Home | About | Donate

Bernie Sanders Easily Wins the Policy Debate


Bernie Sanders Easily Wins the Policy Debate

Jeffrey D. Sachs

Mainstream U.S. economists have criticized Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s proposals as unworkable, but these economists betray the status quo bias of their economic models and professional experience. It’s been decades since the United States had a progressive economic strategy, and mainstream economists have forgotten what one can deliver. In fact, Sanders’s recipes are supported by overwhelming evidence — notably from countries that already follow the policies he advocates. On health care, growth and income inequality, Sanders wins the policy debate hands down.


In those measurements on health care spending per capita, I doubt interest payments on loans made to pay for the same are factored in. In other words the differences between the USA and other nations is likely greater yet.

As example there that veteran win the USA who had to borrow from a payday loan company some 2500$$ to pay for the costs of his wife having broken her ankle paying back some 50000 in interest. I doubt that a one off and I doubt the $50000 is counted as health care spending.

Edit adding the link



Not to mention that medical bills continue to be the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US...factor those costs in !


It's not really necessary to read these things. Bernie speaks the truth, and doesn't have to second guess what he said.


Although the media never stops applying the Powell Doctrine, ,painting Sanders as a radical, if you list the planks in his platform next to those of FDR, JFK and LBJ, there are few differences, None of those presidents were considered radicals.


That sounds like it would be worth bringing to the attention of Wasserman-Schultz


The Washington Post has an article favorable to Bernie?

What's going on?


Of course Paul Ryan and the Tea Party people have a somewhat different view on economic policy and they control the House of Representatives. So what would a compromise look like? Oh wait, the Tea Party doesn't compromise. They live with sequesters even if it means cutting back money from the one part of government they would like to see grow, the military. No matter who wins the debate the final outcome is polarization.


Thank you, Mr. Sachs... another intelligent, insightful writer who can connect a lot of dots and show the intersections between a number of policies (and what fuels them).

Right on!


Saturday Night live is not alone in featuring some excellent impressionists.

Since California is the land of Hollywood (albeit, most of its notables support Clinton), it would make for some wonderfully colorful "theater," if Sanders debated a faux Trump and a faux Clinton.

Jimmy Fallon does a good Trump, and I don't recall the name of the new SNL cast member (she's amazingly versatile) who does a terrific Clinton.

Here's a clip as example:

Senator Sanders can say that since the entire pre-election run-up has been a borderline joke and charade, and no one dares to debate him, he'll have to use surrogates...


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Yes. Well said. Yet now is a time to be careful about growth plans.

Medicare for all is also a big time money maker. It creates money because healthy people are more imaginative and productive and don't spend so much on medical bills. Medicare for all is a perfect example of profitable growth in quality of life resulting from public investment in public good.

All farmers practice universal crop health care in the field for the same reason.

Humanity is learning that qualitative growth is unlimited. Will we shift from quantity to quality in time?


A plan that disregards reality is, well, unrealistic. It's impossible to "rebuild the middle class" without addressing our poverty crisis. In real life, not everyone is able to work (health, etc), and there aren't jobs for all. The US shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s. The last I heard, there are 7 jobs for every 10 jobless people who still have the means to pursue one (home address, phone, etc.). While that's certainly an improvement, what you you think happens to those who are left out?

Poverty, as much as liberals ignore it, has taken a heavy toll on the poor, as well as on the whole of the economy. (Did you know that the overall life expectancy of the US poor has fallen to around age 60 -- lower than many third world countries?)

The Dem voting base had long consisted of the proverbial masses -- poor and middle class, workers and the jobless, for the common good. This voting base is only more deeply split today. It's never wise for a party to alienate a big chunk of their voting base.


"Only the United States has deep poverty alongside soaring wealth."

I recall that back in 1995-1996 there were 100 000 homeless in Lndon alone, thanks to the Maggoting of the UK which began in 1979. In the year of discontent pre-Thatcher I recall that 1 in 10 in the UK lived in poverty. Some 13 years later, after13 years of social destruction by Thatcher's ideologically driven 1840s economic thought, that figure had become 1 in 4.

There is also soaring wealth and extreme poverty in Russia, India and China, all of which are developed industrialised nations.

However, given the "American Dream" and the USA's former wealth, now squandered on and by its military, no-one should live in poverty in the USA.


Good to share, though. You'd be surprised by how many people still think Bernie's plans are either going to "break" them financially or are not "practical."

Sad how easily misinformation spreads into "fact."


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


I cannot outthink Bernie--and I am an egotistical SOB.


:O). Funny, you don't seem like an egotistical sob. :O)