Sanders' vision of U.S. would be worthy investment

[Uncle Joe]

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders advocates Medicare for all, free college education or vocational school training and forgiveness of student debt.

Call it socialism if you like, but it’s time we invest in the future of America. We’ve wasted trillions waging a war against Islam that we can’t win, while our nation’s infrastructure crumbles around us. President Donald Trump declared a national emergency, determined to build a border wall that in itself will have minimal effect on the immigration problem, while ignoring the crisis in health care, education and infrastructure.

Republicans rant and rave about the dangers of socialism, offering no solutions of their own, while engaging in their own brand of socialism by giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy.

The Republicans and their wealthy donors prefer the status quo. China is increasingly well-educated in science and technology and is positioning themselves to become a military superpower. Investment in education, health care and infrastructure in America will indeed cost trillions, but that investment will pay for itself many times over. It is an investment, not a free lunch, as naysayers would have us believe.

(snip)

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/mailbag/sanders-vision-of-u-s-would-be-worthy-investment/article_5150c1e3-86fd-5dc1-9807-a94714de9b4a.html

[wasupaloopa]

1. Who pays for it? I know investors, 1%, wealthy, not us, not middle class, so

it looks like the cake we can have and eat too.

[oldsoftie]

4. EXACTLY!!! NO candidate has any plan to raise the money needed for these programs.

REAL money. Not this "X over the next 10 yrs" bullshit. TOO much money goes untaxed, but no one is willing to go after it. Just the same 'ol "make the rich pay their fair share!" nonsense. Its not ENOUGH!! But we kick the can on down the road.....

[roody]

6. The same people that pay 720+ billion for war.

[wasupaloopa]

10. There is always the threat of war. That money

is not available to you. To say it is is to not be realistic.

It is not fair to promise things that you don’t have a real means to bring about. Why should people vote for our in the Sky?

[LiberalLovinLug]

8. Who pays for it? I think you mean how much do we gain from that kind of investment into the future

Perhaps yourself and oldsoftie might do a bit of reading

https://theconversation.com/higher-education-pays-for-itself-many-times-over-61511

Higher education pays for itself many times over

The economic evidence is that not only does higher education build the economy’s skills and knowledge, but that it pays for itself many times over.

https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/05/05/a-college-education-still-pays-for-itself-fed-economists-say/

A College Education Still Pays For Itself, Fed Economists Say

Even with tuition bills on the rise, a four-year U.S. college education still pays for itself in the form of higher wages in the decades to come, according to a new research paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

https://cupe.ca/returns-investment-education

Returns on investment in education

These higher earnings also translate to higher tax revenues, so governments benefit as well. Those with higher education are less likely to be unemployed, to be laid off, to depend on government transfers, and more likely to have a workplace pension

https://www.epi.org/publication/states-education-productivity-growth-foundations/

A Well-Educated Workforce Is Key to State Prosperity

Major findings of this report include the following:

Overwhelmingly, high-wage states are states with a well-educated workforce. There is a clear and strong correlation between the educational attainment of a state’s workforce and median wages in the state.

States can build a strong foundation for economic success and shared prosperity by investing in education. Providing expanded access to high quality education will not only expand economic opportunity for residents, but also likely do more to strengthen the overall state economy than anything else a state government can do.

Cutting taxes to capture private investment from other states is a race-to-the-bottom state economic development strategy that undermines the ability to invest in education.

States can increase the strength of their economies and their ability to grow and attract high-wage employers by investing in education and increasing the number of well-educated workers.

Investing in education is also good for state budgets in the long run, since workers with higher incomes contribute more through taxes over the course of their lifetimes.



And Benjamin Franklin who famously said......and retweeted by none other than the #1 fan of the uneducated back in 2014...

Link to tweet

[wasupaloopa]

11. I am talking about the money you have to spend to bring it about.

An investment means putting your money up front.

You invest in hopes to get a good return. You don’t get the return unless you spend and you have no real idea where the money to spend comes from.

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. Of course, the investment would have to be made, like Sanders proposals.

I just take issue with perpetrating the idea that it is unaffordable. That American taxpayers can't afford to hand out free tuition,or forgive debts. How can we possibly pay for it?!!! When in fact an educated young work force helps boost economies. And if there were more students going on to higher education because it was now affordable, its a boom for the future of the country. It pays for itself whether it is invested in by the students that can afford it, or if the government invests in it for the student that can't.


These higher earnings also translate to higher tax revenues, so governments benefit as well. Those with higher education are less likely to be unemployed, to be laid off, to depend on government transfers, and more likely to have a workplace pension


Its more like we pay for a cake mix now, and we can eat many cakes from it later.


The problem you raise is one of communication. Of people understanding how it would work. Its like a sure bet stock. Its proven over and over by other governments investments in education. But yeah, you won't see a return immediately. The same is true of Medicare for All, single payer. Eventually all medical spending costs would go down, for citizens, and government. But the initial investments to get it up and running, the dealing with layed off employees of insurance firms, the dealing with those that are benefiting from the current system, rich doctors and hospitals that would resist caps on profits.

And maybe its impossible now. Everyone wants it now or never. And the Republican party would be fighting it every day with their messaging about not being able to afford it. That's the problem with these types of investments for the future. All the politicians are primarily working for the next four years at a time. So doing the opposite - cutting public education, will actually boost the State treasury in the short term, which they can use to get re-elected.

I don't know how you can convince people to think about the future, their kids, grandkids success. Or the future economic success of the country. Everyone is in it for me me me, now now now. I'm just saying that if you COULD it would pay off tenfold. Maybe too many Americans would not be able to grasp that concept. Especially with GOP lawmakers and RW media telling them how "wasteful" the idea was.

But just because its hard and seemingly impossible, should not mean that candidates for office should not present the idea, because its a sound idea, and would be great for the country going forward, all things considered.

[Farmer-Rick]

28. No one asks who pays for it when the capitalist kings get a tax cut.

No one asks who pays for it when we use 21% of our GDP to pay for a military, more than any other country on earth.

No one asks who pays when the richest corporations in the world pay less taxes than you or me.

No one asks who pays for it when corporations wipe out our pensions and health care just because they can.

No one asks who pays for it when we charge over 6% on student loans but charge corporations less than 1%.

No one asks who pays for it when we give crazy religions tax free money.

No one asks who pays for it when we lock up babies in cages and let them die from the flu.

But hey we really need to find out who pays for it any time this government does something for the shrunken middle class and huge group of poverty stricken Americans just because.

[wasupaloopa]

32. Nobody asks because they don't want the truth to be known.

The poor and middle class pay for it while losing necessities !

[Farmer-Rick]

33. So true.

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2019, 07:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Another poster posed the question is it moral for our government to impose poverty on us.

We have the means in this country to lift everyone out of poverty. But we have to have our capitalist kings. We can't have both.

[gtar100]

2. The military itself is operated on a socialist model.

Government owns property and things, workers own nothing but are cared for by the state during their time of service (afterwards is a whole other story). All this talk of "socialism bad" is only indicative of people who don't really know anything about it, other than the hyperbole they soak up.

[oldsoftie]

5. Not Socialist at all. Service is voluntary & not mandated by the government.

Not to mention the varied pay & other benefit options. Private companies also "own property & things", the workers own nothing. But they get PAID.

[LiberalLovinLug]

9. It is funded in a Socialist model

The same way health care is funded in other countries. You are not mandated to have to see a doctor either. But its paid for if you need it. Funded by tax payers. Like a giant pool of contributors to even out the cost.

Private companies primary purpose is to make money. Make a profit. The Armed Services primary role is not to make money, it is to protect the country as a whole. Now ouside contractors may make profits, and that gouging is another topic, but people whose taxes are going to fund the military would not want to hear that a large chunk of it was to pay shareholders and the CEO and executives massive salaries. You'd want all of your tax money to go towards military needs. And by pooling your money (ie Socialism) the government gets better deals.

If each army base had to find a factory and order their own replacement uniforms, as an example, the total cost to taxpayers would be astronomical. Instead the federal government may order new unis for one whole military department from one large supplier, in order to get the best deal. Same as a fire department. If it were not publicly funded by the whole city, by individual taxpayers living in different regions, and was privatized, and rich neighbourhoods could pay more, and poorer ones could not pay at all, I wonder which neighbourhoods would get all the attention? That is the principle behind publicly funded institutions versus private enterprise. Each have their place in a mixed system like ours.

[gtar100]

16. Model....modeled /like/ it. Not /is/ socialist.

Getting pay is not an indicator of "not socialism". Do you know of any of the European socialist countries not paying their workers? Or anywhere for that matter? Or that the pay is the same for everyone? Of course not. There are many misconceptions about what socialism is, likely because there are many forms of it and is the current boogyman of the defenders of American capitalism. It's neither a one-size-fits-all proposition nor an all-or-nothing deal.

As for the military, the government provides housing, health care, jobs and many of the basic necessities of life. Nobody personally owns any part of the military, it's collectively owned by everyone. Rise in the ranks is based on merit, not ownership, wealth or birthright. The US military shines as a successful (albeit, expensive) example of a system that has many similarities to socialism. It has parallels, that's the point...not that it is fully socialist.

And yes, it's voluntary...that has nothing to do with the comparison. Even when it's not, that's beside the point.

[oldsoftie]

17. The European countries are not true Socialist countries. And we refuse to use funding as they do.

Even Denmarks PM made it a point to tell everyone they are NOT a Socialist country. And no one here will fund programs with a sales tax like the EU countries do. We are too focused on the fallacy that simply taxing the 1% will raise enough money. it wont. It wont even come close. While i'm not a fan of Sanders, he's the only candidate who admits that middle class taxes would also have to be raised.

[calguy]

3. If it sounds too good to be true.......

It most certainly is. In my lifetime every Democratic who was able to take a message like this into a national election got beaten, and beaten badly.
Better to push for attainable goals the majority of the population will support. For starters, repeal the huge tax cut trump gave to the wealthy. One of the main reasons Bill Clinton and the republicans in Congress at the time were able to balance the budget was because one of the first things he did as President was rescind part of the Reagan tax cuts. This gave the government enough money coming in to actually work on a balanced budget. Unless the revenue is coming in, none of these programs can ever get off the ground.

[colsohlibgal]

7. Bernie Is Right

Over time suddenly taxing the rich is a radical lefty idea. Eisenhower would be shocked with that mantra.

Do that and take a whack at the bloated black hole that is the Defense Budget.

We might get to these steps if we went to public funding of elections and would axe the con game that is the Electoral College......oh and reinstated the long standing Fairness Doctrine.....which would be the end of Fox News.

[Thekaspervote]

14. He may be right.. unfortunately it is not a winning platform. We would flat out loose

[corbettkroehler]

24. Because Trump's Healthcare Record Is Stellar (n/t)

[LanternWaste]

26. I doubt that's the "because." But certainly hold onto it if it feeds a craving narrative...

[Gothmog]

12. A letter to the editor???

[Uncle Joe]

13. and a good one too.

[Gothmog]

15. Not really

There were no facts or real numbers cited. It is hard to say that a policy is worth it until you really know the costs.

[oldsoftie]

18. And nobody wants to admit real costs or plans that raise real money. nt

[Gothmog]

21. That has become very obvious

[SidDithers]

19. Scraping the barrel a bit, eh?...nt

Sid

[Gothmog]

20. I was amused by this

The barrel is very empty

[NYMinute]

23. It's a new tactic

First write a letter to the editor and then spread it via message boards and social media.

It is not nefarious but shows desperation.

[Gothmog]

30. After alienating regular mainstream media, letters to the editor is all sanders has to offer

[lapucelle]

29. I wonder if the MO letter writer ever thought of working hard to put a Democrat in the statehouse.

Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo managed to pass tuition free state university, a $15/hr minimum wage, one of the best paid family leave laws in the country, gender pay parity, and the codification of Roe v Wade into state law.
And he did it with a Republican state senate, all the while fielding insults from those who called him "a centrist incrementalist".

Pipe dreams are nice...but give me a Democrat who gets thing done.

[NYMinute]

22. People are going to see their 401Ks sink

as mutual funds are taxed to pay for the expensive programs whose benefits are dubious.

Most of the trades are done by mutual funds. Rich people are corporations don't trade much.

[katmondoo]

27. I am not a Sanders fan, can't forgive him the way he treated Hillary and helped give us Trump

[Gothmog]

31. Same here

sanders will not be the nominee of the party. Too many real democrats have good memories and will not forget or forgive

[oasis]

34. +1