Haven't we put off problems without clarifying Japan's will to protect the lives and assets of its people and territory with its own hands, and merely accepted the benefits of economic prosperity?
It's nonsense. If, in fact, putting one out of four people in the state of Kentucky on Medicaid created 12,000 jobs and $30 billion in economic prosperity, why wouldn't we put every single person in the state of Kentucky on Medicaid? We'd create 48,000 jobs by that logic and $120 billion worth of economic advantage.
The American people want economic prosperity, high-quality goods and low prices, all of which I support.
I just believe that government borrowing and spending doesn't lead to economic prosperity, growth, or sustainable jobs. I know that it comes from the private sector: people who invest in their businesses and ideas.
There are good people and bad people in all organizations fundamentally however, when you look at the basis of the Tea Party it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with an economic recovery. It has to do with limiting the role of our government in our lives. It has to do with free markets.
A lot of joblessness in the black community doesn't seem to be reachable through fiscal and monetary policies. People have not been drawn into the labor market even during periods of economic recovery.
Incarceration and recidivism rates high? Providing people an incentive to stay out of jail while also providing them some level of economic security while they get back on their feet - both accomplished by a UBI - sounds like a great way to solve that problem.
We need a brand as a party that says we're the party that are going to help working-class people, white people, black people, brown people, gay people, straight people, improve opportunity for them to grow their wages, to have security, economic security.
Working people of this country want economic security. The worst possible thing you can do for those families is bust the public finances, have some welfare system this country can't afford.
The best solution to income inequality is providing a high-quality education for everybody. In our highly technological, globalized economy, people without education will not be able to improve their economic situation.
A lot of the vibe in London is being sucked dry because of the economic situation. It's very expensive, and it gives you nothing back. New York still feels like there's stuff going on. People are struggling to create art. There's still a vibe.
As prime minister, I was able often to meet people, to try to understand their needs and the country's economic situation - but it wasn't as if I was planning or ever expected to become president, so I wasn't thinking back then of what I would do if I was in this position, I was just trying to understand the problems and challenges.
The fact that industries wax and wane is a reality of any economic system that wants to remain dynamic and responsive to people's changing tastes.
We cannot change the political system, we cannot change the economic system, we cannot change the social system, until the people control the land, and then we take it out of the hands of that sick minority that chooses to pervert the meaning and the intention of humanity.
Good economic theory must give the people the chance to use their talents to build their own lives. We must get away from the traditional route where the rich will do the business and the poor will depend on private or public charity.
One of the big take-aways from a lot of economic theory is that people should engage in consumption smoothing.
The fact is that during the post-1989 heyday of globalization optimism, political and business elites did not think enough about the prospect - plainly predicted in economic theory - that trade would harm some people even while leaving society as a whole better off. The result was overpromised benefits and inadequate adjustment plans.
We could solve all our problems if only we were the efficient, rational human beings of standard economic theory and had politicians willing to think in the long-term interest of their people rather than their own.
It's interesting that when economic times were the hardest, that's when many people embraced liberalism.
In simple terms, I realised that food is the most fundamental need for a person. In difficult economic times, people's priorities change, and they might be willing to do something that secures for them the lowest possible weekly food bill.
