General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsProfessor Paul Krugman gives the President an A-; says he's the most consequential since...
...Reagan, "not that I liked what Reagan did, but he was consequential."
About 45 minutes ago, in an interview with Fareed Zakaria, CNN. Zakaria asked Krugman to grade Obama, and Krugman said that in "grading the difficulty of the test" (specifically the behavior of Obama's opponents) he would give him an A-.
Fascinating, given some of the assessments here.
I expect this OP to either sink like a stone, or become a flamefest, but I just wanted to share.
Cheers.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)Thanks for posting, Hekate!
Hekate
(91,039 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Stuart G
(38,458 posts)Regan was negative, Obama is positive.
DallasNE
(7,404 posts)And let's not forget that Reagan's policies toward Central America are what set in motion what we are seeing today so, yes, Reagan was consequential but so much of it was indeed negative. Same with the economy too where he set in motion the policies that have so decimated the middle-class to the point where Obama is attempting to rebuild from the middle-class out but Boehner an Ryan keep standing in the way.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Clinton maybe. Nixon probably because of the resignation. The rest I doubt it.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)I am sure that makes him, the BOG, and the 1% ecstatic.
NealK
(1,898 posts)January 2008:
"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not."
He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s, and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people just tapped into -- he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
"I think its fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/21seelye-text.html
I don't see a lot of accountability in terms of how the Government is now operating. Ex. The NSA.
DallasNE
(7,404 posts)That speech in 2008 seems to be echoing Krugman in saying Reagan was a consequential President. That doesn't make him a big Reagan fan as I'm sure he would turn around and say that a consequence of those policies was to diminish the middle-class and that is why he wants to re-establish the middle-class. At least, that is my reading of things.
catbyte
(34,546 posts)Obama's words almost as egregiously as any bagger at posting on Freeperville. It's sad. And disappointing.
marias23
(379 posts)Reagan started the US on its downward spiral and Bush continued it.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)That is the group who will be most positively effected
mcar
(42,474 posts)I stand with Professor Krugman.
CurtEastPoint
(18,685 posts)Hekate
(91,039 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 20, 2014, 03:33 PM - Edit history (2)
edited to add dreck link; re-edited to remove link because we wouldn't want a "call-out" would we? "Spineless" will get you there.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)What a bunch of cowards.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,776 posts)deafskeptic
(463 posts)It was a surprise to me that many consider him the worst president in the last 50 year. It shouldn't have come as a surprise considering how Congress and Senate behaved towards him.
I agree ACA will affect a great many Americans in a positive way.
Hekate
(91,039 posts)Just sayin' it was a pleasant interview to watch.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)His detractors only see things from a binary POV: Unless he (fill in blank), he's a sellout, or a corporate stooge.
Unfortunately, these people have never held office and have no idea how government works.
These people, in reality, want Obama to dictate.
Sometimes a leader has to behave like a Trimtab [sic].
K/R
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)CTyankee
(63,926 posts)another reason to love this guy...
PatrickforO
(14,604 posts)And don't you dare have the temerity to tell me you haven't taken any vacations in the last few years. That's like me telling my grandkids I had to walk through thigh deep snow ten miles a day after doing all my chores just to get to my one room schoolhouse.
I think you've been having too much Limbaugh, and everyone knows how smelly THAT is!
babylonsister
(171,111 posts)from someone (two=you!) I respect!
Hekate
(91,039 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)for the post. He's been up against a huge amount of ignorance and stupidity. So yeah, he has done some rather remarkable things for the american people.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)that is not saying much. Obama made the mistake of taking the Clintons' advice in hiring some of this aides (remember Rahm Emmanuel -- Horrors! Offended Obama's base repeatedly) and then ran into the hopeless disarray and negativity of the Republican Party which is still in the throes of disintegration. But Obama's foreign policy will win him praise in the history books. His choice of John Kerry for Secretary of State (which I opposed because I thought we needed Kerry in the Senate. Boy was I wrong) is brilliant. They make a wise, compassionate team.
Obama's foreign policy makes me feel pretty safe. He should cut back on the NSA's surveillance though. It is doing more harm than good.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)His bullying behavior and his pro-corporate positions helped depress the Dem base from turning out in 2010 and setting up a major roadblock in Obama's Prez legacy.
I pray that Rahm goes down in flames in his re-election bid.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)CTyankee
(63,926 posts)Is it just me or is Krugman thinner? His face and neck look leaner than I've seen him in the past...
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)CTyankee
(63,926 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)CTyankee
(63,926 posts)my husband just got the word...and he's complying...of course, when I say it, it's no dice, but when his doc says it...well...different story.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Both men serve the same masters - Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks.
Would be interesting to know how they grade the presidents.
Maybe Krugman is the spokesperson for the 1% and now we know the opinion of the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks.
Hekate
(91,039 posts)You should catch up on his columns going back well into the Bush2 presidency -- amazing stuff for an economist.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)health care, but at least the public option. He's the best kind of economist, along with Joseph Stiglitz, fighting the reactionaries. He's incisive but witty and really kindhearted...just not to RWingers...I consider him a flaming liberal!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)He has yet to reach the conceptual space of wealth redistribution from the 1% to the 99%.
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)brain, I can't recall some of his issues with Piketty...but itis my sense that he didn't disagree with Piketty on the way your frame the issue. However, duty commands that I stand by my argument, so back I will go to the google and I will post as a refresher to my comments here...
I'm editing here because I just gave a quick read of Krugman's review:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/thomas-piketty-new-gilded-age/
No way does he say Piketty is wrong on income redistribution. I don't know where you got that from
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)was he "Surprised About The Corrosive And Negative Impact Of Generational Wealth" (Which would seem to not jibe with the weight of his writings)? Or, surprise About The Corrosive And Negative Impact Of Generational Wealth by the magnitude? ... Or, surprised that anyone would have to announce it?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)The ability of Generational Capital (wealth) to maintain and grow over time - in spite of reforms.
In other words, small reforms like minimum wage, income taxes and even estate taxes are not enough to counter the impact that Generational Wealth has on economics.
Stronger measures, much stronger measures, are required to eliminate the generational wealth which will begin to reduce the corrosive wealth effect as Piketty's research shows.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)He is complimentary of Piketty, because he does not have to champion the argument and can safely remain behind the ivory towers of Princeton University.
If he is so complimentary, where were his tirades against the corrosive influence of generational wealth?
Maybe those tirades were muted because the ivy league patrons of Princeton and similar institutions would be displeased.
"Polite Society" will only stomach so much Tongue Lashing.
Even Krugman has to tow the line of respectability in service of the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Piketty's dataset was something new that nobody had seen before, and brought to light the true extent of the concentration of wealth, as well as a better picture of the historical trends. And Krugman recognized it for the original research contribution that it was. I don't think "surprise" is the correct term here.
And it's not true at all that Krugman has been muted in his criticism of inequality, nor is it true that he only started talking about it after Piketty. Here's an article from him back in 2002 talking about the New Gilded Age, which makes it pretty clear where he stood on these issues 12 years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/for-richer.html
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Piketty shows that unless one breaks apart generational wealth, nothing much will change.
Generational wealth is the 800 lb gorilla in the economists dark closet.
Until generational wealth is eliminated, all talk of reform is just hot air.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Krugman is in favor of progressive taxation, he is in favor of the estate tax, he is in favor of expanding the safety net, etc. I don't know what policies you would like to see him advocate for that he isn't, but from what I can tell, Krugman is solidly in the progressive corner.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Suggested by Piketty's research.
Hence his surprise.
He now has to rethink his positions.
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)he wanted to teach at a public university and New York offered that to him. Very few ambitious professors would leave an enviable perch at an Ivy League university for a public university such as CUNY. Krugman did because of his egalitarian beliefs. You should applaud him.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)"Paul Robin Krugman (born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[2][3] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the effects of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[4]"
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)Gee, that's hard...
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Link From Princeton - Seems He Still A Professor.
http://wws.princeton.edu/faculty-research/faculty/pkrugman
Orangepeel
(13,935 posts)Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/krugman-the-piketty-panic.html?_r=0
Mr. Piketty is hardly the first economist to point out that we are experiencing a sharp rise in inequality, or even to emphasize the contrast between slow income growth for most of the population and soaring incomes at the top. Its true that Mr. Piketty and his colleagues have added a great deal of historical depth to our knowledge, demonstrating that we really are living in a new Gilded Age. But weve known that for a while.
No, whats really new about Capital is the way it demolishes that most cherished of conservative myths, the insistence that were living in a meritocracy in which great wealth is earned and deserved.
For the past couple of decades, the conservative response to attempts to make soaring incomes at the top into a political issue has involved two lines of defense: first, denial that the rich are actually doing as well and the rest as badly as they are, but when denial fails, claims that those soaring incomes at the top are a justified reward for services rendered. Dont call them the 1 percent, or the wealthy; call them job creators.
snip
Ive been involved in debates over inequality for more than two decades, and have yet to see conservative experts manage to dispute the numbers without tripping over their own intellectual shoelaces.
and
http://prospect.org/article/rich-right-and-facts-deconstructing-inequality-debate
The Rich, the Right, and the Facts: Deconstructing the Income Distribution Debate
In 1992, economist Paul Krugman, now a New York Times columnist, published this article in the Fall issue of The American Prospect. Today, his assertions hold up, especially in answer to the conservative critics of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
erronis
(15,470 posts)Most of your replies come from a robotic response. Government/contractor salary, perhaps?
Just to help you "people" understand how to appear "human":
Make some typeing misteaks.
Say something stoopid and then partially retract it.
Don't parody a single POV - maybe mix it up a bit with a cute cultural tidbit.
Oh, and get a life.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)BTW - DU has a Spell Checker Capability - You Might Consider Giving It A Try.
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)Maybe it has not been updated ?
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)2015. He announced his departure in his NYT blog after it was confirmed. Yes, he is at Princeton til later...but he accepted CUNY's offer...
steve2470
(37,457 posts)CTyankee
(63,926 posts)now does everyone see why I love this guy so much?
steve2470
(37,457 posts)for a man of his stature. He is a great guy and a great economist.
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)I have the deepest respect for this good man...
imthevicar
(811 posts)And A ZING!
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Maybe you could explicitly quote here verbatim the
satire I have somehow overlooked? This is a sincere request.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)really?
There was absolutely nothing intentionally denigratory or
otherwise disrespectful toward you or your post. I'm
sorry for the misunderstanding, and not sure why you
interpreted it as you did.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Before his post being "satire"????
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)There was misunderstanding, naturally. That's always
the problem.
Total constant negativity from corporate media fueled by a few here at the DU. I'm happy to at least see some positive feedback. Thank you!
calimary
(81,608 posts)I'd agree, particularly considering the huge hurdles the bad guys keep trying to shove in front of him, the blockages and utter constipation of our government's smooth workings just for spite, from the TRUE "Sore Loserman" crowd. We need some political Ex-lax!
steve2470
(37,457 posts)If he had a more cooperative Congress and a more actively-liberal public, he'd be closer to A+. Historians will record the insanely negative opposition from the Republicans and note the nefarious influence of the far-right influences of the Tea Party segment of the Republicans.
Cooperstown
(49 posts)Of course, for 3.5 years, he has been blocked from doing all he wanted to do by Republicans in the House.
If Republicans were not controlled by their corporate campaign big donors, banks, insurance companies, investment houses, fossil fuel lobbyists, etc., we would have a very healthy economy in most states, and unemployment under 5%, the best that could have happened after the disastrous years and two wars of Bush.
I still imagine how the world and the nation would have looked if Al Gore had actually been granted his earned presidency from those 5 on the Supreme Court. We would all be doing very well by now.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Best POTUS of my lifetime.
wryter2000
(46,136 posts)I'm so heartily sick of all the trashing of Obama here.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)Very few and far between in a US tho
BumRushDaShow
(130,043 posts)And I definitely do not agree with everything Krugman has said and that goes for Zakaria who can be an ass and appeared to want to be one here, but sometimes folks have to get up off the crap and give the President his due.
Basically what he was saying was that Obama has so far become a "transformational President". When you look across the spectrum of subjects, save for education, immigration, gun control, and what was dumped on him from the Patriot Act spy machine, the President has started the course to reverse what was done under Raygun, Poppy, & Shrub, where he -
All in the face 24/7, wall-to-wall obstruction with the enabling of that obstruction by RW corporate media.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)I remember well when he was first elected, thinking he now
had a task akin to turning the Titanic in order to miss the
iceberg and certain disaster (thanks, w.).
And I remember thinking that the task of turning, even the
success of it, was going to be nearly imperceptible to most
people:
Because it was such a huge heavy ship, and a huge looming
disaster; but those few degrees set the country on a new
course, just in the nick of time. Barely.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)I am in complete agreement, given the odds of his success,
the obstacles thrown constantly in his way, the many disasters
that have not been of his making, and on and on.
BumRushDaShow
(130,043 posts)like -
not to mention dozens of mass shootings (including of Gabby Giffords and 26 children and teachers). And then there were the "Arab Spring" uprisings that continue to this day.
All of these things required a Presidential response and Presidential engagement.
Yet because there is so much news or infotainment poured out at once (often selectively), many of these things have been forgotten by the general populace.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)He must feel like he has been turned inside out, upside down,
had his heart and courage and conscience tested from every
side. And no breaks. And he keeps smiling, and he keeps on
going.
I'd say I've got his back but can't begin to keep up with him.
BumRushDaShow
(130,043 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 20, 2014, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)
DFW
(54,506 posts)Howard was asked by someone if he thought he might run again in 2016, and he said no way, because he thought that younger blood needed to be running for the job of President. He said that Obama at just under 50 (at the time) was just about the right age. He still feels that way, even though at 66 (this November) Howard's energy doesn't seem to have diminished any.
Duval
(4,280 posts)Thank you, Hekate, for your post.
harun
(11,348 posts)It's not a grade based on Progressive objectives met, it's a grade based on a completely corrupted Congress awash with Corpo dollars.
wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)liam_laddie
(1,321 posts)wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)Hekate
(91,039 posts)Including one who is absolutely adamant in his fact-free assessment of Paul Krugman, author of the 2007 book The Conscience of a Liberal. She/he can be serious about that much.
SunSeeker
(51,811 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)and resisted making decisions based on pressure from either side of the debate. He has made some bold risky moves that could have easily come back on him if he failed. No doubt the country and the world has benefited from his calm, prudent, intelligent management of some very difficult crises and situations.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)His influence will be felt long after his presidency ends.
I believe he presided over a transformational time for progressive politics, and sowed the seeds for long term change. And did so with with most uncooperative House of Representatives in history.
He will also be remembered for his work for gay rights and presiding over the time when DOMA fell and DADT was consigned to the dustbin of history.
hueymahl
(2,511 posts)Like Reagan effected my generation, Obama will positively effect this generation's thoughts for years to come.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)Knicks007
(73 posts)History will judge him most favorably.
Number23
(24,544 posts)mistake of 2008" and we have posters running around saying that's the one election they'd like to see overturned! And we all know that these folks represent educated "liberal" thought better than anyone else.
K&R
freshwest
(53,661 posts)But don't post a link. I don't think I'd be able to post on it without getting a hide...
DFW
(54,506 posts)The post was most certainly made in jest.
redqueen
(115,108 posts)Someone asked which election would you most want to overturn. Most said Reagan one said Obama.
DFW
(54,506 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and explained it by ... "because we were duped" ... or something like that.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)DFW
(54,506 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 21, 2014, 03:23 PM - Edit history (1)
Number23
(24,544 posts)About the "terrible mistake" we made in 2008 or the poster, who litters this forum almost daily with OPs as if he belongs here, who said in a thread of which election in America's history they'd like to see overturned, that it was the 2008 election they'd like to see done over.
Both said. Both in earnest. Both still posting on DU.
DFW
(54,506 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Are members of the 1% (if not, .1%) that they constantly trumpet their hatred of.
I would say: ... But: is better suited for their recing crew.
Number23
(24,544 posts)touting themselves as the foremost experts on "liberal" thought and opinion????????
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)When someone tells you who they are ... BELIEVE them, especially, when their actions conflict with their newly touted persona.
sheshe2
(84,070 posts)and no flames from me.
He has given us ACA, a life saver for many. Also our feminist President with the Lily Ledbetter act and more, he stands for women. Ha! And our first gay president pushing through DOMA and ending DADT. He has made it possible for people to live as they wish and love as they wish and have a family if they so wish. I love him for all of this and so much more.
Just got home from work and tired, yet had to leave a few thoughts here.
Thanks Hekate
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)Indeed he sounded rather liberal, but does he stand with our President on outsourcing and trade policy?
Hekate
(91,039 posts)...where his thoughts are further elucidated.
Nobelist, Professor of Economics, columnist for the NY Times -- he's a busy man. Many here were keen to see him in the Obama administration before Obama took office, but I'm glad he's not. He's a nervous and twitchy public speaker and interviewee, which is not so great for this media-driven age. He is, however, very much worth listening to and reading.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)blue neen
(12,335 posts)K & R.
Cha
(298,076 posts)President Obama so far.
Gratefully neither of your predictions came to be.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Obama rates a c- or d+. His record on education, the environment, healthcare, income inequality, foreign affairs has been atrocious. I guess if you give up on considering him a Democrat, and label him a republican, he would rate an a-
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)more equitable society, so I give him all kinds of applause...where in his writing does he disappoint you?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and so on - everything Obama is against. He abandoned his liberal background and joined the personality cult, cheering for a president who is far to the right of Reagan. Obama's presidency has been a disaster for everyone except the corporations
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)I am certain you will come away with a different reading...he has a very liberal stance on so many issues...
and please, Obama is not to the right of Reagan...be serious
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)He would never have praised mandatory for profit health care 10 years ago. Now he thinks heritage care is the most wonderful thing ever. Sold his soul to Obamamania. Reagan would never have gotten away with heritage care, race to the bottom, fracking, TPP, xlp.... it takes a phony democrat to enact such disasters.
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)I have a very different read on him...must be some disconnect here...
Hekate
(91,039 posts)Cosmocat
(14,589 posts)and consider the below question ...
First, I will note, I agree that he has been a disappointment with education, being too cozy with big business and allowing the NSA to run rampants. I disagree on health care, the man got the first health care reform in 4 decades done, bit the bullet and used all of his political capital to do it. WE may not like it, but it was a small step in the right direction and the very best that could get done. I think he has been exceptional in foreign affairs.
I don't know about an A-, but Krugmans point in grading him such stands - the only president who has come close to the level of deranged partisan hatred and flat out sedition from the opposition party is Clinton.
I think he has been a good president, not putting a specific grade to it.
But, the question is ...
What could ANYONE have done any differently the last 6 years with the same virulent opposition from the republicans, the media EAGERLY lapping up and advancing their bullshit and democratic pols leaving the POTUS out there all alone with no one supporting the POTUS or fighting to push forward any kind of progressive legislation to counter the endless stream of republican witch hunts ...
certainot
(9,090 posts)rury
(1,021 posts)President Obama is a consequential president and the BEST in my lifetime!!
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)It comes off like conservatives calling Carson and Krauthammer "Doctor."
Hekate
(91,039 posts)...in the moment. Pick any title you like: Dr., Professor, Nobelist in Economics, columnist for the NY Times, author.
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)He is smarter than 99.9999999999% of professors, while Ben Carson and Charles Krauthammer are stupider than 99.99999999999% of doctors.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)haters on the lunatic right, the ungrounded on the far left, and some cranks in between.
Asshats all.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Asshats all.
Well done, sir. Well done.
Read that some from the far left are joining with Rand Paul who both hate Pres O, and shocking, turning against Warren as well, but have always hated HC. What a world.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)In our Lib/Progressive househould, BHO ranks a sorry D/D+
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Given that the GOP have gone to unprecedented lengths to destroy Obama by any means necessary, he's done about as well as could be expected. While I have a few criticisms (such as not pushing hard enough for the public option), they're mostly nitpicking an otherwise decent reign. My frustrations are mainly with a completely broken system which prevents utterly necessary legislation (i.e. another stimulus and a whole package of climate change measures) from even coming to a vote.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)was un-American. Speaking against the President in a other country was un-patriotic.
WOW only for GOP Prez, Dems are fair game. I see a pattern here where the GOP party want a one party system, ummmmmmmmmm sorta like a dictatorship.
nikto
(3,284 posts)You've got to fo with the president you have, instead of the one you wished you had.
Obama is the best America can do, so he's all we've got to stem the tide of Conservative regression,
although Obama does a mediocre job of that, at best.
Obama still beats out the GOP alternative, for sure.
rpannier
(24,350 posts)He was wrong about banking deregulation
He has been in with Obama since day 1
He's an apologist
It's easy for him to say those things because he has money
I had more to write, but they slipped my mind
Allow me, in case there is any misunderstanding
(just cause I like guitars)
Thanks for sharing
And I do agree with Dr Krugman, for the most part.
Though I'd go B
Hekate
(91,039 posts)There's way too many denizens of this board who unfortunately don't have a clue about Krugman, his liberal politics, his value to our side. And some of them are reeeeeeally adamant about not wanting to know any better.
Glad to share.
SunSeeker
(51,811 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)But, not unexpected.
The level of obstruction that the Republican party has engaged in for the last 5½ years is unprecedented, and will be their undoing this fall.
Cosmocat
(14,589 posts)agree on the point about obstructionism, stating the obvious frankly.
But, it won't be their "undoing" in the fall, unless you mean their undoing will be maintaining a majority in the House and possibly taking the Senate.
PatrickforO
(14,604 posts)he has governed very carefully, as a centrist, because of that. This has been rather disappointing to many progressives who would far prefer Senator Warren's agenda (which indeed would be EXCELLENT for the American people). Still we have to be honest here. The Republicans actually colluded on Obama's inauguration night in 2009 to refuse to cooperate with him in any way. I call that despicable treason.
When you think about where this nation actually WAS at the beginning of 2009 when Obama first took office, and the genius of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as the 'stimulus,' I have to give him an A- as well. He did a darned good job pulling us out of the fire and it is too bad most Americans are so shallow and easily swayed that they forget that. Because that one thing earned him the A- right there.
And, again being honest, I dislike Obama's drone policy, and his extension of much of the neocon foreign policy agenda. I really hate the NSA and all the power he's let them get, and I feel very uncomfortable with him keeping the sweeping powers Bush had instead of putting some of them back in Congress, where this nation's founders wisely put them in the first place.
I'm also not a big fan of the Affordable Care Act either. Even though the Dems were in majority in both houses of Congress and we had Obama in the White House, and every thinking person in this country knew that simply expanding Medicare coverage to all Americans was the way to go, instead we got a giant welfare program for insurance companies and still have rationed healthcare.
Those things aside, Obama's done a good job. He got us out of Iraq, though he's now been tricked into sending in 'advisors' to 'help' Iraq out of the situation our invasion got them into. He got Bin Laden. That counts for something.
He has been FAR better than McCain OR Romney would have been, and until the pendulum swings far enough back left so we can get a Warren in the White House, even an Establishment Democrat like Clinton would be OK. But just OK.
You hear that, Sen. Warren?
Sen. Warren?
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Definitely the lesser of two evils.
I don't regret my vote. I just wish an Obama win would have had more impact.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)We did not give President Obama the votes in Congress he needed to complete his vision and agenda. In-spite of that crippling fact he accomplished enough, thus far, to be rated as among our most important presidents.
There was a tremendous projection upon this man and his presidency: blind hatred and obstructionism from those on the lunatic Right that deserted America's best interests in favor of craven hyper-partisanship. Reality free disappointment from those on the far Left that thought it would be rainbows and unicorns for everyone when President Obama took office.
I support President Obama not because he is Black, nor because he is Irish. I support him because he is a good, decent, principled family man. A leader of men who inspires hope in millions and steadily, without fanfare, continues to amass a record of accomplishment in the face of bitter vitriol and unprincipled, baseless opposition.
We elected a president; we did not anoint a king. President Obama will be judged by his record, not by the ankle biting character assassins that are clustered at the far ends of the political spectrum and sprinkled sporadically in between.
President Obama's is not without substantial and substantive accomplishment. Those accomplishments are magnified a hundred fold when judged against the backdrop of historic and unprecedented Republican obstructionism in the House and Senate.
President Obama's critics are without perspective. Their bile and malice is woven out of lies, false outrage, and reality free expectations. History will smile upon President Obama because history favors the steady drumbeat of civility and principled discipline of achievement over the shrill, raucus, rabble of the bitter, the unbalanced and the unrealistic.
DFW
(54,506 posts)If you watch the talking (screaming is more like it) heads and read the hate editorials (Krauthammer, et al), you get the idea that their bile is contrived and their message (such as there is one) is coordinated. They all have the same phrases, tone, and lack of coherence in their arguments. It is emotional, which stands to reason, as no logic plays any part of their ranting. Too bad that it connects with such a large portion of our population. It is wrong to play down the "saturation factor" attributed to untold billions allocated for phony anti-Obama propaganda. Too many otherwise rational people fall into the trap of intellectual laziness, and prefer to accept it as truth in order to have time for Monday Night Football.
certainot
(9,090 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)for a starter.
It seems to me for example, that it could reasonably be argued that Bush's spectacular successes at failure on matters both foreign and domestic eclipse those of BHO and Raygun.
And if he's talking about crystallizing an enduring mindset in their respective political parties and/or ideology, well, BC set the standard and remains the leader of the "Third Way" mentality so many around here defend with the ferocity and in much the same manner, as well as method and means, as rightwingnuts do their nuttery.
That was your motive and point behind this posting wasn't it -- another platform from which his critics could be bashed with the same ole...?
"Just wanted to share."?
too funny
certainot
(9,090 posts)the liberal organizations and the dem party stopped ignoring the right's best weapon for managing media, crating alternate reality distractions, and enabling the obstruction.
as long as the left ignores rw radio it cannot collectively say it's getting obama's back. nor can he be evaluated accurately.
for eg, anyone who blames obama for not getting single payer through has no clue that 1000 unchallenged radio stations have enjoyed 20 years of blasting the country with lies about european and canadian health care. that is what made single payer politically impossible.
the screamers at the town halls that enabled the right to stop the public option were inaccurately called tea party activists- they were the same talk radio base that's always screamed on cue for their talk radio gods.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)like President Obama's performance. That includes me. Those that bought the hype are often less than satisfied. I guess they wanted a president that would be all about the message and were not really interested in what kinds of things presidents really do.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)and covering for BP as they fucked up the gulf, pushing fracking in T. Boone Pickens like fashion, aiding and abetting the radicalization and destabilization of Libya, declaring himself judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens, repeatedly putting Social Security "on the table", pushing the proliferation of drones, diligently working on more destructive and sovereignty impacting free trade deals, allowing more meddling in South and Central America, a stupid and worthless "surge" of his own, embracing to big to fail and holding the banks utterly unaccountable, wealth disparity growing, corporate capture increasing, his cabinet choices a bunch of Turd Way clowns and open Republicans, unions under further assault with nary a comfortable walking shoe but rather Arne and Rahm upping the ante, busting pot dispensaries while "looking forward" and fetishes for "bipartisanship" with the main architects of our deep problems is A material then did Bush pass, does Raygun at least get a C+? Nixon a solid B?
Foolish, if this is an A then virtually anything is at least passable moving forward.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)isolating what he has a large measure if not exclusive control (if only by a veto threat) over makes their "repub obstructionism" argument irelevant and meaningless, which is why their assaults on those noting them are generally the most egregious and baseless.
It's not like we critics of all those things have lodged any objections to the EO he issued today, or any of the other things he's done that have led to the betterment of he quality of life of gays, women, the formerly uninsured, ect, we just prefer to "grade" his presidency on the totality of his actions and inactions.
Hekate
(91,039 posts)...that the comparison to Reagan (nowhere is Nixon mentioned) is NOT for purposes of approval. Krugman is no fan of Reagan's, but simply acknowledges what many others who detest St Ronnie acknowledge: he transformed the scene and we are still living with the consequences. There is a difference between seeing and approving.
As to Obama -- again, I recommend seeing the interview, which was not overlong -- Krugman gives a two-part "grade," one part on what he actually has accomplished so far ("How many answers did you complete correctly on this test?" and the other on the difficulty of the task (insanely hard). Thus if it were only part 1, Obama would get a B-; but given the insane difficulty of the test, he gets an A-.
To reiterate: Nowhere is Nixon mentioned; he was not relevant to this discussion. Reagan is relevant, so he was mentioned. Krugman (a liberal through and through) does not approve of RR, but transform the scene he most certainly did.
Krugman's assessment of Obama is that he is definitely a "consequential president," and although Krugman in the past (in both his writing and his interviews) has articulated his issues with the President's individual proposals and actions, he's intelligent enough to not let that color every single other thing about Obama, like so many here.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)If Obama merits an A then what grades would go to the others?
I've got zero concept of why you are under the impression that I was stating that Krugman was comparing Reagan or Nixon or anyone except as a lame tangent to launch your rebuttal from. Sure isn't what I said.
That said, a B- is no less absurd for the same reasons the A is a joke. Race to the Bottom alone merits a C- at best, the civil liberties assaults should be auto fail, blatant and willful violation of the oath of office.
Even grading kindly on the obstruction curve, a C- is all he merits. Look at those cabinets he has appointed, looks like left to his own devices not much would be different. Maybe a minor additional stimulus chock full of ineffective tax cuts, less stupid on extending unemployment benefits, a fascist "infrastructure bank".
Still would be blowing the banks, still would be fracking like T. Boone was President, TeaPubliKlans haven't held up education, deform an iota, Treasury, Interior, Education, Energy, and Commerce would still be corporate subsidiaries. 8th you have never been a Thug then it is don't call us, we'll call you for anything defense related.
TeaPubliKlans aren't forcing drones and clandestine shenanigans other than loving them as always.
I see what he does in areas where he has a free hand and it is far from encouraging.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Talking positively about the Democrat president draws more trolls than announcing a new forum built just for trolls!
Hekate
(91,039 posts)I've been found out!
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)but thanks for confirming the OPers intent.
I find Krugman's grade pretty amusing in light of his column today. WHy would someone who tirelessly and stupidly pursued this http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/opinion/Paul-Krugman-An-Imaginary-Budget-and-Debt-Crisis.html?ref=opinion&_r=1 deserve an "A-" I'd ask.
I suppose we can thank the rightwingnuts from saving us from his stupidity, no?
But then, this kinda stuff is usually well over the heads of those with primary interests like annoying others.
Hekate
(91,039 posts)J.O.K.E.
Nice to make your acquaintance......stupidicus
See you around.
I wasn't referring to you with that parting observation/remark. A lot of us stir the pot as they say occasionally, and there's certainly no point in getting "pissed off" about or at any particular poster over that.
On the other hand, some like the poster I directed that at, rarely play the bully role and suffer the consequent heat should it arise, but are frequently found egging them on in a supportive role and in the manner seen and addressed here. He obviously knows his limitations, and I just attempted to outline roughly what they are.
I've been "around here" for at least that long myself, I just started participating a couple of years or so ago.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I think the anger directed at Krugman here is a bit misplaced-- like interpreting Time's "Person of the Year" award as a ringing endorsement.
There's no denying that Obama has been incredibly effective, considering the lunatic opposition party he's had to deal with. He's moved his agenda forward with real political skill.
That agenda happens to be almost completely concerned with coddling big business and the 1%, and saving them from the disasters they created, but still-- he's been very effective at accomplishing those goals.
Response to Marr (Reply #177)
Post removed