Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion

Well, the WSJ apparently used some numbers by an economist, twisted them around and made a "hit piece". That economist has spoken out and said that we would actually save $5 trillion over 10 years.

I don't understand how that works thought. We spend 15 trillion but save 5 trillion? It's really late here and I should be sleeping. I'll dig into this tomorrow...

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Macroeconomics is sort of like voodoo in the hands of someone with an agenda to push. For example, some economists presented the Bush tax cuts as part of the "expenditures" of the government. Now this is a pretty difficult one to wrap your teeth around where I'm concerned because economics simply aren't intended to work that way. Unfortunately, the business world has latched onto this, too... Each business sets a specific profit goal, say 15%, when they do their fiscal year planning. When they sign a contract, they book the money alongside a 15% profit. If, at the end of the contract, they only made 10% profit, that contract is considered a loss because they booked it at 15%. It's fairly asinine and, sadly, it's one of those economic fiascos which can be directly traced to the government "counting their chickens before they hatch," opening the door for legal arguments to permit corporations to do the same thing.

Another one which really irks me is this phantom concept of counting expenses on the federal level by how much less outfall they produce while standing alone. This WSJ issue seems to be a case of that. The $18 Trillion is considered an initial investment and, thus, not counted as a direct cost of the program. That $18 Trillion leads to $5 trillion less spending than would occur IF NO INITIAL $18 TRILLION IS SPENT.

In my work, I do a lot of life cycle cost analysis for engineering projects which includes factoring in opportunity costs, the present value of money vs future value, and even discount rates for future reclamation values which are absolutely made up and never work out to be anywhere near what they are legally allowed to be presented as in present time.
Very simplistic example:
You have a bridge that needs repairs. Retrofitting the existing bridge will cost $800,000. Replacing the bridge entirely will cost $5,000,000. Through economic voodoo and various legal and defensible assumptions related to interest rates, and net present values, I can make that $5,000,000 bridge cheaper over its 30 year design life than the $800,000 retrofit. The end analysis can very easily be generated to show that after 30 years the present day value of all the future repairs, upgrades, and zero assumed salvage value of the retrofitted bridge equals a more sizeable cost than paying $5 Mil today to demolish the bridge and start from scratch. I've noticed the CBO does this alot and, depending on which side of the aisle is directing the analysis, the results of analyzing the same programs can be 180 degree opposite results from each other.

a reply to: Metallicus

It's the fgss (free government stuff syndrome). People really believe if it comes from the govt it's free but we know it has a price tag and someone had to pay. Socialists use the class warfare rhetoric of making the rich pay their fair share but we know it's always the middle class who suffer. The higher the price tag the more inflation we get from printing money bcause face it it's not affordable no matter how much they guilt us. The value of the dollar goes down and our purchasing power does too. Do we have to have abysmal fairer and chaos before the lesson is learned?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Capital gains means they pay taxes just so everyone here understands that and so do middle class with retirement funds invested in mutual funds

a reply to: MystikMushroom
Oh really how are those investments taxed differently oh yes Capital Gains which the average Joe without investments or a small business never sees!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: babybunnies
ATS, you're losing your long term users who remember fondly when this was a CONSPIRACY THEORY site.

The current politics of manufacturing a big ass class war to mask the fact that there is a protected group of kept voters intended to ensure the Meal Ticket is not voted against is possibly the largest conspiracy out there today.

. Totally agree with you

And what change have u done after voting for OBAMA or u thought you only had to vote once and everything will be allright. a reply to: Bennyzilla

Don't worry about this ignoranus racist.

They are on their way out but not without a kick or two.
reply to: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Metallicus

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders is proposing new programs that would amount to the largest peacetime expansion of government in modern U.S. history. (WSJ-subscription)

WSJ



So, Bernie Sanders plans to more than DOUBLE the national debt. His programs are not realistic and simply cannot be executed without absolutely destroying the American economy. How anyone believes he can accomplish his ideas or that he will even try is beyond me. He is full of hot air.



There simply is no way this country can afford Bernie Sanders.

I wonder if anyone ever calculates the increased taxes which will be generated by any of these programs?
It would seem this could be figured in as again since the increase in consumer spending would bring about an increase in tax revenue to the governments - ie: federal, state, and local combined.

These could be substancial numbers over time.

We know spending doesnt help.............listen to your dumb self for a second. Really, Really, what is wrong with your brain.
a reply to: greencmp

I know Americans are adverse to the term "socialism". It's already here and it's called corporate welfare.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I know Americans are adverse to the term "socialism". It's already here and it's called corporate welfare.

One aspect of it, yes. It is related to protectionism which attempts to assist one group usually at the expense of another group, intentionally or not.

It can manifest itself in the form of actual subsidy, punitive tariffs or market access.

a reply to: greencmp

Well, these corporations like Walmart can pay low wages and slash hours, and their employees then qualify for all these hand outs. If Walmart paid more and allowed full-time hours, these people wouldn't qualify for any kind of federal assistance.

I'm not sure how much that would save the average taxpayer if fewer people were on assistance, as it seems those programs don't cost near what the defense budget or other expenditures do. But it's a start...and in turn, those employees would have more cash to put back into the economy, buying more food and other things. That money would come from their paychecks, and not the governments back pocket.

I think that's one area we could look at trying to tweak.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I know Americans are adverse to the term "socialism". It's already here and it's called corporate welfare.

Yup, and I'm 100% opposed to that, too. Just because we've made a horrible mistake with that doesn't mean we should make further mistakes by throwing even more money around wildly.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

But how would you force private companies like Walmart to pay more and guarantee full time?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: greencmp

Well, these corporations like Walmart can pay low wages and slash hours, and their employees then qualify for all these hand outs. If Walmart paid more and allowed full-time hours, these people wouldn't qualify for any kind of federal assistance.

I'm not sure how much that would save the average taxpayer if fewer people were on assistance, as it seems those programs don't cost near what the defense budget or other expenditures do. But it's a start...and in turn, those employees would have more cash to put back into the economy, buying more food and other things. That money would come from their paychecks, and not the governments back pocket.

I think that's one area we could look at trying to tweak.

I'm still trying to figure out how to best lay out what I see (or assume ) without glossing over any possible holes or weaknesses in the economic theory that explains the overall benefit of free trade and the inescapable and inordinate harm caused by interventionist policies.

I don't really think "stock boy" wages ever qualified as "living" anyway so the question is moot. The attempts to manipulate the marketplace have resulted in fewer working hours (among other things).

In the Walmart analogy, I think there are really two issues at play, questions of monopoly and trade barriers.