********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************

> On Feb 11, 2020, at 6:40 PM, John Reimann <1999wild...@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.”

https://prospect.org/politics/austerity-pete-buttigieg-deficit-economic-policy/
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to