[CorsiHockeyLeague]

There are really three primary areas of spending that democrats are aimed at at the moment.

1. Measures related to climate change. Just about every policy "climate change plan" put forward by the democratic candidates, other than Biden's and Klobuchar's proposals, are extravagantly expensive... But the justification is that failing to address the issue is going to be considerably more expensive going forward. The correct follow up question is, how does this address the issue. If, for example, you're talking about building infrastructure for coastal cities to diminish property damage when the next big storm inevitably hits, and the one after that and the one after that, that seems like a good investment, because the cost of those improvements now is likely more than offset by the savings later. If you're subsidizing the production of solar cells, the benefits are far more speculative.

2. Education - Depends what you want to do with it. If you're just promising free college, well, that doesn't accomplish very much. A significant number of graduates don't work in their field of study, even though they would like to. It'd be nice if more candidates recognized this and instead of simplistically saying "everyone should get to go to college", focus more of their policy prescriptions on things like technical or vocational training aimed at the economy as it's likely to look over the next few decades. The cost of post-secondary needs to be reigned in, but I think it's actually a matter of tuition needing to come down rather than the government paying the currently inflated cost.

But on the student loan debt forgiveness thing... I'm not sure why anyone complains about that. If you're going to spend government money on anything - and especially a bailout - it's clearly best targeted at people who will actually spend their suddenly-increased disposable income on things that will actually cycle through the economy and create a few jobs, rather than on passive investments. Forgiving student loan debt is a pretty solid economic stimulus. And the debt servicing payments that are being made currently have no economic value to anyone.

3. Health Care. This one's the most baffling... whether you want medicare for all or a public option, for some reason, this is looked at as prohibitively expensive. Realistically, the United States populace pays considerably more for health care now, per capita, because the system is deliberately designed to drive up costs. The incentive is to make treatment as expensive as possible, as it's currently designed, and competitive pressure isn't really having much of an effect. Either demolishing and replacing that system (Medicare for All) or creating a public option whose sole purpose is to give people good treatment for a lower cost (Public Option) are obviously preferable to the status quo, which, again, is ludicrously costly. The democratic proposals, in the long run, will save health care costs.

Basically, the "everyone gets free stuff" analysis is too simplistic. Some policies might look like just buying votes, but you actually have to see what the long-term economic benefit is to determine whether or not it's money well spent.

NOTE: building a gigantic border wall is the quintessential example of money not well spent.