The Bernie Plan (to bankrupt the country)

Conservative said:

LOL, again, is this the education you received? when exactly does the gov't print money to pay for deficits? They sell bonds to pay for deficits and have made our deficits a Ponzi scheme where new bonds pay for payment to other bond holders when their bonds come due. I can see how you were raised and it is scary

This thread is about Bernie, and his a joke as are his followers

Click to expand...

"Printing money" is when the central bank buys govt. bonds, genius. It is pretty much the same thing as creating and issuing money directly.

The government doesn't need people to buy their bonds. They can finance their own spending, either by creating their own currency, or by the central bank buying up their bonds. You (again) have no idea how this stuff works.

And this thread is not just about Bernie; it's also useful to illustrate the economic illiteracy of conservatives and trumpies.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

"Printing money" is when the central bank buys govt. bonds, genius. It is pretty much the same thing as creating and issuing money directly.

The government doesn't need people to buy their bonds. They can finance their own spending, either by creating their own currency, or by the central bank buying up their bonds. You (again) have no idea how this stuff works.

And this thread is not just about Bernie; it's also useful to illustrate the economic illiteracy of conservatives and trumpies.

Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders is a joke as is your ideology and support for massive central gov't all because you cannot compete in a private sector economy

Conservative said:

Bernie Sanders is a joke as is your ideology and support for massive central gov't all because you cannot compete in a private sector economy

Click to expand...

I'm having no trouble competing in our private sector economy. I just support universal healthcare because I'm not a selfish jerk who blames the poor for being poor.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

I'm having no trouble competing in our private sector economy. I just support universal healthcare because I'm not a selfish jerk who blames the poor for being poor.

Click to expand...

If you weren't a selfish jerk you wouldn't support someone else paying for your own personal responsibility issues.

Ahlevah said:

Conservatively, $60 trillion:

Medicare for All: $30 trillion

Green New Deal: $16 trillion

A Guaranteed Government Job for Everyone: The rest of it. :doh

And Trump is the scary one? :lol:


Bernie Sanders’s $97 Trillion Agenda Would Impose Incomprehensible Costs.

Click to expand...

I am with you that Bernie is far too socialist and his policies are very bad for the country. But lets take a critical look at how expensive his policies will be.

Green New Deal:
It looks to me that this money won't be spent in just 10 years, and will be over several decades with goals for 2030 and 2050. This makes the yearly cost much smaller than it initially appears. Switching to green energy is something we are all doing anyway.

Medicare for All:
We are already spending 35 trillion per decade on healthcare and this is projected to rise to 60 trillion in a decade. The difference in Medicare for all that we will pay for it in taxes instead of healthcare premiums. Other developed nations spend far less on healthcare than we do, and these studies don't take into account cost saving policies that other developed nations have.

Jobs Guarantee:
Many of these jobs will be in green energy and rebuilding our energy infrastructure. and also in healthcare. These costs are already accounted for above and we shouldn't double count them. He also wants to create jobs in early childhood education which he views as lacking. Many of these jobs will be performing needed tasks even though they don't come free, and I doubt they can guarantee jobs for everyone.

I don't agree with Bernie but we need to accurately access the cost of his policies.

distraff said:

I don't agree with Bernie but we need to accurately access the cost of his policies.

Click to expand...

When the government deficit spends $1000, somebody in the private sector earns that $1000. GDP goes up by $1000 (not even counting secondary spending effects).

Does that seem like a cost, or a benefit?

All of these programs are being labeled "costs." That's negative framing, right off the bat. But any deficit spending by the government is income for the private sector, and our government spends almost completely into the domestic economy. Government spending, to the extent that our economy meets the demand and earns the money, is a benefit for the private sector. And there is no cost to the government in real resources when they create and spend money, either. So the real "cost/benefit analysis" should reflect that the only "cost" (if any) would be any resulting inflation that can be traced to the deficit spending. And inflation hasn't been a problem for decades.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

When the government deficit spends $1000, somebody in the private sector earns that $1000. GDP goes up by $1000 (not even counting secondary spending effects).

Does that seem like a cost, or a benefit?

All of these programs are being labeled "costs." That's negative framing, right off the bat. But any deficit spending by the government is income for the private sector, and our government spends almost completely into the domestic economy. Government spending, to the extent that our economy meets the demand and earns the money, is a benefit for the private sector. And there is no cost to the government in real resources when they create and spend money, either. So the real "cost/benefit analysis" should reflect that the only "cost" (if any) would be any resulting inflation that can be traced to the deficit spending. And inflation hasn't been a problem for decades.

Click to expand...

The deficit is a benefit at reasonable levels. Especially when it is spent correctly, it can be like an investment. However, when it is too large, it can reduce a government's ability to respond to a recession, and increase interest payment spending. Interest spending hurts taxpayers because it gives us less freedom to spend on new beneficial programs, increases the deficit further, and hurts taxpayers who have to constantly pay off past debts. When the economy is in recession, its ok to run large deficits and stimulate the economy. When the economy is back on track, then its time to reign in those deficits.

distraff said:

The deficit is a benefit at reasonable levels. Especially when it is spent correctly, it can be like an investment. However, when it is too large, it can reduce a government's ability to respond to a recession, and increase interest payment spending. Interest spending hurts taxpayers because it gives us less freedom to spend on new beneficial programs, increases the deficit further, and hurts taxpayers who have to constantly pay off past debts. When the economy is in recession, its ok to run large deficits and stimulate the economy. When the economy is back on track, then its time to reign in those deficits.

Click to expand...

The government really isn't constrained either by the size of the debt or the interest payments; they can create as many dollars as they need. So the government's ability to deficit spend during a recession is not affected, nor is their ability to spend on new programs, regardless of the state of the economy.

The real limit on spending (private sector + government) is our economy's ability to meet demand; in other words, real resources (including labor) are the true limit. There is no limit to the number of dollars that can be created by either the government or banks.

The lesson should be that our government, like most governments, has more fiscal space into which it can spend (for our benefit) without hitting any resource limits. But classical economics has led us down a different path, where the powers that be, via the government, strive to keep labor costs down by keeping a pool of workers unemployed.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

The government really isn't constrained either by the size of the debt or the interest payments; they can create as many dollars as they need. So the government's ability to deficit spend during a recession is not affected, nor is their ability to spend on new programs, regardless of the state of the economy.

The real limit on spending (private sector + government) is our economy's ability to meet demand; in other words, real resources (including labor) are the true limit. There is no limit to the number of dollars that can be created by either the government or banks.

The lesson should be that our government, like most governments, has more fiscal space into which it can spend (for our benefit) without hitting any resource limits. But classical economics has led us down a different path, where the powers that be, via the government, strive to keep labor costs down by keeping a pool of workers unemployed.

Click to expand...

Printing money is definitely helpful. Problem is that its basically a secret tax. When the government creates money, it devalues all the currency in the country, acting like a big flat wealth tax on everyone. This makes it difficult for people to save up for a down payment on their house or their retirement. Also, people will be less willing to loan the government money to service the debt if they know their money will actually devalue, which will push up interest rates. So the best policy is inflation in moderation and debt in moderation, and these are best used in hard times, not all the time.

distraff said:

Printing money is definitely helpful. Problem is that its basically a secret tax. When the government creates money, it devalues all the currency in the country, acting like a big flat wealth tax on everyone. This makes it difficult for people to save up for a down payment on their house or their retirement. Also, people will be less willing to loan the government money to service the debt if they know their money will actually devalue, which will push up interest rates. So the best policy is inflation in moderation and debt in moderation, and these are best used in hard times, not all the time.

Click to expand...

But the numbers really don't support those theories. Prices aren't going up much at all; we aren't even reaching our modest inflation targets, and Japan can't induce inflation for trying. And interest rates on Treasuries remain very low, even though most people consider our national debt to be huge.

This is what I was referring to initially, when I mentioned that our cost/benefit analyses for govt. deficit spending needed to be rethought. Attributing inflation to deficit spending and higher interest rates to the national debt are basically two more ways of saying the same thing - that the government is limited in money creation, current theories of inflation are correct (we're just really, really good at walking that spending/inflation tightrope), and any more government spending would be less optimal than what we spend right now.

We have been balancing inflation against unemployment (NAIRU thinking) for decades (at least), on the unproven assumption that there is some magic level of unemployment below which inflation is triggered. But recently, it has become undeniable that low unemployment and low inflation are not mutually exclusive. Which means for decades, the Fed has been adjusting interest rates with the express purpose of keeping unemployment artificially high in order to keep inflation down. Real suffering, based on flawed economic theories.

So before we go down the "Bernie is going to bankrupt the country" road, I think its important that people first understand (for instance) that the country cannot go bankrupt, inflation is caused by many factors and not just the cost of labor, the Fed still has control over the overnight rate/base price of money, etc. We should really question the reasoning behind austerity, and the legitimacy of claims that we can't afford these programs.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

The government really isn't constrained either by the size of the debt or the interest payments; they can create as many dollars as they need. So the government's ability to deficit spend during a recession is not affected, nor is their ability to spend on new programs, regardless of the state of the economy.

The real limit on spending (private sector + government) is our economy's ability to meet demand; in other words, real resources (including labor) are the true limit. There is no limit to the number of dollars that can be created by either the government or banks.

The lesson should be that our government, like most governments, has more fiscal space into which it can spend (for our benefit) without hitting any resource limits. But classical economics has led us down a different path, where the powers that be, via the government, strive to keep labor costs down by keeping a pool of workers unemployed.

Click to expand...

You seem to have a problem understanding return on investment, which generates a better return for the taxpayers, keeping more of what they earn or gov't spending? Fiscal space apparently to you means spending in the name of compassion yet only creating dependence and debt neither of which resonate with you. Seems the selfish liberals always want someone else to pay for their own personal responsibility issues.

At this point you have yet to explain your vision for the Federal Gov't or the President but you do totally ignore the Sanders Resume and the reality that he is a multi millionaire by being a career politician which doesn't make a lot of sense except for people like you how want the nanny state

Conservative said:

Last I checked incentive played a role in creating jobs especially quality jobs. Other countries with UHC do not offer the benefits and opportunities we have in this country but the bigger issue is R&D. Not sure where or how you were raised but all this class envy, jealousy has no place in a private sector economy. Here we celebrate success, not demonize it or take from it

Click to expand...

Protecting the lives and public health of a nation should not be a luxury afforded only to those who can afford it. It is a basic human right, and a matter of national security. You cannot let four-year-old children die miserably of brain cancer because their parents cannot afford to pay for brain surgery. How barbaric.

Conservative said:

You seem to have a problem understanding return on investment, which generates a better return for the taxpayers, keeping more of what they earn or gov't spending? Fiscal space apparently to you means spending in the name of compassion yet only creating dependence and debt neither of which resonate with you. Seems the selfish liberals always want someone else to pay for their own personal responsibility issues.

Click to expand...

That’s not how it works in any other country on the planet. Why should it be that way here?

ataraxia said:

Protecting the lives and public health of a nation should not be a luxury afforded only to those who can afford it. It is a basic human right, and a matter of national security. You cannot let four-year-old children die miserably of brain cancer because their parents cannot afford to pay for brain surgery. How barbaric.

Click to expand...

No one has the right to goods or services. You have the right to free speech, free religion, etc. You don't have the right to housing, clothing, utilities, food, or healthcare.

ataraxia said:

That’s not how it works in any other country on the planet. Why should it be that way here?

Click to expand...

Well ultimately the one big question you have to ask is what is best in the long run? If you go the route of higher taxation and higher government services you should also expect lower economic growth, job growth, wage growth, disposable income, and even revenue growth.

ataraxia said:

Protecting the lives and public health of a nation should not be a luxury afforded only to those who can afford it. It is a basic human right, and a matter of national security. You cannot let four-year-old children die miserably of brain cancer because their parents cannot afford to pay for brain surgery. How barbaric.

Click to expand...

Protecting the lives of Americans is the role of the Commander in chief regarding foreign and domestic enemies. Trump has done that being proactive in Iraq after the attack on our embassy.

What you continue to show is your lack of understanding of state and local responsibilities and especially the responsibility of state and local governments on social issues. You think it is a federal bureaucrats responsibility to take money from someone else to pay for your health insurance? where did you develop this entitlement mentality?

ataraxia said:

That’s not how it works in any other country on the planet. Why should it be that way here?

Click to expand...

No, how it works in other countries is having Gov't spending as the largest component of their GDP and selling people like you on the benefits of higher taxes especially the hidden taxes that fund their health care programs, taxes that go into lowering costs but never generating new drugs and billions spent on R&D

RabidAlpaca said:

Every single country in the world with universal health care pays dramatically less per capita than we do and they cover every citizen from cradle to grave and many beat our system in quality of care and healthcare outcomes. You lie because you have an agenda.

Click to expand...

Health care quality in Europe and Scandinavia: Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the UK and Norway
You exaggerate a bit.
Quality varies a lot and so do wait times. Private insurance is very popular among those that can afford to add it.

Integrityrespec said:

Health care quality in Europe and Scandinavia: Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the UK and Norway
You exaggerate a bit.
Quality varies a lot and so do wait times. Private insurance is very popular among those that can afford to add it.

Click to expand...

Yes. That’s not dissimilar to the system of public schools we have in this country. We can still send your kids to private schools if we want. Do you really think we would do better if we cut all all funding to public education in this country? (and that would include charter schools)

Conservative said:

No, how it works in other countries is having Gov't spending as the largest component of their GDP and selling people like you on the benefits of higher taxes especially the hidden taxes that fund their health care programs, taxes that go into lowering costs but never generating new drugs and billions spent on R&D

Click to expand...

The facts speak for themselves.

Thailand gave healthcare to its entire population and the results were dramatic | World Economic Forum

Most R&D in this country gets funded by the government right now anyway, mostly the NIH.

Conservative said:

Protecting the lives of Americans is the role of the Commander in chief regarding foreign and domestic enemies. Trump has done that being proactive in Iraq after the attack on our embassy.

What you continue to show is your lack of understanding of state and local responsibilities and especially the responsibility of state and local governments on social issues. You think it is a federal bureaucrats responsibility to take money from someone else to pay for your health insurance? where did you develop this entitlement mentality?

Click to expand...

I just don’t want to live in a country where a four-year-old is left to die because their parents cannot afford to pay for brain surgery. Are you really OK with living in a social Darwinist jungle like that? That’s not my idea of living in a civilized society.

ataraxia said:

The facts speak for themselves.

Thailand gave healthcare to its entire population and the results were dramatic | World Economic Forum

Most R&D in this country gets funded by the government right now anyway, mostly the NIH.

Click to expand...

OMG, then move to Thailand a country of approximately 70 million people vs. our 330 million with 50 different states and cost of living. you people are trying to compare apples to oranges and not doing a very good job of it, why don't you post the hidden costs and funding for UHC in those countries?

ataraxia said:

I just don’t want to live in a country where a four-year-old is left to die because their parents cannot afford to pay for brain surgery. Are you really OK with living in a social Darwinist jungle like that? That’s not my idea of living in a civilized society.

Click to expand...

Not sure what country you live in but I don't either and don't see that in TX that is reported to have the most uninsured in the nation. You see the state and local governments have created programs for the uninsured, No child is left to die, this is liberal propaganda that you want to believe

Conservative said:

Not sure what country you live in but I don't either and don't see that in TX that is reported to have the most uninsured in the nation. You see the state and local governments have created programs for the uninsured, No child is left to die, this is liberal propaganda that you want to believe

Click to expand...

But you say that like it’s a good thing. That just means Texas is operating on a socialist system and you are happy about it. Why is that not socialism and to be shunned? Why doesn’t Texas just adopt a pure free market system for healthcare if that’s the answer to all problems?

ataraxia said:

But you say that like it’s a good thing. That just means Texas is operating on a socialist system and you are happy about it. Why is that not socialism and to be shunned? Why doesn’t Texas just adopt a pure free market system for healthcare if that’s the answer to all problems?

Click to expand...

That is what states are allowed to do and it is states that are closer to the social problems than a bureaucrat in D.C. Bernie is a joke on the American people, a piss poor resume showing he is unqualified to be President. He will indeed try to bankrupt the country by hurting the very economy that he benefited from in becoming a multi millionaire as a public servant. That seems to be the lost reality by the left as to how someone can become a millionaire as a public servant, think about it

Conservative said:

That is what states are allowed to do and it is states that are closer to the social problems than a bureaucrat in D.C. Bernie is a joke on the American people, a piss poor resume showing he is unqualified to be President. He will indeed try to bankrupt the country by hurting the very economy that he benefited from in becoming a multi millionaire as a public servant. That seems to be the lost reality by the left as to how someone can become a millionaire as a public servant, think about it

Click to expand...

I am getting confused. You are telling us about the success of social healthcare safety nets for Texas, to tell us why socialized medicine does not work?

If there are so many hidden costs with this crazy communist system, why doesn’t Texas just get rid of it altogether? Everything works better with a free market, doesn’t it?

As far as the size of the jurisdiction: it has been shown that when it comes to healthcare, the larger the size, the more efficient the system.