Image

Bernie Sanders ideas won't cost anything says Robert Reich

User avatar
Saving_Socialism.jpg
The WSJ did the math and came up with a price tag of 18 trillion dollars for Bernie Sanders plans. Robert Reich says the WSJ numbers are totally bogus... actually Sanders plans won't cost anything; in fact they are less expensive and some aren't costs at all but are investments that we will come to appreciate Next Tuesday.

Putting the entire population on Medicare is definitely a solution to create savings. The medical community right now has to charge non-medicare patients more to make up for their loses. Many doctors have quit taking any medicare patients. If everyone is on medicare the medical community will be forced to do what the government says or else. Once this plan is implemented your medical care won't be something you even recognize as medical care.

What do you think?

Robert Reich:

I've had so many calls about an article appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal – charging that Bernie Sanders's proposals would carry a “price tag” of $18 trillion over a 10-year period – that it's necessary to respond.

The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:

1. Bernie's proposals would cost less than what we'd spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone.

This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices.

(Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, whom the Journal relies on for some of its data, actually estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).

2. The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie's agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.

3. Many of these other “costs” would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families – for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.

4. Finally, Bernie's proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren't really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation's future productivity. If we don't make them, we're all poorer.

That Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie Sanders, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie's status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.

BernieSanders.com: The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public

User avatar
Karl Marx Treatment Center wrote:The WSJ did the math and came up with a price tag of 18 trillion dollars for Bernie Sanders plans. Robert Reich says the WSJ numbers are totally bogus... actually Sanders plans won't cost anything; in fact they are less expensive and some aren't costs at all but are investments that we will come to appreciate Next Tuesday.

Putting the entire population on Medicare is definitely a solution to create savings. The medical community right now has to charge non-medicare patients more to make up for their loses. Many doctors have quit taking any medicare patients. If everyone is on medicare the medical community will be forced to do what the government says or else. Once this plan is implemented your medical care won't be something you even recognize as medical care.

What do you think?

Robert Reich:

I've had so many calls about an article appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal – charging that Bernie Sanders's proposals would carry a “price tag” of $18 trillion over a 10-year period – that it's necessary to respond.

The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:

[highlight=#FFFF00]1. Bernie's proposals would cost less than what we'd spend without them.[/highlight] Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone.


https://berniesanders.com/the-journals- ... he-public/

Comrades,

I refuse to accept item #1 of this proposal. Consequently, I denounce my once (now former) Comrade Reichhhhhhhhhhhhhha for this underhanded effort to GUT our federal budget and SLASH trillions and trillions and trillions of The People's hard earned dollars from necessary investments in America's future - The Children™- and plunging us into centuries of darkness and misery! Pass the potato chips....

User avatar
Umm... Comrades, I think we should follow Comrade Stalin's example and oppose anything a Reich stands for.

This is provably true. The proposals cost nothing.

The cost of implementing those proposals, however, is also provably enormous.


User avatar
I'm more interested in why Edward Snowden thinks space aliens haven't visited us and why we might be missing their important phone calls. My theory is there's no message on their phones that says "Press #$%& for space alien."

Google "edward snowden explains why aliens" to participate in this crucial conversation.


User avatar
Comrades,
Comrades Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven have done a great justice as Socialism moves forward in the former U. S. of A. The glorious Next Tuesday has also moved forward. Long live Sanders and Southern Fried Chicken.







User avatar
Comrade Putout wrote:.
Image

But the amount of Marxes is just right.


User avatar
Karl Marx Treatment Center wrote:
Saving_Socialism.jpg

What do you think?

Comrade, it is best not to think.

Especially when Commissarka Pinkie is around... if you know what I mean...

User avatar
Why all this concern about how much money something will cost, anyway? Can we not just print some more money any time we need it?

RedDiaperette wrote:Can we not just print some more money any time we need it?

Nobody seems to realize that this is actually saying "Why don't we just put more lead in the gold coins?"

(The USA is well past the point of "Why don't we just add lead to the gold coins.")



User avatar
RedDiaperette wrote:Why all this concern about how much money something will cost, anyway? Can we not just print some more money any time we need it?

Comrade RedD, we don't even need to print money - that's environmentally unsustainable. If we just add the necessary 0s to the balances of financial accounts, we can continue to pretend to pay for imaginary services that we will then be compelled to force real workers to hand over real money to pay for.

It works like this:

Obama: We need to support the workers in this country by giving General Motors some help. GM has a net worth of negative 30 billion dollars. That's not good for this country. We declare that GM now has a net worth of positive 30 billion dollars and that the United Auto Workers now own 51% of GM. That's great for this country. The taxpayers now owe us 60 billion dollars. We expect payment immediately. Thank you.

User avatar
Kapitan Kangaroo Kourt wrote:
RedDiaperette wrote:Why all this concern about how much money something will cost, anyway? Can we not just print some more money any time we need it?

Comrade RedD, we don't even need to print money - that's environmentally unsustainable. If we just add the necessary 0s to the balances of financial accounts, we can continue to pretend to pay for imaginary services that we will then be compelled to force real workers to hand over real money to pay for.

It works like this:

Obama: We need to support the workers in this country by giving General Motors some help. GM has a net worth of negative 30 billion dollars. That's not good for this country. We declare that GM now has a net worth of positive 30 billion dollars and that the United Auto Workers now own 51% of GM. That's great for this country. The taxpayers now owe us 60 billion dollars. We expect payment immediately. Thank you.

You're thinking in such small terms Captain Kangaroo. That GM bailout is nothing compared to quantitative easing. Federal Reserve "assets" rose from about $800 billion to over $4.5 trillion in just a few years, along with the Federal Funds rate being set at about 0% by the Federal Reserve for years at a time. Nothing says economic literacy like debasing your currency and blowing up another bubble!

800px-U.S._Federal_Reserve_-_Treasury_and_Mortgage-Backed_Securities_Held.png
FedfundsCAP.png

keynesians-fail.jpg
keynesian-economics-spending-your-money.jpg

Soon enough, the U.S. dollar will be as glorious as money from the Worker's Paradise of Zimbabwe!

20130427_FNP002_0.jpg
hyperactive.PNG
death_spiral.PNG
toliet paper.jpg

User avatar
Comrade Rosko, there is no amount too small for the government to spend. Nor too big, for that matter. I was merely using an example that the re-educated could understand. Nobody who is re-educated can understand the Federal Reserve Bank.






User avatar
O.K. I ripped this off from Rush Limbaugh's site. The only thing missing, which I added, was Hillary's beard. I mean it's only fair since she is a woman and demands equal treatment.

Democratic-santas copy.jpg

It's Christmas in October!

Democrats offer free everything!

User avatar
Pamalinsky wrote:O.K. I ripped this off from Rush Limbaugh's site. The only thing missing, which I added, was Hillary's beard. I mean it's only fair since she is a woman and demands equal treatment.

Democratic-santas copy.jpg

It's Christmas in October!

Democrats offer free everything!

Christmas in October? I'm sorry if I'm being anti-revolutionary, but isn't that Halloween? And that picture triggers me; It insinuates that the Democratic candidates are nothing but a bunch of dirty ho ho ho's. Except for Bernie, he looks like an OG pimp that'll smoke yo ass if you get up in his grill.

User avatar
Commissar Obamissar V wrote:
Red Walrus wrote:
The attachment v14.jpg is no longer available

Is that Arya Stark?
Image

User avatar
Red Walrus wrote:
Commissar Obamissar V wrote:
Is that Arya Stark?
Image

Joffrey... Cersei... Ilyn Payne... Hilary Clinton... The Hound...

VALAR MORGHULIS!! Winter is coming!

User avatar
Bernie does want a 90% tax though. I wonder why. I mean, everything is gonna be free, right?

User avatar
Pamalinsky wrote:Bernie does want a 90% tax though. I wonder why. I mean, everything is gonna be free, right?

Yes, Komrade, everything will be free. Except us, of course, we can't have that. We must be told what to do by the media and we must be afraid all the time.

And remember that we have always been at war with Eastasia. We didn't start in the 90's, no, we have been at it forever and will continue for eternity. Also, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.


 
POST REPLY