What Obama Wants (Krugman)

[somone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08krugman.html

What Obama Wants
By PAUL KRUGMAN

... Let’s be frank. It’s getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right. In fact, if all you did was listen to his speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it. And maybe that’s not a false impression; maybe it’s the simple truth.

One striking example of this rightward shift came in last weekend’s presidential address, in which Mr. Obama had this to say about the economics of the budget: “Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.”

That’s three of the right’s favorite economic fallacies in just two sentences. No, the government shouldn’t budget the way families do; on the contrary, trying to balance the budget in times of economic distress is a recipe for deepening the slump. Spending cuts right now wouldn’t “put the economy on sounder footing.” They would reduce growth and raise unemployment. And last but not least, businesses aren’t holding back because they lack confidence in government policies; they’re holding back because they don’t have enough customers — a problem that would be made worse, not better, by short-term spending cuts.

In his brief remarks after Thursday’s meeting, by the way, Mr. Obama seemed to reiterate the Herbert Hooveresque view that deficit reduction is what we need to “grow the economy.”...

[Ozymanithrax]

1. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are...

its a duck.

[David Gill]

2. Reposted from Editorials

What if there are some changes worth making to SS and Medicare? What if the proposal was to eliminate Medicare benefits for people who averaged more than $250,000 per year in income over their working lives, and Social Security for those averaging $500,000? Or something to that extent. Currently, wages surpassing the SS Wage Base ($106,800 currently) aren't subject to SS withholding tax. What if, instead of Social Security being a regressive tax like it is now, it was flat, or even progressive?? What if 100% of SS benefits for people who had reached the top income rate are taxed?

My point is, these programs aren't perfect, and there are ways of making them cost less that could satisfy liberals.

Now, who knows what's actually going on in these negotiations??