Dem Candidates Call For More Than $200 Trillion in Spending
Democratic candidates for the 2020 nomination have promised more than $210 trillion in new spending across the field, analysis by the Washington Free Beacon shows.
Of the 26 declared candidates‚ÄĒincluding Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) who dropped out earlier this month‚ÄĒmost have put enormous new government programs front and center in their campaigns. Totaling up these proposals gives taxpaying voters a sense of the budget priorities of the average Democratic candidate.
That overall figure is an undercount, as it is based only on proposals for which the Free Beacon could identify actual spending estimates. The true figure is much larger. For example, Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I., Vt.) Medicare for All proposal is included, while Sen. Kamala Harris's (D., Calif.) is not, because no cost assessment for the latter could be identified....
George Will as always interesting, had some comments on big spenders
George Will wrote: .... The "party of science," as Democrats advertise themselves, is not the party of arithmetic. Many Democrats, however, think budgetary arithmetic has been rendered irrelevant by "modern monetary theory," which says:
A government that controls its money supply need never run short of it, and spending can substantially surpass government revenues as long as interest rates remain low. So, government, especially if it can strongly influence interest rates, is largely liberated from the essence of the human condition: scarcity. Hence everything is affordable.
Republicans ridicule this while practicing it. The recent bipartisan budget deal increases spending $320 billion over two years, which USA Today notes is, on an annualized basis, much bigger than Barack Obama's 10-year stimulus package of about $800 billion....
--"Are some of these Dem candidates trying to lose?"
Robert Reich wrote: I keep hearing that the Democratic party has moved ‚Äúleft‚ÄĚ and that some Democratic candidates may be ‚Äútoo far left‚ÄĚ.
But in this era of unprecedented concentration of wealth and political power at the top, I can‚Äôt help wondering what it means to be ‚Äúleft‚ÄĚ.
A half-century ago, when America had a large and growing middle class, those on the ‚Äúleft‚ÄĚ sought stronger social safety nets and more public investment in schools, roads and research. Those on the ‚Äúright‚ÄĚ sought greater reliance on the free market.
But as wealth and power have concentrated at the top, everyone else ‚Äď whether on the old right or the old left ‚Äď has become disempowered and less secure.
Safety nets have unraveled, public investments have waned and the free market has been taken over by crony capitalism and corporate welfare cheats. Washington and state capitals are overwhelmed by money coming from the super-rich, Wall Street and big corporations.
So why do we continue to hear and use the same old ‚Äúright‚ÄĚ and ‚Äúleft‚ÄĚ labels?...
--"America‚Äôs Real Divide Isn‚Äôt Left vs. Right. It‚Äôs Democracy vs. Oligarchy."
Bread and circuses is all they proposed. As I have said before, Obamacare put retired teachers in more bankruptcy court than any other government plans. The only way demoncratic socialism to work is to destroy the middle class. I for one am not going to go along with a plan that suits the wealthy, destroys the middle class and elevates 20 year olds from the back seat of mama‚Äôs suburban to driving us into civil war.
Ryan Teague Beckwith wrote: .... Even some of the generic Democratic plans have trillion-dollar price tags. The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, has proposals for expanding Medicare and improving infrastructure that cost at least $1 trillion.
(Note that these plans count spending over as much as a 10-year period.)... .... ‚ÄúAmbitious plans are going to have ambitious price tags,‚ÄĚ said Mark Schmitt, director of the political reform program at the New America Foundation. ‚ÄúThey‚Äôre going to get bashed exactly the same no matter what. If you came up with a health care plan that cost a mere $50 billion, it would get beat up in exactly the same way, so you might as well get it out there now.‚ÄĚ...
excerpt from, "Democrats Are No Longer Afraid of a Trillion-Dollar Price Tag. Here's Why"
A trillion here and a trillion there soon adds up to big money
The Democratic party is based off a age old problem people have been playing since the begining...
Why work for something when you can just vote for someone who will take from someone else for you. These Democratic candidates know all they are promising won't happen, but they also know if they play the "free stuff" card with a world filled with sinners their bound to get somewhere...
Spendthrift politicians are elected by spendthrift voters.
Calvin Coolidge predicted that after Hoover (whom he didn't like), a Democrat would get elected and they would spend money "like water" since "Democrats don't understand money." In hindsight, that proved an understatement, though not restricted to Democrats.
BTW, Coolidge was much more "activist" as Mass. Governor than as President. He understood Federalism.