Krugman Calls Out Obama

[lame54]

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/krugman-no-they-didnt-and-no-it-isnt

From C&L:

So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.

For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”

No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.

- Paul Krugman, "The Destructive Center," today.

All in all, the centrists’ insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering.

But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy...

From C&L:

Krugman amplifies the point that's so frustrating to me: Obama made some really, really bad choices, and the Republicans picked up the ball and ran with it. This isn't just a matter of railing against the Republican Senators - these were serious strategic errors on the part of Obama and his administration, at a time when we can't afford much delay.

And rather than push back hard on the wrong strategy, far too many Democrats seem to think this is a time we should shut up and sit down, lest we hurt the new president's feelings.

[Kahuna]

1. Krugman needs to lighten up and wait more than three weeks before..

he judges the Obama Administration.

[lame54]

2. exactly how long?

[madokie]

6. A hell of a lot longer than 21 fucking days

:mad:

[lame54]

8. How about 42 fucking days?...

or 84?
or 168?
When can the criticism begin?

[GreenArrow]

10. Four years. Only after four full years.

Of course, should he win a second term, then we'd have to wait 8 years.

Krugman's criticism is entirely apt.

[madokie]

12. At some point but we're no where near that point as of yet

wouldn't you think? oh

[lame54]

13. obviously not

[newtothegame]

23. Sorry...this was all bought and paid for with our insistance on a "historical" election instead...

of a progressive one. I want to complain, I want to criticize, but I also know that this is what everyone here wanted.

ed for sp

[Oregone]

58. ouch

[SammyWinstonJack]

112. !

:thumbsup: Sorry...this was all bought and paid for with our insistance on an "historical" election instead...of a progressive one.


Right On! :applause:

[GreenArrow]

16. not to answer for Lame54

but we are right smack dab on the center of that point. Krugman's criticisms have to do specifically with Obama's stimulus plan -- a current issue -- not the totality of the Obama Presidency, though one can reasonably expect that with each new issue that comes down the pike, new criticisms will accompany them. You might as well get used to it; it's not going away.

[lame54]

36. if you don't mind...

i'd like to let that answer speak for me

:toast:

[GreenArrow]

62. my pleasure

:toast:

[Oregone]

34. When Bush invaded Iraq...

Should the left of waited years to criticize, based on if it succeeded?

Or were they right to criticize when they saw a wrong action? Were they right to attempt, although against all odds, to ensure it wouldn't be repeated.

Maybe Krugman is trying to help. A national sense of Group Think isn't going to dig us out of here.

(on edit: OBVIOUSLY IM NOT EQUATING MISTAKES, BUT POINTING OUT PUBLIC OUTCRY IN REACTION TO MISTAKES IS JUSTIFIED)

[4lbs]

30. Gee, I don't know, how long did it take the country to get out of it's last three recessions?

About 2 or 3 years each.

The recession in the 1970s was pretty bad, worse than that of 1990 or 2001. I remember that recession in the 1970s was the only time I recall my father being out of work after I was born, and we had to subsist on his unemployment, then food stamps and temporary loans from his family, for 6 months until he found a new job.

So, if we don't start to recover by mid-2010, we'll know.

[Oregone]

38. Haven't we been told that this "isn't our father's recession"

Rather, our grandfathers. This isn't the 70s, 80s or 90s. They are calling this a potential equal to 1930. Are we supposed to wait 12+ years before we say Obama's actions are workign or not? Thats a whole lot of hoping, and not a whole lot of helping by being silent for a decade.

[Kahuna]

39. Actually I do know. I actually did live through them. My point is Krugman...

has NO IDEA, what the rest of Obama's plan is. And to people like me who reside in the real world, where we recognize that everything you see is not all there is, I prefer to bide my time before I draw any CONCLUSIONS. That word.

[Oregone]

45. What Krugman knows, is how to stimulate the economy efficiently, and he *assumes*...

thats part of Obama's plan, which centrism got in the way of. Perhaps Krugman's assumption there is wrong. But where does that leave us?

[Kahuna]

49. That's all he can do is ASSume. Because he doesn't know squat. nt

[Oregone]

55. Yes, he is assuming Obama wants to fix this mess.

And as I said, maybe he is wrong. But where does that leave us?

Now if his assumption is correct, it can be said Obama made a mistake that is leading to a fucked bill (according to both Friedman and Keynes). Id like to think our president is more interested in fixing this than appeasing the Republicans that created this mess.

[Kahuna]

65. Even if the bill is fucked now, that doesn't mean that Obama can't

get legislation passed at a later time. It's always a mistake to underestimate Obama.

[Oregone]

71. Yes...there will be more passed, because this sucks.

I already stated it will be inefficient and there will be bleeding, and more turbulent spiraling. I guess thats ok with you for some reason. I don't have all the hopes in the world for the next attempt (and none if it has the same bipartisan approach). Until people get serious about raising taxes and investing into America, the bleeding will continue.

[bread_and_roses]

122. "he doesn't know squat" ?

Really now? I don't always agree with Krugman - didn't agree with him in the primaries and sure as hell didn't agree with his analysis of the first (Bush) bank rescue, nor do I have any awe of the "Nobel" prize in economics. But I'd hardly say he knows "squat." And his critique of this stimulus is spot-on. And Obama undermines his own agenda by calling it "appropriate" when it's not.

I am as thrilled as anyone to have a President who can speak english in coherent sentences, but that ability alone does not infallibility make, nor every critique misguided.

[Demeter]

3. I think you must be unaware of exactly how big a problem it is, and how little time there is to make

any change that will keep this entire country from plunging into a Depression that will make 1929-39 seem like a golden age.

[Kahuna]

26. No. Sorry. I'm totally aware of it. And so is my president. nt

[phantom power]

5. Each week == one hundred thousands jobs.

Tick... tick... tick...

[jobycom]

11. Krugman is more than qualified to offer his opinion on an economic plan, no matter

how long Obama has been in office.

[Kahuna]

31. It's more than presumptious of Krugman to think that he has the whole

Obama scheme nailed after three weeks. Please. He can say whatever the fuck he wants to whenever. It would just have more credibility with some folks if he waits until he knows for sure what is really going on. All he is doing is jumping to a bunch of conclusions right now.

[jobycom]

69. He's drawing conclusions on what has happened so far involving the economic plan.

That's his job, and his expertise. :shrug:

[Greyhound]

15. Do you not get that this bill is the most important thing he will do?

His entire administration will be defined by the results of this stimulus. If this fails he will be a lame duck in his second year, completely controlled and dictated to by the party power brokers.

Yes, the timing is unfortunate but it is what it is.

[Kahuna]

28. All stupid fuckin' strawman arguments. I know how important this is and

so does Obama. Where would you get the fucking idea that I don't??? Seems to me, Krugman and Sirota just want to get in their digs, so that they can say, 'I told you so.'

If Krugman thinks he's so great and has the answers, maybe he should run for president next time.

[Greyhound]

32. Speaking of fucking stupid...

The bill as originally presented was too small by half, now they want to fuck it up more, and when it fails to accomplish what is needed, who do you think they are going to hang it on?

[Kahuna]

35. Nothing has been completed yet. And the unpleasant truth is,

that as repulsive as it may be to Krugman, "politics" (gasp!) do come into play. Also, Obama is smart enough to not try to jam everything we want in all at once. Obama will take baby steps. If Krugman doesn't like that, he can run for president in '12.
:patriot:

[Greyhound]

50. If it allowed to, politics will finish off this nation.

I'm just try to understand that if, as you claim, you understand just how gigantic this problem is, you can say that baby steps will help...

Look over the low-level economic reports for the last few months; Sales are almost non-existent. Wold wide shipping stopped, completely! Docks and warehouses all over the world are full and nothing is going out.

This has the potential to make the Great Depression look like the good old days, yet you say that patience and baby steps are appropriate?
:wtf:

ETA: another example of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x56391">what has been going on that we are not told about.

[Kahuna]

77. I understand. Basically, people who do have jobs are not spending money

because they're scared. They want to save for a rainy day. The stimulus plan needs to include incentives for people to loosen the purse strings. I think there should be target tax incentives to encourage consumers to spend.

Another problem with consumerism is there are no new toys on the market to entice consumers. Eventually, pent up demand will make consumers spend. It always does.

A few weeks back Krugman was on This Week, and I nearly fell off my chair when he said tax cuts wouldn't stimulate the economy. By themselves they won't. But if people have a little extra in their pockets, they'd have a little extra to spend.

[Greyhound]

84. OK, your explanation demonstrates that you do not understand what is happening.

But you do love you some Obama.

Good luck.

[Kahuna]

87. That's stupid. See. I can make an ad hominem remark too.

:eyes:

[Greyhound]

93. The lack of understanding in your reply is self evident.

There was no attack simply a statement of the obvious.

This is why now is exactly the time to criticize this impotent "stimulus bill".

There is some chance that this was a skillful plan to expose the Congress as the careless hacks they are, and using that exposure and resultant veto, to force the real package through and around the party apparatchik, and if that is the case, I will most gratefully apologize. But, I'm not holding my breath.

[Greyhound]

100. What? No reply? I'm shocked, shocked I say!

:eyes:

[Demeter]

106. No, You have demonstrated complete ignorance of basic Economic

facts and the underlying theory. You are going on ignore.

[Oregone]

86. "But if people have a little extra in their pockets, they'd have a little extra to spend"

To spend on what? Go browse Moody's Economy.com to get a little clue.

Trusting people to spend, and spend it right, is an ineffective way to stimulate the domestic economy. End of fucking story.

[Kahuna]

88. Stop being dense. I never said it was the "only" way. But it is part of

the solution. Like I said. I'd prefer targeted incentives. Krugman doesn't even believe in that. That's when he lost me.

[Oregone]

92. Its not part of the solution. Its an ineffective waste of borrowed money

Most consumer spending, if the government can even inspire it (consumer saving is skyrocketing BTW), only stimulates production in foreign countries where the consumer goods are mostly produced. Yes, the man driving the boat over here might get paid to, as well as the low paid Walmart worker. Tax cuts/rebates/etc are essentially borrowed money that we allow the consumer to ship right out to China. Otherwise, they may pay down interest/principle on their debt, but no one gets that except the banks.


On the otherhand, foodstamps will (mostly all domestically) buy food, will pay the grocery clerk, will pay for the person shipping items, will stimulate production for more at a factory/farm, will pay the factory/farm workers more, will pay the packaging people more, etc. Everyone paid, in turn, can spend just as easily now as if they had a tax cut.

Infrastructure spending will, pay workers on site, pay the shippers, pay the producers or the raws, pay the concrete companies, pay the tool producers, etc, etc.

[tomp]

113. careful what you wish for. he, or somebody else, might take you up on it.

but of course, you would then just denounce them for stealing obama's votes and supporting the repubs.

face it, you've been soundly denounced and your position has been shown to be worthless drivel.

[tomp]

21. oh, you're so right!

he should wait until after the bill is passed before offering any critique. that will help a lot.

[Zenlitened]

107. Mind-boggling, isn't it?

And when we wait until everything's over with before offering a criticism... we'll be told we're "re-hashing" old battles and "looking backward."

:eyes:

[Oregone]

29. Krugman knows about the history and theory of economics

And he *knows* this shit bill isn't going to deliver (and this is a math based knowledge, not something from the gut). It doesn't take weeks. There are a lot of economists saying NOW that this will not work (and many of them are of the liberal persuasion).

If it wasn't for reactionary Krugman not waiting, my life would of been a lot different. Ive been following his columns for years and am doing much better because of it.

He has the right, as anyone does, for criticizing Obama for allowing this to happen.

[Kahuna]

37. Whatever. Krugman knows this. Krugman knows that. What krugman doesn't know..

is what's in Obama's head and how Obama plans to incrementally push his agenda.

[Oregone]

41. Well if his agenda was to stimulate the economy most efficiently to minimize the chance of recesion,

even I know he failed to do that. I don't need 6 months or 6 years. There will be another bill. Mark my words. This isn't a guess.

[Kahuna]

44. Yeah sure you do. Cue "Outer Limits" theme.

:crazy:

[Oregone]

52. Despite the abrasiveness,

It doesn't take a genius to realize Americans spend tax cut dollars on porn, Walmart and debt (statistics show that). Money provided to consumers by means of tax cuts does not typically stimulate the largest domestic production chain.

Obama's centrist approach has America borrowing money to allow Americans to throw away (most of it reaching China). Thats ludicrous. And the cuts they did make, in the name of centrism.....eg.

[Kahuna]

70. Actually, before the repukes put their two cents in, I was actually for

some tax cuts myself in addition to the jobs creation. It's not a one size fit all solution. For instance, we're spending money to keep the auto makers afloat. But to what end? If there product isn't moving, we're paying people to make shit that isn't selling. How long can that happen. I support tax breaks targeted to consumers to entice them to spend. The problem right now in addition to loss of jobs is, people with jobs aren't spending. We need to get the people with jobs to spend some money too.

[Oregone]

74. Im not for them at all

Right now everyone needs their taxes raised (progressively preferably). Lost your job? Well, don't worry, you don't have any money to be taxed anyway.

Tax cuts create larger deficits. They also do not control how the money is spent. It gets pissed away to banks to pay off debt or to china, via Walmart. Thats a fact.

Raising taxes, and injecting the money back into the economy can create $1.5-1.7 dollars for every dollar raised, as well as not contribute to a deficit.

[tonycinla]

59. How so?

That is not the way the real world works and it is not going to change for Obama,he has to pull his own little red wagon like everybody else before him.......

[fishwax]

94. why would one of our foremost economic experts wait to discuss

a matter of such central economic importance? :shrug:

[Winterblues]

99. It seems to me that he is speaking only about a subject he knows about

Economics. He wants a stimulus package that is going to actually do what it is intended to do. Obama isn't the one to blame here though. The Bill is in Congress. It was created in congress and it is being debated upon in congress and it will be voted upon in Congress. The Bill that appears likely to come out of Congress is not nearly as stimultive as Krugman and many other Economists would like. Politics is about Compromise though and Obama seems very good at that. I know one thing though I would hate to have to bail out my boat with a twelve gauge shotgun. Adding Tax Cuts for the wealthy to a bill that is supposed to create jobs seems exactly like that.

[fascisthunter]

103. nah... I Don't Think So...

blind faith is a bad bad thing. especially when you start to defend bad judgment. The honeymoon is over...

[AndyA]

4. Obama is smart enough to have figured out by now that the Republicans aren't going to play ball with

him. They don't understand the concept of bipartisanship.

I really believe President Obama has something else in mind, and he's just allowing the Republicans to play their hand. This couldn't have come as a surprise to him. I don't think we know the full terms of the deal just yet.

Things can change quickly...and they sometimes do... ;)

[stillcool]

7. The art of politics is lost...

the sound byte still reigns supreme.

[Skink]

9. Obamas team has been working on the stimulus more than 3 weeks.

[Kahuna]

40. And krugman is not an insider and doesn't know what incremental

plans they have. Duh.

[Zenlitened]

108. Are you? Do you?

:shrug:

[B o d i]

14. K&R

&U&G&M&A&N

[ShortnFiery]

17. Krugman needs to be mature and meet with Obama's Administration or other members.

Acting-out within commentaries is not only ineffective, but also gives Paul Krugman the seemingly well earned reputation of a "petulant child" whose parent refuses to listen. :thumbsdown:

[EFerrari]

25. Except his job is public commentary. n/t

[Kahuna]

47. Right. And Krugman like every othe commentator makes snap judgements..

sans the facts. Krugman isn't privy to the facts. He's just filling space in a newspaper. I agree.

[EFerrari]

63. Krugman is hard on Obama but he's much harder on the meatheads.

It may grate on some Obama supporters but imho, we get the best of the deal on balance.

[Kahuna]

79. I just don't agree wth him or his approach. I never have. nt

[paulk]

48. and "shortnfiery"'s job

is Paul Krugman's psychiatrist.

apparently.

[EFerrari]

81. I get very critical of Obama. I also get very protective of him when other people are critical.

lol

Go figure. :)

[chill_wind]

115. self-delete to move post

[chill_wind]

117. A fact that seems to utterly escape the angry critics : - )

A well regarded expert in his subject, at that. He is a free American citizen, free to choose his orientation in what very little is left of the Free American Press.

:-)

[Kahuna]

42. Riiiight. Krugman has no way of actually knowing what their strategy is..

He's just in the peanut gallery guessing along with all the people on this thread who are agreeing with him. :eyes:

[JHB]

90. So what IS the super-Obama-tastic strategy?

Us peanuts in the gallery are a little "trust-us"-ed out by the previous occupant.

[Oak2004]

98. If he has some super-duper complicated strategy, he is screwing America over

because he is pissing away precious time we can't waste on political chicanery.

I don't however think that's what is going on. He had cold feet about submitting a large enough bill to do the job, so he submitted a too-small bill sweetened with tax cut crap to try to attract Republicans. Then he tried to play nice with the GOP pitbulls and got lipstick all over his much much weakened bill -- a bill that may do more damage than good.

Either he (and Congress) screwed up, and we are in a more dangerous place for it, or Obama is playing stupid and dangerous political games while the nation burns. You seem to vote for the latter. I vote for the former.

When it comes to economics, I tend to listen to economists before I listen to politicians. And I would think that economists should speak up when they see a problem, not, as you think, way later, when their advice is useless.

[depakid]

120. What "strategy?"

Obama and the Senate Dems had unprecidented political capital- and they set about blowing it from the outset. A less competent bunch politically- would be difficult to imagine.

They got had- and the American people are going to suffer for thier naivity.

[WyLoochka]

18. Nate Silver had a point

a while back. Paraphrasing: his premise was that Obama had calculated into his overall strategy that the left would, and should, push back hard and loud.

We will probably never know if Nate's hypothesis is actually true. But things such as the house parties giving people the opportunity to be part of the push back, lends some credence.

If Silver's theory is true - Krugman is doing his part to push back. From what I understand from the weekend data, we didn't do our part by having/attending those house parties aimed at motivating people to get active at pushing back at the reactionaries.

I don't think it was a mistake to give the Repubs a chance to show that they care about the country and to do the right thing. They showed the opposite - they are still on the hell bent for ruin train - and it is clear to everyone I know - even many Republicans in this red red state.

Obama needs us to be part of the push back effort - let's get of our arses.

[anonymous171]

43. If the left makes a big fuss and puts all of their weight onto Obama, it's a win-win situation.

Obama concedes to the left because of overwhelming pressure= Win for us

Our howling is inneffective but scares the shit out of conservatives who embrace Obama as a moderate alternative to the "nutroots"= win for Obama and the centrist dems (better than a GOP win.)

[YvonneCa]

80. Great post. This gives Obama cover for the case he is making. I think...

...they are doing this EXACTLY right. (If the MSM were halfway fair, it would be easier...but they're not.) I am glad to see Krugman speaking loudly. I hope he continues to do so. I'd guess that he is like many of us who see Obama's Administration as a last hope.

BTW, those house parties are still going on this week. Maybe a few more people will get involved. ;)

[quaker bill]

121. I appreciate Krugman's perspective

and I expect that he is correct.

However, 61 votes is 61 votes. Pushing for more and getting 59 votes takes us nowhere.

Perhaps in conference some of the cuts will be added back in, and we will still have 60 votes to pass it, perhaps not. We will soon see.

Getting as much as you can get, as quickly as possible, is the essence of the deal here. When putting out a fire, the essence of the deal, is getting as much water as you can on it as soon as possible. You don't have time to worry which hose it is coming from or which lake it is being pumped out of.

Once the fire is a bit under control, then you can take the time to plan a more optimal course. Krugman is probably right, $800 billion is likely not enough water to put this fire out. However, if we can get these resources into the field, it could allow a bit more time to iron out the details of doing substantially more.

[Still Sensible]

19. This is what happens when economic theory

clashes with political reality. Krugman is probably right that it needs to be more and it needs to be bigger. The President is also right in that what is getting done is pushing the limits of what can be done given the political situation in the Senate.

We still have to get the Senate version passed and then let the conference committee hammer out the differences before we even really know the final make up of this package.

We also have the second half of the TARP funds to be allocated and reportedly relief for the mortgage crisis and threatened homeowners will be a key part of that.

I'm not telling anybody to sit down and shut up, I'm only suggesting that whenever we assess the situation or discuss the actions being taken we do so through rational eyes and momentarily put down the "I love Obama" or "I love Krugman" glasses.

[phantom power]

33. I would propose that this is what happens when political theory...

clashes with economic reality.

In this case, Obama's political theory was that it was worth spending weeks on preserving bipartisan support. It was never going to work, and sure enough it didn't. Meanwhile our economy shed another 450 thousand jobs.

[Still Sensible]

60. That is beyond ridiculous

There is absolutely nothing that could have been done by Obama or his surrogates to get legislation of this size ready to sign the day he took office. Nothing. And without those three republican votes in the Senate right now, there would be no bill for him to sign (hopefully) next week. That is reality.

I cry for those 450,000 more that have lost their jobs and more will before any stimulus or recovery kicks in.

But I challenge you to explain what about the reality I have described is not true.

[phantom power]

76. OK.

Here's what Obama should have done. He should have called a meeting with the entire Dem caucus, and said to them:

"I want each and every Democrat in the Senate to vote 'yes' on this stimulus bill. Your constituents are losing 100 thousand jobs each week. Our economy is in an extremely dangerous deflationary spiral. The Fed has already shot its clip. This bill is already pre-compromised more than it ought to be, right out of the gate. If any of you waste my time by voting 'no' on this bill, I will hold a press conference every day, calling you out, by name, as obstructing this bill, and asking your constituents to put pressure on you to pass it."

To the GOP caucus, he gives pretty much the same speech, except he says that he will call them out publicly if they attempt to filibuster.

Meanwhile, he holds press conferences, publishes op-eds, and maybe buys radio time, to start explaining directly to Americans why this is so important and why the govt is the spender of last resort, especially after the prime rate is already dropped to zero, and why tax-cuts will not do shit to stimulate the economy.

That is what would get him the party discipline to push this past the obstructionist GOP minority.

[Still Sensible]

91. Some of what you said he should have done he, in fact did

or is doing now (going over their heads to the public if you will). He did meet with the democrat caucus and told them what he expected, but probably not in as confrontational a way that you describe. He met with the opposition and told them what he wanted, again probably not in as confrontational a way that you describe... but in his public speech Friday to the democratic house members, he was much more confrontational to the other side.

Some of what you describe in your next to last paragraph appears to be what he is starting to do now. He wrote an op-ed the other day. He convened a town meeting in Indiana earlier today. His first press conference tonight, I expect, will be an attempt to reiterate/explain/support what he told the house dems in his speech the other night.

The party discipline is a nagging thing, no question. But then again our tent is a lot broader than the other guys. It was easier to have discipline on the GOP side when basically they had only the neocons, the corporatists and the fundies. They got there because they essentially ignored the moderates and libertarians that used to be part of the republican base. On our side we have so many constituencies, it is a lot harder.

I will say, if the President gets the basics of what he wants here, gets the 2nd half or TARP distributed to his liking and continues to ride a popular wave of approval ratings in the high 60s or low 70s, he will be able to force his will a little stronger.

[phantom power]

95. I have a feeling that Obama just can't believe he has to do this...

You can practically see him thinking "Really? Do I really have to play hardball partisan politics with a stimulus bill on the brink of the Great Depression 2.0? Do I actually have to fight members of my own party to get even a watered down version of this bill passed?"

But he does. Even I had a tiny little nugget of hope that the GOP would play ball on this, given how obviously serious things are right now. But the GOP has clearly decided that they're going to kneecap Obama, and then hang the blame on him when things go bad. Even if they have to burn down the country to do it.

It's worrisome, because as small-minded and cynical as that is, it could easily work. The best chance Obama has is a disciplined Dem party. If he can create a disciplined party. But after seeing his inauguration speech, I think there is a great leader struggling to get out of Obama. He might just pull it off.

Man, I hope he pulls it off.

[Still Sensible]

97. Your points are quite correct, I believe

and he probably is thinking exactly that! I suspect that is precisely he has taken a notably sharper tone with his republican detractors the last few days.

The good news is that as much as we bitch about things that have come out of the bill in trying to work with the other side, it remains largely intact and the republicans are realizing they can't gut it far enough to make it fail. There will be some level of success, so they will be back to trying the same arguments they did the first few years of the Clinton administration... the old "...the economy was starting to recover on its own" bullshit.

[Ganja Ninja]

20. I don't blame Obama so much as I blame Pelosi and Reid.

They are the worst negotiators I've ever seen. You don't start negotiations by giving your opponents everything they want. You don't start negotiations by minimizing your demands. You don't give anything away without getting something in return. And last but not least, you don't waste time negotiating with the Republicans in congress when you don't need them to pass the bill on to the senate.

[Cha]

22. Krugman

<snip>
"It's no secret that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has his problems with Barack Obama. But in his column Monday, Krugman made it clear that he's no huge fan of Obama's supporters, either. Decrying the bitter partisanship that he sees taking over the Democratic race and saying the campaign is turning into "Nixonland," Krugman lays the fault at the feet of Obama supporters exclusively.

"I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody," Krugman writes. "I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We've already had that from the Bush administration -- remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don't want to go there again."

<more>
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/11/krugman/index.html

[lame54]

24. sounds accurate to me

[Cha]

54. It figures..

[EFerrari]

27. That was during the primaries.

[Cha]

53. Yes, I know

that.

[ShortnFiery]

46. Yes, instead of opening-up channels of communication, Krugman sits on his pity potty of commentary.

For all his intelligence, the "green eyed monster" (ENVY) shines through for all to see. :thumbsdown:

[Kahuna]

51. Hello!

:thumbsup:

[B o d i]

56. Writing a column isn't communicating?

How awful of Mr. Krugman to deny anyone on the Obama team from reading his column or blog.

[ShortnFiery]

61. No, it's not truly communicating. If Mr. Krugman wished to make a difference, he

would go through channels. Sitting on "a commentary pedestal" is not a two-way conversation.

I know it's hard to believe of such a brilliant man but I think Paul Krugman is making both a personal mistake as well as a professional one.

I WISH that he could communicate WITH those who can interact to provide "a back and forth" within the Obama Administration? Maybe Krugman and Obama's people will coordinate for this to happen? :shrug:

[B o d i]

66. I'd bet that if Obama called him, Krugman would answer, and be happy to talk. nt

[EFerrari]

68. Krugman's job is to open public discourse, not close it off.

The thing is, Krugman is fighting with Obama the way you fight with your family. When he's on the cable shows, he fights the wingnuts the way you fight the enemy.

Have you seen the clip where he destroyed Joe Scarborough and Mika? It was sort of beautiful in a sadistic way. lol

[ShortnFiery]

72. There's a large difference between COMBAT and NEGOTIATION. When you are "destroying" the other

side, it's hard to keep "intellectual perspective."

Paul Krugman is Paul Krugman's worst enemy. He could work WITH other highly intelligent economists to *MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK* or he can continue to whine from his pitty-potty commentaries. It's his choice - but if he continues whining, he's becomming a big joke.

[EFerrari]

78. So, did you see that clip? There was no intellectual contest at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=269248&mesg_id=269248

I see no evidence that Paul Krugman is suffering any loss of reputation whatsoever except among overprotective Obama supporters who are mistaking debate for something else. :shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

82. Paul Krugman is "a loose cannon" - he stirs up shit but doesn't work with others to

correct the situation. Yes, it's not just Obama supporters who are now seeing him as "a joke." Brilliant but NO common sense.

[paulk]

96. yeah, it's not just Obama supporters

or more correctly, a small group of fanatical Obama supporters, who see him as a joke. The right wing saw him as a joke (using the same sort of attacks you are, actually), also, when he was out there every day ripping Bush a new asshole.

It's his job as a pundit to "stir up shit". And as a Nobel prize winning economist, he has a mighty big paddle to stir it with, especially when he's commenting on the economy.

[Zenlitened]

111. Holyfuckincrap. You should do a search...

... on your own posts sometime.

You played the role of Angry Vengeful Destroyer day in and day out during the primaries... shit-stirring CONSTANTLY... blind to reason, indifferent to anything even resembling common sense ...

And now you're part of the "Krugman Is The Enemy!" crowd??? Because he voices his opinion, in an opinion column, no less?

Are you for real? This has to be a joke, some kind of weird performance art, right? Good grief.

:crazy:

[chill_wind]

116. "Go through the channels"!? This isn't Russia.

And that's one of the nice things about America-- Barack Obama gets to decide how he wants to make a life of using his political gifts and passions.

As inconceivable as it may seem, Paul Krugman gets to decide how he, too, gets to use HIS life as a lauded economist and columnist. It's not Russia. He owes President Obama nothing but the honesty of his assessment. In fact, Obama made a show of publicly giving Krugman a big shout-out shortly before the inaugeration, knowing full well what Krugman does in his columns . “If Paul Krugman has a good idea, in terms of how to spend money efficiently and effectively to jump-start the economy, then we’re going to do it.” Krugman gave him his ideas.

Time will tell soon enough the price of ignoring them and that of many other economists outside of Obama's transition team.

[Cha]

57. Totally! Keen

Assessment.

[walldude]

64. I find it amazing that anyone who dares agree with Krugman

is actually laughed at on DU. Here's a little tidbit for you people who are so amused:

When master economist, columnist, and plain ole intellectual (so few left these days) Paul Krugman was asked this morning about whether or not he was "in communications" with the Obama administration regarding the economy, he declared: "Yes ... I am. And that's all I care to talk about."

Oops. Krugman has been talking to the Obama team for over a month.

All Krugman is doing is calling Obama out for his misguided attempt at "bi-partisanship". It's funny how when DU'ers do that it's aces but when Krugman does it he's "on the pity potty". Krugman is basically warning Obama to drop the stupid pointless "bi-partisanship" meme, yet because he disagrees with Obama he's being vilified here. Sad really.

[Oregone]

67. You got a link for that (people here are claiming hes just bitching in his column)

And not communicating at all.

[ShortnFiery]

73. Communication is TWO-WAY. Krugman is pontificating - his ego has "jumped the shark." n/t

[B o d i]

83. You're actually making an interesting point. It's hard to communicate when one side doesn't listen.

nt

[ShortnFiery]

89. True, but you can NOT discuss any one area fully if you do not communicate "person to person."

:shrug:

[walldude]

102. Well if Obama's team won't talk to Krugman who's fault is that?

And yeah he's saying all this because his ego is running rampant, it has nothing to do with the fact that he thinks the Dems are caving into the repukes and that if thios doesn't get fixed now and fixed right our entire economy will collapse. People are acting like Krugman is the enemy. He's not. He's the smartest economist in the room and excuse me for making sense but maybe someone ought to listen to him.

[B o d i]

119. Barack Obama is pretty f'n smart. So is Paul Krugman. They should talk with each other more, imho.

'Nuff said?

[glitch]

123. I would pay to see that. Bill Moyers should have both on. TV worth watching. nt

[walldude]

101. No I just made it up(kidding)

Actually here it is:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_12/016163.php

[Bluebear]

75. The very first response here calls for Krugman to "lighten up"

Yeah, that's what this fiscal *emergency* calls for, "lightening up". :silly:

[Sunnyshine]

85. That's what I was thinking.

Bi-partisanship requires the opposite side to actually participate in efforts. Repubs are still throwing the same old bones at their partisan base, while ducking and running from real debate. The time has come for Dems to showcase our untapped talents.

[fascisthunter]

104. it's not wise to coddle leaders too much

the President and his administration are made up of imperfect men and women, not noble gods. No one is beyond reproach.

[Skittles]

110. extraordinarily sad

[chill_wind]

118. Great set of observations.

Sad and irrational, in a scary kind of way.

[leftchick]

105. force of 8 years habit

they are still sitting down and shutting up regardless of leadership. So much for an opposition party. :eyes:

[Skittles]

109. not sure that Obama thought he COULD transcend the partisan divide

I believe he thought it was important to TRY; problem is, with America in crisis it certainly is NOT the right time

[BlooInBloo]

114. Although what Krugman says isn't unreasonable, my money's still comfortable being on Obama...

Reason: There can be more than one reasonable path.