Redefining 'traitorous' deficit spending
Economist Paul Krugman, speaking for Rolling Stone Magazine, considers Barack Obama one of our most successful presidents.
It's not a surprising verdict by the deficit-financing, Keynesian-economics bore (Krugman). His economics theory sums to: charge the national credit card to the hilt and beyond, pass the debt onto the next generation, and, if you must, raise taxes to make payments.
Krugman's theory and Obama's practice are a good fit -- as godfather and father of the going-on $20 trillion national debt. The current $19.8 trillion figure averages to $65,OOO per citizen, $165,000 per taxpayer.
When this credit bubble bursts, (as opposed to the 2008 real-estate bubble), there will be, there can be, no savior.
A sound economy is a gravity which grounds us. Without this "gravity," markets, banking, financial systems, economies drift to anarchy -- sink into black holes of chaos and are crushed under the weight of their indebtedness.
The national debt has more than doubled on Obama's watch. In 2008, candidate Obama scolded outgoing Bush Jr. as "traitorous" and "irresponsible" (exact words) because of the near doubling of the national debt during Bush's presidency.
Of course, when Democrats bemoan public indebtedness, it must be an election year (which it was) and they're trolling for populist votes. FDR did this in 1932 complaining about Herbert Hoover's wastrel, overspending ways. After winning election, FDR left Hoover in the federal-spending dust racking up record deficits.
His New Deal jimmying with the economy prolonged the Great Depression until WWII forced changes. When tax and spend, deficit-financer Krugman defends Obama, Krugman defends Krugman. However, Krugman is at odds with his hero (Obama). By Obama's own measures, he is more "traitorous" and "irresponsible" than Bush.
Did Krugman overlook his hero's measures of greatness? Are "traitorous" and "irresponsible" now aptitudes for greatness? If so, Hail to the Chief!
Les Lopinot
Oswego