Tag(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 2/4/10:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (22 comments)

Fat Years and Lean: Keynsian Fiscal Policy Explained for Religious Conservatives

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (14 fans)   -- Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com


Instead, we doubled our national debt during the years that led to this
deep economic recession. The time of irresponsibility is not now,
when the economy needs to be fed from the government "graineries," but
rather in the fat years, when we should have been storing up in the
national treasury during the economic expansion so we'd have the
resources saved, as Pharoah did, to get us through the time when the
harvest of our economy was poor.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Andy Schmookler is running for Congress in Virginia's 6th District.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Follow Me on Twitter

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
22 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Ahem by Mark Sashine on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:25:09 AM
bondage by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:46:04 AM
nope by Mark Sashine on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:04:49 PM
56? by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:11:31 PM
What is relevant here? by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:21:52 PM
Ok, let's clarify by Mark Sashine on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:36:03 PM
Keynesian economics by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:06:48 PM
Andy, I am all you've got:) by Mark Sashine on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:54:53 PM
all I've got by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:51:35 PM
of course, by Mark Sashine on Friday, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:09:57 AM
that's not what Keynes is about by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Friday, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:59:07 AM
I agree with Krugman by Mark Sashine on Friday, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:41:19 AM
more agreement, if not complete by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Friday, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:09:11 AM
I hesitate to interject, but I feel like a small mammel by GLloyd Rowsey on Friday, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:49:11 AM
The problem with Keynes by Dick Thomson on Friday, Feb 5, 2010 at 2:51:55 PM
misidentified "problems" by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Friday, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:16:34 PM
monetarism by Dick Thomson on Friday, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:25:19 PM
FDR's good Keynesian policy by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Friday, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:52:45 PM
All of the various by richard on Friday, Feb 5, 2010 at 6:25:31 PM
which spending to I refer to? by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Friday, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:01:06 PM
This is a learned discussion, and by GLloyd Rowsey on Tuesday, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:01:27 AM
What I mostly remember about the Kalecki by GLloyd Rowsey on Tuesday, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:33:41 AM