Sanders can't win the general election--why are people so blind to that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not an economist, but I know enough to know that Sanders proposals do not add up.

He proposes taxes on all financial transactions to pay for free college but does not account for the industry making adjustments in trading practices to reduce their tax burden, so (a) the plan exaggerates how much it will raise and (b) it adds inefficiency to financial markets by adding a non-market factor that will influence investment decisions.

The college plan also would cost more than he says because it has very weak or nonexistent management and oversight details, so colleges would be able to increase tuition with no improvements in quality required. It is essentially a voucher program, the tried and true way for the government to pay more and receive less of something.

Sanders' health plan replaces tax-exempt employer-paid health insurance premiums with a payroll tax and several other taxes, and incredibly he seems to believe that payroll taxes would not be taken out of employee compensation. Never mind that neither employers nor employees would want to do this. Even if it happened it would not work for many employees. Currently, the employer-paid premium and the employee share are the same for someone making $60K as it is for a coworker making $30K. Substituting a payroll tax would mean the employer would pay twice as much for the $60K worker as for the $30K worker. That would affect hiring and compensation all through the economy.

Not to mention that the taxes part of his plan would likely be implemented well in advance of the “advantages” of his plan to build up revenue. So for a year, or two, or three, the citizens will be paying deeply for services they have not yet received. This is also the way Obamacare worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not an economist, but I know enough to know that Sanders proposals do not add up.

He proposes taxes on all financial transactions to pay for free college but does not account for the industry making adjustments in trading practices to reduce their tax burden, so (a) the plan exaggerates how much it will raise and (b) it adds inefficiency to financial markets by adding a non-market factor that will influence investment decisions.

The college plan also would cost more than he says because it has very weak or nonexistent management and oversight details, so colleges would be able to increase tuition with no improvements in quality required. It is essentially a voucher program, the tried and true way for the government to pay more and receive less of something.

Sanders' health plan replaces tax-exempt employer-paid health insurance premiums with a payroll tax and several other taxes, and incredibly he seems to believe that payroll taxes would not be taken out of employee compensation. Never mind that neither employers nor employees would want to do this. Even if it happened it would not work for many employees. Currently, the employer-paid premium and the employee share are the same for someone making $60K as it is for a coworker making $30K. Substituting a payroll tax would mean the employer would pay twice as much for the $60K worker as for the $30K worker. That would affect hiring and compensation all through the economy.

When did we try a voucher program for colleges and universities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not an economist, but I know enough to know that Sanders proposals do not add up.

He proposes taxes on all financial transactions to pay for free college but does not account for the industry making adjustments in trading practices to reduce their tax burden, so (a) the plan exaggerates how much it will raise and (b) it adds inefficiency to financial markets by adding a non-market factor that will influence investment decisions.

The college plan also would cost more than he says because it has very weak or nonexistent management and oversight details, so colleges would be able to increase tuition with no improvements in quality required. It is essentially a voucher program, the tried and true way for the government to pay more and receive less of something.

Sanders' health plan replaces tax-exempt employer-paid health insurance premiums with a payroll tax and several other taxes, and incredibly he seems to believe that payroll taxes would not be taken out of employee compensation. Never mind that neither employers nor employees would want to do this. Even if it happened it would not work for many employees. Currently, the employer-paid premium and the employee share are the same for someone making $60K as it is for a coworker making $30K. Substituting a payroll tax would mean the employer would pay twice as much for the $60K worker as for the $30K worker. That would affect hiring and compensation all through the economy.

When did we try a voucher program for colleges and universities?

It is essentially a voucher program, the tried and true way for the government to pay more and receive less of something.

That is what voucher programs do. It is simple economics. Hillary's plan is much better:

Clinton vs. Sanders: Their Higher Ed Plans Compared
https://edreformnow.org/clinton-vs-sanders-their-higher-ed-plans-compared/

[Anonymous]

No need for dems to worry--Hillary will be the nominee (if she is not indicted). Superdelegates will prevent Bernie from winning--even if he wins most primaries.

Hillary will likely come out of VT with more delegates than Bernie.

[Anonymous]

They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No need for dems to worry--Hillary will be the nominee (if she is not indicted). Superdelegates will prevent Bernie from winning--even if he wins most primaries.

Hillary will likely come out of VT with more delegates than Bernie.

And, this is why people are saying that government is not of the people, by the people, or for the people.
I am a Republican, but I think this is really horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need for dems to worry--Hillary will be the nominee (if she is not indicted). Superdelegates will prevent Bernie from winning--even if he wins most primaries.

Hillary will likely come out of VT with more delegates than Bernie.

And, this is why people are saying that government is not of the people, by the people, or for the people.
I am a Republican, but I think this is really horrible.

We Democrats appreciate your concern, but there aren't that many superdelegates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

Obama says Sanders is no Obama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No need for dems to worry--Hillary will be the nominee (if she is not indicted). Superdelegates will prevent Bernie from winning--even if he wins most primaries.

Hillary will likely come out of VT with more delegates than Bernie.

Oh, man, if those superdelegates go against the will of the peeps (and their votes are on record, many/most still in office) to throw the election Hillary's way, there will be H-E-L-L to pay. We already went through an unethical election result with Bush2. Not gonna stand for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need for dems to worry--Hillary will be the nominee (if she is not indicted). Superdelegates will prevent Bernie from winning--even if he wins most primaries.

Hillary will likely come out of VT with more delegates than Bernie.

Oh, man, if those superdelegates go against the will of the peeps (and their votes are on record, many/most still in office) to throw the election Hillary's way, there will be H-E-L-L to pay. We already went through an unethical election result with Bush2. Not gonna stand for it.

Well, only two states voted so far, and Clinton leads in the actual earned delegate count. So there is that. Maybe you want to let the states vote before you worry about superdelegates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

Obama says Sanders is no Obama.

But it's looking like Hillary is the same Hillary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

Obama says Sanders is no Obama.

Thank God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

Obama says Sanders is no Obama.

But it's looking like Hillary is the same Hillary.

And Hillary beat Obama in the popular vote and almost beat him in the delegate count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

Obama says Sanders is no Obama.

But it's looking like Hillary is the same Hillary.

And Hillary beat Obama in the popular vote and almost beat him in the delegate count.

But it was supposed to be a lock for Clinton because Obama was supposedly unelectable. I'm a Sanders supporter but I sincerely wish the Clinton campaign would go back and examine what happened instead of relying on the same misguided assumptions this time around. It's made them first lazy, then angry and already desperate, which has sped up their implosion schedule by a few months.