldn't go up, and they ended up going up quite a bit. I see the same thing happening with bernie's "only $8 a week" idea. You should know by now that those numbers are not going to be reliable, and there are plenty of examples of that. 

 

see High Speed Rail, California.

 

Yes, there are always hidden and surprise costs. But maybe that $8/week goes up to $10, or maybe even $15 - it is still worth it, don't you think?

 

 

Christ, mt, what do you expect them to do? What has ever been done? It doesn't mean its a Ponzi scheme.

 

Ok, so that is a yes.

 

Now, as you pointed out, they have done this before.  Why would I want to invest in something that has such a poor track record?

 

 

No, its not a Ponzi scheme, because the purpose is not to exploit and take advantage.

 

The closest comparable thing to Bernie's plan is FDR's New Deal, and that helped a TON of people. Not all of it worked, but it was instrumental in bringing the US out of the Great Depression - that and the war-time economy. So maybe rather than a war-time economy, we can have a "rebuild-and-innovate economy."

 

Who is "they," btw?

[Adam]

https://www.libertyclassroom.com/the-truth-about-the-new-deal/

[Spirit]

Because progress

 

 

Wheeeeeee...  !!!

[Angelsjunky]

https://www.libertyclassroom.com/the-truth-about-the-new-deal/

 

I love it when you post links to libertarian websites. It gets me all hot and bothered.

[Adam]

Challenge yourself. Read some books. Progress. 

[Angelsjunky]

Cleerly I dont reed boox.

 

I need to read more libertarian and laissez-faire books, so I can become more like you and nate.

[AngelsLakersFan]

AJ, the bottom line as far as I am concerned is that you cannot tie up such a significant chunk of our national economy within the government infrastructure. This is because there are no forces competing against inefficiency, no check against failure and no internal motivation to promote innovation. 

 

Ultimately you cannot get away from basic economics. Every dollar redistributed returns a fraction of it's original value back into the economy. 

 

It's one thing to promote taxing the rich to lend a hand to the poor, it is entirely another to then tell the poor that the government can handle their money better than they can.

[mtangelsfan]

Yes, there are always hidden and surprise costs. But maybe that $8/week goes up to $10, or maybe even $15 - it is still worth it, don't you think?

 

 

No, its not a Ponzi scheme, because the purpose is not to exploit and take advantage.

 

The closest comparable thing to Bernie's plan is FDR's New Deal, and that helped a TON of people. Not all of it worked, but it was instrumental in bringing the US out of the Great Depression - that and the war-time economy. So maybe rather than a war-time economy, we can have a "rebuild-and-innovate economy."

 

Who is "they," btw?

 

You say it isn't to exploit and take advantage.  I say it is.  This is what the government has been doing now since I have been alive.  Amassing power, wealth, influence, taking our rights and our money as they see fit.  They do this all on the pocketbooks of the middle class.  

 

They = federal government.  Why, in the name of logic and reason, would I think that this time would be any different?

Edited March 1, 2016 by mtangelsfan

[Tank]

Yes, there are always hidden and surprise costs. But maybe that $8/week goes up to $10, or maybe even $15 - it is still worth it, don't you think?

No, because it's not the gov'ts job to do this, and because it'll cost a lot more to each of us than you think. If it's "only" $8 per week for a guy making $16k, how much will it be for people making $50k or $80k or $120k?

They're selling snake oil.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Tank

[mtangelsfan]

No, because it's not the gov'ts job to do this, and because it'll cost a lot more to each of us than you think. If it's "only" $8 per week for a guy making $16k, how much will it be for people making $50k or $80k or $120k?

They're selling snake oil.

 

[wopphil]

I pay about $300 per week to insure my family. Thankfully, my employer pays about half that.

I also pay several thousand dollars per year in co-pays and prescriptions (which I am in the hook for completely).

So call my skeptical about a plan that gives me all this for the low low price of $8 per week. In fact, I am guessing my costs would dramatically increase to (1) pay for the government bureaucracy required to administer the system, and (2) pay extra for those who "can't afford" the healthcare.

[Jay]

I pay about $300 per week to insure my family. Thankfully, my employer pays about half that.

I also pay several thousand dollars per year in co-pays and prescriptions (which I am in the hook for completely).

So call my skeptical about a plan that gives me all this for the low low price of $8 per week. In fact, I am guessing my costs would dramatically increase to (1) pay for the government bureaucracy required to administer the system, and (2) pay extra for those who "can't afford" the healthcare.

 

It's $8 to him, $300 to you.

 

"redistribution"