I think a butchered version will pass, as greed, sadly again, prevails. One agonzing step forward is a step forward. I mentioned below words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg - “Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time.” Mankind is soooo slow to evolve. Thank you, Robert, for encouraging, not giving up, on the 'baby' steps. We are finally making a turn in a better direction. And we can't stop now.
Rae, this is a very important point. The current state of affairs in Washington may feel demoralizing (and I understand your frustration, Marycat2021), but I guarantee that nothing moves forward unless we stay in the fight.
Professor, I am suffering health problems resulting from political frustration exacerbated by Donald Trump. The only "fight" I plan on going forward, is to take care of myself and my family.
Regarding Sinema's accommodating large corporate donors, I received an email yesterday from Ryan Grim of the Intercept reporting that, in the third quarter of this year, Sinema took in $1.1 million in campaign donations, 90% of it from out of state, and much from large corporate donors. Mark Kelly, Arizona's other Democratic Senator, who fully supports the Biden agenda, raised $8.2 million in the same period. In the third quarter of 2018, when Arizonans thought Sinema would be a champion of the little guy, she raised almost $7 million. Turns out her "independence" does not even maximize campaign contributions.
We appear to be outvoted, with essentially 50 right wing Republicans and two moderate Republicans (Manchin and Sinema). But we have a Democratic President who can veto any budget and send it back. The purpose of the military is to protect our national security. Surely climate change is by far the greatest threat to our national security: sea level rise will take out most of our coastal cites, droughts and floods crash agricultural yields, hurricanes, wildfires, and heat waves threaten lives and property. China and Russia, our so-called "adversaries", could never manage that. Yet the military does not spend even one penny to protect us against climate change. We need a new set of priorities for the military. Suppose the President vetoes any 80 B defense budget that does not include at least 60 B for reducing the threat of climate change. After much haggling and negotiation, negotiate to 40 B for climate change, together with all the social justice programs that are now in the reconciliation package. Why not? If climate change is an existential crisis, as President Biden keeps repeating to the press, then why not treat it like an existential crisis?
"Surely climate change is by far the greatest threat to our national security ..." I would argue that the Defense Department is by far the greatest threat to our national security because it drains the economy of the resources that we need to address all other national security threats.
Without addressing the climate issue, we can just ignore the rest of it. The planet will not survive if something isn’t done immediately.
The dems are hurting themselves and the country with all the infighting while the GOP are licking their lips. Sinema and Manchin should be ashamed and held accountable for the pending losses in the midterms and governors races.
Thanks. We can put a number on that, $134 trillion, net, thanks to the US Federal Reserve.
But it seems to be taboo for anyone in our leadership to report that wealth, whether media, business, or government. Prof Reich has talked about the top billionaires, good, but, there's more . . . !
That total private household wealth increased about $24 trillion in just the 12 months to 30 June, one year, according to the Fed.
About $93 trillion, net, is held by the top 10%. About $43 trillion of that -- again, net, after all debts -- is held by only the top 1%. According to the Fed, 'Z.1' report, quarterly. - b.rad
You said it: the whole situation is truly “NUTS”. What frustrates me is that the Republicans have been following a deliberate plan for decades to dominate local politics (school boards), gerrymander after every census, install conservative judges following the desires of their Federalist Society, and shake voters confidence in elections!!! Democrats win power and then weakly try to push their agenda with little success (like now). They're completely crippled, out flanked. I want Biden and Democrats to GET MAD. Stop being nice. I’m worried that our country as we know it is almost over.
(Pancha Chandra): American citizens, you have important decisions to make! The most important decision is to support an ethical 46th President & disavow any allegiance to a crooked manipulator in Donald Trump who orchestrated the Capitol insurrection of January 6th. Joe Biden & Kamala Harris are determined to restore America's ethical leadership of the free world; support them to the hilt!
Citizen’s United is the major antagonist here. If we don’t reverse it, if we don’t create public funding for elections similar to the Swiss system, if we don’t eliminate the Senate and go to a multi party system, well then the government will always be easy to purchase by the wealthy. This is the problem with a federal republic type of democracy. There are only a handful of people at the top, and as we have seen with Manchin and Sinema, all the wealthy have to purchase is one or two legislators to jam the entire system. I have been politically active for fifty years, and hard as I’ve tried to do the right thing, I’ve watched our environmental situation deteriorate to the tipping point due to greed. Profits are our God, and the devil to anyone who gets in the way. Positive as I usually am, I don’t see a good outcome to this dilemma.
Professor, you're certainly correct on the numbers, but we all know that $350 billion/year won't break the bank. What's important - and not emphasized sufficiently by Congressional Democrats or even the White House - are the programs that would be covered or begun by the social infrastructure bill.
Now I read that many people are upset that funds for free community college may be cut from the bill, and that they're apparently blaming that on Biden not pushing hard enough! So his attempt to negotiate as much as he can by cutting the extent of the social infrastructure bill is now being used to attack him as a weak and ineffective President. I find that to be outrageous.
If that crew in the White House and on the Hill would just sign the physical infrastructure bill as-is and, since it's already been approved by the Senate, send it to Biden's desk for what should be Biden's use of the traditional hoopla that generally accompanies the signing by the President of any major legislation, then Biden's sinking poll numbers would start to turn around. That desperately-needed legislation would get people to work fixing roads, bridges, the electrical grid and so much more that will directly affect Americans across the country. It's long past time to show progress on something important.
Dr Reich, the people in America who elect our most influential leaders really need to hear and understand the information and perspectives that you provide, but I don't think the message is getting through -- at least not to the most important audience. One reason, I think, is that the language of macroeconomics just doesn't resonate with many people like blue-collar workers who might not be college educated. To give you a sense of their perceptions, re-read your article but replace every work that ends in "illion" with "gazillion". People have no intuitive, gut-level sense of what such mind-boggling numbers mean, and they don't see the economy from the high-level, 30,000-ft macroeconomic perspective that you provide. But read the article again with every dollar figure divided by 330 million and append with "per-capita". Or divide by 130 million and append "per-household". Now you've got their attention. I think one of the most important things that you and other progressive policy leaders can do to get your message across is to translate it from the language of macroeconomics to "Home Economics". Put it in the context of the median U.S. household income of $80,000 (plus unpaid earnings of about $50,000 that are paid to someone else as "unearned income"). How much of an average household's earnings goes to federal taxes and what is its share of national debt and annual deficit? Where does that taxed and borrowed money go, not from the perspective of the federal budget but in the context of the personal household budget? What was the median household's tax benefit from the Trump Republican tax cut and what was its share of national debt taken on to finance the cut? I think we might begin to see real political change in a progressive direction ("progress") when ordinary people have an intuitive and personal understanding of the federal budget as an extension of their household budget -- which it is in a very real sense, not just figuratively. For example, the $60,000-per household we'll be spending on the military over the next 10 years will literally be paid for, one way or another, by American workers. So my advice and request of you and other progressive policy leaders is, please, DIVIDE BY 330,000,000!
How much is $1 trillion with a T? $7,000 per household. Oh, wait, that's over 10 years?
So that's $700 a year, $60 a month, $2 bucks a day . . . per household. Won't buy coffee. But 3 times that will buy a revolution in our economy, and our well being. And how could that be anything but good for GDP?
Brad, you're quite welcome but try to think a little deeper. The $3.5 trillion Build Back Better plan would cost about $2700 per household per year ($7 per day), half of what congress routinely appropriates for defense without any dissent at all. What do we get for our money?
Infrastructure improvements will cost less than what we will pay by not doing them. (If your roof is leaking and the rains are coming you're not going to save money by deferring the repairs until next season.) The "Better" part of Build Back Better will yield even higher returns. For example, NREL just released a report finding that adding transmission capacity between the Eastern and Western interconnections will yield a 250% return on investment. Another report from Rewiring America found that transitioning to 100% clean energy would save American households about $2500 per year in energy costs.
How does that kind of return-on-investment compare to other government expenditures like the military? The U.S. spends more on defense than the combined defense budgets of China, Russia, India, the UK, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia combined. Do you think we get our money's worth? Seriously.
What about the $1.9 trillion Trump Republican tax cut? How has it benefited ordinary Americans? (I'm still waiting for the $4000 raise that they promised.)
Think about the federal budget the same way you think about your own personal budget. If someone wants to spend thousands of dollars of your money you're going to want to know what's in it for you, right? "Show me the money!"
Good! $134 trillion. Your last point is what drives me to keep posting our net private household wealth, despite very few indications that anyone is paying attention. And it's not because I say so.
This net wealth, again $134 trillion as of 30 June, is reported every quarter by the US Federal Reserve, which I usually refer to as a 'mysterious, fringe, radical, extremist organization . . . ' Their numbers are in the thick oddly named 'Z.1' report, every quarter, a headline in the financial press, and then poof! -- not in any financial discussion about what we can afford.
In your fine exposition above, I read your points to expect that the 'build back better' programs will not in fact cost much at all, net, if anything -- *unlike* tax cuts for the rich. Shouldn't we expect a boost to GDP and net wealth, in real terms, from these programs -- as I think you are saying and showing? Looks like it to me.
As you point out, regular people should know that giving money to the rich is like watering the ocean. The benefits of tax cuts for the rich are . . . lost.
If you pay a working family a dollar, a rich guy will get it almost immediately. If we give a rich guy a dollar, will we ever see it again? ( How about a wealth tax . . . ? )
You're saying these programs pay for themselves, I believe, and I think you provided plenty of support for anyone to agree -- but also want to point out that we have the money, if it is needed, per the 'Z.1,' and that 3 or 4 mills ( thousandths ) on the top $100 trillion would generate $3-400 billion of well justified revenue, as needed . . . the rest of us pay property taxes, and that would be a very light load indeed compared to what most of us pay on our house or in our rent -- b.rad
$134 trillion net household wealth? What does that come to per "average" household? Probably a lot more than the "median" household -- which tells you something about who's got the lion's share of that $134 trillion.
about 130 million households, as you noted up top -- so about $1 million per household. ( Billionaire walks in, everybody in the room is a zillionaire, on average . . . yep . . . )
But look at the 'Distribution of Household Wealth' report page of the 'Z.1' report of the Fed, and as you indicate, fully half of US households have no net wealth to speak of. ( the term used is 'worth,' but that rankles me . . . )
I would note that, using standard financial assessment formulas, every citizen has a 'trust fund' for retirement in Social Security and Medicare, a sizable annuity, but that's little comfort if you have not reached minimum age to take either, and no luxury then . . . but meaningful.
Worth a repeat, from that Z.1 Fed page, end Q2 2021:
Wealth by wealth percentile group - Trillions of Dollars
Exactly! There are zero legitimate excuses for not getting this done for the United States of America. The blatant party before people BS has go to stop.
The environment is the issue. Everything else is dependent on having a sustainable planet to live on. One big problem is that the US Constitution is 200 years old, was a quick fix to keep the colonies together under the threat of European takeover, and to raise money, and to pay the war debt. It was never meant to be a permanent and final document and does not meet the current needs. Unfortunately, at this time and in this politicized political environment, it would be extremely difficult to open it for revision.
***Joe Biden, [when talking about his excellent Mass traction Economic agenda],
often says the following:
“That's why I resolved that we have to, once again, build America from the bottom up and the middle out.
I've never seen a time in American history when the middle class did well and the wealthy didn't do very well. But I'm tired of trickle-down. Trickle-down doesn't - hasn't worked so much.”
Our infrastructure used to be the best in the world. Not hyperbole - the best in the world. Today, according to the World Economic Forum, we rank 13th in the world. Twelve other nations have superior infrastructure to us, and China has trains that go 230 miles an hour for long distances. And we got money to do that back in the administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and you had a Republican governor who didn't want it - didn't want any parts of it. And we used to lead the world in educational achievement. Now, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranks America 35 out of 37 major countries when it comes to investing in early childhood education and care. Thirty-five out of thirty-seven
We cannot be competitive in the 21st century global economy if we continue to slide.
>My wife, who's a community college professor, says, "Any nation that out-educates us will
out-compete us." I'll say it again: "Any nation that out-educates us will out compete us." And that's a fact.
Putting money in the pockets of Military Companies comes before helping American Citizens! This money goes for bombing civilians and the poorest people around the world! Cut Military Spending by 90% and have peace! Quit being terrorists to the world! Spend that money on America, not for bombs and weapons that will just create more people to hate Americans for killing their people!
I think a butchered version will pass, as greed, sadly again, prevails. One agonzing step forward is a step forward. I mentioned below words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg - “Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time.” Mankind is soooo slow to evolve. Thank you, Robert, for encouraging, not giving up, on the 'baby' steps. We are finally making a turn in a better direction. And we can't stop now.
Rae, this is a very important point. The current state of affairs in Washington may feel demoralizing (and I understand your frustration, Marycat2021), but I guarantee that nothing moves forward unless we stay in the fight.
Professor, I am suffering health problems resulting from political frustration exacerbated by Donald Trump. The only "fight" I plan on going forward, is to take care of myself and my family.
We don't have time for "steps" anymore. We are out of time.
(Pancha Chandra): Every ethical human being should heed Joe Biden's earnest desire to have a sustainable planet.
Agree.
Regarding Sinema's accommodating large corporate donors, I received an email yesterday from Ryan Grim of the Intercept reporting that, in the third quarter of this year, Sinema took in $1.1 million in campaign donations, 90% of it from out of state, and much from large corporate donors. Mark Kelly, Arizona's other Democratic Senator, who fully supports the Biden agenda, raised $8.2 million in the same period. In the third quarter of 2018, when Arizonans thought Sinema would be a champion of the little guy, she raised almost $7 million. Turns out her "independence" does not even maximize campaign contributions.
Sinema will be running for re-election soon and the "little guys" have been observing her support for those that elected her and not Martha McSally!
We appear to be outvoted, with essentially 50 right wing Republicans and two moderate Republicans (Manchin and Sinema). But we have a Democratic President who can veto any budget and send it back. The purpose of the military is to protect our national security. Surely climate change is by far the greatest threat to our national security: sea level rise will take out most of our coastal cites, droughts and floods crash agricultural yields, hurricanes, wildfires, and heat waves threaten lives and property. China and Russia, our so-called "adversaries", could never manage that. Yet the military does not spend even one penny to protect us against climate change. We need a new set of priorities for the military. Suppose the President vetoes any 80 B defense budget that does not include at least 60 B for reducing the threat of climate change. After much haggling and negotiation, negotiate to 40 B for climate change, together with all the social justice programs that are now in the reconciliation package. Why not? If climate change is an existential crisis, as President Biden keeps repeating to the press, then why not treat it like an existential crisis?
"Surely climate change is by far the greatest threat to our national security ..." I would argue that the Defense Department is by far the greatest threat to our national security because it drains the economy of the resources that we need to address all other national security threats.
Geordie, you made all the points I thought to make. Thank you.
Without addressing the climate issue, we can just ignore the rest of it. The planet will not survive if something isn’t done immediately.
The dems are hurting themselves and the country with all the infighting while the GOP are licking their lips. Sinema and Manchin should be ashamed and held accountable for the pending losses in the midterms and governors races.
My mantra but no one believes it, "America is the richest country in the world. We can afford..."
Thanks. We can put a number on that, $134 trillion, net, thanks to the US Federal Reserve.
But it seems to be taboo for anyone in our leadership to report that wealth, whether media, business, or government. Prof Reich has talked about the top billionaires, good, but, there's more . . . !
That total private household wealth increased about $24 trillion in just the 12 months to 30 June, one year, according to the Fed.
About $93 trillion, net, is held by the top 10%. About $43 trillion of that -- again, net, after all debts -- is held by only the top 1%. According to the Fed, 'Z.1' report, quarterly. - b.rad
You said it: the whole situation is truly “NUTS”. What frustrates me is that the Republicans have been following a deliberate plan for decades to dominate local politics (school boards), gerrymander after every census, install conservative judges following the desires of their Federalist Society, and shake voters confidence in elections!!! Democrats win power and then weakly try to push their agenda with little success (like now). They're completely crippled, out flanked. I want Biden and Democrats to GET MAD. Stop being nice. I’m worried that our country as we know it is almost over.
(Pancha Chandra): American citizens, you have important decisions to make! The most important decision is to support an ethical 46th President & disavow any allegiance to a crooked manipulator in Donald Trump who orchestrated the Capitol insurrection of January 6th. Joe Biden & Kamala Harris are determined to restore America's ethical leadership of the free world; support them to the hilt!
Citizen’s United is the major antagonist here. If we don’t reverse it, if we don’t create public funding for elections similar to the Swiss system, if we don’t eliminate the Senate and go to a multi party system, well then the government will always be easy to purchase by the wealthy. This is the problem with a federal republic type of democracy. There are only a handful of people at the top, and as we have seen with Manchin and Sinema, all the wealthy have to purchase is one or two legislators to jam the entire system. I have been politically active for fifty years, and hard as I’ve tried to do the right thing, I’ve watched our environmental situation deteriorate to the tipping point due to greed. Profits are our God, and the devil to anyone who gets in the way. Positive as I usually am, I don’t see a good outcome to this dilemma.
Put all the climate legislation in the Defense budget.
Then there will be 99.9 percent of that budget allocated towards weapons and less than .1 percent toward climate.
Professor, you're certainly correct on the numbers, but we all know that $350 billion/year won't break the bank. What's important - and not emphasized sufficiently by Congressional Democrats or even the White House - are the programs that would be covered or begun by the social infrastructure bill.
Now I read that many people are upset that funds for free community college may be cut from the bill, and that they're apparently blaming that on Biden not pushing hard enough! So his attempt to negotiate as much as he can by cutting the extent of the social infrastructure bill is now being used to attack him as a weak and ineffective President. I find that to be outrageous.
If that crew in the White House and on the Hill would just sign the physical infrastructure bill as-is and, since it's already been approved by the Senate, send it to Biden's desk for what should be Biden's use of the traditional hoopla that generally accompanies the signing by the President of any major legislation, then Biden's sinking poll numbers would start to turn around. That desperately-needed legislation would get people to work fixing roads, bridges, the electrical grid and so much more that will directly affect Americans across the country. It's long past time to show progress on something important.
Dr Reich, the people in America who elect our most influential leaders really need to hear and understand the information and perspectives that you provide, but I don't think the message is getting through -- at least not to the most important audience. One reason, I think, is that the language of macroeconomics just doesn't resonate with many people like blue-collar workers who might not be college educated. To give you a sense of their perceptions, re-read your article but replace every work that ends in "illion" with "gazillion". People have no intuitive, gut-level sense of what such mind-boggling numbers mean, and they don't see the economy from the high-level, 30,000-ft macroeconomic perspective that you provide. But read the article again with every dollar figure divided by 330 million and append with "per-capita". Or divide by 130 million and append "per-household". Now you've got their attention. I think one of the most important things that you and other progressive policy leaders can do to get your message across is to translate it from the language of macroeconomics to "Home Economics". Put it in the context of the median U.S. household income of $80,000 (plus unpaid earnings of about $50,000 that are paid to someone else as "unearned income"). How much of an average household's earnings goes to federal taxes and what is its share of national debt and annual deficit? Where does that taxed and borrowed money go, not from the perspective of the federal budget but in the context of the personal household budget? What was the median household's tax benefit from the Trump Republican tax cut and what was its share of national debt taken on to finance the cut? I think we might begin to see real political change in a progressive direction ("progress") when ordinary people have an intuitive and personal understanding of the federal budget as an extension of their household budget -- which it is in a very real sense, not just figuratively. For example, the $60,000-per household we'll be spending on the military over the next 10 years will literally be paid for, one way or another, by American workers. So my advice and request of you and other progressive policy leaders is, please, DIVIDE BY 330,000,000!
Right! So, how much is $1 billion? $3 per person.
How much is $1 trillion with a T? $7,000 per household. Oh, wait, that's over 10 years?
So that's $700 a year, $60 a month, $2 bucks a day . . . per household. Won't buy coffee. But 3 times that will buy a revolution in our economy, and our well being. And how could that be anything but good for GDP?
thanks again, b.rad
Brad, you're quite welcome but try to think a little deeper. The $3.5 trillion Build Back Better plan would cost about $2700 per household per year ($7 per day), half of what congress routinely appropriates for defense without any dissent at all. What do we get for our money?
Infrastructure improvements will cost less than what we will pay by not doing them. (If your roof is leaking and the rains are coming you're not going to save money by deferring the repairs until next season.) The "Better" part of Build Back Better will yield even higher returns. For example, NREL just released a report finding that adding transmission capacity between the Eastern and Western interconnections will yield a 250% return on investment. Another report from Rewiring America found that transitioning to 100% clean energy would save American households about $2500 per year in energy costs.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/transmission-east-west-seams-grids-lowers-costs-nrel-wind-solar/608475/
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/new-research-shows-transitioning-to-100-clean-energy-could-save-us-households-321b/
How does that kind of return-on-investment compare to other government expenditures like the military? The U.S. spends more on defense than the combined defense budgets of China, Russia, India, the UK, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia combined. Do you think we get our money's worth? Seriously.
What about the $1.9 trillion Trump Republican tax cut? How has it benefited ordinary Americans? (I'm still waiting for the $4000 raise that they promised.)
Think about the federal budget the same way you think about your own personal budget. If someone wants to spend thousands of dollars of your money you're going to want to know what's in it for you, right? "Show me the money!"
Good! $134 trillion. Your last point is what drives me to keep posting our net private household wealth, despite very few indications that anyone is paying attention. And it's not because I say so.
This net wealth, again $134 trillion as of 30 June, is reported every quarter by the US Federal Reserve, which I usually refer to as a 'mysterious, fringe, radical, extremist organization . . . ' Their numbers are in the thick oddly named 'Z.1' report, every quarter, a headline in the financial press, and then poof! -- not in any financial discussion about what we can afford.
In your fine exposition above, I read your points to expect that the 'build back better' programs will not in fact cost much at all, net, if anything -- *unlike* tax cuts for the rich. Shouldn't we expect a boost to GDP and net wealth, in real terms, from these programs -- as I think you are saying and showing? Looks like it to me.
As you point out, regular people should know that giving money to the rich is like watering the ocean. The benefits of tax cuts for the rich are . . . lost.
If you pay a working family a dollar, a rich guy will get it almost immediately. If we give a rich guy a dollar, will we ever see it again? ( How about a wealth tax . . . ? )
You're saying these programs pay for themselves, I believe, and I think you provided plenty of support for anyone to agree -- but also want to point out that we have the money, if it is needed, per the 'Z.1,' and that 3 or 4 mills ( thousandths ) on the top $100 trillion would generate $3-400 billion of well justified revenue, as needed . . . the rest of us pay property taxes, and that would be a very light load indeed compared to what most of us pay on our house or in our rent -- b.rad
$134 trillion net household wealth? What does that come to per "average" household? Probably a lot more than the "median" household -- which tells you something about who's got the lion's share of that $134 trillion.
about 130 million households, as you noted up top -- so about $1 million per household. ( Billionaire walks in, everybody in the room is a zillionaire, on average . . . yep . . . )
But look at the 'Distribution of Household Wealth' report page of the 'Z.1' report of the Fed, and as you indicate, fully half of US households have no net wealth to speak of. ( the term used is 'worth,' but that rankles me . . . )
I would note that, using standard financial assessment formulas, every citizen has a 'trust fund' for retirement in Social Security and Medicare, a sizable annuity, but that's little comfort if you have not reached minimum age to take either, and no luxury then . . . but meaningful.
Worth a repeat, from that Z.1 Fed page, end Q2 2021:
Wealth by wealth percentile group - Trillions of Dollars
● Top 1% - $43.27 T
♦ 90-99% - $50.53 T
■ 50-90% - $37.25 T
▲ Bottom 50% - $3.03 T
● Total: $134.08 T
No comprendo. My only comprehension of "Trillion" is that it rhymes with "Gazillion".
Top 1% - $33M per household
90-99% - $4.3M per household
50-90% - $700K per household
Bottom 50% - $47K per household
Exactly! There are zero legitimate excuses for not getting this done for the United States of America. The blatant party before people BS has go to stop.
The environment is the issue. Everything else is dependent on having a sustainable planet to live on. One big problem is that the US Constitution is 200 years old, was a quick fix to keep the colonies together under the threat of European takeover, and to raise money, and to pay the war debt. It was never meant to be a permanent and final document and does not meet the current needs. Unfortunately, at this time and in this politicized political environment, it would be extremely difficult to open it for revision.
***Joe Biden, [when talking about his excellent Mass traction Economic agenda],
often says the following:
“That's why I resolved that we have to, once again, build America from the bottom up and the middle out.
I've never seen a time in American history when the middle class did well and the wealthy didn't do very well. But I'm tired of trickle-down. Trickle-down doesn't - hasn't worked so much.”
Our infrastructure used to be the best in the world. Not hyperbole - the best in the world. Today, according to the World Economic Forum, we rank 13th in the world. Twelve other nations have superior infrastructure to us, and China has trains that go 230 miles an hour for long distances. And we got money to do that back in the administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and you had a Republican governor who didn't want it - didn't want any parts of it. And we used to lead the world in educational achievement. Now, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranks America 35 out of 37 major countries when it comes to investing in early childhood education and care. Thirty-five out of thirty-seven
We cannot be competitive in the 21st century global economy if we continue to slide.
>My wife, who's a community college professor, says, "Any nation that out-educates us will
out-compete us." I'll say it again: "Any nation that out-educates us will out compete us." And that's a fact.
Putting money in the pockets of Military Companies comes before helping American Citizens! This money goes for bombing civilians and the poorest people around the world! Cut Military Spending by 90% and have peace! Quit being terrorists to the world! Spend that money on America, not for bombs and weapons that will just create more people to hate Americans for killing their people!