--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <steve.sun...@...> wrote: > > Ok, that makes sense.
Lurk, it really doesn't. Almost all of what has been added to the deficit under Obama has been to keep the economy (which began falling apart largely as a result of Bush's policies) from crashing completely. The big problem is that he didn't add *enough* to the deficit to really do the job; all he did was save the banks and Wall Street, at least for the time being, and make a pathetically small inroad on unemployment. He hasn't managed to put in place what's needed to keep this from happening again, worse, which is more regulation. > I thought it might be for other reasons. I agree. I think > we're in trouble. The problem is long-term deficits. Short-term deficits that lift the economy are beneficial. If they work, the short-term part gets paid off. Not making that distinction, as Shemp does not, is misleading in the extreme. Here's a pretty good basic explanation of deficit spending: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/ http://tinyurl.com/yeaq7h8 This was written a year ago, before we knew what would be involved in healthcare reform. Whether the program they're now trying to pass will cut costs sufficiently is a whole 'nother question (as is whether it'll get passed at all).
