The Truth About the Economy in 2:15

This is from Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor. He lays out, simply and succinctly, how we have gotten where we are in terms of the economy.

It takes only 2:15 to watch this video.

http://robertreich.org/post/6595110483

That was a really nice video presented by a very liberal economist who served under Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Reich is currently Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

The web site is funded by Move-On.org, not known for it's conservative policies.

The video- while parts of it may be true- do not do much more than promote the current administrations class warfare propaganda, and basically blame the most sucessful producers of this country for the problems.

I would like to remind Risch, that it's not the producers of this country that caused the problems - or the governments failure to steal their wealth for it's own use, it's the massive government spending that people like Reich have been promoting for 30+ years that have destroyed this country and it's ability to support and expand the middle class.

People like him caused this mess- but you'll never see him take the credit for it- it's some rich guys fault!

I see it more as the government has changed tax law to concentrate the wealth in the top. Do you disagree with Reich's assertion that the wealth has moved from the middle class to the ultra-wealthy?

I do agree with Reich that a strong middle class is essential to a healthy economy. Wealth redistribution from the middle class to the top 1% is not in the best interest of our country.

Kate wrote: I see it more as the government has changed tax law to concentrate the wealth in the top. Do you disagree with Reich's assertion that the wealth has moved from the middle class to the ultra-wealthy?

I do agree with Reich that a strong middle class is essential to a healthy economy. Wealth redistribution from the middle class to the top 1% is not in the best interest of our country.

It isn't wealth distribution! I am not forced to send money every month to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. It is just that wages have been stagnant for the middle class for a couple decades, but purchasing power has risen as more foreign companies send us less expensive goods. Meanwhile innovators can still make a lot of money, and so their incomes have risen.

Changing tax codes to favor the ultra-rich is not wealth redistribution?

Kate wrote: Changing tax codes to favor the ultra-rich is not wealth redistribution?

Do you mean bringing taxes down to a more reasonable, ethical level?

When Pelosi, Reid, & Obama were in control, they weren't raising taxes on the rich. And when evil "W" was in power, he actually eliminated income taxes for more of the lower middle classes.

In the video, Reich lays out the timeline and his "connected dots"

1. Since 1980, the economy has doubled in size while wages have stayed flat.
2. Almost all the gains from the economy have gone to the super rich. The top 1% used to take home about 10% of the total income, now they take home 20%. The top 1% also no own 40% of the wealth in the country.
3. With money comes power to affect laws and tax rates. Before 1980, the top tax rate was over 70%. It's now 35%.
Much of the wealthy income is from capital gains, which is taxed at a rate of only 15%.
The richest 400 Americans pay only a 17% tax rate.
4. Tax revenues are down to only 15% of the total economy, (the lowest in 60 years,) making for huge budget deficits.
5. Middle class is being divided. With fewer jobs and resources to go around, competition is at an all time high for what is remaining.
6. The middle class, unable to borrow and without income, does not have the purchasing power to get the economy growing again, which means continued high unemployment and anemic economic recovery. The only way to have a strong economy is with a strong middle class.

And while the rich's tax rate is lower than before, they provide more revenue to the treasury than the people who earn less, so maybe if the rich need to pay a higher percentage, more of the lower income people need to pay more of their fair share too.

But the feeling of stealing from the rich is so much better when hidden under a government cloak.

What do you make of this guy's methods?

Massive default is best way to fix the economy
Commentary: Clearing away the debt is the only way forward

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/massiv ... genumber=1

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — You want to fix this economic crisis? You want to put people back to work? You want to light a fire under the economy?

There’s a way to do it. Fast. And relatively simple.

But you’re not going to like it. You’re not going to like it at all.

Default. A national Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The fastest way to fix this mess is to see tens of millions of homeowners default on their mortgages and other debts, and millions more file for bankruptcy.

That’s because the real cause of our economic slump isn’t too much government or too little government. It isn’t red tape, high taxes, low taxes, the growing divide between the rich and the poor, too much government debt, too little government debt, corporations, poor people, “greed,” “socialism,” China, Greece, or the legalization of gay marriage. It isn’t, in short, any of the things all the various nitwits say it is.

It’s the debt, stupid....

What are the alternatives?

Government cutbacks, higher taxes, and a balanced budget? In a normal economy, fine. But in this situation, when the private sector is also slashing its spending, that could lead to absolute catastrophe. That’s what happened in the Great Depression. And our debt levels are worse than in the Great Depression.

Government borrowing? That’s the Keynesian solution. “The consumer can no longer borrow like a crazy person,” says the Keynesian, “so Uncle Sam has to do so instead.” It’s just transferring private madness to public madness.

This is a different take then what kate presented. I wonder how this would really work and what the second and third order effects of such a move would be?