"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.
This more sweeping analysis was not commissioned by the candidate, though Sanders' policy director called it "outstanding work." Friedman has worked with Sanders in the past, but has never received any compensation. The Vermont senator asked Friedman to estimate the cost of Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan -- which came out to $13.8 trillion over 10 years -- and included the analysis when he unveiled his proposal last month.
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.
In addition, poverty would plummet to a record low 6%, as opposed to the CBO's forecast of 13.9%. The U.S. economy would grow by 5.3% per year, instead of 2.1%, and the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit would turn into a large surplus by Sanders' second term.
Other economists, however, feel that Friedman's analysis is overly optimistic, saying it would be difficult to achieve that level of economic prosperity. Last week, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Sanders' plan to pay for health care would fall short by at least $3 trillion.
Sanders' plan to pour $14.5 trillion into the economy -- including spending on infrastructure and youth employment, increasing Social Security benefits, making college free and expanding health care and family leave -- would juice GDP and productivity. (Friedman reduces the cost of Medicare-for-all to $10.7 trillion because he estimates the government would save $3.1 trillion by eliminating tax breaks for health insurance premiums.)
Also, Sanders would raise the minimum wage, as well as shift income from the rich to the middle and working class through tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations.
"Like the New Deal of the 1930s, Senator Sanders' program is designed to do more than merely increase economic activity," Friedman writes. It will "promote a more just prosperity, broadly-based with a narrowing of economy inequality."
Many presidential hopefuls say their economic programs would boost growth. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush justify their big tax cuts by saying GDP would grow at a 4% rate. But their plans have been panned by experts as overly optimistic.
Friedman, however, argues that Sanders' plan would be more stimulative because it is pouring money into the economy, as opposed to cutting taxes. Several of Sanders' proposals -- such as spending $1 trillion on infrastructure -- will happen in the first few years of his administration.
The thinking goes: This enhanced government spending would increase demand on businesses, who would then hire more workers to meet their needs. The increase in employment will prompt people to buy more, leading other businesses to hire.
"If there is more spending, people will have more to do," Friedman said, noting that the share of the population with jobs could be restored to its 1999 level of more than 64%, up from its current 59.6% rate.
Sanders' policy director, Warren Gunnels, also defended the estimates, noting the candidate is thinking big. "We haven't had such an ambitious agenda to rebuild the middle class since Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson," he said.
Still, some experts question whether the effects would be that large.
Stimulating demand can boost a weak economy during a recession, but "it's harder to accept as a long-run growth strategy," said William Gale, the former director of Brookings' Economic Studies Program.
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.
"The 5.3% number is a fantasy," said Jim Kessler, senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank.
The thinking goes: This enhanced government spending would increase demand on businesses, who would then hire more workers to meet their needs. The increase in employment will prompt people to buy more, leading other businesses to hire.
It sounds good, but I can't get past the fact that the "government spending" has to come from somewhere. So the spending the government does is spending others DIDN'T do because it went to government instead.
Some comments on the Prof from the ratemyprofessor website:
"He gives quizzes every lecture that may or may not count based on a coin toss.... He mainly talks about sex and drugs, not much talk about Econ but it is an intro class. No exams, only problem sets that you're encourage to work on with others. Try to get him for sure."
"Very funny and outgoing guy...My only issue with him is that he presents his opinions as facts, rather than theories that could be challenged. But that is expected in social science."
"Easy A. You can basically just show up to the last few minutes of each lecture and take the quiz......and sleep through discussion. And, boom, A. Definitely don't need the books. That being said, Friedman is hilarious and really does his best to make the lectures engaging and fun "
"He is overall a very bad professor. I think going to his lectures makes me dumber since he barely teaches economics. You won't learn economics, you will learn HIS economics. It is very easy to pass if you just show up and do the extremely simple work. Take this class if you want an easy A, but it is brutal to get through. "
"You probably won't retain anything you pretended to learn for the quizzes. The class is very unorganized and erratic. Gerald himself is very fun and he brings his dog to class every day, however I don't remember what happened in that class. "
Taxing capital gains at the same rate as income for the "rich" will kill the economy. There will be no incentive for the rich to invest in anything.
It also screws married professionals. $250k household income might sound like a lot but it isn't when living in a high cost area like San Fransisco or anywhere in Silicon Valley.
His tax plan is a disaster. That article is long on conclusions and short on justification for those conclusions. It looks like a puff piece.
Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar." -CNN Money Uh huh, just like it has for every other socialist state. You would think people would have figured it out after so many failures. Up next? Venezuala!
That "professor" is also a self-proclaimed democratic socialist who has been a big fan of Bernie's for years. Hardly an unbiased source CNN Money. Shame on you.
"shift income from the rich to the middle and working class through tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations."
.
The above is the only hint at how this will be paid for. I'm sorry but one cannot tax folks enough to pay for this pie in the sky, and the nutjob also assumes that taxing heavily anyone who makes anything, and any business, will not have a detrimental effect in any way. These people are living in an imaginary world.
I think this one below fits because being over taxed, and having those taxes squandered is a loss of liberty. On top of this it undermines overall security by bankrupting the entire country.
The road we are on giving more power to government, and less to the citizens.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-09-2016).]
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
Sounds like an Obuma speech to me. All these new jobs, doubling incomes, cutting spending, free or cheap medical care are where now? Nothing works as long as the government spends more than it makes. Taxpayers and business are required to make up the difference out of their pockets.
Not a single person in this thread has made a reasonable argument against the plan. Every single comment is fear mongering words regurgitated without a second thought.
I urge you to remember that the "Great America" that many candidates want to "Return" us to had very high tax rates compared to modern ones, and Bernie's plan is a fraction of those rates.
You guys can leave behind your crumbling roads, failing communication networks, and underfunded schools. Don't worry, your kids will have to rebuild them with scraps while you sit on your pile of money and say "mine". The older generation grew up in an American welfare state, turned around and kicked away the ladder, all while saying "The world is tough, the money will trickle down eventually."
Oh lookie--it's the Bernie version of Henry IV and Hoover's Chicken in every pot promise. Fear? Hardly. Too tired from rolling in laughter to even address all the fallacies of the article.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-09-2016).]
Not a single person in this thread has made a reasonable argument against the plan. Every single comment is fear mongering words regurgitated without a second thought.
If you say so. I dont think you really thought about the words said.
Its not even a plan when funding for it doesnt work.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-09-2016).]
Originally posted by Threedog: You guys can leave behind your crumbling roads, failing communication networks, and underfunded schools. Don't worry, your kids will have to rebuild them with scraps while you sit on your pile of money and say "mine". The older generation grew up in an American welfare state, turned around and kicked away the ladder, all while saying "The world is tough, the money will trickle down eventually."
Funny how Obama made such a big deal of fixing infrastructure with the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, but as soon as another Dem wants a job, suddenly the infrastructure hasn't been touched in decades and we're in dire need of a jobs program to address it.
What evidence is there that a Sanders presidency would do the job any better than the Obama presidency did?
Not a single person in this thread has made a reasonable argument against the plan. Every single comment is fear mongering words regurgitated without a second thought.
I urge you to remember that the "Great America" that many candidates want to "Return" us to had very high tax rates compared to modern ones, and Bernie's plan is a fraction of those rates.
You guys can leave behind your crumbling roads, failing communication networks, and underfunded schools. Don't worry, your kids will have to rebuild them with scraps while you sit on your pile of money and say "mine". The older generation grew up in an American welfare state, turned around and kicked away the ladder, all while saying "The world is tough, the money will trickle down eventually."
"Regurgitating fear mongering".....indeed. Got a mirror?
The only so-called "plan" of Comrade Sanders is "OPM"
The same old "proletariat vs, the bourgeois" bullcrap that has been spewed by every Socialist / Communist from Marx & Engels until Bernie today.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-09-2016).]
If they would use collected funds for their intention instead of financing usless programs or lazy people that wont work, they would have money for that stuff. In Ohio anyway, fuel taxes are meant to pay for roads and bridges....NOT city parks and city boat docks. Lottery money is supposed to go to schools, and only a small percentage of it does...the rest goes to who knows where. Like I said, Sanders and Clinton are both just proposing doing the same miraculous things that Obuma was supposed to be doing...none of which he did btw. Remember the bridge Obuma made a big stand up speech at that was going to be rebuilt immediately on his watch. Far as I know, 6 years later and that bridge hasnt been done...just jerry rigged together so cars dont fall into the river. Biggest deal is they need to STOP sending millions (if not billions) of our dollars to countries that are just mooching it off the US. None is to ever be repaid. Whats the argument against keeping that money here to do what WE need to have done. A lot of stuff could be fixed with the $15million that goes for presidential vacations every couple of months. He can take his vacations on his wallet when he gets out.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 02-09-2016).]
Not a single person in this thread has made a reasonable argument against the plan. Every single comment is fear mongering words regurgitated without a second thought.
I urge you to remember that the "Great America" that many candidates want to "Return" us to had very high tax rates compared to modern ones, and Bernie's plan is a fraction of those rates.
You guys can leave behind your crumbling roads, failing communication networks, and underfunded schools. Don't worry, your kids will have to rebuild them with scraps while you sit on your pile of money and say "mine". The older generation grew up in an American welfare state, turned around and kicked away the ladder, all while saying "The world is tough, the money will trickle down eventually."
Try these
CNN MONEY LINK (thats counters your link perfectly, and mentions many things we mentioned in this thread)
"A new analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget suggests that the plan may increase deficits by at least $3 trillion, and that's assuming Sanders correctly estimated the cost.
In a worst-case scenario, if the campaign underestimated the plan's costs, it could add as much as $14 trillion, according to the CRFB.
The main issue: The tax hikes may not raise as much as Sanders is counting on. ..a capital gains rate above 32% or so could end up reducing capital gains revenue, since investors would choose to hold on to more of their investments rather than sell them and pay the tax.
The CRFB estimates do not include the potential economic effects of Sanders' higher income tax rates. But if they did, the outlook could worsen.
The group notes that even liberal economists -- who favor taxing the wealthy more -- think a total income tax rate over 73% could end up reducing income tax receipts because they would discourage working, among other things.
Under Sanders' plan, if one considered all his proposed tax hikes on the wealthy, and combined them with state and local income tax rates, many could end up paying a top rate north of 80%".
-
and more:
http://freebeacon.com/polit...on-over-next-decade/ Sanders’ Plan Would Raise Taxes by $13.6 Trillion Over Next Decade Proposed plan would reduce GDP by 9.5 percent, lower wages, eliminate 6 million jobs would reduce GDP by 9.5 percent in the long term.
“At the center of my campaign is how we’re going to raise wages,” Sanders said at the first Democratic debate. “Yes, of course, raise the minimum wage, but we have to do so much more, including finding ways so that companies share profits with the workers who helped to make them" "make every public college and university in this country tuition-free,” he said."
-
http://time.com/4194179/bernie-sanders-tax-plan/ "It's a very, very, very big tax increase for everyone except those at the bottom. Sanders’ plan would lead to 10.56% lower after-tax income for all taxpayers, and a 17.91% lower after-tax income for the wealthiest Americans. When accounting for reduced GDP, taxpayers would see their after-tax incomes fall by 12.84% on average, the report said. Sanders’ plan to provide universal, single-payer healthcare. Sanders says he’d pay for that with a new 2.2% income-based “health care premium” tax, as well as a 6.2% payroll tax paid for by employers.
Not a single person in this thread has made a reasonable argument against the plan. Every single comment is fear mongering words regurgitated without a second thought.
I urge you to remember that the "Great America" that many candidates want to "Return" us to had very high tax rates compared to modern ones, and Bernie's plan is a fraction of those rates.
You guys can leave behind your crumbling roads, failing communication networks, and underfunded schools. Don't worry, your kids will have to rebuild them with scraps while you sit on your pile of money and say "mine". The older generation grew up in an American welfare state, turned around and kicked away the ladder, all while saying "The world is tough, the money will trickle down eventually."
Fear mongering is not happening. Realism from the Sanders camp is unobtainable. You asked for opinions.
"Very high taxes compared to modern ones"? Please explain.
You are calling out government controlled entities under the wrong guise. Saying government will do a better job this time is laughable. Your last paragraph IS Bernie Sanders exemplified!
Sorry, but I really cannot take you seriously. I just cannot do it. You seem to very dead set on America's destruction. Even reveling in it. I am unapologetic.
Not a single person in this thread has made a reasonable argument against the plan. Every single comment is fear mongering words regurgitated without a second thought.
I urge you to remember that the "Great America" that many candidates want to "Return" us to had very high tax rates compared to modern ones, and Bernie's plan is a fraction of those rates.
You guys can leave behind your crumbling roads, failing communication networks, and underfunded schools. Don't worry, your kids will have to rebuild them with scraps while you sit on your pile of money and say "mine". The older generation grew up in an American welfare state, turned around and kicked away the ladder, all while saying "The world is tough, the money will trickle down eventually."
Because it isn't really an argument.
You talk of America in its past. When people were different. When you had to be in America to be a big business. When proximity to your working partners and your customers made all the difference. When lawyers and corporations didn't have entire departments dedicating to how to not leave any money on the table. When half our taxes didn't go to paying ever increasing debt. When war profiteering was not considered just good business. When families needed one bread winner. When kids actually grew up with a father. When a male role model was encouraged because it meant honor and responsibility.
People and corporations with means will move globally as technology has freed them from this countries tether. Your workforce to your workplace and the incentives for them to both exist are no longer possible.
So your man Bernie offers no solution or leadership. Because paying more money to a hungry government does not get money to the people. It get money to the corporations that control the government. What money to people get is hush money and bribes to vote liberal.
Just like the politicians that are bought the people are also bought on the cheap.
Giving more money to the government is like adding a pure oxygen pump to your furnace the integrity of our country the fuel consumed.
Money isn't the solution because money isn't the problem. If you make money the problem then you will be defined by how much money you can produce.
Originally posted by Tony Kania: Fear mongering is not happening. Realism from the Sanders camp is unobtainable. You asked for opinions.
"Very high taxes compared to modern ones"? Please explain.
Here is a source on the tax rate. In the 50s and 60s the top brackets income tax was over 90%, funny I don't remember America burning during that time?
Also, in regards the Tax Foundation analysis, read this:
"The Taxes and Growth Model does not take into account the fiscal or economic effects of interest on debt. It also does not require budgets to balance over the long term, nor does it account for the potential macroeconomic or distributional effects of any changes to government spending that may accompany the tax plan."
It completely ignores the fact that he is planning on using the money to rebuild infrastructure, which would put money back into the economy. The report is pretty meaningless without those factors..
[This message has been edited by Threedog (edited 02-09-2016).]
Originally posted by Threedog: Here is a source on the tax rate. In the 50s and 60s the top brackets income tax was over 90%, funny I don't remember America burning during that time?
...
It completely ignores the fact that he is planning on using the money to rebuild infrastructure, which would put money back into the economy. The report is pretty meaningless without those factors..
Not arguing...
Explain why anyone should be taxed 90%.
Obama had an "infrastructure" plan. I very much agree that we need to invest in what makes our nation run. Jobs building are paid jobs. We do not build much any longer. Much in contrast to those 50's that you mention. Which, by the way, would be a very welcome time to me I feel.
Not a single person in this thread has made a reasonable argument against the plan. Every single comment is fear mongering words regurgitated without a second thought. You guys can leave behind your crumbling roads, failing communication networks, and underfunded schools. Don't worry, your kids will have to rebuild them with scraps while you sit on your pile of money and say "mine". The older generation grew up in an American welfare state, turned around and kicked away the ladder, all while saying "The world is tough, the money will trickle down eventually."
In yellow you can see the accusation of fear mongering, in red you can see the contradictory statement.
Originally posted by Threedog: You guys can leave behind your crumbling roads, failing communication networks, and underfunded schools. Don't worry, your kids will have to rebuild them with scraps while you sit on your pile of money and say "mine". The older generation grew up in an American welfare state, turned around and kicked away the ladder, all while saying "The world is tough, the money will trickle down eventually."
I'm sorry you live in a crappy place with all those problems. My home town has good roads, good communications, and good schools. And my state has no income tax. The problem it seems is YOUR state. What are you doing to fix YOUR problems? Vote for more Democrat politicians? How is that working out for you so far?
Here is a source on the tax rate. In the 50s and 60s the top brackets income tax was over 90%, funny I don't remember America burning during that time?
Do you know what was different in the 50's from today?
Following World War II, most of the rest of the industrialized nations in the world were devastated or destroyed. There was virtually no global competition. Business and manufacturing had to have a large presence here because we had in tact infrastructure. It took most of the 50's and 60's for the rest of the world to rebuild. There was no serious global competition until the 70's.
Those days are gone. That economy is gone. Unless Bernie wants to nuke the rest of the industrialized world, we simply can't compete with tax rates that high.
Rather ironic that you say you don't remember America burning, when it was the rest of the world having been burnt that allowed our economy of the 50's to exist.
Bernie wants to nuke the rest of the industrialized world
You heard it here first folks!!! The Bern is going to show us the Big Burn.
The hypocrisy with Sanders is amazing--always harping that Wall Street bought past elections, then turns right around and buys votes by promising to give you other people's money.
I very much agree that we need to invest in what makes our nation run. Jobs building are paid jobs. We do not build much any longer. Much in contrast to those 50's that you mention. Which, by the way, would be a very welcome time to me I feel. 
