Paul Krugman - Clinton's policy "surprisingly bold and progressive"

[bajamary]

In today's NY Times op-ed piece, Paul Krugman writes that:

"All in all, the candidates’ positions on the mortgage crisis tell the same tale as their positions on health care: a tale that is seriously at odds with the way they’re often portrayed.

Mr. McCain, we’re told, is a straight-talking maverick. But on domestic policy, he offers neither straight talk nor originality; instead, he panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues.

Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.

Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.

Do these policy comparisons really tell us what each candidate would be like as president? Not necessarily — but they’re the best guide we have."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. Krugman shilling for Clinton and bashing Obama again. Yawn. nt

[Emillereid]

2. Krugman has become such a Hillary apologist of late that I'm losing my respect for

him as an independent observer. I found Obama's economic proposals and analyses much more on the mark -- it does however justifiably take a shot at Bill's loosening of regulations in the 90s. Read: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/27/112357/993/773/485355

[joshcryer]

32. Obama trusts the "free market." Hillary Clinton does not.

That is the difference in their proposals.

[TheDonkey]

60. Hillary trusts raising interest rates on those that did NOT take these subprime loans

putting a whole-scale freeze on adjusting interest rates will raise the fixed rates on new loans making it less affordable for people now trying to buy a house and do it in a responsible manner!

[niceypoo]

40. Obama has no experience whatsoever with economics...

this is why he attacked Bill Clinton. Obama has a pattern of trying to project his weaknesses on the Clintons.

[dkf]

3. It always cracks me up when someone goes on about being "Bold"

Wasn't that the neocon's favorite word in defending Bush foreign policy?

lol.

[bigtree]

4. I like this part

"Mr. McCain is selling the same old snake oil, claiming that deregulation and tax cuts cure all ills.

Hillary Clinton’s speech could not have been more different."

[hedgehog]

5. Clinton proposes Greenspan lead foreclosure group

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economic experts should determine whether the U.S. government needs to buy up homes to stem the country's housing crisis, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will propose on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN2430663920080324



Bold and progressive?

[theoldman]

6. Greenspan is a Republican.

That is why we are in a mess.

[Bread and Circus]

7. I hate to break everyone's bubble here but Krugman is a fool...

this statement alone should be a tipoff:

"Do these policy comparisons really tell us what each candidate would be like as president? Not necessarily — but they’re the best guide we have."

Basically, he's saying that a politician's campaign promises are the "best guide" as to how they'd govern.

Nevermind their record or how they conduct themself on the campaign trail. Never mind who butters their bread. Never mind their consultants or political connections.

It's all about their campaign promises, so he says....

So I gotta ask "Really, Mr. New York Times smarty-pants boy? Is that really what we should go on?"

Because there's a little thing I like to refer to once in a while called common sense. Common sense tells me that when a registered card-carrying bonafide LEADER of the DLC promises "bold and liberal" policy changes I look at that with a jaundiced eye.

I don't care what his credentials are, his end-statement on that opinion piece is just laughable.

[KittyWampus]

18. he also doesn't provide much to back up that assertion. Nor does he discuss Obama's suggestion

of creating an oversight group, or his mention of the Glass Steagall repeal among other things.

[joshcryer]

29. So one should say that they would vote for Obama based on near complete opposite policies?

Brings new meaning to "Hope and Change."

In politics you must take one at face value, then if they don't do what they said they were going to do, you fire them by reelecting someone else.

You have fallen for the right wing "Clintons are evil liars" tactic. And it seems many here have, in fact.

[DerekJ]

45. "In politics you must take one at face value"

Only when there aren’t any reasons to suggest otherwise. The Clintons WERE good. They are now totally corrupted by power.
until I know the source of their money, and I see their tax returns, understand the influence of the DLC/NeoCons and lobbyists on them, I see no reasons to trust them.

[dorktv]

35. Oh I do not know, if you looked at the Bush's camp campaign promises

you could see they would screw everything up.

Which they went on to do.

[elleng]

43. These were statements

specifically intended to detail what the candidates would do to address the immediate problem.

Common sense tells me that you don't know what you're talking about.

[dorktv]

56. I read two of the three (could not find Senator Obama's)

and I thought that while some of what Senator McCain had to say was not bad, almost everything Senator Clinton proposed was workable and passable while being more progressive than anything else.

(basically making the mortgages like the FDIC for a short period of time)

[elleng]

57. Right.

so what's wrong with bread & circuses? Krugman's fine.

[donheld]

58. "how they conduct themself on the campaign trail."

You mean the way they manage their finances on the campaign trail might indicate how they'll manage finances while in office?

[redqueen]

8. Wow... he said this after Obama made his smackdown on deregulation?

:wow:

:wtf:

[JoFerret]

16. Smackdown! LOL

Don't make me laugh.

[joshcryer]

30. No, he said it after Obama called for "regulation" but showed no policy proposals that actually...

...do anything significant against deregulation.

[splat]

9. Shilling v. bashing-- THEY ARE ALL DEMS! Obama splinter party propaganda

Start an Obama party, or applaud good press for all Dems?

Shilling and bashing are extreme terms for words that help our party.

[redqueen]

10. Sorry, I love Krugman, but this is pretty riduculous.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5283223

[JoFerret]

15. CORrect

.

[kentuck]

11. I seldom disagree with Krugman...

But I watched both speeches and I thought Obama went into far more details and depth and talked more about the need for regulation and his ideas were superior to Hillary's, in my opinion.

[Shakespeare]

12. And Obama's proposals have greater long-term significance. n/t

[asjr]

13. Well, at least Clinton is getting a rest today.

Paul Krugman is the bashee now. He hasn't endorsed anyone. He is telling it like it is. Why can't we accept that?

[Cant trust em]

14. Krugman loves Clinton and doesn't like Obama

What else is new?

[JoFerret]

17. His analysis of the issues

leads him to that conclusion at this time.
However - he seems to have been for Edwards for the same reason. Better plans, better policy proposals, clearer progressive direction.

[Cant trust em]

19. That's not entirely true

He's also criticized the tenor of the whole Obama campaign, deriding the idea of bipartisanship that Obama has as his staple. He's waded into more political waters than just policy analysis. That's the problem I have with Krugman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html?ex=1355547600&en=b3ebc8d6afdec377&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[JoFerret]

21. Indeed - he has many criticisms of Obama and the campaign

But his analysis of the relative merits of the policy plans for health and the economy lead him to conclude McCain is nowhere useful; Obama has good elements - e.g regulation but is over cautious and conservative and Clinton is bolder and more progressive.
On health coverage he preferred Edwards on the merits of the respective plans as having potential to cover the everyone and deal with the rapacious insurance industry and big pharma.

Between them - those last two giants will do their best to crush any change for the better. I see Clinton as the one best able to tackle them head on. having experienced the juggernaut before she comes better prepared to know the enemy and deal with it. She also has the broader and better and bolder proposal.

[Cant trust em]

23. Krugman's disagreements of Obama seem to go deeper than just policy

My point is that now that I see his pattern I'm not too concerned about his columns anymore. Just like I usually skip articles where George Bush talks about us being on the right path in Iraq. I've read all of those ideas, so why keep listening?

As for the differences between Obama and Clinton, I'm sure that you and I don't have anything new to add to this discussion. If you've been around DU for the last few months as I have, you've probably said everything there is to say and heard everything there is to hear about which one is the more progressive candidate. We could keep going back and forth, but ultimately I stopped having these conversations back in January.

Here's to taking the White House back in the fall!

:toast:

[JoFerret]

27. It's always best to stay inside the bubble

Differences of opinion are never of any value. Especially when they have the effect of poking holes in the lining and letting the stale air of misconceptions escape.

Best ignore him and his ilk altogether. Very upsetting.

[Cant trust em]

28. That's not what I mean

Criticism is fine, but the same criticism from the same person gets stale after a while. I understand that Krugman doesn't think that Obama is progressive enough. I've read enough articles and I'm ready to move on.

[JoFerret]

38. Enough of the facts.

I'm with you on wanting a dem in the WH. I did also want to see progress on some key social and economic issues that I now fear will not be either high on the agenda, or able to be accomplished.

That saddens me.

[Cant trust em]

52. I'm not trying to blow you off, but I feel like I've had this conversation so many times

It's tough to get fired up to have the same arguments over and over.

[JoFerret]

54. Fair enough

Cheers!

[fujiyama]

44. I have the same problem with him

I really like Krugman, and obviously have agreed with most of what he's said over the past eight years, especially about this administration.

But the irony is that Krugman himself has become what he used to loathe. I remember reading his book that he wrote in the '80s "Peddling Prosperity" (a great book BTW that debunks "trickle down economics") where he briefly touched on pundits. He basically said that those that sit around talking, don' have much time to actually accomplish anything. He used to stick to economic issues, which is his expertise (I think his particular field may have been international economics) and offer a relatively balanced though of course, left of center critique of republican and RW policies (hey as Colbert said, "the truth has a well known liberal bias". His partisanship during these primaries has made him (and many others for that matter) blind to the faults of their preferred candidate of choice.

[Cant trust em]

51. Dance with the girl that brought you, is my philosophy

I had the same criticism of Cindy Sheehan when she was big. She was great at being an anti-war figurehead, but when she started to talk about Israeli-Palestinian relations, I felt like she lost some credibility there.

[AX10]

20. The right and the left hate her.

From Hannity to Sedar, the hate for HRC is extreme, blind, and dangerous.

[joshcryer]

31. Yes, it is amazing. People hate that woman.

To their core.

[McCamy Taylor]

34. They project a lot of their negative feelings towards their mothers on her, I think

Some one needs to do a survey to find out how people's relationships with their mothers correlated to their feelings about Hillary.

I have noticed that a lot of rabid Right-to-Lifers hate their moms.

[americanstranger]

39. Hey, I loved my Mom, rest her soul.

Still don't like Hil very much. but my Mom has nothing to do with it, really.

- as

[dorktv]

36. I know...it is weird. I mean I can understand disliking someone but this is just

scary how much the people in the party and on the right want her dead.

[niceypoo]

41. Obamas supporters are fueled by this hatred...

...which, in my opinion, leaves no good options for me to vote for.

There are basically three republicans running.

[Evergreen Emerald]

62. anytime an uppity woman threatens the power structure they are hated.

[OzarkDem]

22. Obama's a free market cheerleader

so its no wonder Krugman doesn't like his economic plan. The last thing we need right now is another cheerleader for laissez faire captialism.

[Drachasor]

24. You don't pay any attention to what Obama says, do you? He doesn't advocate laissez faire capitalism

He's a huge proponent of regulation.

[Tellurian]

55. He advocates Bush Republican policies.. nt

[XemaSab]

25. Do you know what the DLC is?

They're HUGE free market capitalists

http://www.dlc.org

[Cant trust em]

26. Obama has been talking about more regulation and oversight from the beginning

What's the line from his speeches? Something like "the current downturn isn't an inevitable part of the business cycle. It's due to a failure of leadership from Washington."

Hardly cheerleading for laissez faire capitalism.

[DrFunkenstein]

37. Headline: Obama blames 'ethic of greed' for economy

Barack Obama went to New York on Thursday and blamed lobbyists, greedy businessmen and complacent Washington politicians for creating “an ethic of greed” that led to today’s foreclosure crisis.

“Under Republican and Democratic administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productive and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales,” he said in his New York address.

“The future cannot be shaped by the best-connected lobbyists with the best record of raising money for campaigns. This thinking is wrong for the financial sector and it’s wrong for our country,” he said later.

Obama said he’d seek a new, modern-era oversight system for the financial and housing markets. He also called for greater transparency in the complex transactions that turned a weakness in the mortgage industry into a global economic event. And he said the Federal Reserve Board should have supervisory authority over firms that may borrow from it.

“We have an economy that is out of balance,” he said to about 300 supporters. “It’s one in which most of the people in this room have benefited enormously over the last decade — and I include myself in that group. But it is an economy that has left millions of Americans behind.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080327/pl_politico/9238_1

[niceypoo]

42. Obama needs to take his "Blame the Clintons at all cost" blinders off...

The economy is crap because of Bushes economic policies pump trillions of BORROWED dollars into a black hole.

Attempting to blame Bill Clinton for Bushes economic failures gives Bush a free pass.

[McCamy Taylor]

33. Well written Krugman piece as usual. The man is a national treasure!

:applause: :loveya:

We need a Paul Krugman Fan Club! Brainy men are soooo sexy!

[Political Heretic]

46. Until he says something you disagree with right? Then he's the spawn of Satan? Like KO?

I like Paul Krugman. I find myself in regular disagreement with him on this election, unfortunately, and a lot of the times I feel confused - like somehow we're not living in the same world. But I still like him.

[Political Heretic]

47. I wish I could see what Krugman apparently sees. But I've read every policy position I can find

...and I just can't find it.

Has she somehow disavowed the politics and policies of her husband, who described himself as a pro-business pragmatist and centrist? Where does the word "progressive" fit?

So a mortgage plan and a health care plan that isn't single payer now make someone's entire policies "surprisingly progressive?"

How about poverty?

Trade?

Living wage?

Corporate accountability and regulation?

Welfare re-reform?

Spending reform away from military dominance and toward social spending?

Disentangling business and government?

Rebuilding Americas Unions?

Outlawing Right to Work laws?

Aggressive support, defense and action in accordance with every principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - at home and abroad?

THAT is "surprisingly progressive."

No, Obama isn't progressive either. But I'm offended by Krugman's characterization.

[Sparkly]

53. "Surprising" because of the negativity about her, I think he's saying.

Her healthcare proposal is to the left of Obama's, getting us closer to single-payer, at least.

I haven't looked at all their economic proposals as carefully as others (like Krugman). But Krugman's making a comparison here. Nothing to be "offended" about, imho. :shrug:

[Perry Logan]

48. Clinton-bashing never stands up to the facts.

[Political Heretic]

49. What facts? See my post above yours.

[Perry Logan]

50. Deleted.

[TheDonkey]

59. Clinton's plan punishes those wanting to get mortgages now and is a knee-jerk overreaction

to pander to those who do not understand the complexities of mortgage interest rates.

Obama's much like his health care plan offers the more seasoned, responsible, and superior plan.

[NoBorders]

61. Maybe there's mor e to this

It just occured to me, and this is a pure flight of fancy, but there could be more behind Krugman's anti-Obama feelings. The candidates usually bring in one or more well-known, distinguished economists as their advisor to help them formulate policy. I wonder if the guy that Obama brought in (from U. Chicago I think, I forget his name, but I read an article about him), is someone that Krugman dislikes, not personally, but at an academic/intellectual level. These academic/intellectual 'battles' can be pretty bitter in their own little world. Could be Krugman has long been opposed to Obama's advisor. It just seems like Krugman came out pretty early and strongly against Obama, and maybe it's because he knew where Obama was getting his advice.