Bernie Sanders to Fund ‘Major’ Multitrillion-Dollar Plans with Military Cuts, Taxes, Lawsuits
By HANNAH BLEAU
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Monday released a fact sheet explaining how he will fund his “major” multitrillion-dollar campaign proposals — the Green New Deal, free college, housing for all, etc. — and revealed that he will pay for them through a combination of cutting military spending, creating new taxes, and enacting penalties on the fossil fuel industry in the form of lawsuits.
While Sanders has released a suite of lofty plans with the promise to improve the lives of middle class and low income Americans, critics have repeatedly asked the socialist senator to explain how his administration will pay for his grandiose proposals.
His campaign released a fact sheet on Monday listing each of his “major plans” and providing a line on how he will make it a reality.
His $16.3 trillion Green New Deal plan, perhaps one of his most prolific proposals, will be paid for, he claims, through a variety of methods including slashes in military spending and lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry.
He is calling to reduce defense spending by $1.215 trillion “by scaling back military operations on protecting the global oil supply.” His campaign claims he will raise $3.085 trillion by “making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies.” He expects to garner another $6.4 trillion “from the wholesale of energy produced by the regional Power Marketing Administrations.”
“This revenue will be collected from 2023-2035, and after 2035 electricity will be virtually free, aside from operations and maintenance costs,” his website states.
Sanders also claims his Green New Deal plan will create 20 million jobs, which will effectively create a new tax base and eliminate the need for $1.31 trillion in “federal and state safety net spending due to the creation of millions of good-paying, unionized jobs.”
His campaign actually argues that enacting his multitrillion-dollar climate change proposal will save the United States $2.9 trillion in the next decade, $21 trillion over the next 30 years, and $70.4 trillion over the next 80 years.
“If we do not act, the U.S. will lose $34.5 trillion by the end of the century in economic productivity,” he claims.
That is far from Sanders’ only proposal. Offering free college and cancelation of student debt will cost, according to his estimates, $2.2 trillion. Sanders claims the plan is “fully paid” for with a “modest tax on Wall Street speculation,” contending that it will raise more than enough — $2.4 million over the next decade.
Sanders says his $1.5 trillion housing for all plan and $1.5 trillion universal child care/pre-K plan will be paid for with “a wealth tax on the top one-tenth of one percent – those who have a net worth of at least $32 million.” He claims it will raise “a total of $4.35 trillion.”
His other plans rely almost entirely on new taxes on the wealthy. His vow to erase $81 billion past-due medical debt will be “fully paid for by establishing an income inequality tax on large corporations that pay CEOs at least 50 times more than average workers.” Additionally, Social Security expansion will be paid for, he says, with a tax on Americans with incomes over $250,000.
Instead of explicitly stating how Sanders will fund his Medicare for All plan, which some experts say could cost over $60 trillion over the next decade, the fact sheet simply touts a “menu of financing options that would more than pay for the Medicare for All legislation he has introduced,” which includes raising taxes on the middle class.
Per the fact sheet, those options include:
Creating a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four.
Imposing a 7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers, exempting the first $1 million in payroll to protect small businesses.
Eliminating health tax expenditures, which would no longer be needed under Medicare for All.
Raising the top marginal income tax rate to 52% on income over $10 million.
Replacing the cap on the state and local tax deduction with an overall dollar cap of $50,000 for a married couple on all itemized deductions.
Taxing capital gains at the same rates as income from wages and cracking down on gaming through derivatives, like-kind exchanges, and the zero tax rate on capital gains passed on through bequests.
Enacting the For the 99.8% Act, which returns the estate tax exemption to the 2009 level of $3.5 million, closes egregious loopholes, and increases rates progressively including by adding a top tax rate of 77% on estate values in excess of $1 billion.
Enacting corporate tax reform including restoring the top federal corporate income tax rate to 35 percent.
Using $350 billion of the amount raised from the tax on extreme wealth to help finance Medicare for All.
The release of the fact sheet follows Sanders growing frustration over the mounting questions over the costs of his massive proposals.
Anderson Cooper grilled Sanders on the costs of his various proposals during the presidential hopeful’s recent sit-down interview with 60 Minutes.
“But you say you don’t know what the total price is, but you know how it’s going to be paid for. How do you know it’s going to be paid for if you don’t know how much the price is?” Cooper asked.
“I can’t rattle off to you every nickel and every dime,” Sanders said. “But we have accounted for — you talked about Medicare for All — we have options out there that will pay for it.”
Breaking: Dow Drops 960 Points at Open Over Fears of Coronavirus
February 24, 2020
The Dow Jones erased all gains for 2020 at its open on Monday over fears of the spread of the coronavirus.
The stock market was down 3.12% when it opened on Monday.
Over the weekend there were major outbreaks of the coronavirus reported in South Korea, Italy and Iran.
The virus is spreading.
Six nations banned people crossing the border from Iran in an attempt to cut off the spread of the deadly virus.
There are at least 600 cases reported in South Korea.
UK: HOSPITALS TO DENY CARE TO “RACIST” OR “HOMOPHOBIC” PATIENTS
What could possibly go wrong?
FEBRUARY 18, 2020
Patients deemed to be “racist” or “homophobic” will be denied care in NHS Trust hospitals under new rules set to take effect in April.
“Currently, staff can refuse to treat non-critical patients who are verbally aggressive or physically violent towards them,” reports Sky News. “But these protections will extend to any harassment, bullying or discrimination, including homophobic, sexist or racist remarks.”
Police will also be given new powers to prosecute “hate crimes” committed against NHS staff.
What is determined to be “racist” or “homophobic” is anyone’s guess, since many elderly patients will be totally unfamiliar with modern politically correct speech codes and could be deemed to have behaved in a racist or homophobic way even if they didn’t maliciously intend to.
As Jack Montgomery highlights, “In late 2017 an NHS patient who requested a female nurse to carry out a cervical smear complained when the hospital sent a person with “an obviously male appearance… close-cropped hair, a male facial appearance and voice, large number of tattoos and facial stubble” who insisted “My gender is not male. I’m a transsexual.”
The line between critical and non-critcal care is also up for debate. Will refusal to treat a patient because they said something someone deems offensive result in accidental deaths?
This is even worse than China’s social credit score, which hasn’t yet gone so far as to punish people by withdrawing medical treatment if they engage in wrongthink.
First it was deplatforming people from social media websites, then it was deplatforming people from bank accounts and mortgages. Now it’s deplatforming people from hospital treatment. Literally eliminating people’s right to basic health care because of their political or social opinions.
It’s also important to emphasize that these changes are coming in under a supposedly “conservative” government.
Respondents poked fun at the new rules.
“This is going to be hilarious when a boomer is denied his double bypass cause he called someone coloured on Facebook,” remarked one.
“Don’t get sick in the UK if you’ve ever posted “Grooming gang” statistics,” commented another.
Have It Both Ways: Warren Won’t Deny Her ‘Medicare for All’ Plan Raises Middle-Class Taxes… …But Claims She Won’t Support a Law ‘that raises costs on middle-class families’ Axelrod Skeptical: ‘How can you even make an assurance?’
By Joel B. Pollak
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) would not deny Tuesday that her plan for “Medicare for All” raised taxes on the middle class — even as she did everything she could to avoid confirming it.
A CNN panel in the spin room after the fourth Democrat debate on Tuesday night in Columbus, Ohio, struggled to pin Warren down on the question of whether her policy would raise middle class taxes.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the author of the bill Warren backs, has admitted openly that middle class Americans would pay higher taxes under his (and her) plan, but argues that middle class families would save money overall because their health insurance costs would supposedly fall.
But Warren has dodged the question in debate after debate, and interview after interview — and did so again when confronted by her opponents in the debate.
In the spin room after the debate, CNN’s anchors and political pundits struggled to extract an answer from Warren. Jake Tapper tried to help her craft an answer that would admit the tax hike, but argue for lower overall costs; John King pointed out, sympathetically, that Warren ran the risk of being accused of lying to the public.
Warren replied, over and over again: “My commitment is I will not sign a bill into law that raises costs on middle class families.”
David Axelrod, former White House adviser to President Barack Obama during the Obamacare fight, was incredulous at Warren’s claim that she knew with certainty that “Medicare for All” would not result in higher overall costs for any middle class family. “How can you even make an assurance as to how all this is going to pencil out?”
Warren stuck to her talking point, refusing to admit she would raise taxes — but declining to deny she would, either.
‘She’s a Moron!’ Tucker SHOCKED By AOC’s New Welfare Expansion Plan
10/3/2019
I still can’t stop laughing about the fact that her mic is backwards.
A free society to me is one without a socialist/communist government telling me what is and isn’t morally acceptable.
(GLOBALIST AT WORK) – Mitt Romney: Putin, Kim Deserve ‘Censure,’ Not ‘Flattery’
By Joshua Caplan
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) on Monday took a veiled swipe at President Donald Trump’s diplomatic approach to Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, arguing they “deserve a censure rather than flattery,” reports the Salt Lake Tribune.
Romney, an outspoken critic of the administration, jabbed the president without naming him in a prepared speech at an event held by the Sutherland Institute, a right-of-center think tank based in Salt Lake City.
“I think demonstrating personal character is one of the most important responsibilities of a leader of the land,” the Utah Republican continued. In an attempt to denuclearize a belligerent North Korea, President Trump has participated in two summits with Kim and exchanged several letters. The president also met with Putin in Helsinki, Finland, in a bid to repair ties left in tatters by the Obama administration.
Romney, who was soundly defeated by President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election, has heavily criticized President Trump — most notably during the 2016 election, describing him as a “con man,” and a “fake.” However, in a show of unity, president-elect Trump put aside Romney’s criticism and interviewed him for the position of Secretary of State, a job which ultimately went to former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson.
During the 2018 midterm election, President Trump endorsed Romney, which the then-senate candidate gladly accepted. Just when the pair’s relationship appeared to be on the mend, Romney once again attacked President Trump with a Washington Post opinion-editorial published two days before he was sworn into office. The Utah Republican recently slammed President Trump for suggesting he may be open to receiving opposition research on his political opponents from foreign governments, calling the idea “unthinkable.” Days later, the president rejected the hypothetical scenario, saying he would alert federal authorities if his campaign was approached.
Later in his speech before the think tank, Romney criticized far-left proposals such as the Green New Deal and “Medicare for All,” advocated by several 2020 White House hopefuls.
At one point, Romney also conceded his “slice of Republican Party these days is about that big,” placing his hands closely together, before claiming he is not “100 percent sold on everything my current party’s establishment is doing.”
“I am aligned with the Republican conservative philosophy and believe that our Democratic friends are taking us in a very different direction, which would be most unfortunate to our future,” said the lawmaker.
Trump Ending Welfare-Dependent Immigration, Saving Taxpayers Billions
By John Binder
President Trump is set to save American taxpayers billions of dollars as his administration announces a new rule on Monday that will essentially ban welfare-dependent legal immigrants from permanently resettling in the United States.
A new regulation set to be published by the Trump administration will ensure that legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the past, including using subsidized healthcare services, food stamps, and public housing.
The regulation will be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.
The National Academies of Science released a report two years ago, noting that state and local American taxpayers are billed about $1,600 each year per immigrant to pay for their welfare, where immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households.
A recent Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) study notes that about 63 percent of noncitizen households in the U.S. use at least one form of taxpayer-funded welfare, while only about 35 percent of native-born American households are on welfare. This means that noncitizen households use nearly twice as much welfare as native-born American households.
In California — with the largest noncitizen population in the country at almost 11 million or nearly 30 percent of the state’s total population — more than seven-in-ten, or 72 percent, of households headed by noncitizens are on at least one form of welfare. Compare that to the findings that only about seven-in-twenty, or 35 percent, of native-born households in California are on welfare.
Preventing Americans from being forced to foot the bill for welfare for newly arrived legal immigrants is hugely popular among U.S. voters. A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted in 2017 revealed that more than six-in-ten voters, or 62 percent, said they would support a plan that bans legal immigrants from receiving welfare for at least the first five years of their residency in the country. Roughly 67 percent of swing voters and nearly 60 percent of black Americans said they would support such a plan.
Another 76 percent of U.S. voters said welfare users should be mandated to prove that they are not in the country illegally before being allowed to obtain public benefits, including 74 percent of black Americans, 77 percent of swing voters, and 63 percent of Democrat voters.
Currently, there is an estimated record high of 44.5 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S. This is nearly quadruple the immigrant population in 2000. The vast majority of those arriving in the country every year are low-skilled legal immigrants who compete against working and middle-class Americans for jobs.
Five Of The Craziest Moments From The CNN Tuesday Night Democratic Debate (VIDEOS)
By Aleister – JULY 31, 2019
The first night of the second 2019 Democratic debate on CNN had some wild moments.
We’re not going to bother with the moments the candidates or the CNN audience liked.
We want to point out some of the crazier moments that will probably be overlooked by the media.
Here are five examples.
5. Marianne Williamson
While talking about Democrats taking corporate donations, Williamson invoked a joke from Seinfeld and suggested that voters are going to “yadda, yadda, yadda, right over them. Watch:
4. Pete Buttigieg
When the subject of the minimum wage came up, Pete Buttigieg, who frequently implies that he is more Christian than anyone else, suggested that you are not a decent Christian if you don’t support raising the minimum wage. Watch:
3. Don Lemon
CNN host Don Lemon was included as a moderator in this debate for some reason. He is not a journalist, he is an opinion guy and he absolutely hates Trump. He made that crystal clear with this question. Note the wording:
2. John King
John King, another CNN host, said something factual in his post-debate analysis. He suggested that this field of candidates is further left than any Democrat who has ever won the presidency, including Obama. Watch:
1. Elizabeth Warren
When asked a direct question about whether her healthcare plans would raise taxes on the middle class, Warren refused to give a straight answer. What a surprise. Watch:
Bonus: Bernie Sanders
Bernie got louder and louder as the night went on and Tim Ryan commented on it.
Tom's Blog 