CBS
Via Steve Benen, a post-election poll shows essentially nobody, regardless of party affiliation, making the deficit a priority.
- I have added comments and they from all over, the world, and basically they do not agree with Mr Krugman, they for the most part believe that the deficit is one of the important factors with this past Mid-term election.
1.
It is extraordinary how the G20 nations are in the grip of deficit paranoia and the austerity fad, when all their economies desperately need further stimulus to sustain demand and prevent a lost decade of high unemployment and stagnant investment.
The idea that G20 nations have too much government debt and cannot borrow more is utter nonsense. G20 nations can borrow as much as they require and central banks can help by purchasing this debt whenever necessary to keep interest rates low.
Increasing public investment in this way does not 'crowd out' private investment when the private sector is in a deleveraging crisis and interest rates are rock bottom. Anyone suggesting that government borrowing and central bank quantitative easing will lead to high inflation in the current deleveraging environment is profoundly wrong.
The entire western world is strangling itself for no good reason.
The idea that G20 nations have too much government debt and cannot borrow more is utter nonsense. G20 nations can borrow as much as they require and central banks can help by purchasing this debt whenever necessary to keep interest rates low.
Increasing public investment in this way does not 'crowd out' private investment when the private sector is in a deleveraging crisis and interest rates are rock bottom. Anyone suggesting that government borrowing and central bank quantitative easing will lead to high inflation in the current deleveraging environment is profoundly wrong.
The entire western world is strangling itself for no good reason.
2.
I disagree with your conclusion. I very strongly care about the deficit, and know many others who feel it is our biggest long term problem. However, I do not feel it is the "problem to concentrate on first when Congress begins in January." It is flawed logic to conclude that therefore, I don't "care about the deficit."
3.
Exactly. This is where a short speech to educate the American public as to the importance of continuing yearly deficits now while setting up a framework to deal with the long-term debt should be delivered by Obama.
Instead, we get Obama parroting the Republicans on earmarks. It's almost as if Obama can't let a Republican say something without immediately agreeing to it.
I'm not sure where Obama's "negotiation skills" were learned. In the real world, you wait until you have a "trade" you can make before agreeing to some of the other person's positions. Obama is so obsessed with agreeing with Republicans that he adopts their positions with no movement on the Republicans' part.
This is why we end up with a "stimulus" that's mostly wasted tax cuts & aid to repressive state governments, a health care bill that imposes a mandate without establishing a public option, etc. It's bad politics and bad policy.
And like GW Bush, Obama is sure he has done everything right. In fact, he takes a "perverse pride" in that notion. We're in for a long cold lonely winter.
Instead, we get Obama parroting the Republicans on earmarks. It's almost as if Obama can't let a Republican say something without immediately agreeing to it.
I'm not sure where Obama's "negotiation skills" were learned. In the real world, you wait until you have a "trade" you can make before agreeing to some of the other person's positions. Obama is so obsessed with agreeing with Republicans that he adopts their positions with no movement on the Republicans' part.
This is why we end up with a "stimulus" that's mostly wasted tax cuts & aid to repressive state governments, a health care bill that imposes a mandate without establishing a public option, etc. It's bad politics and bad policy.
And like GW Bush, Obama is sure he has done everything right. In fact, he takes a "perverse pride" in that notion. We're in for a long cold lonely winter.
4.
Yep, all a distraction that was shown by market research to be easy to link to Democrats whether it is true or not.
5.
Good point, and yet we are NOT going to do a Keynesian binge AGAIN. To do so, would actually be a really bad idea, because it would move our government balance sheet closer toward insolvency.
What needs to happen is simply this: wages need to FALL to the point where the labor market CLEARS. If people in the U.S. were not so persnickety about their particular salary and their particular job category, EVERYONE would be working RIGHT NOW.
Everyone, wake up and smell the global market for talent!
What needs to happen is simply this: wages need to FALL to the point where the labor market CLEARS. If people in the U.S. were not so persnickety about their particular salary and their particular job category, EVERYONE would be working RIGHT NOW.
Everyone, wake up and smell the global market for talent!
6.
Yes, but how many people in the Economy/Jobs category would say that tackling the deficit/debt go hand-in-hand with improving the economy? Not that they're right, but as a measure how much people regard the debt as a problem, this "pick your top priority"-type question is not up to the task of answering the question of how people regard the deficit problem.
7.
Or apparently Education - go figure.
8.
Obviously, the way you have put this, we should just put it out of our minds. Is it far fetched to think that this blog is another form of polling for the administration, and you are the question writer?
9.
Nobody except the national news and punditry population, along with all conservative politicians, which is to say most of them.
If you asked that group, a tiny number of people with a vastly outsized voice, they'd not only tell you that they think the deficit is the biggest problem by far, but they would tell you that so does the rest of the country. Despite the evidence in this poll that practically no one cares at all.
We live in a made up world. The politicians respond to the made up one, not the real one. Four percent of the people actually think the deficit is our big problem, yet the Republicans and FOX News start saying it's more like 90%, and soon you have even Barack Obama putting all of his focus on it.
We live in a complete fantasy world. Calling it a dream world is far too tame, it's a nightmare.
If you asked that group, a tiny number of people with a vastly outsized voice, they'd not only tell you that they think the deficit is the biggest problem by far, but they would tell you that so does the rest of the country. Despite the evidence in this poll that practically no one cares at all.
We live in a made up world. The politicians respond to the made up one, not the real one. Four percent of the people actually think the deficit is our big problem, yet the Republicans and FOX News start saying it's more like 90%, and soon you have even Barack Obama putting all of his focus on it.
We live in a complete fantasy world. Calling it a dream world is far too tame, it's a nightmare.
10.
So what? That doesn't mean that not making deficit a priority is the right thing. It just confirms that people do not want to undergo cuts which would affect their comparatively luxurious lifestyle, no matter what this irresponsibility costs their children and grandchildren; and the rest of the world.
11.
Good morning,
I attended few months ago to a conference of "Cercle des économistes" chaired by Jean-Hervé Lorenzi at Sciences Po.
I was astonished by the poor care given to the debt. After a discussion, I understood that the point of view was to fix growth first and after to contemplate the debt.
It seems it has not changed today if we have a look to seoul G20 results.
Jacques Attali in is last post at Slate.fr magazine is desperate since he is worry about the debt level and the risks it raise in front of us.
I am personally trying to decipher the game with such following questions :
* Could we still afford to play the game of inflation ?
* Who will start to loose control of inflation to fight debt ?
* Who imagine to tight fiscal pressure to face debt ?
* What about money control ? Are central banks always able to do it ?
I am personally convinced that the answer lies around a corner of one of these sentences, otherwise everybody were still struggling to solve the debt problem.
Best regards
Jerome Capirossi
http://bizstrategos.com
I attended few months ago to a conference of "Cercle des économistes" chaired by Jean-Hervé Lorenzi at Sciences Po.
I was astonished by the poor care given to the debt. After a discussion, I understood that the point of view was to fix growth first and after to contemplate the debt.
It seems it has not changed today if we have a look to seoul G20 results.
Jacques Attali in is last post at Slate.fr magazine is desperate since he is worry about the debt level and the risks it raise in front of us.
I am personally trying to decipher the game with such following questions :
* Could we still afford to play the game of inflation ?
* Who will start to loose control of inflation to fight debt ?
* Who imagine to tight fiscal pressure to face debt ?
* What about money control ? Are central banks always able to do it ?
I am personally convinced that the answer lies around a corner of one of these sentences, otherwise everybody were still struggling to solve the debt problem.
Best regards
Jerome Capirossi
http://bizstrategos.com
86.
It used to be Republicans stock and trade to attack Democrats for what in retrospect were small deficits. The cry was "borrow, spend and elect." Then came Arthur Laffer, Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan. Suddenly you could cut taxes and generate more governmental revenues. Deficits no longer mattered. The result was the largest deficit in American history.
The Bush (41) and Clinton attacked the deficit and Clinton left the nation with a surplus. Then Bush (43) was elected and as Cheney said deficits did not matter. Tax cuts and wars and all other manner of spending left to monumental deficits.
Obama comes to office saddled with a terrible economy and a huge deficit. Once again the Republicans see the merits of fighting deficits. Unless they want to pay back the rich with tax cuts.
Deficits as an issue are a political fraud.
The Bush (41) and Clinton attacked the deficit and Clinton left the nation with a surplus. Then Bush (43) was elected and as Cheney said deficits did not matter. Tax cuts and wars and all other manner of spending left to monumental deficits.
Obama comes to office saddled with a terrible economy and a huge deficit. Once again the Republicans see the merits of fighting deficits. Unless they want to pay back the rich with tax cuts.
Deficits as an issue are a political fraud.
85.
Paul, your conclusion is not supported by the data presented. Using your reasoning nobody cares about education, the wars, or taxes either. All we know is most people say jobs and the economy are top priority. What their second priority is and how close to first it may be is not known.
From this survey we should conclude that jobs come first. After all, the more people working and making a good wage, the higher government tax revenues are and the lower entitlement payments such as unemployment become. Overall, people are smarter than politicians and economists. They know private sector jobs are more important than temporary government stimulus and budget cuts. They know that taxing the richest at higher rates won't produce as much tax revenue as taxing labor, if labor could find work. This country has to produce product here in order to create jobs here. When our government starts cutting the high tax burden on labor and starts taxing imports and consumption we will know they finally get it.
The tax on wages is roughly 40%; 15% income tax, 16% FICA and medicare, a few percent each for unemployment and workers' comp., about 6% for state income taxes, some local city or county taxes. When you add the cost of health insurance to the 40% tax burden the total cost on wages is in the range of 50% to 60%. It doesn't matter whether the employee or employer pays. This is the true cost of employing someone in the United States. America can compete against low foreign wages if the burdens on wages are reduced.
From this survey we should conclude that jobs come first. After all, the more people working and making a good wage, the higher government tax revenues are and the lower entitlement payments such as unemployment become. Overall, people are smarter than politicians and economists. They know private sector jobs are more important than temporary government stimulus and budget cuts. They know that taxing the richest at higher rates won't produce as much tax revenue as taxing labor, if labor could find work. This country has to produce product here in order to create jobs here. When our government starts cutting the high tax burden on labor and starts taxing imports and consumption we will know they finally get it.
The tax on wages is roughly 40%; 15% income tax, 16% FICA and medicare, a few percent each for unemployment and workers' comp., about 6% for state income taxes, some local city or county taxes. When you add the cost of health insurance to the 40% tax burden the total cost on wages is in the range of 50% to 60%. It doesn't matter whether the employee or employer pays. This is the true cost of employing someone in the United States. America can compete against low foreign wages if the burdens on wages are reduced.
84.
Since the Republican Party today is a top down only corporation it doesn’t matter what the public thinks. They see American people caring for deficits, because party politicians and pundits are on a media blitz disseminating this message and all the cable channels instantly mimic what they hear from these “experts” as fact. There’s so little independent reason and analysis in today’s American media. It’s scary. It’s the party that tells Americans what to think today, and then they point to all the media coverage they got and claim it must be true. Of course the inevitable minority who just happens to believe all this political idea advertising, will be lauded as the “real” public (Joe the plumber style). Some of this “real public” is told it’s their duty as loyalist to fill Paul Krugman’s blog and column with, “Palin, Gingrich, and Rove are correct and you’re all wrong, you liberal…”.
The Democrats seem to be having their own problems focusing inward too much, always watching and measuring this same groupthink. Brushing off any criticism as some wild lefty fringe opposition and annoyance. Like a Republican pundit would. This poll says something about how little the public counts in government today.
The Democrats seem to be having their own problems focusing inward too much, always watching and measuring this same groupthink. Brushing off any criticism as some wild lefty fringe opposition and annoyance. Like a Republican pundit would. This poll says something about how little the public counts in government today.
83.
Run your own numbers through the template provided on the interactive feature in today's NYT. One assumption of the exercise is that there should be a several year period to allow for economic recovery, until 2015. From the perspective of the next generation (i.e., 20 yrs. out) almost the entire deficit problem relates to constraining medical costs, SS pensions, and related entitlements. The discretionary spending component is de minimus.
A side point: I was surprised how many people didn't understand the relationship between income and longevity. Look at actuarial tables on life expectancy going back 100 years. My parents' generation (born mid-1920s) had life expectancies actually below what the SS act set for retirement age payouts a mere decade later. In a sense, then, these numbers were gamed from the beginning but, of course, have barely changed even though life expectancies have increased to points well beyond 70 yrs.Life expectancies for African Americans in the 1920s were, by today's standards, worse than in 3rd world countries, under 50 yrs.
A side point: I was surprised how many people didn't understand the relationship between income and longevity. Look at actuarial tables on life expectancy going back 100 years. My parents' generation (born mid-1920s) had life expectancies actually below what the SS act set for retirement age payouts a mere decade later. In a sense, then, these numbers were gamed from the beginning but, of course, have barely changed even though life expectancies have increased to points well beyond 70 yrs.Life expectancies for African Americans in the 1920s were, by today's standards, worse than in 3rd world countries, under 50 yrs.
82.
You cannot be serious! You, or some dolt on your staff, found an exit poll that can be described as showing that on November 2, 2010, about 50% of those polled said that their vote was influenced by “the economy and jobs” but only about 10% said that it was influenced by “budget, deficit/debt.” So you, or some idiot on your staff, decided to assert that the voters at large have no real concerns about the level of the national debt. While you, yourself, may have no concerns about the nation’s collective debt you are very much mistaken if you think that the voters at large are similarly unconcerned
You, or your staff, really do have to think a bit more before you offer your collective brain farts to the world. I think that any fool can see that taken together, the public views the three inter-related problems of the economy, health care and debt as their over-riding concern.
Applying an expert’s technical understanding of the term “debt” to a lay person’s use of the term in a flash poll is intellectually dishonest; if, as you would have us believe, you are offering an expert’s opinion on these matters.
You, or your staff, really do have to think a bit more before you offer your collective brain farts to the world. I think that any fool can see that taken together, the public views the three inter-related problems of the economy, health care and debt as their over-riding concern.
Applying an expert’s technical understanding of the term “debt” to a lay person’s use of the term in a flash poll is intellectually dishonest; if, as you would have us believe, you are offering an expert’s opinion on these matters.
81.
I agree with other readers that Krugman has drawn a faulty conclusion from this data. When contextualized as "the first problem to deal with," even other issues that we know that many Americans feel strongly about (the war in Afghanistan or even "Taxes") appear as "non-issues" for average voters. I don't disagree with Krugman that the deficit issue may not actually be as important for voters as the mediah as spun it recently, but I don't think this poll provides compelling evidence of it.
80.
How very odd. It seems that comments are not allowed on the pro-death panals post. Knock me over with a wrecking ball. I will try to behave myself but can't help mentioning here that I don't support a VAT and that an increase in the higher brackets of the income tax (notice the absense of the number $250,000) would balance the budget and is actually popular. It won't happen any time soon, but long before a VAT.
Now about that poll. I don't think it can save us from ourselves. The problem is that most people in the USA haven't yet figured out Keynes's argument. To me it is very old, low brow economics which was long out of fashion, but it is clear from other polls that a majority reacts now just as they did in the thirties.
People want to do something to help the economy and reduce unemployment. They think that a good way to do that is to eliminate earmarks and cut foreign aid therefore reducing Federal Spending by 20 % If the public accepted the simple, recently proven for the nth time fact that increased public spending implies increased nominal aggregate demand, then we would be fine. And pigs would fly.
Now about that poll. I don't think it can save us from ourselves. The problem is that most people in the USA haven't yet figured out Keynes's argument. To me it is very old, low brow economics which was long out of fashion, but it is clear from other polls that a majority reacts now just as they did in the thirties.
People want to do something to help the economy and reduce unemployment. They think that a good way to do that is to eliminate earmarks and cut foreign aid therefore reducing Federal Spending by 20 % If the public accepted the simple, recently proven for the nth time fact that increased public spending implies increased nominal aggregate demand, then we would be fine. And pigs would fly.
79.
Here we go again:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40181956
I wish someone that knows more than I would explain where, if the bond markets decide to revolt, that the capital would flow and put some numbers on it. Isn't it a very convenient argument to say that the so-called markets are going to retaliate without providing any proof to back it up? Tell us, somebody please, who will retaliate and where is this great new investment opportunity that will redirect their money from the bond market? Numbers, please.
We need a new rumor: 'High US unemployment could spark civil unrest'
It could happen any day now. I've heard that people living close to Alan Greenspan are the most likely to spark a revolt, and that the entire area would go up in smoke. It could happen at any minute...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40181956
I wish someone that knows more than I would explain where, if the bond markets decide to revolt, that the capital would flow and put some numbers on it. Isn't it a very convenient argument to say that the so-called markets are going to retaliate without providing any proof to back it up? Tell us, somebody please, who will retaliate and where is this great new investment opportunity that will redirect their money from the bond market? Numbers, please.
We need a new rumor: 'High US unemployment could spark civil unrest'
It could happen any day now. I've heard that people living close to Alan Greenspan are the most likely to spark a revolt, and that the entire area would go up in smoke. It could happen at any minute...
78.
The GOP has to do this now. This is perfect for the GOP to say "we're sorry, but because of the economy we must cut everything we don't like".
77.
Sean, who wrote comment #25, has repeatedly on this blog shown himself to be a conservative propagandist, and his latest is a prime example: Promoting as fact the mere assertion without providing any documentation that progressives and Dr. Krugman are to blame for peoples' financial woes, despite the actual fact that what documentation does demonstrate is that conservative policies are to blame. This comment constitutes the epitome of disinformation, which Republicans have used to great success in their drive to render government unable to function in behalf of the common good.
76.
The masses don't look beyond their own noses. That's why they are in debt up to their nose, are deceived by commercialism, and fall for schemes the wealthy foist on them to drive them deeper in debt. Anyone who has looked at what happened in the last decade, when we went from a surplus to a huge deficit, knows that it can't be sustained. And, you want to put your head in the sand and let the economy be governed by a poll of the dupes that fell for it all. You must admit that the only reason you play down the deficit is that you fear deflation and know the havoc it can cause. At some point we will have to address the deficit, or it will be the end of us.
75.
The wealthy care Dr. K! And it today's USA, that counts for...well, everything.
74.
I agree that the poll tells us what the public expects of its national leaders in the next two years. I don't tend to agree that means other issues aren't of concern to the citizenry, only that this society more and more seems to have a narrow, self-centered focus -- the tell-tale of a very anxious electorate. This focus in turn translates in polls to overemphasis on particular issues. Right up there next to jobs and the economy, I remain very concerned about protecting the environment and improving our schools. These are always top issues for me, but education only shows up marginally in this poll, and environment shows up not at How different this poll might have looked the week after the BP oil spill. It's emblematic of short-attention-span politics in a short-attention-span society.
The other thing I suspect is that, for many citizens, an improved economy automatically would resolve their deficit concerns, so that their angst about the latter, however misapprehended, will go away the moment the economy seems secure. How else to explain the Bush era? Times are good, so deficits don't matter! The exact opposite of how the electorate ought to be thinking.
The other thing I suspect is that, for many citizens, an improved economy automatically would resolve their deficit concerns, so that their angst about the latter, however misapprehended, will go away the moment the economy seems secure. How else to explain the Bush era? Times are good, so deficits don't matter! The exact opposite of how the electorate ought to be thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment