Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
Tue May 10, 2016, 10:19 AM May 2016

Bernie's plans - short term great for families, long term...

Excerpts:

Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed paying for his policies that transform large sectors of the government and the economy mainly through increased taxes on wealthy Americans. A pair of new studies published Monday suggests Sanders would not come up with enough money using this approach, and that the poor and the middle class would have to pay more than Sanders has projected in order to fund his ideas.

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.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bernie's plans - short term great for families, long term... (Original Post) kstewart33 May 2016 OP
Yup. Let's just forget it. pangaia May 2016 #1
The $18 trillion shortfall would be an economic disaster. kstewart33 May 2016 #2
Taxes will simply have to go up. Mine too! Silver_Witch May 2016 #3
It's clear that Bernie's plan aren't concrete firebrand80 May 2016 #4
Why would the poor and middle class have to pay more? Orsino May 2016 #5

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
1. Yup. Let's just forget it.
Tue May 10, 2016, 10:24 AM
May 2016

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)
2. The $18 trillion shortfall would be an economic disaster.
Tue May 10, 2016, 10:30 AM
May 2016

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)
3. Taxes will simply have to go up. Mine too!
Tue May 10, 2016, 10:34 AM
May 2016

I am fine with that! Families will be better off. I am very fine with that!

firebrand80

(2,760 posts)
4. It's clear that Bernie's plan aren't concrete
Tue May 10, 2016, 10:41 AM
May 2016

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)
5. Why would the poor and middle class have to pay more?
Tue May 10, 2016, 11:24 AM
May 2016

Why wouldn't we continue to levy more heavily against the upper brackets instead?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Bernie's plans - short te...