Today’s post is dedicated to my complex, intelligent, factually-based, and well-thought out debates with the Sandroid Bernout Army. I’m just kidding folks, there wasn’t a whole lot of critical thinking going on in the mind of the Sandroids. Only one of the people I asked questions of was somewhat reasonable. You’ve heard me talk of the folks over at Economic Illiterates for Bernie Sanders 2016 before and this is where most of the discussions took place at.

To start this off here’s a CNN that some Sandroids decided to spam the aforementioned page with.

CNN-Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

In the CNN article a single economist by the name of Gerald Freidman claims that under Bernie’s plan the U.S. economy would:

“Friedman, who believes in democratic socialism like the candidate, 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.”

I’m fairly certain that most of the Bernie supporters didn’t get past this part (or the title for that matter) since right after that portion of the article was the following:

“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.”

I wonder where the $14.5 trillion is going to come from?

“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.) ”

That’s right, tax increases on the wretched and vile “1%”, a 2.2% income tax on anyone making over $28,000 a year, a 6.2% payroll tax levied on the employer side, a tax on numerous financial transactions (purchase/sale of bonds, stocks, among many other things), and big increases on capital gains among numerous other fees. Brilliant, whatever could go wrong with this great plan?   (Hat-tip to We Are Capitalists)

Continuing on though:

“‘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.’”

FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau Jr. admitted that New Deal policies were a complete and utter failure that didn’t restore employment, restore prosperity, or even end the Great Depression.

“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. ”

We won’t get 4% growth per year in the economy, but Bernie and his Bernouts will find a way to make the U.S. economy consistently grow at 5.3% every year.

“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.”

So if we take more money from citizens just to give it back to them later the economy will grow? Brilliant…

     

At the end of the article we see the following:

“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.”

I feel like I’ve said something similar to this before about economic conditions in the 1950s and progressive ideas about the tax code.

Now that I’ve established what the Bernie trolls are citing as evidence of their ideas being correct, let’s look at how they respond to my arguments.

Here was the standard response I gave (i.e. copied and pasted) since the Sandroids kept citing the same article without reading it.

Some people never really responded…

         

Like I said at the beginning, there was one individual who was reasonable and not full of hate.

Then there were the people who would disagree with what I had to say but offered no evidence of their own whilst calling me a liar. The logic that the Sandroids are using is simply amazing…

      

Concerning a discussion not related to the CNN article Mr. Joe Giansante provided some good entertainment. This postal worker appears to be going postal on me.

 

     

Mr. Tanous had some interesting logic as well; the “1%” are keeping Africa to perform sweatshop labor yet also stopping all economic development. I’m not certain how that works, especially when countries like South Africa are ruled by the socialists in the African National Congress and communist dictators rule Zimbabwe. What’s up with progressives and thinking that their opponents base everything off of Fox News?

       

Then there was a woman by the name of Sally Sallernio who makes some wondrous claims yet is also unable to back them up.

She actually argued that facts don’t matter…

I know what Comrade Sally needs in her life, a lifetime subscription to Poor Me! magazine.

That’s all for now about my conversations with the Sandroid Bernout Army. As always, don’t be scared to share this information with your fiends, I mean friends.