Sanders Big Spending Plans-Can we afford them? A Trillion Here - Trillions Ove There!

**Zacha341** · February-21-16, 11:11 AM

Not that I'm enthused with the other candidates [[I AM NOT), but Sanders is promising the moon, stars and quasars? Jus-sa' few more million, billion, trillion here and there. How will these promises be funded? Are all of his ideas sustainable? If seemingly so, at what cost long term?

How further will our debt 'can' be kicked down the road before the road ends??

I know he has plans to go after the uber rich -- oh happy days, woo-hoo! An idea everyone can get behind! Yeah right? But interestingly the definition of 'rich' seems to be heading ever downward!

Bernie Sanders, big spender: Our view
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...ates/74230978/

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion

Democratic presidential candidate’s agenda would greatly expand government
http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-ta...ion-1442271511

**JBMcB** · February-21-16, 11:22 AM

Kenneth Thorpe, Emory University thinks Sanders' numbers are bogus:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0f6b7d5447ee8

So does Krugman and Obama's economic adviser:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/op...odoo.html?_r=2

tl;dr version: Sanders' plans assume we can greatly reduce the percentage of GDP we spend on health care while increasing levels of coverage, and maintain a 5% economic growth rate, which is nearing .com bubble levels.

**Zacha341** · February-21-16, 11:52 AM

^^^ Yeah, can't be said this is solely partisan 'talking' points. Bernie will have to face the economy, taxing revenues and other 'redistributions' of wealth that will not roll in fast enough for him to execute promises fast enough... so then there will be the obligatory back-peddling of such.

**Zacha341** · February-21-16, 01:15 PM

^^^ Further, the NYTimes article points even more details: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/op...odoo.html?_r=2

Varieties of Voodoo

On Wednesday four former Democratic chairmen and chairwomen of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers — three who served under Barack Obama, one who served under Bill Clinton — released a stingingopen letter to Bernie Sanders and Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts professor who has been a major source of the Sanders campaign’s numbers. The economists called out the campaign for citing “extreme claims” by Mr. Friedman that “exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans” and could “undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda.”

That’s harsh. But it’s harsh for a reason.

The claims the economists are talking about come from Mr. Friedman’s analysis of the Sanders economic program. The good news is that this isn’t the campaign’s official assessment; the bad news is that the Friedman analysis has been highly praised by campaign officials.

And the analysis is really something. The Republican candidates have been widely and rightly mocked for their escalating claims that they can achieve incredible economic growth, starting with Jeb Bush’s promise to double growth to 4 percent and heading up from there. But Mr. Friedman outdoes the G.O.P. by claiming that the Sanders plan would produce 5.3 percent growth a year over the next decade.

....Beyond that, this controversy is an indication of a campaign, and perhaps a candidate, not ready for prime time. These claims for the Sanders program aren’t just implausible, they’re embarrassing to anyone remotely familiar with economic history [[which says that raising long-run growth is very hard) and changing demography. They should have set alarm bells ringing, but obviously didn’t.

Mr. Sanders is calling for a large expansion of the U.S. social safety net, which is something I would like to see, too. But the problem with such a move is that it would probably create many losers as well as winners — a substantial number of Americans, mainly in the upper middle class, who would end up paying more in additional taxes than they would gain in enhanced benefits.

**Crumbled_pavement** · February-21-16, 01:42 PM

I'm still supporting Bernie Sanders and I don't even necessarily believe in medicaid for all, free college for everyone, $15 an hour minimum wage, or family paid leave for all citizens. For one, I doubt he gets any of that through a Republican House.

My issue is, I like divided government. I don't believe one party to be divine, while the other party is demonic. I believe both parties have good intentions, and selfish intentions. I like to have them as checks and balances on each other. In other words, I don't trust Republicans with complete control, and I don't trust Democrats with complete control either.

What I do strongly believe is it will be near impossible for the Dems to take back the House. There is a strong possibility that Dems take back the Senate, but that is not a foregone conclusion. That means, best case scenario for Dems is closing the gap in the Republican-led House, while taking back the Senate. Worse case scenario, the Reps keep both the House and Senate. Since most people are partisan, it's hard for me to imagine a Republican candidate winning the WH while losing the House and Senate. That translates to me as 'if a Republican wins the WH, the nation will be back to George W. Bush days with Republicans in control of everything.' That is a scenario I can't live with.

What, you say, I don't mind the days of Obama and the Dems being in control of everything? No, I don't want to go back to those days either. Luckily though, if a Democrat wins the WH, it does not mean they will have the Senate, House, and WH. We would most likely continue on with divided government. That is exactly what I want.

That means I'm left with a choice of Bernie or Hillary. So Bernie it is. There won't be any of the plans that Bernie is talking about, because none of them will pass the Republican House. However, we won't have a bloodthirsty war hungry president either. In fact, I think with Bernie we'll have a president who will have to learn to compromise and find ideas that most citizens on both sides of the aisle can go along with. Now that sounds like a guy Crumbled can support!

**Zacha341** · February-21-16, 01:55 PM

Well thought out comments CP! I'm feeling you on much that you say as I too tend to think non partisan. Yes, NO ONE PARTY is 'divine' as you put it - oh the horrors to have that myth debunked!! Heck, for sure Sanders will get little of his 'wish list' due to the REALITY check beyond the House. And in a way that will be a 'check and balance' to where he'd run the spending train off the rails further. It's not easy to pick a candidate from the very poor options presented.

One thing about having the repubs present in high percentage in certain areas of government is that they will be far more WATCHED, than dems in this currently climate. The media will be all over their every move. Especially seeing how the narrative persists that repubs alone create bad policy.

**Pam** · February-21-16, 03:13 PM

Info from Bernie's website:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how...his-proposals/

**lpg** · February-21-16, 06:22 PM

Typical election BS. Promise the unwashed masses everything to get elected. After the election tell them it will take more time and slowly back away from the promises. Why do we always have to choose the one that will do the least amount of damage ?

**Jimaz** · February-21-16, 08:31 PM

Attachment 29559
Economist Explains Why a Bernie Economy Would Soar

Dr. Gerald Friedman, University of Massachusetts-Amherst joins Thom. Republicans like Ronald Reagan have successfully made fringe ideas like trickle-down economics and returning to the gold standard part of the mainstream political conversation. So why is the media so skeptical of Bernie Sanders' plan to jump-start the economy by returning the Democratic party to its New Deal roots?

**lpg** · February-22-16, 09:09 AM

The Dems standard answer: More big government. After listening to what Dr. Friedman had to say it misses the reality of today. We already have airports and interstate highways [[such as they are). What happened to Obama's shovel ready projects that were so highly touted ? The NAFTA agreement continues to bleed jobs from America. Another Dem idea. Gone are the days when you could get a good paying job out of high school in a factory. The best way to grow the economy is to keep our noses out of no win foreign wars and concentrate on helping our own people. Threats to our country should be dealt with, but let others solve their own problems.

And the Repubs are no better. A party of the rich making sure the status quo remains.

**Pam** · February-22-16, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by lpg

The Dems standard answer: More big government. After listening to what Dr. Friedman had to say it misses the reality of today. We already have airports and interstate highways [[such as they are). What happened to Obama's shovel ready projects that were so highly touted ? The NAFTA agreement continues to bleed jobs from America. Another Dem idea. Gone are the days when you could get a good paying job out of high school in a factory. The best way to grow the economy is to keep our noses out of no win foreign wars and concentrate on helping our own people. Threats to our country should be dealt with, but let others solve their own problems.

Bernie voted against NAFTA.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-trade/

**lpg** · February-22-16, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Pam

Bernie voted against NAFTA.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-trade/

Would he try to get it repealed ? I doubt it. The damage has been done.

**JBMcB** · February-22-16, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

However, we won't have a bloodthirsty war hungry president either.

Errr, kinda sorta:

http://www.alternet.org/election-201...iolence-abroad

**Jimaz** · February-22-16, 07:58 PM

DetroitYES Home » Non Detroit Issues » Thom Hartmann » Bernie's 'Free Stuff' Vs. Corporate Entitlements

**oladub** · February-22-16, 08:41 PM

Bernie isn't going to save much money fighting both sides in Syria. How's that supposed to work?

“I support President Obama’s efforts to combat ISIS in Syria while at the same time supporting those in that country trying to remove the brutal dictatorship of Bashar Assad.” -Bernie Sanders
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/10/07/sand-o07.html

**ridgeabilly** · February-24-16, 07:26 AM

If anybody but Sanders get elected, the banks will be safe to spread their cancer for another 4 years.

**Zacha341** · February-24-16, 08:58 AM

What's Putin have to say about the Assad situation? Will Sanders going 'Bank-less' in all of his dealings?

**lpg** · February-24-16, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by ridgeabilly

If anybody but Sanders get elected, the banks will be safe to spread their cancer for another 4 years.

And if he is elected he will still have to deal with a congress owned and controlled by the banks and Wall street. 4 more years of the same old, same old.

**JBMcB** · February-25-16, 09:28 AM

Regarding free tuition for college - Georgia has had a similar program since 1993. Anyone with a B average in High School gets free tuition to any in-state college. Two problems have arisen:

1. The majority of the people taking advantage of the program have the means to pay for college anyway - they use the money saved to buy new cars for their kids

2. It's unsustainable - it does nothing to keep tuition costs down [[if anything it drives them up) and Georgia is running out of money for the program

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/07hope.html?_r=0

**Zacha341** · February-25-16, 12:47 PM

College cost is crazy. No disputing that. But this like most 'FREE' things there are hidden costs. And how do college professors and adjuncts think this will NOT affect them?? It will.

**G-DDT** · February-25-16, 03:37 PM

As much as like Sanders [[and he would fit wonderfully in any other country less concerned with image or any hang-ups fraught with commie-hating pretension), America simply isn't going to go for him. It would be too unrealistic to assume this. For those who recoil at any socialist leanings he has, keep in mind our own celebrated Reuther had strong socialist leanings, as well.

**Pam** · February-25-16, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by G-DDT

As much as like Sanders [[and he would fit wonderfully in any other country less concerned with image or any hang-ups fraught with commie-hating pretension), America simply isn't going to go for him. It would be too unrealistic to assume this. For those who recoil at any socialist leanings he has, keep in mind our own celebrated Reuther had strong socialist leanings, as well.

He has already done way better than anybody thought. America is "going for him".

**old guy** · February-26-16, 07:42 PM

Why do we finance education at all? It is after all a socialist policy. Or, why not finance K-6th grade?

We are falling behind other countries at an incredible pace in education.

Where does the money come from? Let's look at the bloated and rapidly expanding military budget, the failed budget on the war on drugs. the cost of the incarceration of petty and non violent crimes. The non payment of taxes by the countries largest corporations through off shore banking loopholes.

This is just the short list, but comprises trillions of dollars.

If the bulk of young Americans receive an education that doesn't surpass high school, the future of this country is going to be extremely bleak.

**lpg** · February-27-16, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Pam

He has already done way better than anybody thought. America is "going for him".

Bernie just got his ass handed to him in South Carolina.

**oladub** · February-27-16, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by lpg

Bernie just got his ass handed to him in South Carolina.

CNN South Carolina exit polling results

Unfortunately, it wasn't good for Bernie. 85% of blacks voted Hillary and over 60% of the voters were black. People over 45 voted 81% Hillary. 69% of the voters were women and they voted 79% Hillary.