PDA

View Full Version : Obama: We shouldn't worry about the Deficit



marinejcksn
11-18-2008, 12:26 AM
Obama Tells 60 Minutes That He Will Focus on Avoiding a Deepening Recession

In an interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes, his first since the election, President-elect Barack Obama talked about the economy, the housing market and how to create a sustainable auto industry. He said that the $700 billion bailout plan has done little to improve the economy so far, but he credited the Bush administration Sunday for working to address the global financial crisis.

“There’s no doubt that we have not been able yet to reset the confidence in the financial markets and in the consumer markets and among businesses that allow the economy to move forward in a strong way,” Obama said. “And my job as president is going to be to make sure that we restore that confidence. We shouldn’t worry about the deficit next year or even the year after. … The most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession.”

Rest of Story Here (http://inspiredeconomist.com/2008/11/17/obama-tells-60-minutes-that-he-will-focus-on-avoiding-a-deepening-recession/)

:rolleyes:

cowbell
11-18-2008, 02:21 AM
Obama Tells 60 Minutes That He Will Focus on Avoiding a Deepening Recession

In an interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes, his first since the election, President-elect Barack Obama talked about the economy, the housing market and how to create a sustainable auto industry. He said that the $700 billion bailout plan has done little to improve the economy so far, but he credited the Bush administration Sunday for working to address the global financial crisis.

“There’s no doubt that we have not been able yet to reset the confidence in the financial markets and in the consumer markets and among businesses that allow the economy to move forward in a strong way,” Obama said. “And my job as president is going to be to make sure that we restore that confidence. We shouldn’t worry about the deficit next year or even the year after. … The most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession.”

Rest of Story Here (http://inspiredeconomist.com/2008/11/17/obama-tells-60-minutes-that-he-will-focus-on-avoiding-a-deepening-recession/)

:rolleyes:

This is a misquote. The two sentences in bold come from separate sections of the interview, though this is not indicated here. The text surrounding the first sentence:

"Having said that, there’s no doubt that we have not been able yet to reset the confidence in the financial markets and in the consumer markets and among businesses that allow the economy to move forward in a strong way.And my job as president is gonna be to make sure that we restore that confidence."

The second sentence appears as:

Kroft: Where is all the money going to come from to do all of these things? And is there a point where just going to the Treasury Department and printing more of it ceases to be an option?
Obama: Well, look, I think what’s interesting about the time that we’re in right now is that you actually have a consensus among conservative Republican-leaning economists and liberal left-leaning economists. And the consensus is this: that we have to do whatever it takes to get this economy moving again, that we’re gonna have to spend money now to stimulate the economy.

And that we shouldn’t worry about the deficit next year or even the year after. That short term, the most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession. (End Quote)

In light of the context of the quotes, my interpretation is that Kroft was concerned that Obama would not be able to reduce the budget as he said he would. Obama's retort was that economists across the board feel that stabilizing the economy is more important than balancing the budget. It's not that we shouldn't worry about the deficit. It's that the recession is a larger priority than the deficit, which we've been managing for nigh on 3/4 of a century now.

Text of the economics portion of the interview, from which I pulled my quotes follows. I think the quotes here were on the 2nd and 3rd pages.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/16/60minutes/main4607893.shtml

marinejcksn
11-18-2008, 05:40 AM
Obama: Well, look, I think what’s interesting about the time that we’re in right now is that you actually have a consensus among conservative Republican-leaning economists and liberal left-leaning economists. And the consensus is this: that we have to do whatever it takes to get this economy moving again, that we’re gonna have to spend money now to stimulate the economy.

In light of the context of the quotes, my interpretation is that Kroft was concerned that Obama would not be able to reduce the budget as he said he would. Obama's retort was that economists across the board feel that stabilizing the economy is more important than balancing the budget. It's not that we shouldn't worry about the deficit. It's that the recession is a larger priority than the deficit, which we've been managing for nigh on 3/4 of a century now.

Text of the economics portion of the interview, from which I pulled my quotes follows. I think the quotes here were on the 2nd and 3rd pages.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/16/60minutes/main4607893.shtml

I agree with that. However, I feel Obama is speaking in very irresponsible terms regarding his plans. The fact that he thinks Conservative and Liberal economists have reached a consensus on this is pure nonsense, much like Gore saying the consensus for global warming has been settled. Conservative and liberal economists are very different on the current situation.

The recession is going to get far worse if we allow it to. The bailout was a crutial step towards a new depression, increased government spending and fiscal insolvency is going to make this bigger and bigger. The deficit is tied in with this Fiscal irresponsibility, namely the government is continuing to spend us into Oblivion with no intention of tapping the brakes. This is suicide and it needs to be stopped.

And bailing out the Big 3 to a tune of 25 Billion (which you KNOW is going to swell bigger, I'd estimate 50 Bil) is completely assinine. Which, explains why I saw Barney Frank pushing for it on Lou Dobbs today. :rolleyes:

3rd-try
11-18-2008, 08:22 AM
.

And bailing out the Big 3 to a tune of 25 Billion (which you KNOW is going to swell bigger, I'd estimate 50 Bil) is completely assinine. Which, explains why I saw Barney Frank pushing for it on Lou Dobbs today. :rolleyes:


Especially when we're hearing how part of the conditions for the bail out include what types of cars are to be made with the money. Nothing wrong with electric and flex-fuels, hybrids, etc., but to allow the gov to dictate the products, with their great track record for making a profit, is a recipe for even more disaster.

They do seem to be spending as little time as possible discussing the real issue, which still revolves around the unions. A good solution is tough when your biggest contributors are central to the problem.

marinejcksn
11-18-2008, 08:55 AM
Especially when we're hearing how part of the conditions for the bail out include what types of cars are to be made with the money. Nothing wrong with electric and flex-fuels, hybrids, etc., but to allow the gov to dictate the products, with their great track record for making a profit, is a recipe for even more disaster.

They do seem to be spending as little time as possible discussing the real issue, which still revolves around the unions. A good solution is tough when your biggest contributors are central to the problem.

EXACTLY 3rd, nice catch on that I saw it too.

See, you and I (and all the inteligent people in this country) know exactly what's going to happen here. The Democrat controlled Congress is going to cater to the Unions like always and throw them this huge cash bundle, but they're going to try to "sweeten" the sound of Corporate welfare by acting like they'll put all these conditions in place. Which they'll use to raise CAFE standards, which is one of the reasons they're going bust in the first place!

But we're all good. The Messiah is going to make money rain from the sky and give us all a puppy.

cowbell
11-18-2008, 12:43 PM
You can't simply dump every policy that you don't agree with on the opposing party's doorstep. I agree that these bailouts are not a panacea. However, they would happen even if we had elected McCain. Did you already forget that the first $700 billion was backed by every Republican leader, and McCain "suspended his campaign" in order to try to push it through congress? I believe you are wise to question these spending packages. Unfortunately there indeed has been a unification among conservative and liberal economists on this front. They say that we sink or swim with these corporations, and all of the leaders of Congress are listening to them. I do not have the foresight or training to know whether this is the correct approach or not. I can, however, predict that future bailouts will be passed on both sides of the aisle.

patriot45
11-18-2008, 12:49 PM
You can't simply dump every policy that you don't agree with on the opposing party's doorstep. I agree that these bailouts are not a panacea. However, they would happen even if we had elected McCain. Did you already forget that the first $700 billion was backed by every Republican leader, and McCain "suspended his campaign" in order to try to push it through congress? I believe you are wise to question these spending packages. Unfortunately there indeed has been a unification among conservative and liberal economists on this front. They say that we sink or swim with these corporations, and all of the leaders of Congress are listening to them. I do not have the foresight or training to know whether this is the correct approach or not. I can, however, predict that future bailouts will be passed on both sides of the aisle.

Yes we can.
As said before ths is a UAW bailout.
Libs are always wrong!

Goldwater
11-18-2008, 12:59 PM
Krugman says World War 2 got the world out of the great depression.

Most Republicans and all Democrats agree with him.

Prepare to be in the minority for a while.

PoliCon
11-18-2008, 01:09 PM
You can't simply dump every policy that you don't agree with on the opposing party's doorstep. You can when they own them lock stock and barrel.

3rd-try
11-18-2008, 06:43 PM
You can't simply dump every policy that you don't agree with on the opposing party's doorstep. I agree that these bailouts are not a panacea. However, they would happen even if we had elected McCain. Did you already forget that the first $700 billion was backed by every Republican leader, and McCain "suspended his campaign" in order to try to push it through congress? I believe you are wise to question these spending packages. Unfortunately there indeed has been a unification among conservative and liberal economists on this front. They say that we sink or swim with these corporations, and all of the leaders of Congress are listening to them. I do not have the foresight or training to know whether this is the correct approach or not. I can, however, predict that future bailouts will be passed on both sides of the aisle.


I agree that we have problems from both parties. They're both way too cozy living there in perk-town. Detroit was behind for years in products and quality. That gap is largely gone. But, understand that language already exists in the conditions of this package that specifies the type of vehicles they want developed/introduced. Now I don't know how many or how big the loop holes are. Maybe it's just lip service to the econuts. I do know, if you want a Prius or a Honda Civic hybrid, there's no waiting line. They are on the lot and available tonight. Same for the flex-fuel and hybrid SUV's. Do the lawmakers comprehend this? Don't bet on it. The vast majority of us don't give a damn if Al Gore approves of our car, or not. It won't help anybody if they build vehicles that nobody wants to purchase. I'd like to better understand this part of the deal.
And you are already aware of UAW related problems. I don't think the industry can be fixed without directly dealing with it. And, they will do their best to avoid this for obvious reasons.

marinejcksn
11-18-2008, 07:21 PM
I agree that we have problems from both parties. They're both way too cozy living there in perk-town. Detroit was behind for years in products and quality. That gap is largely gone. But, understand that language already exists in the conditions of this package that specifies the type of vehicles they want developed/introduced. Now I don't know how many or how big the loop holes are. Maybe it's just lip service to the econuts. I do know, if you want a Prius or a Honda Civic hybrid, there's no waiting line. They are on the lot and available tonight. Same for the flex-fuel and hybrid SUV's. Do the lawmakers comprehend this? Don't bet on it. The vast majority of us don't give a damn if Al Gore approves of our car, or not. It won't help anybody if they build vehicles that nobody wants to purchase. I'd like to better understand this part of the deal.
And you are already aware of UAW related problems. I don't think the industry can be fixed without directly dealing with it. And, they will do their best to avoid this for obvious reasons.

I concur. You'll get no arguement from me that this garbage is the fault of both parties, not merely a Democrat or Republican issue. I simply ask that the record be shown those with D's at the end of their names pushed this issue harder then those with R's until it passed. I'm not even Republican either.

The whole thing is going to boil down to the Government owning the car companies. This is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I work for the damn Government and they can't do anything efficient, outside of a few places like the military (and even we're incredibly inefficient).

3rd-try
11-18-2008, 10:10 PM
I concur. You'll get no arguement from me that this garbage is the fault of both parties, not merely a Democrat or Republican issue. I simply ask that the record be shown those with D's at the end of their names pushed this issue harder then those with R's until it passed.

Absolutely. When the unions need help, who da gonna call? The politicians who have received the most union money...The Dems. Dress it up any way you like, but thats how things work.

BigTone
11-19-2008, 01:15 AM
Is there a trust for Obama?
Yes We Can? What are his solutions?