The US economy explained in 2 minutes, by Robert Reich

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by robwerden
Here is the real truth.

The economy is based on spending. The more people spend the better the economy.
Why are people not spending?
A: Because the devaluation of the currency through inflation drives prices up on things people need to survive so they are less likely to spend money.

How do you fix the economy?
A: You stop inflation by removing the cause of the devaluation of the currency. In the case of the USA the culprit is the federal reserve. So step 1 is to end the FED. Second you base the currency on commodity metals like gold and silver to prevent the treasury from diluting the money supply.

When a country has a stable currency, then prices are more stable and spending resumes because savers know the money they have in the bank will buy the same goods and services in 20 years as it does today.

The key is stability in the money supply.

This is the way the Constitution demanded we manage our currency and it was socialists and greedy banks who convinced the American public keynesian economics was the solution to the market corrections we were going through in the 20th century. What these scum bags never told us was after 100 years the entire system would fall like a house of cards, and the exodus from the gold standard in 1971 sped up the downfall even faster.

Don't spew your socialist communist economic alice in wonder land theories at me, I will destroy you with my article 1 section 8 laser cannon.
buh by

::Sigh::

The economy is based on spending. The more people spend the better the economy.

Right and wrong. Right in the sense that spending money strengthens an economy because it circulates wealth. Wrong, because in practice.... the more money you spend... the more is taken OUT of circulation.

2% of Americans have over 40% of the money. How did this happen? 98% of American's spend their money but it ultimately ends up stockpiled in the accounts of these 2%.

Spending more money faster will reach the opposite goal of balancing the economy. It exaggerates the problem, since the problem is that 98% of people are fighting over what is factually too little for them to get by on.

The estimated population of America is 300 million. The estimated amount of USD$ in circulation is $575 billion.

2% of 300 million people is 6 million people. 40% of that $575 billion is $230 billion.

6 million people get to share $230 billion dollars. 294 million people get to share $345 billion. Nearly every dollar spent on consumer products, out of that $345B, goes directly to that 2% minority. Hence, growing their $230B, and reducing the share of the 98% majority, the $345B.

So, as we consumers spend, spend, spend... our 345$ billion in curculation dwindles, whilst the $230 billion of the 2% grows.

The problem with the economy is simply put... too much consolidation of money into to small a fraction of the population of the people.

Essentially, the Middle class is broke, and the upper class has almost all of the money. The solution I ASSURE YOU, is not to give the upper class the rest of the money. The only thing this helps is tanking the economy. Not spending your money however, will also tank the economy. The ONLY solution is to reduce the money that the upper class has and return it to the middle class. The only way to do this is to TAX THE F^&@ out of the rich. Period.

A: You stop inflation by removing the cause of the devaluation of the currency. In the case of the USA the culprit is the federal reserve. So step 1 is to end the FED. Second you base the currency on commodity metals like gold and silver to prevent the treasury from diluting the money supply.

Wrong. Inflation is a symptom that is caused by increasing the amount of money in circulation because of the problem I demonstrated above. What happens when the Upper class has all the money? Simply put, you print more money. Printing more money, then devalues the currency in question. This is NOT about getting rich. This is NOT about stealing money. This is not about Greed. This is about bankrupting nations PURPOSEFULLY.

The more money you print, the less value it has, so if you had all of the money, essentially you maintain the same wealth. (I.E. The Super rich stay super rich... even in an inflated economy.) The money doesn't need to be backed by commodity metals. You do NOT need a currency backed by gold. The dollar hasn't been, but it not being backed by commodity is NOT the reason for the inflation. The inflation IS the reason we aren't back by commodity anymore. So, in that respect.. the opposite is actually true.

In theory it would prevent inflation... but what happens when your money gets consolidated and you don't want to give it back? You need inflation. So you drop your commodity backing. Which is exactly what the U.S. did. The "Gold" standard was only ever used as a metric to weigh if an economy was in proportion... It made sure you had the optimum amount of currency in circulation.

This is it's only function. We do not need a commodity backed dollar, we just need to understand that there is a certain amount of money allowed to be in circulation for any give population. If you exceed money in circulation...the value is then reduced. All that is required here.. is a law that states what the limits must be. (You must consider, we have already established a value for the dollar, independent of commodity.)

Remember though, we wouldn't have this problem of inflation, had the money NOT have been essentially consolidated to the vast minority. What we have now, is, a corporate monopoly. There are way to few companies making way to much money. There is not enough competition and as such... the money ends up sitting in the accounts of these mega corporations. The reason why "Monopoly" is against the law is because it removes money from circulation... which then collapses economies. The problem is, we allow Monopolies to exist, because they bought policy to allow themselves to maintain their positions.


The only way to fix this, is to break up the monopolies, super tax the extreme wealthy.... (read: create a new catagory that is in proportion to the amount that is yearly earned for that 2%.) Give control back to the states, shrink the government and return to mom and pop shops that are privately owned. This is capitalism. What we have now... is essentially corporatocracy.

You would also need to return the ability to print and control the money in circulation back to the government. Essentially you NEED the fed. You can't have an economy without an equal organization. However, the FED is privately owned... and is above the law. The FED needs to be government run... by NON-corrupt politics. This goes hand in hand with the idea of smaller government.

I rest my case.

edit on 28-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)

Im glad you are resting your case. Now go play a video game because your intellect is equal to that of a child. You know nothing of economics and you are embarrassing your self in a public forum spewing nonsense about social justice.
I never rest my case, I keep calling out the insanity of people like your self for making the world think government has the solution when in reality it is the cause. Please tell me you will never run for public office, because the last thing this world needs is another socialist making uninformed idiotic policy.

Im glad you are resting your case. Now go play a video game because your intellect is equal to that of a child. You know nothing of economics and you are embarrassing your self in a public forum spewing nonsense about social justice.
I never rest my case, I keep calling out the insanity of people like your self for making the world think government has the solution when in reality it is the cause. Please tell me you will never run for public office, because the last thing this world needs is another socialist making uninformed idiotic policy.

I'm a socialist for wanting to reduce the governments size? I'm a socialist because I recognize the fact that when a small faction of an economy has all the money... the big faction can no longer purchase things... so the economy collapses?

I'm a socialist, because I think it's wrong for 2% of a population to hold the entire GDP? You say I am FOR the government... when I am against it?

I keep calling out the insanity of people like your self for making the world think government has the solution when in reality it is the cause

The government IS the cause. Most elected officials are making money off of lobbyists from these mega corporations that essentially dictate policy.

Hence the reason I'm against every action the government is taking. Increasing the Debt cap will kill us. The stimulus just hastened the economic collapse. The federal reserve is intentionally bankrupting America.

Did you even read anything I said?

your intellect is equal to that of a child.

Right. Because you can't even comprehend what I wrote and think I'm FOR what the current government is doing...

SMALL government is not socialism. Big government is. Unless we break it down, we are HEADING for a communist nation. Everything I have said is COUNTER to communism.

So... I have to question if YOU'RE intellect is equal to that of a child. Go ahead... explain where I'm wrong.

Consider it a formal challenge.

So to get the money in 100,000 peoples hands, how do you suggest that happens? Let me guess, you tax the wealthy and hand out the money to the poor. Boy that sounds allot like socialism to me.

How about you allow the free market to work with out regulations that hamper them to the point where they send their companies overseas. Maybe then corporations will set up manufacturing in the US and actually provide employment for those 100,000 people. Then the money would be in their hands through earning it instead of taxing (stealing) from all off us so a social safety net can entice the lower and middle class to not work and leech off the tax payers who do work.

No. Not the wealthy. THE SUPER WEALTHY. There is a difference. Only 2% of the people in the country are super wealthy. They are the ones that have 40% of the money. Jay-Z and Eminem and Denzel Washington would be unaffected by the tax on the super wealthy. Do you understand this? They are multi MILLIONAIRES, yet exempt to this tax on the super wealthy. You HAVE to tax the billionaires. It's a must. If you don't, and they continue to pile up the money in the economy, what happens when you run out because they have it all?

Oh, we should let the free market work without regulations... This will result in the poor/middle/upperclass collapsing... The devaluation of the dollar... to the point where USD is not a viable trade currency, in which case... the SUPER wealthy bankrupts themselves....

Right. Because that works.

Are you stupid? Or what? You realize money is a FINITE resource. So, what do you propose will happen, when this finite resources is completely controlled by 2% of the population. 98% of the population starves and dies.

Great plan.

Also, what you fail to recognize... is that I AM FOR THE FREE MARKET. I am FOR capitilism. The problem is... you can no longer enter this free market. The American Dream is more improbable than hitting the lotto. You have dillusions of grandor, do you ever believe you are going to get SUPER wealthy? The answer should be no, because following the model of America will make that an impossible dream.

America was founded on the principle of being able to start up a business and be successful. Now it's dominated by ATT/Comcast/Timewarner/Goldman Sachs/Microsoft/Sony/Apple/insert mega corporation here.

They make it impossible to compete with them. This is NOT free market. This is a franchise monopolized market. The polar opposite.

You need to get an education bud.

The problem with you inparticular... is that you are imposing theology/philosophy/partisanship. Leave theology/philosophy/partisanship out of the argument. Look at the problem, analyze what it really is, understand it... once you understand it, you can control it. e.g. Issue a fix.

There is no theological/socialogical/philisophical/partisanship agenda in my post. It's a completely non partisan account of the financial problems for which there is ONLY one solution. You need more money in the hand of the people, so they can spend it. If there is no money for them to spend, you have no economy. The middle class is going poor. The poor, are even more poor. The wealthy, are getting wealthier.

This is not a problem?

reply to post by Laokin


Your say some things that are in line with small goverment which give the illusion you are actually for it.

Then the illusion is destroyed when you say things like we do not need commodity back currency and make references to the classes of wealth and how they are unfair.

Rethink those issues and maybe there will be hope for you.

I get infuriated by talk of inequality. That is not what this country is founded on. If some people managed to become super rich I applaud them and hope to be like them some day. I don't whine and call foul because they have more than me and can afford to get a team of accountants to reduce their tax burden.

If you could pay no taxes you would and don't even say to the contrary. This country does not need a personal income tax and just because millionaires can find the loop holes that you some how have not been able to exploit does not give you the right to judge them and demand they pay their fair share.

Your statements are not only socialist, they are anti American and just because you and I agree on some aspect does not mean you are forgiven for demanding the rich pay more taxes.

Why don't you stop listening to John Stewart and MSNBC and start reading Austrian Economics and look into people like ludwig von mises and Ron Paul.

Open your eyes to the lunacy you are subscribing to.

Case still open

Originally posted by robwerden
reply to post by Laokin

 

Your say some things that are in line with small goverment which give the illusion you are actually for it.

Then the illusion is destroyed when you say things like we do not need commodity back currency and make references to the classes of wealth and how they are unfair.

Rethink those issues and maybe there will be hope for you.

I get infuriated by talk of inequality. That is not what this country is founded on. If some people managed to become super rich I applaud them and hope to be like them some day. I don't whine and call foul because they have more than me and can afford to get a team of accountants to reduce their tax burden.

If you could pay no taxes you would and don't even say to the contrary. This country does not need a personal income tax and just because millionaires can find the loop holes that you some how have not been able to exploit does not give you the right to judge them and demand they pay their fair share.

Your statements are not only socialist, they are anti American and just because you and I agree on some aspect does not mean you are forgiven for demanding the rich pay more taxes.

Why don't you stop listening to John Stewart and MSNBC and start reading Austrian Economics and look into people like ludwig von mises and Ron Paul.

Open your eyes to the lunacy you are subscribing to.

Case still open

Ron Paul is my candidate. I didn't say we shouldn't HAVE commodity backed currency, I said it's not needed. There is a huge difference there. We COULD survive without it, I was just stating the reason why we dropped commodity backing was BECAUSE of inflation. Inflation isn't caused by not having a gold standard.

If I could pay no taxes I would? I don't work. I'm not poor. I'm not jaelous. I'm not at war with fortunate people. I am a realist, who looks at the numbers... And yes, I would pay taxes... as long as they didn't hinder me having enough resources to live comfortably AND have excess ability to save. The super elite have SO much money, they can't spend it all... short of buying a country, or an island... and even then... they would still have the equity of that purchase and as a result... essentially have unlimited resources. This IS a problem. It's not about fair, but it's about not being sustainable.

Example... We have a house owned by 2 people, housing 10. We have a plate of cookies in the house. There are 12 cookies. 10 people. If we don't eat these cookies we die. 2 of those people have almost 5 cookies. 8 people have just over 5 cookies. They already have to decide who is going to die, on that share alone. Now suppose in order to stay housed, the owners demanded a payment of one cookie per person. there is no cookies left to eat and the remaining 2 people are kicked out of the house with no food to eat. How do we fix this problem? We bake more cookies. Only problem is, we don't have enough resources... so the new cookies have to be MUCH smaller. In turn, they require more cookies to earn their place in the house. Still not leaving enough to even eat.

It's quite easy to see how this system cannot be sustainable. This is the current state of the economy at the time. The only way to fix it, is to free some cookies from the owners. Not as a punishment for them earning it.... but because by them having it, a GREAT deal of people will die. You suppose we reward these people for finding loopholes to get rich while they are literally killing the rest of the country? Remember, FINITE resources. When there is MORE than enough for everyone... PLUS excess... when 98% of the people are starving as a result... you have to fix that problem.

I have no personal issue with you, I just don't think you understand the concept of FINITE currency. Yes, people have the right to make money. But when they have ALL of the money, and the rest of the nation is starving... the 98% of the people are going to revolt and take back what they need to survive.

This causes revolution. This causes violence. This causes Death. This causes catastrophe and decline in standard of living for everyone... INCLUDING the super wealthy.

The only people who will be immune to this, are super wealthy people who aren't trading American Currency.

I used to have sprint for internet service. It got bought by embarq. Embarq got bought by Century Link. My bill always showed up in US dollars. My bill now shows up in Euro's. (I'm in Florida, BTW)

What is this a sign of? The Mega Corporations are trading away the USD, to offshore countries and are all holding foreign currency.

When the USD collapses, they will be unaffected... since they are not holding USD.

The Super Wealthy are killing us ON PURPOSE. This is ANTI-AMERICAN. They are destroying the country and washington is aiding them every step of the way. The only thing to do... is turn back time to an age when we didn't have MEGA corporations Net earnings in the billions yearly. Back to the age in which Ron Paul hails the golden republic.

To do this, you have to take away the power from the enemy. Which IS the super elite.

Sorry, this is the truth.

P.S. I don't watch Jon Stewart, nor MSM. This isn't a political debate... this is resource management. I am only looking at the problem and the only way to fix it. I'm not influenced by anything other than the numbers.

Again, there is no political charge or rhetoric here. Leave the partisanship out of it.

I appreciate the dialogue though... I think this is a very good conversation for the people of ATS.

reply to post by Laokin


radical.. I am glad I was taught by My Grandfather, who survived the depression on how to deal with this economy..



Another thread where someone is blaming....

I am really beginning to believe I know something a large portion of the population does not, or have forgotten...

yes, yes thou continue to talk about it, and watch the economy while I am out their giving you something to talk about...

Originally posted by Bicent76
reply to post by Laokin

 

radical.. I am glad I was taught by My Grandfather, who survived the depression on how to deal with this economy..

Another thread where someone is blaming....

I am really beginning to believe I know something a large portion of the population do not, or have forgotten...

yes, yes thou continue to talk about it, and watch the economy while I am out their giving you something to talk about...

Are you calling me Radical? I don't understand your post. A little detail would be nice. If I am indeed radical and you know something for which I do not... then you do not help me or anyone else for that matter, any, unless you share.


Please elaborate?


P.S.

Every problem has a cause, and as such... the cause IS the recieving end of Blame. It is the causes fault. The cause for our economy... is corporatocracy. So, the only thing I blame is the Fed, who created that Depression that your grandfather lived through, purposefully.

I do not blame the american people, nor do I blame rich people. I blame The World Elites... the SUPER RICH people.

They pay smallest % taxes than I would at 10$ an hour. How can that work?

Actually the video is very straight forward:

The rich are getting richer (via lesser taxes and more tax breaks) and the poor are getting poorer (via more taxes to compensate for the lesser taxes of the richer, and via reduction of social services due to those reduced revenues (taxes) paid to city/state/federal governments... the middle and poor classes cannot makeup for the reduction of taxes paid by the rich in previous decades.

Keep in mind... the "rich" does not mean just persons, it also includes corporations.

We are slowly heading back to the bygone days when there was no such thing as a middle class... just the very rich and the very poor - no in between.

reply to post by Laokin


sure I will elaborate, making something simple complicated creates confusion. The Economy is simple, and does not need to be made complicated. Are their losers and winners, yep always have been, always will be.

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Actually the video is very straight forward:

The rich are getting richer (via lesser taxes and more tax breaks) and the poor are getting poorer (via more taxes to compensate for the lesser taxes of the richer, and via reduction of social services due to those reduced revenues (taxes) paid to city/state/federal governments... the middle and poor classes cannot makeup for the reduction of taxes paid by the rich in previous decades.

Keep in mind... the "rich" does not mean just persons, it also includes corporations.

We are slowly heading back to the bygone days when there was no such thing as a middle class... just the very rich and the very poor - no in between.

I think it's also important to note the sizes of each camp.

98% of the people will be very poor, whilst 2% of the people will be very rich.

Although, this scenario can NOT actually happen. The country will collapse with revolution and the dollar will be devalued so much, the US credit score will drop, and we will be considered a poor nation. Anyone who is rich holding USD, will be Bankrupt. The world elite will trade USD for real currency before the collapse... and maintain their position of wealth.

Then who knows how long before America sorts itself out. During this period of uncertainty would be the best time to propose a National Union. So, the people bankrupting the nation, are doing so on purpose.

Step one: Create problem.
Step two: Let the people react and beg for a solution.
Step three: Inact the solution that was planned from the beginning.

One.World.Government.

Scary. I know... but this is where we are heading.

It's our duty to fight this and NOT give them the reaction they are planning on.

We have to fight for our rights to remain a sovereign nation. This is why Ron Paul is the only choice come 2012.

Originally posted by Bicent76
reply to post by Laokin

 

sure I will elaborate, making something simple complicated creates confusion. The Economy is simple, and does not need to be made complicated. Are their losers and winners, yep always have been, always will be.

Oh I agree whole heartidly. That was my point... economics is extremly simple. However, when the winners win it all... what happens?

You insert more, and more, and more, and devalue, and devalue and devalue... all the while the MSM tells you to spend, spend, spend, which only puts the last of your chips into the very same winners pockets which is what caused the entire problem and in fact... is only making it worse. (because we ultimately end up with nothing left to spend.. Without money, there can be no economics.)



What say you?

(thanks for elaborating... but you never answered.. were you calling me radical?)

Sidenote: Why is this thread so dead?

reply to post by Laokin


I am calling the way your describing the system radical. When we were children, we began our calibration into the system, with education, I am sure everyone told you to do good in school so you can be a doctor, lawyer, etc. etc.

Life is all about position....

Ya the economy is simple....

Do I feel bad for people without, sure, but its not the economy's fault, not 100 percent... Nor the slimy politicians... I dont believe in punishing the rich either... They are getting enough taxed outta them, if their cheating, that is why we have the irs, I really dont care..

I really can't believe what I'm reading here - some unbelievably incredulous statements by seemingly intellegent people. How is it possible we are debating the appropriateness of 40% of the nation's wealth being owned by 2% of the population while the other 98% are suffering. And are we really talking about how it's okay that the super rich were "smart enough" to find the loopholes that enabled them to pay lower taxes than the middle and lower classes? What is wrong with this, people? Have we become such wannabes that the insanity of this concept doesn't register?

Do I think the super rich should pay the highest taxes? Hell yes!! Do I think that those taxes need to go back into society to rebuild our systems and facilitate stimulous across all socioeconomic levels? Hell yes!! Do I think that there needs to be some recalibration of the classes or we are destined to witness a type of collapse that will make the food lines of the 1920's seem like a picnic? Hell yes!! You ask if I believe the super rich are holding the rest of us hostage? Absolutely yes and I don't for one single second feel bad about increasing their responsibility toward the other 98% but they sure as all hell aren't volunteering to do so themselves - instead they're maniplating the system to escape their financial responsibility. If I were part of the 2%, would I claim fiscal responsibility toward those less fortunate than me? Absolutely yes - there is no question in my mind and I couldn't care less if you didn't believe me.

A few years ago, I was asked to write a white paper for the American Psychiatric Association on the cost disparity of health insurance coverage within the United States and one of the positions I presented, which shocked and angered a lot of my contremporaries, was that I was one of the fortunate individals who could afford the high cost of health care and insurance coverage and I had absolutely no problem in allowing my neighbor, who was not as fortunate as me, to have the same level of coverage at a much lower price because I felt that was an equitable solution. I could afford it and he couldn't - period and end of story. Based on the law of averages, those odds will flip in some way at some point in the future and I do believe we all reap what we sow.

Someone said that business is not based on altruism and that is correct, but there is a difference between the desire to achieve comfortability for yourself and your family first (which I'm all for because this is the truest sense of capitalism) and pure blanant glutony which is what we are talking about when it comes to the super rich. As I started reading the thread, I thought "great, here comes some different and interesting perspectives on the economy and possible solutions" but that soon denegrated into disbelief over the callous disregard toward 98% of our neighbors.

One last thought - how vulnerable will we be in the eyes of the rest of the world when this whole unbalanced system comes crashing down around us? The consequences of our economic inequalities are not just a question of domestic disparity - we also need to think about how it translates to our security on a global level...

Timidgal

Originally posted by eldard
Scandinavia = low population, very rich resources = same with Canada

ALL socialist countries DEPEND on trading with other nations.

Only Norway does, the rest does not possess more significant resources than most other nations. Saying that socialist countries depend on trading is a non-argument, because pretty much the entire world does these days, regardless of its economic system. Besides, the fact that these countries have low populations doesn't mean a similar system wouldn't work for the US.

reply to post by timidgal


You are not alone in your surprise at the content of some of these posts.

I have long thought our education system had gone down hill; I just did not think it could get this bad.

Let me assure you these same people who rail against our current system will be the first to cry and wail when the realize what has been lost as it is replaced by what is surely coming.

Those who would find the simple logic expressed here should do a little reading about live, not just here but world wide, during the earley 1900's.

Those with wealth had absolute control of every aspect of living and working.

The payscale was low, working hours long, and health care non-existant.

If anyone should think the rich need further tax relief in order to creat more jobs; I hope you like working for three dollars a day and loosing you job if you get sick and can't work.

Come to think of it. Maybe we do need to default on the current national debt.

Just think of it; all the money the rich have stacked up in the bank will suddenly be about as useful as toilet paper. Most of them will not have the basic skills needed to survive and all those people who can will be the ones they screwed as they were getting all that money.

I would hope their money tastes good and carries lots of nutrition. They may have to eat it.

I will feel real bad about those others who will surely suffer from a total economic collapse, but the strong will survive and maybe we will do better after the rich trash is swept away and we can start over.

Originally posted by Mdv2
because pretty much the entire world does these days, regardless of its economic system.

They depend more on it than not. At least the US can still depend on domestic consumption. For now.

Besides, the fact that these countries have low populations doesn't mean a similar system wouldn't work for the US.

Not really working for Japan, is it?

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by timidgal

 

Just think of it; all the money the rich have stacked up in the bank will suddenly be about as useful as toilet paper. Most of them will not have the basic skills needed to survive and all those people who can will be the ones they screwed as they were getting all that money.

And who told you it's all in the bank? Most of QE2 went to Europe.

but the strong will survive and maybe we will do better after the rich trash is swept away and we can start over.

Good luck with that. They be all in Dubai protected by the US missile shield while they plan on further developing the BRIC countries.

reply to post by eldard


Oh, I feel so sorry for those who refuse to learn from the past.

You spoke of your grandfather living through the depression. I heard my father talk about how easy it was for a seven year old orphan here in the south.

He often told how he was so poor he only read about a depression in the newspaper. He managed to make a living by going from farm to farm hoping they had something he could do for a meal or two. He instilled into all of his childern the need to be self sufficient in all ways and to give all you could spare to those who need a little help.

I guess that's why I am not really fearful about whatever the larger economy brings. I have made provisions for my families future regardless what happens.

I only hope all those who read this have done the same.

Even when everything is worked out and the country begins to rebuild, we will still be ready to carry on.

I guess the singer was right, "A countryboy can survive".

Originally posted by robwerden
That video explains nothing!
It is a socialist agenda for equality and spreading the wealth.

Wow, explains nothingSocialist agenda

Does not your parents and grandparents receive Social Security

Wake up this country has been a Socialist country for decades now, and this man is absolutely right even Aristotle will tell you that no form of government can succeed with-out a strong middle class.


Thanks op, i thought this short attention span cartoon for Americans would put everything in perspective, again i was wrong

Here's a response by Lee Doren



And here's a response by Dr. Robert Murphy

Reich just wants a ``New New Deal`` , because voodoo economist think that the first new deal mostly helped the little guy and primarily hurt corporations. That is just a myth though.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


O.K.
Fantastic argument.

I guess all those jobs brought about by the Bush tax cuts have been the reason all those houses have been bought by all those workers and the construction market is booming ?

I guess all those jobs brought about by the Bush tax cuts have been the reason all those people who drive a car to work, or drive a big-rig down the road, line up early every morning to buy the fuel they want to waste on the highways ?

I guess all those jobs brought about by the Bush tax cuts have been the reason all those state governments who are begging for more teachers and other workers in order to have some place to waste all the money they have ?

I guess the best thing which I can do is to simply be quiet and go away so the natural order of things can take their course and we will all be much better for it.

Well, it's like I said before, I have made all the provisions I could for me and mine. Early each morning I will continue to milk the chickens, slop the cows, and gather all the eggs from the bull pen.

During the days, I will clean and gather the produce from my garden and fields and say a little prayer for those who really believe the things which have been argued here.

From the way some have so agressively stated their case I can only think they will be amoung the first to cry when reality sets in.