Hey Krugman! John Boehner Says Obama's Plan "Spends Too Much"!

[Median Democrat]

This is the thing about Paul Krugman. He spends so much time attacking Obama's plans as inadequate that he never really addresses the critiques coming at Obama from the right. Thus, Krugman's political commmentary regarding what can be passed in the Congress often sounds childish.

Krugman's critique of Obama's spending plan (not enough) and handling of financial institutions (needs to nationalize) are now redundant, and Krugman never addresses the GOP's proposals to cut spending and to let banks fail. Is Krugman not addressing these proposals because he is afraid that they might work? If they are stupid, Krugman could do us a favor by explaining why.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/08/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4852286.shtml

/snip

House Minority Leader John Boehner said that struggling American families "don't see government tightening its belt," and argued for a spending freeze because government, he said, should "lead by example."

On CBS News' Face the Nation Sunday the House Minority Leader was asked by host Bob Schieffer to respond to White House Budget Director Peter Orszag’s assertion earlier in the program that Republicans have not come up with a viable alternative to the spending bill being prepared by President Obama and Congressional Democrats.

Boehner said the Republican plan "costs half as much as the president’s proposal and would have created twice as many jobs.

"Their budget spends too much, it taxes too much and it borrows too much from our kids and grandkids," he said.

Boehner said Americans want government to practice the same financial restraint they have been forced to exercise: "It's time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we 'get' it."

/snip

[themaguffin]

1. Krugman is not discussing the political aspect, he is discussing the real world aspect

I don't understand why that is lost.

I'm sure he gets that not everything he says is political viable, but that's not the point and that's not reason enought for him to dumb down his analysis to fit Congress.

That would be a diservice

[Median Democrat]

8. If The Republicans Win Congress In 2010, Then Boehner/McCain's Proposals Become Real Word

What is wrong with letting Citibank and B of A simply fail? The GOP is pushing this as a viable option instead of nationalization. It sure sounds cheaper. Why not let them go bankrupt instead of nationalizing? What does Krugman say?

I don't know, because he never addresses the GOP alternative to bank nationlaization, which is let them fail.

[camera obscura]

21. And the only way Republicans win congress is if Obama's proposed plan fails in a HUGE way

[berni_mccoy]

19. Wrong. Krugman is discussing what should be done in theory, not what can be done in reality.

Krugman has no experience applying policy.

[FrenchieCat]

37. But Krugman gets political when he feels like it.....

as long as it bashes the Obama Administration, it doesn't seem to be problematic!

Here's an instance from just a month or so ago where Krugman is nothing but political: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[vaberella]

61. He's been doing this to Pres. Obama before Pres. Obama became Pres. He called him a "sucker."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html

Which I personally believe he had incorrect.

[Marsala]

2. Not true, he criticizes the Republicans and the media nearly as much as Obama

Krugman criticizes pretty much everyone. In fairness, there's a lot of criticism to go around right now.

[NJmaverick]

46. his history shows he loves bashing Obama and will engage in intellectual dishonesty

to do so

[RoyGBiv]

3. No ...

Krugman is not addressing the GOP backed proposals with anything more than a quick take-down because they have no chance in hell of even making it out of a committee room and are just stuff and bother intended to distract. Addressing them directly and at length only lends them credence they don't deserve, as though they might in some way be a viable alternative.

Krugman is doing his job, being an economist. He's falling down a bit on understanding the possible as opposed to the ideal, but it's not really his job as an academic to deal with that. His job is to critique the situation and agitate for what he considers the proper proposals, which is what he's doing.

[Median Democrat]

6. The GOP Is Presenting An Alternative - Krugman Never Addresses This Fully

In other words, McCain and Boehner are making the rounds selling the snake oil of cutting spending and letting banks fail. If these options are not discussed, the the Democrats will lose Congress in the 2010 elections, because folks like Krugman never took the time to explain why such proposals are stupid.

[RoyGBiv]

9. Why should he?

Why is it Krugman's job to take on the GOP counter-proposal when it's not even being seriously considered?

[Median Democrat]

11. The American Public Is Seriously Considering It - Why Nationalize The Banks? Let Them Fail

I bet if were to run a poll, a large segment of the population will be in favor of letting the banks fail, rather than bailing them out or nationalizing them. Thus, these proposals need to be seriously considered or addressed with Republicans now pushing them. The left can ignore right wing populism at their own peril.

Heck, look at DU. There are a lot of angry posts saying "Down with Capitalism!" Even on DU, there may be a receptive audience to the idea of simply letting the banks fail. Yet, no one is bothering to explain why this is not a realistic option. Thus, the Republicans may win this argument to the public.

[RoyGBiv]

14. This is not my question ...

Why is it Krugman's job to address the GOP proposals?

[Median Democrat]

15. He Is A Freaking Economic Columnist For The NY Times!

For crissakes, as a NY Times reader, it would be nice to hear some response to the current right wing talking point that letting the banks fails is a realistic option. Or, is Krugman so freakin arrogant nowadays that it is beneath him to explain to NY Times readers why Boehner/McCain's proposal to let banks fail is not a realistic option.

[RoyGBiv]

17. I'm not seeing it ...

The fact he's a columnist for the Times doesn't automatically equate to me that he's supposed to take on the GOP proposals and deconstruct them piece by piece.

He critiques those proposals obliquely by continuing to agitate for the policies he believes should be followed, and he does that at volume. Why he should take time away from that to take on the GOP obstructionist nonsense as though it is a serious alternative is not clear. That begins to sound reactionary fairly quickly, and I think we've had quite enough of that.

[Larkspur]

34. Krugman favors nationalizing the banks

Krugman's advice to Obama is to do what FDR did but be more aggressive with stimulus spending than FDR was.

FDR nationalized the banks, fired the corrupt CEO's, restructured them and after a few years sold them back into private hands and made a profit for the US Taxpayer. What Tim Geithner is saying when he opposes nationalization is that he is incompetent to do what FDR's men did.

[Two Americas]

51. well said

"His job is to critique the situation and agitate for what he considers the proper proposals, which is what he's doing."

Yes.

This simple-minded hyper-partisanship, seeing everyone and anyone who expresses anything other than fawning adulation for the administration as an enemy under the guise of "support" and "loyalty" is the greatest threat to the success of the administration in my opinion. Critics from the Left serve as cover for the administration. Seeing them as the enemy advances the us-versus-them talking points nonsense, and that creates an arena within which the right wingers can grab power and influence and gain legitimacy for their "ideas."

I suspect that those expressing this misguided loyalty are glued to the TV set for too many hours, and are allowing cable news to define reality for them. In fact, I am certain of that. The cable chattering idiots reduce everything to the level of a sports contest, and that is how the super loyal people are talking. Sad to see people here manipulated like that.

[RoyGBiv]

52. Indeed ...

I don't understand what's so hard about this.

Agitate, agitate, agitate. That's the only way anything ever gets done.

The hell of it is, Obama has *asked* for this kind of thing, so it bemuses me that so many insist on wrapping this up in the rhetoric of a political attack. Without using the same words, he's invoked the spirit of the line attributed to FDR, "I agree, now make me do it." If politics is the art of the possible, the only way to advance the situation in a desired direction is to change the boundaries of what is possible. One way of doing that is to stir up enough support for an idea that leaders who actually listen are compelled to act upon it in some way.

FWIW, the OP has another thread now suggesting we should take the GOP plan because Krugman says both will fail, so we might as well take the cheap way out. This, somehow, is better than continuing to provide hard and clear arguments of why more radical measures need to be enacted.

The mind boggles.

[Democrats_win]

4. For several months Krugman has said that the danger is in doing too little.

Krugman uses the depression/World War 2 history. That history shows that government action can end a depression, but it took a lot more spending than FDRs New Deal.

The truth is, the Republican party is keeping America from achieving it's potential by insisting on austerity at a time when austerity by businesses and individuals is crippling the economy.

[NJmaverick]

5. Krugman has been acting like a petulant child who didn't get his way

He was not part of the Obama Economic Council and now he uses (or should I say abuses) his NYT's column to bash Obama at every turn. If you take time to read the tripe he puts forth, it's clear he is bending the facts to support his opinion (Obama is bad and is not doing a good job) rather than using the facts to form a sound opinion. There are just too many contradictory arguments and ridiculous claims (like pundit are a source of wisdom) to take him seriously. It's a shame Paul has let his ego get the better of him.

[themaguffin]

13. No he is acting like an expert begging for appropriate action

Jesus, drop the "ego" bullshit.

[NJmaverick]

16. This is an unprecidented economic event

anyone pretending know all the answers, is a fraud (at best). Economics is a one of the weaker sciences and there are few hard and fast proven rules.

[themaguffin]

18. it's not pulled out of a hat, there are measures, there is history of some relevancy

[NJmaverick]

36. There is marginal history and marginal data

if Krugman was intellectually honest, he would acknowledge that FACT, instead of claiming to have all the answers and knowing, for certain, what the solution is.

[Larkspur]

30. Krugman was an adviser to Obama's transition team

and I wouldn't be surprised if he still gives them advice on the side. He of course is giving direct advice via his column and blog posts.

The problem with Obama is Geithner and Summers, both Rubin disciples. Rubin helped the Republicans cause the financial meltdown we experience today. Rubin helped Phil Graham remove FDR's Glass-Steagal Act. He and his disciples worship free markets and like Republicans don't want government involved in the boardroom.

As much as you may dislike Krugman, he has been more right than wrong. What we need is Obama channeling FDR, not Abe Lincoln.

[NJmaverick]

39. that would be another Krugman fantasy

<<in his press conference, a reporter questioned Obama about Krugman’s criticisms. Obama said that he is open to the economist’s ideas: “If Paul Krugman has a good idea, in terms of how to spend money efficiently and effectively to jump-start the economy, then we’re going to do it.”>>

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/09/obama-krugman-idea/

[Larkspur]

59. Politico asked Krugman if he was advising Obama and the answer was...

from December 28, 2008...

Krugman in contact with the Obama team?
Yes.

When master economist, columnist, and plain ole intellectual (so few left these days) Paul Krugman was asked this morning* about whether or not he was "in communications" with the Obama administration regarding the economy, he declared: "Yes... I am.. And that's all I care to talk about."

The problem is that Obama and his Goldman Sachs/Robert Rubin inspired economic advisors have their own ideology -- save the Big Money at the expense of the little guys. That's why they don't want to nationalize the banks, which would require them to fire the current crop of corrupt executives running the Zombie Banks.

[hay rick]

67. Obama's pro-market economics team.

You cite Rubin's deregulatory zeal. It's also worth noting he was a top executive for years at Goldman Sachs and more recently at Citicorp. Summers has been an advocate for cutting corporate and capital gains taxes. Geithner is viewed as a disciple of both and his resume includes stints at Kissinger and Associates and the IMF. These are not even middle-of-the-road Democrats in economic matters. I think Krugman's very public disagreements with this team is an absolute positive.

[Danger Mouse]

7. Who cares what Boner thinks?

:shrug:

[Sparkly]

22. Exactly!

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. During the primaries, Paul Krugman supported the candidate...

whose big idea for fixing the economy was a gas tax holiday.

Paul Krugman should not be taken seriously.

[Median Democrat]

12. In Fairness, Krugman Did Say That Idea Was Stupid...

So, I am not going to hold the gas tax holiday against him.

[camera obscura]

24. I did not support Hillary at all. BUT I know Krugman supported her because of health care...

not because of her economic plan, which was essentially the same as Obama's, minus the gas tax gimmick.

[Larkspur]

31. So what if Krugman supported Hillary

Hillary is now Obama's Secretary of State, so you should direct your animosity towards Obama for putting Hillary on his Admin team.

[camera obscura]

33. huh? That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm a Krugman fan and I don't dislike Hillary.

:wtf:

[NJmaverick]

41. There is zero reason to take this clown seriously

his theories are not grounded in fact or sound economic theory. Rathe they are driven by a desire to go after Obama.

[MarjorieG]

20. Buffet said confidence, rallying to Obama paramount; we're in an economic war. Krugman not helping.

No way Obama could have gotten bigger stimulus, first thing. There is also value to knowing the health of the banks before putting too much limited capital in any one place.

No way to predict the unpredictable. The actual economy is not reacting to Obama's every move, as much as to hard numbers.

I'm just furious at Krugman, who has a political tin ear, a huge ego, and would rather his words bantied about over the airwaves at Obama's and the country's expense. Aiding all the RW chatter about how Obama is failing.

We will be helping people who behaved badly, as both Obama and Buffet have said, and that anger has to be quelled. Krugman doesn't address it, only stokes it, giving GOP sound bites.

Couldn't he call Obama, instead?

My husband has covered business as a newsman, with a fellowship in economics, for 40 years. There is always more than one way fix things.

[themaguffin]

23. No, Krugman's views require more spending than Obama is doing, which makes Obama look measured

[MarjorieG]

25. So, measured bad, ie weak and wrong. Bolder was not considered good by all, given everything else.

[Zynx]

27. There is a sizable chunk of the political universe that thinks we are spending too much.

It even includes a lot of Democrats.

[depakid]

45. And the "sizable bunch" is irrational

Like many of the Krugman bashers on this thread. Krugman and many others are looking at numbers and models- and what it would take to replace the mammoth drop in private demand.

The Obama/Giethner plan doesn't take the niumbers- or apparently any model into account.

btw: Dean Baker calls the cdenter right approach out even more emphatically than Krugman:

Like the jogger who finds a shortcut to reduce his mileage, the centrist senators are proud of themselves for cutting back the spending in the stimulus. That may be cleaver politics, but it is not smart economics. And the country really cannot afford too much more by the way of stupid economics from the folks in power.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/09/us-economic-stimulus-senate

[Median Democrat]

49. The Problem Is That The Media, Krugman Included, Does Not Address GOP Alternative

Reading Krugman's attacks on Obama's economic plan, the argument suggests that if Obama is not going to go whole hog, then why even try? In other words, if Obama's plan is going to fail, then why not embrace the Republican plan, which will also fail, but is also cheaper?

In other words, all things being equal, perhaps the Republican plan is superior because it is the cheaper failure.

[Larkspur]

32. Krugman is not a robot for you Obama fanatics to wind up or down

Obama fanatics are not much different than Limbaugh's dittoheads.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Obama is not a robot for you Krugman Fanatics to wind up and down......

Krugman fanatics don't even live in the real world.

In their world, when an economist writes,
shit gets done without opposition,
and no questions asked.

Krugman Fanatics envision a 2 trillion stimulus getting passed,
with all of the right stimulus,
and passed by 100 votes in the senate.

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

47. Frenchie, Krugman isn't even engaging in any sound economic thinking

he is just looking for the slightest thing to bash Obama for. Then again Krugman has a long history as an Obama basher.

[Larkspur]

60. You aren't engaged in any sound thinking at all about Krugman

You have your own prejudices that blind you to the Truth about Obama and the dark backgrounds of his economic advisory team.

[Larkspur]

56. Obama fanatics live in a bubble and you hate it when Krugman bursts your bubble

Krugman said to start with what is needed to solve the economic problem, not water it down before Obama negotiates with the Republicans. Obama compromised BEFORE he talked to a single Republican and he ended up with a lot less than was needed. Trying to get more a second or third time will be harder and harder, especially if the economy does not rebound due to the lack of funds in the stimulus bill. By watering down the stimulus bill before negotiating, Obama played right into the GOP hands. Obama is just fortunate that the GOP is odious to the public right now, but if Obama keeps shooting himself in the foot by watering down economic bills and those bills can't budge the economy because they are too little too late, then the GOP will start to make a comeback.

[NJmaverick]

44. more like Obama bashers are not much different than limbaugh's ditto heads

both are driven by irrational anger and hate

[Two Americas]

54. you can't know that

You cannot possibly know that people are driven by anger and hate. Comparing any and all who express anything other than simple-minded adulation "not much different than limbaugh's ditto heads" is false, malicious and divisive. Remarks such as that strongly suggest that it is you who are "driven by irrational anger and hate."

This getting way out of control. You are hurting the administration, not helping it with this over the top zealotry. Nothing is a greater threat to the future success of the new administration, in my opinion.

Your emotional need to see the President a certain way is your business, and it is not the responsibility of the rest of us to help you maintain that. If you cannot tolerate any critical comments or dissent and must start attacking people over that, why not just avoid reading them? Constantly insinuating that anyone and everyone who does not see things exactly the way you do is an enemy is clearly irrational and destructive.

"Support" and "loyalty" to the President that alienates others, spreads ill will, and suppresses dissent has more to do with the individual's own emotional needs then it does with the President or with politics.

[FrenchieCat]

26. I'm not sure why folks who so love Krugman don't pick up on this.....

as he has done it time and time again. He does deal with the politics of things, just on his term.

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

the entire above column brushes by the Republicans and concentrates without question on sowing doubts against the Democrats.


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).

[Median Democrat]

28. Exactly - Krugman Cherry Picks What Is Politically Viable To Suit His Argument

Krugman ignores political reality when discussing the size of the stimulus package, then relies on political reality to make the point that it may be impossible to pass another stimulus package down the road.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Today Buffet was discussing the psychology of the markets,

and stating that this is the dangerous part, and the part that continues a downward spiral. Krugman is guilty of contributing to a lack of confidence in this administration. What he is doing is not that much better than what the media and the Republicans are doing. He may be right in his theories, but he is wrong in his approach....and having the right approach is half of everything.

[NJmaverick]

42. Krugman is a hack that is looking for any excuse to bash Obama

the guy has ZERO credibility

[depakid]

48. I don't suppose you see the irony in that statment....

which of course is that by making it- you just lost whatever credibility you might have had yourself.

[NJmaverick]

53. You full of it. Perhaps you need to start expanding your reading selections

beyond Hillary supporters for McCain website. Here is a nice liberal website for you.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/09/obama-krugman-idea/

[Larkspur]

58. The Nobel Prize winner in Economics has a lot more credibility than you

and your fellow Obama fanatics.

[masuki bance]

65. Should Krugman keep his disagreements with Obama on policy

to himself?

[ClarkUSA]

38. Krugman is a typical PUMA who thinks President Obama must be punished, not Republicans.

[depakid]

40. You seem to be obsessed with "PUMA's"

[ClarkUSA]

50. How so?

[Larkspur]

57. That's because Obama fanatics are not much different than Bushies

You are either with them or against them. You possible can't have voted for Obama and still be critical of some of Obama's policies and positions. Just does not compute to an Obama fanatic.

[NJmaverick]

43. true

[Louis-Emmanuel]

55. What punishment has Krugman proposed for Obama?

Enlighten us.

[fishwax]

62. Krugman: "Boehner’s idea of economics is completely insane"

"Krugman never addresses the GOP's proposals to cut spending and to let banks fail. Is Krugman not addressing these proposals because he is afraid that they might work? If they are stupid, Krugman could do us a favor by explaining why."

Krugman has addressed such issues, spent a fair amount of time discussing the absurdity of the GOP response to Obama's plan, and also attacking the media's framing of debate around the stimulus plan. And he has spent no small amount of time explaining why he thinks we need a larger stimulus, not a smaller one as the GOP wants.

[Median Democrat]

64. Krugman's Blog Post Was After This Thread AND No Numbers

Krugman has a Friday column coming up. Does Krugman just repeat the same old Obama attacks. Or, does Krugman bust out his calculator, and actually educate and inform people about the Republican alternative. In doing so, I have no problem if Krugman also explains why Obama's stimulus needs to be bigger. BUT, Krugman needs to address the right wing counter arguments or the right wing will win.

[fishwax]

66. he's said such things before though

It's not as though his blog post this afternoon was the first time he ever called Boehner out or his approach.

[Grateful for Hope]

63. I wonder if Krugman

wanted to be picked as a major economic influence in the President Obama administration. Especially because he got a Nobel Prize, and still no dice.

Just conjecture.