Paul Krugman: The President Surrenders ('A Catastrophe On Multiple Levels')

[Hissyspit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html

OP-ED COLUMNIST
The President Surrenders
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 31, 2011

- snip -

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

- snip -

And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren’t accepted, there will be more spending cuts.

- snip -

It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will.

In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.

MORE

[markpkessinger]

1. The President's Guiding Principle: Cave, Concede and Capitulate

...and did anyone really expect the outcome to be any different?

[electropop]

42. That's his understanding of the word "compromise."

He's chosen future economic disaster instead of current disaster. Brilliant.

[emsimon33]

108. Obama's definition of compromise is to give the other side everything

they ask for and ask for nothing in return.

Guess he didn't get a very good education in that Muslim school in Indonesia.

[cyberpj]

114. And I thought "we" didn't negotiate with terrorists. nt

[bjobotts]

144. For those open minded enough to look at the details see the washington monthly's political animal

[droidamus2]

51. I'm wondering

Did Obama really concede or is this what he wanted all along but he just wants to be able to say the Mepublicans made him do it?

[markpkessinger]

79. I know what you mean ...

... it certainly does make you wonder, doesn't it?

[nineteen50]

139. Clinton too

Bill did the same thing....NAFTA and the resending of
Glass–Steagall Act

[FiveGoodMen]

104. That gets my vote!

[Roland99]

75. But...but...but....he's a master chess player!

:eyes:

[bjobotts]

145. Plans to get $4 trillion back in revenue and with a new congress we can start new programs

[Roland99]

151. um, yeah, that'll work

[awoke_in_2003]

93. you forgot collude. nt

[L0oniX]

102. "It's so easy even a "caveman" can do it"

[customerserviceguy]

2. While I sometimes disagree with him

The man's no fool, he can see things about as clearly as anyone can, and his observations make me a bit sadder than I was when I woke up this morning.

[Beavker]

40. Exactly

I e-mailed a fellow Krugman follower and used the terms 'breaks my heart' when referring to the things Paul so aptly describes. Anger sure, but a lot of pit of the stomach sadness is going on here.

[bowens43]

45. I used to think he was more intelligent then bush

now I know that he's just more articulate.

The man is a fool.

[trueblue2007]

64. Paul Krugman IS A TOTAL MORON.

I AGREE WITH YOU. GOPig media.

[awoke_in_2003]

94. except for all those times...

he told the truth about Bush (he was smart then :sarcasm: )

[pauldg0]

147. Agree....

..attention whore and whiner.

[chill_wind]

3. There will be more choke points. Oh yes.

"There will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will."

[jwirr]

76. It has always been a principle to not pay ransom because it just

encourages them to do it again. Obama has been paying ransom from the very beginning and it is going to happen over and over. He paid ransom this time and we did not even get the hostage back.

[OhioChick]

4. Rec n/t

[rhombus]

5. The same Krugman who called for nationalization of the banks?

He now admits he made a huge blunder on bank nationalization-- a call that could have left the US government's debt scenario in Ireland-like territory.

Folks, Krugman is not gospel. Think for yourself.

[xocet]

8. Can you please provide a link to back-up your claim? n/t

[Jakes Progress]

61. No links. Just attacking the truthful messenger because

there is no doubt that Krugman is right here. They can't even begin to deny his truth, so they attack him. Think of it as an admission by the usual group that they are wrong and are ashamed to face up to it.

[A Physicist]

80. Here's a link

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09055/951102-109.stm

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. That link argues for nationalization - where's the one where he

supposedly changes his mind?

Had we nationalized them rather than bailed them out those same banks would not be now sitting on untold billions of dollars and not making them available as loans - the Great Recession would be long since over and the recovery well on its way.

I think Krugman had it right from the start.

[xocet]

154. Thanks for the link.

Do you also happen to know of a link that illustrates how Krugman changed his mind on the issue of nationalization? Thanks again for the link, though. You're doing the other poster's work for him or her.

Out of curiosity - if I may: what kind of physics do you do?

[saras]

12. It's hard to picture nationalizing the banks making them any worse than they are...

...unless control was handed over directly to the House after they were nationalized. Since the fed is failing so badly at it, some states are seriously considering forming state banks (national writ small) to deal with their failure.

Nationalizing the Fed actually sounds like a pretty sensible idea - anything that reduces the power of for-profit bankers can hardly help but benefit the rest of us.

[Major Hogwash]

26. Bush's bank bailout had the same effect.

There was no difference essentially.

The banks used the bailout money to invest in Europe, made billions of dollars in interest while they did it, and then paid 85% of their bailout money back to the federal government.

They robbed the US Treasury for trillions of dollars and you're criticizing Krugman.
That's just ludicrous.
Krugman is absolutely right about what he said today.

[truth2power]

35. What Krugman said (or didn't say) before, right or wrong, isn't at issue here....

Please address the issues he explores in the Op-ed, cited in the OP.

Krugman isn't gospel, of course. No one said he was. Neither is President Obama. What is your point?

[quakerboy]

50. Worse in what way? Resulting in austerity measures?

Isn't that exactly what is happening now?

[sulphurdunn]

95. The banks that caused the

financial collapse should have been put into receivership, their executives indicted and the institutions broken up. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act should have been repealed and the Glass Steagall Act revived. Krugman was
initially right about the banks but lost his nerve like the rest of the liberal capitalist class. You can take that to the Gospel Bank of Redeemed Ponzi Capitalism. Can you say Amen?

[defendandprotect]

120. +1000% --- all economic advice was to nationalize the banks --

Rahm crowed about not doing it -- reciting how "grateful" business should be

to Obama!!

[StarsInHerHair]

97. WRONG!!! check out Bloomberg's take on ICELAND-THAT is where we'd be

now & it was BRILLIANT!

[defendandprotect]

121. +1 --

[fascisthunter]

110. Bet He's been Right more than you have

You assumption that people here need you to tell them how to think, shows a severe lack of intelligence yourself.

[defendandprotect]

118. We should have nationalized the banks -- !! Raham bragged about not doing it -- !!

Notice that banks are now more prevalent than Pizza parlors!!

What we're dealing with is organized crime -- which is exactly what capitalism

is when it's unregulated. And, sadly, Democrats have aided and abetted this

deregulation which has offered citizens up as prey!!

[nineteen50]

140. Really

The too big to jail banks are out of trouble?

[ihavenobias]

143. What an irrelevant red herring

And we SHOULD have *temporarily* nationalized the banks. Our financial system is primed to collapse again after that joke of a financial "reform" bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

[xocet]

6. k & r n/t

[DCBob]

7. Krugman loves that word "catastrophe".

he has been predicting an impending one for about 2 years now.

[Hydra]

13. You don't think we're there yet?

Unemployment is at about 16.7% and our Democratic President is generally unconcerned about it. He'd rather pretend that we can cut our way out of this crisis while letting the 1%ers sit on their $40 Trillion.

How much worse would you like it to get?

[Divine Discontent]

81. Spot on reply. Those numbers say it all. So many millions are in a living catastrophe, and as is

the norm, there are people that "get it" (even if they're okay themselves), and those that will never "get it" until they lose their jobs or homes, or health! The coldness about the suffering is horrific.

[defendandprotect]

122. This is a depression and has been for at least a year -- Obama stimulus was too little ....

as we all know --

and now, agree, the even more insane idea is to "cut" our way out of this ---

the Obama/Hoover way!!!

[Demeter]

48. Well, Let Me Know When the Catastrophe Ends, Will You?

It's been a lot longer than 2 years already, by my count.

[onpatrol98]

57. But somehow Krugman didn't predict the crash...

[defendandprotect]

123. Well, I doubt that Krugman knows what the Sopranos are doing day in and day out ---

but our government certainly should have known --

Obama should have known -- he picked the very team that created this meltdown!!

[Divine Discontent]

77. callous response, to be blunt. It is a catastrophe for thousands of new people daily

and it's into the millions now who've lost their savings, their jobs, their homes, their health, or their lives from this economic downturn.

Capitulating to the party that was out of power in 2009-10 was a morbid sign of things to come this year - and my have the chickens came home to roost.

Giving hostage takers what they want is a horrible way to lead, especially when you keep allowing the whittling away of the programs that help people in time of need.

[sabrina 1]

85. Too bad no one listened while there was still time.n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

88. From my POV, the economy has BEEN in catastrophe for about

two years now. 25% of the population is either unemployed or underemployed, jobs continue to go overseas and layoffs continue, and the banks are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars and not lending; housing is not recovering, and wages are going down, not up.

How is this NOT 'catastrophe'?

[Bluenorthwest]

96. Of course the District of Columbia lives by predicting catastrohpe

and pushing crap legislation on the rush and the panic. For those of us not dwelling in and on the Beltway Bonanza, we are about 2 years deep into catastrophe. Washington lives off the rest of us, and gains bonus money by setting their hair on fire and claiming the world will end if we do not capitulate to horrible policy. Think 'Bailouts'.
Political Professionals have no room to talk about fear mongering whatsoever. That includes the President of the United States.

[dorkulon]

125. He also predicted the housing collapse back when everyone else thought he was crazy.

Guess what? He was right then too.

[fascisthunter]

128. he's been right and you have been wrong

posting as if this weren't the case is only serving to fool yourself.

[YOHABLO]

137. Socio- Economics!

You know, it's all about what your predicament in life is right now. Do you have a job? Are you old and rely on Social Security to make your life livable? Are you disabled and rely on disability to help pay your ever mounting medical bills? Are you having to rely on food stamps to keep from starving? I would suggest for people in these situations "catastrophe" is an appropriate word. I'd say if you are young and thirty something, have job and just living a grand life .. there is no "catastrophe" yet going on in your life. Enjoy it while you can .. I think things will only get worse. Thanks Obama for the cave-in and you too Democrats .. great job at standing your ground.

[Vanje]

146. And here we are

What would you call it?

[pauldg0]

149. He does seem to like that word.

[Marr]

153. Now I understand why you're so pro-Obama.

You're comfortable. Apparently you aren't even aware of the fact that his economy has been a catastrophe for most Americans for a long time now.

[Parker CA]

9. The second to last sentence is the OP is what bothers me the most. Success by hostage taking. nt

[kenny blankenship]

15. A new mechanism of governing has just been invented and proven: the House threatens all our lives

Certainly it contradicts the intent of the Constitution's designers, but now that the precedent has been set (by capitulation) it cannot be undone.

Not even the Civil War produced a change in the way the government functioned this significant. We are in a new era now, and will just have to see where it goes.

[yurbud]

30. add it to the GOP Senate's all filibuster all the time.

[dionysus]

10. right. forget the dem house and congress, who actually have to pass a bill.

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Hopefully, they still have enough integrity not to pass this one.

[MilesColtrane]

19. Krugman is right about economic matters, but seems kind of naive when it comes...

to how things shake out in D.C.

IIRC he reamed the Obama administration for not proposing a more robust stimulus, then only later admitted (or realized) that such a bill would never get through Congress.

[bertman]

82. Of course it would never have gotten through Congress without the PRESIDENT using his bully pulpit

to explain to the American people WHY the Republicans were so damned wrong. But, did he do that? Hell no. He was unwilling to stand up and fight and explain how we needed a BIGGER STIMULUS package. He was unwilling to rally the troops and ask the American people to help him, so the Democratic Congress tucked its collective tail between it's legs and slinked away.

A President is supposed to LEAD. This one doesn't know how to lead so he RETREATS, leaving the carnage behind him and claiming victory. It's beyond disgusting.

Krugman, like most of us who supported President Obama in the campaign and during the first year of his Presidency, made the mistake of assuming that we had someone who would balance the NATIONAL good with the CORPORATE good AT A MINIMUM. He was not naive. He believed the rhetoric.

[RaleighNCDUer]

91. There are sinple analogies he could have used that everyone understands.

Everyone but the rich, I suppose.

Yes, people SPEND on their college educations - but that spending creates far greater wealth in the long run. You CAN save $25,000 by not going to college, but you would earn $2.5 million less over your lifetime if you do.

Yes, people SPEND on their car maintenance - but that spending provides for far greater savings down the road. You CAN save that $45 for the oil change, but you will be paying thousands when you blow your engine.

The government can spend on a stimulus package, spend a couple hundred billion even, but it would keep a 14 TRILLION dollar economy moving.

Investments are worth the costs.

----

I will never understand why he didn't take that case to the people.

[lib_wit_it]

115. Yep. The Republican Marketing Department is well funded and unflagging. Frank Luntz tells them the

most emotionally charged terminology to use and they sell, sell, sell their right wing BS at every opportunity and with great success. I guess Obama is too afraid of being called professorial (another Frank Luntz label, no doubt) again to get out there and use the countless "teachable moments" RW propaganda offers to educate Americans against the lies.

I'm starting to believe those who say he doesn't sell progressive ideas because he doesn't believe in them.

[defendandprotect]

126. Because he's a corporate president -- working to undo the New Deal -- !!

And you are correct -- that's what a people's government is all about --

investing in ourselves and our well-being -- not in corporations via privitization -- !!


We're paying KBR $1,000 a gallon for gasoline in Afghanistan --

that would keep a helicopter in the air for abut a minute!!

We're spending more on air conditioning for our troops in ME

than we're spending on NASA!!

And no one is questioning our sanity?




:evilgrin:

[Larkspur]

11. I'm with Krugman on this one

I bet the WH will send out its toadies in the morning to wag a finger at Mr. Krugman and Progressives rejecting Republican President Obama's "compromise" debt deal.

Obama will go down in history as one of the worse Demcocratic Presidents in history because he is a WIMP and is willing to stab working Americans in the back by cutting our earned benefits and letting the banksters and their ilk keep their ill gotten bonuses.

[vssmith]

28. The last three Presidents have provided the US with a trifecta of disaster

[defendandprotect]

127. As Al Gore makes clear ... "Congress is under control of oil and coal industry" .... and Obama?

From his back room deals with Big Pharma and the private h/c industry

in his betrayal of Americans on universal health care -- I'd say this

is a corporate president!

[Vanje]

148. They're certainly HERE! nt

[Hissyspit]

16. kick nt

[BzaDem]

17. This piece is not specific to this deal; it could have been written word for word about any deal

months ago.

I think Krugman would have been more correct about the extortion angle if Obama didn't require that half of all spending cuts be security/defense (with most of that defense). While we think that is uncontroversial, that is extremely controversial among most of the Republican party and will open up a huge rift between defense hawks and anti-tax nuts. Even Republicans are admitting as much.

[Unvanguard]

18. That's true of the initial $900 billion, but not of the 1.5 trillion.

Not unless the trigger mechanism kicks in.

[BzaDem]

22. But the only reason the trigger mechanism wouldn't kick in is if Republicans agree to Democratic

demands for tax increases. Do you see that happening? I don't. But either way, I expect at least close to half of the deal will be anti-Republican deficit reduction (defense/tax/etc), as opposed to social programs/domestic spending/etc.

[Unvanguard]

23. Regarding defense spending specifically, I don't think that's particularly likely.

The cuts in the initial package hit it pretty hard already. I don't think discretionary programs will get the lion's share of the Joint Committee's cuts, given the spending caps already imposed on them.

[BzaDem]

29. I was talking about what happens if there is no deal, which is more likely.

If there is a deal, it would be a deal that Democrats liked better than the triggers (which gut defense, and leave entitlements/unemployment benefits/veterans benefits/military pay/pell grants/etc untouched).

My guess is that there is no deal, and Republicans hate the ~1T in defense cuts so much that they demand the trigger for them be repealed. Then Obama says "OK, if we repeal the rest of the trigger." If that happens, we end up with something like Reid's plan (that mainly just has very backloaded discretionary cuts that future appropriations committees will likely change or ignore).

[Major Hogwash]

27. Seems specific enough to me, look at the date he wrote it.

One thing that is true, Krugman is not lazy.
You might not agree with what he says, but he is not a lazy thinker.

[BzaDem]

31. I generally support what Krugman says. The problem is that he doesn't understand politics

and legislation nearly as much as he understands economics.

If his characterization of the deal were correct, he would have a point from an economics standpoint. But it isn't. The cuts are all extremely backloaded onto the out years, which means most of them will never happen, and to the extent they do happen a huge portion (half) comes from defense (while entitlement benefits and other social programs don't get a penny of cuts at all).

[Major Hogwash]

34. Well, he says he is a liberal. And from what he says, I tend to believe he is more liberal than

President Obama is at this stage in the game.

First of all, I never voted for President Obama to cut any money from the Social Security budget because the Social Security budget is sound, and will be until 2036 or somewhere off in the future like that. In other words, Social Security is not causing the financial crisis.

Second of all, I didn't campaign for President Obama in 2008 because I didn't think it was necessary for me to tell people here in Idaho just how bad McCain's policies would be for us, generally a 3rd Bush term was all he was offering.

Thirdly, I know people who rely on Medicaid and Medicare, and I don't trust the Republicans to just cut out wasteful spending. They don't use surgeon's scalpels, they use broadaxes, and they usually kill programs that way.

Fourthly, I have read Krugman for years and know that he has some political misgivings, but to say that he is not politically astute at this point in time is a little absurd. Especially given the positioning of the Democratic party acting like Republican hoodlums instead of like FDR liberals.

This is all my opinion, of course, so it has as much impact as the witty sayings on the shithouse walls.

[sabrina 1]

86. See what happens if we have another 'shoe bomber' or 'underwear bomber'

to defense spending. The 'underwear bomber' got millions for the TSA's new 'enhanced patdowns and naked scanners' and training programs etc. etc.

[defendandprotect]

131. Definition of Politics is "shadow cast over government by corporations" ... !!

[eridani]

141. So now "politics" is all about a "Democratic" president never deviating from Repuke messaging

--by so much as a millimeter? Compromise is one thing, but using the presidential bully pulpit to agree with the Republican message 100% of the time is quite another thing.

[grahamhgreen]

38. Obama could simply threatent to end the wars and cut the war dept budget by 60%, if a clean bill

does not pass.

It would happen in an instant.

[defendandprotect]

132. Agreed -- but Obama already just INCREASED the MIC budget --- !!!!

[andym]

20. The GOP has finally destroyed President Obama's narrative as the one to make government work

by intelligent compromise between the parties.

Now what is he going to do?

[MilesColtrane]

21. Get reelected?

:shrug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

24. So?

:shrug:

Romney is the architect of Individual Mandate health care... nothing he could do would be any worse than what Obama has already put on the negotiating table.

[Major Hogwash]

25. Exactly. Where are the tax hikes? How do you balance a government without taxes?

Evidently Obama doesn't understand what "supply side economics" did to this country in the early 80s.

Those who fail to remember the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

How come there are no cuts to the defense department?

[grahamhgreen]

37. Obama don't need no stinkin' gummint!

[AllTooEasy]

44. Answer to your second question...

Defense spending is capped in the first round of cuts. If the bipartisn Congressional committee can't form an acceptable resolution(the second round of cuts), the there will be 1.2 Trillion in cuts across the board that include defense. See here,

See here under "Bipartisan debt-reduction committee": http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/01/news/economy/debt_ceiling_breakdown_of_deal/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

notice what is exept from cuts..."Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits and pensions, food stamps and Supplemental Security Income"

Tax hikes are possibe, but unlikely, by this committee.

[Hissyspit]

32. Monday Morning Kick nt

[truth2power]

36. Thanks for kicking this, Hissy. I'll add my own. This has the makings

of a disaster on top of the disaster we're already experiencing.

[xchrom]

33. Recommend

[florida08]

39. no kidding

claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

That should be obvious for anyone paying attention. But Krugman has to keep pointing it out bless him. We have a demand problem. Even the tea party leader that was on Bill Maher said it. "You can't pay taxes when you have no job"..so who's going to step up and bail us out? No one. I'll say it again. Why are we rewarding those who outsource jobs with our tax money? Why why why? If the wealthy Wall Street fuel this economy then what the hell is the problem?!



The House is about to vote. DeFazio fired up

[Amonester]

53. "a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record."

History? Who Needs It? - The Current False Trend Ignorants

Yep. What in the world is it so hard to understand that CONSUMERS HAVE TO HAVE money TO BUY stuff?

But, hey, we have a house a fool$ only concerned about which party's gonna have POWER (to screw consumers more) next...

$weet...

[florida08]

56. Thank you

yeah..that's not important you know because the 'job creators' can now sell globally..we don't need that pesky patriotic nationalism stuff. That's old school. Sweet Jesus.

Still wondering why teabaggers never mention the 16 trillion Bernanke spent in funny money. Oh right they watch Fox Noise.
Didn't happen

:eyes:

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[caseymoz]

46. Not in 2012.

One or another party will have to crumble first. There's not enough time for that to happen. Give it until 2016.

Or until 2024, when the whole system has crumbled and needs rebuilding.

In 2012, I'd look for Mitt Romney to have his own, destructive, one-term presidency.

At least he's to the left of Obama.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[rep the dems]

109. You mean this Mitt Romney?

“As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced – not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table."

Yep, big lefty that Mittens is.

[caseymoz]

150. Is that supposed to embarrass me?

Repubs regard him as too far the the left, and though that's not actually left, that's the polarization of our system. That statement is hardly to the right of Obama, who offered to chop Social Security and Medicare.

And I remind you, ObamaCare was modeled on Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts. (Which, BTW, seems to be unraveling.)

I stand by what I said. He's the most moderate Repub in the field, and, really, the only credible GOP candidate.

On our side, Dems are disgusted by Obama. I don't see Obama winning now. He could lose the primary or he could lose the national, but I don't see any hot dem candidates out there taking the nomination away from Cave Man.

Look for Romney in 2012. And please not, I don't like it either. He's still too far right.l

[rep the dems]

156. If you're suggesting that he's to the left of Obama, which you are,

then yes, you should be embarrassed.

[caseymoz]

157. If your standing up for Obama after this episode, you're taking too much Viagra.

For comparison, I literally can't see where Romney would have done worse for health care reform (a copy of his plan) or the great debt ceiling cave. The difference is: Repubs would have made the deal with Romney when he offered social security. They couldn't do it with Obama not because he's such a great liberal and clever negotiator, but after demonizing him in their propaganda for two years, they painted themselves into a corner with their constituents.

[defendandprotect]

134. +1 -- but my concern is getting Obama out of the White House as soon as possible ...!!

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[Pisces]

43. Fuck off Krugman/Cramer. You are never right!!

[pauldg0]

52. That seems to be true lately.

[BulletproofLandshark]

58. Thanks for that intelligent contribution to the discussion at hand.

Then again, I would lash out too if the president I gushed over at every turn proved his detractors right yet again.

[Pisces]

66. Gushing requires flowery praise, none of which I do. I am opposed to the incessant bashing that goes

on night and day on this board. And you are welcome for the post. Krugman = Jim Cramer. Hair on fire, always wrong.

[BulletproofLandshark]

103. Hair on fire?

So that's what happened to Cramer's hair.

[SoapBox]

47. K & R n/t

[on point]

49. Obama, please resign

It has become clear you are not the person the country needs for the office.

My hopes upon your election were long since dashed, but now your wimpish ways are doing real damage to the country.

I don't know if you are craven, corrupt or complicit, but you are not what the country needs.

Resign.

Let Biden take over. Let there be an opportunity for a real democrat to run in the next presidential election.

You certainly won't get my vote the next time.

[BulletproofLandshark]

59. +1000

[rsmith6621]

60. So Who Ya Voting For????

Perry...Romney????

[davidwparker]

70. myself n/t

[on point]

74. Right now, write-in for Bernie Sanders

[kath]

65. +10000.

Resign already. "craven, corrupt or complicit" - yep.

[davidwparker]

71. incompetent n/t

[indepat]

130. Or a brilliant and competent orchestrator of the enactment of a RW PNAC vision into law?

:shrug: :patriot:

[Dutchmaster]

54. What a coincidence they get a plan just in time for congress to be forced to pass it

or we default. Political fucking theater folks. We are good and truly fucked.

[Jim_Shorts]

55. As long as they don't call it austerity

Grover Norquist and Thomas Donahue must be popping champagne corks right about now, mission accomplished - not one tax increase - created a super cat food commission mandated to make more cuts - no unemployment extension so they can blackmail us again later this year.

Obama and democrats are master negotiators, we should all be thankful for such great leadership. (cough,cough)

(thank you Paul Krugman for continually speaking the truth)

[Romulox]

62. Wrong Krugman. The President got **EXACTLY** what he wanted.

:hi:

[nashville_brook]

78. +1

[Jakes Progress]

63. This is so obvious that we have to ask the question.

Is Obama just not really able, intellectually, for the job of president or is he a reagan democrat risen to power?

[TBF]

69. I think we know the answer to that -

the FDR/JFK/LBJ party is history. This is the new DLC party, funded by none other than the Koch Bros.

[Jakes Progress]

84. The party is being misused.

This is a link to a very valuable piece that goes a long way towards explaining where our president is coming from: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315

I see these Hamiltonian Democrats as the result of those from the party that bolted for reagan. They did not become republicans but, having bought in to the lies and misinformation of the time, brought that stupidity with them back to the party. They grew up post civil rights struggle and post union. They are New Democrats. Which makes them Democrats in name only. They are short on history and short on the knowledge of the party's struggles. They have had a life handed to them have no feeling for all the suffering and hardship that real Democrats have put in before them. FDR, Martin Luther King. These names are only in history books for them. They live the life that others struggled to give them and think that reagan did it.

We call them New Democrats. But they are just glib, unknowing reagan democrats that we have put in office.

[davidwparker]

67. Reagan, who O admires, was said to be the Great

Communicator. O is the Great Appeaser.

Bill Maher is right: If he caves on this, they own is as*. Who takes him seriously?

Or, I suppose the 11-level chess game is now the 25-level chess game and in the last year of his only term, he will hit his stride and we will all see that he's played the republicons remarkably well.

[Jack Rabbit]

68. K/R

What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.

What the Republicans have been doing for the last 15 years has called our whole system of government into question. First, they steal the election by finding novel ways to disenfranchise voters; if that doesn't work, they either impeach the winner or send him to prison on trumped up charges; now, they resort to outright legislative extortion. While that was happening in Washington, a mysterious fire raged in Wisconsin. We may not yet know what caused that fire, but any one who is not the least bit suspicious isn't alive. The Republicans like to say this is a republic and not a democracy, but the truth is that they believe in neither.

I hope the American people see through this. What we may have witnessed this weekend is the murder of America. There's no point in blaming Obama or the the Republicans. The sad truth is that all are complicit. Can America be pulled back from the brink? Perhaps, but the action to fulfill the recovery may be conditioned on an awfully difficult two-fold task: First, the GOP must be reduced to a splinter party in the 2012 elections; second, the Democrats must drop Obama from the ticket. Yes, I said it and I don't like saying it. He has been weak an ineffectual in dealing with an opposition that more resembles the mafia than political leaders, and thus weak and ineffectual in dealing the economic meltdown. He has done some good and he means well, but we elected him to fill FDR's shoes because circumstances demanded it. He has failed.

[Fire Walk With Me]

72. It's all about the last sentence in your OP. Recommending.

[woo me with science]

73. He didn't surrender. He's taking a victory lap. nt

[defendandprotect]

83. KR

I'm sure it is --

We should have RECALLED this president right after the election!!

Voters have to decide if they want any more corporate Democratic Party --

any more Koch Bros DLC corporate influence on it's candidates --

We have to challenge the entire party -- overturn this Congress --

[letmedrinkuin]

90. Obama Is Not a Leader!

From his first day in office, Obama proved he is not a leader.

He came in with a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a massive majority in the House and should have been able to accomplish anything he wanted in his first 100 days.

Instead, he partied on Kobe beef and turned the legislative agenda over to Reid and Pelosi, which doomed everything to negotiations.

Obama did not twist arms of the Blue Dogs, Obama did not take members to the woodshed, Obama did not take any role in getting legislation moved forward.

Instead, we were left with compromised stimulus, compromised financial reform and compromised healthcare rammed through via backdoor deals.

Now we have this "Debt Deal" where Obama was not involved.....he turned it over to Reid and Boehner!

This man is not a leader!

[katty]

92. the great concession on a loop

[Bluenorthwest]

98. And the feckless Obama will celebrate this as another 'deal'

done. The wretch does not care about what is in his deals, he just likes to celebrate. I bet he gets to smoke on deal days.

[tcaudilllg]

99. Obama is not sane.

[FiveGoodMen]

106. He's sane. He's just not good. Or honest.

[Skittles]

116. he fucking SUCKS

[OwnedByFerrets]

100. The problem with your last sentence Mr Krugman is that Democrats

are NEVER prepared to be ruthless. Not the ones in Washington anyway.

"In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t."

[robcon]

101. Maybe the Tea Party has outplayed both Obama and Boehner.

Or as Maureen Dowd wrote: "What if this is all a cruel joke on us? What if the people who hate government are good at it and the people who love government are bad at it?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/dowd-tempest-in-a-tea-party.html?_r=1
edit: add link

[lordsummerisle]

105. K&R n/t

[spicegal]

107. I'm disillusioned to say the least.

The country is totally screwed.

[Marnie]

111. I agree with Krugman. It would be hard to have come

to a worse climax.

Keep in mind that the only issue that needed a decision was the debt cap.

Obama and Bohner connived to use that deadline to totally screw over the middle class and poor, and do it in a contrived situation that did not allow for the public or even for congress to have the opportunity to learn and discuss what decisions wee being agreed on in their name.

Villainy is the nicest word I can think of for what Obama has done, and done deliberately.

He is the one who is using Shock and Awe against his own party and his own voters.

One day he wanted a clean bill, the next day he launched a blitzkrieg against his own people. his own country

[SlavesandBulldozers]

112. we just have to eat our peas i guess.

Or cat food, as it were.

I think Obama envisions himself as a kind of technocratic Lincoln for corporations. Whatever he's doing, I'm guessing he's not a huge FDR fan.

I guess if there's one thing we can be thankful for, its that we didn't have weak Presidents during other critical times. I imagine if Lincoln had the cowardice or duplicity of Obama he'd just have cut Washington and given one side to the South - then called it compromise and pea-eating.

[libmom74]

113. Progressive Party Time

Where are the unions (at least what is left of our unions)? It's time to organize a truly progressive party, it's our only chance.

[defendandprotect]

117. Obama is one of the worst things to happen to the nation --- and the party - !!!

And unfortunately we didn't know that before we voted for him --

Turn those BS meters waaaaaaaaaaaaaay waaaaaaaaaaaaay up !!!

[RBInMaine]

119. Krugman = the hyperbolic king of advocating policy ideas THAT CAN NOT PASS. Find the Earth Paul.

[JHB]

124. Looks like Krugman is under the bus again. n/t

[JDPriestly]

129. Obama has lost the primary. Don't even mention the election.

No way he can win. As soon as possible, he should announce that he will not run.

His initial approval ratings will look very good -- because most people don't know what is going on. But once it hits people, they will be furious.

[robcon]

133. Obama will win re-election easily- greater margin than in 2008.

He'll get, of course, 85% of Democrats, and more than half of independents, and less than 10% of Republicans.

The Republicans have EXTREMELY weak candidates, and they don't have a chance.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[robcon]

152. But 85%+ will vote for Obama. Or did you think Dems will vote for the Repug candidate?

n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

155. What you are saying, sir, is that he's better than a tea party candidate

I agree. But what kind of left-handed praise is that?

[Angry Dragon]

142. You really should do a stand-up comedy act

[WillyT]

138. K... And... R... !!!

:puke:

:kick: