Economics Professor Reckons Bernie Sanders' Plan Would Create 26 Million Jobs and Increase Median In - Polidicks

[url]http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html[/url] [quote]Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%. Those are just a few of the things that would happen if Bernie Sanders became president and his ambitious economic program were put into effect, according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney. The first comprehensive look at the impact of all of Sanders' spending and tax proposals on the economy was done by Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor. Friedman found that if Sanders became president -- and was able to push his plan through Congress -- median household income would be $82,200 by 2026, far higher than the $59,300 projected by the Congressional Budget Office[/quote] Edit: [url=http://www.occupydemocrats.com/2016/01/14/170-top-economists-pen-letter-backing-bernie-sanders-plan-to-break-up-the-biggest-banks/]Also this is kind old but worth a read, and I never saw it posted here. 170 economists signed a letter endorsing the Sanders plan to break up the banks.[/url]

Good publicity hopefully means more votes for Bernie.

[QUOTE]median household income would be $82,200 by 2026, far higher than the $59,300 projected by the Congressional Budget Office[/QUOTE] When you take inflation into account, this would mean that in 10 years, Bernie's plan would basically be halfway to restoring the middle class. And that's pretty much why it's not going to happen, but there's always hope.

The article states the real problem, though; 1, he has to become president, and 2, he has to push the plan past Congress. We see the failed abortion of a post-Congress Obamacare in effect right now, so they'd probably butcher his plan, as well. I do have hope, but it's a fading glimmer, unfortunately.

Whoo. Even if it's only half as good as he makes it out to look it'd still be a massive improvement.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;49699732]The article states the real problem, though; 1, he has to become president, and 2, he has to push the plan past Congress. We see the failed abortion of a post-Congress Obamacare in effect right now, so they'd probably butcher his plan, as well. I do have hope, but it's a fading glimmer, unfortunately.[/QUOTE] Bernie does have a very good track record with Congress though. If anyone can do it, it's him.

[QUOTE=Keelwar;49699762]Bernie does have a very good track record with Congress though. If anyone can do it, it's him.[/QUOTE] Even so, I implore people to not forget about the importance of voting for good Congressmen. A good president is useless if he can't pass legislation. Bernie is cool and all but good Senators and Representatives are what we really need (and at least if Bernie loses, we still keep a good Senator.)

[QUOTE=Keelwar;49699762]Bernie does have a very good track record with Congress though. If anyone can do it, it's him.[/QUOTE] What are you basing that on? He's passed almost no bills that he made, and the only semi-significant one was his veteran bill. [editline]8th February 2016[/editline] Also, this analysis seems to assume an average 5.3% GDP growth rate after inflation... which is nothing more than an absolute joke.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49699928]What are you basing that on? He's passed almost no bills that he made, and the only semi-significant one was his veteran bill. [editline]8th February 2016[/editline] Also, this analysis seems to assume an average 5.3% GDP growth rate after inflation... which is nothing more than an absolute joke.[/QUOTE] Would you care to show us your Ph.D in economics, sgman? If not, then please, for the love of all that is holy, shut the fuck up. You do this in every single thread that disagrees with your personal worldview, and we're all very tired of it.

[QUOTE=woolio1;49700051]Would you care to show us your Ph.D in economics, sgman? If not, then please, for the love of all that is holy, shut the fuck up. You do this in every single thread that disagrees with your personal worldview, and we're all very tired of it.[/QUOTE] The article says the exact same thing I said in the last few paragraphs from real economists. So please, don't mock me when you didn't even read it. [QUOTE]"The 5.3% number is a fantasy," said Jim Kessler, senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank.[/QUOTE] Does anyone have a link to the actual analysis? I can't seem to find it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49700067]The article says the exact same thing I said in the last few paragraphs from real economists. So please, don't mock me when you didn't even read it. Does anyone have a link to the actual analysis? I can't seem to find it.[/QUOTE] No, you're right. It's in there. Doesn't change that I'm still very tired of you, however.

[QUOTE=woolio1;49700130]No, you're right. It's in there. Doesn't change that I'm still very tired of you, however.[/QUOTE] "SHUT THE FUCK UP I DON'T LIKE YOU" [I]but he's right, the article proves it[/I] "...okay fine. STILL SHUT UP" Really?

[QUOTE=woolio1;49700130]No, you're right. It's in there. Doesn't change that I'm still very tired of you, however.[/QUOTE]As frusturating as it may be, sometimes we as people need to hear and listen to the other sides point of view.

Here's another run down of each candidates tax plans. It differs from what the OP article claims but I'm not sure if it takes into account the huge government spending. [url]http://taxfoundation.org/blog/comparison-presidential-tax-plans-and-their-economic-effects[/url]

[QUOTE=Killer900;49700166]As frusturating as it may be, sometimes we as people need to hear and listen to the other sides point of view.[/QUOTE] yes but one side is quoting from the far left, the other is quoting from another agenda'd think-tank the end result is sander's plan will probably create jobs, it will probably create some growth, 5.37% GDP growth, probably not, but it will probably be better than the anemic 1-2% we've had for years now what i do defend about sander's is that his plans start revanue neutral, unlike everybody on the right, who propose massive social cuts (conveniently to their targeted organizations such as EPA, IRS, ect ect), and then add onto the massive social cuts, massive military spending increases. Nobody but sanders has a plan that takes the current budget and tax base at face value

I looked way too long on trying to connect Gerald to Milton. Sadly concluded that they are not related by my attempts

When are they counting votes?

I honestly don't know who to vote for. shillary scares me, trumpet mouth is fucking nuts, and while I can agree with the majority of sandy's economic, medical, and foreign policies, I [I]cannot[/I] agree with his policies on gun control and those are rather important to me. So I'm stuck. Who the hell do I back? I'm half tempted to just not vote since any direction we go something important could potentially get seriously fucked up. I dunno what to do.

Plugging your ears and shutting out the worldview that is against yours only makes you weaker and more foolish, until you can argue for or understand the side you oppose it is hard to effectively counter it I disagree with sgman but I hope he continues to post. Questioning is okay.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;49700236]I honestly don't know who to vote for. shillary scares me, trumpet mouth is fucking nuts, and while I can agree with the majority of sandy's economic, medical, and foreign policies, I [I]cannot[/I] agree with his policies on gun control and those are rather important to me. So I'm stuck. Who the hell do I back? I'm half tempted to just not vote since any direction we go something important could potentially get seriously fucked up. I dunno what to do.[/QUOTE] Gun rights are important to me too, and I'm a gun owner myself, but I think there are much more important issues, such as the ones you listed, and I agree with Sanders on them. While I think some of the legislation he supports, like another assault weapons ban, isn't going to do anything to improve public safety, I can't say it's going to have a serious negative impact on the country either.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;49700236]I honestly don't know who to vote for. shillary scares me, trumpet mouth is fucking nuts, and while I can agree with the majority of sandy's economic, medical, and foreign policies, I [I]cannot[/I] agree with his policies on gun control and those are rather important to me. So I'm stuck. Who the hell do I back? I'm half tempted to just not vote since any direction we go something important could potentially get seriously fucked up. I dunno what to do.[/QUOTE] you can't have it all, and i don't think sanders is going to be disastrous as far as gun control is concerned, the NRA actually has supported him in the past, and he always comes off as pragmatic about it, and he seems to understand that the top-down government approach won't work, and that its going to be up to cooperating states to really fix their issues. also not to belittle you, but i personally see gun control and abortion as the least important issues in this election

Sanders is the most pro-gun you'll get in the left, he was elected in a gun loving state and continues to be elected by them.

I mean tbh most economists at this point agree that the minimum wage has a minimum effect on employment rates anyways. Also Sanders stance on trade worries me a bit. Being against trade agreements I understand, not so much being against trade period.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;49700236]I honestly don't know who to vote for. shillary scares me, trumpet mouth is fucking nuts, and while I can agree with the majority of sandy's economic, medical, and foreign policies, I [I]cannot[/I] agree with his policies on gun control and those are rather important to me. So I'm stuck. Who the hell do I back? I'm half tempted to just not vote since any direction we go something important could potentially get seriously fucked up. I dunno what to do.[/QUOTE] Like I said before, both parties stink. Why not make a new idea that opposes both parties to force change? Know how Tony stark was given two options when captured? Then he made he own (which was make a power suit) and kicked ass? We must be like Tony Stark.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49699687][URL]http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html[/URL][/QUOTE] What a shitty plan, now everyone will be middle class and not be miserable. Does this man not understand how modern politics are supposed to work.

[QUOTE=27X;49700601]What a shitty plan, now everyone will be middle class and not be miserable. Does this man not understand how modern politics are supposed to work.[/QUOTE] Well, it's not wrong when someone says we need people at the bottom of the social or economic ladder and people at the top of it and people at the middle. But that isn't to say those people don't deserve access to healthcare and education, because they do deserve it.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49700673]Well, it's not wrong when someone says we need people at the bottom of the social or economic ladder and people at the top of it and people at the middle. But that isn't to say those people don't deserve access to healthcare and education, because they do deserve it.[/QUOTE] I think your sarcasm detector might be broken. Re-read that. "Now everyone will be middle class and [B]not[/B] be miserable", a 'shitty' plan. As in if it actually works as advertised it's a great plan and would go a good way to unfucking America.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49700067]The article says the exact same thing I said in the last few paragraphs from real economists. So please, don't mock me when you didn't even read it. Does anyone have a link to the actual analysis? I can't seem to find it.[/QUOTE] Jim Kessler (the guy who claims "the 5.3% number is a fantasy) is not an economist, so his view is irrelevant. He's one of the members/founders of a third position thinktank (the Third Way) who has spent his life working with public policy concerning gun regulation, domestic violence, and doing legislative assistant tasks for a few political directors and Sen. Charles Schumer years ago. [url=http://www.thirdway.org/about/leadership/jim-kessler]Link[/url]. As the article points out: [quote]Also, it would be very difficult to achieve and maintain an economic growth rate of 5.3% per year after inflation. That target hasn't been hit consistently since the 1960s, when technology was providing big advancements, the workforce was younger and there was increased demand for American products worldwide as other countries fully recovered from World War II.[/quote] Difficult, but not impossible-- contrary to what Kessler claims. The United States continues to lead the world today in technological advancements, and your average American worker is young. The time is ripe for this kind of a stimulative plan that would, regardless of whether or not it hit the 5.3% growth target, nevertheless create an economic boom that we haven't seen in decades; either we'll capitalize on this opportunity we've got and reap the benefits, or we'll waste it like we tend to waste every other good thing that comes our way, and that will be the end of the matter. Whatever. [editline]8 February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;49700236]I honestly don't know who to vote for. shillary scares me, trumpet mouth is fucking nuts, and while I can agree with the majority of sandy's economic, medical, and foreign policies, I [I]cannot[/I] agree with his policies on gun control and those are rather important to me. So I'm stuck. Who the hell do I back? I'm half tempted to just not vote since any direction we go something important could potentially get seriously fucked up. I dunno what to do.[/QUOTE] ...so you agree with him on all the stuff that actually matters for creating an economically and socially stable, educated, healthy, and globally-competitive society... but because he isn't the most pro-gun guy out there (as far as the Democrats go, for the record, he is actually the most pro-gun one of the lot) and you don't like his beliefs on them, you're reluctant to support him... There are bigger priorities and issues in this country than "but my guns". That's a stupid reason to not support a particular candidate, let alone to say "fuck it, I'll just not vote at all". Sounds harsh, but it's true.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49700724]I think your sarcasm detector might be broken. Re-read that. "Now everyone will be middle class and [B]not[/B] be miserable", a 'shitty' plan. As in if it actually works as advertised it's a great plan and would go a good way to unfucking America.[/QUOTE] Can't detect sarcasm without the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags. :vs:

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49700724]I think your sarcasm detector might be broken. Re-read that. "Now everyone will be middle class and [B]not[/B] be miserable", a 'shitty' plan. As in if it actually works as advertised it's a great plan and would go a good way to unfucking America.[/QUOTE] i actually was at a writing course and that was one of those optical things they talked about, we have a tendency to ignore nots that are between words that already make sense