Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

What most all of these liberals here fail to see, while they are blaming capitalism, is the fascism. When a government picks winners and losers by not prosecuting SEC crimes or saying one company or another is too big to fail then hand them 100's of millions of dollars, there is no longer real capitalism. Then we call that fascism or some other non capitalistic name.

a reply to: dbarnhart
www.taxpolicycenter.org... Check out this table, the tax take for the government is generally around 17.5% of GDP irrespective of the tax rules. If rates go up, behavior changes or people cheat. If rates go down, people work harder or are more honest on their tax returns. It won't change under Sanders. History proves it. I won't vote for him, because I don't want him to take my money. But overall, the plan can't work. What the country needs is a middle of the road visionary who is capable of using deficit spending to finance true infrastructure improvements, highway, high speed rail, energy etc. The concept of Obama Care is OK as much as it is despised. The person needs to fix the issues with it, i.e. the 32 hour work rule, the inability to negotiate drug costs by the government etc. It is a very complicated area that can be debated forever. But, we don't need a socialist. We need a visionary that leads from the center. Unfortunately, there is not a candidate in this election that meets that description.

a reply to: fartlordsupreme

I was being a smart ass... I know, I didn't include the tag.

The sad thing is, if taxes are raised and Bernie gets the new transaction taxes that he wants - there will be more government jobs as a result.

In my business, my customers are other businesses. I don't do business with individuals, they can't afford my services. I'm giving work to contractors because I can't afford employees. Something about a health care mandate that I'm not politically connected enough to opt-out of. I can't even afford to buy the mandated health insurance for myself and family - it's more economical to take the penalty (which is going to cost me a few thousand this April)

I might create more jobs, if the government would get the hell out of my way and stay the hell out of my pocket. It's not like I ever qualify for ANY federal program. If Bernie gets his way, I'll just be another one of the fat cows attached to the milking machine.

originally posted by: olaru12
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...

Right up until they all flip him the bird and move to another country.

Then what is he going to do?

No more rich people to sponge off?

a reply to: fartlordsupreme

Accept the majority of lost manufacturing jobs are to outsourcing, not automation.

Automation will certainly eventually replace workers, but right now the cheaper alternative it abuse people that dont realize they can ask for more than pennies a day.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

According to the Constitution Congress has the authority to regulate commerce, they also have the authority to provide for the general welfare of the United States. What's so ambiguous about my point?

Except that the SCOTUS has ruled that this clause in the Constitution grants NO legislative power to the government.

They also ruled that the Fed could not tax in areas that where inclusive of state power. Which would also mean that the ACA is not Constitutional, sense under the 10th Amendment all power NOT DIRECTLY given to the Fed falls to the State (or the individual --almost forgot to add that ) . Add this to the fact that "General Welfare" clause has also been shown to grant not power to the Fed, would mean that any health care issues would fall under the power of the state.

Umm Thanks never connected that before. Just one more reason to oppose the ACA and overrule it.

a reply to: olaru12

a reply to: dismanrc

I think you underestimate the populist anger against the haves by the have-nots. The playing field is not level. It has never been level. They can run, but in 5 years, the so called "rich" will be the new ISIS. They will be droned in their tax-havens and their wealth will be repatriated. That is where populist anger over wealth-inequality leads in the 2020's. Personally? I'd rather not be drug from my car and killed in the streets because hungry, sick people *think* I have something they don't, but that's history for you. Ignore it at your peril.

a reply to: awhispersecho

Well you're right--all party designations are just human constructs. There is no such thing as Republican DNA or Democrat DNA, yes, you're right.

What I should have said is that I am a registered Republican that is going to vote for Bernie if he is nominated.

Is that better?

a reply to: TheBandit795

I must say I almost bailed after hearing the first 1/4 of the video, because it sounded like he was painting the picture that America was a capitalist society instead of the reality of it being an Oligarch.

Glad I stuck with it till the end.

I don't really understand why when 90% of our taxes go to subsidize already rich corporations who don't do anything for it, people seem OK with that, but when the idea is floated to use that money for the benefit of the majority of workers and poor instead, people start ranting about "free stuff!" And "stealing other people's money!!!".

Sanders proposal would only effect those making over 250k, which I can safely assume is no one on here, and even above that salary the tax increase is quite modest, at about 2 to 4 percent for most up until you are making 10 million a year or more where it jumps from its current rate (35%) to a staggering 43%. Oh noes!! Armageddon for sure! How will they ever get by on a measly 5.7 million in a year, rather than the 6.5 million they are used to! They may even have to sell one of their 60 vacation homes. Such tragedy.

Further, I don't understand how people say this is not capitalism. It's the logical end result of capitalism. Those with money use that money to manipulate the system in their favor. Without regulation, if they weren't using our current government as their enforcement arm, they would be using old mafia style enforcement of breaking legs and racketeering. Usury had already gone from being a crime to bring an accepted banking practice.

How did people think this would turn out? That businesses would self regulate fairly, through enlightened self interest? Don't make me laugh. Surplus labor has been intentionally and artificially fabricated, as has product scarcity. Supply and demand are artificially created constructs designed to keep costs low and profits high. Money does whatever it wants, no holds barred, and that is exactly what capitalism espouses.

The idea that people will buy or work with their conscience has proven false. We all know the horrible things done by Apple, Nike, Walmart, big oil, and yet with their domination of markets there are no practical alternatives who do not engage in the same things.

Trickle down econ has failed. Businesses do not reinvest, the owners hoard, while using every excuse to charge more due to rising gas or new government restrictions, etc, and yet when gas prices go back down (for instance) the prices don't drop back with it. It's all a sham, they use every excuse why they have to raise prices and pay workers less, but in the end All it really amounts to is they charge whatever they think they can get away with, and pay as little as they can get away with as well, arbitrary numbers stacked in their favor as much as possible.

Yes, just like Venezuela.

People need to remember Campaign Promises are not binding.

I guarantee you that - WHOEVER - gets elected, one of the first things that will happen is the following: "When I promised *X*, I had no idea how poorly the previous administration was running things. I had no idea how bad the books really were and I will have to delay all my promises until I undo all the horrible mistakes of my predecessor".

...said every politician elected to every office in the land, POTUS included.

Campaign Promises are easy to make when you have no intention of following through on them.

"It's just what you say to get elected"

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Now that Bernie Sanders has won New Hampshire and is building up momentum to beat Hillary in Nevada next week, who is his most likely running mate? Who thinks the most like Bernie, can hold his/her own in the VP debates, and would be a similar President if (the aging) Bernie Sanders can't finish his term?

I see today that he's considering AL SHARPTON. How would V.P. Al Sharpton play among Bernie Sanders supporters?

-cwm

a reply to: carewemust

If he really took sharpton I think it would bomb him. I'm hoping Elizabeth Warren.

originally posted by: muse7
Conservatives say they want to make America great again.

To make America great again we need to go back to the things that MADE America great again, and those things include living wages, and raising taxes on corporations and CEO's.

This experiment of trickle down economics does not work, these past 30 years are proof of that.

Thats not really true. Trickle down DOES work, for exactly 1 percent of the population.

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: carewemust

If he really took sharpton I think it would bomb him. I'm hoping Elizabeth Warren.

You're right, Pexx421. A like-minded FEMALE. Ms. Warren would be the perfect running mate for Bernie!

Sanders met with Al Sharpton today...

splendid....please continue Comrade Sanders....

see you at the polls Buddy...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha