Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate of Change
The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression. The stimulus bill that Congress passed may have been too weak and too focused on tax cuts. The administration's refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing. But fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.
For this budget allocates $634 billion over the next decade for health reform. That's not enough to pay for universal coverage, but it's an impressive start. And Mr. Obama plans to pay for health reform, not just with higher taxes on the affluent, but by putting a halt to the creeping privatization of Medicare, eliminating overpayments to insurance companies.
On another front, it's also heartening to see that the budget projects $645 billion in revenues from the sale of emission allowances. After years of denial and delay by its predecessor, the Obama administration is signaling that it's ready to take on climate change.
And these new priorities are laid out in a document whose clarity and plausibility seem almost incredible to those of us who grew accustomed to reading Bush-era budgets, which insulted our intelligence on every page. This is budgeting we can believe in.
Many will ask whether Mr. Obama can actually pull off the deficit reduction he promises. Can he actually reduce the red ink from $1.75 trillion this year to less than a third as much in 2013? Yes, he can.
Right now the deficit is huge thanks to temporary factors (at least we hope they're temporary): a severe economic slump is depressing revenues and large sums have to be allocated both to fiscal stimulus and to financial rescues.
But if and when the crisis passes, the budget picture should improve dramatically. Bear in mind that from 2005 to 2007, that is, in the three years before the crisis, the federal deficit averaged only $243 billion a year. Now, during those years, revenues were inflated, to some degree, by the housing bubble. But it's also true that we were spending more than $100 billion a year in Iraq.
So if Mr. Obama gets us out of Iraq (without bogging us down in an equally expensive Afghan quagmire) and manages to engineer a solid economic recovery - two big ifs, to be sure - getting the deficit down to around $500 billion by 2013 shouldn't be at all difficult.
But won't the deficit be swollen by interest on the debt run-up over the next few years? Not as much as you might think. Interest rates on long-term government debt are less than 4 percent, so even a trillion dollars of additional debt adds less than $40 billion a year to future deficits. And those interest costs are fully reflected in the budget documents.
So we have good priorities and plausible projections. What's not to like about this budget? Basically, the long run outlook remains worrying.
According to the Obama administration's budget projections, the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P., a widely used measure of the government's financial position, will soar over the next few years, then more or less stabilize. But this stability will be achieved at a debt-to-G.D.P. ratio of around 60 percent. That wouldn't be an extremely high debt level by international standards, but it would be the deepest in debt America has been since the years immediately following World War II. And it would leave us with considerably reduced room for maneuver if another crisis comes along.
Furthermore, the Obama budget only tells us about the next 10 years. That's an improvement on Bush-era budgets, which looked only 5 years ahead. But America's really big fiscal problems lurk over that budget horizon: sooner or later we're going to have to come to grips with the forces driving up long-run spending - above all, the ever-rising cost of health care.
And even if fundamental health care reform brings costs under control, I at least find it hard to see how the federal government can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases on the middle class. Whatever politicians may say now, there's probably a value-added tax in our future.
But I don't blame Mr. Obama for leaving some big questions unanswered in this budget. There's only so much long-run thinking the political system can handle in the midst of a severe crisis; he has probably taken on all he can, for now. And this budget looks very, very good.
- Posted in
48 Comments so far
Show AllWithout one single move to provide one sustainable job for the future or any investment in sustainable boosts to the economy, I'm at a loss to follow Mr. Krugman's thinking.
What could possibly indicate at this point that "the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P., a widely used measure of the government's financial position, will soar over the next few years,then more or less stabilize."?
Building Sand Mouse habitat is unlikely to restablish manufacturing in our country.
Mr. Moore, considering that the man's a Nobel laureate, it's my guess he knows something you and I don't. How in the world do you suppose you're going to "follow the man's thinking" exclusively by a five-hundred word essay? It's neither the time, nor the place.
Read his books, and his other published works, then make an assessment.
end.corporate.p...
I have read Paul's books and articles for some time. I both like and respect him. The fact that he is a Nobel laureate is an honor but does not grant infallibility. And no I don't know that he knows that much about practical applications of policy, he is a theoritical economist.
This is exactly the time and place to say I don't see how he can reach his conclusions based on the avaiable information unless as you say, he has information we don't have. If so, he should have revealed it to show how our economy is going to stabalize two years from now. I certainly don't see it based on what he and the administration are saying.
Time will tell, but don't be surprised if this rosey scenario doesn't come to pass. It takes time to establish sustainable jobs, without which this simply cannot happen and they haven't started, not one move yet.
I'm no expert either, but I would be extremely surprised if Dr. Krugman didn't know that much about practical economics and just stayed in the rarefied realms of theory. Given his career it seems pretty obvious that he is very familiar with the real world.
Agreed. My point is really a lack of practical experience running a business and the way business reacts to political policy. I believe most economists miss that in their calculations.
Having a different opinion from someone else does not mean I hate them, don't think they know anything about what they are talking about or arte one legged idiots. It just means I see something different
Darn, I like Krugman I'd much prefer he and Robert Reich were giving advice to Obama than the two Bopsy twins.
But he and most economists missed this whole thing for years, most insisted we weren't in recession till late 08 when any good businessman could have told you we had been there since December 07 at least.
Mr. Moore, Paul Krugman is known in academia for his work in international economics, including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance. He won the Nobel prize in Economic Sciences for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity, so his work has deepened the understanding of the determinants of trade and the location of economic activity. As another writer noted, being a Noble laureate doesn't make him infallible. This is true -- nobody is, unless you're the Pope and speaking as head of the Church. [s]
The Recovery & Reinvestment Act is going to take a little bit of time to work; create new jobs, generate sustainability, and prime-the-pump. The major categories (Tax Relief for Individuals & Families; Tax Incentives for Business; Manufacturing Recovery Provisions; Economic Recovery Tools; Infrastructure Financing Tools; Reinvestment in Renewable Energy; Assistance for Families & Unemployed Workers; Health Insurance Assistance; State Fiscal Relief & Medicaid; Health Information Technology; and Trade Provisions) seem pretty straight forward to me. All provide some sort of stimulus (e.g., tax credits, developmental bonding, tax exceptions) or recovery provision. It's going to take time. It's not going to happen overnight.
The government's not going to "create" the jobs, as it shouldn't, but it will provide the mechanisms (above) to allow private investment to do this over the short and long term.
I understand your frustration and impatience. I feel the same way. But, it seems to me, before any of this legislation can have any effect, a liberal dose of faith will also have to be added. That, I believe, is up to the American people -- and investors.
end.corporate.p...
"Mr. Moore, Paul Krugman is known in academia for his work in international economics,"
See above posting to Marco. I am not against Krugman. He actually is one of my favorites. And my posting is my opinion just as the article is his. But as most people here on CD know, I'm never wrong, Pope or not (LOL)
"The Recovery & Reinvestment Act is going to take a little bit of time to work"
I simply don't believe or see any reason why it will work. It has some bridge money for getting some folks thru hard times,some aid for infrastructure projects, but the bulk seems simply a wish list of social programs, pork for the various Senators and Congressmen.
"The Recovery & Reinvestment Act"
Putting things like millions for "Sand Mouse" habitat (32 million?) belongs ibn this bill? Just an example.
"The government's not going to "create" the jobs, as it shouldn't, but it will provide the mechanisms (above) to allow private investment to do this over the short and long term."
"That, I believe, is up to the American people -- and investors."
I agree totally. The problem I see is that investors are not going to buy this bill, it doesn't offer any reason to invest and create jobs. The talk I've been hearing is the opposite, small business's are ramping down. The Stock Market is just an indicator but its a good one when it comes to the direction of investments. And its down as you know, dropped like a rock when this bill passed.
There are a lot of fancy titles in this bill, some of which you mentioned, but they don't reflect the content of many of them.
In fact in my opinion, many of the things that would best srerve our economies recovery don't cost anything and they have not made one move to change anything.
"The government's not going to "create" the jobs"
Thats about the only real job creation I can find in this bill, the expansion of government in this bill will certainly create a fair number of jobs.
I appreciate your reasoned and careful response. Perhaps I am being to pessimistic, perhaps our economy will heal itself. But I've looked carefully at this bill and I see no possible generation of sustainable jobs from it other than my happenstance.
I sincerly hope I am wrong and you are right.
Good morning Mr. Moore. Certainly there is pork in the new Recovery & Reinvestment Act. That's bound to happen. As you know, all bills are compromise solutions, at best, so there are going to be items listed that each person finds frivolous and unnecessary. It's the nature of the beast.
The following items, listed in the bill, appear to be pure waste (such as the "Sand Mouse habitat" you mentioned, which I hadn't heard about). But, looking at them through new eyes, I realize they just may not be. For example:
1. Clean Coal Research: Could the $3.4 billion be earmarked to learn how to develop the capability of extracting, storing, and compressing carbon-dioxide during this process (which we don't know how to do)? If so, it's a legitimate stimulus item. If the future of burning pollution-free, and greenhouse gases-free, coal lies, partly, within the development of storing and compressing carbon-dioxide, I'm all for the government spending funds to learn how to do this.
2. Green Golf Carts: Agreeably, battery-powered "anything" isn't totally green until the source of the power also is. But, the concepts, and the promoting of the ideas, are worthy and necessary. You know, as well as I, that small internal combustion engines, such as those used in most golf cart-like vehicles, lawn mowers, etc., are some of the worse polluters and expellers of greenhouse gases. This could be pork, but, at the same time, it could be legitimate.
3. $185,000 for coral reef research and preservation in HI: Yes, this is probably pork. But, in the scheme of things, $185,000 is chicken-feed compared to the cost of the overall package. It was a political maneuvering gesture, I'm sure, to get some Hawaiian legislator's crucial vote. That's the sound of politics. You don't like it and I don't like it, but in the overall picture, I can live with it.
4. $55,000 for meteorological equipment for Pierce College in Woodland Hills, CA: It's hard to tell with this. It could be a sound investment.
5. $9.9 million for science enhancement at historically black colleges in SC: Again, this could be a sound investment, although I tend to agree it's probably pork. Again, I'm sure it was a trade-off for someone's vote. It's the cost of "doing business".
6. Lowbush Wild blueberry Research at the University of Maine: Sounds like pork, but then again, it could have scientific and medical possibilities. Could this have to do with the study of the antioxidant qualities of certain plant life? Again, we don't know. The long-term ramifications could, and I repeat, could, lower health costs in the future. Who knows?
7. $950,000 for Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center: Sounds to me, as with item #5, it was important to get the Republican congressional membership onboard with this package. But, it is construction, and construction's on its back right now. This is probably legitimate.
8. $950,000 for nature education center in Moss Point, MS: Again, this is construction. It's no different than the "make-work" projects that were put into place during the 1930s. Remember the old WPA (Works Progess Administration)? They built all kinds of things back then -- public buildings, roads, various projects, and operated large arts, drama, media and literacy projects. Many of the "pork" projects could come under this umbrella.
9. Honey Bee Research in TX: Sure, it seems like pork, but if you've been keeping up with the news about the dwindling bee populations, and the adverse affect it's creating for our food supply, than this is likely money well-spent.
10. Astronomy in HI: It's probably another political gesture. But, if it's for the design and/or building of a telescope needed for scientific purposes, it's probably going to be "money in the bank".
Like I said, every bill's going to appear laden with pork to someone, chiefly because one man's pork is another man's gold. It's the frivolousness of politics.
Let's hope it works, which, by the way, won't have a chance until TARP gets straightened out and becomes effective. Personally, like Krugman has mentioned, I don't think $787 billion will be enough (for stimulus). It should have been at least doubled in order to offset the massive corporate and private debt in this country. But, we'll discuss this another time.
I have a lot of respect for Dr.Krugman but if I were to take the time to study all his works in order to make an assessment as to the validity of his economic projections I would certainly not be publishing the results of my study here on a CD discussion forum. LOL
These forums are about opinions..... Informed or otherwise..... The opinions we express (In most cases) speak more about ourselves (Hopes and Dreams,Etc.) than they do of the actual subject matter commented upon.
Good Morning Mr. Dante
And I'm going to go right out and look for one of those darned informed opinions that many here keep suggesting elude me. Slippery little devils!
Good Morning to you Thomas.
"And I'm going to go right out and look for one of those darned informed opinions that many here keep suggesting elude me. Slippery little devils!"
Good luck on that one Thomas...lol
very wise, Mr. Dante
You do not have a clear understanding of the new stimulus legislation. Lots of good jobs and good future investments are being made. If you're Obama, you've got to have some optimism or what good are you? I believe there's at least a 50/50 chance that the economy will come around in a couple of years. Time will tell.
I would argue that I indeed have a pretty fair understanding of the bill at this point. I simply fail to see where the good jobs are being created by this. I don't see any real investments in this bill.
I don't call educational spending an investment to stimulate jobs. Nor Sandmouse habitat, nor a million dollars to ethnic organizations...etc. I realize that all bills have some earmarks, its the nature of the game, but this bill was so filled with them, it left little for job stimulas.
I believe its one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime and I do not undersand why President Obama refused to be involved and let Pelosi and Reids staff write something so important. I don't believe the economy will be even close to recovery in two years, we won't reach the bottom till at least the end of 2009.
Of course you are right, time will tell. But I feel this disgraceful Congress has already told me what will happen.
I hope you two guys are right though. I'd love to be wrong.
Thank you President Obama.
racom40
By completely reforming healthcare with the best possible plan, "single payer", the cost can be lowered even more from where we are today. The insurance industry must be removed from healthcare. A national organization, 'Physicians for a National Health Program' are spearheading just such a plan. You can sign up for newsletters at this site, 'www.pnhp.org', join a progressive movement to fix healthcare.
Krugman does not explain much here.
Tax the rich of 90 percent of the their wealth, that would help get some of the theft we have witness over the last few decades.
Other than that, we are going to see huge inflation which is a tax on the middle class and poor.
"Other than that, we are going to see huge inflation which is a tax on the middle class and poor"
This isn't really true. It is the wealthy, or at least those who have a steady source of income from investments, savings etc, who get the least value from inflation. For those whose income comes from savings, investments, it is inflation that is the big fear, whereas deflation benefits them.
It's a relative thing... True...
If I have a million in the bank, then I only earn $25,000 instead of $50,000 annually for hoarding that capital... That hurts.
If I am a single parent working two jobs and living on credit cards to feed my kids, then the 18- 35% interest rate I have to pay only $300 a month in interest payments, instead of $400...
Or someone paying off an ARM and a leg just to stay in their house, or medical bankrupsy...
However, those interest rates effect the Millionaire differently than working class folks...
especially when one remembers that he made that million out of thin air, then charges usurious rates to the debtor class...
That 25-50K would go along way for ten families to not be evicted, lose their small biz or farm, go into debt, or go bankrupt...
Voodoo Reaganomics doesnt trickle down... All those tax breaks were to free up industry's capital to REINVEST in our infrastructure...
Instead they use it to move the manufacturing base over seas...
Yeah, the (very) wealthy can handle fluctuations in interest rates better than the not wealthy.
My point simply is that, inflation, at least as long it isn't out of control hyperinflation, is actually for the most part, not something people who derive their incomes from work should be all that afraid of.
For working people earning a moderate income from working jobs, unless their jobs are pretty much guaranteed, ie they are tenured college professors, it is deflation that is bad.
"Tax the rich of 90 percent of the their wealth." I get your drift, but why not keep it realistic? This is not going to happen. Yes, inflation will come back, but Obama is attempting to do his best with his longer term outlook. As a hedge against possible future inflation, get your finances in order by avoiding future variable interest debt. If we keep good relatiions with China and a few other of our debt-buyers, we may avoid 'huge inflation.'
Well, no. But I think we should reinstate FDR's marginal income tax rates, which were about 90%. Basically, any amount of money you made over (an adjusted) $3 million a year was TAKEN by the Feds and spent on public works. That left you with $3 million (taxed at 30-40%, however), and if you couldn't work with that... suffer.
Thanks for the link, very interesting.
Well well well. Considering my enormous respect and admiration for Paul Krugman, whom I have been reading for years, and whose prognostications have always been on the mark, I am very encouraged to read the above analysis. I also think we are only seeing the beginning of Obama's plans. The groundwork. I think he is very shrewd about how much to say and do and when.
My major concerns about him are his Treasury and Fed picks and his stance on Afghanistan. But he's not pigheaded and inclined to keep charging in the wrong direction as did his predecessor. He's only been in office a little over a month, and although some progressives started screaming "Off with his head" right away, I am taking a wait and see where he's going stance. Still am. After all, I voted for him because of integrity, not because I fully agreed with him.
It seems to me he picks his battles very carefully. Smart.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Dave Bronstein, I have never seen evidence of wishful thinking in any of Paul Krugman's writings. For years he has been a Cassandra warning us that all this that has befallen us was coming. It was Wall Street that was full of wishful thinkers. And now they are expecting us to rescue them? We, whose pockets they picked?
Hey, ezeflyer, you're being a good sport. Weren't you dead set against voting for Obama?
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Kucinich is a Democrat. How about Feingold? Wellstone was a Democrat too. I think it would be better to consider the substance of Krugman's positions rather than engage in presumptive characterizations. I mean, what is a Progressive other than a principled and uncorrupted Democrat anyway?
No party is monolithic. Even the Republican party has a libertarian wing which opposes the social conservative wing. Kucinich, Feingold, and probably Krugman, represent the progressive wing of the Democratic party as opposed to the corporate/centrist wing. In the Republican party, the social conservatives are dominant. In the Democratic party, the centrists are dominant. There is a constant battle going on for the soul of the party. Unfortunately, in the Democratic party, many progressives have given up and surrendered the party to the centrists. A big mistake in my opinion. The social conservatives did not surrender - they aggressively organized and took over the party.
Well stated.
So I take by your response you are one of those who has given up on the Democratic party and has thrown their lot in with a third party. Fair enough. Now the question I have for you is how do you expect this strategy to work? What do you hope this will realistically accomplish?
I have asked this question of many third party supporters and I usually find their answers, if they answer at all, wanting.
Also, I don't agree with your characterization of Kucinich as a mere tool or puppet of the party. He is his own man and of course in politics you are going to have to occasionally comprimise and tow the party line, I don't care what party you are a member of. You also had nothing to say of Feingold or Wellstone. Tools as well I suppose?
Au contraire, mon frere.
I agree Thomas. We need a replacement for our lost Industrial base, both parties allowed to be exported these last 35 yrs. All the Gov't script in the world isn't going to work if we don't have as u say a sustainable "private economy." It's a good thing in the mean time to make sure we can at least sustain the bulk of our public sector, but in the long run that is itself counterproductive without a private sector to pay for these jobs. People with Gov't jobs many times don't see the connection. If the economy doesn't bounce back they'll soon be facing that connection as the reserve ( taxes) that pays them stops filling.
Thanks. And sustainable jobs is the key. And jobs not to provide cheaper labor for better profits at the expense of the American workers and his family.
Delete
It's not a safe bet the economy will recover in time to justify O's budget projections, though everyone including the rest of the world, wants to believe it. The stimulus wasn't big enough and the broken banking system hasn't been fixed. The financiers sabotaged the economy through reckless behavior that was based on "financial economics", the flawed econometric models that created the derivatives market. But the financiers are still in charge and are desperate to save their derivatives market from oblivion. They continue to hold the productive economy hostage to their failed models of economic reality. And the public continues to indulge them, or one should say, the leadership does. The general public does not approve of these bail outs.
We've got to stop being the enablers. Krugman knows that the way to do this is to nationalize the banks and force all these addicts into a strict recovery program. But "stabilizing the financial system" is what Obama wants, so Krugman will jump on the bandwagon so as not to be a party pooper and dilute the effect of Big O's pep talk to the nation.
As the global economy contracts like a deflating balloon, foreign demand for US production contracts. It is domestic demand that will power a recovery. This crisis means the end of the globalizing economy. Restoring domestic demand for domestic production requires more "stimulus" than political consensus was willing to provide.
The same condition is confronting every other country. Some of them have developed a middle class to support domestic production, others haven't. China, for example, is overly dependent on its export economy because it has not developed a middle class large enough to sustain the vast export-based manufacturing sector that developed to supply foreign demand.
Recovery for the US will depend on getting money back into the pockets of consumers. Obama, the "populist", knows this. The stimulus bill can inspire some domestic demand, but not enough. Significant portions of the financial sector should be shut down and those resources plowed back into the productive sector. The banks haven't done this and they won't do it. Obama has to take some radical steps if he wants to meet his budget objectives. Nationalization of the banks is the first. Wait and see means increasing unemployment and social distress.
The global deflation is creating economic isolation. This isn't protectionism per se, but it has the same effect. It's just every nation for itself. The solution to the global crisis is for each nation to get on its own feet by reorienting its economy to domestic production and consumption. Those that can, will. Those that can't will not be tourist destinations.
"The global deflation is creating economic isolation. This isn't protectionism per se, but it has the same effect. It's just every nation for itself. The solution to the global crisis is for each nation to get on its own feet by reorienting its economy to domestic production and consumption. Those that can, will. Those that can't will not be tourist destinations."
Interesting way to put it.
well put. I agree.
Elephant in room...
Expense of war and militarism...
If pressed I can quote figures; but, really, it's obvious
Not to mention the utterly appalling human cost
Fusion
I don't know how many Nobel Prize winning economists President Obama has as economic advisors, but I wish that Paul Krugman were one of them. I did hear President Obama invite Krugman to come forward with his ideas, I suppose he meant to the White House. We are waiting, Dr. Krugman.
yet another discussion regarding economy to be missing any mention of an incredibly vital element...the planet we live on, and the worsening conditions here...economy is the enemy of ecology...which one do humans require for survival, again?
topaz
I wish you would go to washington Mr Krugman...you could contribute so much. They need all the help they can get to think straight,and get us out of this mess we are in.
As a senior citizen I was struck by Mr. Krugman's phrase "creeping privatization of Medicare". He doesn't clarify that.
I'm waiting for Obama to explain how he's going to reform Medicare. From my perspective it's just fine. I get my meds and don't have to eat cat food!
The "creeping privatization of Medicare" is due to the Medicare Advantage program. The Bush administration touted this program as better than traditional Medicare, and it did have many advantages to the consumer like annual free physical exams something that traditional Medicare doesn't support but should if prevention is the goal. The Advantage program is totally privatized; it's offered by private companies as a replacement for Medicare. So as more people were weaned away from traditional Medicare and onto Medicare Advantage, Medicare was becoming increasingly privatized. In addition the government, under Bush, was paying doctors who accepted Medicare Advantage patients more per service than it was paying doctors for the same service who were accepting traditinal Medicare patients thereby giving doctors an incentive to accept Advantage patients while rejecting traditional Medicare patients. Medicare Advantage programs were giving more to their customers than traditional Medicare offered for the same money. However, once they had wooed enough seniors away from traditional Medicare and the process was complete, private health care corporations would be in a position to raise prices drastically especially if Republicans could get Congress to close the door on allowing recipients to change between Advantage and traditional Medicare. This would have been a fait accompli for the privatization of Medicare. Obama, however, is putting a stop to this process.
"For this budget allocates $634 billion over the next decade for health reform."
Paul Krugman is citing this "health reform allocation" as a "huge relief" to the ELITES, NOT to the people. He knows the people are not demanding extra truckloads of public treasure to be spent on healthcare. The people are demanding that healthcare costs be slashed in half (i.e. double value) to match the per capita expenditure in other countries (Cuba delivers TEN times USA healthcare value - we might demand a match of Cuba's value but we are practicing restraint here, ehh?).
"On another front, it's also heartening to see that the budget projects $645 billion in revenues from the sale of emission allowances."
Instead of cutting emissions the Demoks want to generate revenue from them! Where exactly is the guarantee that such revenue will relieve the taxpayer burden? Where exactly is the guarantee that such revenue will not be channeled to the Pentagon, to Israel, to interstate highways to the moon? Where exactly is the guarantee that emissions allowances will cut emissions anyway? Paul Krugman wants the people to feel good about an elite establishment that's made consumption slaves of them. Heartburn!!
"Many will ask whether Mr. Obama can actually pull off the deficit reduction he promises. ... Yes, he can. Right now the deficit is huge thanks to temporary factors ... a severe economic slump"
In this one Krugman is relying on a petro-blasted super-heated consumption economy (once the slump is over) to provide deficit relief, AND he assigns credit to O'Bama!! What's wrong with this? First, that kind of economy is highly destructive as we all know! We should CUT consumption, not use it to restore treasure lost to the elites' upward wealth redistribution of the past eight years! Whew! Second, ignoring the underlying cause of the deficit has compounding ramifications, don't ya think? Third, Demoks did nothing to block Repuks from running up the deficit. They only want to gain perception points for running it back down. Kaka on that!
Paul Krugman is serving some fine koolaid today. A taste that's so pleasantly disrespectful of the truth. And the people! The elites show no sign of reform. Best limit your taxable income people. Bust your chains if you want a REAL basis for optimism!
"He knows the people are not demanding extra truckloads of public treasure to be spent on healthcare."
How about we just spend the amount we now spend on a Single Payer system? Better care for all citizens and no increase in money spent.
Paul Krugman wrote:
"I at least find it hard to see how the federal government can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases on the middle class"
_______________________________________________________________________________
Why not instead of tax increases on the middle class, Bush's
obscene tax cuts that benefited mostly the super-rich are rolled
back coupled with some tax increases on the super-rich??!!
Krugman's piece is heartening but a casual obsever can see that the President's people must have asked hin to cut them some slack. Krugman is watching and I don't think he can be rolled.
So, if you're reading this, Mr. Krugman, I respectfully suggest that you get together with Paul
Craig Roberts and prepare a "show me the money" statement to be released when our unemployment gets to 30%.
1) 75% reduction in pentagon budget means 750 billion bucks a year of savings which reduces our deficit which keeps our currency value safe through guaranteed treasury bond sales.
2) Close 95% of overseas bases and save addittional multibillions a year. Bring the troops home in a massive airlift before congress and the lobbyists can scream their threats. Public opinion CAN drown the war profiteers out.
3) During the same massive airlift, evacuate Iraq completely. Leave the bases as a down payment on future reparations. And give Guantanamo back to Cuba whille you're at it.
4) Start a Truman war profiteering commission and put lots of people in high places in prison AND take their assets from them.
5) Use the troops to build temporary quarters for the poor and help ghetto areas maintain order and safety (Presence avoids looting and shooting).
6) An explosion in good will for the USA occurs globaly and a new business boom starts which genuinely helps the poor and middle classes of the world, as well as the rich.
Problem solved. Sure, President Obama, you may not get reelected because of this, but the world will be saved and empire delayed. What's it going to be, conscience or cowardice?
Folks, feel free to copy and paste this and send it to your friends and your enemies( congressional representatives ). Perhaps we can convince them to represent us rather than the lobbyists.