Nah, you missed it. The sky fell long time ago...you just want to blame it on Obama.
He's not, I am!
He takes more responsability than any president I've been alive for.
"Iran Contra?? Whazzat?"
"Read My Lips"
"I did not have sex with that woman"
"WMD's He's got em"
"Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the president," Obama said at a "town hall" meeting in Costa Mesa, California, where his bid to sell his economic revival policies was swamped by news coverage of the bonus fiasco for a fourth day.
"I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down," Obama declared in a lengthy news conference at the White House on Thursday. Separately, Elizabeth Birnbaum, the head of the Minerals Management Service that oversees offshore drilling, resigned under pressure.
President Barack Obama took ultimate responsibility on Thursday for security lapses that allowed an attempted Christmas Day bombing of a US aeroplane and ordered reforms aimed at thwarting future attacks.
Seems to me he's way more responsible than any I've seen.
NOW, where's the responsability on the Repubs for the past eight years? THEY blame Obama for it all!!
Debt is not capital. Debt is not infinitely sustainable. We passed the point of equilibrium a while back.
Our Economy is based on Consumption and Growth which can not continue on forever. The Planet doesn't have enough resources for everyone to own an ipod, 12 pair of shoes, live in a 3,000 sq foot beach home, etc.
What is always missing from the argument is the fact that consumption is at a peak. We do not have an option of learning to live with "less". It's reality.
It really doesn't matter who you Blame. I am not an Obama supporter. Obama's policies are in fact shifting more of the debt burden to the lower and middle classes who are already maxed out.
This will lead to even more suffering.
But the only solution is to eliminate the systems that create debt and learn to live with less.
The masses are unwilling to do this... so the system will continue... wealthy getting wealthier, poor getting poorer until we have a complete implosion, martial law, and the poor are forced to either rise up or shut up. And the vast majority of us are poor.
So if you don't like Obama's policies vote for people who you do like.
That's what you can do. That's what I'll be doing.
Did you join just to spam us with all these anti-Obama threads?
Come out, come out, whoever you are...
Have you guys even read a column by Paul Krugman? Here he makes it very simple--
Spend now, while the economy remains depressed; save later, once it has recovered. How hard is that to understand?
Very hard, if the current state of political debate is any indication. All around the world, politicians seem determined to do the reverse. They’re eager to shortchange the economy when it needs help, even as they balk at dealing with long-run budget problems.
But maybe a clear explanation of the issues can change some minds. So let’s talk about the long and the short of budget deficits. I’ll focus on the U.S. position, but a similar story can be told for other nations.
At the moment, as you may have noticed, the U.S. government is running a large budget deficit. Much of this deficit, however, is the result of the ongoing economic crisis, which has depressed revenues and required extraordinary expenditures to rescue the financial system. As the crisis abates, things will improve. The Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of President Obama’s budget proposals, predicts that economic recovery will reduce the annual budget deficit from about 10 percent of G.D.P. this year to about 4 percent of G.D.P. in 2014.
Unfortunately, that’s not enough. Even if the government’s annual borrowing were to stabilize at 4 percent of G.D.P., its total debt would continue to grow faster than its revenues. Furthermore, the budget office predicts that after bottoming out in 2014, the deficit will start rising again, largely because of rising health care costs.
So America has a long-run budget problem. Dealing with this problem will require, first and foremost, a real effort to bring health costs under control — without that, nothing will work. It will also require finding additional revenues and/or spending cuts. As an economic matter, this shouldn’t be hard — in particular, a modest value-added tax, say at a 5 percent rate, would go a long way toward closing the gap, while leaving overall U.S. taxes among the lowest in the advanced world.
But if we need to raise taxes and cut spending eventually, shouldn’t we start now? No, we shouldn’t.
Right now, we have a severely depressed economy — and that depressed economy is inflicting long-run damage. Every year that goes by with extremely high unemployment increases the chance that many of the long-term unemployed will never come back to the work force, and become a permanent underclass. Every year that there are five times as many people seeking work as there are job openings means that hundreds of thousands of Americans graduating from school are denied the chance to get started on their working lives. And with each passing month we drift closer to a Japanese-style deflationary trap.
Penny-pinching at a time like this isn’t just cruel; it endangers the nation’s future. And it doesn’t even do much to reduce our future debt burden, because stinting on spending now threatens the economic recovery, and with it the hope for rising revenues.
So now is not the time for fiscal austerity. How will we know when that time has come? The answer is that the budget deficit should become a priority when, and only when, the Federal Reserve has regained some traction over the economy, so that it can offset the negative effects of tax increases and spending cuts by reducing interest rates.
Currently, the Fed can’t do that, because the interest rates it can control are near zero, and can’t go any lower. Eventually, however, as unemployment falls — probably when it goes below 7 percent or less — the Fed will want to raise rates to head off possible inflation. At that point we can make a deal: the government starts cutting back, and the Fed holds off on rate hikes so that these cutbacks don’t tip the economy back into a slump.
But the time for such a deal is a long way off — probably two years or more. The responsible thing, then, is to spend now, while planning to save later.
As I said, many politicians seem determined to do the reverse. Many members of Congress, in particular, oppose aid to the long-term unemployed, let alone to hard-pressed state and local governments, on the grounds that we can’t afford it. In so doing, they are undermining spending at a time when we really need it, and endangering the recovery. Yet efforts to control health costs were met with cries of “death panels.”
And some of the most vocal deficit scolds in Congress are working hard to reduce taxes for the handful of lucky Americans who are heirs to multimillion-dollar estates. This would do nothing for the economy now, but it would reduce revenues by billions of dollars a year, permanently.
But some politicians must be sincere about being fiscally responsible. And to them I say, please get your timing right. Yes, we need to fix our long-run budget problems — but not by refusing to help our economy in its hour of need.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on June 21, 2010, on page A29 of the New York edition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/opini … columnists
Boy-howdy, no doubt we should all take this advice to heart. I think I'll run out and run up as much personal debt as I can, that's going to put my niece through college a few years from now -- yeah, it'll make it all better. Krugman should really hire on to advise countries across the globe to just explode those deficits with social giveaway programs, it will rescue the economy, stimuate business! Ready, set, go.........
Applying personal budgeting principles to the country's economy doesn't work although it seems to be a good idea to people who don't know anything about economics. Krugman is a Democrat, but he is also a Nobel Prize winning orthodox, middle-of-the-road economist.
Well, I guess that means he must be right and all the countries implementing, or contemplating, austerity measures must just be full of home-grown beans. They better watch it or their economy will be brought back to a simmer with bean gas taxes for the next 100 years. Nobel prizes don't impress me much.
by uncorrectedvision5 years ago
What was my title? I thought about it and decided that Paul Krugman was the real point of this forum. I do know something about economics, politics and Paul Krugman. I know very little about the...
by Ralph Deeds7 years ago
"The Third Depression"--http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opini … ef=opinion
by Alex Frias6 years ago
Question. If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently. Where was his voice in favor of the Bush...
by Josak4 years ago
I think it would be great if we could debate the economy not on the basis of "commonly known" or presumed but on the basis of provable facts with sources. I'll start, US deficit for 2009 (last budget made by...
by fishskinfreak20087 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100122/ts_nm/us_obama"Let me dispel this notion that we were somehow focused on that (healthcare) and so as a consequence not focused on the economy. First of all, all I think about is...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
Paul Krugman:" Back in 2010, self-styled deficit hawks — better described as deficit scolds — took over much of our political discourse. At a time of mass unemployment and record-low borrowing costs, a time...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.