Krugman: What went wrong

[depakid]

Romer-Bernstein chart.
---------

The Obama administration is in a difficult spot. It’s now obvious that the stimulus was much too small; yet there’s virtually no chance of getting additional measures out of Congress. The administration has chosen to deal with this by trying to have it both ways — condemning Republicans, rightly, for obstructionism, while at the same time claiming, falsely, that we’re still on the right track.

How did things end up this way? We’ll never know whether the administration could have passed a bigger plan; we do know that it didn’t try.

Now, I don’t have any inside information on what really happened; I do talk to WH economists, but they don’t offer — and I don’t ask for — any information on internal wrangling. But based on public reporting, like http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/12/091012fa_fact_lizza">the Ryan Lizza article on Larry Summers — which reads rather differently now that we know how things are really working out, or more accurately not working out — it looks as if top advisers convinced themselves that even in the absence of stimulus the slump would be nasty, brutish, but not too long. That’s the assumption embedded in the now infamous Romer-Bernstein chart, above. So all policy needed to do was meliorate the worst, while we waited for the economy to recover spontaneously. From the Lizza article:

Summers did not include Romer’s $1.2-trillion projection. The memo argued that the stimulus should not be used to fill the entire output gap; rather, it was “an insurance package against catastrophic failure.”

I don’t know why Summers etc. believed this. Even before the severity of the financial crisis was fully apparent, the http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/deep-maybe-long-probably/">recent history of recessions suggested that the jobs picture would continue to worsen long after the recession was technically over. And by the winter of 2008-2009, it was obvious that this was the Big One — which, if the aftermath of previous major crises was any guide, would be followed by multiple years of high unemployment.

Those concerns were what had me fairly frantic in early 2009: I was terribly afraid that the failure of an inadequate stimulus to bring unemployment down would end up being seen as a refutation of the whole idea of stimulus — which is exactly what happened.

More: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

What happened first was poor judgment in choosing people with a history of getting it wrong for key positions, along with an eagerness to preemptively concede with Republicans.

[Skittles]

1. "......we do know that it didn’t try"

yup - that could be said many, many times

[MannyGoldstein]

8. +6.02x10e23

I'm reasonably OK with people failing. I go nuts when they don't try. I get totally apoplectic when they promise stuff, then don't try - particularly when they also tell me to go screw.

[Phx_Dem]

49. Followed by, "I have no inside information."

[RandomThoughts]

2. Posted about that earlier.

It seems some of the agenda is to block every attempt to get something done, and then blame the Democrats when things are not done.

It is actually the same concept as allowing Republican Democrats to have the Democrat label. At some point compromising away what a group wants to get done, doesn't help much if it does not change the paradigm.

However it is hard to believe the Democrats will get blamed for it, unless they want to be blamed for it.

[qazplm]

3. I'm not sure tripling the stimulus

would be enough to fundamentally make things better right now.

The previous decade messed things up so much that I believe it may be a decade before we get back to where we were in 2000 economically.

[depakid]

5. For the policy to be effective- it had come much closer to bridging the output gap

(estimates for the numbers on this were within a reasonable range) -and it had to grant enough aid to the states to blunt the anti-stimulatory effects resulting from their budget deficits (which has led to serious political problems for Dems in a redistricting year).

Half measures would do neither of these things effectively- and as some of us noted at the time, it would lead to a situation where not only wouldn't there be the political capital to deal with it in Q 3-4 of 2010- but it would result in the responsible and correct economic policies being deemed failures by the usual suspects.

[dave29]

7. some of us note all the time

that the usual suspects always deem President Obama's (or any Democrat's) policies as a failure. It's not that hard to see, but kudos on the psychic prowess. With less sarcasm, accepting this fact will make you less afraid of it.

It's fun to point fingers while one party has the middle finger raised squarely in our direction, laughing as we splinter into ridiculous factions who think they know best.

[depakid]

9. Do you ever have anything substantive to add?

Fact of the matter is that had the stimulatory policies been designed to be effective- rather than as faith based half measures, Obama and the Democrats would be looking a whole lot better to folks at the moment- and in November, and no one would have to defend the economic doctrine against ideologues on both sides of the aisle. The proof would be in the pudding.

Unfortunately- as we've seen time and again, going for half measures and preemptive concessions and difference splitting rather than problem solving has had this effect just about every policy arena the administration and Dems have attempted (halfheartedly at times) to take on.

[dave29]

11. solve for me the problem of 60 votes and we will talk

until then I will continue to add no substance. Hiding behind the easy argument that they did not try hard enough does not fix the problem of the Senate rules and an entrenched contrarian party of no.

And again... there will always be ideologues screaming from the sidelines that the policy is wrong, regardless of the policy. Economically speaking, fair-weather monday morning 4th-quarter-tracking is so very easy to do from the stands. Accept this fact, or ramble on substantively at your leisure.

[Hawkowl]

15. Nuclear option

There. Problem solved.

Or a second solution, make them ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER. Oh, but that would blow the conservadems cover.

And it isn't Monday morning quarterbacking. IT'S A BIG FAT I TOLD YOU SO!!

There is a difference.

Obama is not a scientific man. He acts as though you can compromise with gravity, or death, or the ocean. His stimulus plan, simply wasn't enough to forestall another depression. He gambled and it looks like he's going to lose. He's hired the economic idiots that caused the problem in the first place (BP anyone sensing a pattern?). He needs to fire his economic team and bring in a new one. He needs direct hire programs to hire millions (a WPA/CCC for the 21st century) and his monetarist deficit hawk fuck-ups find this to be anathema.

Now he better make with the political genius shit and spin the blame on the rethuglicans or he's a one termer. He's going to have to play hardball, i.e; kill projects, withhold aid and stimulus ("pork") from those who insist on voting against his programs. He's going to have to fight--and he's no fighter. He's a bullshitter, a speechmaker, a sing cumbaya while his enemies kick him the ass and piss all over him.

[Knight Hawk]

58. No fighter

Between the 2008 election and the Obama taking office ,I wrote on here that it worried me that Obama was not a fighter ,I was laughed off the board by the " Obama is the perfect guy crowd".As the Russians say you cant make an omellet without cracking an egg.Now he has backed down to Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby.Watch!

[depakid]

17. Not this sorry excuse again- the administrations didn't even put up a fight

Obama had the unprecedented levels of political capital to get the stimulus package that he wanted- you know that and I know that.

Bottom line is that he settled for and saddled the nation with half measures that wouldn't and didn't solve the problems at hand- refusing to listen to the economists who who actually had reputations for getting it right.

Oh, and about that aid to the states bit (which also should have been dealt with- now it too has come back to screw everyone (as also known and predicted by many of us at the time):

Governors Of Struggling States Ask Washington For Help

Governors hamstrung by the sluggish economic rebound in their states and bound to balance their own budgets are pressing anew for Washington to step up with more help, some say even if it means adding to the nation's red ink.

Republicans and Democrats alike wrestled with how to capitalize on a fledgling rebound as they talked dollars and sense at their summer meeting just days into a new state budget year and as the economy shapes dozens of gubernatorial races across the country.

"All states still are facing tough fiscal situations even though I do believe we're in recovery," said West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, a Democrat who's taking over as chairman of the National Governors Association.

Added Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., the outgoing chairman: "Governors have done what is necessary to get through this" – repeatedly cutting budgets, restructuring government, laying off workers and draining rainy day funds.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/10/governors-of-struggling-s_n_641917.html

Didn't take Nostradamus to see it coming- just simple arithmetic.

[KeyWester]

24. Stop already.

"Obama had the unprecedented levels of political capital to get the stimulus package that he wanted- you know that and I know that."

For some strange reason the GOP didn't recognize his political capital the same way you do. He got the 2 needed GOP votes to hit 60. You are implying there were more votes to get ...even if he wanted a 1.5 trillion dollar package ?

It's called congress, the bill HAS to go through it, pick up a book sometime.

[depakid]

26. Try dealing in realpolitik -and stop making excuses for poor public policy

He would have gotten the votes for most all of the package, aside from a few details and bones tossed out- 3/4's of the nation was behind it, and in the end, the Bobbsie twins wouldn't have stood in the way.

Three ways to look at it- either he was too conflict averse to fight it out- or didn't want more extensive and better targeted policy provisions that would have been more effective in solving the problems- or simply listened to people who didn't grasp the nature and scope of the problems.

None of those ways of looking at it are "good" -and each has continued to rear its ugly head. Repeatedly.

[HughMoran]

30. Stop making false assumptions.

[depakid]

33. Not a false assumption at all- it's how the politcal dynamics work- and would have worked

though as Krugman notes: we'll never know for sure- because the administration didn't even try and thus, has to live with the results. Along with tens of millions of needlessly unemployed Americans.

And a lot of newly unemployed members of the House come November.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

38. Responsible and effective public policy is always enough for me- as it should be for anyone

Listening to (or hiring) those who have track records of getting it right and then fighting for it, using all the power of the office(s) is what everyone should expect from their leaders and representatives.

So please, spare us the gratuitous insults (even if that's all you've got to excuse the sorry -and largely preventable state of affairs).

[HughMoran]

40. Visciously attacking Democrats after the fact

You think that's not gratuitous?

You think that's helpful for stopping the bleeding this fall?

You think your constant attacks over things we can't change now are helping Democrats?

Do you think doing what the Republicans do (rewriting history) is helpful to Democrats?

[depakid]

43. LOL "viciously attacking?"

Krugman and others- including yours truly called this shot and wrote about it back in early 2009.

We wrote about it even as the usual suspects led the cheers and celebrations- insulting and putting us down at every opportunity thereafter. So sorry pal, I'm not the one rewriting history- that would fall to another faction.

And the results speak fore themselves.

Want "constructive criticism?" Read between the lines: STOP pandering to the right, enabling and legitimizing Republican (and adopting their policies) and remember the words of Howard Dean (the guy who rebuilt this party):

People didn't elect Democrats to pass crap legislation- had the administration and congress done that- or at least drawn a line, framed the issues, put up a fight and taken it to the people we wouldn't be staring down another 1994 situation.

[HughMoran]

59. I call it as I see it

This is what I see, prove me wrong.

[Forkboy]

69. I think many things.

For instance, I think busting out the "Jerk" picture with a Forkboy picture attached will get deleted everytime. Prove me wrong. :hi:

[dave29]

67. as a Dean supporter in 2004 and major supporter of his years at the DNC

it is my sad duty to remind you he was crushed when running for President.... by the media. Some positions lend themselves better to red meat. As President he would not have had the luxury.

[treestar]

41. Run for office then, if you know so much about how it should be done

Why are you wasting your talents on DU when you could do something real?

Just carping at those trying to do it does not do anyone any good.

Do you stand there over your mechanic when he's trying to fix your car, picking at every method he uses? If you do, does the mechanic say, well, do it yourself then?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

39. 'would have worked' THAT'S A FALSE ASSUMPTION!

Glad you admitted it anyway. Rewriting history is what the Republicans are supposed to do - thanks for helping them.

[dave29]

63. I really enjoyed his cameo in "Get him to the Greek"

it's like he didn't even have to try to get that part

[Knight Hawk]

61. YES,Imagine

I do not know your age but imagine an LBJ trying to get what he wanted through Congress, or an RJK .They knew how to kick ass ,keep score and take names .That is the hard part and the important part of being a president or any type of leader .It aint easy.

[HughMoran]

29. The 'looking back' logic can be bizzare at times huh?

I can't comprehend why people think Obama get anything he wanted, simply by asking.

The facts say otherwise.

Facts.

[treestar]

37. Let's say I have a car to sell

It is a beat up 1990 Honda. It's worth 1,000.

If I only ASK for $50,000 for it in the first place, someone will pay me like $25,000 for it. Just because I asked for 50K for it. See? If I start out asking 1,500K for it, I'll never get more than that. But had I merely ASKED for more, I'd get more. See?

:sarcasm:

[dsc]

83. He should have camped out in Maine at every single, solitary business that laid off workers

until both of those Senators agreed to a trillion and a half dollar plan.

[dave29]

65. I'm sorry, but it will never look like a fight to you

because you do not seem to understand politics. Spending political capital is not about tearing off the limbs of your political opponents and eating them in front of a live television audience to satisfy the blood lust of twenty percent of your supporters. Nor is being President a constitutionally mandated position as proxy for an even smaller number of one's base of supporters who want to see John Boehner's face smashed into the dirt because he so deserves it. There was NEVER enough political capital to get any two of Obama's policy positions pushed through Congress. He has made steps, incrementally, on far more than that, much to the chagrin of ideologues on all sides of the issues.

Obama, a better Nostradomus than all of us, had the wisdom to warn us he would not do everything right. Regardless, he has tried to do so, no matter where Krugman or (insert columnist/cartoonist of the week here) stands on the issue.

[Exilednight]

20. Yes, because accepting the status quo has worked so well for us in the past

:sarcasm:

[KeyWester]

23. I agree.

How quickly they forget about congress. The haters are acting as if Obama is King.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lorien]

79. Use the method that was used effectively for eight years-EVEN WITH AN OPPOSITION CONGRESS

51 votes. Strong arm them. MAKE them filibuster or use the Nuclear option.

The Dems are not victims. They are choosing to lose on these issues because their promises to Big Business override their promises to the American people.

[dave29]

82. ok I'll get on the phone with Joe Lieberman right now

...

[dionysus]

16. pwnage. i like it.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

28. It's blindingly obvious

Where does the "Obama can do no right" attitude come from?

[eridani]

13. More a matter of how the stimulus was far less productive than it could have been

We could have gotten twice as much stimulus if all those stupid tax cuts and credits had been left out, for the same amount of money.

[depakid]

51. Slashing 40 billion in aid to the states- when triple that was needed was insane

and many of us said so at the time- pointing to exactly what's been happening this year.

The state cuts are anti-stimulatory- a drag on the economy that's canceling out what effective effective provisions there are.

This wasn't really rocket science... though it did involve confronting failed ideology.

[applegrove]

4. Krugman is right that the GOP will try and create a myth that stimulus doesn't work in a recession

(When it is the only thing that does work if done right). The GOP is all for rewriting history..re-history to suit its narrative that taxes should be low on the rich and nothing should be regulated...all things that make for happy rich people.

[Hydra]

10. Silver platter for the Repubs

The Administration was so wrapped in blunting the effect that they never once thought about CURING it.

They also neglected to mention at the time that this was just a bandaid.

Therefore, the results were lackluster on recovery(good on blunt), so when you want to tout recovery...it isn't there.

[rpannier]

19. They're getting a good start in Texas with the history books

Give them time and they'll be telling us that it was Republicans that saved the country from the depression that hit full-stride with the Wall Street crash in 1929
And that Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms made the Midnight Rides to warn the villages that the British Are Coming!

[HughMoran]

31. & all too many on the left appear ready to help the Republicans with that meme

:puke:

[depakid]

80. Now there's an up is down, black is white statement if I ever heard one!

A more Manichean -and more whack assessment of the situation would be hard to come by, but it surely does illustrate the divide that's been created by the administration and Congress in the span of one short year.

[democracy1st]

6. one things for sure it was Pres Obama that picked this horrible economic team!

[scarletwoman]

12. I lay the problem squarely in the lap of the Obama administration's policies of relying

on the private sector to create jobs instead of creating WPA and CCC type programs that would have directly put people to work.

sw

[Safetykitten]

14. This exactly was what was needed. Now we are left to wonder

what new thing will fill all the empty office buildings with people working. What new thing would require an office at all with technology as it is and will be? The projects such as a nationwide high speed rail system would of been a big stimulus.

[flpoljunkie]

21. Tragically, Krugman's conclusion of where we are economically is even more depressing.

And by the way, the reason I was for temporary bank nationalization was that it would make it possible to recapitalize banks quickly, and get them lending, which would help make up for the weak stimulus; what happened instead, of course, was gradual recapitalization through profits, with banks not doing much lending along the way.

And here we are. From a strictly economic point of view, we could still fix this: a second big stimulus, plus much more aggressive Fed policy. But politically, we’re stuck: even if the Democrats hold the House in November, they won’t have the votes to do anything major.

I’d like to say something uplifting here; but right now I’m feeling pretty bleak.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/what-went-wrong/

[KeyWester]

22. Oh please...

Krugman says the President didn't try for a larger package , how the fuck does he know ?

And , to imply it was Obamas fault there wasn't a bigger package is absurd.

The haters keep forgetting about one thing ...CONGRESS.

The bill has to go through congress.

The bill passed the senate with 2 GOP votes, without those votes we have no bill. If the package was over a trillion it probably would have been rejected by the two GOPers.

Lets look at this sentence...

Even before the severity of the financial crisis was fully apparent, the recent history of recessions suggested that the jobs picture would continue to worsen long after the recession was technically over

This is 'technically true, after the first Bush recession ended, jobs continued to get worse.

Well, the recession is 'technically' over ...and yet the job numbers ARE NOT getting worse, they have gotten better. Can Krugman even do simple math ? What the fuck is wrong with this guy ?

"We are in the midst of a depression" - Krugman

[CTyankee]

25. Krugman has been predicting this for a long time.

He's been right. You are also correct in your assessment of what Obama was up against from the very beginning. But I think something could be said for "trying harder" at the outset and setting the bar much higher.

I want to believe that Krugman is wrong. But I have a sinking feeling that he DOES know what he's talking about...

[KeyWester]

27. Not so fast.

But I have a sinking feeling that he DOES know what he's talking about...

In the article he admits that historically speaking, job numbers will still fall after a recession is technically over, but doesn't recognize that this recession is technically over and the job numbers are getting better and better, instead the hack claims we are in the middle of a depression , completely ignoring what he just typed on his keyboard.

How can he know what he is talking about when all he does is post contradictions ?

[CTyankee]

55. I'm no economist (had one course in grad school, ugh) but I am thinking

Krugman is differentiating a recession from a depression. Just my take and I could be very wrong.

I hope your prognosis is correct. I want it to be with all of heart and soul. I'm just going on Krugman's past record of predicting...I'm not in his fan club or anything. In fact, I like the fact that you are here at DU and making the case that you do. I'm going to try to stay positive...

[IndianaGreen]

42. Job numbers are not getting better, they are dismal!

For teenagers who counted on summer jobs, the situation is dire.

[KeyWester]

44. Stop already

We were losing 700,000 a month before the stimulus.

Now where are we ? it's simple math.

I suppose you are still pushing the idea that Max Baucus wanted to vote for the Public Option and Obama wouldn't let him ? ..and there were 58 votes for the PO and Obama ignored it ?

[IndianaGreen]

47. Stop peddling that drug that induces delusions that things are getting better

Perhaps things are better at cocktail parties in Georgetown, but the opposite is true in fly-over country.

[KeyWester]

52. fuck that shit.

before the stimulus we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.

now we aren't losing jobs every month. It's simple math.

Job numbers ARE getting better, no matter how much you hate Obama, the fact remains, job numbers have gotten better since the stimulus was passed.

This is a fact. Now tell me again how Max Baucus wanted to vote for the public option and Obama wouldn't let him....

[IndianaGreen]

54. I am not the one that said anything about Max Baucus to you

Job numbers are not improving in Indiana.

[KeyWester]

57. Not accurate.

[Lorien]

81. Link? Unemployment and underemployment are increasing in the real world.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

84. Perhaps he knows because he owns a television and reads papers

"Krugman says the President didn't try for a larger package , how the fuck does he know ?"

Do you think the President tried for a larger package but somehow nobody knows about it?

In politics trying to get Congress to pass certain legislation is not a secret sort of thing.

As distinct from hoping, wishing or fantasizing about.

[LiberalEsto]

95. Why are you calling us "haters?

That's a pretty inflammatory word for fellow Democrats who have legitimate concerns about the 14.6 million unemployed people in America, not to mention the millions of marginally employed.

Just because we would like to see President Obama do a lot more to help unemployed Americans does not mean we hate him.

[DCBob]

32. Just add two percentage points to the left side of graph and its bascially correct..

So their estimates were bit off on the magnitude.. so what? The concept was correct.

[treestar]

34. A different type of fear mongering

Bush had terra. Now we've got "the depression." some people are always making out there is going to be a big depression, even in good times. Specifically those who can get attention from it. What use is this? We need to get the economy moving, not sit there on our hands in hopelessness saying it is going to get worse. It's just life. You can't just give up and claim all is going to be doom and gloom, no matter what.

And if that graph were true, things would have been a lot worse between 2009 and 2013 without the stimulus. That space represents people working who would not have.

And if you think any pundit can predict four years from now, you worship them far more than anyone could be said to be a fan of President Obama.

[IndianaGreen]

46. We are in the Great Recession, and they are about to gut Social Security

just as they are doing public education.

For all of the White House's rosy scenarios, there is no evidence where I live that there is a recovery. Far from it!

[KeyWester]

53. Ya, and Baucus wanted a public option and Obama stopped him.

Most rational minds would think a "Great Recession" would include negative GDP growth instead of quarter after quarter of positive growth, and month after month of positive job growth.

I must be an idiot.

[IndianaGreen]

56. Strawman argument

You are the only one mentioning Max Baucus in here.

[treestar]

62. That was an example

Of the wrongness of your statements.

[treestar]

60. Simply wrong

Every word in that post is wrong, period.

[KeyWester]

86. Yep, every word.

I thought this place had rules ?

[high density]

45. What went wrong started long before Obama came in office

The Bush admin had their own graphs that showed their $1.2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy were going to make job creation skyrocket. Instead job growth didn't even keep up with their baseline projections had the tax cuts not been implemented. Now Obama is supposed to come in and fix this while having his hands tied by congress and the media, all while the Republicans cheer for failure.

[JoePhilly]

50. The Republicans are not the only ones cheering for failure, unfortunately.

[Phx_Dem]

48. The key phrase . . .

"Now, I don’t have any inside information on what really happened" No shit?

Yet you tell us "they didn't try," as you know. Which you admittedly do not.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[johnaries]

66. A couple of important items, one you glossed over and another

you left out.

First of all, in your added emphasis you decided not to emphasize this important part:

So all policy needed to do was meliorate the worst, while we waited for the economy to recover spontaneously. From the Lizza article:

Summers did not include Romer’s $1.2-trillion projection. The memo argued that the stimulus should not be used to fill the entire output gap; rather, it was “an insurance package against catastrophic failure.”

It was difficult to get any kind of stimulus package through. Although Krugman argued that the stimulus needed to be bigger and it appears he was right, such a package may not have passed at all.

You also left out perhaps the most important part:

From a strictly economic point of view, we could still fix this: a second big stimulus, plus much more aggressive Fed policy. But politically, we’re stuck: even if the Democrats hold the House in November, they won’t have the votes to do anything major.

So there it is. Dems could fix this but they don't have the votes.

It's up to us to try and change that. We need a jobs bill and a second stimulus. WE have to get the word out.

Instead of pointing fingers, we should be out there pushing for another stimulus and jobs package.

[ProSense]

71. Exactly,

the entire argument is that Obama should have don't this, but Congress wouldn't have passed it.

How on earth do they think he would have gotten a bigger stimulus from a Congress that wouldn't pass it?

[depakid]

76. "we should be out there pushing for another stimulus and jobs package."

We warned you at the outset that this had to be done right, because if it wasn't, Keynesian economic principles would take a hit from Zombie lies and deficit hawks (along with the invisible bond vigilantes).

Thus- down the line we would lack the political capital to deal with the problems, the nation would be mired in a prolonged joblessness and stagnation, and the Dems would pay a big political price come November 2010 and perhaps 2012 as well.

Unfortunately, the administration didn't listen- and failed to even attempt to get truly effective policies in place. Much like the failure to restore accountability and scientific integrity at the agencies while accelerating oil leasing and drilling, they preferred a rosy, faith based and conciliatory approach that has left tens of millions of Americans suffering needlessly.

[Forkboy]

70. Is Krugman good or bad this week?

I can never keep track.

[FrenchieCat]

72. No one is all good or all bad......

Since that's said about the President often enough,
shouldn't it apply to everyone else that only provides opinion?

I would think so, but what about you?
Do you really think anyone person who has a column or a microphone
is either always right or always wrong, or always good or always bad.

I would submit that only a simpleton would judge political or economic
issues no matter whose mouth or keyboard they come from in black OR white terms,
and worse still, judge the messenger that way.

[Forkboy]

73. Personally, I've been a fan of his for a long time.

I agree with him more often than I don't, and he has a better track record than many of the politicians we talk about here on DU.

I would submit that only a simpleton would judge political or economic
issues no matter whose mouth or keyboard they come from in black OR white terms,
and worse still, judge the messenger that way.

I would too. Hope to see you tell others that in the future.

[donco6]

75. Next time they complain about a link to FireDogLake maybe?

But I'm not holding my breath on that.

[Forkboy]

77. What? They would never kill the messenger!!!

:spank:

[bvar22]

74. The Bold Audacity of "Incrementalism".

So much for "Centrism" and "seeking bi-partisan consensus"...

"We’ll never know whether the administration could have passed a bigger plan;
we do know that it didn’t try."


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Forkboy]

78. Why do you hate America?

[Azathoth]

85. Krugman wanted a stimulus package somewhere in the 3-4 trillion range

That wasn't going to happen no matter what Obama did, and Krugman knows it. The "we'll never know" bullshit is disingenuous. Now we're getting the standard "if only you had followed my impossible-to-effect advice, none of this would have happened" spiel.

This is standard practice for professional, idealogical oracles: First, prescribe a course of action that goes far beyond what can actually be accomplished. Next, stand back and watch the folks with actual responsibilities on their shoulders struggle to implement a realistic version of your prescription. If their efforts turn out to be successful, take credit for it and remind everyone that the results would have been even better had your original advice been followed completely. If their efforts yield mediocre or poor results, then simply wash your hands of the matter and write an "if only you had followed my advice" column.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

88. you forgot the sarcasm tag

[bvar22]

89. Well, the FACT that his predictions proved correct lend some credibility.

Unlike THIS guy, who openly admits he didn't have a clue, and who was recently appointed by Obama to lead the Cat Food Commission.

Obama's handpicked deficit commission co-chair says current economic crisis was "largely unforeseen"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8728599

The sad part is that MOST of Obama's cabinet is filled with people who have been completely WRONG about almost everything.

The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

How can anything be "fixed" if the people who broke it are put "in charge".
Maybe it is time to turn things over to the people who have been mostly right, and who predicted these exact results.

[AngryAmish]

90. No one can predict the future

It is foolish to believe so.

All we can do is try to create the best conditions possible and hope for the best.

(This is not a note about Krugman, with whom I generally agree. It is a philosophical note. We want to believe it, thus the Texas sharpshooter effect. But nobody can predict the future.

[bvar22]

91. I reject your premise.

In many cases, the future CAN be predicted quite reliably.
If you attempt to suspend 1 ton on a rope failure tested at 500 lbs, the FUTURE is very predictable.

If incompetence is rewarded, incompetence will prevail.

[boomerbust]

92. Depa

FAIL

[hollowdweller]

93. Obama is a weak president

I don't think he's a disaster, certainly McCain would have been worse especially in the foreign relations area.

However he has failed over and over to seize the moment, or the public sentiment and then take his ability for speechmaking and push the public sentiment to build up pressure on lawmakers.

He should have abandoned his across the aisle reaching earlier and entered into combat. He might not have got a lot of legislation passed right off but I feel he would have defined the differences between the parties and helped the dems gain MORE seats.

The problem with the watered down bills and taking a stand and then continually backtracking makes him look weak and once you look weak forget it.

If George Bush who could barely string together 2 sentences and make sense could convince the country that tax cuts and a war that would put our surplus in the crapper was a good idea surely to God Obama could have made the case for some of the more popular aspects of his legislative agenda that were either removed or watered down.

I think his first mistake was to hire too many older people who were from the Clinton era and used to basically doing what they could during a more conservative era. People are not as conservative as back then. So many aspects of conservative thought have been proven wrong yet Obama and his admin fail to clearly communicate that they have.

[uponit7771]

94. What's weak is the constant overt anti Obama sentiment on this board. You guys would have more

...credibility if there wasn't constant bashing with false premises and strawmen