Anyone remember Krugman's response to the President's call for $50 billion infrastructure spending

[ProSense]

Infrastructure

Some bleary-eyed thoughts from Japan on the reported administration proposal for $50 billion in new spending:

1. It’s a good idea
2. It’s much too small
3. It won’t pass anyway — which makes you wonder why the administration didn’t propose a bigger plan, so as to at least make the point that the other party is standing in the way of much needed repair to our roads, ports, sewers, and more– not to mention creating jobs. Once again, they’re striking right at the capillaries.

<...>

Anyway, it’s all academic right now. My response to the administration plan, at least as best as I can respond given a massive case of jet lag, is a big eh.

Of course, this was a big deal that was intended to jumpstart an infrastructure bank.

That was when Democrats were the majority in both the House and Senate. Now, we're still trying to get it done with a Republican House.

[ClarkUSA]

1. PUMAs and Teabaggers will always whine no matter what. Who cares about facts?

:sarcasm:

[tblue]

2. The president should start listening to Krugman.

We will keep going down this bad economic road until he, or some other president, does. We need another courageous, righteous FDR!

[AngkorWot]

3. No he shouldn't.

Krugman knows fuck-all about how Washington works.

[girl gone mad]

6. Well..

Obama knows fuck-all about how the economy works.

I guess they're even.

:shrug:

[ProSense]

8. Well,

"Obama knows fuck-all about how the economy works."

what he does know is that an infrastructure bank is a good idea.

Yet, even a good idea has to be crap because Obama proposed it.

[Jakes Progress]

7. And you base that on

your expertise? Your years of working in power broker centers? Or what your buddy at the bar told you last night.

Obama already has plenty of people with your kind of help. We see what that has gotten. I would prefer that he listen to Krugman than the bankster toadies he hired.

[AngkorWot]

12. Only Krugman's brain dead columns.

[Jakes Progress]

16. And you base that on your extensive medical background?

Or just general shit that happens to occur to you with no basis in anything?

Do you actually have any thing to say about the subject of the OP? Would it be possible for you to form a coherent thought and try to say something about a subject or is personality and personality attack the best thinking you can do?

Do you even have an idea what the OP is saying? Are the terms and ideas too much for you? That would explain the lack of substance in your post?

[patrice]

5. Curious here; doesn't what the President can/can't do depend to a significant degree upon

PRIVATE information that Krugman doesn't have? Not necessarily that the President does have these significant PRIVATE details of our PRIVATE money system, but more that, of the two, the President is the one more likely to receive that information than Krugman is.

I'd really like to see what you think about this.

[Jakes Progress]

9. Actually, it depends on what who his handlers tell him he can listen to.

Yes the president has access to some information we don't. But he is also isolated from what is really happening. He is surrounded by lackeys and filters who sort what he can and can't hear. He can't possibly know everything about everywhere. That is what advisors are for. He hired inside banksters and wall street toadies who sift his info and guide him in directions that benefit their class.

I would rather he listen to someone like Krugman who, I think, has a better touch on reality and a more public minded point of view. And he surely knows more about world economics than the basketball buddies Obama listens to.

[patrice]

13. I was trying to imply that he does not NECESSARILY know the essential bits of private information

that he needs to know, but rather only that, because s/he IS President, it is more likely, more possible, for him/her to be given that information, one way or another. Staff figures in that significantly, because as you observe they ARE filters, and though they may not be his ONLY sources of information, whatever other information that comes his way (HOWEVER that happens) may or may not be significant to him in certain ways, depending upon what else he does or does not know through his staff or through other sources of information.

[Jakes Progress]

17. I don't think any essential bits are secret.

This isn't about terrorist attacks or secret plans. It's about the economy. It's pretty much out there. What kind of information regarding economic improvement do you think a president might know that everyone else wouldn't?

[Armstead]

10. No. It's basically differences of opinion and interpretation of publicly available data...

and economic theories and basic interpretation of the Constitution and other legalities.

I don't think the President's actions are based on secret information like military decisions or intelligence secret briefings.

Nor are the differences based on information that Krugman or anyone else has access to also.

[patrice]

14. That's your opinion, because you have no direct knowledge of what any President does or does notknow

[Jakes Progress]

19. Kinda silly.

No one had direct knowledge of what anyone else does or does not know. By your reasoning, we should give bush a pass because, as president, he might have known something we didn't. Are you going to give george a pass because he cut rich people's taxes and wrecked the economy because he might have known something that made that absolutely necessary? How about Iraq?

[Armstead]

20. Why ask a question if you have altready decided on your own answer?

Is that a lame attempt at mousetrapping?

[patrice]

15. My opinion, without direct knowledge of what any President does or does not know, is that what you

are saying is pretty unlikely, i.e. it is improbable that a President knows nothing more about vital issues than we/Krugman do/does.

[Jakes Progress]

18. That is not a very good interpretation of what the poster said.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. So why is it that the bipartisanship Obama chants about

can not cope with the other Party? How can his political philosophy be of value if it never, ever works? He said he could bring everybody to the table, because all those past Democrats had just been too damn stubborn, and he'd find consensus and compromise. He he fails to do so.
Time for new tactics?

[Auntie Bush]

11. Time for some real Democratic practices.