Comments on: Candidate J, Column 1: Budget deficit

By: anne

anne — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:13:39 +0000

I liked the allusion to Dire Straits, provided interesting opening and closing lines. I appreciate arguments that are supported with numbers. Both Obama and his R and D predecessors are guilty of pie in the sky economics, but I hoped for a bit more from the current President. Although I don’t agree with all the writer’s points, I think the argument is well made.

By: gan

gan — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:36:01 +0000

the writer appears to know how to balance a checkbook and is not chasing rainbows

By: Chris Broe

Chris Broe — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:09:20 +0000

This writer obviously enjoys his craft. Like a subtle bulb, an overplayed MTV video was sown into the reader’s subconscious as the writer wove a comforter 4 the shorts, and even coaxed a dead (Cats) bounce off broadway. I like the use of culture to present economic epiphany. C+

Why not A+? The writer presents deficit projections as if they could punctuate his empty dirge about our economic down beat, which “all started with subprime loans”.

That much we do know for sure:. It all started with subprime loans. Okay, someone get Greenspan on the phone. Get Buffet 2..

first, the writer must convince the reader that he understands the breadth of the origins of this economic crisis. Second the writer must persuade the reader why any fiscal or monetary policy could be constrained by deficit targeting. Third, the writer’s own projections for future growth are as baseless as his summary of past growth. This article is very useful as a data point confirming the lack of trust in our institutions’ ability to promote growth. However, a better data base could be constructed with a simple poll question, “Are you better off than you were 100 days ago?”

By: Marilyn Michelitch

Marilyn Michelitch — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 04:00:07 +0000

Candidate J Budget Deficit
this journalist writes clearly, succinctly and without disparagement
about the national Budget deficit. this conservative not only has his facts straight but he connects his thoughts with the words “Dire Straits” which really says it all !! One does not have to be an Economist to realize that the hopes of the current government are based on smoke.
I like this person’s style !!

By: Park

Park — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 03:19:36 +0000

ejoyed “money for nothing – dire straits” and conceit carried throughout the article; balanced out the facts; made me want to read more from this writer.

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:01:26 +0000

This candidate gets my unqualified vote. I especially liked that the article is non-ideological in its approach. Instead, the points are made with facts, citing sources. There is no name-calling, and political-party lines are not drawn in the sand. I am a person who respects many of the fiscal conservative ideals (smaller government,more individual freedom) and many of the social ideals of liberals (equal rights for all, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation). It would be nice to hear intelligent, reasoned opinions such as this one, and it makes me want to hear what he/she will say in other areas. My friends who have cancelled subscriptions say they did it because of “obvious bias,” regardless of which side. Articles like this one would help.

By: Tom Black

Tom Black — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:17:25 +0000

Nice job…As a longtime Dire Straits fan, I appreciate the reference to “Money for Nothing.” What an apt title in this era of collosal budget deficits and Fed printing presses cranking out the cash 24/7.

If our mainstream media were not made up of so many liberal sycophants, there would be much more critical coverage of this fantasy-laden budget. Massive government programs or endeavors, once launched, invariably A) take on a life of their own and continue to expand indefinitely; and B) end up costing far more than originally projected. Medicare and Social Security are prime examples.

This column probably should have addressed the frighteningly large unfunded mandates of Medicare and Social Security, which will be in the tens of trillions of dollars, as well as the ever-increasing cost of interest on the national debt, which itself will represent a huge annual expense.

Mention also could have been made of the worldwide nature of the economic meltdown, and how that bodes ill for future U.S. tax revenues due to diminished commerce. If Americans are tapped out, we buy fewer Asian electronics goods and vehicles, meaning people in those countries are hurting, which has a ripple effect on surrounding nations, and so on.

Tackling economic and fiscal issues in a newspaper column is tricky because unfortunately so many people these days are ignorant of economic issues since our schools do a poor job of teaching economics. Overall, a credible job on an important topic.

By: Spiel

Spiel — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:51:41 +0000

Nicely written, and a welcome respite after the assault of the columns immediately preceding it!

By: Lulu

Lulu — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:26:19 +0000

This makes my head hurt but that’s my problem.I’m no fan of global economics because my heart isn’t in it but thank goodness some “hearts” and hopefully heads are. My talent lies in making family budget and seeing the ills in local, state and regional economics. This reaction is no reflection on the writer whose passion and talent in the subject are obvious.I just can’t wrap my small brain around the globe and projections. For me the writer needs to deal in spoonfuls and other, smaller doses. As I said, my problem.

By: Hugh L

Hugh L — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:08:16 +0000

I’m a middle-of-the-road admirer of most of Obama’s actions since taking office, but the shakiest thing about his budget is his set of assumptions about the fiscal status of the US in 2013. This very good column elucidates some reasons of which I’d not been aware, for the shakiness.