I'd vote for him if he turned out to be a serial rapistLiterally nothing would ever make me not vote for Bernie tbh
mad cause Bernie is going to win
Quote from: Carsonogen on September 15, 2015, 04:07:14 PMmad cause Bernie is going to wincant stump the trump
Quote from: โญโญโญโญSandtrap on September 15, 2015, 11:19:47 AMWell. The states are already in massive debt that they'll never pay off anyway. Just about every country is, really.Credit is how the economy runs. You don't say a homeless man is richer than a college grad because the homeless man has 0 net worth while the college student is in debt.
Well. The states are already in massive debt that they'll never pay off anyway. Just about every country is, really.
Just want to point out that I haven't read the article in the OP, nor have I read this one:https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/?postshare=4311442369518137
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 15, 2015, 10:21:40 PMJust want to point out that I haven't read the article in the OP, nor have I read this one:https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/?postshare=4311442369518137I didn't read the OP, but it this basically confirmed what I thought. It's not in additional expenses, it's just rearranging how we pay for what we already have for the most part.The WSJ is once again trying to influence the debate with misleading clickbait titles it looks like.
It's not in additional expenses
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8143062Thoughts, Meta?
It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.
"As with Senator Sanders' other proposals, the economic boom created by HR 676, including the productivity boost coming from a more efficient health care system and a healthier population, would raise economic output and provide billions of dollars in additional tax revenues to over-set some of the additional federal spending."This is a great example of why everyone should be cautious about dynamic models.Maybe Bernie's health plan will improve productivity so much it pays for itself.Maybe Jeb's tax plan will improve productivity so much it pays for itself.Neither are especially likely. Budget projections shouldn't include wacky magics.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 17, 2015, 02:23:47 PMhttp://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8143062Thoughts, Meta?Just sent that article to a couple of economists from various fields; had a reply from one in behavioural: Quote"As with Senator Sanders' other proposals, the economic boom created by HR 676, including the productivity boost coming from a more efficient health care system and a healthier population, would raise economic output and provide billions of dollars in additional tax revenues to over-set some of the additional federal spending."This is a great example of why everyone should be cautious about dynamic models.Maybe Bernie's health plan will improve productivity so much it pays for itself.Maybe Jeb's tax plan will improve productivity so much it pays for itself.Neither are especially likely. Budget projections shouldn't include wacky magics.
I'm so out of touch with economics these days that all that empty jargon didn't even register. I just accepted it as legitimate.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 17, 2015, 04:08:36 PMI'm so out of touch with economics these days that all that empty jargon didn't even register. I just accepted it as legitimate.Basically Friedman is just assuming it will pay for itself without substantial evidence.
Oh, I meant Friedman's explanation.
Bernie Sanders' price tag? $18 trillion over a decade
