Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

This is just an FYI for anyone who clicks on the link and it only lets you read the first paragraph (paywall. that was my experience).
 

Copy and past the headline into a search engine and click on the story from the search engine. That should get you around paywall and access to the full article.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

 

 

The answer isn’t quite so dramatic: while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we’re already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it’s by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. His plan for free public college would do this: right now, it’s paid for by students and their families, while under Sanders’ plan we’d all pay for it in the same way we all pay for parks or the military or food safety.

 

Brilliant. You already pay for shoes, so why don't I steal money from you at gunpoint and I promise that will be used to bring you better shoes at a lower cost.

Posted

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

 

 

Brilliant. You already pay for shoes, so why don't I steal money from you at gunpoint and I promise that will be used to bring you better shoes at a lower cost.

Many people choose to go to less expensive universities because they are conscious about value for money.  There's no reason to attend Harvard in order to be a nurse, for example.  Some people would disagree, but many would not.  However, if the price of attending university is dispersed to everybody, the individual will choose the most expensive school because the costs of attendance would be hidden.  Everybody will be paying more to educate the same number of people.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Keep in mind, these guys are usually terrible budget forecasters. An 18 trillion dollar estimate is probably more in the 24-30 Trillion ballpark. 

 

Sanders really pisses me off. I've long ago come to the realization that all these guys are scumbags, but I feel like he is on another level, hes setting up the groundwork for some of the largest government expansions we have seen in 30-50 years and his hordes are even worse that the Obama groupies I remember in college in 2008.


Consider this: the US government brings in about 3.1 Trillion in tax revenue each year, and currently spends about 115% of that.

 

Take into account the 1.8 trillion (18T/10) each year that this estimate is at, and you're looking at a tax burden of about 5.4 trillion a year, thats a 74% increase in taxes that would be required, JUST TO BREAK EVEN, that's not even paying down the current debt.

 

Going from 17.5% of GDP being taxed to 30% of GDP being taxed.

Posted

Wait, is this article saying that President Bernie Sanders would increase the debt by $18 trillion in the next 10 years, or that he would increase the debt by $18 trillion more than it otherwise would have risen? (because, let's be honest: it's probably going to rise $18 trillion anyway) 

As a commenter above me stated, I'm sure $18 trillion is an underestimate in any case. 2x-3x is the benchmark for government estimates. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.