PaleRider wrote:Darkylightytwo wrote:<
A website written by conservatives, you can't call that a neutral source, nor a valid argument.
The Entire budget of the US is less then 4 trillion, there is no way someone can create a deficit of 18 trillion, even in 10 years, thatn would 1,8 trillion deficit by year, 50% of the budget
I don't believe in such sources, now I know why
CanadianEh wrote:Can I also add that Republicans are so gung ho about military spending that there would be no balanced budget. The Bush administration did nothing about debt.
The source is the highly reputable Wall Street Journal. And most of the cost comes from the massive explosion of entitlements and social services this guy is proposing. The costliest measure is his single payer healthcare system, a similar system which his home state of Vermont tried and which failed earlier this year due to higher than expected cost overruns. And this is Vermont, not exactly a conservative bastion.
Since when is Rupert Murdoch's WSJ a reputable source, or at the very least how do you claim it to be free of bias when Murdoch and his empire stand to lose so much from a potential Sanders success?
It's (yet another) hit piece not based in fact. There are plenty of other articles from equally "reputable" sources (Washington Post, which has written it's own hit pieces on Sanders) that call the WSJ piece for what it is, absolute crap.
Bernie isn't perfect, I'll grant that. I can't even say I'll vote for him if there were a general election with his name on the ticket - I just hate the Democratic Party too much. But come on, WSJ as "reputable," that's rich.
Also, for the record, as a Vermonter, the failure of single payer there was pretty much sealed as soon as Obamacare passed. That federal act (which was a terrible blow for real healthcare reform because it's more insurance company written bullshit cloaked in the language of actual reform) poisoned the waters of reform, and it also cost our state an incredible amount that would otherwise have been spent on single-payer. VT had a relatively expansive healthcare system, much preferable to many places in the US, prior to the ACA that was crippled by federal reforms. My own father was removed from the state(state as in Vermont, not federal)-subsidized health insurance program he'd been on for years and was told he had to purchase through the Exchange - a process which was both tedious and remarkably more expensive for him.