2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie's plans - short term great for families, long term...
Excerpts:
The studies, published jointly by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the Urban Institute in Washington, concludes that Sanders's plans are short a total of more than $18 trillion over a decade. His programs would cost the federal government about $33 trillion over that period, almost all of which would go toward Sanders's proposed system of national health insurance. Yet the Democratic presidential candidate has put forward just $15 trillion in new taxes, the authors concluded.
In the short term, at least, almost every household would be better off, as Sanders's proposals for health care, secondary education and more would save ordinary Americans money and provide other valuable benefits. The typical middle-class household, for example, would receive benefits worth $13,000 a year, almost all of it for health care, while paying just $4,500 more in taxes.
Over time, though, the government would have to borrow money to fund the programs, potentially increasing interest rates with uncertain consequences for households and businesses.
The new estimate of the cost of Sanders's health-care plan is even more pessimistic than a previous estimate produced by Kenneth Thorpe, a former health official in the Clinton administration. Sanders's staff criticized Thorpe for predicting their plan would cost $25 trillion over a decade, about twice what they had projected. The Urban Institute puts the cost to the federal government at $32 trillion.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Oh, say.. instead, why not invade some other country, overthrow some other government that refuses to bow down, keep the old disaster capitalism rolling.... bail out some 'bank,'.........
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Affecting almost all Americans.
The unreality of Bernie's plans is one reason why he's faltering now, as the media is giving more attention to the details and consequences of his platform.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)I am fine with that! Families will be better off. I am very fine with that!
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)They're "aspirational" plans typical of a a candidate that's in the race to influence the race rather than actually win.
It puts him at a rhetorical advantage when he doesn't have to worry about reality.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Why wouldn't we continue to levy more heavily against the upper brackets instead?