Now that the Democrats Socialists are infiltrating the mainstream Democrat Party, we have promises of free stuff on steroids.

From their platform…

"You have no debt. You don't need health insurance. You don't pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren't for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities.”

Sounds pretty good, right? Conveniently, the DSA fails to mention how much it would cost to create this socialist utopia.

Adam Michel, director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, added up nine of the largest proposals in the DSA platform. Based on his estimates, the proposals would require between $71 trillion and $212 trillion—which represents 18 percent and 53 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), respectively—in additional government spending.

Where does the money come from? Well new taxes on the rich and most productive Americans, of course. This has been the mainstream Democrats mantra for decades. The “rich” should pay “their fair share.” The “rich” are conveniently defined as corporations and billionaires. The problem with this plan is if you confiscated all the billionaires assets ($6.6 trillion) and all corporate profits ($35 trillion) it wouldn’t put a dent in the cost of their “free stuff” plan.

It is estimated that almost all of the annual Gross Domestic Product would be required to pay for even the lower end estimate of the cost. And that is if you assume billionaires, who contribute significantly to economic growth will even stick around the US if all of their wealth is taxed….not to mention the consumer cost of bearing the brunt of the cost of higher taxes.

The “free stuff” promises may attract thousands of voters who do not know any better, but the evidence shows that America is prosperous BECAUSE of its economic freedom. Sacrificing that freedom to create a government that spends more than $200 trillion—while making America poorer and more growth stagnant in the process—would be a profound tragedy.