Nonpartisan study: Sanders plan will raise $15.3 Trillion in new taxes

[Blue3]

http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=2000639

Well, at least we know his tax plan will pay for at least most of his $18 Trillion spending plan.

But I don't see that passing in Congress anytime soon.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's not like it'd cost people more money since single payer is replacing large amounts spent on healthcare.

[This account no longer in use.]

I believe they also did studies on Cruz and Rubio's tax plans. Both studies ended up showing that their plans would raise the national debt.

[NeverAgain]

Well there goes (partially) the "Wherez de monei" argument.

[°Leprechaun]

Obviously neither Sanders nor Clinton will get much done as long as Congress remains in Republican control.

I think that it worth pointing out that Robert Reich offers answers to critics of the Senator from Vermont:

http://robertreich.org/

[This account no longer in use.]

Well there goes (partially) the "Wherez de monei" argument.

Not really. Some people will just accuse the Tax Policy Center of having a "secret LIEberal agenda!!!!11".

[Trapsy]

Berny don't care. Everything will be fine.

[°Leprechaun]

from Tax Policy Center:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(emphasis added)

Sanders explains his plan:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

Clinton's plan from the Tax Policy Center:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ebsy]

Really insane when a 3 trillion dollar hole in the spending plan is treated like a rounding error.

[Virginiá]

http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=2000639

Well, at least we know his tax plan will pay for at least most of his $18 Trillion spending plan.

But I don't see that passing in Congress anytime soon.

It won't, and that's the problem with Sanders. He is promising the world to people knowing full well it won't get passed without a truly massive Democratic wave. He will need a Senate supermajority and House majority for this stuff - Padded majorities so a few Democratic dissenters can't scuttle the entire legislation.

Democrats would need to gain 14 seats (plus the 2 caucusing independents) to hold a bare 60-member US Senate supermajority, let alone extra seats for the padding. The last time a party gained that many seats in 1 election was 1958, and that was because of a major recession. Even landslides during the Great Depression didn't produce 14+ seat Senate gains in one election. Things are far too polarized right now to even come close to allowing such a sweep..

While his intentions are pure, he is being incredible naive and misleading the public.

[Trapsy]

http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=2000639

Well, at least we know his tax plan will pay for at least most of his $18 Trillion spending plan.

But I don't see that passing in Congress anytime soon.

It won't, and that's the problem with Sanders. He is promising the world to people knowing full well it won't get passed without a truly massive Democratic wave. He will need a Senate supermajority and House majority for this stuff - Padded majorities so a few Democratic dissenters can't scuttle the entire legislation.

Democrats would need to gain 14 seats (plus the 2 caucusing independents) to hold a bare 60-member US Senate supermajority, let alone extra seats for the padding. The last time a party gained that many seats in 1 election was 1958, and that was because of a major recession. Even landslides during the Great Depression didn't produce 14+ seat Senate gains in one election. Things are far too polarized right now to even come close to allowing such a sweep..

While his intentions are pure, he is being incredible naive and misleading the public.

Boom! Democrats don't have the political structure for transformational politics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Really insane when a 3 trillion dollar hole in the spending plan is treated like a rounding error.

What's Hillary's plan? Besides voting for $2 trillion wars to be put on the nation's credit card?

[SillyAmerican]

Really insane when a 3 trillion dollar hole in the spending plan is treated like a rounding error.

Yup. But it seems there's a lot of insanity going around these days. Apparently we've reached a point where we can toss around trillions of dollars as if it's chump change. Somebody needs to explain to Bernie that "free" is never free, and that many people understand this...

[Free Bird]

Well there goes (partially) the "Wherez de monei" argument.

Bigger deficit all the same

[Bull Moose Base]

http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=2000639

Well, at least we know his tax plan will pay for at least most of his $18 Trillion spending plan.

But I don't see that passing in Congress anytime soon.

It won't, and that's the problem with Sanders. He is promising the world to people knowing full well it won't get passed without a truly massive Democratic wave. He will need a Senate supermajority and House majority for this stuff - Padded majorities so a few Democratic dissenters can't scuttle the entire legislation.

Democrats would need to gain 14 seats (plus the 2 caucusing independents) to hold a bare 60-member US Senate supermajority, let alone extra seats for the padding. The last time a party gained that many seats in 1 election was 1958, and that was because of a major recession. Even landslides during the Great Depression didn't produce 14+ seat Senate gains in one election. Things are far too polarized right now to even come close to allowing such a sweep..

While his intentions are pure, he is being incredible naive and misleading the public.

Neither he nor Hillary will pass anything with this House. At least he acknowledges he'd need a Democratic wave.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Raising taxes can cause government to have more taxpayer money to waste. How is this surprising?

[Shadows]

If people are not happy with government, then participate & change but having a weak government is just weird.

Anyways I am not happy with this report - It does consider Much Economic Growth or jobs created from the 1T$ 10 year infra plan or putting money in the hands of low wage people who will consume products & boost the economy.

I am sure it will raise much closer to 17-18M & most of the taxes would come from the rich & most of the benefits will go from the poor.

I am sure he can implement because everything won't come in 1 time. 80% of the spending here is healthcare - That won't happen in 2 years atleast. He needs Dems to win in 2016 & the mid-terms to cross the 60 mark in Senate & get a strong house to implement that.

But with a likely house & Senate with the Dems, Paid Family/Medical leave, Free College Tuition by taxing Wall Street, 100B$ per year spend on infra by closing tax loopholes can implemented in the 1st 2 years.

[Blue3]

Really insane when a 3 trillion dollar hole in the spending plan is treated like a rounding error.

What's Hillary's plan? Besides voting for $2 trillion wars to be put on the nation's credit card?

They've done one for Hillary too. It's posted in this thread. And she's not going to start $2T wars.

[Virginiá]

Neither he nor Hillary will pass anything with this House. At least he acknowledges he'd need a Democratic wave.

No, see. This is the thing - He really doesn't seem to widely acknowledge he needs a wave. He instead talks about a 'revolution' where supposedly millions of people come to the capitol en masse and harass politicians 24/7, which is an absurd notion because 1) that won't happen, and if it had any potential, we'd be seeing the seeds of those protests right now, and 2) Why would Republicans cave to these people when they most likely would come from liberal states/Democratic districts? US House Republicans in safe, gerrymandered districts can ignore them entirely with no consequences. Same for say, a US Senator from a state like Alabama.

If Sanders truly acknowledged the need for a wave - He'd be raising enormous money for downticket races. He's raised what, zero dollars so far? I'm not aware of him raising any money, and if he has recently, it probably isn't much at all given the state of his campaign.

Don't get me wrong, he is a good man, but he's being so stupid and naive, and a lot of young people are going to feel incredibly let down (probably worse than under Obama) if he were to be elected and not deliver on basically anything. Having 2 Democratic presidents in a row promise them the world and lots of change, then fail to deliver, could seriously turn these young people off to politics for years, given how dire some of their situations are.

[Bull Moose Base]

Neither he nor Hillary will pass anything with this House. At least he acknowledges he'd need a Democratic wave.

No, see. This is the thing - He really doesn't seem to widely acknowledge he needs a wave. He instead talks about a 'revolution' where supposedly millions of people come to the capitol en masse and harass politicians 24/7, which is an absurd notion because 1) that won't happen, and if it had any potential, we'd be seeing the seeds of those protests right now, and 2) Why would Republicans cave to these people when they most likely would come from liberal states/Democratic districts? US House Republicans in safe, gerrymandered districts can ignore them entirely with no consequences. Same for say, a US Senator from a state like Alabama.

If Sanders truly acknowledged the need for a wave - He'd be raising enormous money for downticket races. He's raised what, zero dollars so far? I'm not aware of him raising any money, and if he has recently, it probably isn't much at all given the state of his campaign.

Don't get me wrong, he is a good man, but he's being so stupid and naive, and a lot of young people are going to feel incredibly let down (probably worse than under Obama) if he were to be elected and not deliver on basically anything. Having 2 Democratic presidents in a row promise them the world and lots of change, then fail to deliver, could seriously turn these young people off to politics for years, given how dire some of their situations are.

"Political revolution" is admittedly a vague term but it seems like you're taking some liberty with the way Sanders thinks the mechanics of it would work. I don't assume he thinks Republican congressman would feel any pressure from people out of their district. If memory serves, he blamed Obama for failing to harness the energy behind his presidential campaign into driving up midterm turnout. Which to me suggests he does view "political revolution" as including (but not limited to) a Democratic wave. Which is the reason why young voters should be more disillusioned in themselves than with Obama. The drop-off of in their turnout (and that of minority voters) in 2010 impeded Obama as much as anything.

What I don't see if Hillary supporters who (correctly) point out that Sanders can't pass his agenda acknowledging that she can't either.

[Virginiá]

"Political revolution" is admittedly a vague term but it seems like you're taking some liberty with the way Sanders thinks the mechanics of it would work. I don't assume he thinks Republican congressman would feel any pressure from people out of their district. If memory serves, he blamed Obama for failing to harness the energy behind his presidential campaign into driving up midterm turnout. Which to me suggests he does view "political revolution" as including (but not limited to) a Democratic wave. Which is the reason why young voters should be more disillusioned in themselves than with Obama. The drop-off of in their turnout (and that of minority voters) in 2010 impeded Obama as much as anything.

What I don't see if Hillary supporters who (correctly) point out that Sanders can't pass his agenda acknowledging that she can't either.

If you pressed him, he would probably say both (elect Democrats and protest), however when he talks about it, he is generally vague about this and I have heard him speak about wanting people to literally protest en masse. So if his ultimate goal is generating a wave, he should be more clear to his supporters about that. Enough people still split their tickets (vote D for president, R for House/Senate) that it makes a difference, and I bet some of his followers will inevitably do that this November as well. He should tell them NOT to do that, like, specifically. Also, this doesn't change the fundraising aspect - He needs to raise money for them now, not later, as his momentum could slow and fundraising will slow with it.

As for Clinton - Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought she could get it done too. She can't get most of hers done, but seeing as a lot of her agenda is more moderated, I think she could get possibly paid leave passed if they at least take back the Senate and make a big dent in the Republican House majority. Bernie's agenda is a massive non-starter with this generation of Republicans, period.

Lastly, it's fair to say that this could be a Democratic wave year with Trump on the ticket. Before, I'd say there was a 99% chance the House stayed with Republicans, but now I think the chances are split. IF Democrats rode a wave to take back both chambers, they could, and SHOULD either significantly lower the cloture vote requirement, or get rid of it entirely.

We watched Republicans obstruct anything and everything for 6 years. Enough is enough. I don't think Democrats should put up with that anymore if Republicans intend to carry on their unprecedented level of obstructionism, at the expense of the well-being of this country. If they got rid of the 60-vote requirement, Sanders/Clinton agenda suddenly becomes significantly more viable.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Really insane when a 3 trillion dollar hole in the spending plan is treated like a rounding error.

What's Hillary's plan? Besides voting for $2 trillion wars to be put on the nation's credit card?

They've done one for Hillary too. It's posted in this thread. And she's not going to start $2T wars.

So her wars will be a bit cheaper this time? And I said where's her plans? No we can't is easy to score.

[Bull Moose Base]

Lastly, it's fair to say that this could be a Democratic wave year with Trump on the ticket. Before, I'd say there was a 99% chance the House stayed with Republicans, but now I think the chances are split. IF Democrats rode a wave to take back both chambers, they could, and SHOULD either significantly lower the cloture vote requirement, or get rid of it entirely.

We watched Republicans obstruct anything and everything for 6 years. Enough is enough. I don't think Democrats should put up with that anymore if Republicans intend to carry on their unprecedented level of obstructionism, at the expense of the well-being of this country. If they got rid of the 60-vote requirement, Sanders/Clinton agenda suddenly becomes significantly more viable.

Agreed. Still a longshot to take back the House but Trump or even better a brokered convention makes it within the realm of possibility. I think either party will kill the filibuster if they get full control and a narrow senate majority, and either would kill it for Supreme Court nominees if necessary.