It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

page: 3
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

You said governments shouldn't be in economies but well historically they are anyway, everywhere but specifically in the US, Congress (government) has the Constitutionally granted authority exactly to be in the economy.
edit on 2/8/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: elitegamer23

You do know the person that did the study is a college professor, self-identified Socialist and has no other experience outside of the academic world.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

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.


Bill's financial success -stop- The USA's financial upswing, under Bill, was a direct result of REAGANOMICS!!



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Yes, that's right.

The government also has the authority to suspend habeas corpus; that doesn't mean they should.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

Well no it wasn't... however a lot of our economic woes that Obama walked into are a Bill's economic policies.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But it's written as part of their mandate. Habeas Corpus suspension is conditional.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I'm sorry I just don't understand your point.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you're choosing to be obtuse? Or are you saying the Constitution should be changed? Because US government is in the economy by law.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Over a decade ago, I lived on a very nice street in a very nice house with very nice neighbors. Some struggling and some like me doing well. At the end of the street was a near mansion. The family was nice but obviously wealthy. Probably about ten times richer than any of the rest of us.

Here is my take on Sanders and most liberals. According to them it would be not only fair, but completely right for the rest of the neighbors and myself to go and take the cars, furniture, art, food, etc. from those living in that mansion and keep it for ourselves. Legalized theft. And then we would be permitted to continue this act monthly...stealing from them because we aren't equal.

Now...if you think that is the way we should treat each other, or if you think there isn't a crime in there somewhere, then America is already doomed.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Over a decade ago, I lived on a very nice street in a very nice house with very nice neighbors. Some struggling and some like me doing well. At the end of the street was a near mansion. The family was nice but obviously wealthy. Probably about ten times richer than any of the rest of us.

Here is my take on Sanders and most liberals. According to them it would be not only fair, but completely right for the rest of the neighbors and myself to go and take the cars, furniture, art, food, etc. from those living in that mansion and keep it for ourselves. Legalized theft. And then we would be permitted to continue this act monthly...stealing from them because we aren't equal.

Now...if you think that is the way we should treat each other, or if you think there isn't a crime in there somewhere, then America is already doomed.


I don't think most liberals think like that nor do I think Sanders things like that. It's more along these lines...

If that guy is ten times richer than me, why is he paying less (percentage wise) in taxes than I am? We should raise his taxes so they are the same as mine. Period.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

That...I agree with. Everyone at every level should pay the same percentage in taxes. Rich, middle and poor. So as long as the poor pay 10% (for example) the rich should pay 10%. But that isn't how I understand what Sanders wants. He wants the poor to pay nothing, the middle to pay 40% and the rich to pay 90%...or something on those lines.

Am I wrong?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

First of all 'we' don't think it's unfair, at all, for anyone to be rich and no it wouldn't be okay to just go take their stuff. Did you get the first part yet?

We don't think it's unfair to be rich.

.........not even extremely rich.

What's unfair is that some people who are gaining wealth aren't gaining it fairly.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Before everyone starts jumping on the Bernie bandwagon and thinks he's the second coming....remember what happened the last time a guy promised hope and change? Promised jobs and a higher income for the middle class? Promised better, cheaper health care? The last time a guy running for President had a swell of support among the younger folks?

How's that been working out?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7

I wouldn't say that out loud again. There is a member here that is besides themself that Bush gets all the blame while Clinton's economic history is written on the shoulders of Reagan's trickle-down economics.

All these numbers are propped up and solely produced/made up for political traction. Again, it becomes a sh$t slinging contest when trickle-down economics are mentioned (clearly intimidated, at the least) and the assignment is assigned to those who have a clear dog in the race.

Pero (sp?) is the closest third-rail candidate to make it to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in our lifetime - possibly ever depending who's writing the political science history - and if the GOP is 'intellectually honest' (I hate the term, but it's already been proffered by a member in the thread...ugh) with itself, they'll recognize the Pero vote was an anti-establishment nod that got Bush 1.0 booted from office. If people that are truly 'intellectually honest' are honest with themselves, they'll leave that hanging chad an establishment vote, but for the fervor (and dare I say, "intellectually dishonest" low-income voters) these same people are gonna get Hillary elected.

No one, and I mean no one, has the machine that Hillary's campaign has. Sanders in NH is a skirmish - it'll strengthen the Clinton machine. I don't advocate anyone's position/campaign given the state of American politics, but ANYONE wanting to see a vote against the establishment will vote with the GOP establishment. That 'establishment' that everyone in the GOP despises will surely find themselves hand-wringing, knuckle-to-the-bone driving (I'd venture a guess that mass transit isn't something that is advocated amongst their policy makers) to get in the polls a mere 4 years later.

Don't screw this up, GOP, you'll surely get Hillary relocated to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Anyone 'intellectually honest' sees it this way, too. Right or left. Black or white. It's truely the GOP's move to place a hazard (Clinton) versuses a legitimate mistake of historic proportions (any of the GOP's anti-establishment candidates) in 1600. I'll go with history...AND Nate Silver. Over/under on Hillary is 47% with the mess that is the GOP.

Truly odd when you find yourself wringing your hands in support of the "opposition" - Sanders has a chance, but he's more likely to be felled by a falling meteorite than take the nomination.

With all the said, bring on the 2020 Sanders re-election campaign. I'd prefer total chaos/embarrassment than Hillary...



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: amazing

That...I agree with. Everyone at every level should pay the same percentage in taxes. Rich, middle and poor. So as long as the poor pay 10% (for example) the rich should pay 10%. But that isn't how I understand what Sanders wants. He wants the poor to pay nothing, the middle to pay 40% and the rich to pay 90%...or something on those lines.

Am I wrong?


Yep on the one side you have Sanders promising free sh*t (using someone else's money until it runs out) and on the other side you have nothing bu Bull Sh*t from a natural born B.S.er. Poor choices all the way around this election cycle.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

First of all 'we' don't think it's unfair, at all, for anyone to be rich and no it wouldn't be okay to just go take their stuff. Did you get the first part yet?

We don't think it's unfair to be rich.

.........not even extremely rich.

What's unfair is that some people who are gaining wealth aren't gaining it fairly.

So how is that? How did they get it unfairly? I assumed they inherited which is fair, or worked for it which is fair, or built a company and grew it which is fair. What is unfair in gaining wealth? I assume they didn't steal it...right?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I'll believe it when I see it. If any body believes Obama has any good to the economy probably hasn't searched for a job in a while. Plus the government skews numbers like unemployment and GDP numbers to make everyone think things are just peachy.
You can't tax a nation into prosperity. Even Scandinavian countries realize this which is why they have loosened business regulations gradually since the 70's.

I could be wrong, and honestly I would prefer Bernie over any of the other candidate at the moment.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE


What is unfair in gaining wealth?


Those who made money off the backs of MILLIONS of home owners, 8 years ago, got rich unfairly.

There are many more examples. The 1% have been manipulating both policy and mindset in America since the 1930's.

When the government allowed companies and individuals to hide their assets, pay minimal taxes and then cut them to lower and lower rates for 40 years, I'd say that's pretty damn unfair to the rest of you.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: asmall89
I'll believe it when I see it. If any body believes Obama has any good to the economy probably hasn't searched for a job in a while. Plus the government skews numbers like unemployment and GDP numbers to make everyone think things are just peachy.


Out of curiosity, what "numbers" do you form your opinions from? What resources, reports, etc?

From what you say, it seems that your sole measure of the nation's economic health is the success or failure of your own job search, or perhaps, someone that you personally know.

Is that correct?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Tell ya what...if Sanders signs a binding contract that taxes will be fair and equal...the same percentage for everyone with nothing additional and nothing less...I'll vote for him.

But he would never do that let alone say it. Liberals believe the rich are evil the same as other people think the boss is evil. If someone is doing better than you, you consider them bad. That is what is unfair about the liberal and in Sander's case...socialist beliefs. It must include tearing down businesses and people who make lots of money and distribute it to everyone else.

It is called theft. It is criminal, against the law, against the rules of God if you believe in that. So as far as I can tell, a vote for Sanders is a vote for crime.




top topics



 
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join