Krugman compares the candidates latest economic packages...quite interesting

[Didereaux]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html

Op-Ed Columnist
Responding to Recession
By Paul Krugman
Published: January 14, 2008

Suddenly, the economic consensus seems to be that the implosion of the housing market will indeed push the U.S. economy into a recession, and that it’s quite possible that we’re already in one. As a result, over the next few weeks we’ll be hearing a lot about plans for economic stimulus.
<snip>
In fact, recent statements by the candidates and their surrogates about the economy are quite revealing.
<snip>
On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.

Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.

The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.

-------------------------------------
The article stands on its own, as Krugmans' usually do. But this one in particular has great meaning on DU at this time oif for no other reason than it is the only one I have seen that looks at the three candidates economic proposals.

[terisan]

1. Obama less progressive than rivals on domestic policy-according to Krugman

That really stands out in the above Krugman link.

[annie1]

2. very interesting. thanks. : )

[sunonmars]

3. basically as he says Obama is all mouth and no trousers

I'm noticing a pattern here, Edwrads and Clinton come out with something, then a week later Obama comes out with something similar. Could it be, the guy is just a magpie, nicks everyone elses good stuff.

[Supersedeas]

21. I don't know if the ad hominems apply, but I do see a pattern

[BeyondGeography]

4. Yeah, we know, Paul

How'd the first wave of anti-Obama columns work out?

[girl gone mad]

5. Your credentials compare to Krugman's how?

You're leveling a strange accusation against Mr. Krugman. I've always found him to be forthright, so if you are going to attack this particular messenger, you better have something more to back it up than a snarky comment.

[donheld]

6. If Paul is telling the truth, then

If their anti-Obama, who's fault is that?

[Didereaux]

7. Krugman is extremely consistent: he argues from a specific

economic theory, and not from any political one. He is Galbraithean for the most part. Dislike him, diasapprove of his theories, but I defy you to show anywhere in which he proposes something that is not absolutely consistent with his philosophy. He is an accomplished logician as well as an economic authority.

If you wish to argue what he says, take each particular point and respond to it...but do your homework in a most thorough manner first.

Several times in the past few years I have disagreed and sat down to tear him a new one...each time the task wound up convincing me after research that I was either off base, or out of my league. Most often the latter.

good luck on your attempts to dismantle his logic.

[BeyondGeography]

9. The first round of columns were mostly about health care mandates

Edwards and Clinton use them across the board, Obama limits them to children. Obama has effectively won that discussion. Voters in NH (Democratic voters) say they don't want across-the-board mandates and exit polls showed Obama to be the candidate of choice on health care. The California Nurses Association is running radio ads endorsing Obama's plan because of its focus on affordability and its lack of mandates. More and more people are beginning to recognize that unfunded mandates do not equal universal care.

You might say that doesn't prove anything; what it does suggest is Krugman's ivory tower view of the world is less grounded in the real world of what people actually want and need. Now Obama proposes a stimulus plan that puts money in peoples' pockets right away and Krugman offers up another jargonized analysis of how this shows Obama isn't as progressive as his competitors. Few will care.

[Didereaux]

10. but you failed utterly in explaining WHY the one is going to solve the problem and ...

and the other will not. Explain why putting a little money into someones povket now will help them deal with possible health issues later? I'll save you some embarassement by killing off the 'because they will invest it', people who are in need of help with health care are in no position to be making 'investments'. They have immediate needs that always drain whatever small savings they build up. So now that we are past that one: please proceed to explain the disadvantages of Krugmans approach and the advantages of yours.

See, 'one liners' are not useful when discussing real issues. It is difficult, it is time consuming and often times simply frustrating, but there are no simplistic answers to national issues. The only simple thing about any of them is that whatever approaches are used, they must all be applied absolutely consistently and done so for as long as the problem persists or that it becomes obvious that the approach is wrong i.e. massive tax cuts and de-regulation for corporations and massive tax cuts for the mega-rich. We now have enough evidence that these have been a wrong approach.

[BeyondGeography]

13. There is no definitive argument on why one works and the other doesn't

and all candidates are playing politics now that we're either in a recession or close to it. Each plan has something to say for it; what I'm focused on is Krugman's continued academic insistence on ideological purity and his utter ignorance of practical politics.

[Didereaux]

15. since you insist on only vague condemnations and no in depth explanation...i will end my part in thi

[Enrique]

14. how does Obama's plan "put money in peoples' pockets right away?"

this is a sincere question, it seems to directly contradict what Krugman wrote and I'd like to understand.

[BeyondGeography]

16. There is $45 billion in immediate direct stimulus in Obama's plan

either through payments or tax relief:

==Former Commerce Secretary Bill Daley, who spoke to reporters on behalf of the Obama campaign, said that by relying on tax cuts and Social Security bonuses, the Obama plan would have a greater stimulus effect than the Clinton proposal. He said that was because it would get money into the hands of people more quickly.==

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usobam145537791jan14,0,3413714.story

[Enrique]

17. ok

thanks! :hi:

[depakid]

18. Obama didn't win anything

He simply pandered to peoples' emotions and played on their fears and misunderstanding of health economics.

That's the pattern he's shown me time and again.

Pander to X or Y group with feel good rhetoric which, in the end, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The new proposal is simply more of the same- with his "top economic advisor" parroting the usual right wing tomes about tax cuts. Krugman rightly asks "where have we heard this before?"

And of course gets slammed for calling a spade a spade.

Sad really-

[iamjoy]

8. Why Edwards Must Not Quit

This is why Edwards must stay in the race until the Convention, even if he stands no chance of winning. It will be an uphill battle to keep media attention (they already ignore Kucinich). Edwards must stay in because he will keep Clinton and Obama on their toes.

Clinton and Obama as a two person race, it seems like it will just become sniping and rehashing the past (I was against the war from the beginning; I've been working for change for 35 years). It will also become a focus on race and gender. Having Edwards in the race is the only chance we have of this being about ideas.

[progressoid]

11. "John Edwards...has been driving his party’s policy agenda."

At least someone in the media gets it.

[Enrique]

12. I trust Krugman's economics

but I wonder about his statement that Hillary's plan is larger than Edwards's. Hers is $70 billion, his is $100 billion.

[annie1]

19. And this is why Hillary will be the best president. and why i really think...

obama is not ready. and JE might have great domestic policy skills as well, but she trumps in foreign policy.

i hope she can quell some of the mayhem that's happening around her, because she really would be the best person for the job.

[Cameron27]

20. K&R

[fiorello]

22. Critically important, right on Edwards - but cheap shots against Obama

Krugman is great. His remarks on Edwards - "Edwards has been driving the policy agenda" - are right on.

But it's grossly unfair to compare Obama to George Bush. Obama's economic plan, from his web site, calls for tax cuts for the lower+middle class. Same as the others. It's fair to say that Obama "really is less progressive than his rivals" - but comparing him to Bush, c'mon, that's absurd.

Plus, Krugman got a detail wrong. "The Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals." Yes it does. Obama's alternative energy plan is on his web site - apparently it just wasn't mentioned as a stimulus for a recession.

Krugman has been dead-on in his criticism of some Obama policies (e.g. health care). If Obama's economics (=repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy; add various tax breaks for the middle class/working poor) really is tilted towards the rich, and provides less for the middle+working poor than the others - he should show it exactly.

[eridani]

23. Fine, except that Kucinich offers still stronger medicine

--which is why discussing it is off even Krugman's table.

[chimpymustgo]

24. Excellent reading. Edwards IS driving the debate, and the party - and country will be better for it

Pray he gets the nomination. He's got good SOLUTIONS.