The story now: Gridlock or bipartisanship? How can the political leaders of the two Americas cut a deal on the deficit and avoid the 'fiscal cliff?' The British experience of coalition government offers a few tips.
Spitzer & Matalin agree that Obama "won" the second debate on style/theatrics but they split on substance -- polls show Romney had edge on jobs while Obama scored TKO on "acts of terror" counter-punch. Then: the two 'drill down' on Women, Economy & Turnout.
Since no expert believes it can be done without removing such favored tax shelters as the home mortgage interest deduction, it will create the same austerity trap Europeans now find themselves in.
Paul Krugman is one of America's intellectual treasures, but he is stunningly off when it comes to the deficit. He's not the only deficit denier, but Mr. Krugman is so respected by the left wing of the Democratic Party that his arguments could prove quite problematic.
Krugman examines the people Obama selected to be part of his economic team and the amount of money they settled on for the economic stimulus package.
Probably the most convincing evidence that Quantitative Easing works is the revival of housing sector. Economists agree that the collapse of housing values is a major deterrent to consumer spending. Housing could finally begin to recover this year.
The principal danger in a Romney presidency is in the reckless and contradictory Republican plan for deficit reduction, most of which is pure ideological nonsense.
Will the Democrats speak for the people? Will they fill Clint Eastwood's empty chair with human beings of passion and dedication? Or will they pursue a false "centrism," cheating the country of the debate it so desperately needs?
Economics in our time is a philosophy dressed up in equations. That does not imply that economics is worthless, only that is should not be trusted to deliver precision or provable certainty.
Due to Republican obstruction, the stimulus that passed was not even the Obama stimulus vision. It was larded up with corporate tax cuts and other unpopular Republicans ideas that Republicans now gleefully peg to Obama.
The first thing to understand about academic celebrities is that the role they play in public life is very different from what they do professionally.
Why would inflation, a fiscal and monetary circumstance which human beings by instinct regard as an ill omen, be seen in such positive hues by economists as renowned as Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman?
Do Americans realize that under a Ryan economic regime, tens of millions of our poor neighbors would be dropped categorically and coldly to the curb, with no support whatsoever from the very system that our forefathers and mothers set up to ensure that America would prosper?
Why do those at the very bottom rungs of society often oppose, again in the most violent terms, government health care? Because, if one accepts such aid, then one finally has to admit that one is indeed at the very bottom. And that is far too painful to do. Irrational? Perhaps.
President Obama can make the moral case for America's homeowners in a clear, strong voice. So far he hasn't done that -- partly because some key members of his team buy into the unfair notion that underwater homeowners, unlike Wall Street bankers, don't deserve to be helped.