????私營領域有義務創造就業機會

????如果從事私營領域的工作，首要義務就是向投資方、客戶以及雇員提供有足夠利潤空間的產品和服務，維持企業的運轉。但是當企業有閑錢的時候，我覺得投資社會不失為一個好的辦法，因為我認為，無論在道德上還是對于企業本身，這都是件好事。

????茶黨的政府恐懼癥

????問題是目前全世界沒有一個案例能說明在反政府的環境下取得經濟事業的成功。所有成功的經濟實體都需要公共/私營的單位創造經濟發展機會，提供良好的教育；需要一個良好的環境，以便政府和私營企業能夠攜手，共同促進經濟發展。對于反政府群體我唯一想說的就是，干點實事，而實事就是合作，而不是沖突。

????總統有權干涉經濟嗎？

????總統握有相當大的話語權。看看里根總統的政策就知道。對于他所采取的放松管制的做法和在解決社會保險問題所達成的兩黨合作機制，我十分欣賞。然而我認為，他所推行的減稅幅度過大，雖然刺激了經濟增長，但缺乏可持續性。盡管里根總統的政策發揮了作用，但當老布什總統就任以后，這種利用透支手段來創造就業機會所帶來的問題就一一浮出了水面。我執政的時候，要不是本著實現私營領域增長的理念，我的經濟政策也難以取得成功。我很幸運。我在任時，信息技術革命爆發了。

????向房產市場投入更多的精力

????解決樓市困局的方法有很多。我覺得我們不應該在眼下，尤其在經濟低迷的時候將這些房產交給市場來消化。我更傾向于通過有力的綜合措施將它們轉變為租賃資產。藉此，人們可以租用，交付設施租賃費用，繳納稅費以及負責維護，這樣就可以保持住房存量。一旦經濟復蘇，這些住房就可以再次進入市場，促進經濟增長而不是起負面作用。我認為這是我們應該采取的行動。

????從廣義上來講，市場已經非常低迷，無人能夠幸免。過去人們常說，如果你所在區域的房子喪失了抵押贖回權，那么你的房產價值將下降10個，15個或20個百分點，因為這發生在你所住的街區。這一條曾一度被奉為金科玉律。

????但是現在，喪失抵押贖回權的房產比比皆是，因此幾乎每家的房產都跟著遭殃，除了那些生活在美國繁華中心的人們：例如硅谷、圣地亞哥、奧蘭多，這些地區的經濟一片欣欣向榮，也算是積極的一面。除了這些地區以外，其他地區的問題很嚴重。

????我認為，如果我們能解決這個問題，我們將盡快扭轉局面。

????關于增加稅賦

????我贊同這種做法。這并不是什么階級斗爭。我的意思是說我們曾經--如果你回顧19—從二戰末期到1980年左右的那段時期，辛勤勞動、個人才能以及創造力得到了超乎尋常的回報；與此同時，我們培養出了世界上最優秀的中產階級，并一視同仁地給予窮人適當的機遇通過自身努力加入中產階級大軍。

????然而過去的國民收入分布顯示，占人口90%的底層擁有國民總收入的65%；占人口10%的頂層擁有總收入的35%；而最頂端的1%擁有總收入的9%。

????這一數據在過去的30年當中發生了變化。90%的底層所擁有的收入份額從65下滑至52。10%的頂層的份額從35增加至48。1%的那部分份額從9升至21.

????貧富差距的擴大令人震驚，我認為不利于社會的長期穩定。

????關于克林頓全球行動

????今年我們的主要目標是在美國和全球創造就業機會。我們正致力于打造一個能持續發展的經濟實體，也就是幫助各國打造相應的經濟模式，應對全球變暖和當地資源消耗所帶來的挑戰，可持續地促進經濟和就業機會的增長。

????與此同時，我們也在致力于為女性創造公平的機會，因為對于很多極度貧困的國家來說，這個問題極大地拖累了經濟。我們認為在美國不存在這樣的問題，女性在接受教育方面沒有限制，有機會參加工作。但在很多國家，情況并非如此。

????The private sector's obligation to create jobs

????If you're in the private sector, your first obligation to your investors, to your customers, and to your employees is to provide a product or a service at a sufficient profit to keep the enterprise going. But when a company does have extra money, I think it's a good idea to invest in the community, because I think it's not only the morally right thing to do, it's good for the companies involved.

????The Tea Party's government phobia

????The problem is that there's not a single example on the planet of a successful economy that runs on the antigovernment model. All the successful economies have public/private cooperation to generate economic opportunity, provide a good education, create an environment where government and the private sector work together and advance economies. The only thing I'd say to the antigovernment crowd is that we've got to do what works and what works is cooperation, not conflict.

????Does the President have power over the economy?

????Oh, quite a bit. Look at President Reagan's policies. I give him a lot of credit for the deregulation work he did and the bipartisan resolution for the Social Security problem. But I also think that his tax cuts, which were very large, spurred economic growth in a way that wasn't sustainable. It worked, but when the first President Bush took office, he basically got all the downside of having a deficit-spending model of generating jobs. Now, my program wouldn't have been successful either if we hadn't had a theory of private sector growth. I was fortunate. I became President when the information technology revolution broke out.

????More on the housing market

????There are all these options and I don't think we ought to keep dumping these houses on the market right now when it's so depressed. I'd like to see them converted into rental property in an aggressive, comprehensive way, and let people rent it for the price of the utilities, the taxes, and the maintenance, just to maintain the housing stock. Then as the economy picks up, you can put it back on the market in a way that will support economic growth, not undermine it. That's what I think should be done.

????And in a larger sense, the market is so depressed that it's hurting everyone else. It used to be as a rule of thumb, people would say, well, if the mortgage is foreclosed on on your block, it will drive down the value of your house because it's on your block, by 10, 15, 20%.

????But now there are so many houses that have been foreclosed on, it's driven down the value of almost everybody's houses, except -- let's talk about the upside -- the people that are in the prosperity centers of America: in Silicon Valley, in San Diego, in Orlando, and places where the economy is booming. Except for those places, this is a problem.

????I can't -- I think it would really get us going in a hurry if we could flush this out.

????On paying more taxes

????No, no, I'm in favor of it because -- and I don't consider it class warfare. I mean we had -- if you look at from 19 -- from the end of the Second World War to about 1980, we had enough inequality to reward hard work and raw talent and creativity, and enough equality to build the world's greatest middle class and allow poor people a reasonable chance to work their way into it.

????And the distribution was the bottom 90% had 65% of the income; the top 10% had 35% of the income; the top 1% had about 9% of the income.

????And those numbers have changed in the last 30 years. The 90% share has dropped from 65 to 52. The 10% share has gone from 35 to 48. The 1% share has gone from 9 to 21.

????That's a breathtaking increase in inequality, and I don't think it's good for our long-term stability.

????On the Clinton Global Initiative

????This year we're working on the creation of jobs in America and around the world. We're working on building an economy that can be maintained. That is helping countries develop an economic model that takes account of the challenges of global warming and resource depletion locally, where you can still keep promoting growth and jobs in a sustainable way.

????And we're working on trying to equalize opportunities in the world for girls and women because that's a big economic drag on a lot of very poor countries. It's not anything we think about. We tend to take that for granted in America, that women should be able to stay in school as much as they want, and have access to the workforce. That's not the case in many, many countries.