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.

 

Liberal economists to Bernie Sanders: Your economic plan is unrealistic.

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Bernie Sanders' economic plan is receiving criticism from an unusual source. Former democrat economists for Obma and Clinton administrations. They're calling him and professor Gerald Friedman out, calling his plans unrealistic.


We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan—claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence. Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.


An Open Letter from Past CEA Chairs to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman

Related links:

fortune.com...

cepr.net...

www.nytimes.com...

www.npr.org...


Even Paul Krugman is calling for Bernie Sanders to distance himself from "fantasy economics". He says that the 5.3% growth Bernie Sanders is promising is very unlikely.

Paul Krugman: Sanders Needs to Distance Himself from ‘Fantasy Economics’


Add to that. The professor Gerald Friedman who is the author of Sanders' economic plans, and who has shown support for him recently will vote for Hillary Clinton.

www.washingtonpost.com...




posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.


If I'm reading this right, they're saying his plan will be beneficial. How is that a bad thing?

Maybe I'm reading it wrong? Is it a typo or are they saying these "beneficial impacts" are unrealistic?

ETA: Just read the article, apparently they believe these "beneficial impacts" are unrealistic.
edit on 2/19/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

They're criticizing Friedman's claims.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I guess we will just have to take their word for it, just like we will have to take her word that she will be tough on Wall Street and Banks. The same people who funded her campaign.

The DNC has been on team Hillary from day one. So they threw their unbiased stance out the window a long time ago.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795
Coming from the same 'think-tanks' who told us 'trickle down economics' is a good thing.

Stuff like this tells me the establishment, the oligarchy is afraid of Bernie, very afraid of his popularity.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Yeah, gee, if Wall Street think-tanks and paid-schills think his plans are a bad idea, then yeah they must be right, because Wall Street Bankers Know Best eh?



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   


Former democrat economists for Obma and Clinton administrations
a reply to: TheBandit795

Therein lies the problem . The more ex-folks that are against Trump and Sanders , the more I like em




posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

How is it that economists can't agree on a system that works?

Trickle up, trickle down, socialist, capitalist, Keynesian, . . . . . . ?

I understand that there are different models and all, but is there one specific article that provides data instead of opinion?

I only ask because anyone who is for Sanders is disagreeing with the economist, they aren't disagreeing with the data.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

They cannot agree on a system that works because any system put in place is doomed to fail if the leadership is corrupt and individual greed wins over the status of the collective.

Whether it's socialism or capitalism, it will not work if the people at the top manipulate the system to benefit the elite.
edit on 19-2-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Actually a fair and reasonable answer.




posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I agree that his economic plan is unrealistic, even though that source might be unreliable. I wish we could get rid of this oligarchy and give capitalism a try.

I wonder what would happen if Trump and Bernie ran together, one president and one VP. They are so opposite that they might make one functional leader together or fight the whole time and get nothing done



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheBandit795

How is it that economists can't agree on a system that works?

Trickle up, trickle down, socialist, capitalist, Keynesian, . . . . . . ?

I understand that there are different models and all, but is there one specific article that provides data instead of opinion?

I only ask because anyone who is for Sanders is disagreeing with the economist, they aren't disagreeing with the data.


Why Economist Can't Agree



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795



Bernie Sanders' economic plan is receiving criticism from an unusual source. Former democrat economists for Obma and Clinton administrations



Since Obama,clinton and the DNC are the establishment and sleeping in the same bed, its really not a surprise that he would attack his plan.

I'm not saying his plan is not a cluster F , but coming from the establishment I would expect nothingless than criticism.

Bernie should just stay on focus with corruption. It makes no sense to implement any economic plans or attempt to fix anything with a bunch of congressman that created the existing regulations and have conflict of interest to keep the system the way it is.

Having said that, a presidency under Bernie will likely create a lameduck congress. When a corrupted congress does nothing, the people win.

The advantage I see with Bernie over the others : Hillary,Trump,Bush,Cruz,Rubio is that he is at least making corruption his main issue and would likely bring it to the forefront.

Corruption won't be fixed until it comes to the forefront for the masses. Hillary,Trump,Bush,Cruz,Rubio will likely not bring it to the forefront and keep the Oligarch we have in place and expanding.

Out of the cesspool of candidates we are likely to get , he could take this country towards a small small small positive direction. Making corruption the headline as president is the best I expect out of this election and as a possible long term investment .


edit on 01229America/ChicagoFri, 19 Feb 2016 10:01:23 -0600000000p2942 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795



He won’t get any of his major plans through congress so these plans are superfluous.


Bernie would be a worst grid lock than Obama’s term in office


Bernie as president may be only able to stop the extreme economic decline of the middle and lower class, at best.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

They cannot agree on a system that works because any system put in place is doomed to fail if the leadership is corrupt and individual greed wins over the status of the collective.

Whether it's socialism or capitalism, it will not work if the people at the top manipulate the system to benefit the elite.


^^^^^^^^^Legit^^^^^^^^^

It's really that simple.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

It's a good thing he won't get any of his major plans through congress, because they would be disastrous for the U.S. economy. Especially his tax plan.










Not that this takes only the tax plans into consideration, not government spending. Because if it does they would all probably be negative.

Sources:

taxfoundation.org...

taxfoundation.org...



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Trump and Sanders are much more establishment than you think. The fact that they are both socialist and authoritarian should be enough for the international bankers to love them.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Well, no big surprise that the center-right folk (DNC) don't like someone waltzing in and pointing out that they actually are center-right.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795
Again with the fixation on GDP...why?

In your own words, how does GDP growth or retardation, of a given country, affect the citizens of said country?



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

Why is everybody worrying, I wonder?

Sanders won’t get ANYTHING through congress.

I think his infrastructure bill would be good



new topics

top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join