Prospero Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Oće li to normalni GOPeri pobeći kod Džoa pošto su videli ponudu svoje stranke? :D Edited October 13, 2015 by Prospero
dragance Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Ma koliko Bernie bio simpatičan, Joe stvarno ima veliku šansu koju ni u snu nisam zamisljao pre laganog raspada Hillary.
dragance Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Oće li to normalni GOPeri pobeći kod Džoa pošto su videli ponudu svoje stranke? :D The old adage is true: izbori se dobijaju u centru.
Eraserhead Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Oće li to normalni GOPeri pobeći kod Džoa pošto su videli ponudu svoje stranke? :D Sto se mene tice fiskalno konzervativniji demokrata ili socijalno liberalniji GOPer bi bio idealan izbor. Plus neko ko se ne protivi free-trade sto meni sa liste opcija eliminise i Hillary i Bernija. Ma koliko Bernie bio simpatičan, Joe stvarno ima veliku šansu koju ni u snu nisam zamisljao pre laganog raspada Hillary. Ja sam jedini ovde kome je on nesimpatican i to cak ni ne toliko zbog politike vec vise kao pojava. "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act," mi se svidja. Tax hikes nisu dobra ideja. Dobar tekst koji uprkos naslovu nije pljuvanje po Berniju vec argument u korist toga da je on u realnosti mnogo pragmaticniji nego sto se predstavlja. If Socialist Candidate Bernie Sanders Was President, Here's What Would Happen to the U.S. Economy NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Would you want a socialist in the White House? If the polls are accurate, very few people would. But it's closer to happening than almost ever before, with self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders running a close second in the early going to Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. The Vermont senator has shaken up the Democratic presidential field, igniting crowds all over the country and giving front-runner Clinton a run for her money in the polls. Many Americans will get their first good look at him in action at the Democratic presidential debate on CNN Tuesday evening (which TheStreet will be covering live). And while Sanders as president remains an unlikely scenario, it's worth pondering what the U.S. markets and economy would look like with the Democratic Socialist at the helm. "The great thing about Bernie Sanders is that there's no guile about him. His authenticity is pretty much based on him saying what he believes," said Middlebury University political science professor and expert in presidential politics Matt Dickinson. In other words, Sanders would probably be much better off in the polls if he used the "s-word" less. While the U.S. economy would certainly look different under a socialist Sanders presidency, it might not be as crazy as you'd think. Of course, a Sanders presidency would face a number of hurdles to enacting its proposals -- ahem, Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, who don't love socialists. But taking legislative hurdles out of the equation, we can glean much of what a U.S. economy run by Sanders would look like. Among Sanders's most significant proposals are implementing a single-payer health care system, breaking up big banks, raising the minimum wage to $15, and ending free trade agreements NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China and the recently-signed Trans-Pacific Partnership. Thus far, most of the senator's ideas -- economic and otherwise -- have been focused on spending, without a clear picture on how he would pay for his proposals. However, one can infer that paying for his programs would require one of two things (or a combination of both): an increase in the deficit, and higher taxes. "He doesn't really detail the impact of taxes on the overall aggregate growth of the economy. He basically just says, 'Well, we'll just raise more money by raising taxes,' but he doesn't really discuss the impact on productivity," Dickinson said. Well, let's take a closer look. Single-Payer Health Care: Sanders' Fat-Wallet Proposal Sanders' single-payer health care system would cost the U.S. federal government $15 trillion, and seven of his other programs -- including increased spending on public infrastructure, expanding social security and making tuition free at public institutions -- would cost an additional $3.5 trillion, according to Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The good news? Friedman also says the health care overhaul would enable up to $10 trillion in savings for the general public. And the other programs? Another $1.1 trillion in additional savings over 10 years. And excluding the issue of likely higher taxes, the programs could mean seven million more jobs and a nearly $4 trillion increase in economic activity in 2026. The bad news? Regardless, the programs could spook the markets. If Sanders' policies deepen the budget deficit for many years down the road, that could impact the bond market and creditors, who in the face of uncertainty often drive up interest rates or simply stop giving out loans at all. Essentially, it could mean it would be more expensive to run the government, which could exacerbate any cost issues a Sanders budget might face. Former President Bill Clinton learned this lesson the hard way early in his tenure and was forced to prioritize deficit reduction instead of fulfilling his spending promises. In the Bob Woodward's 1994 book on Clinton The Agenda, the President is described as saying, "You mean to tell me that the success of the program and my reelection hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of f------ bond traders?" Friedman points out that a single payer health care program would also negatively impact the earnings of pharmaceutical companies, health insurers and hospital chains that in recent years have been among the best performers in the markets and have benefited from rising prices for their products and services, though it wouldn't put them under all together. Moreover, it could actually make other sectors more profitable, such as life insurance, if overall health improves and people live longer as a result of better access to health care. And Friedman estimates such a system would save the U.S. $600 billion a year. While still a net loss in the near-term, a Sanders-run health care system could potentially incur major savings over time. The Wall Street Offensive Wall Street probably wouldn't love a Sanders presidency. "I would imagine that, given his rhetoric about Wall Street regulation and changes in minimum wage and other issues, the stock market would probably, at least initially, respond pretty poorly to a Sanders presidency, and I think it would rebound only if policies under Sanders were shown to be economically positive," said John Hudak, a fellow in governance studies at Washington, D.C.-based think tank the Brookings Institution. In both 2008 and 2012, the stock market plunged in the wake of the election of President Barack Obama (a Democrat), and stocks surged when President George W. Bush (a Republican) won reelection in 2004. Given that Republicans are seen as having more Wall Street-friendly policies, the results are not surprising, even though some studies suggest the economy does better with a Democrat in the White House. "The basic question that drives everything is whether the financial markets believe the Sanders numbers add up," Dickinson said. The Vermont senator has taken direct aim at big banks and corporations and has introduced the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act," which would essentially identify banks considered too big to fail and give the treasury secretary a year to disassemble them. He has said the bill would mean an end to some of the largest financial institutions in the United States, including JPMorgan Chase (JPM - Get Report) , Citigroup (C - Get Report) , Goldman Sachs (GS - Get Report) , Bank of America (BAC - Get Report) and Morgan Stanley (MS - Get Report) . If he succeeds, onlookers say the economic implications would be far-reaching and largely positive. "Breaking up the big banks would be a step towards reducing the 'too big to fail' and forcing responsible behavior, which would stabilize the economy," said Friedman. "Breaking up the big banks is twofold. First, it will reduce systematic risk created by large, complex, and unmanageable banks. Second, it will eliminate the unfair competitive advantage that big banks have, since everyone knows the government would not let them fail in a crisis," said James Kwak, an associate law professor at the University of Connecticut. "It would help the economy tremendously because that would free up loans to mainstream business, main street businesses and other ventures that would help the economy," said Michael Greenberger, law school professor at the University of Maryland and director of the center for Health and Homeland Security. Of course, not everyone agrees that the end of the big banks would be a good thing for the U.S. economy. Kenneth H. Thomas, a economist and former lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, made the argument in a July 2015 essay in American Banker that America needs "too big to fail" banks. "The single most important lesson we should have learned from the financial crisis is that a handful of giant entities are simply 'too big to fail' and must be bailed out to avoid catastrophic results," he wrote. "After watching our system nearly go over the cliff with the Lehman bankruptcy, our Beltway bureaucrats finally 'got it' and began bailing out systematic private and public entities. Even then, they acted in a painfully slow and perilous manner, doing too little, too late." Higher Taxes Everywhere, and an End to Free Trade Sanders has pledged to hike taxes on the wealthy, including a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3% of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million and lifting the cap on taxable income (the limit of annual wages or self-employment income that is eligible for social security taxes) to above $250,000 (it is currently set at $118,500 for 2015). He has especially targeted big corporations, pledging to ensure they pay their "fair share" and stop shifting profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying taxes. Should he succeed, it won't just be major companies that feel the hit. "Higher corporate taxes are not such a big issue for the corporations themselves," said Kwak. "Corporations will pay higher taxes, so the profits available to shareholders will go down. But they will respond in part by increasing prices and in part by reducing employee compensation, so the impact of the taxes will be spread across consumers, employees and investors." Sanders has also promised to enact a tax on Wall Street speculators and raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2020. The moves don't necessarily indicate hostility toward corporate America but do demonstrate greater willingness to tax corporate profits and redistribute wealth. "If that happens, then we'll start to see a change in the distribution of national income, which will be interesting in itself, in poverty, higher wages, smaller inequality, but also will put the economy on a path to more stable footing," Friedman said. "The economy is much less stable now than it was before with the great run-up in inequality, and Sanders will be looking to reverse that a little bit, move us to a more balanced distribution of income and a more stable economy." And, he has pledged to shut down trade policies NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would have mixed results but could bring more jobs back to the U.S. "The theory on these trade agreements is that jobs grow abroad, and whatever benefits happen with regards to exporting our markets, our products, is completely overwhelmed by the loss of American jobs," said Greenberger. "And jobs have gone abroad under existing trade agreements, and those who understand these trade agreements say the same thing will happen with the Trans-Pacific trade agreement." Left of the Center, but Not the USSR While Sanders' policies would push the United States more toward the left, it would not exactly turn the country into Cuba. Sanders' executive experience as the four-term mayor of Burlington, Vermont demonstrates his bark may be tougher than his bite, as he maintained the city's finances in check and worked to regulate the city's waterfront development plans successfully. "I guess if you're trying to extract lessons, it's that maybe his rhetoric is a little more extreme than his actual actions will be as president. He may be more pragmatic and less willing to break up financial institutions and raise corporate taxes to what they were in the '50s," Dickinson said. And on social issues, a Sanders presidency would mean a more left-leaning, progressive America as well -- though again, perhaps not as much as you may think. His record on gun control is a mixed one. In the wake of the Oregon school shooting in early October, the senator called for "sensible gun-control legislation;" however, some argue that Sanders' voting record as a representative of Vermont, a state with lax gun laws, demonstrates opposition to such laws. During the early 1990s, he voted against the Brady Bill, which requires background checks for firearm purchases, and in the early 2000s, he voted in support of a law preventing gun victims from suing firearms manufacturers. He touched on guns on Sunday's episode of "Meet the Press" and said taking another look at the "liability issue" may be worthwhile. Sanders has pledged to fight for equal pay for women, and his proposal to expand social security would likely impact more women, who are often more likely to be living in poverty, than men. He has said he would only nominate Supreme Court justices who "understand that Row v. Wade is the law of the land and recognize the rights of women to have access to family planning services." The senator has long been a supporter of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights and in 1983 as mayor supported the city's first ever pride parade as well as signing a city ordinance banning housing discrimination. He is currently cosponsoring the Equality Act, which would expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other anti-discrimination legislation to include protections with respect to sexual orientation and gender identity. And on race, he has pledged to address "four types of violence waged against black and brown Americans: physical, political, legal and economic." He has also put focus on the issue through the lens of private prisons -- an industry he has pledged to end. On the hot-button issue of immigration, Sanders has said he would bring about comprehensive reform to bring over 11 million undocumented workers "out of the shadows" and sign the DREAM Act into law to offer the opportunity of permanent residency and eventual citizenship to those brought to the U.S. as children. It is worth noting, however, that in 2007 he voted against a comprehensive immigration reform bill over concerns about how guest-worker programs would negatively impact American workers. Six years later in 2013, he voted for a similar measure after an amendment was included providing $1.5 billion for state and local job programs for young people.
ObiW Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Ja sam jedini ovde kome je on nesimpatican i to cak ni ne toliko zbog politike vec vise kao pojava. Amerikanizovao si se, a ni ni svestan. Amerikanci uvek izaberu kandidata koji je visok, ima lepu frizuru, i krupne & bele zube.
Ariel Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Plus je ovo sve što Berni predlaže je toliko razumno da nema šanse da prođe.
Eraserhead Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Plus je ovo sve što Berni predlaže je toliko razumno da nema šanse da prođe. Pa sad nema bas sve smisla. Posebno ne to sto za ovako radikale promene na rashodnoj strani nije predlozio detaljan plan finansiranja. Ono gde je predlozio okvirni plan nema bas sve smisla. Flat tax na trgovinu derivativima, opcijama, fjucersima, svopovima ne bi mogao da funkcionise u direktnoj proporciji. Takav porez bi doveo do smanjenja obima tih transkcija. Druga stvar je sto nisu sve te transakcije ili cak vecina tih transakcija "spekulativne transakcije" mnoge od njih se koriste da bi se kompanije zastitile od rizika pa se tako postavlja i pitanje da li bi to dovelo do vece izlozenosti riziku na nivou ekonomije. Trade agreements donose neto korist Americi i ne mislim da ih treba ukidati zarad vizije ekonomije od pre par desetina godina gde hardver vredi vise od softvera. Uz to imam utisak da on farmaceutske kuce vidi kao neprijatelje sto nije bas dobar stav. Povecanje poreza na profit kompanija nema mnogo misla i prelio bi se na potrosace. Porez na dividende. On hoce da izjednaci porez na dividende sa dohotkom. Medjutim dividende se vec oporezuju vise nego dohodak jer prolaze kroz dvostruko oporezivanje. Porez na dobit kompanije pa se onda iz toga isplacuju dividende koje se jos jednom oporezuju. Ne vidim da bi imalo smisla to podizati. Uvodjenje kazni Kini zbog "manipulacija juanom" nema bas mnogo smisla. To bi dovelo do toga da roba koja se proizvodi u Kini poskupi. Plus bi dovelo do zatezanja politickih odnosa sa Kinom. Razumem logiku ali ne vidim posebne benefite. Ima tu i dobrih stvari kao sto je razbijanje velikih finansijskih institucija. Njegove mere su vise ideoloske nego ekonomski promisljene. Edited October 13, 2015 by Eraserhead
marv Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 a zasto bas vegas!? (jel to neki redosled ili nesto slicno) zar to nikome ne bode oci!?
Eraserhead Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Ko gledao ovo neka prati Trumpove tvitove paralelno. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 44s45 seconds ago "@princeolivier13: Why do we have to be tortured by watching these clowns! Have the election tomorrow! #trump2016 #DemDebate" Edited October 14, 2015 by Eraserhead
Eraserhead Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 No name kandidat o tome kako je Asad izvrsio invaziju na Siriju. Webb preti Kini. Sanders prvo o Kosovu pa o tome kako ce Rusi da ginu u Siriji. Hilari glumi drzavnika.
Eraserhead Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) VICE News @vicenews 2m2 minutes ago Lincoln Chafee says he voted to repeal Glass-Steagall because his dad had just died and he was new the Senate: http://bit.ly/1jn6Yxe God @TheTweetOfGod 16s17 seconds ago Lincoln Chafee... hoo boy. #DemDebate Edited October 14, 2015 by Eraserhead
Budja Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Pa sad nema bas sve smisla. Posebno ne to sto za ovako radikale promene na rashodnoj strani nije predlozio detaljan plan finansiranja. Ono gde je predlozio okvirni plan nema bas sve smisla. Flat tax na trgovinu derivativima, opcijama, fjucersima, svopovima ne bi mogao da funkcionise u direktnoj proporciji. Takav porez bi doveo do smanjenja obima tih transkcija. Druga stvar je sto nisu sve te transakcije ili cak vecina tih transakcija "spekulativne transakcije" mnoge od njih se koriste da bi se kompanije zastitile od rizika pa se tako postavlja i pitanje da li bi to dovelo do vece izlozenosti riziku na nivou ekonomije. Trade agreements donose neto korist Americi i ne mislim da ih treba ukidati zarad vizije ekonomije od pre par desetina godina gde hardver vredi vise od softvera. Uz to imam utisak da on farmaceutske kuce vidi kao neprijatelje sto nije bas dobar stav. Povecanje poreza na profit kompanija nema mnogo misla i prelio bi se na potrosace. Porez na dividende. On hoce da izjednaci porez na dividende sa dohotkom. Medjutim dividende se vec oporezuju vise nego dohodak jer prolaze kroz dvostruko oporezivanje. Porez na dobit kompanije pa se onda iz toga isplacuju dividende koje se jos jednom oporezuju. Ne vidim da bi imalo smisla to podizati. Uvodjenje kazni Kini zbog "manipulacija juanom" nema bas mnogo smisla. To bi dovelo do toga da roba koja se proizvodi u Kini poskupi. Plus bi dovelo do zatezanja politickih odnosa sa Kinom. Razumem logiku ali ne vidim posebne benefite. Ima tu i dobrih stvari kao sto je razbijanje velikih finansijskih institucija. Njegove mere su vise ideoloske nego ekonomski promisljene. Boldovano: 1. Neki dokaz da nefinansijske kompanije koriste derivative za hedging a ne spekulisanje? Ako cemo po tome kako kompanije upotrebljavaju racunovodstvena pravila za hedging, koja jesu restriktivna (IAS 39, ne novi IFRS 9), malo ko hedzuje. No, mrzi me da trazim, ima akademskih studija na tu temu. 2. Rizik na nivou ekonomije je da, derivativi su zamisljeni za risk sharing, sto moze da dovede do smanjenja rizika na individualnom nivou ali ne na nivou ekonomije. Sad, posto je svet umrezen, rec "ekonomija" treba shvatiti globalno a ne nacionalno. 3. Dividende - koje su stope poreza na dobit i dividende (zbirno) u odnosu na stopu poreza na plate, recimo? Dvostruko oporezivanje ne znaci nuzno da su stope na sve dohotke jednake. Ne znam kakav je slucaj u SAD.
Recommended Posts