Where's Krugman Today?

[Beetwasher]

Maybe speaking w/ Clark?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=116937

I know he's more of a columnist. Wishful thinking on my part?

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. on vacation

according to their website.

[Beetwasher]

3. He just took a vacation.

Now he's on another one? Oh well...

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. vacation

and the prick David Brooks filling in for him SUX!

[pearl]

4. Well known journalist resigns to work for Clark

I just heard this on one of the news channels, that will probably
be public by the end of the day. Any guesses?

[seemslikeadream]

6. I posted that here a few minutes ago

heard it on C-Span

[myomy]

5. Saw Krugman on Charlie Rose last night.

Very disappointed in C.Rose, he wouldn't let Krugman finish answering questions and tried to put works in his mouth.

[soupkitchen]

7. Charlie has a vested interest in believing the bullshit

So he doesn't want to hear anything close to the truth.

[displacedvermoter]

11. Loved Krugman's line about the Argentine Junta's Approval Ratings

rising during the Falklands war as an indication that the war card can always be played. Friggin' Rose nearly fainted when he said that and pointed out that "Bush can't be compared to them" or some such line.

[JasonBerry]

8. Let's Hope Krugman Stays at the NYT

He is needed at the New York Times....he can do much more good right where he's at.

[camero]

9. I don't think

Krugman becoming Secretary of the Treasury or the next Fed. Reserve Chairman is such a bad thing.

[Cheesehead]

12. You have a point

Someone as bright as Krugman should make policy, not comment on it!

[realFedUp]

10. He'll probably have to do a book tour soon

because of his new book.

[Gloria]

13. Krugman is already appearing for his book tour... all over the tube and

he said that he's not really into politics in terms of giving advice to candidates. (last night on Charlie Rose)

[chiburb]

14. After Sunday's 12 page article...

I'd take a week off too!
(A MUST read by the way...)

Snip:

Right now, much of the public discussion of the Bush tax cuts focuses on their short-run impact. Critics say that the 2.7 million jobs lost since March 2001 prove that the administration's policies have failed, while the administration says that things would have been even worse without the tax cuts and that a solid recovery is just around the corner.

But this is the wrong debate. Even in the short run, the right question to ask isn't whether the tax cuts were better than nothing; they probably were. The right question is whether some other economic-stimulus plan could have achieved better results at a lower budget cost. And it is hard to deny that, on a jobs-per-dollar basis, the Bush tax cuts have been extremely ineffective. According to the Congressional Budget Office, half of this year's $400 billion budget deficit is due to Bush tax cuts. Now $200 billion is a lot of money; it is equivalent to the salaries of four million average workers. Even the administration doesn't claim its policies have created four million jobs. Surely some other policy -- aid to state and local governments, tax breaks for the poor and middle class rather than the rich, maybe even W.P.A.-style public works -- would have been more successful at getting the country back to work.

Link added: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/magazine/14TAXES.html?pagewanted=1