How are you going to pay for it Bernie?

[backabby-blue]

He is not answering the question.. He is resorting to his stump speech.

[Cha]

1. Mahalo, bqackabby-blue.

[Tiggeroshii]

2. tax the super rich

is the typical stump speech answer

[backabby-blue]

3. I was looking for policy detail

I guess that is too much to ask.

[Tiggeroshii]

6. thats a pretty specific policy

increasing the tax rate on the top 1% would automatically create the revenue for those policies.

[TCJ70]

8. Sometimes it feels like people make it harder than it is...

...or that the answer isn’t the answer. It’s not hard. Reprioeitize how taxes are spent and , most importantly, collected and all this stuff becomes possible. It’s not free...someone has to pay for it...someone is all of us.

[Hoyt]

10. No it would not. It would provide some revenue at least in short-run, but not enough to cover all

stuff we all want.

For example, in January, Sanders released his Estate Tax Plan saying it would raise $315 Billion over 10 years. That's roughly $31.5 Billion a year. Not bad, BUT our current deficit is $965 Billion. So now we are down to needing $953.5 just to balance the annual budget, much less working on the Debt or funding new programs.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/31/bernie-sanders-proposes-big-estate-tax-hike-including-77percent-rate-for-billionaires.html


From memory, if we reverse the trump tax cuts, that will raise roughly $150 Billion annually (lower and middle income people got cuts toom, so they'll be impacted). Lets, add another $150 Billion to reverse george war bush's tax cuts. For the hell of it, let's reverse both those twice -- so we'd have $600 Billion roughly to go against the $953.5 Billion annual Deficit (and we'll assume those tax increases don't impact the economy negatively).

Se we are down to $353.5 Billion. So, let's cut the Military Budget, say $200 Billion. Now, we still have $153.5 Billion to go before we start working on the Debt and the new programs. Of course, cutting the military budget will cut a lot of the best jobs we have, but so what, we won't count that as a negative impact.

By the time we do all that, we've started hurting the economy, probably severely. There is also a proposal by Democrats to impose FICA tax on incomes over $250,000 (and another proposal for $400,000). That is like a 12.5 percentage point increase on top of those increases above and that money goes into trying to shore up Social Security, nothing else.

Fact is, Sanders can't do what he wants without taxing people making $40 - $50K on up too. He needs to just say it. Maybe people will say they are fine with increasing tax rates 15 - 20 percentage points, increasing FICA taxes, etc., paying off some Debt and then trying to fund some new programs. And, maybe people are stupid enough to believe that won't adversely impact the economy long-term.

[Tiggeroshii]

17. see post 14

here are multple proposals for his most expensive policy proposal as well, medicare for all which would save more than 13 trillion over 10 years. https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

[Hoyt]

23. Excluding Healthcare, counted $459.2 Billion in savings on other proposals, not even half deficit.

Back to the drawing board.

[Tiggeroshii]

30. healtgcare saves 13 trillion over 10 years

paying for.the deficit ten times over if we choose to use the savings for that

[EndGOPPropaganda]

7. Bernie plays a role - and it isn't winning, its expanding the Overton Window

But if you like Bernie’s ideas but want policy detail, then your candidate is Elizabeth Warren!

[Cha]

15. I agree if you want pesky policy detail

then EW is exponentially better than BS.

And, so is Kamala, Booker, Biden, Beto, Etc..

[Tiggeroshii]

16. Like this?

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file


Multiple detailed plans to finance his most expensive policy proposal. Hope this is helpful!

[Hortensis]

75. It's not. They've been scrutinized and are very inadequate.

For a man in his position, isn't this really strange?!

Come on! Senator Sanders has had nearly 30 years to develop and fine tune plans that would actually work. In the senate he's had access to all the studies everyone else has had. He's been in position, like other senators, to commission more and to work intensely with the nation's, even the planet's, experts.

So why has he never just gone ahead and developed the kind of workable plans others do, ones with numbers and details that don't cause visions of unicorns to dance in policy experts' heads? ?

And, btw, why does he still have no idea how the various departments of the executive branch can be and have been used by others to make things happen?

Actually, do we need an answer to why once we understand that, for whatever strange berniesque reason, at 77 (!) he just does not know how to fulfill his promises?

[MrsCoffee]

25. He has a plan to raise $27,000,000 from each of the 50 states but his role doesn't include winning?

Interesting.

[Fiendish Thingy]

78. It is a question all candidates need to answer for their policies

Some assume Medicare for all is "un-payable" which is nonsense; it would require a quantum shift in how citizens view and understand healthcare. It would likely require an increase in employee/employer withholding, at a net decrease of out of pocket costs for most.

Cutting the bloated defense budget in half would help pay for Medicare for all, but would be difficult to campaign on.

How to "pay for it" is indeed an important question, since the majority of Americans support Medicare for all, and it will require bold, courageous, even radical, leadership to explain the policy fully to neutralize any pushback from the health insurance lobby.

[LiberalLovinLug]

83. You were looking for policy detail? What about Kamala?!

They co-sponsored the Medicare-for-All bill together, in case you didn't know.

You brought up the issue. So, what gives?

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/01/30/689930022/several-democrats-eying-a-presidential-run-embrace-medicare-for-all

Sanders laid out several options to pay for his proposal, including increasing taxes on employers who would no longer be paying insurance premiums; increasing individual income taxes; and boosting taxes on the wealthy.

Harris didn't say, in the town hall-style meeting, how she would pay for the program. And her Senate office didn't respond to an email asking whether she has a funding proposal.

Warren has proposed a 2 percent tax on the wealth of an individual that's above $50 million and 3 percent on wealth of more than $1 billion.



Here is a more bullet point summation for Sanders. Again, where is Kamala's?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-bernie-sanders-would-pay-for-his-medicare-for-all-program-2017-09-13


Here are the options Sanders puts forward to pay for his plan, and how much he says could be raised by them.

• Elimination of special tax breaks: $4.2 trillion over 10 years. The main target: company-provided health benefits for employees. They would no longer be needed.

• Business payroll tax: $3.9 trillion over 10 years. Companies would pay a 7.5% income-based fee, but Sanders asserts it would cost them less overall compared to the current system.

• Household premiums: $3.4 trillion over 10 years. Families would pay a 4% income-based fee, considerably less than what they pay now.

• Higher taxes on the rich: $1.8 trillion over 10 years. Raise marginal rates to as high as 52% on the richest Americans. The current top rate is about 39.6%. Also, limit deductions and treat taxes on dividends and capital gains equally.

• A new net wealth tax: $1.3 trillion over 10 years. This new tax would apply to the wealthiest 0.1%, or 160,000 households. A 1% annual tax would be applied to net worth exceeding $21 million.

• One-time tax on offshore profits: $767 billion over 10 years. Sanders wants to tax profits of Americans companies that are earned and held in other countries. These profits are not taxed until they are returned home under current U.S. law.

• Increased estate taxes: $249 billion over 10 years.

• Fee on large Wall Street banks: $117 billion over 10 years. The six largest U..S. financial institutions would get the bill.



You're welcome

[CrossingTheRubicon]

81. I wistfully recall when it was "millionaires AND billionaires" who were going to pay for everything.

Is it cynical wonder if Sen. Sanders newly-found millionaire status is behind the messaging change?

[RazBerryBeret]

4. he was straight and to the point..

"Amazon. the wealthiest man in the world. how much taxes did he pay last year? "
audience: zero!
"exactly, that's how we're going to pay for it".

[backabby-blue]

5. There is no policy detail there. nt

[Tiggeroshii]

9. how?

increase the taxes for billionaires not paying any, is a
specific policy detail, no?

[Hoyt]

13. Except it's not anywhere close to providing the money we need to balance the annual budget, much

less start new programs and make a modest reduction in National Debt.

That's the problem. We are already too deep in the hole. If we weren't, those taxes might help fund some much needed programs. We definitely need to increase taxes on the 1% and probably the 75% too. But, it's not going to fund these programs.

Candidates haven't got the guts to say it, and Sanders is one of the most evasive.

[Tiggeroshii]

14. You dont need new taxes to pay for everything.

But there is clearly more to it, I concede. The most daunting is medicare for all which is 1.7 trillion per year. With that , you simply reallocate the tax structure In order to use the money we are already paying for healthcare (the ACA is 31 trillion over the.next 10 years). 17 trillion for medicare for all versus 31 trillion for yhe current system would in itself help dig us out of our debt. Taxing wall street speculqtion would also create more than 300 billion in itself in one year, far more than the 75 billion free college tuition would require. offshore incOme would be taxed for 1 trillion in infrastructure funding, paid leave by a .02 percent payroll tax, protect private pensions with a closed loopholes on estates. You are right, not everything is paid for by a simple progressive tax, but the additional taxes prove there is enough funding available from offshore accounts, estate loopholes closing, and small increases in payroll taxes, that hardly make funding the programs so daunting.

[Hoyt]

21. I know for a fact Vermont, Colorado and California abandoned single payer because they did not

have the guts to tell the voters how much their taxes would increase. While I agree that theoretically we'd just be going from the current premiums to taxes, it's not that simple. Payments to providers will need to be cut, that means salaries for providers and their staff will likely be cut. Explain that to a nurse.

I just think Sanders and his supporters are naive as to what it will take to go to Medicare-for-All. And, those 100 million or so who like their current insurance situation, aren't going to buy it. Doesn't bother me, because I'm on Medicare. But I spend a lot covering the gaps in Medicare.

What exactly is taxing speculation on Wall Street? Would like to see your citation for taxing offshore accounts. I don't think the money is there without taxing all of us substantially more. Personally, I think that's what we ought to do, but Sanders and most other politicians don't have the guts to say it.

[Tiggeroshii]

36. Most of the money that goes to insurance companies is hoarded at the top

Large savings would come from the reduced costs of prescription drugs which are already price gouged to the extreme. The cuts would not need to be made to personnel salraies when they could still be made in the nickle and dime areas that the current syatem hits us the hardest with (prescription drugs for example)

Here is an article on taxing offshore accounts:


http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/sanders-trump-offshore-tax-havens/

This is what speculation is:
https://m.economictimes.com/definition/speculation


Tax on Wall Street speculation at 0.5 percent for stocks, 0.1 percent for bonds, and 0.005 percent for derivatives - generating $300 billion per year, more than enough to fund his Free College Plan.

I dont disagree some of us on the lower end will have to pay a little bit more, but not close to as much as sOme might think. And this is all assuming he doesnt get pushed by justice democrats In supportIng the 70% tax rates on income over 10 million, which would likely be the best case scenario in getting most programs paid for.

[Hoyt]

38. Insurance companies make about 6% of premiums. Add in advertising and sales costs you are looking

at 10% at most. Going from $1000 per month to $900 per month is nice, but isn’t going to make people happy. Plus, you have to pick up uninsured and underinsured. There won’t be a lot, if any, savings.

Gonna be tough funding anything new, like education, without taking care of deficit. I agree we need to do it, but somebody has to be honest about it. There’s not enough income over $10 million, even if you tax it all.

[Tiggeroshii]

42. the "new funding" is made with the other examples that I have giving

I do think.that the 13 trillion in savings in medicare for all could ultimately pay for the deficit ten times over. Like you said though, it is not simple, but I think it can be done with some work. It would be crazy not to give it a real effort.

[Hoyt]

43. There is no savings of $13 T with Medicare-for-All.

[Tiggeroshii]

50. current system is 34 trillion over ten years

medicare for all estImates will be between 20 and 28 trillion aover ten years. a savings of.beween 6 and 14 trilliOn over ten years

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2018/oct/11/would-medicare-all-really-double-every-americans-t/

[Hoyt]

68. Your own article quotes experts saying it will cost more than that, and here is a former Clinton

senior health policy adviser:

"Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University in Atlanta, in an interview with CBS News, said the cost of a single-payer system would be "enormous." "It's showing that if you are going to go in this direction, it's going to cost the federal government $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year in terms of spending," said Thorpe, a senior health policy adviser in the Clinton administration."

Sanders' "estimate" is the lowest of anyone. He needs to tell the truth about the cost and go from there. Most of us want universal healthcare and Medicare-for-All is probably the best goal. But Sanders isn't leveling with the voters.

[Tiggeroshii]

71. 25 to 30t over ten years

is still saving 5-7 trillion dollars

[Hoyt]

72. Sorry, Clinton's guy says 36 Trillion. And then, is Sanders one of those that thinks younger people

should pay more to offset some of the higher costs of care for elderly? Don't think that will go over very well, either.

Sanders needs to be honest with people. Hopefully they'll be smart enough to back universal, single-payer, but he's not being honest.

[Tiggeroshii]

73. different numbers

if it is less great, iF it is 36 then it would be slightly more or around whete we already are with monUmwntally better benefits

[Hassin Bin Sober]

24. Who gives a shit. Print the money. The same thing we do for wars and tax cuts and bank bailouts.

We need to stop this austerity idea bullshit. We need to stop acting like our economy is a family budget.

[Hoyt]

26. Brilliant. Ever tried living on a fixed income during inflationary period? Exactly, why I'm not a

Sanders supporter. I like the idea of healthcare for everyone (have actually supported Medicaid for all since the early 1980s), but doing it blindly won't achieve what we want.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. Inflation?

[lapucelle]

33. Those numbers are a function of the fact that we don't just "print the money".

[Hassin Bin Sober]

35. No, those trillions were found in a cabbage patch.

[TexasTowelie]

34. Mixing apples and oranges?

The rate on the 10-year treasury bond is not the same as the inflation rate. Please don't think that we don't know better.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

46. Lol. Ok.

[TexasTowelie]

54. I don't understand why you would laugh at that?

People that live on fixed incomes or no income won't find the loss of nearly 30% (which is 2.65% interest compounded over 10 years) of their spending power over a decade to be an amusing matter. Since printing money without reserves only adds to the inflation rate, they will lose even more than 30% of their spending power. Why is that amusing to you?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

55. If printing money caused inflation it would be through the roof right now. It's not.

People all around the world buy our bonds and still only demand peanuts in interest.

Wage growth and full employment cause inflation.

We’ve printed trillions and trillions and the bond market is still predicting a recession.

[TexasTowelie]

59. LOL.

Wage growth and full employment cause inflation.

That's an incomplete statement. Wage growth and full employment cause inflation because there is a larger money supply chasing after the same amount of goods produced so it permits the sellers of those goods to demand a higher price.

However, increasing the money supply does not necessarily expand wage growth or increase full employment (particularly since we are near record low unemployment). Increasing the money supply as you suggested simply means that there will be more money chasing the same amount of goods which leads to inflation.

Finally, inflation is the enemy of those who can't demand higher incomes because they are retired, disabled, or otherwise unemployable. They do not benefit from more money being printed (if they are on fixed incomes), wage growth (since they aren't earning wages), or full employment.

BTW, I recall reading that some of those Treasury bond auctions were suspended last year. I thought that foreign investors got the chills investing in the U.S. since Trump became president? I also noted from the graphic that you posted that the investors are demanding more peanuts in interest than they did at the end of the Obama presidency.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. At least now you've done a little googling.

Now look at the 70s and figure out what happened to the labor market between then and now. And you will see why we were able to print trillions and not see any inflation.

[TexasTowelie]

64. No inflation?

So you are telling me that the price increase for insulin from $75 a vial in 2005 to $250 vial now wasn't inflationary? I guess you are going to tell me that my grocery bill and my rent haven't gone up either during that time? My favorite brand of beer doubled in price over about a ten-year period.

I don't need Google to remember the inflation rates or the labor markets of the late 70s and early 80s since I was alive then and I'm also a "numbers" guy. I graduated from college during a weak labor market and the after effects lasted more than a decade later. I also remember curtailing my spending because of inflation and noting when I received pay raises that they rarely kept up with inflation. The good news is that I eventually found a job with a large salary increase during a more optimal labor market, but I had to move 200 miles away from my friends and family so there were sacrifices made to have the additional financial security.

As an aside, I actually kept the billing invoices for all of my bills (utilities, telephone, cable, apartment leases, gas bills) from 1991 to 1999. When comparing the invoices for the same services it was evident that there was inflation. For most of those invoices it was also notable that the inflation rate exceeded the "official" inflation rate noted in government statistics.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

74. You may notice your medical bills increasing but you don't understand why.

Your insulin increasing in price is the result of a system being gamed. Not inflation. The same goes for your cable billl and utilities. There’s a reason corporate profits are at record highs. Note: Inflation and wage growth are terrible for corporate profits.

That’s like getting robbed in a deteriorated neighborhood where 90% of the cops were laid off and saying “gee I never used to get robbed this much in this neighborhood, must be inflation”

This guy explains the post war inflation much better than me. Note: when he says “no inflation” he’s referring to inflation over the historic 1.5 - 2% inflation

And “neoliberalism” is an economic term. It’s not an insult.

[TexasTowelie]

85. Well, at least you conceded that there is inflation.

This guy explains the post war inflation much better than me. Note: when he says “no inflation” he’s referring to inflation over the historic 1.5 - 2% inflation

There are many reasons that can explain why inflation occurs. Some that I can think of off the top of my head:

1) The law of supply and demand. Goods that are not as readily available become more expensive.
2) Monopolies (or quasi-monopolies). The suppliers of goods with only a few providers can command higher prices. In a sense, this is a subset within the law of supply and demand.
3) Legal protections such as patent rights. In a sense, this is a subset of the monopolies and quasi-monopolies.
4) Decreased value of currency--whether through devaluation or through printing more money. (e.g., post World War I Germany, Argentina, Zimbabwe, Venezuela). Prices for foreign products have to increase in local currency so that when that currency is exchanged to the currency used by the business it was does not result in a loss.

No matter what the causes of inflation are though, the people who suffer the most from inflation (even 1.5% or 2%) are the people that are unemployed, on fixed incomes, or that are not able to demand salary increases. Printing money without considering the potential effects is not sound economic policy.

[Hoyt]

41. We printed money after Vietnam. Inflation was over 10%. It cost Carter reelection and

broke a lot of people, mostly those in fixed income.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

47. Full employment and Wage growth caused that inflation.

We’ve been printing money by the trillion and inflation is unchanged. The bond market is predicting recession.

[Hoyt]

69. We'd have to print a lot more Bin Sober because the Debt keeps increasing, that will cause

significant inflation.

[WeekiWater]

11. In this area he covers the difficult part of being a progressive.

It’s not as easy as some think. The last thing Sanders would ever be considered is as a politician who can comprehend policy. He isn’t that deep, intellectually. What he does do is go out there and state in short and simple terms what we need. He can’t get into nuance because he doesn’t understand these things on a deeper level. That doesn’t mean there aren’t positives to what he does. His promotion of these ideas shift the societal needle and makes people more comfortable with them. That is important. It’s also why he should never be considered as a presidential candidate. One has to have more depth in order to successfully lead a party and country.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

12. How are you going to pay for it Bernie?

2016 Answer: "millionaires and billionaires."

2020 Answer: "billionaires."

What's changed?

[redstateblues]

60. Guess who is a millionaire now.

[Cha]

18. This doesn't sound good..

Link to tweet

[backabby-blue]

19. I'm not surprised at all, nt

[lapucelle]

28. ,,,

Link to tweet

[Cha]

29. "... out of context.. " lol Thank You, Tommy!

Does Not BS know about Cnn Vids?!!

Sorry, BS.. it was Quite IN CONTEXT. I bet the woman asking is smart enough to know that.

Link to tweet

Mahalo, lapucelle

[betsuni]

31. Ugh. He said she took his "I was a little bit busy" quote out of context,

which is exactly what he said when asked about the sexual harassment. So THAT'S why his fans don't think quotes are real, he doesn't either! Then he talked about Our Revolution and Nina Turner. I had to turn down the volume.

[Cha]

32. Did you hear what BS said about Nina/jillstein/turner?

Here's BS' "Context".

Link to tweet

lapucelle and backabby-blue

Get real BS.. cnn has Vids!

Thanks, betsuni!

[betsuni]

45. I don't really get it.

He takes credit for the Blue Wave diversity by saying "I ran all over the country to try to make that happen." He was a little busy running around the country! Then he says there are two things about the political revolution: the ideas, and implementing the progressive agenda by getting millions involved (grassroots!). To get young people involved in the political process, "We started an organization called Our Revolution, I think Nina Turner is here" and we're making some real progress.

[Cha]

48. BS-"I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave and all that stuff -- I don't believe it,"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211306674

NO, BS.. you don't get credit for that. We're giving Nancy Pelosi and hard working Dems all over the country the credit... all kinds of stripes who changed Red Seats to BLUE.. you had NOTHING to do with that.

It's evidently not enough for what he does do.. he wants everything.

Thanks, betsuni

[betsuni]

49. Oh right, I forgot he said that!

[Cha]

52. Good ol INTERNET!

[NurseJackie]

20. Not surprised at all. Standard fare.

[PADemD]

22. Funny, I heard Bernie say:

- Close access to off-shore tax havens used by the 1%.

- Eliminate tax loopholes for businesses like Amazon, which paid zero tax last year.

- Fund education with a tax on Wall Street transactions.

[Tiggeroshii]

37. +1,000

[NJCher]

40. +1,000,000

who said she is so sick of hearing what the richest nation in the world can't afford?

[shanny]

39. We can afford any fucking thing we want.

The tax code needs major work, agreed (progressive tax brackets with a high marginal rate, estate tax, tax on wealth, Wall St. transaction tax, eliminate the SS cap, etc etc etc), but if we decide to do this or the Green New Deal or any other damn thing, all we have to do is prioritize.

You know, the way we prioritize the military above all other things in the budget--56? 57? cents ON THE DOLLAR goes to the military, without even a debate. Defense!

Did you ever ask yourself, if we can't pay for education, or healthcare, or infrastructure, or the safety net--WHAT, or WHO the EFF are they defending?

[Tiggeroshii]

44. +10,000,000

[JudyM]

57. And why don't we have a seriously robust independent auditing agency?

Money flies it the door everywhere in government. Remember Bunnatine Greenhouse?

[NJCher]

51. it's naive

to put a total on everything a candidate wants and then dismiss him as unrealistic because you don't get the answer you want (which, btw, doesn't exist--we all know this is a smokescreen).

What candidate ever got everything he wanted it? Name that person, please.

I'd be happy if Bernie got just 50% of what he advocates. What is so damn wrong with a nation reinvesting in its people instead of killing people in other nations? Or imprisoning them right here at home?

Stop killing and imprisoning people and you'll have all kinds of money. Invest in human good instead of the human cesspool. What the hell is wrong with you?

[PADemD]

65. +1,000,000

[shanny]

53. can we puhleeese stop with the rw talking points?

[ehrnst]

70. So the CBO is simply a "talking point?"

How legislation is paid for is so important that we have an entire non partisan departmet to crunch the numbers.

No legislator is exempt from the fiscal reality of paying for their promises. Not even Senator Sanders.

https://www.cbo.gov/

[Thekaspervote]

56. IF he were the candidate and did win..even if we have the house and the senate the kinds of

Sweeping reform bernie wants takes cooperation, cooperation that isn’t there. Look what it took to get the ACA passed. He talks a good game

[PADemD]

66. Ah, but you can bet that Bernie would use the bully pulpit.

[RobertDevereaux]

84. Indeed he would.

And that quite effectively.

[pansypoo53219]

61. did the moron pay for the tax cuts for him & hi ilk?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

63. Nope. And neither did the previous moron bush.

We didn’t pay for the bank bailouts, two wars, two massive tax cuts and a giant give-away to the pharmaceutical industry.

Now right wingers want to scream about how we are going to pay to stop 45,000 people dying every year due to lack of health care.

This isn’t a scene from The Walking Dead. It’s poor people in line for free healthcare

[Vinca]

67. As far as healthcare goes, you raise taxes. It's not rocket science.

If people can get it through their thick heads that a $5,000 increase in taxes is better than paying $12,000 in insurance premiums and $10,000 in deductibles and co-pays, demon "socialism" has a chance to win big this election season. The countries that provide healthcare have happier, healthier citizens who live longer than Americans. As for education, I'm puzzled, too. It seems people could save a small fortune if they could take basic courses provided free online. The problem is overcoming the word "socialism." Republicans say it and it conjures up pictures of Hitler, the old Soviet Union, Mussolini, etc. Democrats need to make the point that things such as Social Security, Medicare, the VA and the snowplow coming down your street is what they mean. No one is suggesting we confiscate yachts, have an auction and redistribute the money.

[Firestorm49]

76. I listened to much of his speech and asked the same question! How's he going to pay for it?

Unfortunately, it sounded like a typical stump speech. “We need.......We need....We need......
Yes, we do. We all know what we need and what needs to be done.

The 1% can’t pay for everything ( ???). They certainly could help, but I don’t need to hear pie in the sky problems stated ad nauseum. Tell me how it’s going to be paid for.

I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but what I’ve been hearing so far is unimpressive.

[forklift]

77. Two possibilities to pay for all that

Divine intervention or magic.

[emulatorloo]

79. He's good at slogans, but not so good at concrete policy. Other candidates can handle both

[enid602]

80. tax law

How are we going to pay for it? Certainly not with tRump's tax cut for the wealthy. and I heard that tRump's tax legislation was set up legislatively to be like Obamacare, in that it must be repealed and replaced. Some people are saying that the tRump tax law is costing the government between $1T and $1.5T in revenues per year. That means we won't be able to afford the programs we currently have.

[Mr. Smith]

82. I guess the U.S. is just too poor of a country to provide health care to its citizens.

But our missiles and bombers are nicely taken care of.