So What Does All The Free Stuff Democrats Are Promising Actually Cost?

[LuckyNed]

http://www.hannity.com/onair/the-sean-hannity-show-55176/so-what-does-all-the-free-14037944/


If we learned anything from Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, it’s that the candidates have no issues with spending money America doesn’t have.

“The race last night was to see who’s going to give away the most free stuff,” Sean noted on Wednesday’s radio show. “The only problem is nothing is ever free.”

So just how "not free" are Democratic proposals?

By far the biggest spender last night was Bernie Sander. The Vermont Senator’s proposals, according to the Wall Street Journal, would cost the American taxpayer upwards of $18 Trillion over 10 years

Here’s how Bernie’s agenda breaks down:

Medicare For All: $15 Trillion

Increased Social Security Benefits: $1.2 Trillion

Infrastructure Spending: $1 Trillion

“College For Everyone” Proposal: $750 Billion

Paid family and Medical Leave Fund: $319 Billion

Private Pension Funds Proposal: $29 Billion

Youth Jobs Initiative: $5.5 Billion

Total Estimated Cost of the Sanders Agenda: $18 Trillion

Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton has also proposed hundreds of billions in new spending. Her plan to make college more affordable, for example, will cost taxpayers an estimated $350 Billion dollars over the course of 10 years.

Of course, Democrats will promise that “the wealthy” will pay for their proposals. However, analysis shows that taxing the top 10% of households would not even close the existing budget gap.

Who’s going to cover the shortfall? Democrats didn't mention that.

Hint? The middle class will pay, they always do!!

 

[moral_victory]

The WSJ article you are citing already got debunked a while ago. The article was essentially an attempted hit piece.

 

[LuckyNed]

The WSJ article you are citing already got debunked a while ago. The article was essentially an attempted hit piece.

No, it was not.

 

[moral_victory]

Go practice Google.

 

[Huey Grey]

No, it was not.

Um, yeah, it was:

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18418/bernie-sanders-budget-wall-street-journal

 

[naturalmwa]

Um, yeah, it was:

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18418/bernie-sanders-budget-wall-street-journal

So after you realize we are substituting 15 trillion for the 28 trillion the private insurance cost we end up with a 13 trillion dollar stimulus package too. #ThanksBernie

 

[TexMichFan]

http://www.hannity.com/onair/the-sean-hannity-show-55176/so-what-does-all-the-free-14037944/


If we learned anything from Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, it’s that the candidates have no issues with spending money America doesn’t have.

“The race last night was to see who’s going to give away the most free stuff,” Sean noted on Wednesday’s radio show. “The only problem is nothing is ever free.”

So just how "not free" are Democratic proposals?

By far the biggest spender last night was Bernie Sander. The Vermont Senator’s proposals, according to the Wall Street Journal, would cost the American taxpayer upwards of $18 Trillion over 10 years

Here’s how Bernie’s agenda breaks down:

Medicare For All: $15 Trillion

Increased Social Security Benefits: $1.2 Trillion

Infrastructure Spending: $1 Trillion

“College For Everyone” Proposal: $750 Billion

Paid family and Medical Leave Fund: $319 Billion

Private Pension Funds Proposal: $29 Billion

Youth Jobs Initiative: $5.5 Billion

Total Estimated Cost of the Sanders Agenda: $18 Trillion

Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton has also proposed hundreds of billions in new spending. Her plan to make college more affordable, for example, will cost taxpayers an estimated $350 Billion dollars over the course of 10 years.

Of course, Democrats will promise that “the wealthy” will pay for their proposals. However, analysis shows that taxing the top 10% of households would not even close the existing budget gap.

Who’s going to cover the shortfall? Democrats didn't mention that.

Hint? The middle class will pay, they always do!!

It is not going to cost anything because if Hillary wins this is not what she is going to do.

 

[SCHawkFan]

It does not matter. What is promised during a campaign is never delivered once the winning candidate takes office. We all know it is a big game played by both sides. We really just need to vote for the candidate we find least irritating to listen to in the event they are representing to country for the next four or eight years.

 

[moral_victory]

It does not matter. What is promised during a campaign is never delivered once the winning candidate takes office. We all know it is a big game played by both sides. We really just need to vote for the candidate we find least irritating to listen to in the event they are representing to country for the next four or eight years.

Being a strong grassroots candidate like Sanders would probably excite some change, and he would probably be calling congress to task publicly. I also find him the least irritating to listen to.

 

[LuckyNed]

Taxpayers take it on the chin again.

 

[naturalmwa]

Taxpayers take it on the chin again.

Admit it. That's sort of a turn on.

 

[aflachawk]

The reason the Dems did not do this with ACA Is because the votes were not there( even from Dems) For a single payer system. Americans are simply not ready at this point. One of the big mysteries to me is how committed dems can see failure after failure with big government but keep thinking even bigger government is the solution to any thing

 

[joelbc1]

The reason the Dems did not do this with ACA Is because the votes were not there( even from Dems) For a single payer system. Americans are simply not ready at this point. One of the big mysteries to me is how committed dems can see failure after failure with big government but keep thinking even bigger government is the solution to any thing

The Dems wanted and the GOP refused any sort of a mandatory public option to ACA. THAT would have made ACA an unqualified success. It's a lot of what Nixon and Congress agreed to decades ago but the plan the Ted Kennedy got greedy with and blew up//////Admitted by Kennedy to be the biggest political plunder of his career.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Being a strong grassroots candidate like Sanders would probably excite some change, and he would probably be calling congress to task publicly. I also find him the least irritating to listen to.

Bernie is not a "grassroots" candidate. He's been in congress for how long? He's part of the machine.

 

[moral_victory]

Bernie is not a "grassroots" candidate. He's been in congress for how long? He's part of the machine.

Grassroots probably wasn't a good exacting term.

 

[22*43*51]

The WSJ article you are citing already got debunked a while ago. The article was essentially an attempted hit piece.

So what is the actual price tag for all that "free" stuff?

 

[The Tradition]

Okay, something called "www.inthesetimes.com" is more credible than the Wall Street Journal?

Really???

 

[ottumwan in tx]

The reason the Dems did not do this with ACA Is because the votes were not there( even from Dems) For a single payer system. Americans are simply not ready at this point. One of the big mysteries to me is how committed dems can see failure after failure with big government but keep thinking even bigger government is the solution to any thing

they did not care about votes and what the people want, they went around the system and got the supreme court to bless it, and Obama bribed lawmakers in Louisiana and nebraska

 

[moral_victory]

So what is the actual price tag for all that "free" stuff?

Like tree fitty

 

[joelbc1]

Bernie is not a "grassroots" candidate. He's been in congress for how long? He's part of the machine.

LOL! That's why he caucuses with Maine's Angus King...who have chosen to caucus w/ the Dems. Both these guys are "machine men" through and through. Gimme a break.