2016 Postmortem

Zorro

(15,740 posts) Sat May 21, 2016, 09:08 PM May 2016

$19 Trillion? Why the Cost of Sanders’ Agenda Keeps Moving Higher

The jaw-dropping impact that Bernie Sanders’ fiscal proposals would have the national debt seems to be growing by the month.

On Thursday, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said the Vermont lawmaker’s agenda, including his single-payer health care plan, could add as much as $19 trillion to the debt over the next ten years.

That’s up significantly from an estimate the committee released just last month that put the sticker price somewhere between $2 trillion and $15 trillion.

What changed in just a month?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/19-trillion-why-cost-sanders-091500239.html

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

$19 Trillion? Why the Cost of Sanders’ Agenda Keeps Moving Higher (Original Post) Zorro May 2016 OP

Does Bernie and Trump agree? itsrobert May 2016 #1

no shortage for nation building abroad Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #12

Establishment - Anti-Bernie Efforts Continue - As Expected cantbeserious May 2016 #2

Just vote Republican Matrosov May 2016 #3

Fur Real, this OP's RW talking points will go well with it. TheBlackAdder May 2016 #16

sorry, but that is a gross misrepresentation. There are two things against that still_one May 2016 #4

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget = Pete Peterson QC May 2016 #5

Some right wing nutcase? Trajan May 2016 #7

Shocking, isn't it? QC May 2016 #8

What is ironic .. The OPs Transparency page is active ... Trajan May 2016 #13

Try finding a Hillary superfan w/o visible transparency page. QC May 2016 #14

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget = Former CBO/OMB Directors Zorro May 2016 #15

Who listed the cost of Sanders programs at Thinkingabout May 2016 #6

I have a bigger number. HassleCat May 2016 #9

building bridges in Afghanistan Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #11

when it comes to money for ordinary people it is called debt Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #10

Government’s share of overall health spending was 64.3% of national health expenditures in 2013 Baobab May 2016 #17

itsrobert

(14,157 posts)

1. Does Bernie and Trump agree?

Reply to Zorro (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:10 PM

May 2016

Just print more money.

Rosa Luxemburg

(28,627 posts)

12. no shortage for nation building abroad

Reply to itsrobert (Reply #1)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:36 PM

May 2016

but when money is for improving people's lives and the infrastructure of the country it is considered bad.

cantbeserious

(13,039 posts)

2. Establishment - Anti-Bernie Efforts Continue - As Expected

Reply to Zorro (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:12 PM

May 2016

eom

Matrosov

(1,098 posts)

3. Just vote Republican

Reply to Zorro (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:12 PM

May 2016

They keep promising to lower your taxes. Fuck whoever dies along the way, right?

TheBlackAdder

(28,208 posts)

16. Fur Real, this OP's RW talking points will go well with it.

Reply to Matrosov (Reply #3)

Sat May 21, 2016, 10:49 PM

May 2016

still_one

(92,217 posts)

4. sorry, but that is a gross misrepresentation. There are two things against that

Reply to Zorro (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:13 PM

May 2016

One, Sanders would have to become president, and two, Sanders would need Congress to pass it, and the house would insure that doesn't happen

QC

(26,371 posts)

5. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget = Pete Peterson

Reply to Zorro (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:13 PM

May 2016

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget

Trajan

(19,089 posts)

7. Some right wing nutcase?

Reply to QC (Reply #5)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:15 PM

May 2016

Cited by a Hillary Supporter in DU? ...

NO WAY! ....

QC

(26,371 posts)

8. Shocking, isn't it?

Reply to Trajan (Reply #7)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:17 PM

May 2016

Still beats linking to Stormfront, as one of the superfanz did.

Trajan

(19,089 posts)

13. What is ironic .. The OPs Transparency page is active ...

Reply to QC (Reply #8)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:58 PM

May 2016

And a complaint about Bernie supporters citing GOP arguments against Hillary is present ....

Stupendous hypocrisy!

QC

(26,371 posts)

14. Try finding a Hillary superfan w/o visible transparency page.

Reply to Trajan (Reply #13)

Sat May 21, 2016, 10:02 PM

May 2016

They are about as rare as diamonds.

Zorro

(15,740 posts)

15. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget = Former CBO/OMB Directors

Reply to QC (Reply #5)

Sat May 21, 2016, 10:15 PM

May 2016

"A large part of the board is made up of former directors of major budget-related government offices including the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the House and Senate Budget Committees, and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The group also includes numerous former Congressmen, former U.S. Comptrollers General, university and think tank experts on fiscal policy, and prominent members of the business and legal community.[3] In July of 2015, CRFB announced Mitch Daniels, Leon Panetta and Timothy Penny as the new co-chairs of its board."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget

Seems like the committee would have good insight into the impact of Bernie's proposed policies. Are any Sanders economists refuting this $19T cost with their detailed analysis? I'm not hearing any in this thread.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)

6. Who listed the cost of Sanders programs at

Reply to Zorro (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:14 PM

May 2016

$2 trillion?

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)

9. I have a bigger number.

Reply to Zorro (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:30 PM

May 2016

A hundred bajillion bernillion super flamillion! I figure that's just as accurate as anything from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Rosa Luxemburg

(28,627 posts)

11. building bridges in Afghanistan

Reply to HassleCat (Reply #9)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:33 PM

May 2016

Rosa Luxemburg

(28,627 posts)

10. when it comes to money for ordinary people it is called debt

Reply to Zorro (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:32 PM

May 2016

when it is for war and propping up other countries it is not mentioned.

Baobab

(4,667 posts)

17. Government’s share of overall health spending was 64.3% of national health expenditures in 2013

Reply to Zorro (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 11:05 PM

May 2016

Also, Thats far less than they paid to bail out those banks in 2008

Single payer health care would cost FAR less than what we do now-

The Current and Projected Taxpayer Shares of US Health Costs
David U. Himmelstein, MD, and Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH

Objectives. We estimated taxpayers’ current and projected share of US health expenditures, including government payments for public employees’ health benefits as well as tax subsidies to private health spending.

Methods. We tabulated official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services figures on direct government spending for health programs and public employees’ health benefits for 2013, and projected figures through 2024. We calculated the value of tax subsidies for private spending from official federal budget documents and figures for state and local tax collections.

Results. Tax-funded health expenditures totaled $1.877 trillion in 2013 and are projected to increase to $3.642 trillion in 2024. Government’s share of overall health spending was 64.3% of national health expenditures in 2013 and will rise to 67.1% in 2024. Government health expenditures in the United States account for a larger share of gross domestic product (11.2% in 2013) than do total health expenditures in any other nation.

Conclusions. Contrary to public perceptions and official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates, government funds most health care in the United States. Appreciation of government’s predominant role in health funding might encourage more appropriate and equitable targeting of health expenditures.

Also, there is this little matter

Reply to this discussion