Krugman: What’s going on?

[johan helge]

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/shock-and-oy/):

You know, it was widely expected that Obama would have a stimulus plan ready to pass Congress even before his inauguration. That didn’t happen. We were told that this was because the economic team was working flat out on the financial rescue.

In fact, when it comes to bank rescue it’s hard to see much evidence that anything was accomplished during all that time; the team is still — still! — running ideas up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. And the ideas look remarkably bad. (Welcome to the Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill, Yves.)

Meanwhile, when it came to stimulus legislation, when Obama finally introduced his economic plan he immediately began negotiating with himself, preemptively offering concessions to the GOP, which voted against the plan anyway. (And Obama appears, in the name of bipartisanship, to have thrown away a Senate vote he may well need.)

As a wise man (Obama, see Krugman's link) recently said, failure to act effectively risks turning this slump into a catastrophe. Yet there’s a sense, watching the process so far, of low energy. What’s going on?

[Thrill]

1. Krugman is becoming a troll. All he does is criticize.

Everyday he becomes more and more like MODO

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. I think he is actually prescient, and on point.

I feel the same way.

Why is it that the GOP seems to have the upper hand on the stimulus PR? Where are the troops pushing Obama's plan? There aren't any, because they don't really have a plan. That is a sign of incoherent fumbling, despite their promises to the contrary.

[Thrill]

9. He likes to talk. But he fails to understand the Senate

And how they aren't just having to work with the Republicans but Blue Dogs who are just as bad

[Better Believe It]

22. You don't understand the Senate!

He'd like to see Obama act like the leader of the Democratic Party and the nation.

Obama needs to bang some heads in the Senate .... you want to pet them.

[Thrill]

40. No matter how you act like a leader. Its hard to get it done

when a good portion of your party thinks like the opposition.

[vssmith]

66. And a lot of his economic team as well

[burythehatchet]

68. putting the oppositino in seats of power may not be helpful

and by opposition I mean the DLC and the Repukes

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. But at least he understands a Yard Sale

You never get more than your first asking price.

Our "offer" on the stimulus was lame to begin with and unlikely to get better after the pugs have a whack at it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

77. I love Krugman, but I simply don't understand him. He supported Hillary Clinton

and spent nearly every op-Ed trashing Obama. But doesn't he realize that Hillary Clinton is NO liberal! She's a corporate, DLC Democrat. I cannot understand why he supported her and why he's so contrary to Obama. Their positions aren't that much different. Neither of them are liberals, but Obama is more liberal than Hawkish Hillary.

No one has been able to explain to me why the outright hositility towards Obama from Krugman. :shrug:

[paulk]

87. he supported Hillary because her approach was not bi-partisan

Obama very specifically ran on the idea of reaching out across the aisle.

that's been his main objection to what Obama is doing with the stimulus package - Krugman feels that playing ball with the Republicans on the economy is not only a waste of time, but actually a negative. I don't think he's being hostile - I think he's genuinely concerned that Obama is making a mistake.

Being a Nobel prize winner in the field gives his concerns some weight.

[johan helge]

94. The main reason,

I think, was that Edwards and Clinton campaigned for universal health care (i.e. mandates - "the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html)). In the same article, Krugman mentions a study concluding that Clinton's plan would give health insurance to 22 million more uninsured people than Obama's plan. And Krugman sees universal health care as the most important ideological weapon against the Repubs - it will show that government can be good.

And Krugman has for a long time disagreed with Obama about being bipartisan. From http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/shock-and-oy/: "Meanwhile, when it came to stimulus legislation, when Obama finally introduced his economic plan he immediately began negotiating with himself, preemptively offering concessions to the GOP ("to win bipartisan support", http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/zero-lower-bound/), which voted against the plan anyway. (And Obama appears, in the name of bipartisanship, to have thrown away a Senate vote he may well need.)"

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

106. I understand being in support of universal health care, but I don't understand

supporting DLC candidates, who are decidedly pro-corporate.

[johan helge]

115. I don't know, what's the difference between Clinton and Obama

regarding being "pro-corporate"?

[paulk]

124. well, according to Progressive Punch -

ProgressivePunch is a non-partisan searchable database of Congressional voting records from a Progressive perspective. True blue Democrats won’t be surprised that Clinton ranked as more progressive than Obama. The rank represents their rank among their Senate colleagues.

Category/Issue HRC Score HRC Rank BHO Score BHO Rank
Corporate Subsidies 100 1 77.71 28
Education & The Arts 90.91 37 85.71 42
Environment 92.21 20 94.44 16
Taxation 96.92 13 93.10 31
Family Planning 87.50 33 80.00 40
Checks on Corporate Power 96.75 7 91.18 18
Health Care 98.96 12 92.86 31
Housing 100 1 100 1
Human Rights/Civil Liberties 87.93 25 75.00 41
Justice/Criminal Law 93.90 19 87.85 26

Labor Rights 91.55 20 91.67 17
Making Govt. Work 94.41 15 87.32 33
War & Peace 85.37 34 88.26 28
OVERALL 91.11 20 88.54 25
Source: ProgressPunch.org

There's not only not much difference, but in areas like corporate subsidies (pro corporate?), Clinton was a good deal more progressive than Obama...

[johan helge]

125. Interesting.

So Obama was more progressive than Clinton only regarding the environment, labor rights and war & peace. Clinton's overall rating was higher than Obama's. This corresponds with my impression, that it's a misunderstanding that Obama is more progressive than Clinton. But, of course, they are both good!

[terisan]

17. Next cynical move: Geithner next week-tying help for distressed homeowners to big bank bailouts

Relief for homeowners hshould have already been underway. ---I fear it is being tied to a new bank bailout plan for political reasons.

The delay has been disastrous for many homeowners.

[Teaser]

105. Oh, so you made that up!

stay classy.

[johan helge]

12. You're so shrill, Thrill!

Krugman said Obama's "I won"-remark was encouraging (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html). And here he says Obama is "wise".

But, you are of course right in essence. But - to me, all I've seen of Krugman's critique has been VERY important and very correct (except that he perhaps could have been slightly more patient about health care, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/opinion/30krugman.html).

[Mojorabbit]

14. His assessment is correct. nt

[Political Tiger]

15. I agree, he's getting on my nerves!

Obama's only been in office two weeks for God's sake, yet Krugman acts as if Obama should have the country fixed by now. Krugman is a smart man, but he obviously has no insight into the inner workings of government.

[johan helge]

50. What do you mean? (nt)

[regnaD kciN]

31. Well, if the HuffPost report is right...

...that a) the current stimulus plan doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate, b) to make it acceptable, billions in spending programs are going to have to be cut, and c) that the final "bipartisan" compromise will be split just about 50-50 between spending programs and the G.O.P. wet-dream of more tax cuts, then Krugman has a right to be pissed. As do I.

A program like that won't be enough to keep this recession from turning into Great Depression 2.0...but will be enough to keep the country in debt long enough to prevent any further stimulus plans from being fiscally viable for years to come.

In short, as much as I hoped it wouldn't happen, it looks like our Democratic "leadership" is blowing it...again. :-(

[depakid]

85. "our Democratic "leadership" is blowing it...again."

That's the upshot.

The self-immolation begann not long after November 4th.

First the governors, then the dodgy nominees- followed closely by the capitulations.

America seems to be a curse and schizophrenic nation.

Republican know how to lead and work the political and psychological processes- but they're ideologically incompetant and inacpable of reason.

Democrats have more effective polciy proposals- but are coardly- lacking in political fortitude and have no sense whatsoever about how to translate their political capital into action.

My hope at this point is that the other nations of the world begin to recognize that one way or another- they're going to have to begin decoupling their economies from this madness.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Becoming?

Methinks that barge has sailed. He's been concern-trolling since the primaries.

[Jakes Progress]

55. He's just an old meanie.

Doesn't he know that Obama is just sooooo hot.

Read his columns. If you disagree, find some salient point to counter. Most of these anit-Krugman posts fall into the category of "I don't know anything about what he is saying, but he needs to stop picking on Obama".

The problem with grousing about Krugman's complaints is that he is right. If you disagree, what part of his column do you believe is incorrect?

[QC]

61. Amen! It would be so good if we could return to dicussing ideas and policies here,

instead of chattering about who's just jealous and who's a doodoohead and who's dreeeeeeeamy.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. He's for outsoucing.

[Jakes Progress]

119. The usual.

You know. Sources. Quotes. Things that go to prove your statement.

[CreekDog]

69. He's not trolling if he's 1) correct 2) trying to be constructive

and he's both.

[Reterr]

102. In your view maybe

I think he is absolutely right and I strongly support Obama. I just happen to agree with Krugman here. I like a lot of what Obama has done and lot of his appointments (especially his hiring of people like Steve Chu), but blind cheerleading is not a good thing in a democracy.
While maybe Krugman and those who agree with him could be wrong, that doesn't make them (us) trolls...we just have a different opinion from you ffs.

[sohndrsmith]

3. I find this curious, too. I think Krugman suffers from Oppositional Defiance Disorder

(and I mean no respect to those who suffer from this. My daughter was diagnosed with this condition at about age 2, and all I could do was laugh... she wasn't suffering from a disorder, she was suffering from being a normal 2 year old! She was later diagnosed with ADD, so she was struggling with things that indicated something was different and very frustrating for her... but no doctor has ever validated that ODD dx. Heck, her dad STILL suffers from the terrible twos at age 50... pretty much constantly. She had one fleeting tantrum - and was not oppositional just way way way more ebullient than what is considered average. I feel like I know what it's like to have 8 kids. My back still hurts from spending years running while bent over, arms extended ready to catch/grab/save her - even in the safest of environments. Man, I'm exhausted just remembering those years. But she was NOT oppositional.

Krugman really seems to be oppositional - almost hypocritically so, as you point out, because he has been sounding the alarm that we need to act fast and in a very, very big way... and Obama is trying to do just that - but he's facing some pretty intense obstruction.

I don't think Krugman has ever been a real fan of Obama, has he? I think maybe he has internalized this so fully that he can't even see that Obama is more on the same page as he is than pretty much anybody - Dems and Republicans are being obstructive on different levels....

I don't dislike Krugman, per se... he's a lot smarter on things economic than I am, that's for sure, but he does seem to be turning into a card-carrying curmudgeon, too. : )

[geek tragedy]

5. Well, Krugman is right here.

Obama is losing the public debate over the economic recovery plan to Boehner and Demint.

I didn't think that was possible.

[Jennicut]

21. Not really, the public approves of Obama's plans overall.

I have posted polls many times that say this. That is a MSM talking point.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. But what % can describe a single component of it?

They support Obama doing something but that can't be spun into specific support for any aspect of the thing. (Or opposition, to be fair.)

[Jennicut]

28. The public cannot even name half of our leaders in congress

They just want something done and Obama has the higher approval rating at this point. Obstructionism is not pretty in a dire economy.

[Better Believe It]

52. Oh we have "leaders" in Congress? Who are they?

[Better Believe It]

24. He should have presented a clear economic recovery plan to Congress

Instead he let Pelosi and Reid write plans that will not have much impact on the economy and have given Republicans a hammer to attack any meaningful recovery plan .... what is it now, only about 5% is for infrastructure?

Whoooppppyyyyy! That should creat a few hundred thousand jobs .... maybe.

[geek tragedy]

81. You are an example of why he is losing the debate.

The plan that passed is largely his plan. But, the wingnuts have gone around saying it has a bunch of wasteful spending in it so much that even people like you believe them.

[BlueCaliDem]

33. When you have BushDogDems siding with repubs, it's VERY possible

for Obama to lose the public debate over economic recovery and reinvestment.

[sohndrsmith]

37. I think you're right, essentially. In this instance, he's really not

disagreeing with Obama (which he seems wont to do sometimes) because Obama is trying to enact changes that are pretty close - at least philosophically (but I think there are more commonalities than that, too) to what he has advised...

He's criticizing Obama for not being able to "git 'er dun," so to speak...

That said, it has been pointed out by someone likely far more knowledgeable than me that I'm completely wrong about what I thought Krugman has stated in the past, so I'm on a mission to go investigate that before I defend myself. It's entirely likely I got it bass-ackwards.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Your idea of "very, very big way" is not Krugman's (or mine)

There is nothing "very, very big" being proposed or considered by anyone in government.

[sohndrsmith]

35. I could have easily been mistaken when I was watching/hearing him

describe exactly this point - but I goof up regularly, so it wouldn't be a shock.

I seem to specifically recall his saying, prior to the Inauguration, I think, that the worst thing Obama could do would be too little - or too slow - or too tentative.

My apologies if he said something different that I misinterpreted. But it seemed to be pretty clear (still, I can get things wrong pretty easily so that's no validation).

I guess I should go investigate, as I apparently got this wrong...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

43. Your recollection sounds right

Krugman's line has always been: Think of everything you can do, then double it.

The point being that the risk of do too little is much higher than the risk of doing too much.

So, since nobody knows the perfect number you want to be confident that you are above it.

I think Krugman would be happy with at least 1.5 trillion in the current package. He has always said the range we are operating in is most likely too small.

But that doesn't mean it's nothing. The current bill is much better than doing nothing at all, so I support it being passed even though I think it's a bad bill.

Nothing is worse than bad.

Of course people do say different things at different times, so I cannot vouch for what Krugman may or may not have said in a specific instance.

[sohndrsmith]

83. Well, you're probably right, but riddle me this:

One of my concerns (that I thought I derived from what I understood Krugman was saying) is that doing something too small could very well be a LOT worse than doing nothing, because it still comes at an extremely high cost as well as a high risk of failure and the result will be we will be even worse off economically - and therefore weaker and less able to fix much of anything - and it will have a snowball effect on any of the plans we initiate, because we won't be able to sustain them.

So I'm not sure if doing just a little is necessarily better. It may very well be, so I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just not sure it's a given that doing something small is better than nothing.

I also speak from personal experience, on a much smaller scale, so maybe that's coloring my view. After losing everything I own as well as many things that aren't tangible but devastating to lose, I would be grateful if a family member gave me an iPhone and even paid the first 3 months of a 2 year contract. A lovely generous gift and and even lovelier thing to go to such expense to do what they think will help me out. But I can't afford to continue the contract, nor can I break it, and will end up further in debt, and as a result, worse off.

So in doing something little, as wonderful and well-meaning as it may be...doesn't necessarily indicate it is inherently better simple because it exists.

I'm not sure how many people can really believe this perspective without going through it themselves. I probably wouldn't have - not fully. I wish I were still naive about it. : )

So maybe that's why I'm leary. I fully believe that our country is in such a state of crisis that it has many similarities to what I struggle with, but on a grander scale.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

91. You raise excellent points

There is a sense in which nothing might be better than too little because nothing doesn't eat up public tolerance for action.

There's a real risk that we will do this thing that amounts to just treading water and then when we need to do it again and again the public will object.

Rule of thumb for presidents: Ask for everything you will ever want right away, while you can. Maybe six months from now when we need another $850 Billion Obama won't be as popular. Who can say?

I would have preferred that he nail down a big-picture 2 trillion package right off the bat while his mandate and political capital are at maximum.

[sohndrsmith]

41. EDIT: First sentence should be "DISrespect" not "respect"

which makes it read as if I have the opposite view of what I actually believe, and I'd be a noisome boor were that the case...

Another day, another oops.

[Radical Activist]

84. He supported

Hillary in the primary and I wonder if he's one of those eager to be proven right.

[Telly Savalas]

90. I seriously doubt Krugman is hoping for Great Depression v 2.0

just to vindicate his choice of candidate in the primary.

I think his poo-pooing of Obama's attempts at consensus-building are a bit heavy handed at times, but overall he's probably one of the most insightful commentators of economic issues we have. And I say this as a guy who voted for Obama in the primary and still enthusiastically support our president.

[geek tragedy]

4. Krugman speaks for me.

The Judd Gregg decision is the worst I've seen Obama make. Just maddening.

[Dawgs]

6. Krugman is a tool, but he's right in this particular article.

Obama's selection of Gregg is very disappointing.

[johan helge]

53. What do you mean, "Krugman is a tool"? (nt)

[Jakes Progress]

57. He means that Krugman doesn't

wear a big enough "I heart Obama" sticker.

[tonycinla]

86. Yes

Exactly,Krugman is as smart and HONEST as they come...I have been a fan of his for a long time

[backscatter712]

8. Congress... That's what happened.

Everything that Obama wants to do, and what Krugman recommends he do, has to become legislation and go through that sausage-making machine known as Congress.

It doesn't help that after Obama and other Democrats put the meat and spices into the machine, the Republicans decided to throw some shit in there. We're gonna have to twist arms to keep the shit content in the sausage to a minimum. It's gonna be one stinky sausage!!!

[KoKo]

26. Presidential Scholar says Obama should have written own Stimulus Bill not relied on Congress

Gregg Supports Stimulus But Won't Vote On It

Sam Stein

Senator Judd Gregg, nominated to head the Commerce Department in the Obama White House, delivered a double blow to the prospects of a stimulus bill passing the Senate when he let it be known on Wednesday that he generally supported the measure but would not vote on its passage.

"I have recused myself from voting during the pendency of my nomination," Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, told CNBC.

Earlier in the program he said he was "not really engaged in the stimulus bill," but that he did believe "we need one."

"We need a robust one," he added. "I think the one that's pending is in the range we need. I do believe it's a good idea to do it at two levels, which this bill basically does, which is immediate stimulus and long-term initiatives which actually improve our competitiveness and our productivity."

By recusing himself from voting on a package that he claimed to broadly support, Gregg effectively denied Senate Democrats a possibly significant vote in passing the legislation. Majority whip Dick Durbin and others have begun expressing concerns that the stimulus won't get the 60 votes it needs to pass a Republican filibuster. Gregg could have voted on its passage up until the point that he officially resigned from office.

A cynic might wonder whether the New Hampshire Republican's support for the stimulus was being offered as a means of maneuvering his way towards the White House. Pressed by host Larry Kudlow on whether he had suddenly found the burning bush of Keynsian economics -- Gregg is, after all, a self-described fiscal conservative -- the Senator said that his position was sincere.

"I'm going to support something that I think makes sense, and I think a major stimulus package, and I have said that all along, makes a lot of sense and the Senate is still working its will and I expect it will come up with an even stronger package than the package that left the House."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/04/gregg-supports-stimulus-b_n_163956.html

[sohndrsmith]

45. That makes at least 4 (3 other Rs) who have proclaimed they are not voting on this.

McCain, Kyl and I forget the other one... according to the article I read (Huffington, I believe) said they're all skipping the vote.

Does that alter the number of necessary votes needed for the bill to pass, or do the non-votes still count as part of the entirety and need to be voted against as if they were nays?

That doesn't make sense to me, so I hope it doesn't work that way - but nothing would surprise me at this point....

I wish I was better-informed about the workings of gov't and politics. I'm a late bloomer on this topic, and I wish I wasn't because I'd have learned a lot more by now had I become fascinated (and hooked) 10 - 20 years ago. I've basically been giving myself a crash course and that's never as effective.

Forget economics... I'm definitely out of my league as far as offering my own opinions on how it works. But some arguments related to the economy can be understood by non-economists, like the goofiness of those who are pushing and demanding more of what we have just witnessed to be a massive failure - even causative to the crisis we're in now - and doing so to the point of obstructing the entire process, which will be devastating to everyone if it continues.

[QC]

73. HE'S JUST JEALOUS!1!!1!!!!

AND IF HE'S SO SMART WHY ISN'T HE THE PRESIDENT?/??/???

[Connie_Corleone]

10. As far as the bank bailout goes, The Obama team is trying to get it RIGHT.

Does Krugman want it done right NOW, or does he want it done right?

Regarding the stimulus, Krugman can't be surprised at the pace of getting this bill done. It's the friggin' Senate. Compromises are going to be done. Some parts will be cut out. Some parts will be added.

As for Gregg. Beats the hell out of me what's up with that one. His is the only nomination I have a question about.

At this point, I think Krugman just doesn't like Obama. Oh well.

[johan helge]

18. This isn't about person.

Krugman's critique is very specific and, it seems to me, very important.

[Connie_Corleone]

20. I addressed his "critiques" in the same reply.

[johan helge]

47. You're right. About that:

"Does Krugman want it done right NOW, or does he want it done right?" What do you mean? The problem with Obama's (and Bush's) bailout, as far as I understand Krugman, is that the government doesn't get any stocks for its money. That makes the bailout a gift to the banks, and less efficient in building confidence.

"Krugman can't be surprised at the pace of getting this bill done. It's the friggin' Senate. Compromises are going to be done." Ok, but why was it then "widely expected that Obama would have a stimulus plan ready to pass Congress even before his inauguration"? And the reason given isn't the Senate, but that "the economic team was working flat out on the financial rescue"?

And Krugman's main stimulus critique, I think, is that the planned stimulus is too small, and has too much tax cuts (or, in other words, "when Obama finally introduced his economic plan he immediately began negotiating with himself, preemptively offering concessions to the GOP, which voted against the plan anyway").

[FrenchieCat]

11. I don't recall Pres. Obama promising a stimulus package on his

Desk by inauguration. The media made that statement, and I guess that was good enough for Krugman to bring it up now as proof of his bewilderment. :eyes:

Perhaps he should take a look at the media that he is part of for his answer as to
"what's going on".

[backscatter712]

19. Obama asked for a stimulus bill on his desk on Inauguration Day.

Surprise, surprise, surprise, Congress didn't deliver.

[FrenchieCat]

27. I don't recall Pres. Obama making this statement.....

Although I recall Nancy Pelosi making such a statement.... which was reported on January 6 and is at the link below. Do you have that Obama quote handy in reference to what Barack Obama stated?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday she is aiming to have a package signed into law by Inauguration Day, Jan. 20.

On Tuesday, Obama warned that the United States is potentially facing trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, and acknowledged Monday that congressional passage of the stimulus could come after Jan. 20.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/new-congress-arrives-eye-obamas/story.aspx?guid=%7B6EA75993-3DF0-4DEB-A1D8-DB1D26499C64%7D&print=true&dist=printMidSection

[butterfly77]

13. This is the part I agree with him on:

"You know, it was widely expected that Obama would have a stimulus plan ready to pass Congress even before his inauguration. That didn’t happen. We were told that this was because the economic team was working flat out on the financial rescue."

What is going on with the Dems, it seems as though as soon as Obama was finished taking his oath. They started going in all different directions, and as we can see the Republicons are at it again. I still say get rid of Pelosi and Reid as leaders..

[zulchzulu]

16. Obama said he'd having something like the Stimulus passed in early February

Last I checked, it's February 4th. Ferchrissakes, this isn't a goddamn video game.

Handwringing, whining, complaining... some people think it's cute. Some think it's de rigeur. Some think that the only way to get their shit published is to join in the noise. Everybody has a horn and goddamn it, let's HONK!

Obama is not a dictator. He wants at least some of the Repigs to own the Stimulus package. Even after it's passed, it's going to take time to gel and work. Imagine the handwringing, whining complainers then.... :puke:

[ClarkUSA]

25. Another week, another anti-Obama complaint column from Mr. Know-It-All Krugman. Yawn.

He's been doing this since the primaries. Wake me up when he stops attacking Barack.

[johan helge]

60. He didn't criticize Obama much after the primaries and before the election

as far as I remember.

You can sleep if Krugman is wrong. But you can't know whether he is wrong or not, if you sleep, ClarkUSA!

[ClarkUSA]

71. So what? During the GE, he watched his step. He isn't stupid...

...his left-leaning audience would have virtually stoned him if he had given aid and comfort to Grandpa McCain and Miss Piggy.

You can sleep if Krugman is wrong. But you can't know whether he is wrong or not, if you sleep, ClarkUSA!

lol! Okay you convinced. I'll stay awake. ;)

[johan helge]

92. That's good!

About the critique: I don't think Krugman more than his left-leaning audience wanted to give aid and comfort to Grandpa McCain and Miss Piggy. And, he criticizes Obama always from the left, not the right.

[ClarkUSA]

114. Heh

Krugman was a cheerleader for Hillary all through the primaries, so you can hardly say he's more left than Barack, considering
IWR/Kyl-Lieberman votes, "Obliterate Iran" Hillary's DLC corporate lobbyist campaign positions were much more to the right
than Barack. He was a dishonest and shameless attack dog for the Clinton camp during the primaries and is still grinding
that axe now. During the GE, he moderated his whining due to obvious reasons but he's at it again now. I don't give him
any credence even though he used to be a professor of mine. And as I said before, where's his plan for Team O? President
Obama asked for one from him, saying if he had anything more to offer than complaints. So far, nothing.

[johan helge]

120. I can't remember Krugman ever criticizing Obama (or any other candidate) from the right

Krugman has given Obama credit for Iraq (http://select.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=1). But Hillary wants out of Iraq as fast as Obama, doesn't she?

I can't remember Krugman writing about Iran or "Hillary's DLC corporate lobbyist campaign positions" (whatever those are!).

Krugman has criticized Obama especially for two things:

Clinton campaigned for universal health care (i.e. mandates - "the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t", http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html). In the same article, Krugman mentions a study concluding that Clinton's plan would give health insurance to 22 million more uninsured people than Obama's plan. And Krugman sees universal health care as the most important ideological weapon against the Repubs - it will show that government can be good. And I think Krugman saw/sees this election as perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime chance to achieve universal health care.

And Krugman has for a long time disagreed with Obama about being bipartisan. From http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/shock-and-oy/: "Meanwhile, when it came to stimulus legislation, when Obama finally introduced his economic plan he immediately began negotiating with himself, preemptively offering concessions to the GOP ("to win bipartisan support", http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/zero-lower-bound/), which voted against the plan anyway. (And Obama appears, in the name of bipartisanship, to have thrown away a Senate vote he may well need.)"

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

30. What New York Times readers had to say about Krugman's comments

I thought these comments were spot on.

"Maybe the President needs a break to regroup. A few days at Camp David may give him a fresh perspective. I hope he stiffens up his backbone. I didn’t vote for him so that he could act wussy and play nice with the Republicans. I voted for him to reverse their boneheaded policies."


"I voted for Obama because I thought we needed a leader. I didn’t care where he lead us - just lead. He’s coming off as too measured and pragmatic and trying the “underpromise and overperfrom” route. That only works for Microsoft. Sentiment about the future is the first thing that needs to change. We handed the democrats a big stick, but Obama’s acting like he’s running a shaky coalition government in a parliamentary system."


"It’s possible we elected a president who is well-suited to deal with the urgent problems of 2 years ago: getting out of Iraq, restoring America’s international standing, restoring science, bipartisan civility, and the rule of law.

All very important.

But now that we have a meltdown on the scale of the Great Depression, no longer the most urgent.

Do we have the right guy?"


"We are playing with fire. The need for shock and awe is abolutely correct."


"what we need is a coherent smart monetary and fiscal plan, and strong governance.

I don’t see it yet. And I don’t see any Keynesian economists on his larger team yet, either."

[Phx_Dem]

34. Krugman has become part of the problem, poisoning the

discussion with hyperbole and constant criticsm. If he has something useful and constructive to say, say it. Otherwise, he's just helping Republicans to poison the public perception of a (any) stimulus.

[avaistheone1]

38. Krugman is correct. The stimulus is unimpressive.

$448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. That's a half a billion dollars!!

$248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters!!!!!!

Why are we building palaces and shrines for these institutions. It's ridiculous.
There clearly are better purposes for this money! For example: Why aren't homes being constructed for homeless veterans instead?

[Lorien]

74. Indeed. Why aren't more schools being built? Why is construction the only

job that anyone seems to think is worthwhile? Let's hire more teachers, create some free clinics for the unemployed, new research laboratories to cure disease (not just treat it for big $$) and develop green energies. I'm starting to lose Hope for Change, and we're only two weeks into this!

[stillcool]

76. You should lose all your hope and change...

if you're waiting for the King to pass the edict from on high, there is no hope, and there will be no change. How are your Senators voting?

THE SENATE STIMULUS BILL.

The Senate Finance Committee just released the summary of the Senate stimulus bill. Headlines of obvious interest to this readership: There's $27 billion for highway investments and $8.4 billion for transit. There's $23 billion for health IT and comparative effectiveness gets $1.1 billion split between the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NIH and HHS. That last bit looks like an obvious turf war to me. We really need a single agency coordinating the evidence industry. Anyway, the whole thing is copied below the fold.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Creating Jobs, Cutting Taxes and Investing in Our Country’s Future

The United States is facing its deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression, one that calls for swift, bold action. The goals of this legislation are the same as they have been from day one: to strengthen the economy now and invest in our country’s future.

This legislation will create and save jobs; help state and local governments with their budget shortfalls to prevent deep cuts in basic services such as health, education, and law enforcement; cut taxes for working families and invest in the long-term health of our economy. We do all of this with unprecedented accountability, oversight and transparency so the American people know their money is being invested responsibly.

“The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 combines two essential ingredients needed to bring our economy back to life,” said Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii). “We will create four million jobs in the near-term, and invest in America’s future by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure for the long-term. In addition, this bill includes more than $301 billion to aid state and local governments as they struggle to meet increasing demand for social services amidst plummeting tax revenues. As we address this crisis, we must never lose sight of our responsibility to avoid wasteful spending by providing strict accountability and oversight measures. We must invest this money quickly, but also wisely.”

“Millions of Americans will get back to work and our economy will get back on track with the job-creating tax cuts and smart investments in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.). “Working families will get a financial boost, small businesses will finally catch a break, and the whole country will reap the benefits of a growing green energy sector, revitalized schools, and higher-quality health care. This bill has been carefully crafted to produce meaningful improvements to our economy in the short term, and to improve America’s fiscal strength and stability for the future.”

To accomplish these goals, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $888 billion in investments and tax cuts. Of this total, $694 billion will enter the economy by the end of Fiscal year 2010, meaning that 78 percent of the monies allocated will reach the American people by September 30, 2010, providing an immediate boost to the overall economy and creating an estimated four million jobs.

The Act provides for the following critical investments:

* Tax cuts for Working Families - $247 billion
* Job-creating Investments in Infrastructure and Science - $165 billion
* Job-creating Investments in Health - $153 billion
* Job-creating Investments in Education and Training - $138 billion
* Job-creating Investments for an Energy Independent America - $82 billion
* Job-creating Tax Cuts for Small Businesses - $21 billion
* Helping Americans Hit Hard by the Economic Crisis - $72 billion
* Law Enforcement, Oversight, Other Programs - $10 billion

Tax Cuts for Working Families include:

- $142 billion in Making Work Pay tax credits will provide ninety-five percent of American workers with up to $500 in extra cash in their paychecks; married couples filing jointly can receive up to $1000 total.

- $15 billion in tax cuts for families will give cash back to parents through an expansion of Earned Income Tax Credit for families with three or more children, additional marriage penalty relief for couples, and increased eligibility for the Refundable Child Tax Credit for lower-income families.

- $4 billion in tax cuts for homeowners will facilitate new home purchases with enhancements to the existing $7,500 homebuyer tax credit.

- $17 billion in one-time payments to seniors, disabled veterans and others will provide an immediately usable payment of $300 to seniors on Social Security, low-income recipients of Supplemental Security Income, disabled veterans and veterans on pensions, Railroad Retirement beneficiaries, and others who may not qualify for the Making Work Pay.

- $70 billion in Alternative Minimum Tax relief will protect 24 million working families from thousands of dollars in additional income taxes for 2009

Job-Creating Investments in Infrastructure and Science include:

Infrastructure Improvements

- $16 billion to repair, renovate and construct public schools in ways that will raise energy efficiency and provide greater access to information technology, and $3.5 billion to improve higher education facilities.

- $16 billion in tax credit bonds and tax-exempt bond improvements will finance job-rich projects in the public and private sectors, to build and renovate schools and to make other infrastructure improvements at the state and local level, in national recovery zones and on Native reservations.

- $9 billion for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. This competitive grant funding will increase broadband access and usage in unserved and underserved areas of the Nation, which will better position the U.S. for economic growth, innovation, and job creation.

- $5.1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to secure the homeland and promote economic activity.

- $4.6 billion in funding for the Corps of Engineers.

- $3.7 billion for VA hospital and medical facility construction and improvements, long-term care facilities for veterans, and improvements at VA national cemeteries.

- $3.4 billion for repair, restoration and improvement of public facilities at parks, forests, refuges and on other public and tribal lands.

- $3.2 billion for Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization to be used to invest in energy efficiency projects and to improve the repair and modernization of Department of Defense facilities to include Defense Health facilities.

- $2.4 billion for Department of Defense Facilities including quality of life and family-friendly military construction projects such as family housing and child care centers.

- $2.25 Billion for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program block grant to enable state and local government, in partnership with community-based organizations, to acquire, construct, and rehabilitate affordable housing and provide rental assistance to poor families.

- $110 million in tax incentives to build broadband capacity in rural and underserved areas will grow jobs in the technology sector and create economic opportunities in targeted areas

Transportation

- $27 billion is included for highway investments

- $8.4 billion for investments in public transportation.

- $5.5 billion for competitive grants to state and local governments for transportation investments.

- $1.3 billion for investments in our air transportation system.

- $3.1 billion for investments in rail transportation, including High Speed Rail.

- $830 million for repair and restoration of roads on park, forest, tribal and other public lands.

Public Housing

- $5 billion to the public housing capital fund to enable local public housing agencies to address a $32 billion backlog in capital needs -- especially those improving energy efficiency in aging buildings.

- $2.1 billion for full-year payments to owners receiving Section 8 project-based rental assistance.

- $2.25 billion for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes.

- $1.5 billion for homeless prevention activities, which will be sent out to states, cities and local governments through the emergency shelter grant formula.

Environmental Clean-Up/Clean Water

- $6.4 billion is directed towards environmental cleanup of former weapon production and energy research sites.

- $6 billion for local clean and drinking water infrastructure improvements.

- $1.4 billion for EPA’s nationwide environmental cleanup programs, including Superfund.

- $1.4 billion to support $3.8 billion in loans and grants for needed water and waste disposal facilities in rural areas.

Science

- $1.5 billion total for NASA.

- $1.4 billion total for National Science Foundation (NSF) Research.

- $1.2 billion total for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA).

Job-Creating Investments in Health include:

- $23.9 billion for investments and incentives in health information technology (IT) will grow jobs in the information technology sector, and will jumpstart efforts to increase the use of health IT in doctors’ offices and other medical facilities. This will reduce health care costs and improve the quality of health care for all Americans.

- $5.8 billion for prevention and wellness programs to fight preventable diseases and conditions with evidence-based strategies.

- $3.5 billion to conduct biomedical research in areas such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and stem cells, and to improve NIH facilities.

- $1.1 billion to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NIH and the HHS Office of the Secretary to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different health care services and treatment options.

- $870 million to complete funding for pandemic flu preparedness.

Job-Creating Investments in Education and Training include:

- $79 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund includes $39 billion to local school districts and public colleges and universities, distributed through existing State and federal formulas; $15 billion to States as incentive grants as a reward for meeting key education performance measures; and $25 billion to States for other high-priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education.

- $13 billion in tax cuts for college tuition and education will help students and their families afford four years of college, with a $2,500 tax credit and the ability to purchase computers and computer technology with funds from tax-free 529 Savings Plans.

- $13 billion for Title 1 to help close the achievement gap and enable disadvantaged students to reach their potential.

- $13 billion for Special Education/IDEA to improve educational outcomes for disabled children. This level of funding will increase the Federal share of special education services to its highest level ever.

- $13.9 billion to increase the Pell Grant maximum award and to pay for increases in program costs resulting from increased eligibility and higher Pell Grant awards. The bill supports an increased Pell Grant maximum award of $281 in the 2009-2010 academic year and $400 in the 2010-2011 academic year. This aid will help 7 million students pursue postsecondary education.

- $3.4 billion for job training including State formula grants for adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs (including $1.2 billion to create up to one million summer jobs for youth).

- $108 million in extended Trade Adjustment Assistance will help businesses retool to avoid trade-related layoffs, and provide workers with income support and retraining if international trade causes job losses

Job-Creating Investments and Tax Incentives in Energy include:

- $33 billion in green energy tax incentives will grow jobs in the renewable energy sector by encouraging private-sector investments in research and production of green energy with wind, biomass, hydropower, and other renewable sources

- $6 billion for repair of federal buildings to increase energy efficiency using green technology.

- $5.4 billion in tax incentives for conservation and green energy use will encourage and reward energy efficiency and the building of alternative fueling stations, and facilitate the funding of conservation projects to improve America’s energy independence and grow jobs in these sectors as well.

- $4.6 billion for Fossil Energy research and development.

- $4.5 billion for smart-grid related activities, including work to modernize the electric grid.

- $4.2 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grants.

- $2.9 billion is available for the Weatherization Assistance Program.

- $2.6 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research.

- $2 billion is provided in grant funding for the manufacturing of advanced batteries systems and components and vehicle batteries that are produced in the United States.

- $1.6 billion is provided for grants to make schools and hospitals, significant users of energy, more energy efficient.

- $10 billion is provided for new loan guarantees aimed at standard renewable projects such as wind or solar projects and for electricity transmission projects.

Job-Creating Tax Cuts and Investments for Small Businesses include:

- Approximately $21 billion in business tax relief and incentives will help businesses survive in growing markets, get financing for expansion, and get the money they need for payroll and expenses. Businesses will be able to more easily write off the cost of new equipment, write off more losses if they’re hard hit economically, delay or reduce some tax payments, and cash in unused tax credits.

- Loans for Small Businesses: $730 million to stimulate lending to small businesses.

- $208 million in Work Opportunity tax incentives will increase the hiring of disabled veterans and disadvantaged youths into the workforce

Help for Workers and Families Hardest Hit by the Economic Crisis includes:

- $87 billion in increased Medicaid funding will help states to respond to rising numbers of Americans seeking health coverage through Medicaid, to balance state budgets, and to deal with other fiscal pressures brought on by the economic crisis.

- $47 billion in unemployment insurance improvements will allow Americans who lose their jobs in the economic downturn to receive an extra $25 in their weekly benefits, receive unemployment insurance longer if needed, pay fewer taxes on unemployment benefits, and get help even if they need to move to part-time work or leave work for family reasons

- $26 billion in COBRA premium assistance will help workers who lose their jobs to keep health coverage longer with a 65% subsidy for COBRA premiums

- $16.5 billion for additional Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly Food Stamps, benefits.

- $3 billion in Temporary Assistance to Needy Families funding will allow programs to better serve the country’s lowest-income families in this time of economic crisis

- $1.8 billion in Medicaid, Medicare, and Indian Health Service funds will allow Americans transitioning into the workforce from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program to keep health coverage through Medicaid longer, will assist low-income seniors and disabled Americans with Medicare premiums, and will help American Indians and Alaska Natives afford health care

- Child Care Development Block Grant: $2 billion to provide quality child care services for an additional 300,000 children in low-income families who increasingly are unable to afford the high cost of day care.

- Head Start & Early Head Start: $2.1 billion to allow an additional 124,000 children to participate in this program, which provides development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other activities that prepare children to succeed in school.

- State and Local Law Enforcement: $3.95 billion total to support law enforcement efforts.

Unprecedented Oversight, Accountability and Transparency

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan provides unprecedented oversight, accountability, and transparency to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested effectively, efficiently, and as quickly as possible.

- Funds are distributed whenever possible through existing formulas and programs that have proven track records and accountability measures already in place.

- Numerous provisions in the bill provide for expedited but effective obligation of funds so that dollars are invested in the economy as quickly as possible.

- The Government Accountability Office and the Inspectors General are provided additional funding for auditing and investigating recovery spending.

- A new Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board will coordinate and conduct oversight of recovery spending and provide early warning of problems.

- A special website will provide transparency by posting information about recovery spending, including grants, contracts, and all oversight activities.

- State and local whistleblowers who report fraud and abuse are protected.

- There are no earmarks in this bill.

[Lorien]

78. Stop being so fucking condescending. It accomplishes nothing

and neither do the tax cuts in this bill. They didn't work for eight years, and they won't work to win over Republicans. My Dem senator will vote for the bill. The Repug will not-regardless of how much in the way of tax cuts are offered. It's time to play hardball; tell them every tax cut will be stripped from the bill if they don't agree to the compromise, and if it doesn't pass then they'll take all the blame. The Repugs pushed through their agenda with bully tactics even when we had the house. It's time to turn the tables on them. Nothing else will work.

[stillcool]

79. Did you read the tax-cuts and where they apply?

Do you think they are targeted to the same group as the Bush tax-cuts? I called a bunch of Senators today and asked them to support the package as is, including Harry Reid. I guess I told them!!

[Boomerang Diddle]

39. Since Krugman seems to think he has all the answers

I wonder why HE didn't run for president?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

48. Perhaps he should go back to Russia

[Boomerang Diddle]

49. Why? n/t

[Better Believe It]

54. He has some good economic answers

"I wonder why HE didn't run for president?"

Do you really wonder why or are you trying to make some not so clever debating point?

[ShortnFiery]

109. "I wonder why HE (Krugman) didn't run for president?"

Because he'd rather sit around in his ivory tower and throw stones at all us "lesser thans."

Because he couldn't grab his ass with both hands when it comes to fully appreciating "the legislative process." :thumbsdown:

[Reterr]

101. The level of discourse at DU has really dropped

in the past few months.
Good God...

[Uzybone]

42. Where the hell is the support and input for Democrats?

All I see is carping and sniping from our own side. Right after the election I said Obamas biggest enemy would be the folks on his side who cannot do anything but bitch and whine, even with the stakes this high that is all they have.

Meanwhile the people suffer.

[craigmatic]

44. It's been a pretty tough week for the President. What's the good news ?

[Life Long Dem]

46. I like Obama's enthusiasm.

[johan helge]

127. So do I

and Krugman too, of course. Krugman may be a little harsh when he criticizes people, but to me it seems he has always been right in his columns. He is a very wise man.

[ShortnFiery]

51. Krugman is still experiencing "sour grapes" ... intellectually sound but emotionally immature.

p.s. Krugman's massive "pity party" should also host that bloated snot-rag pundit on MSNBC, Craig Crawford. :puke:

[MarjorieG]

58. Vintage Krugman, academic and always right. Too many ideas and mostly guessing, with a lot to do!

[paulk]

89. so, since you can't argue with what he said

you attack him by calling him "emotionally immature"

How many boxtops did you send away to get that junior psychiatrist badge?

[Reterr]

100. This is the stupidest kind of post possible on the internet

Every action or opinion of Krugman's is attibuted here to emotion, malice etc. Maybe, just maybe Krugman isn't just a player in some self-centred soap opera. It is always a mistake to project onto other people....
He is an actual economist -not everything is about somneone's personal soap opera involving their pet bugbears like some random person posting way too much on the internet can have (e.g.: The Clintons or ZOMG the socialists or whatever it is that keeps the various Ron Paul nuts at their computers all night long).

There are people out their motivated by stuff other than stupid, personal fixations :eyes:.

[ShortnFiery]

108. No, perhaps the 2nd?

:evilgrin:

[donco6]

56. The only ones sounding shrill are the relentless cheerleaders.

Wasn't it just a few weeks ago everyone was cheering Krugman? But now he said something against Obama and he's not worth shit.

Chee---rist. When someone is right, he's right. And Krugman is exactly right.

[ShortnFiery]

59. NO, I've noted Krugman's intelligence but there's an envious side to him re: Obama that most

of us have noted since the Primaries. As I mentioned above, IMNSHO Krugman is used to be revered and is continuing to harbor jealous regard for Obama's success, i.e., emotionally immature.

[donco6]

62. Really? Damn.

I wish I had that kind of window to the soul.

[burythehatchet]

65. "most of us" have noted it y'know

we too have our 19% for whom just being is power is the end all.

[ShortnFiery]

70. No, it's based on Krugman's PAST behavior. But thanks anyway. ;) eom

[Reterr]

97. Do you have any basis for any of this?

It sounds like an elaborate soap opera constructed by someone's imagination. None of us can possibly actually know what Krugman thinks/feels etc...

As I mentioned above, IMNSHO Krugman is used to be revered and is continuing to harbor jealous regard for Obama's success, i.e., emotionally immature.

This sort of pop psych analysis is as stupid as Frist diagnosing Schiavo.

Krugman is an academic and an economist. He doesn't mindlessly cheerlead ANYONE.

[Two Americas]

96. even were he not right

Even were he not right, this continual shifting by people of their positions to get behind Obama, or to imagine themselves to be behind Obama - and it has reached absurd levels - is sabotaging the democratic process. We elect Democrats in the hope of having receptive and responsive politicians in office who will listen to and act on the needs of the people and the causes we are fighting for (which are the same, or we would not be leftists) - it is a means to an end. We shouldn't change our positions in order to promote and advance the careers of politicians. Doing that undermines democracy and makes it impossible to ever change anything, and it also cripples the politicians and makes it less likely that the new administration will succeed.

The hero worship is a case of people putting their own personal emotional needs above the desperate needs of the people. It contradicts every principle and ideal we stand for on a very profound level. It is extremely self-centered and destructive. It can only help the right wing.

[benld74]

64. HEY MR Nobel Laureate,,,

Don't read the papers? or understand the GOP?
THAT is why Obama's plan is spinning in place

[Name removed]

67. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

72. "bipartisanship" with snakes is what's going on. Hey Democrats, you won!

How hard is that to understand?

[Lorien]

75. Old habits die hard I guess

:shrug:

[DianeK]

80. I think in this instance, Obama did make a mistake..

one he will learn from no doubt..he should have held back all of his concessions for negotiation..he just gave it to them from the very start..they have to feel and they have to show their constituents that they fought for and won some of what they wanted...i would suggest that the Obama administration listen to Krugman..he is brilliant

[jillan]

93. My thoughts exactly.

Krugman wants this bill to pass - yesterday. He wants a bigger stimulus package.


Obama needs to listen.

[Reterr]

98. Agree with everything you say.eom

[anonymous171]

99. Correct. nt

[ProSense]

82. Obama wanted to, but Bush would have been doing the approval and negotiation

Glad that didn't happen.

[joshcryer]

103. Well, now he's in charge. So let's hope he does.

Rather than pontificating to the GOP.

[ChiciB1]

88. In A NUTSHELL.. We Are Venturing Into New Territorial Waters AND Almost

everyone in the country is in flux!!! IMO, because of the enormity of what has happened it's just a "crap shoot" to place all our bets on very reliable and responsible people to in fact have definitive answers to such a complex mish-mosh of THIS MESS! I really really respect many economists, but I find it almost impossible to think THEY can single handedly have complete and succinct solutions to what can only be called a meltdown of overwhelming proportions!!

To single out very competent and intellectual people as the answer to monumental problems seems sophomoric. They most definitely have much to contribute, but let's not put them so far up on a pedestal that their word is the be-all and end-all of what ails this country at this point in time. Their input and contribution is of great importance, but it's going to take an enormous coming together of ideas to come close to work our way out of this "super maze" of conflagration that we find ourselves in.

Robert Reich is a person I most certainly hold great respect for, but to think that all he proposes (much of what I agree with) is the absolute answer to so many problems, is at the same time foolish thinking that he alone is "the fixer" in much the same way as THE IDIOT was the DECIDER! Okay, way way over-board with that last statement, no comparison to the lack of intellect of BFEE, still just making a point here!!

I have recently decided to "bombard" my elected persons in Congress with MY views and what I think, but still realize that much will be ignored... STILL I am determined to be a one of those "every rose has it's thorns! people and make a real nuisance with my determination of HOW I FEEL!

Perhaps if we ALL were extremely persistent on a very regular basis, we will come to be known not just as a nuisance, but the masses who simply will fade into the woodwork because they ignore us!

We ALL have our own theories about what is going on, and those intellectuals who know much more than than many get far more recognition because they have achieved a place for themselves. But to think that everything they utter is gospel only assumes that they must carry a heavier weight. Much of what they say is truly respectful and much I agree with... however, let's not over burden them!
JMHO!!

[Two Americas]

95. so....

Now Krugman gets tossed under the bus?

[ShortnFiery]

110. Krugman's not ever been "on the bus" ... he's a egomaniac loose cannon.

If he truly cared, instead of writing scathing OP-EDs, he'd be consulting with Obama's Executive Branch.

Krugman's intelligence is highly laudable but his EGO constantly gets in the way. :(

[Two Americas]

123. I am no fan

I am no fan of Krugman. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the hypocrisy and inconsistency by far too many here.

[OneBlueSky]

104. until Obama starts listening to economists like Krugman and stops listening to . . .

the free trade corporatists who he appointed to his economic team, no real change is going to happen . . . what is needed is deep systemic change, not trying to shove dollars into various slots in the existing system . . .

either Obama doesn't understand the seriousness of the problem, or he understands it but is of the same economic mind his predecessor . . . not good either way . . .

[ShortnFiery]

107. Yeah, bitter old Krugman knows all the "nooks and crannies" of the legislative process.

:crazy:

[donco6]

111. Do you have anything substantive whatsoever to support your

constant character assasination of Krugman?

Like a link?

Just ONE?

[ShortnFiery]

112. Pick ANY of the weekly "small minded" Krugman attacks on Obama during the Primaries.

As tough as it is to discern, many concur that Krugman's ego has outgrown his intellect. :shrug:

[donco6]

113. A link? ONE? ANYWHERE? n/t

[ShortnFiery]

117. Here's a few ... just a smattering. Again, Krugman's WORST enemy is his own ego.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/11/nyts-krugman-blasts-obam_n_72117.html

http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/644824.aspx

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2008/02/11/why-is-paul-krugman-so-hostile-to-barack-obama.aspx

Why Is Paul Krugman So Hostile To Barack Obama?

Paul Krugman has written a number of pieces that are highly critical of Barack Obama. Krugman is a distinguished economist as well as an exceptional writer, and on issues of substance, he raises reasonable questions and offers plausible objections. But as many people have noticed, the tone and intensity of Krugman's pieces are puzzling. It seems almost personal--a kind of campaign.

/snip

Krugman insisted that politicians who seek "a new New Deal" should welcome the hatred of the right. Obama doesn't hate those who disagree with him, and he does not welcome people's hatred. Krugman seems to hate that.

In a December 2007 column in Slate, Krugman amplified his views about partisanship and polarization. He wrote that "any attempt to change America's direction, to implement a real progressive agenda, will necessarily be highly polarizing." He suggested that "what we need is partisanship." He lamented the idea that Democrats should "play nice." More specifically, he attributed Obama's "highly favorable coverage" in the press to a (misguided) longing "for an end to the polarization and partisanship of the Bush years."

Krugman and Obama do appear to have a legitimate difference about strategy. Krugman thinks that problems cannot be solved without squarely accepting bitter opposition, while Obama thinks that problems are best solved by attempting to listen to opponents, to learn from them, and to defuse their opposition.

/snip

[donco6]

122. Interesting articles

But I actually agree with those who disagree with the analysis. For example,

Krugman has, and does, critique Obama on policy, specifically as to whether mandates are necessary or not. He ALSO critiques his use of language, yes, and why not? You remark in your own post about the importance of how you frame your positions. Do you disagree that Obama is using right-wing talking points on this issue, as well as Social Security "reform"? If so, what are you points?


The New Deal worked because FDR and others fought to get it installed. Talking about holding hands at a big table isn't going to bring needed reform. Krugman isn't saying go out there and yell "hey stupid, you conservatives are idiots and we're right!" He is arguing, however, that one must be prepared to fight for needed reform and to be partisan if need be--make your point, make it well, and make it strongly. Obama's rhetoric, not to mention his mandate-less plan which is universal in his wishes only, are not and will not help a progressive agenda.

Obama=Bill Clinton. There, I said it. I like Obama, I really do. I like his foreign policy. But the guy is gonna hope our progressive/liberal agenda right off the table.

I couldn't have put it better myself. And this was back in Dec of 07.

[dugaresa]

116. Krugman has been right about a lot of things, he predicted the housing problem

I tend to think he is right on this...

[ShortnFiery]

118. Krugman's all about partisanship and hostility. Most people are tired of this petty bullshit.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2008/02/11/why-is-paul-krugman-so-hostile-to-barack-obama.aspx

But I doubt that Krugman's writings about Obama are adequately explained by a dispute about strategy. Undoubtedly Krugman is right on some issues, and surely Obama would, on those issues, be willing to fight for his commitments. Undoubtedly Obama is right on some issues, and surely Krugman would agree that some of the time, bipartisan approaches are best.

I think that the difference between the two goes deeper, and that it is really one of temperament. This is a speculation, but it is not otherwise easy to explain Krugman's seemingly visceral hostility to Barack Obama.

[Jakes Progress]

121. Who are your calling most?

I think that most people are tired of the petty childishness of making every issue about who likes who and who like-likes who. This isn't junior high. (Sorry. I mean middle school)

Basically you have no earthly idea about Krugman's or Obama's inner dialog. You are projecting your own emotional status onto two people who have more to worry about than who is getting the most valentines.

You see "viscerral hostility" where most see constructive criticism. Being a fan is just fine. But don't confuse blind adoration with policy discussion.

Obama is doing just fine and doesn't have so fragile an ego that it needs protecting. He's done more than most thought could be done in this amount of time. Were he to listen to sage advice from the likes of Mr. Krugman, he would be able to do more.

[cooolandrew]

126. It's good question by Krugman. In more blunt therms I'd say WTF?>

Not blaming President Obama, just the behavior of the congress is baffling.