Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
21. Yes, the former was recommended by many prominent economists
Thu Jun 21, 2012, 03:20 PM
Jun 2012

In fact, many economists, yes, respected ones, have recommended stimulative monetary policies like the latter you mentioned as well.

Investors were even hoping for it, as the markets are showing today through their disappointment that it didn't happen.

I realize you do bookkeeping, but don't you understand that the primary role of running a nation is the care of its people and not some line on a ledger sheet?

The funny thing is, countries that take care of their people and spend as needed, seem to have good economies.

Meanwhile, ours suffers, in part, because people are so fearful that losing a job will result in homelessness, lack of health care, disaster for their children, etc. It's a wonder anyone spends anything since this country doesn't have a proper safety net --other countries with less put us to SHAME for what they provide to their people (to each other).

And you want what little we have reduced and cut. Because of a stupid balance sheet.

It's all about money, isn't it? People may die, people may suffer, but by god, our currency and our budget will be in balance.

and the condition of our people will show that the balance sheet was what we cared about.

amoral.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This message was self-deleted by its author CreekDog Jun 2012 #1
another day, another one (or two) of these posts CreekDog Jun 2012 #2
Shouldn't people know the amounts? dkf Jun 2012 #3
Yes, but what next? Zalatix Jun 2012 #4
Has to be addressed state by state. dkf Jun 2012 #5
Another day, more personal attacks. pintobean Jun 2012 #6
This message was self-deleted by its author CreekDog Jun 2012 #13
Roon's imaginary picket line crossings? pintobean Jun 2012 #15
you came here to post against me, not the other way around CreekDog Jun 2012 #17
I knew you posted your usual crap pintobean Jun 2012 #18
This message was self-deleted by its author CreekDog Jun 2012 #20
Links? It didn't happen anything near pintobean Jun 2012 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author CreekDog Jun 2012 #23
Yeah, you can't. pintobean Jun 2012 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author CreekDog Jun 2012 #25
Just realized something, you posted 5 times here and nothing about the OP CreekDog Jun 2012 #26
Admitting failure. pintobean Jun 2012 #27
no but you'll say anything CreekDog Jun 2012 #28
That didn't last long pintobean Jun 2012 #29
i didn't promise not to respond to you ever CreekDog Jun 2012 #31
And a small increase in the taxes the 1% pay would more than cover this gap liberal N proud Jun 2012 #7
Are you thinking the Federal Govt should cover the State shortfalls? dkf Jun 2012 #8
The tax cuts for the wealthy is not just a federal problem liberal N proud Jun 2012 #9
Yes, the Federal Government should cover the shortfalls. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #16
Yes, the former was recommended by many prominent economists CreekDog Jun 2012 #21
$1.38 trillion is more than a small increase for the 1% alc Jun 2012 #10
Probably not. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #11
Don't confuse the issue with facts badtoworse Jun 2012 #19
Debunking the myth of the over-compensated public employee Lasher Jun 2012 #12
interesting. an article talks about a funding gap & puts up a big number but doesn't tell the HiPointDem Jun 2012 #14
This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Jun 2012 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The funding gap for U.S. ...»Reply #21