Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

originally posted by: schuyler
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.

Likewise, the great recession of the early '00's and the mortgage crisis/bank bailouts were the result of Clinton-era economic policy.

So Gerald Friedman is not an impartial economist. He is the author of Bernie's plan.




From the facebook page "We are Capitalists".

Then comes this latest article where CNN acts almost as though Sanders just had his plans thoroughly vetted by an impartial economist. He CLEARLY didn't.


This article, on the grounds that it's a conflict of interest, shouldn't be regarded as independently verified vindication of Bernie's plans. It's not legit. Sanders has ALWAYS had this one rogue economist on his side. This CNN article is the equivalent of WAC authoring a "jobs-boosting" proposal back in 2013, where Rand Paul then chooses to adopt it as "his" presidential plan around 2015, then someone questions whether or not the plan would actually work as advertised, so WAC writes an essay defending what is now referred to as "Rand Paul's Plan," and CNN references that new essay with the narrative, "independent researchers confirm Paul's plan would work," despite it really just being us declaring our own ideas to be sound. THAT would NOT be independent verification, and neither is Friedman declaring his own ideas to be wonderful.

For those of you who have FB, this is the link:

www.facebook.com...

theweek.com...

Not everyone agrees. I actually think he will destroy our fragile economy. Please read link.

originally posted by: russ212
theweek.com...

Not everyone agrees. I actually think he will destroy our fragile economy. Please read link.

You cannot destroy an economy that capitalism has already destroyed.

a reply to: buster2010

How did capitalism destroy the ecomomy?

originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: buster2010

How did capitalism destroy the ecomomy?

So you are totally oblivious to the bailout that crashed the economy? It wasn't socialism that drove the banks to run their ponzi schemes but rather the drive for more profit and that is the purest form of capitalism.

That's not capitalism. If there was true capitalism those bailouts would have never taken place and all of those corporations would've been bankrupt by now.

No corporation or other private entity enjoys government protection in a true capitalist system.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: russ212
theweek.com...

Not everyone agrees. I actually think he will destroy our fragile economy. Please read link.

You cannot destroy an economy that capitalism has already destroyed.

Wow, perhaps the only thing in that sentence that I can agree with is the punctuation; you properly capitalized the first letter of the first word, and ended it appropriately with a period.

The US economy was created by capitalism, and remains undestroyed despite the government's persistent and often inept and counter-productive attempts to tinker with it.

If the government created / ran the economy, sans capitalism, you'd have had to type your post on a manual typewriter, and pin it to a bulletin board in the village square for anyone else to read it.

No, I have no interest in being like the future Islamic Republic of Germany. They're basing their future on imported cheap labor, much like we are now. We can absorb lots of people and turn their kids and grandkids into Americans, but there is a limit, beyond which we will become like the third-world countries they bailed out on.
a reply to: peck420

The tell=-Tale is here:

"Friedman, however, argues that Sanders' plan would be more stimulative because it is pouring money ($14.5 trillion) into the economy, as opposed to cutting taxes"

Where is this $14.5 trillion coming from? It's coming out of the economy in the form of taxes. Just look at what id happening in Connecticut. Corporate taxes have been raise. Big business moves out of Connecticut, taking high paid employees with them. Next, small businesses who relied upon business with the big company or its employees go under. Massive unemployment. $15/hr minimum wage causes McDonalds and Starbucks to replace 75% of it's counter staff with machines. More massive unemployment.

Do you see what a mess Obamacare is? We predicted it. Why don't you listen to us for a change.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: russ212
theweek.com...

Not everyone agrees. I actually think he will destroy our fragile economy. Please read link.

You cannot destroy an economy that capitalism has already destroyed.

Quite a feet considering capitalism built it in the first place.

Amazing for a country $18 trillion in debt...

a reply to: elitegamer23>>> I've warmed to Sanders a little. He may be a loon or even an idiot, but he's not corrupt and a traitor like Obama, the Clintons or the Bushes. Trump might be an arrogant SOB but its also probable he's not a sell out. Cruz is a sell out, his wifey works for Goldman Sachs. But I think green energy is a complete scam and a money pit designed to suck money from US taxpayers in a technological dead end. If Sanders goes for that, he's a well meaning fool. Socialism is not a good ideology to have but we could weather 4 years with sanders and then correct the mistake. If Trump or Sanders stymies the puppet masters and prevents their plans for a time, either way its a win/win for America. I don't see Sanders improving the US economy, Trump might if he does some of the things he claims he wants to do.

How is raising taxes is going to create jobs?

please explain.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

I could be wildly wrong, but I personally doubt we will ever see a serious increase in wages till we start to build things once more.

youre wrong but not wildly wrong
what people once did machines can now do better and cheaper
if manufacturing ever returns it wont bring the jobs with it

so what do we do?
intentionally cripple ourselves and prevent all future progress and development so that everyone can have a job?
or embrace the progress that has been made and realize that our world has changed.... we have changed it.... for the better mostly.... and our system of economics has remained woefully stagnant?

its simply a matter of what will work
and what weve done in the past and continue to do unsuccessfully now no longer works
the need for low and unskilled labor (and increasingly skilled professions) is decreasing while productivity continues to increase
under the current system those who own the means of production will continue to make record profits while those who dont will find themselves jobless and destitute
now nobody can buy anything and the wealthy will no longer make any profit but instead sit on their nest eggs that could support their entire families for thousands of years.... sneering at all those who were more concerned with bettering themselves and the world around them than setting the high score for douchebaggery
how long can that continue before before the jobless become angry and desperate?

the need for human workers is quickly becoming a thing of the past
and you can argue and complain all you want but facts are facts
if you want to sit there knowing you got yours and then pulled up the ladder and anyone who was late to the game is just a sorry sunva b!tch thats fine
just know youve left no options but one
and those who have been exploited or excluded can and will use that option (as they should)

all the boom sticks in the world wont save you when youre out numbered thousands to one

even good ol neighbor joe who talks the same good game
good ol joe aint gonna be so nice and neighborly when his stomach gets a rumblin
joes tune will change mighty quick.... might seem like a different person even (but thats to be expected you tend to get a little less stupid and idealistic when your survival depends on it instead of your extra spendin money)

and thats exactly whats going to happen if we keep crossing this failing bridge instead of fixing it

a reply to: elitegamer23

Okay... I've gone through 4 pages of responses to the OP's post... and haven't found ONE person on either side of this discussion talk about the mathematics of Bernie's proposals.

If you tax the "1%" at a rate of 100%, we still don't close the deficits and avoid going deeper into debt.

FOLKS... THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE ANY MONEY. IT ONLY HAS OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.

Here's the other thing... MODERN MEDICINE, and the "Medical Industrial Complex" (which is made up of industry and political insiders), are breaking every Anti-trust law on the books with price fixing, racketeering, and conspiracy. There is NO WAY for Bernie Sanders to do what he says he wants to do, without dealing with the price fixing and racketeering in the Med Ind Complex.

To summarize... all these promises sound great... but they are, factually, unsupportable when you put them to the simple arithmetic. We would need some huge (10% + ??) percentage of Americans to be Millionaires and Billionaires to even make the numbers work.

Bernie honestly means well... but he is still stuck in his childhood experience, believing that "money comes from the government". It does NOT. It comes from the production of goods and services.

The tiny fraction of folks who did fraudulent deals to make money (banksters in 2008, etc...) SHOULD be divested of their ill gotten gains, and put in prison. But that's another conversation.

Arithmetic... it's based in fact, and contains mean truths about financial reality.

a reply to: buster2010

You can call our system a lot of things... but capitalism isn't one of them. We've NEVER had, at large, capitalism in the U.S. ...with maybe the exception of the "Mom and Pop/Family" businesses.

We have had fascism... but not capitalism. If we had capitalism... there would have been NO bailouts, and the banksters would have been allowed to go belly up. Sure... it would have destroyed the economy for a couple years... but we would be well into an economic renaissance by now...

a reply to: dasman888

arguable
one could argue that the bailouts were the result of capitalism in that we now have a government that can be bought and sold
we have businesses that have near complete monopolies on entire industries and can leverage for any terms they please
we have loose regulations that allow banks to cheat, deceive, and destroy in the interest of a quick buck
we have employers that wont pay the employees a living wage because the supply of labor is high and thats what they can get away with
we have a legal system overwhelmingly stacked against the poor
etc
etc
etc

we have a very capitalist system of economics
money talks
and money gets its damned way

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
How is raising taxes is going to create jobs?

please explain.

Government jobs

a reply to: stutteringp0et

the idea is that "job creators" arent creating jobs because theyre not making enough money? (im fairly certain most detractors actually hold that stance)
and how are the "job creators" going to make money if all the employees dont have jobs paying them money they can use to pay for goods and services (other jobs provided by the gracious "creators")?

the answer is theyre not
but theyre sitting on a lot of money that isnt really going anywhere (creating jobs)
money that it would be "unwise" to spend on employees if it doesnt quickly increase profits

so the solution would be to inject money from the ground up
people have money to spend on goods and services
"job creators" make more money
"job creators" create more jobs

make sense?
its basically to give the stalled economy a kick start

(this is all assuming they dont just hoard the money like they have been
....it does strengthen their relative position giving them more leverage meaning much cheaper labor
....its what i would do if i was corrupt heartless piece of #

but if they choose that route you could always make the tax indefinite)