

Readers' comments



USA is quickly becoming more and more USSR like, $16trl debt, over $1trl budget deficit and $0.7trl trade deficit,
and US GDP numbers are heavily bloated, it is probably 2/3 of what is stated,
with all due respect, US is nothing but Spain with a huge war fleet, which is by the way requires 0.6trl maintenance a year.
USSR 2.0
This is inevitable, middle class will be crushed by rising cost of living, savers will be wiped out by ZIRP. Expect less freedoms, more government and more poverty!


Side note: I like the briefcase labelled "Republicans", in case there's a soul left in the world who doesn't know the elephant is a symbol of the GOP.


OK, so what IS Obama's plan? I've heard tons of proposals on the Republican side, Whats Obama's plan?

Mr. Dean in reply to francisbjohn

Marginally higher taxes on upper brackets, lower military spending, empowering medium and long term efficiency in Medicare through a stronger IPAB, and just allowing the recovery to continue. Nothing huge, but until the deficit becomes a problem it doesn't need to be huge.

francisbjohn in reply to Mr. Dean

"Nothing huge, but until the deficit becomes a problem it doesn't need to be huge"

I guess that's where we differ then. I see deficits of over a trillion dollars per-year, the solvency issues of Medicare and Social Security and it all worries me. My parents are on both of those programs and I'd rather these programs be restructured than risk failure. Are you really willing to take that chance with the well being of Seniors?


Democracy by definition would always involve some form of jousting. What however is remarkable is that a substantial section of the American electorate are so individualistic - thinking only of themselves , and are only willing to support policies which promote their sort of ideology. The outcome is that this now leads to the perverse situation where extreme selfishness precludes these sorts of people from even reconising what is in their long term interest.

MySetDancer in reply to femi

Since the 1970's I have listened to a certain demographic screaming for more tax revenue, and an equal number of people pushing-back for the simple reason that they want to keep what they earned, and the suspicion that the government will always demand more money to funnel back to their supporters. Is this "democracy" or is it a kind of "tyrany?" When the mob can drain the productive just because they out-vote them, is that what you want? Are you part of the "mob" or the "productive?"

femi in reply to MySetDancer

I frankly burst out laughing when I read your riposte to my earlier comment. Of course one cannot hope to exhaust the ramifications of taxation in the short space available here to us here to discuss this issue. The cartoon , on which we comment, is merely a snapshot and a synopsis of a generally held view or opinion.
If you compare the incidence of both general and indirect taxation on income in the USA with that across say the EU, it is clear that such taxes are significantly less than that paid by most Europeans. For people of certain political and idealogical dispositions that is no comfort and they would rather for example pay less tax and leave the individual to pay privately for education , health , secutity etc. But we no longer live in the wild west and there are many , who you seem to describe as the 'mob', who think it is better for some goods and services to be paid for and provided by the state collectively through taxation. This simple description illustrates the idealogical divide which is at the heart of and subject of the debate.
The way to resolve this in a democracy is to put the matter to the vote and permit the majority to detrmine how the state is to act in this matter. Of course those who loose out would be disappointed at the outcome and it does not help if in response you disparage the majority by describing them as a 'mob'. They are the majority. Would you prefer to live under a monarchy or an aristocracy which dictates the manner in which society's economic resources are to be distributed ? You may well prefer that , howeverI don't think a majority of people these days would endorse that. Have a good evening.


Here's a fun fact, the last time the debt went down under a Republican President was under Eisenhower. How many Eisenhower Republicans are there? They can preach all they want about fiscal responsibility when they are the worst violators of it, it's called lying.

How can they be the worst violators if Obama added 6 Trillion Dollars to the debt in 4 years?. He did the same mess as Bush in half as much time.

A fun fact: Democrats were controlling congress under the first years of Obama and the last ones of Bush

Well I suppose Bush's inflated revenue froim the housing bubble, that Obama inherited a collapsing economy with lower revenue , the expenses of the Iraqi war, and stimulus measures are different from unsupported tax cuts based on projected revenues and war spending.

Fiscal responsibility isn't about debt avoidance, if you can't understand that then I'd suggest reading the articles on this site before posting. Fiscal responsibility is about spending and taxing prudently , which in terms of stimulus through debt in a recovery/recession is a good idea.

Republicans are the worst violators since they assume that by cutting taxes, spending, and spending on the military would cause the economy to growth faster than the debt is sheer fantasy, GDP has never risen faster than debt with this policy occurred even during Regan's years. It hasn't worked for decades and yet they still preach it, that's either stupidity, insanity, or sheer malice.

So yes, through the GOP leadership's actions they are at worst liars, at best deluded and/or incompetent.

But hey, all you did was state: Obama got us so much debt! I don't care if he is spending it properly or who caused all this mess in the first place.

Also to
I brought facts to the table, you just brought an unsupported statement. I'm not going to waste my time comparing ego sizes with you, if you wish to debate bringing something more than your ego.

What's the underlying issue, where's the lying when the debt hasn't gone down under a Republican since Eisenhower. If you can prove me wrong then I'll gladly eat my words.


Name ONE DIME in REAL spending cuts (non-defense) the President has ever proposed: much less implemented! ALL TAX ( on the top 2% ONLY) AND NO ABILITY to selectively streamline government does not a real life fiscal policy make!

john4law in reply to kirejm

I don't want to get into the Washington Smoke and Mirrors trap but your "cuts" are NOT spending DECREASES but simply DEFERRALS of SCHEDULED INCREASES! NO FEDERAL PROGRAM HAS BEEN TERMINATED. Almost NO federal program has had a funding decrease. Is ALL federal spending sacrosanct FOREVER?? Federal Spending has increased OVER 40% in the last four years and that is WHY we have over 4 BILLION DOLLAR A DAY deficits: not a reduction in revenues which have INCREASED by about 20%.

kirejm in reply to john4law

Where exactly is that stated?

Looking over the budget document there appear to be a number of programs reduced in size and some outright cut; I see no mention of these cuts being merely "deferrals of scheduled increases" as you state -- if something _does_ indeed state as much it certainly ought to be further publicized.

(Also stylistic note: the over-emphasis on caps detracts some from the readability of your comments)


I feel that since Reagan the GOP has been going downhill and getting defensive, and now like a dying beast will do almost anything to survive.
Perhaps people will think Kal has taken sides, yet I think he is just reflecting a truth that we all can see.
And by the way, Corporations are Not people!

The Dems duped Reagan/GOP by taking the tax rises immediately and never implementing the spending cuts promised for the future. When the GOP got hold of Congress, they shut it down and we all know now what Pres. Clinton did during that crisis.


Nice job, Kev -- You now have a good Obama profile. Next step is to get the 3/4 and the front without that extra lower lip. Nice cartoon idea, by the way. -- DR of the Crimson

Unqualified Critic

I'm sure conservatives won't find this one amusing.

Rayan B in reply to Jourtegrity

Jourtegrity, if you prefer "balance" over freedom of speech then I'm sorry to say you're reading the wrong magasine. The way I see it, The Economist has always criticized both Democrats and Republicans. I'd rather read opinions who are at odds with mine than a blank "balanced", non-opinionated mag... Peace.

Jourtegrity in reply to Rayan B

Nice straw man about "freedom of speech" but you seem to contradict yourself. Balance is not important, yet you strive to suggest that the economist criticizes both Dems and Repubs. Obama is nearly never criticized in this space and on the rare occasion that he is, it is with nothing approaching the vitriol represented towards Republicans in this cartoon and most others by KAL.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Writing worth reading: Dark matter
Babbage March 15th, 14:43
Bits and mortar: Babbage visits Ada's
Babbage March 15th, 10:22
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange March 14th, 16:43
Democracy in America March 14th, 15:55


Products & events