Joint Analysis| Bernie's plans will add $21 Trillion of debt

Page 1 of 2 [ 28 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

09 May 2016, 5:43 pm

Thew joint analysis of Sanders social plans, shows it will add $21 Trillion of new debt to the national debt over 10 years if enacted.
This is with his proposed tax increased enacted.

The report says he would have to raise taxes much higher if he wants to avoid the debt.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/09/bernie-s ... lysis.html

_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

09 May 2016, 6:50 pm

That's why his supporters characterize him as Robin Hood, because he promises to steal from people.

RoadRatt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 67,931
Location: Oregon

09 May 2016, 10:39 pm

Mainstream media lies about Bernie, they have also said Trump will raise debt by nearly as much.

Mainstream media can't be trusted.

Only 6% of Americans trust the media.

https://www.rt.com/usa/340124-americans ... -plummets/

A 6% trust in media. It seems to me that most people can see that corporate media is biased bulls**t.

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

Quote:

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

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/ ... greed.html

170 of America's top economists endorse Bernie's plan to reform Wall Street. That right there is the truth.

_________________
No power in the 'verse can stop me. - River Tam (Firefly)

xenocity
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

10 May 2016, 7:19 am

This has nothing to do with reigning in Greed or Wall Street.

This has to do with his social programs.

The media is only reporting the report which was done by well known and well respected DC institutions.

_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

10 May 2016, 9:18 am

xenocity wrote:

This has nothing to do with reigning in Greed or Wall Street.

Part of his tax plan is to tax stock transactions.

In his rhetoric, he is reigning in greed on Wall Street.

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

10 May 2016, 12:14 pm

The non-partisan Committee For A Responsible Budget (CFRB) made a somewhat similar analysis (which they have just updated). Fortunately, however, they haven't just looked at Bernie Sanders, but also at Trump, Clinton and (now irrelevant) Ted Cruz:

And an overview (including Kasich, but the CFRB found the details in his plan lacking):

Source:
http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/adding- ... ls-so-far/
http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/how-do- ... ar-add-up/
http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/adding- ... ls-so-far/
http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/adding- ... proposals/
http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/how-muc ... president/

Even though the shortfall of the Bernie Sanders plan is somewhat lower here ($ 2-15 Trillion compared to the $ 21 Trillion by the Tax Policy Center mentioned in the OP), it nonetheless quite obvious that Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate left in the race with an even remotely responsible economic plan for the US.

EDIT: Just noticed this overview of the debt projections for the 3 remaining candidates:

Source: http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/debt-wi ... president/

RoadRatt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 67,931
Location: Oregon

10 May 2016, 4:05 pm

Any person using even a slight bit of logic should be able to see that 170 of America's top economists wouldn't back Bernie if he were going to cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars. It's all bulls**t.

I don't see any data showing any other candidates plans being backed by America's top economists, only Sanders.

_________________
No power in the 'verse can stop me. - River Tam (Firefly)

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

10 May 2016, 4:52 pm

RoadRatt wrote:

(1) There are 19,000 economists in the US... 170 is less than 0.9 percent of that... not too impressive...
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes193011.htm#nat

(2) I actually took a look at that list of 170 Sanders-supporting economists...

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/up ... tter-1.pdf

Now, the top 10 US universities for Economics studies are... according to multiple sources... the universities of:

- Harvard
- MIT
- Stanford
- Chicago
- Princeton
- Berkeley
- Yale
- Northwestern
- Columbia
- New York University (the private one)

See here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/universi ... 13-10?IR=T
http://www.topuniversities.com/universi ... omics-2015
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... s-rankings
http://www.topuniversities.com/universi ... se+search=

There isn't complete agreement wrt. the rankings, of course, but these tend to score in the same range quite consistently...

...yet there are only two economists from either of these universities on the Sanders list: Robert Reich from Berkeley and Christine Desan from Harvard... and neither of the two are economists!

BTW, here are *actual* top economists based on their scientific output (Paul Krugman - Nobel laureate and Hillary Clinton supporter - is at 24th place):

https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.all.html

... I'm not seeing much overlap with the Sanders list...

RoadRatt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 67,931
Location: Oregon

10 May 2016, 6:28 pm

GGPViper wrote:

(1) There are 19,000 economists in the US... 170 is less than 0.9 percent of that... not too impressive...

That seems to be more than the rest of the candidates have...

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a loss of 21 trillion dollars over a four year presidency would be totally unprecedented. Therefore it is totally made up bulls**t. Not directed at anyone here but, to believe this crap you'd have to be a total moron.

_________________
No power in the 'verse can stop me. - River Tam (Firefly)

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

10 May 2016, 7:07 pm

RoadRatt wrote:

GGPViper wrote:

(1) There are 19,000 economists in the US... 170 is less than 0.9 percent of that... not too impressive...

Sanders seems genuine.

Likely he intends to raise further taxes to make up the additional 21 Trillion.

RoadRatt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 67,931
Location: Oregon

10 May 2016, 10:35 pm

Think Tank Walks Back Inaccurate Bernie Bash.

Quote:

TPC in March estimated that Sanders’s tax plan would raise $15.3 trillion over 10 years. Everyone would pay more taxes under his plan, and most of the new revenue would come from the wealthy.

The Sanders campaign complained that TPC’s tax analysis was “inaccurate and one-sided” because it did not look at the benefits people would receive from the candidate’s spending proposals.

TPC Director Len Burman told reporters that the center “thought the Sanders campaign had a point.”

The center’s latest analysis looks at who wins and who loses once Sanders’s new government benefits are taken into account as well.

TPC found that the average tax burden would increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average amount of benefits would increase by more than $13,000. As a result, households would on average receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under Sanders’s proposals, TPC said.

Households in the bottom fifth of income would on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000, and those in the middle fifth of income would have an average gain of about $8,500. Those in the top 5 percent of income would see a net loss of about $111,000, TPC said.

“We have never seen a proposal as progressive” as Sanders’s, Burman said.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/27920 ... -proposals

So back in March when it counted the most these people straight up lied about Bernie. Now that they figure it is all over for him they come out with a correction to their story.

This is the kind of crap out there people. It's all over the net. Get your news from reliable sources.

_________________
No power in the 'verse can stop me. - River Tam (Firefly)

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

11 May 2016, 4:22 am

RoadRatt wrote:

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a loss of 21 trillion dollars over a four year presidency would be totally unprecedented. Therefore it is totally made up bulls**t. Not directed at anyone here but, to believe this crap you'd have to be a total moron.

(1) Nor does it take a rocket scientist to see that the projection from the Tax Policy Center is for a Ten Year Period, not a 4-year presidency, as explicitly stated in the OP.
(2) Whether or not a policy is "unprecedented" is in itself irrelevant to its factual validity.

Roadratt wrote:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/279201-study-most-would-see-net-benefits-from-sanderss-proposals

So back in March when it counted the most these people straight up lied about Bernie. Now that they figure it is all over for him they come out with a correction to their story.

This is the kind of crap out there people. It's all over the net. Get your news from reliable sources.

(3) You are completely contradicting yourself here:

- First you criticize the TPC for estimating that Bernie Sanders' plan will have a funding shortfall of $ 21 Trillion.

- Then you criticize the TPC for not including the fact that benefits are estimated to exceed taxes in Bernie Sanders' plan back in March (as per the link you posted above).

... but the funding shortfall in Sanders' plan is due to the fact that benefits exceed taxes in his plan... which your own link even points out!

Or more specifically:

Estimated increase in outlays: $ 33.319 Trillion
Estimated increase in revenue: $ 15.278 Trillion
Estimated increase in deficit: $ 21.339 Trillion

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publicat ... osals/full (see page 7)

... So perhaps it would be prudent to check the accuracy (an internal consistency) of your own posts before referring to others as "total morons".

RoadRatt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 67,931
Location: Oregon

11 May 2016, 3:41 pm

GGPViper wrote:

Yes, I noticed my mistake after I had posted it and could no longer edit it. I knew it was for 10 years not 4, don't know why I posted 4 years.

B.S., it is very relevant. It's the freaking elephant in the room that everyone who dislikes Bernie wants to ignore. To run America that badly you would have to be a complete imbecile or running the country off a cliff on purpose. Neither of which would describe Bernie.

And yes, if you could show that a president has done this poorly in the past, and show that it was by his very own actions. Then you could show where something like this could actually happen now.

The OP article is nothing more than fear mongering.

_________________
No power in the 'verse can stop me. - River Tam (Firefly)

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

11 May 2016, 4:25 pm

RoadRatt wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

RoadRatt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 67,931
Location: Oregon

11 May 2016, 7:40 pm

GGPViper wrote:

RoadRatt wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

I'm rolling on the floor dude. It should have been obvious that it be an American president. :lol:

Or did you choose a Venezuelan president because of the ties the corporate media likes to make of Sanders to socialism?

If so, Sanders is a democratic socialist which is quite different from a true socialist.

_________________
No power in the 'verse can stop me. - River Tam (Firefly)

wowiexist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 660
Location: Dallas, TX

11 May 2016, 10:45 pm

RoadRatt wrote:

GGPViper wrote:

RoadRatt wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

I'm rolling on the floor dude. It should have been obvious that it be an American president. :lol:

So you are saying basic economics do not apply to non-American countries? Also, I read the article that you posted and it did not refute the point made by the original poster that Bernie's plan would add to the debt. It basically just said that Bernie would break up the big banks. So why do you think that the OP is wrong?

Page 1 of 2 [ 28 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

Joint Analysis| Bernie's plans will add $21 Trillion of debt Post Reply New Topic

Joint Analysis| Bernie's plans will add $21 Trillion of debt