Reply With Quote
QE3, QE4, QE5, QE6, etc...........
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...omy-slows.htmlFederal Reserve policy makers may start weighing additional steps to prop up the recovery after growth fell below 1 percent in the first half of this year and economists began cutting second-half growth forecasts.
“At a minimum, the FOMC will have a serious debate about the policy options -- what they should do, and what they expect to get from it,” said Roberto Perli, a former associate director in the Fed’s Division of Monetary Affairs, referring to the Federal Open Market Committee. “Growth in the first half was dangerously close to zero,” said Perli, director of policy research at International Strategy & Investment Group.
QE3, QE4, QE5, QE6, etc...........
lending money to TBTF banks at effective 0 interest didn't do anything for anybody but TBTB banks.
Barry needs to spend $2T - $3T on infrastructure and other projects,but I doubt the US govt knows how to many those kinds of projects compared with 1930s projects. The country and politics is much more complicated now. And FDR didn't have extreme right-wing anarchist Repugs to deal with
We always lose in these open market negotiations. Nobody ever represents the US worker in them.
US workers are irrelevant, not needed anymore. They're ed and will be ed more in the future. I expect unembployment at appx. 9% for many years, structurally unemployed 25M people. The US is on the decline. All it can do is go around beating up other countries while the MIC sucks the citizens into poverty.
You're now pro-unions? That's what they do.
I knew if I left that open for you, you would either ignorantly or intelligently misinterpret my words with your bias.
Carry on.
Sure you did.
So who's do you think is going to represent the US worker's best interests?
Nobody, until the voters realize they need to elect more people who actually represent the best interests of this nation, rather than the rich vs. the poor.Sure you did.
So who's do you think is going to represent the US worker's best interests?
And whom those people might be, in your opinion?
That's the problem with democracy now isn't it. It's the worse system ever tried, except for all the others.
So your contention is that democracy has failed... fair enough.
Of course it fails. Just not as bad as other systems.
Care to invent a better one?
I don't think anything needs to be invented. I do think things like allowing campaign contributions to go undisclosed are an affront to transparency, which I think it's vital to a healthy democracy.
That aside, do you agree or disagree that the poor will vote to raise the burden on tax payers because it favors them? This percentage who do not pay any federal income tax is about 47%. What could happens when they exceed 50%?
I don't know for a fact that poor people take tax considerations as part of the reasoning for picking a candidate. Do you?
They pay other forms of taxes though, like sales tax, etc. I don't know that there's any indication that such percentage will grow either. Ultimately I have no problem with lowering that base somewhat, and stated as much. I also think that the pain should be shared, and that includes across the board increase in taxing if we're going that route. But that effort should be tied with cuts and the goal of a balanced budget much like in the Clinton era.
To be frank, I'm much more concerned with those that have much more money and still don't pay their taxes, like GE. Closing loopholes should be a priority, IMO.
Whatever.
Stay ignorant. I don't care.
I see a lot of you tap dancing around nono's question.
Who is going to represent the "workers"?
who represents workers?
There's will be no candidate who will represent, as his priority, the workers or the middle class or the independents or poor. A Hollywoodian "Mr Smith Goes Washington" to fight, and win, for the lower 95%? GMAFB
Anybody who believes so is living the childish fantasy called The American Dream.
UCA and capitalists own America. Even SCOTUS is fully compromised, as are the various levels of the federal and state judiciaries. They have amassed enormous power ($$$) through the govt policies, laws, rules, regulations pushed through by primarily Repugs, but also Dems.
Your votes don't ing count. Elections are a ing charade. NO ONE represents Human-Americans.
perfect example: the FAA shutdown. Who ya gonna vote for who will end such sociopathic Repug ?
I don't know yet. It appears nobody has for years. Suggestions?
Some of the new data out lead the Economist to point out one of the reasons why we didn't see much bang from the original stimulus:
It wasn't big enough.
The analogy they used was not knowing how big the fire you are fighting is.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../fiscal-policy
I dispute that. I personally think it was misdirected. Much like Bush Jr's sending checks home as stimulus. I think a much better investment would've come from financing direct temporary job creation, like infrastructure jobs. They're needed, they're temporary, they create jobs.
It was misdirected for sure, but it was also too small. Its not an either or.
I don't think they would have disagreed entirely with that either.
Given the very pressing need to revamp our aging infrastructure, it would seem to be a no-brainer, borrowed money + taxes or no.
Unlike some, I understand that taxes and government spending don't disappear into a black hole.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
