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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Bernie's plans: It's not that they're liberal, it's that they're bunk [View all]basselope
(2,565 posts)35. Such bunk...
"Health Care: Bernie wants to create a single-payer system. While I don't think there are anywhere near the votes to pass such a system, I am not against the idea. However, Bernie promises greater coverage than anywhere else on the planet, while using the numbers from less generous systems to prove his will work. That is dishonest. Furthermore, he pays for it not just by raising taxes on the wealthy, but by raising the payroll tax as well. I'm sorry, but I don't think adding to the tax burden of the working poor and the middle class is an acceptable answer. "
The point is completely missed here. Again, comes to scream of "more taxes" without the resulting savings being considered. Most people (as in the VAST MAJORITY) will SAVE MONEY under Bernie's system. And no, he doesn't promise greater coverage than anywhere else ont he planet, while using number from less generous systems.. that is just made up nonsense. It is actually a VERY SIMPLE system. Medicare for all, paid for with a payroll tax. Having a single negotiator will force down the prices of the private industries currently gaming the system. It is the way it works in every other industrialized country on earth.
College: Bernie wants to make tuition at state schools free. First, I dislike the lack of any talk on his part about how to control the cost that will be taken on by the taxpayers. He is nearly silent on making tuition bills smaller once the government is paying for them. Second, he has no answers to how to prevent colleges from double-dipping and raising the cost of room, board, and fees to keep attendance levels where they currently are. Third, his plans lacks infrastructure on how to accommodate potentially millions of additional students without sacrificing the quality. Furthermore, he pays for this not just be taxing Wall Street speculation, but by putting a fee on every stock or bond purchase by middle class people trying to invest their money. I'm sorry, but I don't think adding to the tax burden of middle class families trying to get ahead in an acceptable answer.
Cost taken on by the taxpayers = well.. 0. It is paid for via an FTT (Financial transaction tax) which this country had from 1918-1966. The rest of your post is kinda nonsense, b/c nothing in the plan requires colleges to admit more people. It simply provides a payment vehicle for the 2/3 of tuition currently paid for by families, usually via loans. So, no you don't need infrastructure to accommodate millions of new students. To call the FTT a "tax burden" is to completely misrepresent it. The "impact" on a middle class family would be so small as to be probably less than $1.00 per year, since you are looking at .05 per $1000 traded. So to get to a $1.00 tax, that middle class family would have to buy 20K worth of stocks in a given year. So, please sell the "tax burden" somewhere else.Energy: Bernie wants to totally ban fracking, and shut down nuclear plants. We do not currently have the capacity to run this country on renewable energy, which means in the meantime we would have to either burn more coal (which is worse for the environment) or send money to terrorist-friendly countries to buy the necessary oil to fuel out needs. I'm sorry, but I don't find putting money in the hands of the people who want to kill us an acceptable answer.
Yes, we DO have the capacity with proper investment in a reasonable amount of time. Fracking needs to be banned tomorrow. Not banning it is basically criminal. Bernie is not talking about shutting down nuclear plants TOMORROW, but it is about a goal. Nuclear is not the way to go for the long term... since the infrastructure is there it serves as a better bridge than fracking, which is far more dangerous.
Sorry, but no we can't doesn't play very well with thinking people.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
39 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Bernie's plans: It's not that they're liberal, it's that they're bunk [View all]
CrowCityDem
May 2016
OP
What is outrageous? They are real, serious consequences Bernie never talks about.
CrowCityDem
May 2016
#25
OK, so you got a problem with Bernie starting from a position that allows actual compromise
KPN
May 2016
#2
There is no health plan that is "less generous" than the one that people with no insurance have...
Human101948
May 2016
#3
Is that actually true? You know Hillary supporters that say that we shouldn't help the poor?
YouDig
May 2016
#21
You obviously don't think they're bunk. You admit that you "don't disagree with the goals".
highprincipleswork
May 2016
#11
Thank you policy advisor central. Now how about you deal with the rest of what i had to say, which
highprincipleswork
May 2016
#17
Let me put it this way - these are no more specific than Bernie's plans, 2 be honest. That disproves
highprincipleswork
May 2016
#26
These kind of "fact" and the defeatist attitude around them get us nowhere.
highprincipleswork
May 2016
#33
It is far better to propose nothing, rather than something progressive that we need and want.
imagine2015
May 2016
#18
I prefer a more moderate, but workable, plan to a more liberal, but bunk, one.
CrowCityDem
May 2016
#20
It never amazes me to see Hillary supporters do everything they can to dismiss liberal ideas.
bunchofpenguins
May 2016
#29