[Marxism] 2020 - Sanders Takes Top Spot In Dem Quinnipiac University Connecticut

MM marxmail00 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 11 21:40:54 MST 2020

> On Feb 11, 2020, at 6:40 PM, John Reimann <1999wildcat at gmail.com> wrote:
> If MMT is the basis for Sanders' claim that his health care program (plus paying for student debt and a host of other programs) can all be paid for, then I don't find his claim credible. Since there evidently are no other more concrete plans to pay for these programs, then I think a large dose of skepticism is justified.

Holy shit — even American Prospect has figured out that the demand for balanced budgets and “how-do-you-pay-for-its” is a red herring:

“Buttigieg settles on deficit hawkery as a closing argument in New Hampshire. It’s hard to think of a school of political thought with less credibility and less popularity.


"PPI has lambasted Bernie Sanders for his Medicare for All proposal, claiming it leaves a $25 trillion shortfall, and praised Buttigieg for being the only candidate with more deficit-reducing offsets than new spending proposals. (For what it’s worth, Buttigieg’s health care vision would be more costly than Sanders’s in terms of overall national health expenditures, proving further that this is an ideological mission above all.) CRFB, meanwhile, has pivoted between praising Trump’s proposed cuts to Social Security and lamenting that they aren’t bigger.

"Both groups have advanced a deficit scaremongering approach that has consistently failed the burden of proof. We’re running a real-time experiment about the dangers of runaway deficits, but despite the best apocalypse-predicting efforts, interest rates haven’t soared and inflation hasn’t spiraled. CRFB and PPI are part of the crowd who have predicted dire outcomes from deficits for a decade, and they have spent a decade being incorrect. There was no natural rate of unemployment, no government “crowding out” private spending, and no inflationary spiral. They were completely, utterly mistaken. Somehow these are Buttigieg’s go-to fiscal policy shops.

“Perhaps the reason that deficit hawkery is unpopular is not because of a lack of political derring-do, as Buttigieg says, but because it’s flat-out wrong. And if it’s bad economics, it’s even worse political messaging, especially in the run-up to the general election against a Trump administration that has already spent twice as much public money on farm bailouts as Obama spent to save the auto industry. Obama’s too-soon pivot to deficit reduction stunted the recovery and may have contributed to Trump’s rise; that any Democrat would want to rerun that playbook beggars belief.”


More information about the Marxism mailing list