...We must not revert to isolationism and unrestrained economic egotism. The leaders of the world's largest economies agreed during the November 2008 G20 summit not to create barriers hindering global trade and capital flows. Russia shares these principles.

Although additional protectionism will prove inevitable during the crisis, all of us must display a sense of proportion.

Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake.

True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.

The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing.

And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing.

I can only but shiver at the thought of what McCain would have done, given the GOP's spending track record over the last 8 years.

And now they finally take the reverse role because that's what minority parties do!

If we thought 2008 should have been a good year for third parties, 2010 should be a watershed moment when people realize that continually electing Republicans and/or Democrats will just make the solutions worse. BOTH of these parties have their heads so far up their respective power-lobby groups that they forget that it is we the people that elect them and we the people that they serve. We don't need to elect any more Democrats or Republicans until they remember that. (and hopefully by that time there will be a significant third voice in our politics.

ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: A group of economists including Mark Zandi of Moody's who has advised Democrats and Republicans just presented House Democrats with a report that says the recently enacted $787 billion stimulus package will fall far short of the goal of saving or creating 3.5 million to 4 million jobs.

She says it is going to take time to recover from the "Bush economy.

Aww shucks. First stimulus will fall far short of creating "or saving" 4 million jobs. And we know this less than a month after signing it into law. Guess we're gonna need another one!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/0 ... oal-d.html



Gee, if only we had a Democratic majority in the house to put some breaks on the Bush Economy.

LOL

Devil, you missed the whole "spinless Democrats" in Congress not doing anything to counter the Bush White House. Now those same spineless Democrats are in total power and they still can't get anything done.

Oh I did not miss it.. and they have got a lot done, I mean look they have spent more money faster than any other administration to date.

This kind of spin bothers me as well. Some version of that stimulus package would have been passed, regardless of who was President at the time. No matter who became President in January, this could have been said-- yet somehow I have the feeling that if McCain had been elected, you wouldn't have brought it up.

The entire stimulus premise is ridiculous, as is the contention that this economy is anyone's fault but Congress'.

Obama's signing statement said he wouldn't be bound by provisions of the bill in five areas. They involved negotiations with foreign governments, limits on using U.S. troops in U.N. missions, protections for government whistleblowers, a congressional claim of authority over the spending of money already approved by Congress and congressional demands that the administration submit budget requests in certain forms.

I don't know enough about about signing statements to comment, but didn't he say he wouldn't use them?
I dunno, seems like a cop out.

the question was "Do you promise not to use Presidential signing statements to get your way?".

It's something that every President needs to have in order to keep options on the table to avoid ditching your constitutional obligation as President.

President Obama today repeated the claim we asked about yesterday at the press briefing that Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar, Inc., “said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off.” …