By “paying for itself” he means that consumers will pay for it with sky high cost of living
Bernie Sanders Says His $16 Trillion Climate Change Proposal Will Basically Pay for Itself
As the 2020 presidential election draws near and the 18 remaining Democratic candidates work to break away from the pack and secure the primary, Senator Bernie Sanders sat down at Cosmopolitan’s office to talk about his campaign, why he doesn’t think he’s “far left,” why he won’t take away AR-15 assault rifles from gun owners if elected, and how he plans to fund his ambitious $16 trillion climate change proposal. (snip)
Sanders admitted that it is a “very expensive” and “very detailed” program that’s estimated to cost $16 trillion, but he intends to pay for it by cutting the $4 billion subsidies and tax breaks he said the fossil fuel industry currently receives. He added that he also plans to get the federal government to produce sustainable energy and sell it to international utility companies, which he said will make “a lot of money.”
Another course of action: “We are going to end military protection that now exists for oil producers around world and that is going to save billions. Hundreds of billions of dollars.”
According to Sanders, that strategy will “kind of” pay for the plan, which also includes creating about 20 million new jobs that are geared toward pulling away from fossil fuels and moving toward using sustainable energy.
Says the guy who has three homes and jets all around the country. But, hey, he’s not worried, because he’s part of the bourgeoisie, and not particularly concerned with rising prices from his policies for his own life. You? Have fun.
He knows it’s a lofty goal, but for him, the alternative is like a “raging fire” in a building that people will try to ignore if it suits them. “We have got to put out the fire that is now raging all over the world or else, the planet that we live to our children, and our grandchildren—my grandson is right here; I have 7 beautiful grandchildren—and the planet we leave to future generations will be increasingly unhealthy and unlivable,” he concluded. “From a moral perspective, we cannot do that.”
