[mEDITate-OR:
dislike some or all of the observations that we made about the post immediately below this one.
============
JGBellHimself
Today, Derek, you, and Daniel too, may have fully justified your existence.
However, since all of U.S. now appear to be going to Hell on an expedited schedule, the devil is in the details you two have provided U.S.
Hour worked and earning are also down. More are no longer working and those who are now earn less. MOG.
Some will say tis all your fault..
Bcuz, as Max oft said to Agent 99: "We told you not to tell U.S."
{or something like that}
--------------
JGBellHimself
What is very interesting to watch/read/listen is the Supply Side, Reaganomics, Monetary, Chicago School of Economics, true believers RAIL against increased - even infrastructure - spending; and all that additional debt; when tax revenues collapse. As if there was NO connection.
The one time Post hoc propter hoc actually does apply, you won't do it.
What you fail to notice or refuse to understand is that when the Wall Street Banksters "securitization" mess collapsed, the Republican administration of W recognized that there was a removal of 50% of ALL available RE loan financing, and when China promised (threatened) to stop buying FMae&FMac RE securities, the other 50% was in jeopardy!
At THAT point W flooded the RE financing system with "newly printed" money, that he borrowed from China - they now bought TBills, and he used that/their money to buy FMae&FMac shares & securities.
Where were YOU back then when you should have been screaming about the huge SPENDING INCREASES - expanding the money supply to desperately try to offset the contractions? Where were YOU back then when you could have been screaming about the HUGE DEBTS being run up to fund one of your pet economic theories - MONETARY expansion to create economic expansion and/or at least try to stop the recession.
What that, and W and you Rs, did do was stop the total collapse of the RE market for U.S. It did NOT stop the huge "October" pre-election job losses; but it made it POSSIBLE for at least some of U.S., even for those who lost their jobs, to sell their homes.
But, it was ALL done with defict spending, and it was done with borrowed dollars.
Now, with ALL tax revenues tanking, what you say you want is to tank ALL spending to match the disaster incoming with an equal and worse outgoing collapse. Stunning.
Do any of you even remember "rainy day accounts"? Where state and local governments were to set aside funds in boom times to cover the revenue shortage in crash times?
Why, did your Republican party endorse that? Was it bcuz cutting back on necessary spending - like police, fire and prison guards - was counter-productive during bad times? Even less people with money to spend, more homes and lives lost, and more criminals put back out on the streets, with no jobs?
Like drunken sailors you spent China's and the Gulf Oil State's money over the last decade, assuming it would go on forever. And, when it stopped, you want everyone else but you to cut back, and for those of you(?) "Christians", who can and should pay more, to not do what Jesus would do.
What we believe is that Thou art Stunning.
------------
JGBellHimself
Said you: "When you held power in 1 chamber and own the White House you must provide proper replies.... if you let the other party do it the result is easy to forecast and does not go in favor of the party in power."
Asked we: So, IF for two decades you hold power in 1 or both chambers, and own the White House, and the Supremes, right up to the collapse - you can then assume NO responsibility for anything that happens, and have NO responsibility even try to fix it, and can posture politically to make it even worse, in order for you to regain power?
Sadly, the next Republican President will probably inherit an economy and country in even worse shape than Obama did from W.
As Obama is thought to have said to himself:
"Be very careful what you ask for!
Tis like unprotected pre-marital sex - while you might get it, you might also get a whole lot more/worse."
(or something like that)
==========
