Bernie Sanders’s outlandish plans make Republicans look serious

[riversedge]

Pretty scathing.


By Fareed Zakaria Opinion writer February 18 at 7:29 PM


Bernie Sanders’s outlandish plans make Republicans look serious

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanderss-plans-make-republicans-look-serious/2016/02/18/4dbddb40-d684-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html


....................The Democrats since Bill Clinton have, by and large, avoided this path. They have buttressed their policy with real data. The proposals put forward by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama as candidates were based on evidence, and the math mostly added up. Sure, their plans often contained rosy assumptions about growth and inflation, but to a far lesser extent than Republicans’ proposals. After being seen as profligate taxers and spenders in the 1960s and ’70s, the Democratic Party has convinced many centrist voters that it is the responsible party of governance.

Enter Bernie Sanders, who makes the Republicans look like models of sobriety and scholarly exactitude. The proposals listed on his campaign website add up to around $18 trillion to $20 trillion over the next decade, according to the New York Times. Adding a higher estimate on the health plan from Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University brings the total cost to more than $30 trillion.

This week, four respected economists who served Democratic presidents wrote a letter bluntly pointing out that “no credible economic research” supports Sanders’s economic assumptions and predictions. They were referring to the claims by Gerald Friedman, an economist who has tried to make Sanders’s math work. To do so, Friedman assumes that per capita growth would average 4.5 percent (more than double the rate over the past three decades), and that the employment-to-population ratio would suddenly reverse its long decline and reach 65 percent, the highest ever. Even more magically, productivity growth would rise to 3.18 percent. As Kevin Drum has pointed out in Mother Jones, “there has never been a 10-year period since World War II in which productivity grew by 3.18 percent.”.......................

[daleanime]

1. Seriously scary....

for opposing the majority of Americans.

[berningman]

3. my my who here didn't see this coming. A for effort and all that.

[daleanime]

7. You don't find them so?

Some how not surprising. You have a lovely day anyways.

[Nanjeanne]

2. Outrageous

Healthcare, education, family leave, things every other country has managed to give their citizens for their tax dollars. Here we get to pay taxes for our government workers to have healthcare and to go to war. Now that's crazy to me.

[virtualobserver]

4. this criticism is "not fair or honest" according to James Galbraith

defenders of Bernie seem rational, and Hillary supporters seem desperate.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ResponsetoCEA.pdf

"What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders' proposals stems from their scale and ambition," Galbraith wrote. "When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result."

"It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman's methods are extreme," Galbraith added. "Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman's paper a rigorous review. You have not."

[workinclasszero]

5. "Bernie Sanders, who makes the Republicans look like models of sobriety and scholarly exactitude"

Congrats Bernie, you beat the republicans at their own game.

[myrna minx]

10. No - it doesn't

Last edited Sat Feb 20, 2016, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

His whole premise of the "4 economists" is debunked by Galbraith's letter, unless these gentleman "show their work", which they haven't. They've only made assertions without backup.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ResponsetoCEA.pdf

[myrna minx]

6. My, the beltway cocktail circuit has the vapors!

How DARE Sanders appeal to the unwashed?! It's just not done. It's just not done, indeed.

Mr Zakaria - for your review:

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ResponsetoCEA.pdf

[kcjohn1]

8. Color me shocked

That a neoliberal is not in favor Bernie policies.

What love about Bernie's campaign run is that it's exposing the supposed "liberal" establishment. Before they could hide behind Republicans obstructionism and not bring popular ideas to the forefront.

Now they are forced to choose sides and hopefully people will see that they are not on their side.

[Autumn]

9. Things that benefit the people are outlandish. That's just sad.

I wonder how much money in the last 14 years and the next 10 years will be spent on war and tax breaks.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Trillions that somehow don't count.

[enid602]

11. Bernie

Bernie is a seasoned political hack. He knows his numbers don't add up. It doesn't matter to him.

[CentralMass]

12. Economist in support of a number of Sanders plans

170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html

170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street.

A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street.

The economists wrote:

In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis."

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/blog?ID=D388E874-AB05-412D-B5FF-266659ACCEF5

Top Economists Are Backing Sen. Bernie Sanders on Establishing a $15 an Hour Minimum Wage
ECONOMISTS IN SUPPORT OF A $15 U.S. MINIMUM

WAGE AS OF 2020

We, the undersigned professional economists, favor an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour as of 2020. The federal minimum wage is presently $7.25, and was most recently increased in 2009. We also support intermediate increases over the current federal minimum between now and 2020, such as a first-step raise to $10.50 an hour as of 2016.

The real, inflation-adjusted, value of the federal minimum wage has fallen dramatically over time. The real value of the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at 10.85 an hour, 50 percent above the current level. Moreover, since 1968, average U.S. labor productivity has risen by roughly 140 percent. This means that, if the federal minimum wage had risen in step with both inflation and average labor productivity since 1968, the federal minimum wage today would be $26.00 an hour. (References for all data cited in this petition can be found here: http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/resources/Technical_Appendix_15_Minimum.pdf)

If a worker today is employed full time for a full 52-week year at a minimum wage job today, she or he is making $15,080. This is 21 percent below the official poverty line for a family of three. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would deliver much needed living standard improvements to 76 million U.S. workers and their families. The average age for these workers is 36 years old and they have been in the labor force for an average of 17 years. Only 6 percent of the workers who would benefit from this minimum wage increase are teenagers; i.e., 94 percent are adults.

Numerous states and municipalities throughout the United States are already operating with minimum wage standards above the $7.25 federal minimum. Thus, 29 states plus Washington, DC maintain minimum wages between $7.50 and $9.50. These measures cover 61 percent of the U.S. population. The cities of Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco have all established $15 minimum wage standards that, for all three cases, will be fully phased in as of 2021. A $13 minimum wage will be operating in Chicago as of 2019. Other cities, including New York and Washington, DC, are presently considering similar measures. The State of New York is also examining a $15 minimum wage proposal for the fast-food industry."

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Which nicely wraps up turd-way thinking.

Put a nice pink bow on that shit.

[libtodeath]

15. Oh noes,someone that actually sounds different then the repukes

we just cant have that!!

[CentralMass]

16. Robert Reich on Bernie Sander"s economic plans.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/19/robert_reich_why_bernies_proposals_would_spur_economic_growth_partner/

Robert Reich: Bernie Sanders’ economic proposals are far from fantasy, would spur growth"

A few days ago, Neel Kashkari – now president of the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis, who was the senior Treasury Department official in the George W. Bush and Obama administrations helping to save the big Wall Street banks – said, “I believe the biggest banks are still too big to fail and continue to pose a significant, ongoing risk to our economy,” and called for them to be broken up. “The question is whether we as a country have the courage to actually take action now.”

That seems to me to be the question on a lot of fronts. Our health costs continue to rise and are about to soar as boomers need more health care. A single-payer system is necessary to restrain those costs and provide the care people need. Anyone who still harbors doubts should take a look at these studies: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost .

"It’s the same with widening inequality and structural discrimination.
Failure to take action on the biggest banks, a single-payer plan, widening inequality, and discrimination will almost certainly harm the economy. We can’t afford another near-meltdown of Wall Street. Health care costs continue to be a huge drain on the economy. Widening inequality is robbing the vast middle class of the purchasing power it needs to keep the economy growing. And structural discrimination is making it hard for many Americans to be successful and productive members of our society.
As Bernie Sanders has said, taking action on all these fronts would therefore spur growth, employment, and median incomes. (In this respect, I disagree with the views of four former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors from the Clinton and Obama administrations.)

The question is whether we as a country have the courage to actually take action now."