New Hampshire Primary today

[ThePhantomCreep]

Why do people always bring this up? Nobody paid that rate; go look at the numbers, or read some history, instead of getting your info from motherjones.com.

The effective tax rate was much higher during the Eisenhower era regardless. The rich actually paid their fair share in those days, and the country was pretty damn prosperous as a result.

[bladefd]

Where exactly is the redistribution?

The truth is that while the income of middle/lower class has gotten stagnant, new distribution of most NEW wealth was to the very top.



Until the 70s, income was following closely with productivity then somewhere down the line, the 2 started to split in the late 1970s.


Bigger gains across the boards that ballooned with Reagan tax cuts, became even bigger under GWB. It has continued under Obama, albeit lower pace..



I don't mind the rich getting richer, but I do mind when it is to the detriment of everyone else. Since the 70s, things have been completely lopsided.

What was the point of not 1 but 2 such MASSIVE Reagan tax cuts for the very rich?? Explain that to me. Economy was already booming across the board throughout the 60s and 70s. What came from those massive tax cuts?

I'm sorry, but don't say trickle-down economics. It doesn't work. You know what happens? The rich just stack their wallet further, transfer the wealth to foreign banks, and/or open up a business in foreign country with FOREIGN workers. It already happened. Truth!

[Micku]

Apparently the top 170 economists and professors love Sanders plan?

[quote]
Financial experts, academics, and economists from across the nation are officially endorsing Bernie Sanders

[Dave3]

Apparently the top 170 economists and professors love Sanders plan?



The article list all the 170 economists and professors who gave Sanders high praise.

http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-...n-wall-street/

This article doesn't go into detail of what they think about it other than it's positive. I don't remember when did Sanders release his tax plan, but the last article that compared the current plan, Trump and Sanders plan was a few days after this article.

Anyway, it's best to check out what do top economists ppl think what should America do going forward. I'll see if I can both positive and negative viewpoints with economists. However, so far what I could find, a lot of economists seem pretty positive about it. If you guys have some articles or essays by other economists, then feel free to share I guess.

Americans don't listen to pediatricians on immunizations and don't listen to climatologists on climate change. I don't foresee them heeding experts on much. People naturally look for things to confirm what they already believe, not to learn more. No one starts research trying to prove themselves wrong.

[Dresta]

Apparently the top 170 economists and professors love Sanders plan?



The article list all the 170 economists and professors who gave Sanders high praise.

http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-...n-wall-street/

This article doesn't go into detail of what they think about it other than it's positive. I don't remember when did Sanders release his tax plan, but the last article that compared the current plan, Trump and Sanders plan was a few days after this article.

Anyway, it's best to check out what do top economists ppl think what should America do going forward. I'll see if I can both positive and negative viewpoints with economists. However, so far what I could find, a lot of economists seem pretty positive about it. If you guys have some articles or essays by other economists, then feel free to share I guess.

If James K. Galbraith and Robert Reich are saying it's a good thing, then all sensible money is on it being disastrous; the latter moron wrote an inane book called "supercapitalism," which actually shows that he knows very little about economics as it pertains to reality, and is obsessed with the vaguest of abstractions ("capitalism" doesn't serve "democracy" any more, apparently - whatever that means, and now we have "supercapitalism" - whatever that means). These people write economics for naive children, they speak in cliches, and they are part of the problem. The problem with most economists is they don't realise how utterly derivative and secondary their subject is, which is why their predictions are almost always off.

America has a gigantic welfare state on the Federal level, and these people actually think it doesn't; they are delusional ideologues whose doctoral degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Yes, they really have. GDP growth was stable (higher than 2011-2013) and wages are slowly starting to climb. The U3 rate is at 4.9%--2015 created more jobs than the entire Bush presidency!

Everything is stable, if unspectacular.

The stock market was long overdue for a correction, but the Dow Jones is still 100% higher than it was seven years ago.

Why do you think GOP candidates keep exaggerating the threats of terrorism and illegal immigration? Both were bigger issues during the Bush era--hell, even five years ago, but no one dared suggest halting our refugee program (much less a Muslim ban) after 9/11 or Iraq. Now both options are being entertained after Paris and San Bernardino?

Illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle (the population actually declined by one million since 2007), but NOW is the time to build a massive 1,000 mile wall? Now is the time to scapegoat undocumented workers?

They can't really attack the economy, outside of of wage inequality, and that's a problem largely of the GOP's creation. How many policies, aimed at stimulating wages, have they championed over the years? That's right, NONE. So what do they do? They distract by making mountains out of molehills, selling irrational fear to American voters. It's all they have.

Probably because Obama has been arming and funding terrorists without scruple, which has resulted in massacres in Europe that people don't want to see in America - not all that complicated is it?

And immigration? Because any intelligent person knows that a most fundamental duty of any government is in maintaining the integrity of its borders. If a government can't do that, then it doesn't have the right to do much else as far as i'm concerned. But yeah, letting masses of people cross into America illegally, pushing down the wages of Americans, so politicians can hark on about "GDP growth" (another vague abstraction that actually means very little) like you are right now, is not a positive as far as i'm concerned. But of course, sheep like you will always be led by the nose, and will think exactly what those holding power want you to think.

*policies of stimulating wages*



You're clueless dude. Such a micromanagement of the economy is what plays directly into the hands of corporate oligarchs, and is what's driving the rich/poor divergence. The Federal Government cannot "stimulate wages" - it can only grant favours, and it does that very well. You're like the slave justifying his own servitude; people like you wouldn't know what to do with a hint of freedom, and so you buckle down and try to make sure no-one else can enjoy/suffer from it either.