One . . . two . . . three. Sorry, time's up.
In his learned opinion piece, Dr. Krugman refers to his fiscal policy discussions in which his archvillain adversary, "Dr. Evil," inevitably will "announce, in dire tones, that we have a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR deficit." Krugman goes on to say that "budgets don’t have to be balanced to be sustainable" and that the ratio of debt to G.D.P. is "the best measure of our debt position."
Observing that "we would have a stable or declining ratio of debt to G.D.P. even if we had a $400 billion deficit," Krugman concludes:
"Which brings us back to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
We do indeed have a big budget deficit, and other things equal it would be better if the deficit were a lot smaller. But other things aren’t equal; the deficit is a side-effect of an economic depression, and the first order of business should be to end that depression — which means, among other things, leaving the deficit alone for now.
And you should recognize all the hyped-up talk about the deficit for what it is: yet another disingenuous attempt to scare and bully the body politic into abandoning programs that shield both poor and middle-class Americans from harm."
Hold your horses, Paul. Who said anything about "abandoning programs that shield both poor and middle-class Americans from harm"? How about first putting an end to America's inane ground war in Afghanistan, which Obama foolishly escalated and which is currently costing the US some $6 billion per month?
But let's examine Paul's proposition on a micro basis. Do you have a mortgage? I do. And before granting me that mortgage, my "friendly" bank of course examined my earning power, my assets, and whether I would ever be able to return the funds received from them. However, regarding federal debt, Paul does not examine possible repayment. Rather, he would have us believe that it is sufficient that debt be kept within a proportion of G.D.P. Moreover, Paul is correct: Worst case scenario, the US federal government can always print more money to pay its debts - something Jeffrey cannot legally do - with debilitating consequences for the value of the dollar.
On the other hand, Jeffrey also has an advantage: He can sell his house to pay off his mortgage - something the federal government cannot do, unless it decides to sell Alaska back to Russia (or China). And for this reason, Jeffrey's credit rating is still solid.
But again I find myself meandering. What didn't the good Dr. K tell us in his opinion piece? Although he of course refers to a deficit of "ONE TRILLION DOLLARS," somehow he manages to forget that President Obama has added, over the course of only three and a half years, some $5 trillion to America's total debt of more than SIXTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS.
Heck, one trillion, sixteen trillion -- what's the difference? It will never be repaid anyway.
JG, Caesarea is just ranting.
ReplyDeleteIt was W. Bush whose policies and final crisis created the most debt, not Obama.
Edouard Prisse
the Netherlands
Remarkable, Edouard, how you can blame Bush for Obama's decision to escalate American involvement in Afghanistan.
DeleteObama was elected to repair the errors made by Bush. It is now four years later, and Obama has only made matters worse by, for example, subsidizing the likes of Solyndra.
You will probably still be blaming Bush in 2016.
Solyndra was one of about 5 alternative energy companies that have gone bankrupt out of 63 that recieved government support -- a failure rate of 8 percent.
DeleteDo you understand how good that is? The private equity firm (Bain) failure rate is more than 22 percent.
By his deeds a man shall be judged.
ReplyDeleteWhat has Obama said and what has Obama done?
Obama has ratcheted up US deficit by the Afghan war.
He has ratcheted up US deficit through medicare.
He has squandered US investment in Egypt (1-2 billion per year for three decades) by triggering the Salafist take-over there through his lay-preacher bleat about democracy (name a single Arab regime that is democratic... we are all familiar with the mantra of Islamic democracy: One vote...once.
Enough of the absurd Bush-whacking... the loony left will not hold the lay-preacher of the White house responsible for anything he has done during either his first term of his second term in office.
It seems that tolerance for genuine debate is incompatible with the Liberal values.