Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

money.cnn.com...

Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.

In addition, poverty would plummet to a record low 6%, as opposed to the CBO's forecast of 13.9%. The U.S. economy would grow by 5.3% per year, instead of 2.1%, and the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit would turn into a large surplus by Sanders' second term.

Unreal numbers and if they were made possible it could only help out everyone in the USA , including corporate America.

Of course people on the other side of the political spectrum will argue these numbers because that is what American politics are anymore. I'm not saying these are correct assumptions , for I am not an economist , but it's a nice change to see something positive about the future of America .

We could always just stay on the same path that democrats and republicans have put us on for the last 30 years, or we could look forward to an optimistic outlook on America.

I'm not here to argue about socialism, right or left, right or wrong.

Just wanted to share this article I ran across with ats.

Note: I have not read everything he has proposed...

but from what I have read a great deal of his plan hinges on companies/Rich people leaving their money in a position to be taxed..

If they were to do so sure... but they havent seen inclined to do so yet (GE for example), so I dont see why we should expect it to be different now.

If I am wildly wrong, I apologize and disregard.

Did we not have similar growth under Bill Clinton? I am voting for Sanders and hope we do have this prosperity.

a reply to: elitegamer23

I'm not disagreeing with this, but the problem with all rosy predictions of new systems (whether Sanders', Trump's or any others' ideas) is that they require broad cooperation and participation. Could this be the outcome? Sure, but there will be plenty of forces working against the ideal outcome as well.

I hope so, and I hope Sanders can pull off the win, because I don't see the corporatocracy changing its very nature with any aspect of Clinton/Trump/Rubio/Cruz. With Sanders, I feel like there's at least a miniscule chance of improvement.

a reply to: elitegamer23

Yeah, government sector ones.

This would last right up until we become Greece or Venezuela.

No one ever argues that the bureaucracies needed to administer endless socialist programs don't offer lots of jobs and pay very, very well.

Even the article has contrary views:

"The 5.3% number is a fantasy," said Jim Kessler, senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank.

I wouldn't take this as gospel until a few other economists have a chance to look at it.

originally posted by: jpatrick
Did we not have similar growth under Bill Clinton? I am voting for Sanders and hope we do have this prosperity.

Presidents are quick to take credit during economic growth if it happens on their watch, but if it doesn't, they blame the past president, like Obama blames Bush. Economic policies take awhile to percolate through the economy. Clinton's good fortune economically was a result of the presidents before him, especially Ronald Reagan.

a reply to: elitegamer23

Unreal numbers

The first two words in your OP.
I think you may be on to something there.

We make the wealthy elite .... wealthy.

It's a fine balancing act between screwing over the masses and paying back into the system. If you pay to low of wages and skirt to many taxes, the people who buy your products will stop buying them.

Companies depend on a population who have disposable income to spend on their products.

That said, they also are mandated (usually by their corporate charter) to maximize profits.

So...companies are always looking to see how far they can push the population before sales start to decline. The thing is, we the people get used to making next to nothing and buying everything on credit...This has allowed companies to push us far further before we decide not to consume/purchase their goods.

a reply to: ketsuko

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: elitegamer23


This would last right up until we become Greece or Venezuela.

How are we not already Greece is the question.

a reply to: butcherguy

Well yeah unreal numbers when we are used to numbers like the norm. You know the trillions added to the debt by the last Democratic and Republican
Presidents.

1000 different economists could say that same thing, and they'd still be talking about it as if it was pie in the sky.

They did the same thing with 'the new deal' back in the 30's as well. That turned out pretty well for everybody involved.

For Bernie it'll all come down to post NH primaries. Sure he has that one easy, it's right next to Vermont, but I dunno how he's going to fare in states like Nevada. Southern Democrats are likely to vote for hillary as well.

~Tenth

originally posted by: elitegamer23
a reply to: ketsuko

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: elitegamer23


This would last right up until we become Greece or Venezuela.

How are we not already Greece is the question.

You can still go to the bank and ask for all your money, and they can still give it to you. Inflation isn't making a loaf of bread cost 20$ and the unemployment rate is well below the 10 + it is there.

~Tenth

originally posted by: elitegamer23
a reply to: butcherguy

Well yeah unreal numbers when we are used to numbers like the norm. You know the trillions added to the debt by the last Democratic and Republican
Presidents.

I am not a supporter of either party.
I like things that both parties seem to hate.

A Bernie Sanders Presidency doesn't mean that pie in the sky dreams will come true though. He will be a President dealing with the same old Congress.
Edit to add:
Even if he had a Congress full of Bernie clones, he would not be able to pull off what he is promising... IMO.

Bernie has a huge political fact to his advantage and he will play this for all it worth.

The huge disparity in wealth distribution in the US.



www.wsj.com...

I don't think those numbers are too far off, but who knows. Like the op said we're not economists and even economists don't know what's going on because every one of the last few presidents have had economists advising them and we've seen wildly different policies and outcomes.

It's just politics. We can't even agree if ObamaCare was a success or failure. Google it and you'll see. We're a nation of lies and propaganda.

a reply to: schuyler

Some economists like it and think it will be good other economists don't.

a reply to: olaru12

The only reason that's to his advantage is because it makes the people at the bottom stupid enough to think that Bernie can confiscate enough from the ones at the top to give them all that stuff for free.

Let's get real.

There is no way Bernie can squeeze the super rich for the equivalent of the national debt in new spending year in and year out. If you are at all intellectually honest, then you know it too.

How many 'Bernie for Prez.' Rah-Rah threads does this make so far today?

OP...99.9% of all liberal/Democrat/Progressive/Socialist/Communists on ATS are already Sandernistas (except for those two Hillary lovers).

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: olaru12

The only reason that's to his advantage is because it makes the people at the bottom stupid enough to think that Bernie can confiscate enough from the ones at the top to give them all that stuff for free.

Let's get real.

There is no way Bernie can squeeze the super rich for the equivalent of the national debt in new spending year in and year out. If you are at all intellectually honest, then you know it too.

Well they are completely bloated up there at the top. So if he can just get a little squeeze in, he may make it pour.

a reply to: ketsuko

Uh huh...