The cost of Sanders' agenda -- possibly $60 trillion -- would set a peacetime US record

[TomCADem]

Warren has been far more detailed and upfront about the costs of her plans, yet as the debate showed, Bernie skates by and blatantly refuses to discuss the costs of his proposals or how they should be paid. He ducked the question at the last debate, then just sat their looking really mad when other candidates pointed out that he did not answer the question:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/bernie-sanders-proposals-cost/index.html

While the new spending programs Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed in his presidential campaign would at least double federal spending over the next decade, he has provided little detail about how he would implement or finance such a massive increase.

The Vermont independent's agenda represents an expansion of government's cost and size unprecedented since World War II, according to estimates from his own website and projections by a wide variety of fiscal experts.

Sanders' plan, though all of its costs cannot be precisely quantified, would increase government spending as a share of the economy far more than the New Deal under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson or the agenda proposed by any recent Democratic presidential nominee, including liberal George McGovern in 1972, according to a historical analysis shared with CNN by Larry Summers, the former chief White House economic adviser for Barack Obama and treasury secretary for Bill Clinton.

Sanders' plan would also increase the size of government far more than any modern Republican president, including Ronald Reagan, has sought to cut it, Summers' analysis concluded.

[sandensea]

1. True - but it's what we'll otherwise spend on health anyway

Between public and private outlays, that's what'll probably come to over the next decade.

The difference, of course, being that under the status quo we get half our money's worth - at best.

[David__77]

6. Good point.

...

[David__77]

2. A nice peace dividend.

...

[The Valley Below]

9. Having the US shrink into neo-isolationism will not bring a peace dividend.

It will only further destabilize the world and encourage aggressors and dictatorships.

Terrible policy.

[Newest Reality]

3. To be overly simplistic about it...

To me, there is always money to be spent depending on who wants to spend it and for what.

Those are the determining factors underlying the utilization of various wedges in order to prioritize spending. Our money is fiat and system is based on fractional reserves and debt, (also known as credit for us consumers). Debt is the name of the game.

At some point the debt will be so high anyway that future generations will be hard-pressed to pay a fraction of the interest on it anyway. So, what game are we playing here? Is it why we shouldn't invest much or at all in the common good of the people and, instead, rack up more debt from the MIC and numerous, vested interests? That's the essential point.

[George II]

4. The Federal Budget for FY 2020 is $4.7 trillion.

[ChubbyStar]

5. The first part of the commentary was yours correct?

Asking?

[Cirque du So-What]

7. Money will be spent on something anyway

I’d rather it go toward programs that benefit humanity instead of pounding it down the rathole of the military-industrial complex.

[Midnight Writer]

8. If we can afford the money for wars, we can afford it for bettering our country.

[Doremus]

10. And another thread playing into the hands of repukes for whom austerity is meaningless

Except as it relates to keeping public money in their own pockets and far away from programs benefiting the unwashed masses.

When tempted to parrot talking points about affordability, remember that we are the ONLY developed nation without universal health care. Even countries like Moldova, Ukraine and Russia have somehow figured out how to do it.

[TomCADem]

11. Agree. Bernie is Acting as Though Austerity Is Meaningless By Refusing to Answer

Republicans have no interest in making the proposals pencil out. The Wall? Make Mexico pay for it. Bernie is acting like a Trumplican in making broad proposals while refusing to discuss how to pay for any of his proposals or how they make economic sense. It just like Trump insisting that he was going to offer a huge tax cut and that he would eliminate the deficit. Bernie is playing into the hands of Republicans in embracing such an irresponsible, Trump-like approach to governing.

[Doremus]

13. We'll pay for it the same way we've been able to pay for unlimited wars

And multiple trillions of tax cuts for the rich. And humongous military budgets.

We know by the existence of these things that there is money available. How we apportion the money is a matter of social priorities.

Continually drumming the austerity message is misleading and dishonest. It’s something that right wingers push whenever there’s a possibility that positive social reform may actually happen for a change. We’re better than that here.

[TomCADem]

14. Exactly. Bernie is Adopting The Republican Golden Meteor Approach

Republicans are fiscally irresponsible, so why can't he be fiscally irresponsible? Indeed, what is really ironic is how Bernie Sanders and his campaign has attacked Elizabeth Warren on the cost of her Medicare for All proposals! It would be one thing if Bernie was consistent, but he is not. He is happy to pile on Warren during a debate, but then he gets all huffy when folks as him to defend the costs of his plan.

[Recursion]

12. Money isn't really the problem. The workforce is.

I mean, hell, we can just print money if needs be. What we can't do is print nurses, home health care aids, construction engineers, electrical engineers, child care professionals, and environmental engineers, and we aren't even very good, historically, at getting the ones who exist to move where they are needed. That's my real problem with all these big plans. This isn't 1933. We don't have a huge part of the workforce sitting idle. In fact we barely have any of the workforce sitting idle.

[Gothmog]

15. It is no wonder why sanders is refusing to say how much his programs cost

Link to tweet

Sanders' plan, though all of its costs cannot be precisely quantified, would increase government spending as a share of the economy far more than the New Deal under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson or the agenda proposed by any recent Democratic presidential nominee, including liberal George McGovern in 1972, according to a historical analysis shared with CNN by Larry Summers, the former chief White House economic adviser for Barack Obama and treasury secretary for Bill Clinton.

Sanders' plan would also increase the size of government far more than any modern Republican president, including Ronald Reagan, has sought to cut it, Summers' analysis concluded.

"On the spending side, ... this is far more radical than all previous presidencies, on either the right or the left," Summers said in an interview. "The Sanders spending increase is roughly 2.5 times the size of the New Deal and the estimated fiscal impact of George McGovern's campaign proposals. This is six times as large of a growth of government than any of the Ronald Reagan dismemberments. We are in a kind of new era of radical proposal."

Exact cost projections on all of Sanders' proposals aren't available, in part because he hasn't fully fleshed out some of the ideas he's embraced (such as universal pre-K and child care). But a wide variety of estimates put the likely cost of the single-payer health care plan he has endorsed around $30 trillion or more over the next decade. Depending on the estimates used, including projections from his own campaign, the other elements of the Sanders agenda -- ranging from his "Green New Deal" to the cancellation of all student debt to a guaranteed federal jobs program that has received almost no scrutiny -- could cost about as much, or even more than, the single-payer plan. That would potentially bring his 10-year total for new spending to around $60 trillion, or more.

[Gothmog]

16. Sanders legislative agenda would have no way of being passed even if elected. Here's why:

Link to tweet