But there are still lots of people who see this type of project as a sort of zero-sum game, where the money allocated to the project is “taken” from them, presumably in the form of taxes, which would reduce their disposable income and purchasing power.

Bernie fully understands the economics in play and that there is no reason to “take” from someone to “give” to someone else, which isn’t even possible with our monetary system. The guy responsible for marking down my bank account for my tax payments doesn’t even work in the same building as the guy that marks up that account with newly created dollars for my Social Security benefits. They are unrelated functions except they both impact a common accounting entity called “deficit”.

However, he also understands that people are prone to relating their own budgeting logic to that of the federal government and prefer to see things “paid for” without borrowing. Note that anytime he is asked the “pay for” question he specifically targets people who need to be taxed much more, simply because they have too damn much money and threaten our economy and democratic process with it to their own benefit.

The public perception of those people as “job creators” pretty much went out the window when Amazon employees began carrying bottles to pee in so they could hit quota demands, so taxing Bezos has a much higher approval than it might have had in 2000. If most voters see that taxation as “revenue” to enable spending there is little consequence to it, as long as both happen. The much-publicized threat of robotics and AI impacting traditional employment is also making people less averse to accepting “big gubmint” as a vital part of the social contract and not the enemy.

Our government, and economy by extension, are currently suffering from the effects of low expectations in comparison to those times you cited.