It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
“Chairman, as you know, there are people demonstrating against Wall Street in New York City and other cities around the country, and I think the perception on the part of these demonstrators and millions of other Americans is that as a result of the greed, the recklessness and the illegal behavior on Wall Street, we were plunged into the horrendous recession that we’re in right now,” Sanders said at a Joint Economic Committee hearing on the economic outlook.
“Do you agree with that assessment?”
Originally posted by Skewed
Is someone going to stand up and tell him that he is the one that contributed heavily to it?
If not, put me front and center and I will tell him.edit on 4-10-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by neo96
cant blame them he says
they should be blaming him and GOVERNMENT POLIICIES!
but no no comon sense anywhere to be found as of late
do us all a favor ben quit and go hide somewhere
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Blah, blah, blah, blah... I am just so sick of all the talking heads rambling on and on and discussing this and that WITH ABSOLUTELY NO FRICKIN ACTION...
Yeah, I know, kudos to the guy for asking the question but really, Bernanke just says the same things over and over and over and then DOES the same things over and over and over...
www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Originally posted by explorer14
I too saw Bernanke today on CSPAN. I also saw Maurice Hinchey from New York expressing his concern about the division of wealth, and without seeing a historical representation about any shifts in that regard, I cannot comment. By shifts I refer to volume/percentage rather than the ascribed families and institutions.
My personal feeling is this will play out in about 3 different ways:
A. Things erupt into total chaos (catastrophes, anarchy, other ‘major event’)
B. Stalemate (i.e. protestors simply do not get enough momentum/support and go home)
C. Protests lead to sweeping fiscal policy changes
Now, regarding C, let us say bunches of changes are made to supposedly make things better.
Great… most everyone’s happy – woohoo.
Then, because the changes are not effective (maybe because it takes too long to see any affect) and we are back at square one.
Suddenly, we find that we REALLY do need a bailout for the people (social institutions/social infrastructure) but too bad, we changed policy and cannot help now. Or we are too broke…Or ultra-conservatives have taken over and refuse to spend any money on the aforementioned institutions. Whichever reason is given, I think we could just about ‘bank’ on no monies (or very little) being supplied to ‘the peoples’ that would need it.
Furthermore, when the unemployment rate is calculated, it DOES NOT include those who have given up looking for work, are not receiving unemployment, have not been actively searching withing the prior 4 weeks and so forth. So to me, 9% is probably just a tad on the conservative side.
How Unemployment is Calculated
See the 2nd section regarding statistics.
I think people should be careful what they wish/work for lest it come back and bite our behinds.
PS: I should have mentioned Option D: One World Currency or as many would likely refer to as NWO, but that is just a conspiracy theory right?
X