Krugman catches Obama enabling Republicans (again)

[depakid]

John Boehner, March 2009:

It’s time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we ‘get’ it

Barack Obama, yesterday:

“At a time when so many families are tightening their belts, he’s going to make sure that the government continues to tighten its own,” Obama said. “

We’ll never know how differently the politics would have played if Obama, instead of systematically echoing and giving credibility to all the arguments of the people who want to destroy him, had actually stood up for a different economic philosophy. But we do know how his actual strategy has worked, and it hasn’t been a success.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/my-obama-problem/

[mzmolly]

1. I've got to give Paul

another K and R.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

3. Maybe Krugman should have put the whole quote

But I am grateful that Hillary agreed to have Jack leave, and I'm even more thrilled that Jack agreed to take on this challenge at this moment. Jack is going to be an outstanding OMB director. We know it because he’s been one before. At a time when so many families are tightening their belts, he’s going to make sure that the government continues to tighten its own. He’s going to do this while making government more efficient, more responsive to the people it serves.

link

It's not a secret that the President is trying to address the wasteful spending, but why does Krugman feel the need to give credibility to Boehner's argument? It's not like Boehner is serious about anything.

[boppers]

7. Hm....

We’ll never know how differently the politics would have played if Krugman, instead of systematically echoing and giving credibility to all the arguments of the people who want to destroy him, had actually stood up for a different economic philosophy.

[jgraz]

16. You mean he should abandon the philosophy that won him a Nobel prize?

Just to make a politician look better? Please tell me you're not serious with this.

[boppers]

28. I was holding up a mirror to his remarks.

Do you think he was being serious?

[jgraz]

34. AH. Most of us stopped using the "I'm rubber, you're glue" response in 4th grade.

Just sayin...

[boppers]

51. Most of us stopped name-calling at the same age.

Not all of us, though.

[jgraz]

52. Who me? I was just holding up a mirror to your remarks.

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

49. you are embarassing

sheesh.

[boppers]

50. I thank you for your comprehensive, intellectual, remarks.

It gave me a lot to think about.

:sarcasm:

[OHdem10]

4. It makes me sad to say it--but Krugman is correct on this.

I fear Obama's Legacy will be Hoover and '29 Depression.
He is even Hoover Talk.

[ProSense]

6. Actually, according to Krugman

he's talking like FDR.

[Donnachaidh]

36. not even close to FDR.

FAIL.

[depakid]

8. Kind of tricky to push FDR style jobs and stimulus programs

when you've been assenting to the Republican and the corporate right's narrative.

[Enthusiast]

25. +10,000 nt

[flpoljunkie]

32. Wonder if Obama regrets not pushing harder for rebuilding America's infrastructure stimulus

One-third of the stimulus was tax cuts--not at all stimulative to the economy. We will never know, of course. And, Obama must work with a dysfunctional Senate and the likes of Democrats like Ben Nelson--the Republicans' best friend. Remember Nelson voted for both Bush tax cuts, and his prescription drug bill--all unpaid for.

[me b zola]

42. Exactly. n/t

[boppers]

5. Tightening belts is now a Republican metaphor?

How about "balance a checkbook"?

Is that attached to a party-linguistics-purity-test yet?

[girl gone mad]

18. The Federal government doesn't need to balance a checkbook.

That's a Republican lie and Obama shouldn't be out promulgating it.

[ProSense]

19. What about balancing a budget?

Alan Grayson seems to like that idea

[girl gone mad]

37. No, the federal government is not financially constrained..

in the way say a household or a state government is.

We can debate over what our budgetary priorities should be, but the idea that the government needs to run a balanced budget is ridiculous. Clinton's poorly timed moves to cut the deficit lead to the recession of early 2000. Prioritizing deficit reduction in the midst of a deep global recession is even more inane. Obama is either being badly advised or he is more concerned with preserving the wealth of a tiny minority that of restoring employment and revitalizing the broad economy.

[Milo_Bloom]

39. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

"Clinton's poorly timed moves to cut the deficit lead to the recession of early 2000"

Ummm.. no.

The recession of early 2000 was caused by the dot com bubble bursting in March of 2000.

It was fairly quickly replaced by the housing bubble.

bush's idiotic move to sqander the surplus instead of paying down the debt leaves us in far greater peril today. 352 BILLION in interest each year.

It's sad, but what we need is another bubble (cap and trade???) and someone in charge who is able to use the short term income boost to pay down the debt, thus reducing the yearly interest payments, so when the bubble bursts, the situation isn't as dire.

[phleshdef]

41. Wow, loads of horse shit all around. We are gonna need bigger shovels.

[depakid]

43. No- it;'s a fundamental principle of how governments work

That you don't grasp it is telling.

[phleshdef]

44. The fact that you are resorting to a canned insult that isn't relevant to my comment at all...

...is even more telling.

[sabrina 1]

45. The Federal Government just bailed out the very corrupt

institutions that destroyed this country's economy.

When Obama uses this argument, what he is saying is what Republicans say, 'social programs need to be cut, we will make the 'lesser people' pay out of their pittances. Because there is no way that our 'too big to fail' buddies on Wall St. can be asked to tighten their belts.'

He is talking about privatizing Social Security, because he is allowing his Catfood Commission to falsely claim that SS has anything to do with the deficit, which it doesn't. That is a lie, and it should be called a lie every time someone tells it.

So yes, when 'tightening belts' means the poor and the elderly, it IS a Republican metaphor, always has been.

[SpartanDem]

9. This is a cheap shot

Obama isn't giving them credibility or enabling not if you're actually bothering to think. There are very different ideas of what constitutes belt tightening for Boehner and Obama to tie them together based on vaguely similar statement is simplistic and beyond disingenuous as it completely ignores policy differences.

[Moochy]

10. NeoLiberalism is not Liberalism

"... systematically echoing and giving credibility to all the arguments of the people who want to destroy him."

That pretty much defines what a neo-liberal is all about. Beat the republicans at their own game by co-opting their favorite policies. Redefine win, for the win.

[ProSense]

12. Wonder what you would say about FDR?

Krugman?

Suddenly, everything old is New Deal again. Reagan is out; F.D.R. is in. Still, how much guidance does the Roosevelt era really offer for today’s world?

The answer is, a lot. But Barack Obama should learn from F.D.R.’s failures as well as from his achievements: the truth is that the New Deal wasn’t as successful in the short run as it was in the long run. And the reason for F.D.R.’s limited short-run success, which almost undid his whole program, was the fact that his economic policies were too cautious.

<...>

Neo-Liberal?

[Moochy]

20. yes, neoliberal. what a nice bold link to a Krugman editorial from 8 days after the election!

To help fill-in the apparent gaps in your political knowledge, here is a definition of neo-liberalism from wikipedia:

Neoliberalism is a market driven<1> approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that maximise the role of the private business sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state. The term "neoliberalism" has also come into wide use in cultural studies to describe an internationally prevailing ideological paradigm that leads to social, cultural, and political practices and policies that use the language of markets, efficiency, consumer choice, transactional thinking and individual autonomy to shift risk from governments and corporations onto individuals and to extend this kind of market logic into the realm of social and affective relationships.<2>

And the final line from your bold blue archived link from november 10th 2008....

"In short, Mr. Obama’s chances of leading a new New Deal depend largely on whether his short-run economic plans are sufficiently bold. Progressives can only hope that he has the necessary" audacity.

The audacity to kill public option and hire a Wellpoint executive to implement HCR. Pretty audacious alright, but not in a good way.

[Lorien]

21. ......

:applause:

[Enthusiast]

26. It's the wrong audacity!

Completely wrong. Same with the catfood commission.

[ProSense]

31. Right, FDR was a neo-liberal

So everyone claiming that Obama should be more like FDR should be happy, right?

[rpannier]

11. Color me confused

“At a time when so many families are tightening their belts, he’s going to make sure that the government continues to tighten its own,” Obama said.

Who is 'he'?

It is in quotes, which should mean Obama is quoting someone else.
So who is 'he'?

[ProSense]

13. New OMB director

which is why Krugman taking this out of context to correlate with Boehner's comment is silly.

[depakid]

14. It's one in a series- and part of a pattern that's plagued the administration from the beginning

Part of it is due to the President's over eagerness to seek "bipartisanship" and find "common ground" with "stakeholders" -but as often as not, it's also due to tone deafness, conflict aversion and an inability to produce and command a progressive narrative.

[Hydra]

15. That would assume he would like a progressive narrative

and agenda.

According to the "adults," the progressive agenda is not workable and therefore we need to hand out more money to rich people and expand our wars.

Why would The President want to be tarred with those particular feathers? Especially when it would get him major political capital?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Lorien]

22. Far from adults. They always bring this character to mind:

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Enthusiast]

27. It's all faked.

This can't be due to tone deafness. This has got to be part of a long term plan.

[liberation]

46. Another thing that idiot from Texas via Connecticut got tragically wrong

"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice... the fooled can't get fooled again!" Well, it turns out the fooled can get fooled again and again...

The spin to justify things that would have been totally unacceptable when the resident moron was in charge is glorious though. Sure, we'll be as fucked as always... but at least it is entertaining to watch it all come down.

[rpannier]

24. Thank you very much

I wasn't sure what that sentence was about

Thanks again

:toast: :hi:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[JTFrog]

29. You deserve a cookie.

A big chunky one.

:eyes:

[Yuugal]

30. K&R

[BootinUp]

33. This is similar criticism Krugman raised

during the Dem Primary. He just has a different view of how to win in politics. Personally, I give Obama props for what he has accomplished and I am not convinced anyone could do better, so in other words while Krugman's critique is appealing to me, I think I will go with the master on political matters.

[liberation]

47. "dear leader knows best" indeed, else he wouldn't be "dear leader" right?

I love circular logic! It is what it is, otherwise it would not be, and that is that...

[BootinUp]

48. Glad I could help you. nt

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

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

[NJmaverick]

38. I think Krugman needs to address the austerity measure the big corporations are

conducting. That's where so much economic potential is being tied up.