03-11-2016, 05:06 PM
(03-11-2016, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It was nnot your original comment. Here is what you said at first.
Basically rhetorical gibberish from the echo chamber that has no basis in reality. But at least you mentioned "policies". it wasn't until your response that we realized how you define "policies". Basically you don't understand any detailed policies. All you can grasp is the simplistic old trope "tax and spend".
Every government on earth that I know of "taxes and spends". Please give me the list of countries that have succeeded without taxing or spending.
So you continue to dodge the question I have asked, several times, pretending it was never asked. Is Bernie proposing to spend more than Hillary? Is he proposing to tax more? I'm not making distinctions on the spending - he's proposing typical tax and spend liberal policies on steroids.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? Have you ever had an original, insightful thought on this forum? Your response to everything you don't understand and/or disagree with is "echo chamber".
Every government "taxes and spends". Wow. Earth-shattering observation, counselor. How exactly is that supposed to be a counter or refutation to the point I made?
Here you go Fred.....This doesn't come from the "echo chamber", ooops, my bad it comes from the LEFT-WING echo chamber:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0
"...his agenda, in total, would increase the size of the government 40%, surpassing any government explosion since WWII"
--------------------------------------------------------
