Bernie Sanders wins Nevada Caucus--Will he win Super Tuesday? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15069444
Wulfschilde wrote:I think people like Chris Matthews are basically parasites that don't want their host to die. Hes probably not the only one :eek:


I hate to admit it but I don't know who Chris Matthews is? Who the hell is Chris Matthews?

I don't watch a lot of television anymore. I mostly read books now, I watch documentaries on Netflix and some cooking shows and a few movies. I never watch Mexican soap operas which are on Mexican television a lot and are kind of free. I hate soaps. So I don't see a lot of cable news. Is the man on cable news?

I am watching Korean cop shows with Spanish subtitles and French cop shows, and Mexico has a ton of European and Asian Netflix series dubbed in Spanish and or subtitled in Spanish. And they are damn good. I did not know Japanese, Korean and Chinese Netflix series were so interesting and they sell them to the Mexican market here.

They got Cuban films from Havana showing all the time here.

Chris Matthews? I got to look him up on youtube.
#15069453
Donna wrote:We get it, you want to help the working class by putting Jews into camps. We've all heard this song before.

You really do live in a pathetic fantasy world don't you. A fantasy world where you can jump from what I just said to putting Jews into camps. I don't mean this as personal attack, because these fantasies are clearly ideological and group based rather anything to do with your individual psychology.

Anyway it makes for a fun game trying to work out what was the trigger that set you off on this particular thought fantasy. OK so my first guess is going to be the "moderate" eugenacist". OK so eugenicist covers a huge range of people, that historically has covered the whole of the political spectrum from the far right to the far left. I would suggest that a large percentage of people are eugenicist to some degree in that they have some level of concern about the gene poll or / and the epigenetic pool. Now there is no rational reason to think that people of Jewish descent are a particular problem for the Gene Pool. If anything at least at a simplest empiricism they might be expected to enhance it, with their above average intelligence and their massive contributions to our culture.

There was an idea floating about that Jews were genetically inferior in military endeavour. :lol: Well Israel's magnificent military achievements in its short existence have certainly put paid to that nonsense. On a personal level I've had one girl friend of Jewish biological decent. I didn't have any kids with her, but would have no problem having children with a woman of Jewish decent. So where does your great leap of logic come from. Ah the Nazis tried to justify their hated towards the Jews and their eliminationist policies, by the most patently absurd use of eugenics. like most groups the Nazis said some smart things and some incredibly dumb things. And the things the Nazis said about the Jews were certainly incredibly dumb.

But of course in the pathetic fantasy world of Cultural Marxists, their political enemies must believe in the most dumb stupid shit that the Nazis believed in. I told you in my earlier post. I'm incredibly casual in my beliefs. I'm highly promiscuous in my ideology. I just believe what ever I happen to think is true at the current time. I don't believe things because Marx or Lenin or Mohammed or Jefferson Hitler or Buddha told me to.
#15069459
Rich wrote:You really do live in a pathetic fantasy world don't you. A fantasy world where you can jump from what I just said to putting Jews into camps. I don't mean this as personal attack, because these fantasies are clearly ideological and group based rather anything to do with your individual psychology.

Anyway it makes for a fun game trying to work out what was the trigger that set you off on this particular thought fantasy. OK so my first guess is going to be the "moderate" eugenacist". OK so eugenicist covers a huge range of people, that historically has covered the whole of the political spectrum from the far right to the far left. I would suggest that a large percentage of people are eugenicist to some degree in that they have some level of concern about the gene poll or / and the epigenetic pool. Now there is no rational reason to think that people of Jewish descent are a particular problem for the Gene Pool. If anything at least at a simplest empiricism they might be expected to enhance it, with their above average intelligence and their massive contributions to our culture.

There was an idea floating about that Jews were genetically inferior in military endeavour. :lol: Well Israel's magnificent military achievements in its short existence have certainly put paid to that nonsense. On a personal level I've had one girl friend of Jewish biological decent. I didn't have any kids with her, but would have no problem having children with a woman of Jewish decent. So where does your great leap of logic come from. Ah the Nazis tried to justify their hated towards the Jews and their eliminationist policies, by the most patently absurd use of eugenics. like most groups the Nazis said some smart things and some incredibly dumb things. And the things the Nazis said about the Jews were certainly incredibly dumb.

But of course in the pathetic fantasy world of Cultural Marxists, their political enemies must believe in the most dumb stupid shit that the Nazis believed in. I told you in my earlier post. I'm incredibly casual in my beliefs. I'm highly promiscuous in my ideology. I just believe what ever I happen to think is true at the current time. I don't believe things because Marx or Lenin or Mohammed or Jefferson Hitler or Buddha told me to.


You've had Jewish pootang? Why didn't you just say so? The accusation of anti-Semitism has been retracted.
#15069502
blackjack21 wrote:I'm afraid that this is what I've been reduced to. :lol: Call it what it is: schadenfreude.

It's a fantasy like it was a fantasy that the GOP would keep their House majority two years ago. Nancy Pelosi will vote for whatever Democratic nominee against Trump. She'll do it out of discipline, if nothing else, at least, but I wouldn't believe there's anything she'd like to see in her lifetime more than Trump lose in November.
#15069532
Tainari88 wrote:I hate to admit it but I don't know who Chris Matthews is? Who the hell is Chris Matthews?

I don't watch a lot of television anymore. I mostly read books now, I watch documentaries on Netflix and some cooking shows and a few movies. I never watch Mexican soap operas which are on Mexican television a lot and are kind of free. I hate soaps. So I don't see a lot of cable news. Is the man on cable news?

I am watching Korean cop shows with Spanish subtitles and French cop shows, and Mexico has a ton of European and Asian Netflix series dubbed in Spanish and or subtitled in Spanish. And they are damn good. I did not know Japanese, Korean and Chinese Netflix series were so interesting and they sell them to the Mexican market here.

They got Cuban films from Havana showing all the time here.

Chris Matthews? I got to look him up on youtube.

He's a new anchor on MSNBC. He compared Sanderss win to France falling to Nazi Germany and said that some Democrats might rather support Trump. Its funny in a way considering that hes been arguing for far leftist stuff for who knows how long and then he panics when Bernie starts winning.
#15069533
Wulfschilde wrote:He's a new anchor on MSNBC. He compared Sanderss win to France falling to Nazi Germany and said that some Democrats might rather support Trump. Its funny in a way considering that hes been arguing for far leftist stuff for who knows how long and then he panics when Bernie starts winning.


Oh he is one of those fake Leftists who pretend to care about the working class? But are bourgeois. And they believe in shit basically. Yeah, help the poor and so on....but I am heading for one percent status or am already there and I really just want to be rich and powerful.

The Democratic party is full of those people.

I think they need to be taken out of the power seat. They are not working for the working class.

For them, socialism is about lies like we will shoot everyone who is not a socialist in the USA. It goes to show how effective the anti-socialist propaganda campaigns have been in the past.

People are getting over the fear due to the system not working well at all.
#15069586
Wulfschilde wrote:
He's a new anchor on MSNBC. He compared Sanderss win to France falling to Nazi Germany and said that some Democrats might rather support Trump. Its funny in a way considering that hes been arguing for far leftist stuff for who knows how long and then he panics when Bernie starts winning.



He's not new.

He's also a DINO, more Republican than Democrat.

Guys like that are reliable, if you want to stick a knife in the back of a Progressive, he'll do it. Actually, MSNBC has a lot of guys like that.
#15069593
Ter wrote:I am aware that I am repeating the obvious here, but Sanders is 78 this year and recently suffered a heart attack. He should lead a quiet life and enjoy his "golden years".
I am afraid he might have another cardiac event during the coming campaign.


I Keep saying it's really huge news and extremely important who he would pick as vice president.

BTW I'll make it simple for everyone. You can't win the presidency running on raising taxes for everyone.
#15069603
late wrote:Your sources are utter crap. Getting almost everything wrong, the way you do, would drive me nuts. Oh wait..

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/sanders-didnt-call-for-52-tax-on-29000-incomes/

https://www.bernietax.com/#0;0;s


Really sales taxes or payroll taxes won't increase ? I was using taxes in a broad sense, of course you know this and you know Bernie can't pay for all the spending he plans without taking more of peoples income. The reason you know this is Bernie really doesn't have a clue how all this shit is going to get paid for it's just BS theory. As far getting things right its amazing how little self awareness you have with your posting, that's why even most of the lefties around here don't participate in your propaganda projections.
#15069610
Finfinder wrote:
Really sales taxes or payroll taxes won't increase ? I was using taxes in a broad sense, of course you know this and you know Bernie can't pay for all the spending he plans without taking more of peoples income. The reason you know this is Bernie really doesn't have a clue how all this shit is going to get paid for it's just BS theory. As far getting things right its amazing how little self awareness you have with your posting, that's why even most of the lefties around here don't participate in your propaganda projections.



Trump's tax cut expires in a couple years, unless you're rich. He's also nickle and diming regular people.

Back to Bernie, cluelessness is just you admitting the obvious via projection.

His tax increases go on the wealthy. Which has been paying less and less of their fair share since the 80s.

Lastly, this is aspirational. Anyone with a room temp IQ knows the Senate won't do much. Hell, they prob won't do anything. But this is just the beginning of a generational change you won't like at all.
#15069616
late wrote:Trump's tax cut expires in a couple years, unless you're rich. He's also nickle and diming regular people.

Back to Bernie, cluelessness is just you admitting the obvious via projection.

His tax increases go on the wealthy. Which has been paying less and less of their fair share since the 80s.

Lastly, this is aspirational. Anyone with a room temp IQ knows the Senate won't do much. Hell, they prob won't do anything. But this is just the beginning of a generational change you won't like at all.


We can clear this up, just give us the math that pays for the 3 primary spending programs Sanders plans.
#15069703
late wrote:Amaze me and handle just one rationally.

Healthcare is going to cost about 55T/10 yr. Bernies plan is about 30T/10yr.

Can you handle the math?


I'm not voting for Sanders do your own bidding but you can't because even Sanders doesn't know how to pay for the 100 trillion he would plan to spend. He said so himself on 60 minutes but you knew that anyway.
#15069714
Finfinder wrote:I'm not voting for Sanders do your own bidding but you can't because even Sanders doesn't know how to pay for the 100 trillion he would plan to spend. He said so himself on 60 minutes but you knew that anyway.


It's theoretically possible but it would require heavy intervention in US investment banks and massive economic restructuring that would focus the financial sector on government and corporate bonds instead of shares of private equity. Low risk investing is what these firms are already trying to evolve toward anyways and the government is already the absolute risk equalizer, so the task of reform then is to tweak the system so that financial bros on Wall Street continue to do what they do, except they now do it for the government. This is possible if financial instruments are heavily regulated and specialized public investment begins to take over the development of robotics, medicine, tech, etc. The rules on owning stock in companies at various stages in the corporate life cycle (all vital to the social form of speculation) would have to be significantly limited so that returns on government securities would exceed those of private stock-share.

It's all very much possible because the seeds of socialism already exist in the exchanges and relationships of the capitalist class today (sometimes dubbed 'corporate welfare' or 'socialism for the rich'). We are also entering a period where growth is slowing down as part of a generalized trend related to the geological crisis of global capitalism. This could mean the economic system will have no choice but to slow down financial timescales and take a long term view on things in order to sustain the enormous economic output that was once used to fuel exponential growth.
#15069764
Finfinder wrote:
I'm not voting for Sanders do your own bidding but you can't because even Sanders doesn't know how to pay for the 100 trillion he would plan to spend. He said so himself on 60 minutes but you knew that anyway.



I accept the implicit admission of defeat.

You could have at least lied. Correcting you is what I live for. I am quite disappointed.

The people who are protecting insurance companies always ignore the actual cost to the country.
#15069816
late wrote:I accept the implicit admission of defeat.

You could have at least lied. Correcting you is what I live for. I am quite disappointed.

The people who are protecting insurance companies always ignore the actual cost to the country.


Implicit defeat that's hilarious outside of when you quot me, and this website notifies me when I log in you are never a thought in my head. I would be honored occupying so much space in your head but your posting is so hollow and angry. Think about it @late you say I'm the one projecting yet you "live for me". I guess you showed me defeat. :lol: :lol: :lol:



Now for the adults that want to discuss Sanders. Kiss your 401 ks and retirements away of Sanders is president and completely destroys the economy.

All told, Sanders’s current plans would cost as much as $97.5 trillion over the next decade, and total government spending at all levels would surge to as high as 70 percent of gross domestic product. Approximately half of the American workforce would be employed by the government. The ten-year budget deficit would approach $90 trillion, with average annual deficits exceeding 30 percent of GDP.

The $97.5 trillion price tag is made up mostly of the costs of Sanders’s three most ambitious proposals. Sanders concedes that his Medicare For All plan would increase federal spending by “somewhere between $30 and $40 trillion over a 10-year period.” He pledges to spend $16.3 trillion on his climate plan. And his proposal to guarantee all Americans a full-time government job paying $15 an hour, with full benefits, is estimated to cost $30.1 trillion. The final $11.1 trillion includes $3 trillion to forgive all student loans and guarantee free public-college tuition—plus $1.8 trillion to expand Social Security, $2.5 trillion on housing, $1.6 trillion on paid family leave, $1 trillion on infrastructure, $800 billion on general K-12 education spending, and an additional $400 billion on higher public school teacher salaries.

This unprecedented outlay would more than double the size of the federal government. Over the next decade, Washington is already projected to spend $60 trillion, and state and local governments will spend another $29.7 trillion from non-federal sources. Adding Sanders’s $97.5 trillion—and then subtracting the $3 trillion saved by state governments under Medicare For All—would raise the total cost of government to $184 trillion, or 70 percent of the projected GDP over ten years

Such spending would far exceed even that of European social democracies. The 35 OECD countries average 43 percent of GDP in total government spending. Finland’s 57 percent tops the list, edging France and Denmark. Meantime, Sweden and Norway—regularly lauded as models for the U.S.—spend just under 50 percent of GDP. The U.S. government, at all levels, spends between 34 percent and 38 percent of GDP, depending on how one calculates.

Sanders’s agenda is virtually impossible to pay for. Adding $97.5 trillion in new spending to an underlying $15.5 trillion projected budget deficit (under current policies) creates a ten-year budget gap of $113 trillion. Yet Sanders’s tax proposals would raise at most $23 trillion over the decade.

His Medicare For All financing worksheet contains $16.2 trillion in mostly-broad-based tax increases, which rises to $19.3 trillion after replacing the worksheet’s original $1.3 trillion wealth tax with the recent $4.35 trillion version. Social Security expansion would be financed by $1.8 trillion in new payroll and investment taxes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the financial-transactions tax intended to pay for Sanders’s college agenda would raise $777 billion. The climate proposal and family-leave proposals each contain approximately $200 billion in specified tax increases. Repealing the 2017 tax cuts—beyond what is already accounted for in other proposals—would raise at most $1 trillion. Sanders has backed away from his previous support for a carbon tax.

Tax rates would soar. Sanders would raise the current 15.3 percent payroll tax to 27.2 percent due to an 11.5 percent Medicare For All payroll tax (with some exemptions), and a 0.4 percent payroll tax for paid family leave. (The full Social Security payroll tax would also be applied to wages exceeding $250,000.) Sanders proposes a top federal income-tax rate of 52 percent. Capital gains and dividends would be taxed as ordinary income, plus a 10 percent net investment-income surtax for the wealthy. The resulting 62 percent top tax bracket for investments would be so far beyond the revenue-maximizing rate that it would produce little actual revenue. Overall, upper-income taxpayers would face a marginal tax rate as high as 80 percent from their federal income, state income, and payroll taxes. They would also be assessed a 62 percent investment tax rate, an annual wealth tax of up to 8 percent, and a 77 percent estate tax.

Yet these $23 trillion in proposed taxes would still leave a staggering $90 trillion budget deficit, or 34 percent of GDP. Closing the rest of the gap—which comes to $66,000 per household annually—is basically impossible. Given that Sanders already maximizes taxes on the wealthy, that leaves the payroll tax or a value-added tax (VAT) to raise the rest. The CBO claims that each 1 percentage-point increase in the payroll tax raises $0.9 trillion over the decade, thus requiring an extra 100 percent rate on top of the 27.2 percent proposal. Alternatively, a European-style VAT would raise $0.4 trillion per percentage point, thus requiring an absurd 225 percent tax rate to close the remaining $90 trillion budget gap. Cutting defense spending to NATO’s European target of 2 percent of GDP would save just $3 trillion. Even seizing all $82 trillion in household financial assets would be insufficient.

Sanders claims that economic growth would produce enough revenue to offset much of these costs. It’s more likely that exorbitant tax rates and the diversion of millions of private-sector workers into government “make-work” jobs would reduce investment, productivity, and growth. Yet even for the sake of argument, permanently doubling America’s trend economic growth rate from 2 percent to 4 percent would raise just under $6 trillion in new revenues over the decade—still leaving an $84 trillion budget gap.

The massive cost of the proposed government-job guarantee has rarely been analyzed and requires a deeper explanation. Sanders would guarantee a full-time job paying at least $15 per hour with full benefits—and nearly guaranteed job security—to anyone who wants one. A report commissioned by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculated that a more modest version of this proposal—paying a minimum wage of $11.83—would cost the government $56,000 per full-time employee when including benefits and administrative costs. Factoring in 4 percent annual cost growth, 1 million participants would cost $672 billion over the next decade.

Participation would surely include the 11.3 million jobless Americans who are either actively seeking a job or have stopped looking but still want to work. That would cost $7.6 trillion over the decade. Yet 42.4 percent of the workforce—or nearly 67 million workers—earns less than $15 per hour. Proponents assume that employers will offer large raises and new benefits to keep these employees in their current jobs. Assuming even half of them instead switch to a government job for the higher pay, job security, and/or (likely) easier work, enrollment would increase to 45 million, at a cost of $30 trillion over the decade.

Some costs would be offset by having fewer people collecting health and welfare benefits elsewhere. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that costs would rise further. As stated above, the calculations are based on a $11.83 government wage rather than Sanders’s $15 proposal. Enrollment would surely surge during recessions, and individuals unhappy in their demanding, dangerous, or unstable jobs that pay slightly above $15 per hour might see a government job as a better bet. Many of the 7 million seniors living in poverty, unsure of their work capabilities, could be lured back into the workforce with a healthy wage and job security.

Medicare For All is a major driver of Sanders’s budget deficits. The proposal would essentially replace all health premiums and out-of-pocket expenses with a new “single-payer tax” and federal provision of health care. Despite their assertions that families would come out ahead—that their health taxes would be lower than past premiums and out-of-pocket costs—Medicare For All proponents have failed to design a tax that could replace the current $35 trillion spent by families, businesses, and state governments. Sanders’s Medicare For All legislation includes no tax mechanism, and his worksheet of tax options adds up to just $19 trillion. Fully funded Medicare For All legislation doesn’t exist.

If the 70 percent of GDP spending estimate seems too high to be accurate, consider that no OECD country offers anything remotely similar to Senator Sanders’s proposed job-guarantee program or has nationalized a health system that consumes nearly 20 percent of its GDP.

Sanders’s agenda would result in approximately half the American workforce working for government. Current government employment at all levels is just under 23 million; the job guarantee would likely attract 45 million new participants. More than 16 million private health-care employees would essentially become government employees. Approximately 1 million new employees would likely be needed to staff other policies such as the job guarantee. That’s 85 million total government employees out of a 170-million-person American workforce, minus any individuals overlapping between these groups.

With more than a year to go before the 2020 presidential election, Sanders may well top $100 trillion in promised new government spending. He should be pressed to explain the feasibility of his agenda and how he would finance it.


https://www.city-journal.org/bernie-san ... -proposals
#15069821
Finfinder wrote:Implicit defeat that's hilarious outside of when you quot me, and this website notifies me when I log in you are never a thought in my head. I would be honored occupying so much space in your head but your posting is so hollow and angry. Think about it @late you say I'm the one projecting yet you "live for me". I guess you showed me defeat. :lol: :lol: :lol:



Now for the adults that want to discuss Sanders. Kiss your 401 ks and retirements away of Sanders is president and completely destroys the economy.

All told, Sanders’s current plans would cost as much as $97.5 trillion over the next decade, and total government spending at all levels would surge to as high as 70 percent of gross domestic product. Approximately half of the American workforce would be employed by the government. The ten-year budget deficit would approach $90 trillion, with average annual deficits exceeding 30 percent of GDP.

The $97.5 trillion price tag is made up mostly of the costs of Sanders’s three most ambitious proposals. Sanders concedes that his Medicare For All plan would increase federal spending by “somewhere between $30 and $40 trillion over a 10-year period.” He pledges to spend $16.3 trillion on his climate plan. And his proposal to guarantee all Americans a full-time government job paying $15 an hour, with full benefits, is estimated to cost $30.1 trillion. The final $11.1 trillion includes $3 trillion to forgive all student loans and guarantee free public-college tuition—plus $1.8 trillion to expand Social Security, $2.5 trillion on housing, $1.6 trillion on paid family leave, $1 trillion on infrastructure, $800 billion on general K-12 education spending, and an additional $400 billion on higher public school teacher salaries.

This unprecedented outlay would more than double the size of the federal government. Over the next decade, Washington is already projected to spend $60 trillion, and state and local governments will spend another $29.7 trillion from non-federal sources. Adding Sanders’s $97.5 trillion—and then subtracting the $3 trillion saved by state governments under Medicare For All—would raise the total cost of government to $184 trillion, or 70 percent of the projected GDP over ten years

Such spending would far exceed even that of European social democracies. The 35 OECD countries average 43 percent of GDP in total government spending. Finland’s 57 percent tops the list, edging France and Denmark. Meantime, Sweden and Norway—regularly lauded as models for the U.S.—spend just under 50 percent of GDP. The U.S. government, at all levels, spends between 34 percent and 38 percent of GDP, depending on how one calculates.

Sanders’s agenda is virtually impossible to pay for. Adding $97.5 trillion in new spending to an underlying $15.5 trillion projected budget deficit (under current policies) creates a ten-year budget gap of $113 trillion. Yet Sanders’s tax proposals would raise at most $23 trillion over the decade.

His Medicare For All financing worksheet contains $16.2 trillion in mostly-broad-based tax increases, which rises to $19.3 trillion after replacing the worksheet’s original $1.3 trillion wealth tax with the recent $4.35 trillion version. Social Security expansion would be financed by $1.8 trillion in new payroll and investment taxes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the financial-transactions tax intended to pay for Sanders’s college agenda would raise $777 billion. The climate proposal and family-leave proposals each contain approximately $200 billion in specified tax increases. Repealing the 2017 tax cuts—beyond what is already accounted for in other proposals—would raise at most $1 trillion. Sanders has backed away from his previous support for a carbon tax.

Tax rates would soar. Sanders would raise the current 15.3 percent payroll tax to 27.2 percent due to an 11.5 percent Medicare For All payroll tax (with some exemptions), and a 0.4 percent payroll tax for paid family leave. (The full Social Security payroll tax would also be applied to wages exceeding $250,000.) Sanders proposes a top federal income-tax rate of 52 percent. Capital gains and dividends would be taxed as ordinary income, plus a 10 percent net investment-income surtax for the wealthy. The resulting 62 percent top tax bracket for investments would be so far beyond the revenue-maximizing rate that it would produce little actual revenue. Overall, upper-income taxpayers would face a marginal tax rate as high as 80 percent from their federal income, state income, and payroll taxes. They would also be assessed a 62 percent investment tax rate, an annual wealth tax of up to 8 percent, and a 77 percent estate tax.

Yet these $23 trillion in proposed taxes would still leave a staggering $90 trillion budget deficit, or 34 percent of GDP. Closing the rest of the gap—which comes to $66,000 per household annually—is basically impossible. Given that Sanders already maximizes taxes on the wealthy, that leaves the payroll tax or a value-added tax (VAT) to raise the rest. The CBO claims that each 1 percentage-point increase in the payroll tax raises $0.9 trillion over the decade, thus requiring an extra 100 percent rate on top of the 27.2 percent proposal. Alternatively, a European-style VAT would raise $0.4 trillion per percentage point, thus requiring an absurd 225 percent tax rate to close the remaining $90 trillion budget gap. Cutting defense spending to NATO’s European target of 2 percent of GDP would save just $3 trillion. Even seizing all $82 trillion in household financial assets would be insufficient.

Sanders claims that economic growth would produce enough revenue to offset much of these costs. It’s more likely that exorbitant tax rates and the diversion of millions of private-sector workers into government “make-work” jobs would reduce investment, productivity, and growth. Yet even for the sake of argument, permanently doubling America’s trend economic growth rate from 2 percent to 4 percent would raise just under $6 trillion in new revenues over the decade—still leaving an $84 trillion budget gap.

The massive cost of the proposed government-job guarantee has rarely been analyzed and requires a deeper explanation. Sanders would guarantee a full-time job paying at least $15 per hour with full benefits—and nearly guaranteed job security—to anyone who wants one. A report commissioned by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculated that a more modest version of this proposal—paying a minimum wage of $11.83—would cost the government $56,000 per full-time employee when including benefits and administrative costs. Factoring in 4 percent annual cost growth, 1 million participants would cost $672 billion over the next decade.

Participation would surely include the 11.3 million jobless Americans who are either actively seeking a job or have stopped looking but still want to work. That would cost $7.6 trillion over the decade. Yet 42.4 percent of the workforce—or nearly 67 million workers—earns less than $15 per hour. Proponents assume that employers will offer large raises and new benefits to keep these employees in their current jobs. Assuming even half of them instead switch to a government job for the higher pay, job security, and/or (likely) easier work, enrollment would increase to 45 million, at a cost of $30 trillion over the decade.

Some costs would be offset by having fewer people collecting health and welfare benefits elsewhere. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that costs would rise further. As stated above, the calculations are based on a $11.83 government wage rather than Sanders’s $15 proposal. Enrollment would surely surge during recessions, and individuals unhappy in their demanding, dangerous, or unstable jobs that pay slightly above $15 per hour might see a government job as a better bet. Many of the 7 million seniors living in poverty, unsure of their work capabilities, could be lured back into the workforce with a healthy wage and job security.

Medicare For All is a major driver of Sanders’s budget deficits. The proposal would essentially replace all health premiums and out-of-pocket expenses with a new “single-payer tax” and federal provision of health care. Despite their assertions that families would come out ahead—that their health taxes would be lower than past premiums and out-of-pocket costs—Medicare For All proponents have failed to design a tax that could replace the current $35 trillion spent by families, businesses, and state governments. Sanders’s Medicare For All legislation includes no tax mechanism, and his worksheet of tax options adds up to just $19 trillion. Fully funded Medicare For All legislation doesn’t exist.

If the 70 percent of GDP spending estimate seems too high to be accurate, consider that no OECD country offers anything remotely similar to Senator Sanders’s proposed job-guarantee program or has nationalized a health system that consumes nearly 20 percent of its GDP.

Sanders’s agenda would result in approximately half the American workforce working for government. Current government employment at all levels is just under 23 million; the job guarantee would likely attract 45 million new participants. More than 16 million private health-care employees would essentially become government employees. Approximately 1 million new employees would likely be needed to staff other policies such as the job guarantee. That’s 85 million total government employees out of a 170-million-person American workforce, minus any individuals overlapping between these groups.

With more than a year to go before the 2020 presidential election, Sanders may well top $100 trillion in promised new government spending. He should be pressed to explain the feasibility of his agenda and how he would finance it.


https://www.city-journal.org/bernie-san ... -proposals


It's theoretically possible but it would require heavy intervention in US investment banks and massive economic restructuring that would focus the financial sector on government and corporate bonds instead of shares of private equity. Low risk investing is what these firms are already trying to evolve toward anyways and the government is already the absolute risk equalizer, so the task of reform then is to tweak the system so that financial bros on Wall Street continue to do what they do, except they now do it for the government. This is possible if financial instruments are heavily regulated and specialized public investment begins to take over the development of robotics, medicine, tech, etc. The rules on owning stock in companies at various stages in the corporate life cycle (all vital to the social form of speculation) would have to be significantly limited so that returns on government securities would exceed those of private stock-share.

It's all very much possible because the seeds of socialism already exist in the exchanges and relationships of the capitalist class today (sometimes dubbed 'corporate welfare' or 'socialism for the rich'). We are also entering a period where growth is slowing down as part of a generalized trend related to the geological crisis of global capitalism. This could mean the economic system will have no choice but to slow down financial timescales and take a long term view on things in order to sustain the enormous economic output that was once used to fuel exponential growth.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10

The media did not blame Obama for H1N1 Nobody i[…]

The fed has stated they think the unemployment rat[…]

@QatzelOk By all means go to Iran or Saudi Arabi[…]

the Bible was accurately preserved [Lust] is on[…]