Paul Krugman is our Eric Shinseki

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Some guy with considerable expertise gives voice to something of almost child-like simplicity that everyone knows, or would know if they were not in willful partisan denial.

Since his statements of the obvious are politically inconvenient to the administration in power he is dismissed by the administration's most reactive online advocates. His motives are questioned. His statements analyzed in terms of how much he loves the president, as if that has any bearing on simple analysis of overt facts.

The Tinkerbell strategy is invoked... any flaw in the leader or his policies is due to people not clapping hard enough.

The true believers roll their eyes dramatically and denounce others as partisan infiltrators. The time-honored tactic of dismissing all criticism as originating from a conspiracy of "the others."

The difference between DU and Free Republic is that on DU people can say nice things about Krugman. I'm sure pro-Shinseki posts were yanked from Free Republic pretty quick.

So that's a tribute to Skinner et al.

But the 'rally-round-the-flag' fingers-in-ears la-la-la thuggery and willful ignorance are all too familiar to those of us who have observed the wing-nut nadir of reasoned discourse.

Obama is a good guy. He deserves more contemplative supporters and principled liberal and progressive critics. Without them he will flounder. Democracy is a conversation--a 24/7 debate--not a lecture.

As France said about us before the Iraq War, "America needs allies, not sycophants."

[Captain Hilts]

1. No, this is no board to be critical of anything Pres Obama does. nt

[ClarkUSA]

48. lol! How amusing. Plenty of anti-Obama OPs here. But God forbid if one is critical of Hillary!

[Cha]

58. lol..see post# 57~

Paul Krugman is no Eric Shinseki, either.

I'm not sure what Krugman is.

[ClarkUSA]

59. Heh

see post# 57 ~

POW! :rofl:

I'm not sure what Krugman is.

see post# 50 ;)

[Hansel]

66. A sore loser?

He never liked Obama and his criticism was so over-the-top during the campaign that I don't even read what he writes anymore because there is always one guarantee. If it's about Obama, it will be some over-blown criticism. He is not an objective observer which damages his credibility. He needs to take a seat along with the blowhards who created this mess and shut up. Nothing he says helps.

Post #57 is pretty much spot on about several on DU.

[ClarkUSA]

71. Definitely.

You described him -- and others -- perfectly. :thumbsup:

[Cha]

57. Bullshit..I know how much "criticism" you take

of anything Hillary so don't try your bullshit here.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[MoJoWorkin]

3. NO.

Krugman will never be happy with anything. He is not going to be held responsible. It is easy to be a critic in his position.

I believe he wouldn't even like his own ideas, if somehow he didn't know they were his. LOL

[WeDidIt]

4. I think Krugman's schtick is to make things sound worse than they are

Just my opinion of the guy. He knows his stuff, but he's a bit over the top at times.

[Captain Hilts]

8. He was VERY positive about the budget the Obama Admin submitted. nt

[WeDidIt]

9. That's as presented

Wait until Congress finishes changing it (and they will). The sky will be falling all over again.

[Captain Hilts]

11. But it's not as though he is not ready to praise the Admin, as some here are suggesting. nt

[WeDidIt]

12. Oh I agree

I think more than anything, he's being a foil to the opponents of the administration.

Let's face it, the only reason Obama didn't go for more stimulus money and fewer tax cuts initally were the political realities. Krugman becomes a built in excuse if things don't work as well as expected and becomes the best argument later for even more stimulus dollars.

[AllentownJake]

5. No comparison

Bush was creating a fake crisis with the full backing of his party and our party rolled over and let him do it.

Obama has a real crisis, with a senate and house that has blue dog dems that will be just as obstructionist as the GOP which is entirely aligned against him if he tries to do what Krugman says.

The fact is, the political reality is, it is easier to talk our country into war than it is to talk our country into doing the right things to right the ship.

[ErinBerin84]

6. I like Krugman

and agree with him a lot of the time, but that comparison is dumb.

[BeyondGeography]

7. "Childlike simplicity" sounds like a description of Krugman's assessment of the political challenges

of enacting the largesse that we all favor.

This gets tiresome.

[KittyWampus]

10. Krugman is a lot like Climatologists talking about Global Climate Change. Never any real solid, firm

pronouncements. I've been reading him avidly for years.

He couches his "suggestions" and observations.

There's a big difference between theory and policy and getting things passed into law.

There may be a reason that Team Obama hasn't nationalized banks yet.

[dbmk]

18. I disagree some

I think he is right in his assesments of the economical needs. But his words are placing blame for the lack of political backup for it at the wrong place.

And thats where I think most people take excemption to his words, in their defense of Obama. Krugmans words does not reflect a reflection of the politically possible.

[PBS Poll-435]

13. A rare disagreement with you

Krugman needs to be knocked down a few pegs.

I am not a New Yorker, but I understand the NY-NJ/Princeton/NYTs allure of Paul Krugman, but at this point, I believe he is just yelling for the sake of hearing himself.

[berni_mccoy]

14. Dumb. Has Obama had Krugman fired? Has Obama even said he disagrees with Krugman?

You are confusing the acts of a past administration with the voice of some of the current administration's supporters.

Please, learn to make analogies.

[asphalt.jungle]

15. And Shinseki never had Bush in his sights since the 2000 rethug primaries

that's another major difference.

[camera obscura]

33. can we PLEASE stop this "Krugman hates Obama for the primaries" meme?!

The guy is hardly a PUMA, he defended Obama during the general election. Does he have to sign an I Heart Obama valentine before people are willing to believe he likes the president?

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Several columns blasting Obama's health plan. One that criticized McCain's.

Which was orders of magnitude worse. I was an Edwards supporter during the primaries and then neutral when he dropped out (I know - thank god) but I noticed that Krugman had a particular hard-on for Obama. He pretended to be for Edwards for a while but I got the sense he was always in the bag for Hillary. Which would have been fine with me but he should have come out and admitted it.

[camera obscura]

38. Yeah, he was in the bag for Hillary, and it annoyed me at the time. But that's the past.

It doesn't mean that he's not right on these issues. I've heard over and over that Krugman is just arguing from bad faith, and I don't buy it. Plenty of economists agree with him - he's just the easiest one to bash.

[Hello_Kitty]

40. Yes, plenty of economists agree with him.

But he's the only one being bashed by us because he IS arguing (at least in part) from bad faith.

[Uzybone]

16. ridiculous comparison

Krugman doesn't even have a official role in the government. Right now he is just one of many outside opinionators.

I think Krugman has been making good points for a very long time, I hope President Obama listens more to him.

But trying to make him an Obama enemy is unnecessary.

[DevonRex]

17. Stupidest post of the day.

[Dawgs]

25. Stupidest post of the MONTH.

This love affair with Krugman is getting embarrassing.

Did Obama ever say he isn't listening to Krugman? WTF!!

[specimenfred1984]

26. Stupidest post infinity! Double infinity!

I can think of a couple of people who should be at FR.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Your running argument is, I think, based on one idea that I believe is flawed:

that Paul Krugman, an economist/columnist (who has a mandate to attract eyeballs to his writings, I might add) had and has a better idea of what is politically possible as regards economic stimulus than the Obama administration did and does. If you accept that Mr. Krugman has recently metamorphosed into a political savant, whose opinions on legislative strategy are beyond reproach either because of their substance or because of the ideological leanings of the man himself, then everything you have written from the first mutterings about a stimulus package holds water. If you believe, as I do, that Paul Krugman's statements on the stimulus are more from a perspective of a nigh-Platonic ideal of politics, then your arguments seem just as irrationally tied to Mr. Krugman's exceptionality as you believe that others are irrationally tied to Mr. Obama's exceptionality.

[galloglas]

22. exceptionality ?? Obama's and Krugman's ??

We are talking politics here. If you wish to compare Obama to Krugman on the subject of economics and speak of "exceptionality", please put in some perspective.

If Obama is advised by Krugman in the area of community organizing or even the Interior Department, let alone online political fund raising, give the nod to Obama. But, when it comes to economics, where is Obama's Nobel Prize?? This isn't about "what is politically possible" or "legislative strategy", it is about what will happen to the world economy and the possibly dire consequences Obama and Krugman are both wishing to head off.

Despite "what is politically possible" or "legislative strategy", this problem will get down to dirt and grit and necessities in short order. Who do you wish to rely on for the actual economic foresight to avert the impending "Thelma and Louise" moment? The Nobel Prize winning economist or the new President, both of whom want what is best for the nation?

Being dismissive of Krugman is bloody stupid, IMO, even if one disagrees with him. Ignoring the wailings of a modern day Cassandra does nothing to avert the catastrophe that the Cassandra wails about.

[Occam Bandage]

27. Krugman's Nobel prize was for his analysis in international trade patterns.

That is very impressive, but has absolutely nothing to do with what is politically possible when it comes to the passing of bills in the United States Congress. You, like Krugman, and like Kurt_and_Hunter, ignore the Senate and simply focus on what ought be done in an ideal world in which neither Republicans nor the electorate nor Democratic congressmen with their own district/state-focused agendas exist. While there is certainly value in stating what ought be done in an ideal world, it is either dishonest or it is mistaken to flatly compare that perfect-world bill with the result of a hurried and bitterly-fought political argument. I think that saying, "Well, Obama should have proposed exactly the bill we need and the Dems would have all gotten right on board and we would have hit 60 votes in the Senate" is nothing but hand-waving.

[galloglas]

52. Any differences between Krugman and Obama

will be made readily apparent in the coming months by a Cold Dawn of Reality. One, but not both, will be more accurate in the forecast. Perhaps both will be wrong.

The problem lies in the fact that no one (that I know of) is proposing to say "Well, Obama should have proposed exactly the bill we need and the Dems would have all gotten right on board and we would have hit 60 votes in the Senate". We are instead saying, I think, that things may well (might probably) get worse and that revisions to the imperfect plan ("ugly", I think Orszag called it) will be necessary. And, when engaged in a world of turmoil as we now are, revisions become necessary and are best utilized when recognized as early as possible.

Consider WWII. That was a war. And what we are facing is much like that, carrying many unknowns and many situations which we have never encountered. Neither Obama nor Krugman can have a crystal clear vision of the future. Both, from differing perspectives, are watching, advising, deciding, and trying to interpret correctly, so as to best serve the interests of the nation.

In WWII, there were many changes to take into account, so let's take the Battle of the Bulge as an example. In hindsight, we now know what the risks were and the objectives of the Third Reich. Had we known it then, we could have reacted sooner, perhaps, to better effect. But the important point is this. Had we not discovered (at whatever juncture) what the dangers were in time to react, we would now be looking at the historical effect of not acting.

The important point is that we saw the problem and, when there was enough knowledge, we reacted. Is it any different with Obama and Krugman?? Both have opinions (as did Eisenhower and Montgomery) that may, at this point, differ. The only questions worth asking, I think, are about the end goals of both men (or any others voicing opinions). If they are both wanting what is best for this country (my belief), then they will both see the dangers and necessities soon enough. It is only important that their decisions and desires are to benefit the country, and the world. Grandiose? Well, we should all try to be the best we can, no??

Meantime, the exchange of ideas and opinions is vital for the working of democracy. Should we be pounding on Krugman for thinking that what we have done is not enough? Not in my opinion. If he is correct, we (and Obama) will have to contend with the fact. If he is incorrect, we can look back and feel happy that there was one less crisis to endure.

But where is the logic in thinking that Krugman pointing it out as inadequate is a bad thing? If he is correct, he is warning us of what may come. Indeed, Obama may already know it himself. Both are bright men with a common goal and pitting them against each other here at DU, in their (possibly) differing opinions, seems totally counterproductive.

What seems sometimes unsaid is that Krugman, when critical of Obama, (unsaid) is chanting at Obama "You shoulda done it different!!" I don't think that Krugman believes that nor that Obama believes that. I think both want to win the war and that we should listen attentively to both.

[Median Democrat]

20. Krugman's Analysis Is Incomplete and Misleading - See Brookings Study

Your refereince to "child-like" simplicity is apt, because Krugman's columns over simplify to the point of being misleading.

I linked a Brookings study, which actually cites Krugman approvingly, but it also discusses the factors that Krugman can't or won't discuss.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/0225_bank_nationalization_elliott/0225_bank_nationalization_elliott.pdf

First, Krugman never discusses the logistics or federal resources needed to nationalize banks. If you read Krugman's columns, you would think that it would be easy to nationalize the banks, and the Brookings study confirms that it is anything but. Second, Krugman also mistates the politics involved by suggesting that it would have been easy to pass a bigger stimulus package now, but that it would be impossible to do so later on. And, how does Krugman know this? Is Krugman a nobel laureate in politics now?

In other words, Krugman should stick to what he knows, and also provide a more complete discussion of nationalization. Instead, Krugman is almost becoming as misleading as the conservatives he purports to criticize.

[camera obscura]

28. Brookings Institute = home, or former home, to Larry Summers. Of course they support it.

[Dawgs]

29. How do you know that Summers is wrong, and Krugman is right?

Are you an economy expert, or just a Krugman lover?

[camera obscura]

32. I'm not an "economy" (economic) expert. But I think that Summers is too heavy on the neoliberalism

with his plans for broad tax cuts (remember the capital gains tax cuts) and deregulation, as well as his active rallying against executive pay caps.

It was a huge disappointment to me that the stimulus did not contain more money for infrastructure, which was requested on both the Republican and Democratic sides. Rep. DeFazio suggested this was the fault of Summers as well.

[themaguffin]

21. unfortunately there is an element of this in dismissing him

[Dawgs]

23. Name one idea that Krugman could get passed in Congress.

And, how do you know that the administration isn't listening?

You assume a lot in your post.

One, you have no idea what Obama and the administration will do in the coming months. Do you know for sure that they won't try some (or all) of the things that Krugman is complaining about? It's only been 49 days, right?

Two, Krugman is not the only expert out there. Obama has plenty of people to advise him on the economy. It's possible that Krugman is not the only economic genius out there.

Three, what makes you so sure that Krugman is right, and Obama is not. Do we know for sure that Obama's plans AREN'T better than Krugman's?

[Sparkly]

24. Sad but true.

Plenty of broad criticisms (and worse) of Krugman, and very few arguments against the points he raises specifically. That's a red flag right there.

[sampsonblk]

30. K & R for sane, rational discussion (nt)

[FrenchieCat]

31. Krugman is contributing to a crisis in confidence......

He's more invested in being proven right at a later time, then he is in doing his part in bringing the opposition ideologues down now. He is working hard at becoming the economic Cassandra but is doing so at the detriment of the current administration by adding fuel to the fire as he proposes steps steeped in theory without consideration to political realities. the point is that he could be making the same arguments in a manner convenient to the administration, but he chooses to be a thorn in their other side instead. It is his choice, and he may be proven right by his theory, but wrong by his method. The end result is that Krugman has not been so helpful in showing up the extreme ideologues on the other side, nor dressing down the media for reporting a one sided debate on the economic front. When one is not part of the solution, then they are part of the the problem.

[MarjorieG]

35. Agreed.

[Hello_Kitty]

37. I have no problem with him being theoretical.

We need people to argue economic theory from the left (not that Krugman's that far left but he's about as far as we're going to get in the current media climate) since there are so many idiots squawking discredited Reaganomics from the right. But I agree with you that his method is wrong in that he's putting the wrong people in his targets. I vastly prefer E.J. Dionne, who may not be an economist, but does a great job of countering RW b.s. in a way people can understand.

[Cha]

63. Of course, he is..he either does not care or

he can't see past his nose as far as Obama and our country is concerned.

[noiretextatique]

34. excellent post...but krugman is the new nader

given the outrageous claims being made against him (see the post above for an example), krugman reminds me more of nader. and like nader, most of krugman's critics are centrists and moderates who are angry because he's not doing enough cheerleading for our side and not enough booing for the other side. that pretty much sums up much of the anti-nader sentiment over the past eight years...regardless of the reality of what he did. the same thing is happening with krugman.
thank goodness Obama is far more thick-skinned and rational than many of his devotees.

[FrenchieCat]

41. The point is that during an economic disaster,

Mr. Krugman cannot have his cake and eat it too! He cannot dwell in a world of theory unquestioned and yet refuse to insert himself into the real world. He states that what is needed is a 2 trillion dollar stimulus, but doesn't provide the intellectual strength in attacking the other side to help make it so. It's fine to put out one's wish list, but it doesn't help when much of what is demanded is been politically blocked. And in fact, he is furthering the erosion of what is politically possible by focusing on questionning the current administration, as opposed to questionning his ideological foes and the media who is working hard to confuse the public and to sow doubt that stimulus spending is even what is required and that nationalization and bail outs are equally a No Go.

[noiretextatique]

42. he's an economist, not a politician

and i think his analysis is spot on. he is saying the stimulus package isn't enough to deal with the economic crisis, and believe him. obviously, he thinks the stimulus should be larger, and if the goal is the effectively deal with the crisis, i don't think his ideas should be dismissed as politically unfeasible because of the yammering of the rw noise machine and the futile obstructionism of the irrelevant party.
obama has proven himself to be a shrewd politician and he's got the support of the people. if he needs additional stimulus spending, at least krugman (and others) have already made the case for him.

[FrenchieCat]

44. If he is an economist, why does he enter the realm of politics when it suits him

to make a point? He does this constantly.....even if you haven't noticed.

Here is Krugman on January 25th, two full weeks before the stimulus bill is reconciled and signed: the Democrats appear to have buckled in the face of the Bush administration’s ideological rigidity, dropping demands for provisions that would have helped those most in need. And those happen to be the same provisions that might actually have made the stimulus plan effective. snip. And if that happens, we’ll deeply regret the fact that the Bush administration insisted on, and Democrats accepted, a so-called stimulus plan that just won’t do the job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1

the Obama administration isn't proposing to spend enough, added Krugman, the winner of a Nobel Prize in economics for his work in world trade patterns.

The $819 billion spending package passed by the House of Representatives this week is about $1 trillion short of what's needed, Krugman said. Achieving sustained recovery will probably require spending $600 billion per year for three years on projects that put people to work while building a lasting infrastructure to support ongoing economic growth.

Asked how long the current downturn could last, Krugman said that the recession could end, according to traditional economic measures, as soon as late this year or early 2010.
http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2009/01/26/daily68.html

The above article is paraphrasing one of his column, in where Krugman provides a rosier outlook (Krugman sets recovery for late this year or early 2010?), but states clearly that the stimulus is $1 trillion too short, but doesn't provide a biting commentary on the obstructionists who say otherwise, nor does it give a way as to how this additional trillion could be gotten.

I could go on and on with examples of Krugman mentioning politics when he feels like it, but his critique of the opposing point of view is consistently done in passing, as he knocks on the Obama administration time and time again.

One third of the battle is psychological, and on that front Krugman is hurting, not helping. Another third of the battle is political, and there Krugman only goes as far into that world as is convenient for him without getting too dirty on calling out the opposition. The last third is strategy, and although he knows what to instruct others to do, this biggest strength is criticizing any steps taken or not by the Obama administration. He needs a bit more balance in order to be useful...which is what he should be aiming for; usefulness, not simply playing the Oracle who was right, i.e., a cassandra (which only benefits him at the end).


Certainly he may be proven correct, and if that is his only goal, guess he wins.

[noiretextatique]

46. it seems to me that he's talking about the economy

:shrug: it's tough to avoid politics when politicians are the one who craft the spending bills.
i think krugman has actually provided obama some wiggle room for when he proposes more spending to deal with the crisis.
if you believe krugman wants obama to fail like the republicans, then you didn't read he article praising the proposed budget.
krugman, like nader, is not an enemy, but clearly he is not a cheerleader either.

[FrenchieCat]

51. The budget has only being now proposed......

but based on the past, I suspect that Krugman will be all over Obama is there are any changes made.

[FrenchieCat]

45. I also point to another column for your review.....

written by Krugman on Bush and Torture.

I'm glad that he wrote it, but he certainly had his political hat on when he did so.

So it appears that Krugman does political commentaries when it is convenient. Note that there is not one word about economics in his writing on January 19, 2009. However, he again calls Obama to the carpet, which appears to be a habit of his.

Go ahead and read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[noiretextatique]

47. obviously you are a true believer

but obama is big boy who can fight his own battles. if he's willing to reach across the aisle to work with the rabid dogs of the irrelevant party, surely he can take some criticism from an economist who writes a column for the ny times. how can you separate economics and politics, unless you're focusing on theory? i don't think you can.

[FrenchieCat]

49. Obviously I am debating your point that you made about Krugman being

and economist and not a politician.

I cited an entire column written by Krugman on the subject of politics with no mention of economics, and this was done just a couple of weeks ago.

I stress the point that Krugman is political, in particular when it helps make the points he wants made. But when others critique Krugman for not taking the political terrain into consideration when demanding certain actions be taken by the Obama administration, then all of the sudden, Krugmanphiles claim that Krugman is not political and therefore shouldn't have to bother with political realities. That's desingenious, as one can't have it both way.

If deriding me as a true believer is your answer, I see that as having made my point for me.

[noiretextatique]

53. acutally...you don't have a point

there is no way to talk about economics without talking about politics given the nature of our economic system. whatever point your trying to make is irrelevant given that fact. if you are attempting to prove that krugman is biased, i think you also failed to prove that point as well.

[FrenchieCat]

54. This was

your post, not mine.

noiretextatique (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-09-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. he's an economist, not a politician
Edited on Mon Mar-09-09 12:11 PM by noiretextatique
and i think his analysis is spot on. he is saying the stimulus package isn't enough to deal with the economic crisis, and believe him. obviously, he thinks the stimulus should be larger, and if the goal is the effectively deal with the crisis, i don't think his ideas should be dismissed as politically unfeasible because of the yammering of the rw noise machine and the futile obstructionism of the irrelevant party.

-----------
but now you say....

noiretextatique (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-09-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. acutally...you don't have a point
Edited on Mon Mar-09-09 12:48 PM by noiretextatique
there is no way to talk about economics without talking about politics given the nature of our economic system. whatever point your trying to make is irrelevant given that fact. if you are attempting to prove that krugman is biased, i think you also failed to prove that point as well.



So let's talk about politics. How does Mr. Krugman propose to get the 60 votes needed to pass an additional 1 trillion dollar stimulus spending that he so believes is the only thing that can save the nation?

It's one thing to want...it is another thing to get.

What is Krugman doing in his power in the realm of "to get".....that's what I want to know?

[GeorgeGist]

39. Paul Krugman is to economy ...

as Kristin "Billie" Davis is to biology.

[noiretextatique]

43. did she win a nobel prize for biology? eom

[ClarkUSA]

50. Paul Krugman is "our" Lady Forester de Rothschild aka. "our" PUMA economist.

No doubt Krugman will be whining mightily about President Barack Obama for eight years.

[Cha]

60. Wow..you have

point there!

"Median Democrat (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-09-09 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. Krugman Hasn't Said Squat About This Or The GOP Call To Let The Banks Fail
Of course, Krugman will then sound bewildered and behind the curve as the Fox News and CNBC types start building momentum behind spending-freeze/let-them-fail right wing BS populism.

This is what we are missing. A discussion and comparison between Obama's proposals and policies and the GOP alternatives. Instead, the GOP alternatives get a free pass, while Obama's policies get trashed by the right wing and the left. Thus, the GOP's proposals end up sounding as the most reasonable."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8253620#8253656

[camera obscura]

61. I posted a direct contradiction to that point in that thread. I guess it didn't help the storyline

of "Krugman hates Obama and secretly LOVES Republicans!!!!!"

[Cha]

64. Krugman doesn't help only bitches

about how right he is.

[camera obscura]

62. Krugman is a PUMA now? wtf???

I guess if I agree with Krugman I must be a PUMA too. Gosh, better go retroactively take back those votes I gave Obama in the Democratic caucus and the general election.

[ClarkUSA]

73. Read his archived columns since early 2008... you'll see what I mean. They're all anti-Obama.

[Forkboy]

65. You have PUMA's on the brain.

[ClarkUSA]

69. I have Krugman on my mind, but since he is a PUMA, I suppose you're right in the singular.

[Forkboy]

78. I rest my case.

[ClarkUSA]

80. Since this is an OP re: Krugman's latest kvetching column, it wasn't a tough "case" to prove.

[Forkboy]

81. Calling any past Hillary supporter who doesn't agree with Obama a PUMA is an intellectual copout.

But hey, have a ball.

[ClarkUSA]

83. With Krugman, past is present.He has no plan of his own,but he loves trashing Obama's every move.

If you disagree, fine, but to me, it's an intellectual copout not to admit the obvious, given his track record of hectoring,
Debbie Downer, accusatory, anti-Obama columns for the past year. There's no doubt in my mind that he'll continue
to whine for the next eight years of the Obama administration without once offering any viable or detailed alternative
plan of his own. The conclusion as to why is clear to me and many others here. But hey, play devil's advocate. That's
what you do best.

[DemocracyInaction]

55. Krugman's business

Fawning over Obama, I suspect, wouldn't keep Krugman on front pages or booked guest lists. It's odd that I see him talking one way and then tooling it just a little differently depending on what audience he is talking to. I would imagine that he also feels he should be Sec. of Treasury......as does every mouth in the country. I imagine if Obama gave him that job, we would be hearing endless praise of Obama's brilliance.

[ProSense]

56. So does that mean he will go to work for the next Repub administration?

Yikes!

[MasonJar]

67. Obama has selected some very unsatisfactory members for his economic team.

I do not know why he has selected lobbyists from Goldman Sachs, originators of Bush bailout policy and so on for his advisors, but I would trust Krugman over Geithner et al any day. I am confident that Obama would be better off to listen to some voices outside his so-called economic team. Hillary has nothing to do with this topic so leave her out. NOT EVERY CRITICISM OF OBAMA IS SPURIOUS. Many of us want him to succeed, and we feel he has selected some advisors who are going to diminish that possibility.

[LittleBlue]

68. This is the absolute, 100% truth. K&R

We have a banking solution sitting in our midst: nationalization.

The people who criticize nationalization are the same free-market types who caused this mess. Pres. Obama has a choice. Frankly, I cannot believe how eerily familiar this thread is to the "Pro Bush pro war, everyone else is anti-democratic" threads from Freeperville.

[ShortnFiery]

70. Paul Krugman could be A GREAT ASSET. But his over-blown ego has just made him A GREAT ASS.

:thumbsdown:

[PBS Poll-435]

76. Has Hell frozen over?

WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!


:toast:

[elleng]

72. I can't believe what I'm reading about Krugman here,

so I'm not gonna read more than the 1/3 I've already read.

How people here can criticize without analysis is beyond me.

Thanks for trying, K and H.

[debbierlus]

74. I had a very good post deleted on this board because I pointed out the obvious

The current cost of the bailout is around 9 trillion (60% GDP)

The stimulus put around 250 billion dollars for actual spending projects (4.4%).

Most of the money is being spent to prop up a corporate empire that has BROKEN our economy. And, the administration and Congress made the active decision to borrow in the name of the thieves instead of the people. We could have BOUGHT the banks and had true say and control for what we pay to subsidize them with the same thieves at the helm. It won't work. Simple math and economics 101 say in can't work. They have chosen to print and borrow money to prop up the top instead of creating real wealth through mass investment in people.

The mortgage 'relief' programs give nothing but crumbs.

The whole damn thing gives nothing but crumbs.

People are so 'OBAMA IS GREAT' that they don't even question the fact that the banks are still loan sharks, we receive no interest rate reduction or compensation for our debt burden, and the top continues to steal TRILLIONS.

But, the real story is there is NOTHING left to steal. They broke the people. If we can't work or feed our families or afford health care, THEY can't be sustained, they are ensuring their own destruction (and taking down the whole damn global economy in the process).

Not complicated...

And, not allowed on DU.

Because it turns out that its not the Republicans who are the only herd of sheep.

Sad.

And, I am done with it.

[TexasObserver]

75. Not even close. Krugman is saying what Obama already knows.

There's nothing unique about what Krugman is saying. He knows we need a much larger stimulus package, but he doesn't have to get the measures passed through congress, and Obama does.

EVERYONE knows that the Obama administration is planning on doing this in phases, and that the reason is political. They cannot get all measures passed in one bill. That's why we will see multiple packages in the range of $750 billion.

All Krugman is proving is that it is much easier to be a critic than get things done. He's fulfilling his role, but don't be confused. If he were the Secretary of the Treasury, he would be saying the same things Obama is.

The comparison you make is simply not valid, by any stretch of the imagination.

[Teaser]

77. Krugman may be right, may be wrong.

Those worshipping his pronouncements are as bad as those demonizing him.

[Forkboy]

79. Yep.

I'd like to say I'm surprised that this Krugman issue has become a binary either/or thing here on DU...but I'm not. DU does that with everything and everyone. If you don't love him you must hate him. If you don't hate him you must love him. DU doesn't do shades of gray very well at all, despite our chest thumping about how much smarter we are than Republicans.

[masuki bance]

82. Krugman, Buffet, Cramer

Traitors all.