I didn't know Paul Krugman was a participant on this forum.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <steve.sundur@> > 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). >
