Sanders’ economic policies aren’t adequately planned

Sanders’ economic policies aren’t adequately planned

While studying abroad this semester in Barcelona, I learned about an article praising “Sander’s sensible ideas for a better United States.” My friend, a conservative, asked me to write an article in response.

So, I put on my tinfoil hat and attempted to read the “logic” that socialists claim to have.

The article, much like Sanders’ entire political campaign, is all rhetoric without any solutions on how to pay for their ideas, including a single-payer healthcare system and free college tuition.

He’s one of those rhetorical oafs who over relies on emotion, much like a Nicholas Cage movie or Nickelback song. I’m surprised he hasn’t pulled a Howard Dean “YEARRRGH” yet.

Story continues below advertisement

It’s apparent that Sanders and his followers are never in the same room with basic economics.

A few of his many economic blunders include criticizing interest rates on student loans, capping ATM fees, and — of course — replacing the failing Obamacare with a worse-off single-payer healthcare system.

The fact that he can’t even get basic economic fundamentals right, indicates that he has no business holding any government office higher than a municipal sewage director.

The Vermont senator tweeted it’s “unacceptable” that Americans are paying nearly five dollars on every ATM transaction.

Well Sanders, many Americans really pay nothing for their ATM withdrawals. They simply use their bank’s ATM. And further, those ATMs aren’t funded by charities. Businesses need profits to pay their employees and create new jobs, and even install those ATMs.  If they can’t earn money, then they will remove their ATMs and consumers’ choices will become even more limited. Sanders’ decree would restrict consumer choice.

Clearly, Sanders does not understand profit. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp, though. Even middle-schoolers get it.

Finally, Sanders’ campaign recently detailed his healthcare plan. He wants to replace the entire healthcare system with a government-run, single-payer regime.

Sound familiar? It’s what President Obama pushed for in 2010.

Sanders would totally scrap “Obamacare”, and replace it with “Berniecare.” So what’s the cost? Let’s look at the numbers.

Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates that federal healthcare spending would total $41 trillion over a 10-year period.

This is equal to a 55 percent increase in total federal spending from 2017 to 2026.

The plan would make nearly all healthcare services free — regardless of price.

As any freshman who has been to a frat party knows, “free” means more consumption, not less.

The only way to keep costs down under single-payer is to ration and price control, as Canada has attempted to do.

After all, doctors and nurses won’t accept a pay cut that is needed to pay for their services.

Bottom line, if we adopt a single-payer system and give “free” healthcare for all, federal spending would increase by $28 trillion, on top of our $19 trillion debt. Individuals would, of course, pay far more in taxes to finance Sanders’ plan.

He will never win the nomination. Sure, Sanders won on Tuesday in New Hampshire, he had the home-field advantage. So much for “Live Free or Die.” But on the national stage, Hillary still has a double-digit lead. In order to protect Clinton’s coronation as the nominee, the DNC is doing its best to insure that as few people as possible watch the party’s own debates.

Sanders is a batty, old, self-proclaimed socialist.

He wants to make America a welfare state. Putting Sanders in the White House would put most Americans in the poor house.

He’s not interested in fixing our economy or keeping us safe. He’s interested in blaming the evil one percent for taking away everyone’s money.

When in reality, CNBC estimates they pay nearly half of federal income taxes.

Feel the Bern? Not really.   

View Comments (1)
More to Discover

Comments (1)

All Old Gold & Black Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • L

    lvtFeb 14, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    I have a couple of issues with your opinion piece.

    Firstly, your attempt to belittle an entire functional system of healthcare (try looking at medical expenses per capita in countries such as Canada) by comparing it to a frat party is bewildering at best. A total lack of context and eager oversimplification characterize your comparison.

    Secondly, stating Sanders doesn’t understand, at the very least, basic economics is simply false. He has economic data to support is point of view, just as other politicians do. Various economists have conducted studies that show that he does indeed have a point and his concepts are more than feasible.

    I have further specific criticisms of your piece but my point in general is that instead of actually interacting with the positions he represents (which, btw, include a far larger variety than simply economic propositions) you readily dismiss his campaign’s ideas without actually interacting with them (besides on a superficial level).