Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So how many economists have endorsed Trump's plan?
Astro Aquanaut
Active Member
You give me a Top New York Hustler, an old socialist, a Criminal, and an evangelical neo con... I will take the New York Hustler every time...
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Using this logic, the richest person on earth would be the best president, because money
That's a stupid argument
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I strongly suspect my penis is much larger than Bernies or Trumps for that matter.
Hillary might have a couple inches on me though...
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.
Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.
Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact the titanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.
The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public they can’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall."
-170 economists who endorse Sanders
Astro Aquanaut
Active Member
It isn't about being president it is a matter of being given opportunity throughout ones life and not properly managing it. You can normally get an idea of a person by how they conduct their finances... He has made good money for a long time he has no excuse for his net worth. He claims to know the financial system, yet he has no experience in that system...
Astro Aquanaut
Active Member
Can you prove fraudulent behavior? If killing someone is legal and I kill someone do you blame me or the government who made it legal?
Business will do whatever is legal pushing the limits of the rules, however it is those who make the rules who are responsible for how the game is played...
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Then why did 170 economists endorse his economic plan?
Why are you avoiding answering that question?
If his plan is so bad, why do those who study the economy support it? Why have no other candidates running for president, including Trump, gained any such endorsements?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The practices that allowed commercial and investment banking to merge is responsible, I've remained consistent on that the entire time. The rules are what need to be changed, and Sanders is the only one committed to changing those rules
Astro Aquanaut
Active Member
The president has no control what so ever over the economic plan... Any proposal by any presidential nominee of an economic plan is politics at the highest level...
He has the ability right now to submit his economic plan, and he knows his economic plan won't make it out of the house...
Astro Aquanaut
Active Member
Bill Clinton with a republican congress changed the rules of the game. Business reacted and took advantage of the new rules which is only natural... You blame the banks for what politicians have done... Then you think Bernie is the only one who can change it... Well good luck getting through the house...
Astro Aquanaut
Active Member
Do you really believe Bernie Sanders economic proposals are going to make it through a House ran by Paul Ryan?
You are electing a president based on things which are not apart of the presidential role....
You are electing a president based on things which are not apart of the presidential role....
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That's irrelevant
Any scenario is better than having a president push through the same economic policy as previous ones. I would rather a president have a solid plan that gets stopped by congress than a president have a shitty plan that goes through
Astro Aquanaut
Active Member
Personal experience dealing with fortune 200 companies in technology...
Astro Aquanaut
Active Member
Would you like to hear about some of the contracts that the UE have?
Some contracts stipulate that none representative employees can not access, configure or be apart of certain technologies within these companies and the only people who can have access are contractors which forces companies to use offshore contractors...
The unions promote Silo work functions that are guarded from other employees that naturally stifles innovation...
Some contracts stipulate that none representative employees can not access, configure or be apart of certain technologies within these companies and the only people who can have access are contractors which forces companies to use offshore contractors...
The unions promote Silo work functions that are guarded from other employees that naturally stifles innovation...
Astro Aquanaut
Active Member
The president should be focused on creating a more efficient organization within his area of responsibility rather than spinning his wheels...
Astro Aquanaut
Active Member
None of the union personal are innovating in these companies because the positions which are apart of the drivers of innovation are considered management... So, basically you get an environment where union employees guard their work, and function while architects, engineers, and business operations personnel have to fight and work around representative employees... The representative employees are tasked with only functions that are strictly defined creating a silo work environment which does not allow them to expand beyond their function...
This is what we call Corporatism... Trade Unionist are corporatist in the classical sense that they believe you are defined by your work, and your work is defined for you...
This is what we call Corporatism... Trade Unionist are corporatist in the classical sense that they believe you are defined by your work, and your work is defined for you...
Last edited:
Presidents aren't kings, they don't get to make laws.
The candidate claiming he'll figure it out when he gets there is just as valid as the guy making claims about some wet dream that has zero chance of getting through the legislature.
You're voting for a personality that resonates and appeals to your thought process. Has nothing to do with the eventual outcome once the dude is in office.
This would be way different if we voted on a plan tied to an implementation team that could be held accountable for their campaign claims.
But that's not the way any of this works. This process is a shot in the dark at best.
Face it, you're just inspired by this old fart because he's made a living sucking on the government tit and now has a chance to bump his pension payout.
.