The Cost of Bernie: $18 Trillion How is this surprising?

Markle wrote:I already posted the link to the article in the Wall Street Journal.

I see where your and the other far left Progressives still have a difficult time with reading much less comprehension.

Still no viable responses from my good friends on the far, far left.

They love the SPENDING, and beg for treats like cute little puppies!

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/32447-focus-the-wall-street-journals-18-trillion-dollar-lie-about-bernie

The Wall Street Journal's $18 Trillion Dollar Lie About Bernie


By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page
17 September 15


I've had so many calls about an article appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal -- charging that Bernie Sanders’s 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) Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would 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 Bernie’s agenda—tuition-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, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re 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.

Your thoughts?

My thghts are that robert reich is a hardcore soros leftist that has long ago blown any credibility he may have had.

He said exactly what I have posted. First, you have to give accurate costs of what we are doing now. Then you make a comparison of actual savings. I do not trust his 10 trillion savings any more than I trust the 18 trillion additional costs. What I do trust is that Americans will be better off, our system will be fair and efficient, and our investments in infrastructure will grow our GDP. I would guess that I have disagreements with both the President's and Bernie's tuition free college.....strong disagreements, but we do need drastic reforms in student loans and reduction of costs in tuition, and increased minimum wage to make college affordable again for middle class kids.

Bernie's plan will save America money. I think the evidence is clear. How much is a fair debate, but it will NOT add costs because our present medical delivery system is a cluster F.