Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.

The main boost came from? Bernie was President? Or are we talking about Kennedy now?
Economists believe the a big boost, after the Kennedy tax cuts, came from putting more money in the pockets of the middle class. It seems to me the Sanders initiatives should do similar, and thus I would expect a boost in the economy. Did you have a chance to read the article I gave a link for? It is knowledgeable and well written. Perhaps the best article ive seen on this topic that is not written specifically for economists.
 
Why the interest in a guy who will never be allowed near the nomination, no matter how many primaries he wins? The republicans cannot stop Trump, but the dems have already blocked Bernie with superdelegates.
 
Why the interest in a guy who will never be allowed near the nomination, no matter how many primaries he wins? The republicans cannot stop Trump, but the dems have already blocked Bernie with superdelegates.
Even though you are probably right, I feel duty bound to disagree. The Republicans may stop Trump yet, and Bernie may stop Hillery. Let's both do our best to wish our country well, and do the best we can for it.
 
Last edited:
Economists believe the a big boost, after the Kennedy tax cuts, came from putting more money in the pockets of the middle class. It seems to me the Sanders initiatives should do similar, and thus I would expect a boost in the economy. Did you have a chance to read the article I gave a link for? It is knowledgeable and well written. Perhaps the best article ive seen on this topic that is not written specifically for economists.

I read the article on Kennedy. I don't understand how you're making any connection to Bernie Sanders. Perhaps it would be clearer to me if I was drinking at this time of day.
 
Economists believe the a big boost, after the Kennedy tax cuts, came from putting more money in the pockets of the middle class. It seems to me the Sanders initiatives should do similar, and thus I would expect a boost in the economy. Did you have a chance to read the article I gave a link for? It is knowledgeable and well written. Perhaps the best article ive seen on this topic that is not written specifically for economists.
Last I saw, Sanders wants to raise taxes on everyone except the poor. Ergo, less money in the pockets of the middle class.
 
I'm just going to assume Tsing is correct...Piezoe was halfway thru a bottle when he gave us a sample of his Bernie love...No one over the age of 25 would believe any of what he proposes would be remotely possible...Of course, the fanboys and girls scream like little children when he promises them all the free shit in the world and Wall Street will pay for it...I feel like I'm watching sketch comedy.
 
YafwhDn.jpg
 
Last I saw, Sanders wants to raise taxes on everyone except the poor. Ergo, less money in the pockets of the middle class.

That's my understanding too. It's a 2.2% increase in all current brackets to cover his single payer healthcare plan. The big changes in income tax come from adding two additional brackets at the top end. currently everyone pays the same ~40% rate above 415K regardless of income. That would go in three steps to 54% above 10 million.

Going to 15/hour minimum wage would be a huge boost, in my opinion, in two ways. It would put millions who have no taxable adjusted gross now into the lowest bracket (12.2%) so they would now have 87.8% of this taxable amount of their income to spend. If a Sanders administration can figure out a way to break the medial cartel and bring medical costs down so they are comparable to the next highest cost nation, something I think would be very difficult to do without all out war on the medical cartel, then that would add another couple thousand into the pockets of all families except the indigent, where none of this makes much difference. There would be significantly fewer indigent under Sanders Plan however because it would now pay to work rather than sit home. There are massive numbers of people in those first two brackets, and any boost in retained income there would have a correspondingly massive effect on the economy. That is why I believe the Kennedy cuts worked so well to boost the economy, there were cuts all the way up the tax ladder (the top bracket went from 90 to 70%) but it was the extra money at the low end that really produced the boom. And for that same reason the Reagan cuts failed. They drastically reduced the rates at the high end but raised them at the low end. And we did not get medical care as part of the deal. Those at the low end got screwed. It is the difference between supply-side and demand-side economics. Kennedy cuts were demand side. There is just not enough folks at the top to make any difference. I am shocked when I walk down the street and realize that nine out of ten people I meet make less than I do. It is tragic really, and we should not permit this to go on much longer. The median income in the U.S. looks good until you realize what those few at the top do to that figure, then you think, oh my god, how do all these people survive.

I couldn't get the Sanders bracket info from his site, I found it on Motley Fool. So I hope it is correct. Sanders does have a lot of detail however regarding how he would pay for his programs. Looks very reasonable to me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top