POLITICS

An Interview with Barack Obama

Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 8:13  a.m. ET Jan 8, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Apolitical @ 01/08/2009 7:36:52 PM

    JH - You idiot. You mistook public debt (definitely doubled in Bush's presidency) and private debt (what we owe to as credit card, car and house mortages).

    • Posted By: Vypurr @ 01/08/2009 10:05:29 PM

      Dumbass, Do a little homework and learn some facts.... Bush took legislation to congress over a dozen times since 2001 to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was the match that ultimately lit this economic powder keg. Thank dems Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for voting party line to block the legislation. In the end, it took both parties to create the mess we're in, and to think Bush is solely responsible for "doubling the debt" is pure ignorance.

      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 01/09/2009 12:44:59 AM

        Hey Vypurr, Long time. I think this poster is referring to how the Bush administration doubled the federal debt. The Iraq invasion without taxation for it was a big factor in this deficit increase. Bush gave the biggest tax cuts ever, while he spent more than he took in. That profligate (never liked him) Clinton did the opposite. Whoever you credit for that good economy, Clinton did not spend more that revenues. He managed a revenue surplus. I blame Bush for the budget deficits and doubling the national debt.

        In terms of the financial crisis, I am intrigued by your reference to legislation introduction, and defeat due to voting. I would be interested in links so I can learn more. I think I posted links for you that indicate where my current thinking is, and why. There's lots of blame to distribute. In summary, I think that Deep Throat's comment is apt. Follow the money. I can find articles that say that Barney Frank was against regulation of Fannie and Freddie on ideological grounds. I've seen how a few thousands of political contributions were made to Frank, Dodd, and to Obama (after the fact). But what I have seen is that many, many millions were spent by big money to lobby Rs only to prevent regulation of Fannie and Freddie.

        One of the articles I posted indicated that the main bill that McC belatedly endorsed died in committee when the Rs had enough votes to get it out of commitee without any D votes. Rs controlled Congress for 6 of the last 8 years.

        I would like to know how to find out about the proposed legislation you mention, and especially about voting.

        Again, my starting point is that, at least as far as when it came to my attention, the 'argument' started with an anonymous email that to me was an attempt at preemption, by trying to lay blame on Ds by referring to a few thousands of donations to Frank, Dodd, and Obama (although what he received was after the fact... a clue to me as to intent).

        Big money was at play in terms of not wanting that 'housing boom' to slow down and more importantly re the Credit Default Swaps and other unregulated securities that dwarf mortgages as the causes of the economic collapse, and are what are the main plagues our economy now. The latter are why $300B had to be just given away because they realized that mortgages were not the main problem and buying them, the original plan, could not prevent further collapse.

        So, I am interested in continuing the discussion, learning more and attaining a more complete understanding. I will appreciate links that will help me with this. Thanks.

        • Posted By: Alvy @ 01/09/2009 5:41:49 PM

          That was informative.
          History has shown that the trickle down theories don't work either. We can start there.

          Hoover was the first to lose badly.

          GW fell in line and had to raise the debt level to stomach the loses. He pushed through tax cuts in 05 and 06 - probably more - then expanded the military to satiate his appetite to chase the White Whale. As a result, GW is the only president to have the national debt raise an average of 1.5 million per DAY.

          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 01/09/2009 6:02:51 PM

            I've always had a problem with trickle down. An economy is just money circulating. When there is not enough in circulation, or if it is moving too slowly, there is a recession or worse.

            The idea that putting capital in the hands of the wealthy creates jobs is preposterous to me. Investment only occurs when there is demand and money to purchase. Except for new products, one creates a business only because there is already demand and money to purchase goods or services. If those exist, banks will lend to create the business.

            It is remarkable that we are again reliving the Hoover, unregulated financial practices horror. What people want to say now is that Roosevelt did not solve that depression. He reduced unemployment from 24% to 12% and did other worthwhile things. The problems he faced were just too big to completely revitalize the economy. The ones we have now may also be, but the blame is most likely to be placed on the one trying to solve the problems rather than the cause.

            Bush had many deficiencies and delusions. He reminds me of an old business cartoon. Two tycoons with feet on a desk that had nothing else on it, smoking cigars. One says: The secret to good management is making sure no piece of paper makes it as far as my desk.

            • Posted By: Alvy @ 01/09/2009 6:24:32 PM

              That how I see it.
              Throw more money at the people who want to spend it - not hoard it.
              And, if we're going to increase gov't, military and new ideas, let's do it with a ratio of less than 1:3 - making it impossible to increase debt via lunatic politician.

              Obama's plan could work. Not a lead pipe lock, but it could instill confidence.

              If perception run the markets - our foundation has to seen as strong, only needing a little paint. People spending money and a combination of dropping utility, energy and manufacturing costs will take care of market confidence - perceived. How funny are we that we spend or save based on what "might" happen if we all get together and believe it - then do the same spend or save thing?

              If aliens are watching from 500 million light years away - they're laughing.

              • Posted By: 40YearR @ 01/09/2009 6:42:23 PM



                There's no point in putting money in the hands of people who will sit on it waiting for the economy to improve. That will only happen when people are spending.

                I'm for every kind of spending that will employ people who will spend. I saw a study once that said that every dollar spent on consumption circulates through the economy nine times. Budgets can only be balanced when there's enough activity to generate enough taxes. Unfortunately, I think we necessarily will be looking at deficits for awhile. Do you recall that when Bush took office the concern was that the surpluses he inherited ultimately might have to be spent on stocks in private businesses? It never occured to them to pay down the national debt.

                It seems to me that the stock market oscillates on relatively minor events, but it trends on long term expectations. Until there are enough people working, and folks aren't contending with houses that are worth less than is owed, stock investors are going to be very cautious, I'm sad to think.

                The aliens are glad that they were so far away that their 401ks are elsewhere, and they didn't have the chance to dive into that housing boom...

  • Posted By: Inside Information @ 01/09/2009 1:22:00 PM

    Prophet Linda Newkirk has a few things to say about Barack Hussein Obama!

    www.Prophecies.Org for some amazing predictions and revelations.

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 01/09/2009 2:43:23 PM

      Wow! Does this "prophet' also reads hands? How about daily horoscopes? Geez.

      • Posted By: Alvy @ 01/09/2009 3:16:57 PM

        Perhaps for people who spend too much time in the sun, she can gage what their personalities are by how the wrinkles compare to fashionable purses. Maybe a Fendi or Coach or something trendy for those with really deep lines.

        • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 01/09/2009 3:58:20 PM

          Hey, hello Alvy! So glad to read you. How are you? I miss you.

          • Posted By: Alvy @ 01/09/2009 4:48:05 PM

            I'm almost done!

            • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 01/09/2009 4:52:18 PM

              With the project you told me about last year? Wonderful! Good luck with it.

  • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 01/09/2009 11:53:28 AM

    Rule of Thumb: Give money to the wealthy and you make them wealthier; Give money to the poor & middle-class and you stimulate the economy, benefiting everyone.

    I watched CNBC for awhile the other night, the Obama interview on his economic plans, and was taken back when the panel of experts seemed to just not get it. They were concerned for maintaining the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy and for stimulating corporations and the economy at the top, afraid that Obama???s plans could concentrate on the middle-class, the majority. After eight years of Bush-Cheney with their focus on the wealthy, Special Interests and a select few and seeing the failure of all of that, after having lived through all of the subterfuge used to justify and then experiencing the results we see today from the greed, dishonesty and self-indulgence that was allowed and even encouraged, I wonder how anyone can ever advocate more of the same. Experts? Maybe, but it is hard to understand their not seeing the reality that ours is not a ???trickle down??? economy, that simply being a fraud, as it really is a ???bubble up??? economy. Corporations don???t expand, create more jobs, grow because they get Tax Cuts or bailout loans, they grow because the economy is strong and they are selling their products. The wealthy don???t invest because they are given Tax Cuts or stimulus, they invest because they can make return on their investments in a strong economy. Without the economy being strong the wealthy just keep their money (whether earned or given to them by the government) and the economy is strong when the people have money, security and confidence and then they spend, stimulating the economy from the bottom up. The wealthy like to brag that if all the money was evenly redistributed, after a period of time, the same people would be wealthy again. There is some truth to that and it actually demonstrates what I???m saying; over simplified yet it really doesn???t take a Harvard economist to see the reality. To label it ???conservative??? and again focus on benefit for the wealthy, Special Interests and a select few and not aggressively doing what is necessary to stimulate the total economy, would be just asking for more of the same ??? we really can???t afford that.

    • Posted By: brydges @ 01/09/2009 1:07:08 PM

      where did you go to school with your superior economic insight that contradicts every economist I've ever heard

      • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 01/09/2009 4:35:37 PM

        What it doesn't contradict is common sense or reality, as we have vividly seen. And besides, it doesn't contradict all economists or any real economic theories, only those that try to rationalize more benefit for the wealthy, Special Interests and a select few. But then there is no sense is us arguing about it when the results speak for themselves and document the reality.

        • Posted By: 40YearR @ 01/09/2009 4:48:31 PM

          Yup, if all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, why would those who have the money have a reason to invest in businesses that will have no customers?

      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 01/09/2009 4:42:28 PM

        How about John Maynard Keynes?

  • Posted By: miltongalfas @ 01/08/2009 10:08:48 AM

    This confirms what an egomainuc he is. No qualifications but can he run a campaign and advertise himself to win. And now America will face the blunt of an inexperienced do nothing egotist. 1.2 trillion debt is OK? What a fool.

    • Posted By: chris s. @ 01/08/2009 10:29:42 PM

      After eight years of success, he sure has big shoes [ and ego] to fill. Yes, Bush set the bar pretty high. Hope he can, marginally, keep up intellectually.

  • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 01/08/2009 4:59:48 PM

    It looks like buyers remorse is already setting in....gonna be exciting watching the next 10-12 months. Then we can all enjoy the impeachment hearings. Gonna make foe Can't Miss T,V,

    NOBAMA!!!

  • Posted By: atsegga @ 01/08/2009 4:51:53 PM

    The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.

    $30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
    $550 billion: U.S. Defense budget

  • Posted By: nate31 @ 01/08/2009 12:57:52 PM

    Just so we are clear 1.2 trillion in debt is not solely, or even, mostly Obama's fault. That debt rose exponentially under George W. The big difference here is Obama plans to invest in America, not Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other wars built on lies. The truth is we are in trouble and we need a president that understands that. This article shows Obama's reflectiveness and feelings on several key issues. Let's judge the man based on what he does, not is party affiliation.

    • Posted By: jh35180 @ 01/08/2009 4:24:41 PM

      While I will agree that some of the debt is Bush's fault, it seems a little oversimplistic to lay it all on GW. For instance, the idea of easy credit for anybody came into play under Bill Clinton. Chris "Countrywide" Dodd and Barney "Fanniemae and Freddiemac are fine" Frank should bear some of the blame as well. I am not a Republican because I feel that they are failures, but the Democrats are failures as well.

  • Posted By: DDale @ 01/08/2009 3:51:16 PM

    New Trouble for an Obama Nominee: Admiral Dennis Blair Aided Perpetrators of 1999 Church Killings in East Timor

    Investigative journalist Allan Nairn reveals Admiral Dennis Blair played a critical role in backing the Indonesian occupation of East Timor during the 1990s. At the height of a wave of ruthless attacks on Timorese that killed hundreds and displaced tens of thousands.

    Read the story at;Democracy Now.org

    http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/7/obama_nominee_admiral_dennis_blair_aided

    Dennis Blair went against Bill Clinton and pushed more killing of innocent cililians in Timor. What the hell,we don't need Dennis Blair....he needs to be punished for war crimes.

  • Posted By: DDale @ 01/08/2009 3:42:21 PM

    New Trouble for an Obama Nominee: Admiral Dennis Blair Aided Perpetrators of 1999 Church Killings in East Timor
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIMJG--YolQ
    Obama Nominee Admiral Dennis Blair Aided Perpetrators of 1999 Church Killings in East Timor

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqUy1bsz0eQ

  • Posted By: KateR @ 01/08/2009 1:41:06 PM

    Obama's autobiography "Dreams from My Father" confirms what this interview reveals: He is an extremely intelligent and sensitve man, possessing a steady confidence that eschews egotism. He has the potential to be a truly great President & I think this is what everyone senses & why the entire world is captivated. I wish him well.

  • Posted By: segan04 @ 01/08/2009 1:01:26 PM

    Re: notsoquietmajority @ 01/08/2009 12:31:05 PM :

    Newsweek's special election project is about BOTH campaigns, McCain and Obama (and actually, further back into the primaries, Clinton and the others). They get special access to the campaigns in return for promising not to publish the results until after the election. They've done this for the past several election cycles. It was not an "Obama" book they were working on, it was a campaign book, the same way they've done it for the past several campaigns.

  • Posted By: Global Citzn @ 01/08/2009 12:05:17 PM

    Perhaps you should go back and read the interview again Milton. I don't think "egomaniac" is how he comes off. It is also hard to get sarcasm and humor when text is the medium, but the few times early in the article that Obama might have come off to you as an "egomaniac" were most likely when he was in fact, not being completely serious.

    I would be interested to hear your ideas and suggestions on how to handle this out of control economic crisis. Obama is surrounding himself with some of the brightest minds of our time. If you go back and read the interview again, notice how he takes his time to respond to the deep questions. He thinks before he acts, weighs his options and decides on the best course of action he sees. Experience with an economic crisis and global tension of the current magnitude is faulty, as most people with that kind of experience are the ones who helped lead us into the situation we are currently in. It will take new ideas, good judgment, and timely action with proper follow up and observation in order for America to emerge on the other side of this intact.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse