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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 11:55 AM Jan 2016

Why was it ok for Obama to Raise Taxes and Not Sanders?

Obama raised taxes by letting the Bush Tax cuts expire (which I agree was a good thing).

He also raised taxes with the implementation of Obamacare (again, which I agree is a good thing).

Why is it not ok for Sanders to suggest paying for something that will save everyone more money than the increase in taxes they'd pay. The only people expected to pay more than they would gain from the programs are the 1%. Everyone else has a net benefit.

Why do Democrats want to use Republican Talking Points against Sanders?

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

kennetha

(3,666 posts)
1. Sanders will require massive tax increases
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 11:57 AM
Jan 2016

and not just on the top 1%.

Tax increases with no precedent in recent history. tough sell.

 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
2. Wrong.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 11:59 AM
Jan 2016

He's published his numbers on this. Anyone not in the top 1% would have a net financial gain. Spin away with camp weathervane if you like, that doesn't make you right (er, correct, it might push you to the right though).

 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
5. CBO confirmed net savings of a single-payer system
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 12:06 PM
Jan 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/research-desk-how-much-would-single-payer-cost/2011/07/11/gIQALLzS9H_blog.html

Those numbers come courtesy of the Commonwealth Fund, which commissioned the Lewin Group to take a look at AmeriCare and a few other health-care proposals in 2009. The resulting study predicts that, because of a public plan’s lower provider reimbursement rates and administrative costs, as well as its ability to negotiate down drug prices, enacting the bill would have resulted in $58.1 billion less annual health spending in 2010. It would increase the federal deficit by $188.5 billion a year, and employers would pay $61.5 billion more annually, but state and local governments would save $83.6 billion, and households a whopping $224.5 billion.


Granted, it's not Sander's plan, but Sander's plan would save even more since there was still profit in the AmeriCare plan.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
10. Not Sanders' plan, of course. Sure, SP would save some money, but not nearly enough to make
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 12:22 PM
Jan 2016

Sanders' numbers work out. It's not just one person saying this, it's pretty much everyone who has looked at it, including proponents of single payer like Krugman.

Here's another study that came out today.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer

 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
12. Thanks, but you'll forgive me if I trust the CBO over Clinton's former Secretary of Health and Human
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 12:26 PM
Jan 2016

Services.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
14. Even though the CBO hasn't actually analyzed Bernie's plan. That's hilarious.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 12:27 PM
Jan 2016

Might as well check an astrological chart.

Response to DanTex (Reply #4)

angrychair

(8,594 posts)
13. You think?
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 12:27 PM
Jan 2016

So 210 economist opinion on $15/hr wage increase were wrong?
http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2015/7/top-economists-are-backing-sen-bernie-sanders-on-establishing-a-15-an-hour-minimum-wage

170 economist are wrong on Wall St reform?:
http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/

The world renowned economist, Gerald Friedman, who was the basis for the infamous WSJ hit piece on Sanders healthcare plan's cost actually wrote an open letter stating that Sanders plan would save the country $5 trillion over that 10 year period, after counting the $18 trillion price tag over that 10 year petiod:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html

So, I believe these people are not in a "Bernie bubble" and know what they are talking about.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
16. Of those, only the third were talking about healthcare. And I don't know how world renowned
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 12:29 PM
Jan 2016

Friedman is, but he's basically standing alone among experts in vouching for the plan. Here's another study that came out today.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer

one_voice

(20,043 posts)
7. If I'm remembering correctly..
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 12:07 PM
Jan 2016

your first example was done because the repukes wouldn't extend unemployment unless he did that. They put him in a terrible position. I wasn't happy at all with it.

I'm not sure your first example is a fair one. I'd have to look it up to see if I'm right.

I'm not against raising taxes for single payer--as long as it has prescription coverage & dental (eventually). I don't know if campaigning on raising taxes is a good idea. I understand the concept but a lot of people won't

If he is our nominee he's going to be beat to death with it. Many people still think the economy is in the shitter. They tune out after hearing raise taxes.



 

elias49

(4,259 posts)
9. Hillary would raise taxes as well if she were to be elected.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 12:19 PM
Jan 2016

Let's not be blind here.
Either that or we remain mired in the misery of the lowest wages in decades.
Or millions of children not eating.
Or more drain on my 401K.
More war in the Middle East.
War with Russia.
More ass-kissing with the Saudis.
I'm so done with the incremental death of the working and middle classes.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
15. Obama let only 18% of the Bush Tax Cuts expire
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 12:29 PM
Jan 2016

raising the taxes only on the wealthy, but leaving them in place for the middle class (as you recall, that was a result of the infamous budget deal that most here objected to, wanting all the cuts to be expired):

Here’s the 18 percent of the Bush tax cuts allowed to expire:

$453 billion over ten years comes from the expiration of cuts to the income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates for filers with taxable income above $450,000 for married couples and $400,000 for singles. These filers retain the full Bush tax-rate cuts on their first $450,000 (or $400,000) of taxable income. (Note: the taxable income thresholds of $400,000 and $450,000 translate into significantly higher threshold amounts for adjusted gross income — that is, the income before taxpayers take advantage of the credits, deductions, and other tax preferences to which they’re entitled.)

$152 billion comes from allowing limits on personal exemptions and itemized deductions (the so-called Pease and PEP provisions) to return for filers with adjusted gross income above $300,000 for married couples and $250,000 for singles.

$19 billion comes from raising the estate tax rate to 40 percent, from the 35 percent rate in place in 2012. The exemption amount — the value of an estate that is not subject to the estate tax — will be $5.2 million for individuals and $10.4 million for couples in 2013, with the exemption amounts rising with inflation in future years. (By comparison, returning the estate tax to its 2009 parameters of 45 percent, with a $7 million per couple exemption, would have saved $137 billion; thus, relative to the 2009 parameters, $118 billion in revenue was lost.)

http://www.cbpp.org/research/budget-deal-makes-permanent-82-percent-of-president-bushs-tax-cuts


The only taxes on the lower and middle class he "raised" (according to Republicans, who like to call anything a tax hike) involved the payroll tax. Those were lowered by a percentage and a half or so at the beginning of his administration to stimulate the economy and help most people put a little money in their pockets to spend. When that temporary stimulus "cut" expired a few years later as the economy began recovery and in the interest of funding Social Security and Medicare, it was dubbed a "raise."

So don't go all repeating Republican drivel. Obama, largely because of the recession and slow recovery, did not raise taxes on the middle class.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why was it ok for Obama t...