by Mark Silva
President-elect Barack Obama concedes that, in light of the economic situation which the nation faces, "not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able do on the pace we had hoped.''
And there will be some "sacrifice'' ahead, he says - "everybody's going to have some skin in the game.''.
Obama's remarks come in an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos airing Sunday morning. Ever the promoter, Georgeo released excerpts of his talk tonight.
"Our challenge is going to be identifying what works and putting more money into that, eliminating things that don't work, and making things that we have more efficient,'' Obama says in the interview, according to ABC News.. "But I'm not suggesting, George, I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped.''
The host of This Week says he asked the president-elect: "At the end of the day, are you really talking about over the course of your presidency some kind of grand bargain? That you have tax reform, healthcare reform, entitlement reform including Social Security and Medicare, where everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good?"
"Yes," Obama tells the interviewer.
"And when will that get done?"
"Well, right now, I'm focused on a pretty heavy lift, which is making sure we get that reinvestment and recovery package in place. But what you described is exactly what we're going to have to do. What we have to do is to take a look at our structural deficit, how are we paying for government? What are we getting for it? And how do we make the system more efficient?"
"And eventually sacrifice from everyone?" the host asks.
"Everybody's going to have (to) give,'' Obama replies. "Everybody's going to have to have some skin (in) the game.''
Comments
It was deregulation run amuck and the Bush tax cuts for the rich, both on income and capital gains that brought us to the breaking point we're at now. The Bush administration was providing an open invitation to excessive borrowing and lending—not that American consumers needed any more encouragement.
The flawed economic philosophy brought by Reagan, and embraced with open arms by the Republican base, brought us to this day. Ideas have consequences, especially when we stop empirically testing them. Republican economics have created great pain to America and harmed our national interest. Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity, if you are not talking about prosperity for everyone, but about prosperity for the rich fat cats.
The flaws that Greenspan found after the fact were always there. Self regulation does not work.
Posted by: Bill/Jeff | January 10, 2009 6:45 PM
This article is interesting--not for what O'bumble says (which isn't much), but rather as a preview for how the Swamp is going to treat him.
This is the 4th article in the last 2 days where the Swamp gives O'bumble column inches, unchallenged, to make his spiel. This last year, if President Bush, John McCain, or any Republican said anything, the Swamp couldn't wait to dig up some Democrat to give an instant rebuttal. In fact, the Dem rebuttal was usually given more prominence than what was being rebutted.
Republican speech, instant Dem rebuttal. Democrat speech, no GOP rebuttal.
Journalism, DNC Swamp style, where they figure O'bumble will prevail only so long as they censor other points of view.
Posted by: Bruce | January 10, 2009 7:15 PM
Brilliant, Bruce. Why wouldn't the media give space to the President elect at this point?? And the name is Obama. I don't think articles on McCain are in great demand right now, tho' Palin is still getting her ink. Your whining is pathetic.
Posted by: rupert | January 10, 2009 8:02 PM
LOL!! Change?? LOL!! Right ole Obambie spent how much money and then wants more?? Those of you too stupid to see the righting on the wall deserve everything you get! DA'es!
Posted by: dragonfly777 | January 10, 2009 8:21 PM
...
LOL!! Change?? LOL!! Right ole Obambie spent how much money and then wants more??
Posted by: dragonfly777 | January 10, 2009 8:21 PM
.
dragonbreath,
Obama isn't the Prez yet, how could he have already spent money?
And by the way, it's "PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA" to you...and don't you forget that.
Posted by: civil war guy | January 10, 2009 9:44 PM
Bill/Jeff it is quite easy to say Bush and 'deregulation' caused the current economic crisis. But if you actually look up some information on a bipartisan/truthful website you will see that Bush had very little to do with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related
-This video puts the 'Republicans caused deregulation myth to rest.'
Posted by: Kyle | January 10, 2009 10:12 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Bill/Jeff | January 10, 2009 6:45 PM
.
Bill/Jeff, of whom you are neither, you are totally clueless if you think either the tax cuts or the deregulation had anything to do with the current situation. Tax cuts may or may not have been particularly good for the economy, but there is certainly no evidence out there to suggest that they made it any worse. In addition, no one - but no one - has ever come up with a cogent explanation as to how the removal of a single regulation caused or led to the current meltdown.
.
I also take issue with your statement that that “[t]he Bush administration was providing an open invitation to excessive borrowing and lending . . .” The Bush administration didn’t have the means to invite excessive borrowing or lending. The open invitation was created, if at all, by the Federal Reserve Bank’s practice of keeping the money supply cheap and plenty, thus making excessive amounts of money available to lenders. The excessive borrowing and risky lending wouldn’t have occurred without it. And, BTW, the Federal Reserve Bank isn’t a government agency, and it is barely regulated at all by Congress.
.
Next, I must tell you that I find it amazing that you can blame a free market system for our troubles when we don’t even have a free market system. We have a mixed system because the government spends a lot of time and energy regulating it, and routinely makes large interventions into it that alter the normal economic rules. It is also the same government intervention and regulation that has created the lack of discipline among businesses and permitted the greed to flourish. Can you say corporate welfare? If we had a true free market system, greed would be easier to detect, bad business decisions would have consequences instead of easy solutions, and all those failed banks and businesses would be lining up to file for bankruptcy instead of lining up for a handout from Congress.
.
But I suppose you are going to keep everyone barking up the wrong tree anyway. That’s a sure fire way to help people avoid fixing any of the real problems.
Posted by: John W. | January 11, 2009 1:05 AM
Don't think the CHANGE sugested spending wil reach the little voter, nevr has.. the little voter has akwys been sacrifice-period.
Posted by: Inky | January 11, 2009 4:50 AM
Obama's plan. 90% govt jobs to dave this economy, no, to control us. Statue of Tyrrany. Reagan was faced with a recession and it would have been permanant, if he took the deal of the "Monetary method" in a stagflation like Obama is doing nose diving into Socialism for one purpose.
Posted by: John Doe | January 11, 2009 9:25 AM
Obama should be careful, lest it appear that he is using the cover of a weak economy to back away from the promises that he made during the campaign, which were viewed by many as impossible for him to keep anyway.
Posted by: DaveB | January 11, 2009 10:08 AM
John W.,
Thank you for continuing to devote your time to possibly opening minds to rational thought. Whether or not they express themselves on this blog, I believe thoughtful people are hearing you.
Posted by: Thanks for visiting The Swamp | January 11, 2009 2:15 PM
creating government jobs is buying future votes-period.
Posted by: Kathy | January 12, 2009 8:16 AM
Why does Obama want my skin in the game when the bankers and politicians already took five pounds of my flesh and my children 's flesh? We will be paying for the greed of the bankers, the lobbyists and politicians for the next 30 years--all while having a lesser quality of life--while the greedy bankers, lobbyists and politicians have a grand and large quality of life. at our expense. No, not my skin, but theirs.
Posted by: Vivian | January 12, 2009 12:46 PM
That's an interesting statement, John W. I also completely agree with your second point.
How would you suggest Obama clean this mess up?
Posted by: Brian M. | January 12, 2009 3:19 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Brian M. | January 12, 2009 3:19 PM
.
Brian,
.
If you were referring to the perennial problems we’ve had with the Federal Reserve Bank, the answer is to abolish it and replace it valuable functions with some other organization. That, or make it much, much more responsible to Congress or some federal agency. Some have suggested enacting a congressional or executive veto power over the FRB’s decisions. Something had better be done because the Federal Reserve Board hasn’t done a responsible job of controlling the money supply. That’s a pretty dangerous situation to be in with a fiat money supply like we have.
.
If you weren’t talking about the FRB, then never mind.
Posted by: John W. | January 13, 2009 2:20 AM