So, Bernie, how are you going to pay for the free stuff? Details please

[Jersey Devil]

That's the only question Joe has to ask and one which Bernie has danced around through the whole primary season so far.

Bernie's programs sound great, but how would he convince Congress they would save money by enacting them. $35 trillion? $60 trillion? Exactly where will it come from?

[HarlanPepper]

1. Socialist math.

[George II]

2. Here's one: "Inasmuch your mother died of heart disease when she was 46....

....and your father died at 59 of a heart attack, don't you think we deserve more information about your heart condition?"

[beachbumbob]

3. tax the rich. nationalize businesses? Aint that the play out of the socialist playbook?

[mindem]

4. The Sanders campaign is like an old time medicine show

people love the show but the end result is buying snake oil from a charlatan.

[William769]

38. They were called snake charmers.

[Claustrum]

5. This is the problem I have when they keep showing the m4a exit poll number

This is the problem I have when they keep showing the m4a exit poll number. Yes, of course I am all for m4a when you don't attach a dollar sign next to it. However, when you ask the question again if people are for m4a if they have to pay a 15% health tax on top (I am just pulling this out using the UK version from a quick google search, they have a health tax ranging from 15-50%, correct me if anyone is more familiar with the UK version), I am sure the 70% support would go down dramatically.

This is similar to asking me if I want a million dollars given to me. Of course I am saying yes. But the question is then changed to, I will be given a million dollar if I have to sacrifice my first born for it. I will quickly say no.

[squirecam]

15. First no.

But what about the middle child?

[Claustrum]

19. well

Well, if your first born was sacrifice and never existed, maybe the second is your first anyways?

[pampango]

6. It ain't 'free stuff'. Europeans have it. It ain't 'free'. They just choose to pay for

an effective safety net, universal health care, affordable college, equitable distributions of income, better mass transit and infrastructure rather than spending 10 times what the rest of the world does on the military and constantly cutting taxes for the rich and corporations.

Conservatives love to stigmatize any liberal government program designed to help regular people as 'those people just want free stuff'.

[Jersey Devil]

9. It is "free stuff" until you explain how to pay for it

Bernie's programs are great. But I haven't heard any explanation from him about how we could possibly pay for them. Until he can do that and convince the voters, and Congress, that would would save money in the long run by adopting his programs then they are just pie in the sky and indeed, "free stuff".

[pampango]

12. Fine. Go ahead and join Trump and FOX News in calling any liberal program just 'free stuff'.

That will surely get us closer to having a government that pays attention to the needs of average people instead of funding 'free stuff' for the Defense Department and the rich. They need the 'free stuff' much more than we do.

[Jersey Devil]

13. I am just asking a simple question - How do you pay for these programs?

I agree with the programs. I just don't see how they can be paid for. Surely Bernie must have worked this out over the past few years when all he has done was talk about the programs non-stop. What taxes go up and by how much?

[pampango]

16. If you want a society like Germany or Sweden, you should probably do what they do.

High progressive income taxes - not as high as they were during FDR's time - a liberal who knew how to structure a 'European' government (high progressive taxes and a lot of 'free stuff' liberal programs for regular people - long before the Europeans figured it out) but high enough. That plus cutting military spending more than a little bit.

Does Biden have any ideas for new spending programs? How is he planning on paying for them? Perhaps we can work something out by combining the two.

[Jersey Devil]

17. Well, now we are getting somewhere

These are not bad ideas. You don't have to go back to FDR either. When I started working in the early 70s the max tax rate for personal income taxes was something like 90%.

But my point was, why doesn't Bernie spell that out? You can't just throw out all these programs without explaining how they are going to be paid for. You have to show people it will cost you x dollars more in taxes but you will save y dollars on your premiums, etc. Bernie has done none of that.

[pampango]

22. FDR did not campaign on a 90% tax rate.

I bet Bernie has gone further in explaining the funding for his proposals than FDR did during the 1932 election.

Sanders releases list of how to pay for his proposals

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/484454-sanders-releases-list-of-how-to-pay-for-his-proposals

But I suppose that the 'liberals just want free stuff' meme will never die.

[Hav]

21. Thank you for an honest answer and a realistic approach

on how to realize these programs. It's what I've been saying all along. If you want those social programs, prepare to pay similar taxes like those social democracies. I think it would be worth it. Many BS supporters don't seem to see it that way and misunderstand what some people call "free healthcare". BS is certainly shying away from explaining it like you did. But I don't see any other way how to achieve it otherwise.

[brush]

53. His problem is he makes big promises before he gets elected.

News Flash: You get elected first, then, providing we have Congress as well, you implement your programs.

You have to be smart.

You think FDR promised all the New Deal plans when campaigning?

No.

[Gothmog]

42. CNN-Sanders' agenda: Its cost -- possibly $60 trillion -- would set a peacetime US record

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.

[delisen]

7. Military budget for one

Other countries manage to afford many things. We came up for money for Iraq war .
The unaffordability argument is weak and i am not a Sanders supporter

[Jersey Devil]

10. OK, so how much will these programs cost?

How much do we have to take from the military? Where are the numbers?

[Grokenstein]

8. "I don't have to answer YOUR questions!"

"...you have to answer MINE!!"

[Meadowoak]

11. If you already have employer paid health insurance, why wouldn't your employer

Pay the govt for your insurance instead. Your employer would probably only pay half of what they already pay and you would have better coverage. No deductibles or co pays. Many people don't go to the doctor because they can't afford the co pay.

[Jersey Devil]

14. I have Medicare now and I have co pays

So if Bernie's MFA plan has no co pays, does that mean my Medicare premiums will go up? If so, where will that money come from?

[Gothmog]

43. Sanders still won't be honest with the American people about how much his plans cost

Link to tweet

[budkin]

18. By making the rich pay for it of course

Do you have a problem with that?

[Jersey Devil]

20. Sounds good but you have to back it up with numbers - you can't just point at Daddy Warbucks

and say "Pay for it". How much? What tax rates?

Bernie has been working on this for years. Surely there must be some numbers he can cite. But he hasn't

[Hav]

23. That is simply not a serious policy proposal

If you want the benefits of a government run or supported/regulated healthcare system that pretty much guarantees healthcare for all, expect to pay for it with your taxes. Literally, put your money where your mouth is. Handing your bill over to someone else and believing that this creates a sustainable social system, is a fantasy.

[budkin]

24. It works just fine in almost every other civilized nation

Why would it not work here? Greed?

[Hav]

25. Yeah, it works by paying it with your taxes!

Directly or indirectly, either by the state or through (regulated) insurance companies by paying a percentage of your income. A serious approach is something like 10-15% of your income for healthcare. Saying just make someone else pay for it is not a serious proposal.

[budkin]

27. Obviously we would be paying for it through our taxes... but the rich would pay the bigger share

What exactly is the big deal with this? Why do moderates fight against it so hard? The current health care system is an absolute joke. The fact that you can go bankrupt due to issues out of your control is absolutely unacceptable.

[Hav]

28. Nothing wrong with those who earn more paying more in absolute terms

"Moderates" don't fight against that principle. I absolutely agree, there need to be changes for the healthcare system, no one should go bankrupt. But there needs to be an honest discussion about it in regards to how it's financed. Did BS propose paying it through raising taxes for everybody? Because the kind of his supporters who say what's not to love about free college and free healthcare obviously see it differently.

[guillaumeb]

26. No one ever said MFA would be free.

If the example of every other country holds true, it would be cheaper.

[budkin]

29. Exactly

People are just being plain dishonest claiming he's telling his supporters it's all going to be "free."

[guillaumeb]

30. And that is silly, and could be seen as playing to the GOP line of attack.

[NYMinute]

31. He makes it look like rich people can be taxed confiscatorily

to pay for all that.

The fact of the matter is that the US treasury collects about $2 trillion in taxes each year, about a trillion of which comes from "rich" people. So even if the "rich" people pay 10 times more, it will still result in a massive deficit.

I Know someone who won a $500K lottery and promised all sorts of things to siblings, nieces, nephews and parents.

When she only got $123K in hand (cash value of payments over time) after paying income tax, she couldn't fulfill a single promise.

[pampango]

32. If we go all 'FDR' on the rich, I think we can fund liberal programs. He did.

And again saying that we can't have what other developed countries have because we can't pay for it, begs the question, "Why can't we pay for the same liberal programs that Germany, Sweden and a host of other developed countries have?" They don't just 'soak the rich' but they do quite a bit of that.

[NYMinute]

33. FDR did it in a depressed economy when the government's revenues had dwindled

and the war saved him.

Germany and Sweden are nearly homogeneous cultures - one can't compare America with them.

The situation is completely different now.

[pampango]

34. FDR funded his programs when 'government revenues had dwindled'?

We should be better able to fund liberal programs since we are not in a depressed economy.

"The war saved him." So he was a failure until Hitler and Tojo came to his rescue? That is an interesting take on history.

So we can't have what 'homogenous cultures' countries can have? So we're kind of doomed. A multi-racial, multi-cultural country is doomed. Canada seems to do a decent job of making such a country work.

[NYMinute]

35. I didn't type that did I?

FDR inherited the economy when it was nearly bankrupt and the country was in a deep depression.

Start of the war rejuvenated the economy and money started flowing in to the government coffers.

[pampango]

36. So the economy was nearly bankrupt and the government had not money for FDR.

Our economy is not bankrupt and the government takes in plenty of money - though maybe not as much as before the big tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

FDR did little to rejuvenate the economy until the war came and money started flowing to government coffers? I have heard republicans make that argument but rarely Democrats.

[NYMinute]

37. Our economy is in deficit spending

If we were a poor nation, we would be bankrupt. Only because we are America can we keep borrowing.

We spend $2 trillion more each year than we take in. There is no extra money.

[pampango]

39. "There is no extra money." I hope that is not Biden's mantra.

There is no extra money if we keep doing things as republicans have done them.

"We spend $2 trillion more each year than we take in."

And that is why republicans from Reagan on love to run up the deficit. When a Democratic administration follows them, there is no extra money. Trump has done an excellent job of that. Just as, I expect, Herbert Hoover had done to FDR. My guess is that when FDR came to the White House his advisers were telling him that Hoover left no extra money.

[NYMinute]

45. We are arguing in circles.

I proved that the current situation is not like FDR's and also that Bernie is no FDR.

The first thing that Biden will have to do is change the tax burden from middle class to upper classes while reducing the deficit.
Then he will have to install a public option to Obamacare and shore it up so many more people can get affordable coverage.
Then he will have to find a way to assist with college tuition with income/wealth criteria as well as education in fields that are critically in short supply in the US. There shouldn't be freebie education to get a degree in "aquarium psychoanalysis" just because it is some kid's passion.
Naturally STEM degrees and applied fields would be prioritized.

All those things can pass without filibusters.

[Gothmog]

41. Here's how much a Bernie Sanders presidency would cost

Link to tweet

If you ever wondered how much Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) vast array of policy proposals would cost, we now have a reasonably good estimate from his own staff. The answer is about $50 trillion over the next decade. Sanders may or may not be a “democratic socialist” — whatever that means — but he clearly is a soak-the-rich radical who would dramatically expand the government’s role, from cradle to grave.

Whether most Americans prefer Sanders’s statist agenda to the alleged abuses of corporations and Wall Street (the notorious “top 1 percent”) is what defines this election. Whatever the case, Sanders is proposing a hugely expensive transformation.

Let’s examine the $50 trillion. The list below shows various spending programs that Sanders has proposed, with one important exception: The first item on the list is the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the deficits under existing policies for the next decade. That figure is $13.1 trillion.

Sanders’s Spending, 2021-2030:
1. Deficits under existing policies: $13.1 trillion
2. “Free” college for all and the cancellation of existing student debt: $2.2 trillion
3. Expand Social Security and other retirement benefits: $1.4 trillion (estimated by the Progressive Policy Institute)
4. Housing for all: $2.5 trillion
5. Eliminating household medical debt: $81 billion
6. Green New Deal (programs to stop global warming): $16.3 trillion
7. Universal child care and preschool: $1.5 trillion
8. Medicare-for-all: $17.5 trillion
Total: $54.6 trillion

The problem is that sanders has no idea as to how pay for these progarms
“Sanders’s proposals won’t raise nearly as much money as he thinks they will,” says Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “Even if they did, they won’t pay for everything he wants.”
For example, Sanders proposes a wealth tax on taxpayers with a net worth (assets minus liabilities) of $32 million or more. The tax would gradually rise from 1 percent up to 8 percent on fortunes exceeding $10 billion. Sanders estimates this would raise $4.35 trillion over a decade.

Not likely, says Gleckman. About half of the wealth of the rich is contained in privately held businesses that, unlike publicly traded stocks, are hard to value. He thinks the tax would raise far less than expected. “Rich people won’t stand by and pay taxes,” he says.
“They will hire expensive lawyers to avoid taxes.” Similar problems would erode revenue from a proposed tax on financial transactions, he says.

Even with some added tax revenue, there still would be a $25 trillion gap between Sanders’s spending plans and an equivalent amount of new tax revenue, says analyst Ben Ritz of the PPI. Federal spending would approach 40 percent of gross domestic product, up from about 20 percent now.

[pampango]

44. As FDR said if people are suffering, try something. If that doesn't work try something else.

Don’t say “We can’t afford to try anything.”

If you think Bernie can’t do all he wants, I can accept that. I’m sure FDR did enact all the things he wanted. If he, or Biden, can achieve some goals and leave some for a second term or next liberal president that’s OK.

The US is a rich country. There is no reason why we can’t offer our citizens a safety net, infrastructure and income equality that other developed countries have. I think Biden will move us in that direction. I also think that grand ideas serve a useful purpose.

[Gothmog]

46. That does not work in the real world

There are good reasons why sanders has zero legislative accomplishments in the real world. sanders can not get any of his fellow Democratic members of congress to support his agenda and that is not going to change

[pampango]

47. He is not going to be president but, if he were elected with his well-known liberal policy

preferences, Democrats in Congress (as well as republicans of course) would oppose his agenda despite his election victory? You might be right but that would be interesting.

[Gothmog]

48. There is a reason why sanders has zero legislative accomplishments

In the real world, his fellow Democrats do not take his proposals seriously

Link to tweet

But Reid, who served as a Democrat in the U.S. Senate for 30 years, including as majority leader for eight years, said it didn't matter which candidate comes out in support of Sanders' signature health care plan: "I’m against it."

"It’s impractical ... There’s not a chance in hell it would pass," he told ABC News Political Director Rick Klein, instead advocating for strengthening the Affordable Care Act -- or Obamacare -- and looking to pass a public option.

There are not enough Democratic votes to get this concept passed in the real world

Link to tweet

[pampango]

49. We all know he is too liberal of a senator to get his ideas passed.

If - purely hypothetically - he got the votes to win a presidential election with his liberal policy ideas, it would be interesting to see how congressional Democrats would deal with the newly elected president.

FDR was fortunate in his day in that he had huge Democratic majorities in both houses that overwhelmed republican opposition to his expensive liberal proposals. No modern Democratic president is likely to have that kind of congressional support.

[Gothmog]

50. If sanders was the nominee, trump would win 45+ statews and Kevin McCarthy would be Speaker

That is why the moderates of the party dropped out and are supporting Joe Biden. No one wants to see Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House

[pampango]

51. I bow to your superior insight into the unelectability of Sanders.

Recent polls might indicate otherwise but what do they know.

My post concerned the hypothetical scenario in which he was elected and how congressional Democrats would respond.

[Gothmog]

40. Sanders has yet to explain how he'll pay for half of his agenda -

Link to tweet

[dflprincess]

52. We're about to find out just how inadequate what passes

for a safety net in the U.S. is. Then the question will not be "How do we pay for it?" but "How do we not?"