Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumReich: WSJ's claim of $18T price tag "entirely bogus"
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1073054849373777:0I've had so many calls about an article appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal -- charging that Bernie Sanderss proposals would carry a price tag of $18 trillion over a 10-year period -- that it's necessary to respond.
The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:
(1) Bernies proposals would cost less than what wed spend without them. Most of the cost the Journal comes up with$15 trillionwould pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. (Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).
(2) The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernies agendatuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.
(3) Many of these other costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families -- for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.
(4) Finally, Bernies proposed spending on education and infrastructure arent really spending at all, but investments in the nations future productivity. If we dont make them, were all poorer.
That Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie's status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 764 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (22)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Reich: WSJ's claim of $18T price tag "entirely bogus" (Original Post)
tex-wyo-dem
Sep 2015
OP
An entirely bogus right wing talking point repeated on DU by Hillary fans
Cheese Sandwich
Sep 2015
#2
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)1. Kicked and recommended! "entirely bogus"
We knew that!
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)2. An entirely bogus right wing talking point repeated on DU by Hillary fans
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)3. No flipp'n way!
Bizarro World strikes again.
merrily
(45,251 posts)4. The economist whose analysis the WSJ misused has weighed in, saying Sanders' plan will save $5.08
trillion. Now Reich. I'll be interested to see if and how Krugman weighs in. I don't share the opinion of him most DUers seem to have.