CydeFX
417358
14092
912
Sep 28, 2015 6:12 PM
CydeFX
417358
14092
912
Muppetwarior
Anyone who thinks our economic woes can be fixed by just doing one thing differently does not understand economics.
chicmagnetwampa1
Raise taxes for the most powerful people in US and cut spending on the only thing congress can agree on (military budget)? Good luck
WhatSayYouCitizen
Taxing "the 1%" and "reducing military spending" isn't going to pay for all that stuff.
chooseday
I hate Bernie posts with a passions, but thank god this one actually has some policies for once.
Antvbaker
End the war on drugs, shitcan ridiculous military spending (f-35 now 14 years over budget), punish companies hiding taxes offshore. Profit.
RenegadeTQ
Except raising taxes on the top 1% will come nowhere close to paying for all that sh*t, even if you taxed 100% of their income.
Mobileuserwholikestoberandom
Why did I read the caption of the picture each time?
godsdamnit
Did anyone else NOTICE ANYTI MISSING?
bisclavrt
Because it's bold.
Jasbeer
Because your gaze automagically veers towrds text. It's an automated response after being literate for most of your life.
Blackrain39
*Echoes of the past* "Feels like I'm wearing nothing at all... Nothing at all... DENTAL PLAN"
adampeterson69
created an account solely to upvote this comment
Dangerdan00
You have been trained well
GreenSpaceman
It's automatic because you see so many memes in a day.
interestedofold
I did the same thing...
SyfiGiggle
I thought it was too wide for my screen so I turned my phone sideways. Hello, I am idiot.
AWolfWithShades
Hi, idiot. I'm dad.
BetterLuckyThanGood
Thank you for bringing this moment of joy to my otherwise bleak day.
shaegen
I did the same thing, then tried various attempts to zoom out. Hello, fellow idiot, you are not alone.
UncleSamPaysMeToImgur
But if they cut Military spending, who will pay me to Imgur?
Mobileuserwholikestoberandom
Maybe you'll find an actual Uncle who's named Sam and is rich?
UncleSamPaysMeToImgur
My very own Charlie Sheen...
gtaomg
inb4 "thanks for service" comments.
UncleSamPaysMeToImgur
Somebody has to keep Imgur safe!
gtaomg
lawl
elecpso
NOTICE ANYTI
GreatSexWeekend
...HOW TO PAY
itsAone
the endless fucking question
LightningMcQueensStuntDouble
jordynslefteyebrow:
GreatSexWeekend
Mhm. Yes I see.
HarveyDentTrust
*throws and mixes eggs*
PenisOfDeath
AND WHAT DO YOU GET?
[deleted]
[deleted]
AlwaysSomethingHorrible
Something something something how to basic.
CH3CK50UT
Also, CO is making a killing off of weed tax
banarn
Hell yea we are. Doing my best to help
Revrot
Isn't. The war on drugs already $40,000,000,000?
Doraste
40 billion. Chump change to the us debt I would sau
FourCatsAndSevenMemesAgo
gr8snd
You mean reading only the lines you want to isn't optional? That's no fair!
Durrington
I'm confused by the phrasing. If it's not optional to only read the lines you want to, is it mandatory?
AstralMarmot
What was that? I skipped to the replies.
TheThingNoNotThatOne
Yeah, altering the narrative on a politician is only for other candidates than Bernie!
BoomboxGuy
What if the 1% move?
Punnilingus
Nope, that only works for the Bible.... Well... not really but whatever!
DarkUranium
Evidently, it *does* work. That's now how it *SHOULD* work, but it does in practice ...
Punnilingus
Well people try it until someone calls them out on it. Much like this post.
DarkUranium
Yeah, but at least in religion, such callings-out tend to get ignored.
PowdrdMilkMan
I upvoted just to make this 1000 ;)
NovellvsCisco
You can raise their taxes bt they dont have to declare income in the usa. Targeted taxation without closing loopholes is fail, & prejudicial
TheLordLucifersBannedAccount02
If he's fucking with the tax code, I'm sure he'll change that too.
leatherneck1836
That, and raising tax rates reduces tax revenue...but American's don't learn from history.
gr8snd
Tell me something, how did Bill Clinton leave such a nice surplus then?
leatherneck1836
Oh...you really don't know? The Fed was raided. Kind of a big thing in America's history. Google it, prepare to hate Clintons (more.)
gr8snd
LOL this is the best bullshit Clinton attack yet! He left a surplus due to sound fiscal planning. Democrats are good for the economy.
leatherneck1836
That should have been treasury, not fed, but no, Democrats are historically horrible for the economy. Look at today's numbers...1/2
leatherneck1836
For instance, unemployment has become so bad that the UE rate dropped...because they are considered "removed from workforce."
gr8snd
No, you don't. Trickle down does not work. No matter what spin you put on it.
leatherneck1836
As tax rates rise, revenue drops. There's no politics involved here, just simple math.
gr8snd
Way to simplistic and not based on facts. Stop listening to Rush and drinking the Kool Aid. lol
leatherneck1836
Nothing complicated about it; the higher the tax rate, the fewer people who pay in, less spending, less businesses incorporated in the U.S.
leatherneck1836
Let me guess...you also think that socialism would work if someone would just give it a fair chance?
HitlerwasrightnexttoKimJongIlastheworstpersonever
All of the money of the 1% is nothing compared to the debt we owe and the costs of running this country people
erowud
Literally ALL of their money would not even touch the money we need. This country doesn't have an income problem, we have a spending problem
humptysorthopedic
US govt debt is literally our savings stored by banks in US gov accounts. Are you saying Americans are too wealthy, need less money?
AdolphTheRedNosedReindeer
Spending 950 billion$/year on military while China & Russia only spend 150 billion$ combined... is economically illiterate.
mcbcmchn
We've got agreements to protect dozens of countries. We do spend too much, but it's not like there's no reason for it.
AdolphTheRedNosedReindeer
Those "dozens of countries" can still be protected with just 1/5th of what we spend now. If they want extra then they can pay for it, not us
Catsnaketax
I do agree we should cut military spending I just don't know enough to say where to cut it. I wouldn't want cut personnel or their wages.
AdolphTheRedNosedReindeer
Veterans Benefits and Research are sep. budget entity from military spending. The 950 billion mostly goes to maintaining bases and big toys.
Demosthenes9
Even if the top 1% was taxed at 90%, there's not enough money.
AdolphTheRedNosedReindeer
Germany, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Iceland, and Norway beg to differ
WVGleeman
That's why it's not the only thing on the list.
Doraste
Actually, raise taxes on the 1% is the only thing on that list
TheSmitty17
Every presidential candidate that has been elected ever has done 100% of all the things they said they would when running. I googled it.
flapperfemmefatale
i don't see how that's relevant. even if all politicians lie, i still wouldn't vote for someone who promises to do things i disagree with.
Gronsak
Do you know why America have a President? The President is there to distract everyone from who is actually fucking everything up, Congress!
Zreen
Man do I have some bad news for you about Guantanemo
TheHypestShit
An election platform is not a guarantee. It is a list of goals. Nobody can achieve 100% of the goals they set out to accomplish.
questionableCheese
Well not with that attitude.
jeherohaku
They probably get elected and then realize exactly why the problem they said they could solve doesn't have an easy solution
cateatsglitter
Yeah but a lot of those candidates took payouts from lobbyist to change their values. So far bernie hasnt.
CKnowles
Any 2 from there is better than each whole opposition list. Besides, he has a chance of leaving a surplus by starting with tax & war reform.
BendingUnit
Better than running on a promise to end cheap and affordable healthcare for women. *cough* *looks at GOP*
TheSmitty17
Can't upvote this enough
hardytardigrade
No, that's not true. Every president in fact has failed to live up to every single promise. Therefore there's no point in supporting anyone.
EdHochuli
What about the NSA...
leadoxide2
I'm glad we get to keep our doctors.. Oh wait..
bechtaquitos
Lol
Akakaputo
But ol Bernie ain't no tit cheek.
DetectivePikachu2
Yeah! Obama never went back on his word on the NSA! Oh, wait
ThomasMontgomeryHaverford
Considering Obama's very robust counter-terrorism policies (more drone strikes than the Bush administration), that's not very surprising...
dav3nasty
Wait u mean the NSA isn't just spying on us?!
LeonQuin87
I'm so glad he closed Guantanmo Bay though.
GiantRobotsRule
All,of them do a lot more of what they promise than their opponents do. And that matters.
gebsmith
Obama upheld exactly 0 promises. 0 is more than what number?
ferristriangle
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
ferristriangle
Your statement is measurably untrue:
GodMonster
Polk did, then didn't run again.
UnnecessarySwearing
Don't care if guy or girl, this comment turned me the fuck on cunts!
YouAreACommunist
And promptly died
bythefaultlines
James K Polk and the Mexican folk. That's the phrase my teacher used to remind us he was president during the Mexican-American War.
humancookiedough
Mr. James K. Polk, our eleventh preeeeesident
GarbageAngel
young hickory, napoleon of the stump
ThisTreeIsDurRunk
Shakov
Came back to look for some Bernie stuff and found this gem. Polk was always my favorite president :)
GladeRunLegend
He chose not to run for re-election before he was dead.
TheLordLucifersBannedAccount02
He died three months after his term ended, which meant he could have run for re-election and died in office. Wrong argument.
IMakeLotsOfReferencesAndRemakes
Um.... Except the whole thing where he didn't do that. This isn't about what he COULD have chose. He told everyone he WOULD NOT and DID NOT.
ihaveaplansocunningyoucouldputatailonitandcallitaweasel
He's just playing politics. He'll probably run again anyway in 2020.
ThisTreeIsDurRunk
I know. I was just sharing a short list of his accomplishments and such. The cholera thing was unrelated.
GladeRunLegend
I see. I thought you were pointing out that he died shortly after his term as a response to GodMonster's comment.
Jakely7
Presidents can't always come through on everything they say because their power is checked by the other branches.
RIIIIIIGGS
You sound like a student of civics.
humptysorthopedic
Presidents do not write budgets EVER. Not exec function. a document called Constitution explains.
notta
Not if you have a Phone and a pen.
risewing96
The next president will likely appoint 1-2 supreme court justices
mikeatike
Of course not. If the Republicans don't get their way they will throw a tantrum and try to shut down the entire government.
ildolce
Isn't that why Boehner resigned?
Macksiiie
Essentially, we were all happy till we realized the crazy one wasn't the craziest one. Now we like Come back, slightly less obscene speaker.
risewing96
Bernie Sanders has a huge record of increased voter turnout during his campaigns... New voters in the same vote that elects congress and 1/2
GoddammitMrNoodle
I'd pay more taxes to fund these things.
lawyerboi
But then again, you probably don't earn much and therefore don't pay much in taxes in the first place
FrequentContrarian
Taxes does not cover the current things we get by a significant margin.... it would have to be a big increase.
ArdentSlacker
Plus, most of these things are cheaper for us than existing policies. And helping the middle class *actually* helps the economy.
Doomtacoz
Oh no, the horror. Ah. What a cruel world where we won't spend millions on slaughter and put it to good use! How terrifying!
AdolphTheRedNosedReindeer
Blowing 950 billion$/year on military and NSA, while China, Iran, & Russia only spend 150 billion$ combined.. is economically illiterate
thefatlonelyjew
You're absolutely right! Electing Bernie Sanders will cause all evil in the world to spontaneously vanish, rendering military irrelevant!
AdolphTheRedNosedReindeer
Can you build me a straw sculpture too?
ildolce
Wait, I'm sensing sarcasm?
Doomtacoz
Sorry if it seemed like I was saying that we shouldn't spend any money on them, it should just not be our top priority like it seems to be.
NotACanadian
Yeah! That's totally what he was saying, too! Fuck that guy, man!
kkanne20
lol
OverlyCynicalImgurian
Shit, apparently the inability to read is a trend here.
totesronjeremy
Literally no part of what he said implied that.
idislikecomingupwithuniqueusernames
They both have a pretty decent amount of hyperbole going on.
tylertlat
I interpreted JMC's response as assuming DT wasn't alleging that the military kills for the hell of it, which REQUIRES that implication.
rylecx
Good luck with any of that happening.That's not a plan, it's a pipe dream
DanAykroydFanClub
Given that just about all of those things exist in other countries, they're certainly achievable. But given the separation between the 1/
DanAykroydFanClub
executive and legislature in the USA, simply electing Sanders isn't going to deliver any of it. Also worth noting that the flyer isn't 2/
DanAykroydFanClub
produced by the official campaign. Stuff is like "end police brutality" is just vague and a little asinine, however well meaning the intent
MrRoybert
I feel like you got down voted because a few people didn't read your whole arguement. Also id like to join the DanAckroydFanclub. 3 +1's 4 u
DanAykroydFanClub
PM me to join the club brah. X
lukemwp
Yeah it's impossible *ignores the dozen of countries that do these things*
risabesu
Yeah, it's not impossible, just improbable. Not the ideas, just the scale of it all. Compromises will have to be made.
lukemwp
compromises always have to be made? same thing was said about Britain before they adopted Universal Healthcare. does't mean it shouldnt be
risabesu
The polarization between the legislative and executive branches play a factor. Bernie will have to work hard and I hope he does.
LovableTramp
The impossible part is getting 536 people to agree on every aspect of it.
lukemwp
by that logic, nothing should ever be achievable. oh and not everyone has to agree.
rylecx
The premise is not impossible. The likelihood of America doing it essentially is
lukemwp
i'll take things said about abolishing slavery for 300, Alex
rylecx
Economic issues are far more abstract and easier to ignore as they don't appeal to the public. Way to go for the hyperbole though
koreanegg
Oh yeah it's totally possible *ignores that the US has 10 to 34 times the population of socialist countries*
lukemwp
uhh.... wow... okay so... that makes no sense? so you dont change things because you have a large population?
HandyZambie
Can you explain this argument a little more? I'm not too keen on it. Wouldn't the system just play out the same way, just on a larger scale?
RaptorsNstuff
On a really basic level: It's easier to stop crime in a 10 person village then it is to do in an 1000 person city. Same principle applies.
lukemwp
so then the scale of supplying infrastructure, fire services, police services, etc, etc, for that many people is too hard as well.
lukemwp
Let's ignore the fact that Britain's population was around 50 million when they did it RIGHT AFTER WW2. around 1948.
Hayashima
What about Canada? Scandinavia? They've more or less working on this system.
koreanegg
They have smaller populations and Scandinavia has a small land mass. The US has 10 -34 times the population of Canada &Sweden respectively.
rylecx
They also have a significantly different infrastructure and political culture. This isn't about viability, it's about possibility
Hayashima
Well if we're talking about making this work in the current US system then yeah, good luck with that.
rylecx
That's kinda the pt of a new president, working with the current system...
GiantRobotsRule
Theyre wealthy first-world democratic republics just like USA. No reason USA can't emulate a working system that works in dozens of nations.
rylecx
see you say no reason, but I don't think you understand how the US gov't works
GiantRobotsRule
Will it be difficult politically? Yes. Impossible? No. We created SS, Medicare, put guys on the moon, etc. We can address societal problems
koreanegg
How about they generally have smaller land masses. The US has 10 to 34 times the population of Canada and Sweden.
GiantRobotsRule
Land mass? Yes, and we have different geocoordiinates too. Guess that means a system that works for dozens of countries would magically fail
FlesHBoX
Social Security makes up a quarter of the federal budget already. It doesn't need increases, it needs to be rebuilt from the gound up.
Mcknizzle
Agreed entirely. Though I presume this was a simplified paraphrase of what I hope is the actual plan.
spawnmc
Federal taxes don't fund Social Security, it's a separate tax and doesn't have anything to do with deficit.
FlesHBoX
Yes, but it is still part of the federal budget. It also doesn't help when other groups effectively steal money from it, of course.
MisterManatee
I actually don't think many people would seriously complain about raising the retirement age. We don't want to be Greece.
andybrice
I vote replace the whole system with something like a Negative Income Tax or Universal Basic Income.
FlesHBoX
I can certainly see the benefits of both concepts, though it would require massive budget cuts everywhere else, and an overhaul of the whole
FlesHBoX
tax system (which I am definitely not opposed to)... And The U.S. does not like change that drastic. Also, I can see the pitfalls as well.
papadezelda
Shows you the effectiveness of the fed govt. Rail Road Retirement has been around longer and has 2 tiers and is managed better.
tman144
SS runs a surplus. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html
philipbergen
HSA is actually much saner. We just need to be able to also use it like social security when unemployed.
MalcolmButler
Social security should make up zero of the federal budget.
DDPB9k5G
wish I could favorite comments. if it's in the budget, it's not self-funding. the end.
Jameski07
But it doesn't because it was raided years ago and needs to be budgeted for now to pay on it.
heyguysimtom
This. Thank you.
humptysorthopedic
Social Security acct was set up separate from general budget. FDR agreed w Gulick that SS tax never truly needed, maybe harmful to econ
DYFlover
yea but it pays for it self and will be fine for 30 years. we can make small changes in future to correct that
Redeyer
No, it definitely needs increases. The cap is waaaaay too low. http://www.ssa.gov/planners/maxtax.html
FlesHBoX
The reason for the caps is because those above that income level are the least likely to need it.
AlaskanOCProducer
All social security needs is for the cap to be removed so all income is taxed, not just the first $100k, millionaires should pay the same
FlesHBoX
I can see how that would bring in more money, but the reason for the cap is that those above don't need SS, and it's retirement planning,
FlesHBoX
not tax. I get that this concept fits into the whole "redistribution of wealth" idea, probably better than anything else even, but
FlesHBoX
SS is supposed to be "saving for YOUR retirement". It's a shoddy replacement for personal responsibility.
AlaskanOCProducer
How can you even say that when the 1% destroyed all of everyone else's savings in 2008???
Justabothan
it also needs rules to keep Congress's hands out of it.
tman144
Al Gore ran on that platform and was mocked for it.
KnightSlayerTsorig
And he would have won too if that Dubya Bush didn't cheat him out of it. Got into office before the votes were retallied for Florida.
FlesHBoX
That's for true. It's such a terribly mismanaged system.
rokkerboyy
That's not an inefficiency due to congress, it's an inefficiency on all levels. and you can't tell congress not to operate a federal program
FlesHBoX
What are you even talking about?
rokkerboyy
Social securities mismanagement is caused by more than just congress.
papadezelda
Rail Road Retirement is private and managed better than SS is. Those of you who want the fed govt to manage anything are batshit crazy.
CountVorkosigan
I feel it wouldn't be nearly as bad if there wasn't a strong political impetus to sabotage programs to prove their ineffectiveness.
papadezelda
Regardless, federal govt programs just don't work effectively. Politicians are greedy and have an agenda.
CountVorkosigan
So is everyone else. The only difference is that politicians can get promoted for mismanaging something they don't like rather than fired.
Pos7al
One of the worst things ever done... making that accessible. Ughhh.
watchrinserepeat
That was one of the main pitching points when they created it. "SS fund will only be used for SS" bah
caboops
It needs to be trashed. I'll pay into a secure private retirement account.
FlesHBoX
Well, the problem with just trashing it is that they don't have the money to pay out what everyone has paid in, so everyone gets hit really
FlesHBoX
hard. It sucks, because we're at a point that fixing it means someone's going to get hurt.
humptysorthopedic
SS by design contains Tsy securities, digital credits on spreadsheet. Is it difficult to add numbers to that account? FDR Gulick -goog that.
ZeGed
Just because it makes up a large amount doesn't means it could/should not be larger (though a rebuilt seems like a good idea) (1/2)
ZeGed
Contries like Denmark and Sweden spend ~ 25% of their GDP on social welfare and the US spend ~ 14%. So there could be room for growth.
ridge
Social welfare makes up about 30% of the U.S. federal budget.
whywritemythesiswhenihaveinternet
considering that literally the only point of government other than opposing outside forces is to promote social welfare, i see no problem
ZeGed
im talking percents of GDP. But I might still be wrong. Its based on a quick search.
FlesHBoX
Countries like Denmark and Sweden are significantly smaller. The SS system was poorly planed from the start, and is suffering every year 1/
FlesHBoX
because people are living longer. There simply isn't enough money coming in to support it.
The5lacker
[Citation Needed]
whywritemythesiswhenihaveinternet
the other part about rebuilding...not really sure about that. I don't know enough. It's a good thing to have though
whywritemythesiswhenihaveinternet
Well the (less than) 25% of the budget part is on the white house's infographic on the budget: https://www.whitehouse.gov/interactive-budget
gebsmith
User name checks out
override367
This is incorrect, Social Security has been self funding up until a few years ago and it has a trust fund full of US debt it can sell
Jasperman62
Look up ponzi
override367
TLDR: Social security is fine and our domestic debt is $2t higher than the listed number
caboops
You're hilarious
richman1c
You clearly must not have a job, or you wouldn't call that large chunk of tax for s.s. taken every payroll as "self funding"
humptysorthopedic
Puzzle: FDR agreed with aide Luther Gulick that SS needs no tax and high tax could hurt economy, So why did FDR sign Payroll tax into law?
AlaSnackbar
Whaaaat?!?!? S.S. is self funded and solvent. You don't say. Hahahahaha. Thanks for the laugh. Now I go see if I can find another job.
WasThatAFartOrAShart
It'd be great if what comes out of my paycheck for SocSec could go directly into an untouchable (until X age, or disability) account.
zstorm6
That was the original plan iirc. You pay for your generation. But something got fucked up in the execution and you end up paying gen+1
habi816
Actually it wasn't. SS was made when the young outnumbered the old 10 to 1. So every person paid for 1/10th of an older person.
rokkerboyy
It's almost like the government should promote self and financial responsibility rather than coddling everyone..
Jasperman62
Welcome to the Republican party!
verotica
or personal super annuation like in Aus, with a shitty retirement pension for those that don't enough away
walterpeck
George Bush proposed something like that in 2005. Want to guess how it went?
tman144
Yeah, wouldn't it have been great to put all our SS money in the stock market 3 years before the biggest downturn in a generation?
walterpeck
Hey wouldn't it be great if you actually read the plan?
Cryeing
Ronald Reagan proposed the same in his Time for Choosing speech, in "64, it's a great idea, but never happening unfortunately.
LitchLitch
So you are volunteering to give up your parents SS benefits then?
NoWonderImStillAwake
Yea, cause the only two options are get rid of it or do nothing...
FlesHBoX
Who said anything at all like that? Fixing a broken system that is in constant deficitis a good thing, no? So you might have some SS someday
tman144
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html SS has been running a constant surplus since 1982.
LitchLitch
"rebuilt from the ground up" has a definite implication of wiping away what's already there
Magster2004
Yeah.... I want every penny I paid into it back.
TheLordLucifersBannedAccount02
Here's your 500 dollars.
tman144
Live for 10 years after retirement. Max benefit is 2366/month. Must earn $106000 for 45 years to get that. SS tax is 6.2%. 1/?
Bricmpt
Shhh.
tman144
Over 45 years that's $295,740 in tax. At 2366/month it would take 125 months to get back. 125 months is 10.4 years. 1/2
FlesHBoX
Good luck with that one. At this point, I've just started considering SS another tax, and focused on handling my retirement myself.any ss 1/
NoWonderImStillAwake
That's a smart call lol, don't rely on it. I know I won't.
FlesHBoX
will just be icing on the cake.
rokkerboyy
It's a borderline ponzie scheme that I'd running out of "investors"
tman144
Ponzi schemes don't run a surplus.
NoWonderImStillAwake
Not borderline, it's a flat out ponzie scheme lol
cogs
"Raising taxes on the 1%." Obviously, you haven't actually looked at the revenue involved. Won't do a thing.
Doraste
1% make billions, the us problem is in Trillions. Makes sense
0utrider
I was looking for this right here, thank you!
thyfangysock
Cut the bureaucracy and we'd save trillions.
CanBobTheBuilderFixMyLife
Fucking hell this is retarded. 14 likes too?!
erowud
Are you pro bureaucracy?
CanBobTheBuilderFixMyLife
I think its retarded to think that bureaucracy costs trillions
AdolphTheRedNosedReindeer
We spend a trillion$/year on NSA surveillance & military. China, Iran, & Russia only spend 150 billion$ combined. We don't need that much.
gebsmith
You could tax the 1% at a rate of 100% and not pay for what he wants.
ipagani
Exactly. Wouldn't even pay for half the current spending
d0o0o0d
Sssssh! People don't like being told they fail at math.
Hobert
The vast majority believe its this simple
spankatorium
Obviously, the solution is MOAR TAXXXES!
residenthyperchondriac
Yes. And the 1% wont pay that much. they'll just leave. Fair? no. but they can do it if they wish. Such is the power of wealth
override367
If you only taxed INCOME, yes, and keeping it confined to the 1%, sure. He also wants to tax investments and corporations more.
override367
For a good example of how he would propose we fund the government, see: http://1.usa.gov/1fuh2zn
gondring
http://data.whicdn.com/images/9601830/large.jpg
idislikecomingupwithuniqueusernames
A good chunk of that list would directly or indirectly cut costs or bring in more revenue.
CoreyLisle
His plan for healthcare reform was found to actually be so beneficial it would be a PROFIT for America. The Washington T article was bs
TheThingNoNotThatOne
It was found to be beneficial because they ignore a ton of things. It's pretty easy to make that estimate work when you do that.
Alexagon
Not saying all of those are realistic, but the current system costs more (%) to the taxpayer than in most countries with free healthcare.
humptysorthopedic
We could tax at 1% and pay for everything. Taxes for Revenue Obsolete ~ Ruml 1946 (hard to believe, taxes are to cut shopping not fund govt)
gebsmith
2 strategies. 1) Raise taxes slowly so it's not a big shock. 2) Ask for huge raises in taxes and settle for small increases.
humptysorthopedic
SLASH TAXES on wages to create jobs. US gov spending = sole SOURCE of our currency. Taxpayers don't create US dollars, do we? Where?
humptysorthopedic
Tax hikes + spend cuts are deflationary. Falling sales. Defaults on debts rise. Mass bankrupt, business fail, job loss. We demand that???
IrrelevantButPlausibleConspiracyTheories
There's a reason countries with universal healthcare spend LESS per capita on healthcare than we do here. Because it's cheaper over time.
GoddamnitClown
SO MUCH less :P Though preventative care is no bigger a factor than prices not being inflated, hidden behind a for-profit insurance system.
IrrelevantButPlausibleConspiracyTheories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
GoddamnitClown
Yeah, I'm really well acquainted with the stats, and I agree with you :P Did you mean to send that to me?
IrrelevantButPlausibleConspiracyTheories
I DON'T KNOW ANY MORE.
whatthehell13
The problem is Americans in general are unhealthy so that may not be the case here
[deleted]
[deleted]
gebsmith
OK, Tax the rich at 100% and reduce military funding to $0 and then you might have it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
gebsmith
Your stance is exactly what's wrong with the country: "Everyone does it so it's OK"
Aibell125
So I agree the military spending needs to be reevaluated, but the lower ranks end up getting screwed
TgCCL
And that's where I see the problems. Administrative restructuring and R&D cuts should come first.
Aibell125
I agree completely! But, like where I work, the people making the financial decisions are the ones protecting their own paychecks/bonuses
TgCCL
To be fair to them, everyone would try to protect their own employment.
InvadingYourSpaces
Universal Health Care is an income. You pay more taxes for it. War on Drugs is an expenditure, not an income, ending it makes more income.
Jamesbroispx
If UHC was an income, it would exist everywhere, I don't think you realize how much healthcare costs. That's why it's so expensive as is.
InvadingYourSpaces
It kinda does exist everywhere. A lot of countries have it.
Rheios
Yeah. UHC is not an income. Multiple coops are closing this year because they can't make a profit with the number of claims they cover
Femtoscientist
Those claims are also 200-300% more costly than the actual service itself. This is why UHC would save trillions over a decade.
FFPatrick
Govt. making money on something they are forcing people to get. You don't see a problem with that?
bigh0rse
You vastly underestimate how much the 1% are earning.
JohnCalvinCoolidgeJr
you need to be earning 380K+ a year in income to make it to top 1%
NovellvsCisco
No, that's not considered upped middle class.
Hobert
its an overestimate how much 1% matter. A country works by the simple tasks done my millions, the elite will just leave before 100% taxes
OneTARDIStoRuleThemAll
i'm sure you have a concept too. unfortunately a lot of politics boils down to assumptions, and thats dangerous
bigh0rse
Thats why its important to educate one's self outside of sources like MSNBC and Fox and their like.
DH11
At retail rates it takes ~$600 billion a year to feed everyone in the US. FY2015 Military budget is $520bn. The 1% is a smaller target.
elahrairah
Where do you get military budget #s? We spent more than that in 'emergency offbudget' items for the iraq war.
DH11
FY2015 defence budget request. I am aware that we often go over $1tr, but I wanted to err on the side of caution with my statement.
CydeFX
That may be true, but I think we can all agree that we need to start somewhere, and soon.
aCoolBreezeOnAHotSummerDay
<1/?> Can't just start anywhere, you may end up making things worse. And once a gov't program starts it never stops. Taxing the 1% usually
aCoolBreezeOnAHotSummerDay
<2/?> means that the middle class gets screwed again or will eventually get screwed (i.e. AMT tax).
hardytardigrade
It is not true. It would not be a good idea to tax anyone at 100%, but a 100% tax on the 1% would definitely pay for everything on that list
gondring
A 100% tax would NOT generate much at all, because that group would stop producing. At this point, tax increases REDUCE revenue.
hardytardigrade
1) At this point? At this point we have some of the lowest income tax rates- both in our history and among similar nations. Plus
hardytardigrade
3) And when we had MUCH higher top marginal rates, people didn't stop producing. We had the strongest economy and middle class we've had.
hardytardigrade
2) we just raised taxes, and revenue topped $3 trillion for the first time ever. What you are saying is demonstrably false.
aCoolBreezeOnAHotSummerDay
<3/?> Taxing the 1% is just a way to make his concepts popular b/c its fun to gang up on the wealthy. Taxes should be fair not punitive.
Jor1994
Exactly, Fair, the more you earn the more you should contribute. You can't have someone on 200k a year paying the same as someone on 20k
aCoolBreezeOnAHotSummerDay
That is exactly how it works for nearly everyone. Trump's new tax plan actually would make it better. Check it out.
DarkUranium
Raising taxes on the 1% *WOULD* make them fair, since the taxes are regressive at the moment.
WaifuRapist
It's not even about the 1% it's about the .00001% look at the wealthiest 100 people in america it's a tad fucked.
aCoolBreezeOnAHotSummerDay
Taxes should be fair. I'm in the 28% bracket and that's painful to me. Look at Trump's new tax plan. It will address some of your concerns.
ChloePrice
It's about wealth re-distribution, I believe, as the 1% holds such an ungodly amount of all money that it's just hurting the population.
hardytardigrade
False. Even if that was remotely the plan (it's not), that tax would yield about $3 trillion. Way more than enough to pay for everything.
gondring
You seem to think that the 1% would keep producing income. At 100% rate, they wouldn't. We're past the Laffer max, so revenue drops.
hardytardigrade
Nobody is actually suggesting a 100% tax rate. But when the top marginal rate was over 50%, there was a lot of production going on.
JohnCalvinCoolidgeJr
no, you are wrong. top 1% make 380K+ a year. you're thinking about confiscating all their wealth in some Red October remake
hardytardigrade
And this wasn't my hypothetical scenario, I don't support it, I am merely showing how it is bullshit.
hardytardigrade
You are confusing minimum income level with total income. The top 1% together make about 22% of the total income in the US.
hardytardigrade
Medicare for all: $900 billion. Tuition-free college: $75 billion. Infrastructure: $100 billion. Expand Social Security: $120 billion.
TheThingNoNotThatOne
Tuition-free college for state universities* To cover private non-profit and state colleges, it'd cost ~$800 Billion.
hardytardigrade
First of all, not true; it would be under $100 billion per year more for all schools, even for-profit. Second, we don't have to do that.
TheThingNoNotThatOne
Okay, well 1) that's definitely not true, and 2) only about 30% of students go to state colleges. It won't solve anything to just cover them
hardytardigrade
Source: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013183.pdf (total tuition and fees, Table 2)
idislikecomingupwithuniqueusernames
College -> long term job growth which results in more tax revenue. Infrastructure -> creates jobs which results in more tax revenues.
hardytardigrade
Yeah, then there's that- how a lot of these "costs" are actually investments in people, which have an economic return...
idislikecomingupwithuniqueusernames
That always gets me. "I have to pay for someone's college??" "Yes. And then they pay for your social security."
whywritemythesiswhenihaveinternet
eh, college would probably be only about 45 billion (assuming $50k tuition+room/board) and 900k students (more than currently) 1/2
whywritemythesiswhenihaveinternet
which makes ~330/person/yr. if we use a more accurate tuition rate of 25k, it's down to 140/person/yr aka less than one months loan payments
MyGinormousThrobbingErraneousHeart
yeah, but as it says right here he wants to cut military spending and end the war on drugs as well
lowkeybrotherofthor
Cut military spending...enjoy not being protected and not having the most powerful military in the world...oh wait too late.
1Rogue
"one aircraft carrier has more powerful airforce than 70% of other countries" - we have 18
snicklefritz2
still wouldnt be able to pay for it....
Mcknizzle
Cutting military spending would crush our economy. It's a massive, constant gov stimulus to the U.S. and pushes R&D.
Moonsmoonsmoons
Stimulus money anywhere spurs the economy, but we could do useful stuff with it, like basic research (R&D) or just build roads and stuff.
Mcknizzle
We do build roads, stuff, and basic R&D. Our investment in the military provides R&D in several fields that apply to space, aerospace,
Moonsmoonsmoons
Just directly do R&D. For space stuff fund NASA and for aerospace stuff just research that without worrying about how to strap a gun to it.
Mcknizzle
cause a drop in stability and a drop in economic output and standards of living.
Moonsmoonsmoons
Stability: Yes but we're so stable now we can afford to lose some Economy: No, lower taxes=stronger economy Standard of Living: See economy
Mcknizzle
thousands of lives across the planet thanks to its unique capabilities. #2 The US military provides a security balance. Dropping back will
Mcknizzle
military itself, we need it large for two primary reasons. #1 it's great to have a quick response force for natural disasters and has saved
Moonsmoonsmoons
It works in a pinch for disaster response but we'd be better off to fund FEMA better and maybe create an international humanitarian branch.
Mcknizzle
computer, and materials. Also the stimulus aspect goes from everything between baby diapers, movie tickets, food, and shoes. As for the
Shadow113
Russia is constantly growing and poking sticks at everything, north korea is still....north Korea, and even if we did cut military spending,
TheHypestShit
If you view Russia as a major world power, you watch too much US TV news. Same with North Korea. It's just sensationalism and exaggeration.
IDontCareImStillFreeYouCantTakeTheSkyFromMe
Um, there's a LOT of fat to trim in the military budget, they have such a huge limit, they waste shit in MANY areas that could be fixed.
Tachyon000
Russia isn't growing, it's falling behind in almost every category, and is only a threat to countries it directly borders
severice
Considering we're a nuclear nation, our conventional military is kind of a waste.
BryanCroson
Troll
Shadow113
We still couldn't pay for his plan, and effectively lower the $18TRILLION debt
smashadages
The deficit is a better figure to look at than the debt.
MyGinormousThrobbingErraneousHeart
absolute numbers are pretty meaningless when talking about debt. A better indicator would be debt relative to GDP and new debt relative to
MyGinormousThrobbingErraneousHeart
GDP. Man, this comment feels useless and empty
TitanicBuster
We spend more on defense than the next 15 countries combined, I think we can cut military a little bit.
DavidBrooker
Sure. But do you really need to outspend Russia by 5:1 to meet your goals in Europe? Especially with the help of, say, Europe?
d0o0o0d
Yes. Putin would rather spend lives than money. Obama (and Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, etc) would rather spend money than lives
Shadow113
We do not outspend them 5:1
DavidBrooker
(in the case of the Iraq War, those 'off budget' items often exceeded the entire Russian military budget)
DavidBrooker
The Stockholm Peace Institute says you outspend them 7.2:1, with specific special expenditures excluded.
Trampolineguy
The US spends less of it's GDP on defense than Russia does. If the US wants to keep it's current dominant position it can't cut by much.
rollercostarican
who cares if it spends less % of its GDP it still spends more than all of its enemies combined, there is plenty of wiggle room here
DavidBrooker
That is true, and in that sense I think my point is as much about re-evaluating actual foreign policy as much as it is about efficiency.
Trampolineguy
I am referring to force projection btw. The US could still defend its self with drastic spending cuts.
MrBobSaget
If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit.
Nordenfeldt
Secondly, if the US govtook 100% of yearly income over $1 mil, it would get about 3.5 trillion a year. bber. unm.edu/econ/us-tpi. htm
MrBobSaget
As much as I am for fixing these problems, the idea that raising taxes on the rich is some silver bullet for revenue is simple false.
AdolphTheRedNosedReindeer
We spend 950 billion$/year on NSA surveillance & military. China, Iran, & Russia only spend 150 billion$ combined. We don't need that much.
Nordenfeldt
Firstly, the US Federal deficit this year is 489 Billion. Cause, maths.
bigh0rse
I see that number a lot, where did you get it?
MrBobSaget
I knew about the state, but many different groups have calculated it and found the same result. This one I got here at...
MrBobSaget
ttp://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/04/03/john-stossel-tax-the-rich-the-rich-dont-have-enough-really/
MrBobSaget
The even further misinformation is the fact that its not really the 1% where income inequality starts, its at the 0.1%.
MrBobSaget
And also that the so-called 1% includes a LOT of small businesses. Increasing taxes on the "wealthy" is actually an increase on businesses.
bigh0rse
do you have a source from someone who is not a fox news analyst? He didn't explain how or where he got that number 616 billion number.
ChickenFingersYT
As a member of the military, I hope he gives us an actual raise and ends the spending on useless programs.
Iamlordofspuds
Same
codylishush
I think that's more up to the legislature for spending.
mostokaymedic
We need to reform congress before hacking away at the mil budget really. If we demand cuts they cut bennies and personnel 1/2
SilentHowling
The cut people rather than anything else and the people left are overworked & underpaid.
Electriccarsbestcars
He certainly cares alot more about veterans than your average senator. Has actually passed bills to give more funding to the VA.
ChickenFingersYT
Yeah, which is why I'm voting for him. Tired of hearing of old brothers dieing.
IsHeSkiing
Then spread the word to go out and vote. The more people we have voting this election the better.
Paintmeblue
When we say cut military spending, we should mean cut government contractors who spend billions on a screw, not the actually military.
Paintmeblue
*actual military.
AdolphTheRedNosedReindeer
VA and military spending are separate. Sanders advocates for improving VA healthcare and benefits, exactly how is he anti-veteran?
habi816
Sorry bud, personnel is usually the first to go. When the time comes, you can hire people faster that you can build ships, planes, and tanks
KharnApproves
But the F22 and F35 are so awesome and have dramatically increased the combat power of the armed for..... oh, wait.
greengiant63
They need to cut out programs like the F-35. It will do no job we can't already to and it serves to waste more money
magoslich
I read a very interesting article discussing the problems with trying to stop the F-35 at this point. They've set it up so components are1/2
magoslich
Produced in 48 states, so no politician will try to shut it down out of fear of anger from his constituency for destroying jobs.
Catsnaketax
As someone who works with F-16s I know that the F-35 is currently our best hope to sustain our ageing airframes. 10 years f-16s will be done
greengiant63
What about the F-22?
Catsnaketax
The F-22 would severely limit our mission capabilities mainly to just air to air combat which is useless in the war on terror. 1/2
greengiant63
What about the F/A-18? The A-10? I just don't see why we have to spend money on new planes when we have the best already
Catsnaketax
While the F-35 is a Multi-role fighter capable of many different mission types including tactical/small target bombing. It also costs 1/2 $.
Hybris51129
No more $500 toilets! No more $1000 reflective belts!
ChickenFingersYT
But, how will we live without our PT belts? If I remember correctly they are the only reason I survived.
Hybris51129
Not sure, in WWII all you needed was a bomber jacket and a pair of Aviators and you were very hard to kill.
rocktown1980
No more $6k tool sets I can buy at Sears for $2k! I never understood why we wasted so much money on stuff we could buy cheaper locally.
leatherneck1836
GSA for one, but more of it is used to hide funding for covert operations and balancing annual budgets.
Cooter961relaxitsakindofturtle
GSA baby GSA what an unbearable corrupt organization that is
Barbarigo
Plus he wants to create a tax on Wall Street speculation to pay for public colleges
LumburgOR
Wall Street can't afford this tax.
ShitSteve0Says
Funny how people ignore that Sweden and France did implemented a similar tax in 1984 and 2012 and it tanked both of their markets.
SandshoesAndaScrewdriver
Bahahahhaaha
stagg572
Which would suck money out of the market but that's none of my business.
ShitSteve0Says
Funny how people ignore that they tried this in Sweden and it ranked the market
ShitSteve0Says
Crazy how a site full of people bitching about college debt choose to ignore the facts. It's like they only hear what they want to hear
stagg572
Liberal arts majors don't take econ classes I guess.
ShitSteve0Says
Which is funny cause I swear everyone on this site claims their and engineer
stagg572
Don't forget bomb disposal. Lots of experts.
Cryeing
Because they can't move to say, London, or Toronto to stay on the continent, like so many companies have already done. No, they can't move..
Vespy
The faster we globalise popular democracy to counter a globalised corporatism, the better. Eventually, they'll run out of places to run to.
DidItForScience
Well the tax is on market trades so, unless they want to stop doing business on US markets, they'll pay into it.
kukbert
Taxing the 1% will not get you much government revenue. They don't have that much money and you can't just confiscate their wealth.
humptysorthopedic
Why do we believe USA gov "gets" U$D from tax users? Where is dollar factory? Indiana? Nevada? Beijing? Whose logo is on your money?
ReturnoftheZombiePlagueApocalypse
Sorry, what? They don’t have that much money? 85 people in the world have as much money as the lowest paid HALF of the population!!
ReturnoftheZombiePlagueApocalypse
That’s right. 85 people in the world have as much money as the lowest paid 3.5 BILLION people!!!!!
ShitSteve0Says
We heard you the first time
kukbert
Oh, so the US is going to confiscate money from people from other contries? And no, not in long term state budget terms, hey don't.
ReturnoftheZombiePlagueApocalypse
Well, first of all, it isn’t all about the US – there ARE other countries, y’know, all of whom contribute to inequality.
kukbert
The picture is about US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders political platform.
ReturnoftheZombiePlagueApocalypse
Yes, I had noticed that. The concept of "the %" is not, however, either an American invention, nor solely an American problem
erowud
Most of the rich do not have that much liquid wealth. Most of their money is tied up in investments. The kind that give people jobs.
ReturnoftheZombiePlagueApocalypse
well, no. Much of their wealth is tied up in financial investment - the kind that DON'T give people jobs.
erowud
Why do you hate the rich?
ReturnoftheZombiePlagueApocalypse
so - you have made this assessment of my likes and dislikes, based on a few lines of script on a screen. Well done you.
AvielMenter
I did notice something missing. Foreign policy.
RedneckFrank
Foreign Policy with countries in the UN could be as simple as not being, "That backwards country."
TheGreyGryphon
If you listen to the internet the US should stop foreign policy all together so :
swaptrick
Worked out well in the 40s
ireallylikegrapes
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-foreign-policy-and-national-security/bernie-sanders-on-foreign-policy/
AvielMenter
I did look at that; it was pretty short on specifics.
aDefenseless9yearOldGirl
Look into 'the bipartisan consensus on foreign policy'
beardedheathen
forget foreign policy lets fix home first.
scepticpsycho
http://imgur.com/0sFpJtX
swaptrick
Nu uh, we stay at home and bury our heads in the dirt. All the bad people will leave us alone.
FightMeMrTusk
This was basically Bush's argument in preemptive vs preventive war. There are tons of presidents who did effectively bury their heads though
humptysorthopedic
When we had much bigger foreign policy, WW2 Cold War we had more spending more industry more jobs. Reagan called it military Keynesian.
AvielMenter
Turns out it's the New Deal non-military Keynsianism that helped more. Fiscal multipliers for military spending suuuuuuuuck.
humptysorthopedic
agreed. RWers seem think fiscal deficits dont hire ppl or companies. all net "welfare" boosts profits incomes jobs - expand econ + investmt
humptysorthopedic
agree. Non-mil Keynes adds $ to econ when Demand is weak and sales, profits, jobs are down. Mil-Keynes does too, but narrowly.
Redeyer
it's not part of his major platform, but the information is out there, if you care to read it.
AvielMenter
I have looked for it, including on his website, and have generally failed to find anything specific.
Redeyer
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-foreign-policy-and-national-security
AvielMenter
That's where I've looked. There's very little specific there
DoctorMama
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-foreign-policy-and-national-security/bernie-sanders-on-foreign-policy/ is a nice place to start
DoctorMama
Not where he's going so much as where he has stood. I look forward to reading something of more substance.
SchizophrenicOnSunday
This is my only worry with Bernie. I'm not a warhawk but I do like multilateral intervention in extreme circumstances (bosnia, rwanda,etc)
ServitorofAzathoth
You do realize basically no one intervened in Rwanda, right? They were too busy arguing "but what does genocide MEAN"
SchizophrenicOnSunday
That's what I mean. Rwanda was an extreme circumstance. We should have intervened and we didn't.
ServitorofAzathoth
Oh, right then. My bad.
SchizophrenicOnSunday
Good man. Sorry for confusion
AricNeo
They're probably saying they would want to be able to intervene in a case like Rwanda (as in they don't want to see another non-intervention
SchizophrenicOnSunday
Thanks
waiwode
Now if only someone had intervened in Rwanda.
humptysorthopedic
One of gov leaders allegedly involved for events leading to mass killing was train at SoA and just returned from Washington DC, so ....
ServitorofAzathoth
"800 000 dead in a matter of what, 3 months? That doesn't sound like a genocide to me" - The UN
Cryeing
"Stop Endless Military Spending", a rather shallow one, he knows that being forced to talk about Foreign Policy sinks candidates
GaryFreakinOak
I wonder if he realizes tht spending less on our military means Europe will have to spend more, and that will kill European socialism.
PostingFromMyBeeper
American voters do seem to respond better to "Fuck Mexico" soundbytes than anything resembling sound policy. "Hitler was bad." "9/11."
EverythingISeeIsAJojosReference
It's 2016. I imagine promises for us to return to the Middle East and to also occupy Ukraine. Basically promise WW3.
PrincessPoopiePants
Holy shit who won the world series quick
OhhhDrZaius
sounds a good policy to me
AvielMenter
I consider that more budgetary policy. It's shallowness is forgiveable in a pamphlet this small.
Fl0zilla
It's not the size of the pamphlet...
tvann
Hey he is trying to cut spending on printing haha
TheThirteenthDoctor
He's talked on foreign policy in plenty of interviews, his stand is to avoid war at all costs and get United nations active
xTheMaestro
That old toothless thing? The only war crimes it's ever prevented were the ones it wouldn't recognize.
AlaskanOCProducer
He's talked foreign policy since the 60s, back when he was a mayor they criticized him for HAVING foreign policy. Why don't you go research?
AvielMenter
Avoiding war unless necessary is everyone's stance. You need more definition than that.
Wizard996
Jeb Bush disagrees.
NovellvsCisco
Well... he is a Bush. They've been a warmonger/profiteer family since... FOREVER.
rightinthejord
Exactly. There are huge disagreements about what 'necessary' means.
Hybris51129
Sounds like he's forgotten who provides the bulk of the military and logistical force for the UN.
Dipityseren
Follow the money. Whoever's getting rich from military actions, armaments...etc..are the ones deciding on that policy to begin with.
rvleshrac
We provide it because we agree to do it for free. If we stop doing it, other countries will have to pick up the slack.
UnworthyBeatrix
India, actually.
dantesudilov
India pls stop
TheHypestShit
He's basically isolationist. Believes in withdrawing military and aid from foreign countries.
Ohhaidoggie
Stop lying. He voted for the war in Afghanistan and even for Ukraine aide package.
TheHypestShit
You mean he voted against the Lee vote, which was a vote for a vote on Afghanistan. He voted for withdrawal at a later date.
TheGreyGryphon
Not poking ones nose into other countries affairs does not mean isolationism.
rugger2
That'll work in 2016 and beyond.
AvielMenter
Eh, citation needed. Haven't heard him articulate this viewpoint.
automall99
He's def against the use of military. Voted against Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Desert Storm.
AvielMenter
He did not vote against the AUMF in Afghanistan.
VenerablePotato
Don't see how cutting down in military resembles isolationism at all, war is an awful form of modern diplomacy.
Bigmackattack
It worked in the 1920s
scrim4
Funny thing is that for how isolationistic you were back then, you've still scaled back since. You pretty much had an empire in the '20s.
sergeanttarkus
We became true isolationist during the great depression
BhawbTheMagnificent
And getting involved in everything has worked great for us over the last few decades.
footfoe
i don't see any Hitlers walking around do you?
gilliamv
Haha yea... Oh.
RulingCzar
End the war on drugs will save Billions.
1stNeonStar
Tax the drugs that are not murderous like weed not only do you save money, you max money on top of that.
dancfontaine
I think there's more profit in anti depressant/anxiety pharmaceuticals and that has a large bit in why weed is illegal
runningjew
And getting rid of a lot of the corporate tax loopholes would probably make billions
iPretend
I'd like to end the war on drug, go back to good ole isolationism, do some tax reform. Start paying down our debt, n' then talk entitlements
rshackleford
if done properly raising the min wage could be a huge net gain in the long run
CityYeti
plus, he might be cutting military budget, which is too damn high. insert Jimmy McMillan too damn high jpg here
InquisitorRavensburg
Here ya go: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/27/2520969A00000578-0-image-a-1_1422403191825.jpg
CityYeti
Thank you
SomeGeographer
I just watched the VICE episode on this. It is... sad. I really don't agree with drug use but the punishment for it is far beyond ridiculous
Swunt
the amount we waste on military is huge. you could literally feed all of america with it for life with the budget each year.
PunchViolenceInTheFace
Government in general wastes tons of money, it's sickening, read the recent VA inspector General report.
peopleperson
That's just the enforcement, reforms of the prison system could also save astronomical amounts of money.
GreaterDog
Always better to have someone working, rather than a prisoner and burden to taxpayers, too.
DrWilliamHorriblePhD
Tax cocaine.
itswallynotwaldo
If he does it by the legalisation and taxation of said drugs he could make billions! Probably not a popular move though
Thisismyusernamedealwithit
They earn billions on it we just don't see that money appropriated
Durzaka
Exactly. Why the fuck is that one highlighted?
fuckyoukeith
Bernie's plans will cost Trillions.
rollercostarican
and that one move would eliminate 1.5 trillion, there are other money saving moves on the list.
Sticklebrickk
It will save billions and generate billions
DrHotdogs
Yeah, it seems weird to declare war on something that can't declare war as well
0110000101110110
End war.
StooperDave
This 100%. If a candidate ran on this platform, i would vote for him. Even if his name was Adolf Stalin Mao the Third.
SpaghettiFox
Only problem is, saying you will end the war on drugs is like saying you're gonna end terrorism. It's just not gonna happen.
Isuckatbeingagirl
No. The war on drugs is something the government is doing, they can just stop doing it.
SpaghettiFox
Okay... There's kind of a reason the 'war' is going on. If we just ignore it, it won't go away. If anything, it'll get worse.
Isuckatbeingagirl
No, but maybe we should focus on treatment not punishment. It would be less expensive, and create better long term results
togetheragain
Also: The vast majority of drug users don't have a problem. Using law enforcement to prevent them from getting high is a huge waste of money
karasaj
To be fair those two things would never pay for everything he'
karasaj
Hit enter... "he's promising"
TheThingNoNotThatOne
There's a lot of hidden costs behind ending the war on drugs. It'll probably gain some money, but definitely not as much as people say.
Starcatcher1986
I'm genuinely and non-sarcastically curious, what are the hidden costs?
TheThingNoNotThatOne
Regulation costs money (bureaucracy and regulators), and there's still going to be a black market. Plus, job losses in various sectors 1/2
TheThingNoNotThatOne
may or may not outpace job gains in the pot industry. And there's still a bunch of other drugs that are illegal, or illegal to certain 1.5/
TheThingNoNotThatOne
sales (such as Xanax on the street). 2/2
Dinodude65
Damn right. That's why I'm voting for Rand Paul.
humptysorthopedic
I hate war on drugs or mil ops cause prblm. But fact is DOD spend adds $ to GDP just as SNAP or Sec 8 or hwy project or Ocare boosts jobs
StephLovik
And raise additional tax revenues if done right.
TravisKOP
decriminalization is the way to go
Promina
i was going to say that ending the war on drugs would probably save enough to pay for all of that. And legalizing marijuana would help
holyiv
Sell drugs, make billions?
CamelSpotter
We could also reduce military spending and probably sell some weapons/equipment to our allies. We have an enormous lot full of unused tanks.
EverythingISeeIsAJojosReference
Stop funding the F35's production and development. It's design is flawed to hell yet its expensive and going to widely replace 1/2
EverythingISeeIsAJojosReference
The F-16, F-18, F-22, and also the A10... #WarthogLivesMatter
AccidentalStalker
So will rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.
NicolasFalch
Damn. I love that band!
ImgurCelebrity
It will definitely make my drugs cheaper.
newsguycraigevans
For the tax payer yes. But it will cost the for-profit-prison industrial complex. Therefore, it won't end.
LordWok
that was my first thought. theres your entire budget for the new spending right there....
rokkerboyy
That's a pretty black and white statement for a such a complex topic.
BoooBerry
You'll need trillions to pay for all those pipe dreams.
scarletfireblaze
Along with the comment about ending endless military spending.
nanoman273
Start mining are own resources
Starcatcher1986
Right, and they highlighted it as if it'll cost us MORE to stop doggedly hunting down nonviolent criminals.
CanadianCthulhu
Yet kill millions
LordWok
what a shortsighted, incorrect and frankly fucked in the head thing to say. how many people die from drug use because its done illegally 1/
LordWok
with no safety oversight, dose control or basic truthful information? people like you are behind the "reefer madness" style propaganda 2/
LordWok
which causes many people to lose respect and trust in their governments... cigs/alcohol? oh perfectly fine and legal, hypocrite.
CanadianCthulhu
Of cooourse im a shortsighted fucker. I am doing volountary work in treatment centres and deal with heroin addicts on a daily basis.
Efreeti
End war will save trillions
[deleted]
[deleted]
InquisitorRavensburg
Don't worry. Corporations will let them nurse at the bribery teat.
Starcatcher1986
Don't worry, there'll still be the arms trade. That's not going away so easily.
unicornmanblazingsaddles
Not with the NRA still around, that's for sure.
spiritualbeingonahumanjourney
Please watch, "Culture High". It is an amazing documentary on the war on drugs and corporation control of the USA.
GoGoGadgetDick
Mmmm documentaries
Crowdog
Is it on Netflix or am I not going to watch it?
Vyrro
No it wouldn't. The CIA and DEA make billions off the war on drugs...they're the real drug lords.
aguacatedeldiablo
It could be replaced by taxes on legal access. Just ask Colorado.
ThePotatoBandit
Would there even be a DEA if they were legalized?
19wesley88
yea, they would then deal with things like meth
ThePotatoBandit
I feel like meth is part of the war on drugs
togetheragain
Isn't meth basically a symptom of the WoD? Suppliers attempting to create more potent/easier to smuggle drugs similar to speed?
19wesley88
the best solution would be to legalize weed and decriminalize possession for other drugs and only go after the suppliers
RonanGoulding
Huge amount of jobs lost for DA PO-PO
ntauthority
good. fuck them. maybe then they can focus on the 40% of unsolved murders, rapes, and robberies instead of busting drug addicts >:(
aguacatedeldiablo
But that's so hard!
Mdp2525
You do know there are different divisions for crime, right? Ex: Homicide doesn't investigate bank robbery, etc. You sound ignorant.
videopro10
Everybody keeps saying this but how many billions? Several? Tens? What he wants would cost hundreds of billions or trillions.
Agouti
None of the billions. The war on drugs is actually a massive revenue raiser.
RulingCzar
four decades after Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs in 1971 and $1 trillion spent since then.
SippyTurtle
All of the billions.
aguacatedeldiablo
One time? Annually? A combination?
Keairan
His healthcare reform is projected to cost 10 trillion. The current projected cost of healthcare is 15 trillion.
TheLordLucifersBannedAccount02
Projected by RNC front organisations.
TheThingNoNotThatOne
I've seen the analysis on that. It makes a ton of assumptions and ignores a bunch of factors.
Agouti
The "War on Drugs" actually /raises/ about 2 billion a year, give or take. Any cash or assets believed connected with drugs are seized.
humptysorthopedic
A federal judge on AMERICAN DRUG WAR says current total spending is $55 billion. Not a cost tho. Prisons stocks courts cops all earn income.
GiantRobotsRule
The cost of enforcement and over-incarceration of the war on drugs are WAY higher than a couple bil in cash seized.
myeyesthegogglesdonothing
Compare that with taxing marijuana and then we'll talk
WaifuRapist
Don't forget hemp
Agouti
I agree totally. I actually feel that possession with intent to use for all drugs should be decriminalized with mandatory support services.
iamthugnasty
Trillions have gone into the military after 9/11. We should end excessive spending in both areas.
QuadrilateralEnix
obligatory http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Politics+or+animemanga+can+t+decide+going+with+animemanga_ffb84e_4805691.jpg
stevenwonder
For those looking for a unit on these numbers: it's in terms of $ and lives
ronswansonisthereasonihaveadadfetish
I once dated a military man. They were forced to spend their budget before the end of the month or it would be cut, so they bought stuff (1)
ronswansonisthereasonihaveadadfetish
They didn't need and would never use, and the amount they spent would cover all my living expenses for months. Seems unfair because (2)
ronswansonisthereasonihaveadadfetish
I sit here drowning in debt living off credit cards trying to feed my household to pay for this.
unicornmanblazingsaddles
That's some classic "rich dad, poor dad" introduction shit right there.
KingTanTan
Its almost like we don't have to fight the entire japanese and german armies at the same time...
Iamlordofspuds
But replace with show of force to Chinese and Russians while still dealing with deranged goat fuckers
catalystparadox
Seriously, ending the war on drugs could pay for all of it, and ending the wars abroad could pay for EVERYTHING.
BurntRamen
Ever see this movie? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_for_Sale:_The_War_Profiteers
CerebrawlHemmorage
Unfortunately, even if the entire defense budget was slashed, the entitlement budget on its own already exceeds government income.
LordNad
To a point. Stop letting the contractors rake us over the coals but don't cut our benefits. Smarter spending, ie Fuck the F-35. 1/
Acornlad
If we stopped putting money into the F-35, then it would be an even bigger waste of money. Its too far along to stop.
Autocorrekt
Seriously. Any stockholders would demand blood if a CEO allowed their company to spend as much on services as we do.
TheSaucyCrumpet
Governments and firms have totally different aims so that's a moot point.
Autocorrekt
You're right, analogies have no value. You can only compare things that are exactly the same. Govt can't possibly want to save $.
vxjedi
When I suggest to friends that we would save a lot of $ by cutting our massive military budget down to size, they assume I'm thinking of 1/
vxjedi
2/ cutting active duty benefits, payroll, and va benefits (which is separate). What a lot of people don't know is that payroll is only 20%
vxjedi
3/ of the military budget, and benefits are included in that 20%. The rest goes toward paying military contractors, and maintaining multiple
ihavealteredmyusernameagainprayidontalteritanyfurther
in capitalist America F-35 fucks you.
DetectiveSloth
It's called the F-35 because it'll cost 35 trillion by the time it's any fucking good.
LordNad
There is nothing wrong with the A-10 or F/A-18. You could have made a sweet ass air superiority carrier capable fighter for less.
scrim4
1: Sorry, no. The Hornet is an old plane that will need to be getting replaced to an extent in the coming decades. And the A-10 actually...
DetectiveSloth
Get another big ass hand of God gun and build a plane around it. It worked before, I see no reason it won't work again.
Iamlordofspuds
Yeah you should see the end of a fiscal year in a maintanance squadron we have to bring our own toilet paper to work
LordNad
We (Navy) tried a consolidated maintenance command and it didn't work out. P-3 aviation here.
Iamlordofspuds
C-130s over here.
WaifuRapist
F-35 failed hard lmao
TheSaucyCrumpet
What exactly is wrong with it? Interested to see if your opinion is informed or inherited.
LordNad
Failed would be if we smartly cancelled and pulled out. No this abortion is still going.
LordNad
Over 300 million per F-35 compared to 60 mil per F/A-18, 18.8 mil per F-16, 12 mil per A-10. The 3 planes it is "replacing". 2/2
CoBr2
The F-16 and A-10 are outdated as fuck. I'm sorry, but an A-10 can't even kill a modern tank anymore and an F-16 is 2 generations old.
Mitheledh
Those planes are all decades old. They need to be replaced (except maybe the A-10). Maybe not with the F-35, but something else.
agermanguy
A new A-10 with a bigger gun!
TheSaucyCrumpet
Demonstrates a total lack of understanding of modern air combat. The F-35 is vastly more capable than the Viper and the Super Bug.
StrikeEagleDriver
I would also never fly and A-10 or a Hornet into a modern SAM MEZ (Missile Engagement Zone). Not into legacy SAMs, either...
StrikeEagleDriver
*an...dammit
Beepity
But it goes to three services, so it's cheaper! 20mil is definitely less than 12!
Oirilia
Jack of all trades, master of none.
dav3nasty
Yeah but they are three different versions. May save on parts and maintenance but really it's just overkill.
HeadMotherFuckerInCharge
It's too late. We're in way too deep and too committed. Its like we already came inside, her, might as well pump a few more times.
BoooBerry
Exactly. Fix it moving forward and deal with it.
Catumi
next thing you know she flips you over and starts sucking for more.
TheSwedishCryptid
Please don't. Your military power is what makes EU not having to spent much.
BurntRamen
The US military power eclipses most of the world effortlessly. http://www.dump.com/aircraftcarrier/
Zephyrias
So YOU'RE the intern that my boss wants me to get...
videopro10
But FAR more money has gone to entitlements. Why not reform those before weakening the military?
DrinkMoreChai
That needs done as well, however trying to call the US' military spending not excessive is just not true. The US is spending more than 1/x
DrinkMoreChai
the next 7 countries COMBINED. We can afford to drop a lot of the higher tech and R&D and put that into other things. I do agree that 2/x
DrinkMoreChai
There are people draining social security, however finding a living wage is very hard for entry level employees without higher education 3/x
foxearredasshole
That is only true if you include social security, medicare, and Medicaid. Some of which people pay into and aren't just handouts.
bluemofia
Exactly. In addition, if you cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, you also cut the revenue from them, so the net gain is negligible.
causality
It's less an issue of weakening the military and more an issue of quit spending money on obsolete shit nobody except congressmen want.
causality
For instance, none of the services need or want any more Abrams tanks but the factory is ordered to keep on makin' 'em.
unicornmanblazingsaddles
Gee, I wonder if congress gets any kickbacks from all the money that the factory gets for producing them...
lejonbrameshairline
I love when people throw the word entitlements around like they are a bad thing. It's like"You aren't entitled to getting healthy when sick"
videopro10
Honestly it's not a matter of what people should or shouldn't have, it's a matter of what we can pay for.
miggiesmalls
And a 618 billion dollars a year military is not one of those things.
GreatWhiteSnark
If you want to save money and actually help people you should look at our military, infrastructure, and jails. Not amount. Where.
rokkerboyy
Yeah, let's cut funding the the largest direct and indirect employer in the world. That wouldn't have any consequences.
scrim4
Yeah. Not to mention how super grateful Europe, Japan, South Korea, the Gulf States, Jordan, etc. would be! No repercussions what-so-ever!
IWillBeProctoringTheImgur
Fuck 'em.
unicornmanblazingsaddles
Idk why, but this cracked me up. The same way trump cracks my shit up. "Imma listen to the facts, and say fuck it."
rokkerboyy
Yeah, all 6 million of em.
Sprixxen
Military budget doesn't need to be 618 BILLION though...A YEAR! 3x the spending of the next highest when we have a significantly lower pop.
rokkerboyy
6 million jobs and most of that spending goes right back in to the economy. Also I fail to see how population factors in at all.
Sprixxen
It's like America forgot how to budget their military in the Cold War and just could never reign it back in. 3/3
DavosSeaworthTheOnionKnight
But they have been cutting it for years...
Sprixxen
We could keep every single military man and woman on pay role w/ better benefits for less than we pay now w/ better budgeting.
nvrCryWolf13
Sure,that way we can have shit for equipment and not be able to defend ourselves. Then we'll have 1000s upon 1000s of members returning dead
TraitorousTrump3
Returning from what? Not war...
thestigsfemalecousin
We can cut our defense spending by 50% and still be outspending the next country (China) by more than 100%.
itscoldhere8monthsoftheyear
Or... America could stop trying to fix what's wrong with the world.
nvrCryWolf13
It had been established early on that America is the Police force of the world
BurritoSensei
just logged in to say you guys are all dumb. this is a reference to Team America. Imgur is turning into tumblr.
itscoldhere8monthsoftheyear
Ya... that hasn't been going particularly well, as of late.
GlenallenMixon
Dude, the only thing the US have been doing lately is producing conflicts not solving them. You guys are the reason for 80% of wars since
Renewer
who established this? did all the nations in the world elect the USA? would we break any contract if we stopped policing the world? no
IrrelevantButPlausibleConspiracyTheories
Fuck. You're dumb. I really hope you're lying about being in the service.
avidatheist
Early on? Seriously? America being the police force of the world is a VERY recent concept.
IllogicalPine
How's that working out then?
bandabears
Seems like most of the equipment is used not for defensive purposes but world policing which can't last forever.
nvrCryWolf13
what if another Al Queada attacks again? take away the money from the people that die to
itscoldhere8monthsoftheyear
That's border security and law enforcement agencies that would deal with that.
nvrCryWolf13
you want to take away our money so you can live comfortably? yeah good luck with that, who's going to defend you when ISIS attacks again?
itscoldhere8monthsoftheyear
ISIS is out in the Levant. If the West stopped destabilizing the Middle East in the name of democracy they wouldn't exist.
nvrCryWolf13
It can't, but after 9/11 we went to war, we need equipment to protect ourselves, we need weaponry to defend this country.
foxearredasshole
We would have more equipment and men left if we didn't go to Iraq for no reason.
nvrCryWolf13
protect your lazy ass, who's too chicken shit to even join a fucking branch.
bandabears
(2) Worse enemies by going to other countries and trying to police it. It's a recurring theme. I'm all for defense and agree with you there
bandabears
Woah, I'm not even American man. I'm just saying I think that it seems a disproportionate amount of spending and it seems to create (1)
GR3453m0nk3y
What country is ever going to attack us? Just about every war we've been in in like the past 70 years, we were the aggressors.
nvrCryWolf13
What did we do to ISIS? Why did they have to kill 3 of my brothers at a recruiting center? We got attacked in 9/11, lost thousands
kirmokum
the US fostered the development of ISIS. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
IrrelevantButPlausibleConspiracyTheories
Uh, the US is almost directly responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda AND ISIS. And ISIS didn't attack Chattanooga.
DavidBrooker
Just the legalization of marijuana alone would turn a huge spending hole into a huge tax revenue source. Like, a $50B+/yr gain in total.
kickhisassseabasss
plus it'd be cool
DeathReaper7291
Not all states can tax weed. I believe California is one of them, so they would have to make taxing it legal to. Correct me if im wrong.
Quessan
If it's made legal on the federal level it could be federally taxed.
LillyVixen
Colorado actually had issues spending all the money from legal weed tax, and they funded a ton of random programs to try.
thecolonelmustard
That is completely false. Just because your hear it on comedy central doesn't make it true
1Rogue
and just like reading it and it's rebuttal on imgur, means jack shit
LillyVixen
I know you think you're being cute and all that, but the tax money can only be used to fund educational programs, and it has, quite well.
EagletonSucksEggs
http://www.hightimes.com/read/pot-making-colorado-so-much-money-they-literally-have-give-some-back-residents
idonthaveanyideawhatthehelliamtalkingabout
can it be confirmed by some other means than a site called Hightimes ? like a link from the state or something like that ?
LillyVixen
Danke, my dear. I knew I'd read an article about this a while back and was going to look for it when I had proper computer access.
DarkUranium
Yup.
norill
maybe the purpose of that money goal isn't to reduce a number of addicts, but to stop drug cartels
lsteamer
Legalize it and you will dry the cartels of their main source of income.
DarkUranium
Really, just decriminalizing it (what Portugal's done) would probably be enough. At least decriminalizing buying and possession.
mmmmmmShaiHulud
If they were to get rid of that funding imagine how many jobs would be lost. Pointless jobs admittedly but still...
KronkSan
replying so I can come back to this
CommanderMalnder
Smh
BACONmakesitBETTER
damn... the 80s were a rough time
foxracing254
Whooooaaaaaa
JooBear
This needs to be a post all by itself. More people need to know this.
ImYourHuckleberryTS
I'm going to need a citation
DarkUranium
See my replies to @TerryCrews.
MySockHurts
Drug control isn't just to control addicts. It's controlling use altogether.
StickmanSham
Usage and addicts are closely aligned, and the war on drugs targets addiction as it's main selling point. This shows that it is ineffective
Howdoilife
Nice
seinfeldgifforeverything
WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???
Felberin
"No pedo"
tanebou
Care to elaborate on what you mean by that?
seinfeldgifforeverything
tanebou
Fair enough lol
KuuroiYuki
I'm just going to be the devil's advocate and say that perhaps the increased spending is keeping drug addiction on its usual levels. ++
KuuroiYuki
++ Not that I would really believe it, but just remember to always put an argument for the other side.
TheGayAgenda
The Earth is flat.
DarkUranium
I know what you mean, but I doubt it would be *THAT* constant, then. Also, you would see some correlation between high budget increases(1/?)
DarkUranium
... and use drops. (2/2) [side-note: fuck the character limit]
ThatShiftyMonkey
The drug rate is shown as a % of population, cost shown as straight $. The $ should be shown as per capita too. Misleading graphic.
nclu
I don't think it's so much misleading. Maybe not complete. Just as 140 characters cannot sum up all political discourse.
ThatShiftyMonkey
if they were both on capita scale, $ would probably still rise in comparison, but not as dramatically.
BhawbTheMagnificent
Look at Portugal, if you want a good example, great TED talk on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMs
BhawbTheMagnificent
Essentially, everything we do to fight drugs is exactly what we shouldn't be doing, and we spend a ton to do it.
RocketRodster
Conversely, our drug policies are guided by evidence. So the lack of correlation is not surprising.
HalloIamherenow
Does this take into account room and board for prisoners who are in jail on drug charges?
DarkUranium
Very good question. And I doubt it, since that's likely to be listed in prison-related statistics, instead.
ReXalted
No it does not.
HalloIamherenow
Then it would save even more money for the government than is shown on this chart.
Varonessor
Doesn't really take inflation into account.
ninjagaidensigma
TheGayAgenda
Exactly. Everyone knows that 1 drug addict in 1983 is worth 10 now.
DarkUranium
... Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=2&year1=1983&year2=2010 (2/2)
DarkUranium
Doesn't matter. 2 billion in 1983 (from that graph) is equivalent to 4.38 billion in 2010, and NOT 20 billion. Source: (1/2)
Varonessor
Fair enough, but it does effectively double the visible change on the graph, which is pretty dishonest.
DarkUranium
Perhaps, perhaps not. I've no idea if it takes inflation into account (probably not), I'm only saying the point stands.
TerryCrews
Is there a source for this?
liekifucrievytim
Jesus Christ!
DarkUranium
The relevant table from NIDA website: https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/past-month-use-of-selected-drugs.gif (4/4)
waitbutactually
Neat
DarkUranium
For that specific image, I don't know. For the general point, this one has a LOT of citations: (1/?)
DarkUranium
Here's a government website (NIDA) listing use since 2002: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends (3/?)
DarkUranium
onomics#sthash.hl7ygPyE.dpbs">http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Economics#sthash.hl7ygPyE.dpbs --- note the big spending table, it cites a whitehouse.gov document (2/?)
AntiGravity33
.
klausnominomi
Save for reference i love this so much
Smurfeteisaslut
Am I the only one that thinks a $15 minimum wage is stupid??? It's going to jack the price of everything way the f*ck up.
ascoolasyou67
The price on "everything else" isnt related to minimum wage. It's directly related to oil/gas prices
Smurfeteisaslut
...did you think before you posted that???
cookseancook
the number needs to be tailored to the region's cost of living, or it makes no sense
Sairvous
(7) allocation for changes in spending power. overall though at this point in time $15hr seems a little too ambitous right now.
Sairvous
(6) Minimum wage itself prevents companies from paying people absurdly low wages and exploiting people. Raising minimum wage allows
Sairvous
(5) could have a potential to disrupt some things. But overall I think the main pro to minimum wage raises is regulation.
Sairvous
(4) If minimum wage is raised past industry wage cap or starting wages like say, IT it may cause a few issues. Obviously $20 minimum wage
Sairvous
(3) there are cons and pros to minimum wage raises. There are a lot of factors that go into deciding a minimum wage.
Sairvous
(2) small sector of the economy. Mainly just jobs where minimum wage is the norm. Everything else is barely affected if at all.
fandsor
Prices are already inflated without a $15 minimum wage. We still need to catch up!
thecolonelmustard
You are not the only one... It is a total disaster.
DanAykroydFanClub
There's a crisis either way; over half of the money spent on welfare flows to people who are in employment. Tax $ are subsidizing low pay 1/
DanAykroydFanClub
according to one report (src at end) a single 300 person wal mart in Wisconsin costs taxpayers over $900,000 a year in welfare. I'm not 2/
DanAykroydFanClub
sure about the trade off between increased prices and lower tax rates from ending the subsidy to low wages by raising the minimum though 3/
DanAykroydFanClub
would be interested in reading up on it if anyone has any links. Source from earlier in next comment 4/
DanAykroydFanClub
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-welfare-recipients-already-have-one/ /fin
TheRealDurdan
Maybe remove the necessity of tipping? Works on Australia...
IrrelevantButPlausibleConspiracyTheories
That is one narrow-minded and not agreed on conclusion. Economists are mixed on what the result might be.
SanguineUmbra
Raising minimum wage itself isn't going to raise prices, corporations will raise prices to effectively undo any benefits gained.
Catsnaketax
It will make replacing human with robot much more appealing.
ajizzle
you and everyone else with any understand of basic cause and effect economics
lawrus
Basic economics is designed to not reflect reality.
ajizzle
economics can be reduced to basic principles, a lack of understanding of these makes it impossible to understand ideas like a minimum wage
lawrus
I get that, but those basic principals alone cannot begin to explain the real effects of minimum wage.
Sairvous
(8) A more realistic figure might be $10-12 per hour.
ConfessorOfTruth
I'd be perfectly happy with $10/hr. Ugh
Sairvous
If you have taken an economics class you would know that this is not all that true. Raising minimum wage affects a relatively(1)
lukemwp
That's not how inflation/pricing works.
Antennaehead
Take a look at what the CEOs are making and then tell me a $15 wage is the problem here.
Smurfeteisaslut
So you're saying that the person who is responsible for the employees below him should be punished by taking the pay he worked hard to get?
bardock
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/25/the-pay-gap-between-ceos-and-workers-is-much-worse-than-you-realize/
TheGreyGryphon
Where do you think welfare goes to? Tax dollars subsidize the low minimum wage.
AtlasAmerica
You are not, good sir. Cheers.
BoomboxGuy
And what if the 1% move?
humptysorthopedic
Are wages the only business expense? With mass outsourcing to 50c/hr and less since 1980s, why haven't prices fallen 95% or half?
tallroses
It might raise prices by about 1% or a penny on each dollar. A small price to pay for an healthier working class and economy.
iUpvoteEveryoneThatReplies
Not good at economics but, higher min wage=less people hired=more unemployed. higher min wage=higher prices+unemployed=less stuff bought???
SushiPooper
TIL: most imgurians are communist
LumburgOR
How is Socialism same as Communism?
WaifuRapist
Work harder comrade
SidneyHarbor
It will cause demand-pull inflation on goods that the poor need the most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-pull_inflation
lawrus
"i took a basic econ class in college so I'm an economist"
TheThingNoNotThatOne
Welcome to Imgur, where you don't have to know shit to say anything. As long as you say something in line with the hivemind you'll be lauded
Smurfeteisaslut
I think it's stupid people want $15 a hour to flip a god dam burger. You should get paid for the amount of difficulty of the job.
revcleo
People have to talk to customers, clean the kitchen, carry heavy loads, sort out the stations, stand for hours, clean again, clean tables.
Smurfeteisaslut
That's great in all but I do all that when I volunteer it's the easiest thing ever.
revcleo
There's a difference between volunteering and having something as a job. I like volunteering to deliver leaflets. I did not like it as a job
Theiovoi
Anyone who works 40 hours a week should be able to support themselves and a family, no matter the job
Smurfeteisaslut
Why would anyone do the harder jobs if they could support a family on a simple mindless job?
SushiPooper
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6d/d8/b6/6dd8b643f9fec91fb15455fac1c47a52.jpg
PunchViolenceInTheFace
False
revcleo
While I've not worked in food services, I can understand it's more than burger-flipping. It's long and tiring. Many hours of hard work.
Smurfeteisaslut
Sure but try working in construction (and I'm not talking about those elevator operators ) it's insulting seeing that they want the same pay
revcleo
Why not raise both pays? It's not good to make it a race for the bottom.
zpjon
Maybe construction workers deserve better pay for what they do.
TrueA
Agreed. The working class should just continue to not be able to support themselves with their insufficient income.
Doraste
So let get this straight, Some1 with a college degree makes about 11.25 and now mcdonalds workers will make 15. The other people will 1/#
Doraste
The college degree will more than likely not get a raise over 15. McDonald's wages arnt made to support a family. They should have made 2/#
Doraste
Better choices with their talents and time and not be working a minimum wage job trying to support a family with it.
Sairvous
Lol right!?
Smurfeteisaslut
So everyone else that made good decisions has to pick up the bad decisions of the others?
TrueA
Not what I was saying. What I'm saying is that leaving the minimum wage where it's at simply isn't an option.
mynamewastakenfml
I do it perfectly fine, two bedroom, food, cell, Internet, cable, car, and I'm in a good neighborhood. It works fine for me.
Smurfeteisaslut
Maybe I misunderstood but the minimum wage should be based on the job because there are hazards in every job but defers in every field
RIIIIIIGGS
Please, you're preaching to the unemployed.
dootdootfloop
im a unemployed disabled man that would love to work and support myself but i cant . either way i struggle to eat so no difference for me
dootdootfloop
its not handed to me i gotta go get it . but the money im given you cant run a house and feed yourself without resorting to crime or dodge
Smurfeteisaslut
You're right shame on me for thinking otherwise. They just want to be handed free money for doing next to nothing.
GamShrk
I completely agree. 15 dollar minimum wage is ridiculous and nothing good can come from it.
basicbetch
If the hourly wage goes up there will be an increase in the supply of labour. The additional competition will make getting a job impossible.
thecolonels
Would you work at McDonald's? How much would you have to be paid to work there?
Smurfeteisaslut
You shouldn't want to work there you should strive to better yourself so you can get a better paying job. Not just sit there wanting to be
jelleyfish
Because most other jobs require "experience" when I'm a working college student and can barely afford to pay my rent, let alone insurance 1
Smurfeteisaslut
Spoon feed like a baby.
areweasbandits
Why? Why shouldn't someone be able to be happy and support themselves doing honest work just because it's fast food?
RIIIIIIGGS
Actually, I think that it's more of a symptom of Imgurians being young and not seeing the inefficiency of things during their working lives.
lowkeybrotherofthor
My God are you right about that. it eould help to read a global economics book.
MelloGod
As a 24 college student, working only part time jobs, raising minimum wage to $15 would do nothing but devalue our currency, and inflation.
Chryos
If McDonalds paid all their workers a minimum of $15 an hour, your meal would be $0.10 more and they'd make the same profit.
Catsnaketax
They would probably just replace their employees with robots. It would cost them less then $15/hr. to maintain.
Chryos
They're already doing this, and it's actually not working that well. The kiosk at my local McDonalds is constantly broken.
TheThingNoNotThatOne
Is that assuming only McD's workers will get the raise, and not everyone in the supply chain, from farmers to processors to truck drivers?
bwk2421
How is this ignored so often? 1 business does not equal a whole economy.
Slendermansneighbor
In New York, those paid $15/hour have seen a cut in hours. The only story i could find a thriving restaurant was in Detroit. 2
bwk2421
Yes, but not just that meal. Everything you purchase would increase in price by 5-10%. Can you afford a 10% increase to your yearly budget?
Chryos
Assuming I made minimum wage (I don't) with an accompanying doubling of my income? Yes.
bwk2421
That's the problem. I make about $15.50/hr. My income may not increase at all but my expenses would.
Chryos
I'm one of those that thinks everybody is being paid too little. The rising tide has not lifted all boats since the 1980s.
thecolonelmustard
Your math doesn't work bruh
Chryos
http://fortune.com/2015/07/30/15-per-hour-fast-food-prices/ It's actually about $0.25 for each person's meal.
Morrigi
What about the rest of the supply chain? The farmers? The truck drivers?
ildolce
Lemme get some sauce with that McInfo :)
Chryos
http://fortune.com/2015/07/30/15-per-hour-fast-food-prices/ I was off a bit. It's more like $0.25 on a meal.
Slendermansneighbor
proof? All I know there are a lot of restaurants in Seattle and California that are closing because of it. 1
Chryos
http://fortune.com/2015/07/30/15-per-hour-fast-food-prices/ This is false. Those wages aren't in effect yet. (1/2)
Chryos
When asked, the owners of the closing restaurants said the wage increase was not a factor. (2/2)
Slendermansneighbor
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/04/368442087/a-burger-joint-pays-15-an-hour-and-yes-its-making-money
GoDrunkYoureHome
But the suppliers aren't paying that high. If you increase base labor cost by that much across the board thing will get much higher.
taksuyu
How much higher?
GoDrunkYoureHome
It really hard to tell, but think about it this way, if labor is 30% of a raw supply and you increase the labor cost by 50% 1/
GoDrunkYoureHome
Charges, the labor cost could be as high as 50% so that service now costs 25% more. and so on. The small scale sources don't take 3/
GoDrunkYoureHome
So a picker goes from $10-$15 then that will increase the total cost by 10% on that thing. If it is a service, say CAM 2/
AtlasAmerica
Yeah, maybe. The small business bakery owner is totally fucked though. Ever think about that?
Chryos
Small businesses are usually exempt from minimum wage laws for a period of time, and if you can't pay a living wage your business (1/2)
AtlasAmerica
If you can't survive on $11/hour, you have bad financial habits. $440 per week = $1700 per month. More than enough for a rational person.
Chryos
$11/hour is not the Federal Minimum.
Chryos
model is objectively shitty. (2/2)
SidneyHarbor
You know why? Because they'd fire most of the workers and use kiosks and other automation. Fast food esp. is at risk of permanent layoffs.
vattannifae
Well at least then they wouldn't add pickles when I ask for none
Chryos
No, they really wouldn't. Automation is way more expensive than you think, and those kiosks break all the time.
ThaiMaiShu
TONS of gas stations already have it. Place your order at a kiosk and someone makes it, it is really quite cheap, no more than any computer.
GimlisaurusRex
Automation technology improves over time. Humans are just as shitty at order accuracy as they've ever been.
tytrim89
So I can buy 20 kiosks at 20k. Maintenance yearly of well go overboard and say 5k. So I can have 20 workers 24/7 no time off 1/2
Chryos
Source on 20k for 20 kiosks? The handheld devices at my old job cost 5k. My McD has a kiosk, btw, it's just constantly out of order.
tytrim89
For the price of 1 worker. And I'm being generous about maintenance.
SidneyHarbor
Have you been to a walmart lately? Last time I went, there were 10 self-check lines and 2 human registers open. Automation will expand.
Chryos
Yeah, actually, and the Wal-Mart I frequent ripped out the self-checkouts because of customer complaints.
jsmithy2334
That's great but the problem is raising min wage to 15 would kill small businesses. No way could they afford that
Chryos
"no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." FDR
jsmithy2334
Lol so every mom and pop joint I've worked at throughout my high school and college years just doesn't deserve to exist? Terrible argument.
Chryos
If you can't pay your workers enough to keep them alive, healthy, and reasonably happy, why should they work for you?
Mewmus
so because FDR said it that makes it right?
Chryos
No, I just attributed the quote. I happen to agree with it.
TheThingNoNotThatOne
"Yes, only megacorporations should be allowed to operate business, for they are more benevolent than small business owners." - Chryos
Chryos
Not the least bit what I'm saying. If you can't stay in business in a competitive market, though, it's on you.
Chryos
Megacorporations are the worst at paying a living wage, by the way.
Femtoscientist
Offer tax breaks to small businessss to compensate, it would provide incenstive against monopolizing
ObviBro
http://imgur.com/ySu9a3l
ObviBro
No one had anything to say
Femtoscientist
My spelling probably didn't help. Stupid phone keyboard
Slendermansneighbor
http://shiftwa.org/more-seattle-restaurants-close-doors-as-15-minimum-wage-approaches/
Thebluespace27
I used to manage a restaurant. Our Labor goal was 20%. We would hit anywhere from 15-25% depending on the sales that week.
Chryos
And then people asked those restaurant owners why they closed, and the wage increase had fuck-all to do with it. It's not $15 an hour yet.
Slendermansneighbor
the owners worked. Any increase in cost would destroy that business.
Slendermansneighbor
Hey I'm just saying, that 4% is a small margin. Think of it as an investment.. 4% return wouldn't be that great. Then add all the hours
Chryos
Yeah, and they'd have to raise their prices about $0.50 to maintain that margin. They're closing because the margin sucks, not the wages.