Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Krugman: If the GOP wins, historians will look back at it as an event that lead to disaster

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Waiting For Everyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 06:32 AM
Original message
Krugman: If the GOP wins, historians will look back at it as an event that lead to disaster
BusinessInsider.com from the NYT
Joe Weisenthal, Oct. 29, 2010

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-divided-we-fall-2010-10#ixzz13kJWuRng

Not that the electorate will ever be swayed by a NYT op-ed (or any op-ed for that matter), but Paul Krugman is trying one more time to warn voters: DON'T DO IT! DON'T VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICANS!

It's probably his most over-the-top, alarmist piece yet, and that's saying something.

The gist is that this is not 1994 all over again. The economy is deflating, and gridlock means serious issues won't be resolved.

"...future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness."

<snip>

___________

linked, Krugman's NYT OpEd: Divided We Fail

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=2&src=twrhp

<snip>

So if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. actually, that event was SCOTUS giving the (s)election to Bush
the rest of this has been fallout, and continues to be thus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Ditto that.
This is more like the last nail in the coffin, the final swirl as we circle the drain, the icing on the cake, the final embrace of the mud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. More like Reagan
Nixon was the start, but he short-circuited.

The Democratic Party and the media jumped all over Carter, and the romantically delusional voted for Ronald Reagan, St. Ronnie. And it started up in accelerated mode.

Clinton subtly sold out, and W did the stomping.

If the GOP wins, it will be business as usual. Because it's Big Business, and some foolish little businesses, that's done it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. You can go all the way back to Alexander Hamilton
depending on the threshold.

The penchant for wresting control away from We, the People has been here from the start, but I agree that it really took to life in the Dark Days of Ray-gun.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Right. A series of events which have been leading to the demise of democracy in America.
Moving to a system of Corporate Feudalism.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. L-E-D. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southernyankeebelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. I did my part and voted for democrats. If everyone does the same we hopefully will be
better off. The people re-elected an idiot in 2004 and you see what happened. Americans never learn. We are going to repeat those years. Republicans don't think they were bad times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. Important post. Hopefully, they won't be able to burn computers or the internet.

recommended.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoctorK Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. let's take a look:
Kurgman:"that era of partial cooperation in the 1990s came only after Republicans had tried all-out confrontation, actually shutting down the federal government in an effort to force President Bill Clinton to give in to their demands for big cuts in Medicare."

Cuts in Medicare are bad, right? So what have Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress done this year?

“In his analysis accompanying the recently released Annual Report of the Medicare Board of Trustees, Richard Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary, noted that Medicare payment rates for doctors and hospitals serving seniors will be cut by 30% over the next three years. Under the policies of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by 2019 Medicare payment rates will be lower than under Medicaid. Mr. Foster notes that by the end of the 75-year projection period in the Annual Medicare Trustees Report, Medicare payment rates will be one-third of what will be paid by private insurance, and only half of what is paid by Medicaid.
Altogether, ObamaCare cuts $818 billion from Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) from 2014-2023, the first 10 years of its full implementation, and $3.2 trillion over the first 20 years, 2014-2033. Adding in ObamaCare cuts for Medicare Part B (physicians fees and other services) brings the total cut to $1.05 trillion over the first 10 years and $4.95 trillion over the first 20 years.”

Guess we don't need to worry about that anymore, next.

Krugman: "Mr. McConnell did say that he might be willing to work with Mr. Obama in certain circumstances — namely, if he’s willing to do a “Clintonian back flip,” taking positions that would find more support among Republicans than in his own party. Of course, this would actually hurt Mr. Obama’s chances of re-election — but that’s the point. "

Actually, Clinton's decision to triangulate, particularly on the issue of welfare reform (he vetoed the same legislation twice before it was presented a third time the summer before his election against Dole, when he actually signed it and later took credit for it), are part of why he rebounded and won. That, and Dole had the credibility and charisma of a rotting fish.

Krugman: "When Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, the U.S. economy had strong fundamentals. Household debt was much lower than it is today."

Gee, it's a damn shame people who should know better, like you Paulie, advocated for more household debt and were cheerleader numero uno for the Fed pressure on interest rates that made it all possible.

Krugman: "In this favorable environment, economic management was mainly a matter of putting the brakes on the boom"

Actually, the GOP Congress put the brakes on spending growth as a percentage of GDP (keeping it on average during the remaining 6 years of Clinton's presidency below the growth rate of the economy). The prescription for ending deficits is curbing spending growth so that the economy can grow sufficiently to reduce the relative scale of those deficits. While we never got to actual surpluses in government outlays/receipts (check www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np for yourself. Higher debt at the end of every fiscal year), we did seriously change the trend in deficits. Reduced deficits (and expectations of continuing that trend) strengthened the dollars and improved real returns. The GOP congress under Bush went on an insane spending spree, with spending (domestic and military) expanding well beyond the growth of the economy. Coupled with the Fed's ridiculous interest rate policy this undermined the economy and put growth on a hollow shell and unsustainable path.

Krugman: "They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts"

Come'on, Krugman. Are deficits good, or are they bad? If they spur growth with the 'multiplier' then why won't a policy of enormous deficits in the future just bring that much more 'prosperity'?

I hope Krugman has the guts to accept Murphy's challenge
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Umm...Doctor?
Your beloved Republicans spent us from a surplus in 2000 to the largest deficit in the history of the world in 2006 - a mere 6 years to ruin the greatest peacetime economic boom in history. Now they're worried about the deficit. Come'on, Boner. Are deficits good, or are they bad?

The right-wing health care model will soon be applied to mail service, retirement, police and fire departments, roads, water, and schools. Since 1/5 of the country doesn't have access to health care, we can expect similar percentages to do without those other basic needs.

Go back to Beck Nation. Your stupidity doesn't fly around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-31-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Murphy, like all Austrians, makes the assumption that all risks are known,
that all parties to a transaction have all the information needed to benefit from that transaction, that there are no long-lasting mistakes, and further, no people intent on accumulation for the simple sake of accumulating.

He derides declining marginal propensity to consume over time while assuming marginal propensity to save only increases over time, and that saving is always a good thing.

These extremely simplistic arguments created Chile's retirement system designed by the Chicago boys, headed up by Milton Friedman, and instituted by the dictator Pinochet, in 1981.

Who could have foreseen that an individual-contribution system of 10% plus 25% commissions would end up with the contributors living in poverty and the commission people living the high life? Who could have foreseen that the high livers would be friends of the dictator who implemented the system? Funny how "free enterprise" types shower praise on a military dictatorship for its economic policies, which the military was exempt from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classysassy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
10.  To quote Shakespeare
"Oh what fools we mortals be"He must have been thinking of the citizens that vote for republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tylerinthe206 Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
11. Time to get the message out
get the message out that GOP wont work for us! I am afraid. I am very afraid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuart G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-31-10 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. So am I ,,,very afraid..and..
this is making me sick.

tylerinthe 206..welcome to DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Missy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-31-10 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
14. That already hyappened in 2000
Edited on Sun Oct-31-10 09:28 AM by Lil Missy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-31-10 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
16. If Dems lose this Election in a big way...it's the death of America....
While I've moved through the years starting out as a JFK..then morphing on to Clinton's DLC to "Flank the Repugs" on their Business Issues....I became a Lefty..almost Socialist after the Repugs STOLE Election 2000! Yes...Gore should have done more...and maybe Nader cost him the Election...but I still cannot BLAME EITHER OF THEM...because THEY BOTH BELIEVED that the SYSTEM WOULD WORK. They were clueless as to how FAR LEFT America had become and that TECHKNOLOGY and MONEY would TRUMP THEM ALL in the MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

So I blame our MSMEDIA and SUPREMES...EQUALLY!

But, we've gotta Keep Obama and as many Dems in there that we can...because it's easier to PUSH BACK against DEMS that the PALINISKY REPUGS! WE CANNOT ALLOW those CRAZIES (even CRAZIER THAN DEMS) to TAKE CONTROL!

We could get a HITLER...and we dodged that Bullet with PALIN!

Still Believe that we need to threaten our Dems with REVOLUTION if they DON'T GET SPINE...but FOR NOW...we gotta keep with them to even have a dog in this hunt/race to see who wins.

:shrug: Just Saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-01-10 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
17. why vote for ReThugs? they NEVER have anything to offer
they are ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC