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

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Can America be saved?
Paul Krugman
March 10, 2009

So I read this:

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.”

and I wonder if this country can handle the crisis we’re in. Remember, John Boehner is, in effect, the second-most influential member of the GDP (after Rush Limbaugh). And while Democrats hold a majority, it’s not enough of a majority to make the minority party irrelevant.

So the fact that Boehner’s idea of economics is completely insane matters.

What’s insane about Boehner’s remark? He’s talking about the current economic crisis as if it were a harvest failure — as if we faced a shortage of goods, so that the more you consume the less is left for me. In reality — even most conservatives understand this, when they think about it — we’re in a world desperately short of demand. If you consume more, that’s GOOD for me, because it helps create jobs and raise incomes. It’s in my personal disinterest to have you tighten your belt — and that’s just as true if you’re “the government” as if you’re my neighbor.

Plus, who is “the government”? It’s basically us, you know — the government spends money providing services to the public. Demanding that the government tighten its belt means demanding that we, the taxpayers, get less of those services. Why is this a good thing, even aside from the state of the economy?

Again, this is what the leaders of a powerful, if minority, party think. Can this country be saved?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/can-america-be-saved/

[wtbymark]

1. "second-most influential member of the GDP"?????? is that a..

freudian slip?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. That was my thought also.

[TahitiNut]

27. Great Depression Party

:shrug: Hoover earned them that nomination.

[AzDar]

2. Heh. "GDP"... God Damned Party?

Sounds about right to me...;-)

[Dr.Phool]

63. Greater Depression Party.

[opihimoimoi]

4. The NOPers have a Mission of FAILURE,,,,,UnAmerican and UnPatriotic...

Boner is an asshole.....

[Supersedeas]

87. Cryboy Boner is the party of No Ideas - and kneejerk Tax Cuts for the Rich reaction

to lobbyist stimulation

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. the only folks dumber than Boehner are those that voted for him

God help us all!

[camera obscura]

11. Unfortunately it's an R+12 district, only way he gets kicked out is a major scandal

which is how Boehner primaried the last Republican to serve there, Buz Lukens (who paid a young girl to have sex with him).

[Better Believe It]

6. K & R

[On the Road]

7. It Was the Traditional Approach of Fiscal Conservatives

through most of the 19th and early 20th century. Sometimes it resulted in a sharp crash and a quick recovery, like the US in 1907 or Argentina in 1999. Other times, like the US in the 1830s, recovery took years.

The Great Depression and the ascendency of Keynesian economics put an end to that philosophy, at least in national politics. Amazing that it would make a comeback just at the time it would be the worst to actually try it out again. It is based on profound and destructive ignorance.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[billybob537]

9. It's anything but insane.

It is a calculated strategy.
The GOMERS OF POLITICS have fucked up everthing they've touched beyond recognition.
If Obama suceeds in fixing this mess the GOP will loose even more seats, making them irrelevant.
They have only one chance to hang on to power, and that nessessitates Obama failing.
Their whole stategy is to OBSTRUCT any and every plan for stimulus.
This is their last chance to stop the country from dumping the GOP.
The good news is the are eating their own.

[FatDave]

43. Correct.

Their future depends on the continued failure of the economy. Liberal policies already saved the country from conservative fuckups once, they cannot afford to let it happen again.

[MarjorieG]

10. Thanks for criticizing GOP this time. Wish he'd economic war, need patriotic support from GOP

Instead, as says Buffet, that GOP think mid-term elections and party survival first.

[damntexdem]

12. I laugh when I hear "where did all the money go?"

My answer is always "the same place it came from."

If you want to increase demand, you need someone with the power to make money appear -- like the government, or, formerly, AIG or Citibank or B of A. But the government has a better track record than those others, because it has acted in slightly less-corrupt ways in causing money to appear. It's not a question of which is better at creating demand in a depression (oops, bad recession), the government or the private sector -- the government is the only answer.

This is something the boehnheads never get.

[PurityOfEssence]

49. This one goes to eleven

It's amazing, isn't it? People think that there's a specific amount of money, and that it has to "go" somewhere.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalFighter]

14. How is Boehner tightening his belt for Ohio and HIS family?

[ClarkUSA]

15. Krugman is echoing David Brooks' "insane" remarks in a column last week & on This Week this past Sun

[Larkspur]

16. Who reads David Brooks?

He's not on my reading list.

[ClarkUSA]

18. Maybe you don't but the MSM was buzzing about it last week. It was a great comment by a conservative

[camera obscura]

20. except he made the exact same point when Boehner first proposed the spending freeze

I guess Brooks was ripping him off! :crazy:

[ClarkUSA]

22. Link, quote?

[camera obscura]

24. Here you go

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/party-of-uh-huh-huh-huh/

[ClarkUSA]

26. That's not the "exact same point" - Brooks used the word "insane" first to describe his fellow GOP

It's clear Krugman ripped off Brooks' wordage as it got so much attention when Brooks used it.

[Larkspur]

28. Brooks stole calling the GOP "insane" from the liberal blogoshpere

We've know that for a long time.

[camera obscura]

40. Omigosh, Maureen Dowd called the Republicans insane once! They must be stealing from her!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E7D81738F932A0575BC0A9659C8B63

I see the light.

[ClarkUSA]

41. You can't admit you were wrong, can you? Sad.

[camera obscura]

44. You're the one resorting to "they used the same word" here.

If you want to believe that Krugman is a total Obama hater who can only bring himself to bash Republicans when he's leeching off of other people, fine. Just do yourself a favor try looking outside the DU bubble at how he's considered by the rest of the world first. Even by the rest of the liberal sphere. That's all I'm saying.

[ClarkUSA]

51. No, you said Krugman made the "exact same point" as Brooks and that Brooks "ripped" Krugman off.

You were wrong. :shrug:

If you want to believe that Krugman is a total Obama hater who can only bring himself to bash Republicans when he's leeching
off of other people, fine.

I never said any of the above. So far, all of your erroneous accusations are defined more by overblown rhetoric than facts.

[camera obscura]

56. Did the use of the "crazy" smilie not indicate that I was being sarcastic?

I don't think that two people using the same word - in this case "insane" - within the same week is a conspiracy as you do, sorry.

[ClarkUSA]

57. No, if you were being sarcastic, you would have used the "sarcasm" smilie. Also, you added a link...

...which proved you wrong about Krugman making the "exact same point" as Brooks did. You refuse to say so... which is part
and parcel of your dishonest way of trying to put words into my mouth that originate only in the fetid basement of your mind
in order to distract from the fact that nothing you have accused me of makes any sense beyond the hyperbolic extremes of an
overactive imagination.

[camera obscura]

58. I missed the Strunk & White Guide to Forum Smilies, I guess.

Aren't you getting just a little worked up here? All I'm saying is that your attempt to prove that Krugman is an Obama-hating PUMA makes no sense. If you have to resort to analyzing word choices and fuming about the "fetid basement" of my mind, then I'm pretty sure he has nothing to worry about.

[ClarkUSA]

65. lol! You tried to prove a false point with a link & failed. Now you're pretending it was a joke.

Nice try. :rofl:

[Cha]

30. You mean he came up for air

from his daily gratuitious blasting of Obama to check out the repubs' stance?!

[ClarkUSA]

34. That's exactly what he's doing.

He's got a calendar which alerts him... one anti-GOP column for every nine anti-Obama attacks. It covers his PUMA ass.

[LynneSin]

17. To be fair, just about all of Boehners ideas are pretty bonker

why he would be any different with the economy is no suprise to me

[ChiciB1]

19. Thank You PAUL... Moving Right Along & You Are One Of The Good Guys....

but you have turned me off some lately. You seem to be redeeming yourself! GO, BOY, GO!!

[Jennicut]

21. Finally, Krugman takes on the Rethugs.

I thank him for this.

[QC]

23. Krugman has been stripping the bark off the goopers in the pages of the Times for 10 years now.

It's not like this is a recent development.

He was even doing it back during the aftermath of 9/11, when practically everyone else in the major media decided that Bush was conceived of a virgin and seated at the right hand of the Father.

[Jennicut]

25. I know, I mean recently. I am glad he did this now.

He has been attacking Obama's policies for a while now. But unlike many here I really don't love him or hate him, he is an economist. Not a politician.

[Median Democrat]

29. This Is A Blog Entry! Lets See Krugman Write A Column!

Also, lets see some numbers! This blog entry is mainly just name calling by Krugman. In contrast, Krugman is willing to bust out his calculate to take on Obama, but he is too lazy to do so for the Republicans.

How bad could unemployment be if Republican policies were implemented?

[Cha]

32. Thanks, you mean it's just a blog entry..

not a column calling out the republicons like he loves to do with Obama?!

[Better Believe It]

45. We can't believe Krugman until he organizes a picketline calling for the lynching of Republicans!

So it seems.

"How bad could unemployment be if Republican policies were implemented?"

In 2012 a Great Depression will still be a Great Depression. You could argue that things could have been even worse with Republicans.

Your argument won't matter to most people.

The Republicans will regain control of Congress and the White House if a full-scale depression takes place on Obama's watch, so what's your point?

[Jakes Progress]

31. It's not about loving or hating.

Krugman is smart. And he is right almost all of the time. He was right when he ripped bush a new one and was one of very few prominent columnists showing that the republican administration was full of it. He was blasted on all the freeper sites and dissed from the white house.

The problem we have here is that people are using loyalty oath thinking in the place of brains. Obama was right about bush. He has been right about the shortcomings in the current administration approach to the economic mess. But some here take anything less than gushing praise for anything our new president does as reason for attack. If Krugman had made the same statements under the same circumstances about bush (or even another Democratic candidate) these few would praise him to the skies. But since he advice was for President Obama, they feel they must hate the advice and the man.

Luckily, our president isn't as tender and delicate as DU protector crowd believes. He can take criticism and learn from it. I think that there are some indications that new choices have been shaped by constructive and reasoned suggestions from just such as Mr. Krugman. Now that the election is over, President Obama benefits more from honesty than from adulation.

[ClarkUSA]

33. ".... benefits more from honesty than from adulation."

I'm sure you feel the same way about liberal journalists' criticism of the Clintons.

[Jakes Progress]

46. I certainly do.

But then I live in the real world.

[ClarkUSA]

55. Of course you'd say that. Funny, that's not how I remember things. But I have an honest recall.

But I'll be sure to take note of your "honesty over adulation" response when there are weekly GDP OPs by a journalist that is
consistently anti-Clinton. :eyes:

[Jakes Progress]

59. So much time on your hands.

So little truth.

[ClarkUSA]

66. Time to note the preachy hypocrisy of an holier-than-thou DUer? Always.

[Jakes Progress]

68. Your name on top, I assume.

[ClarkUSA]

70. I'm on top of the list of those amused by holier-than-thou hypocrites, yes.

[Jakes Progress]

71. That makes you No. 1 on both. Congrats.

[ClarkUSA]

72. lol! A peek at your archived thin-skinned responses re: the Clintons proves otherwise.

[Jakes Progress]

74. Got substance?

[ClarkUSA]

75. Here are links to OPs where you didn't practice "honesty over adulation" re: the Clintons...

'MSNBC's First Read: "Caroline vs. the Clintons?"':
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7981546&mesg_id=7981584

"Bill Clinton made over $6 million from foreign sources last year":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8147651&mesg_id=8147651

[Jakes Progress]

76. How pathetic.

Here's hoping you can find a life somewhere. It is so sad to think of you pouring over the past posts by some anonymous poster. Then studying them for hours and finding some silly, inane way to prove your pointless point. Then, just imagine the gloating power of being able to link to no one at all about your perceived victory. Do you really have nothing else to do with your life. Think about it. You can do better for yourself.

I shared this thread to a friend and he wondered if you ever get out of your mom's basement.

[ClarkUSA]

79. Your "honesty over adulation" hypocrisy is pathetic. Try practicing what your preach in the future.

Your childish ad hominem personal attacks are not only terribly uncivil, but predictably Hillaryous in content.
Didn't take you long to revert to true form, eh?

[Jakes Progress]

80. Sorry.

My posts were out of line. Your personal life is your business. Your passions are yours.

I feel your antipathy towards the Clintons is misplaced and founded on misinformation. I think you would better serve our president by being more like him. You never seem to get more than three replies into a post before bringing up the primaries. Let's move on.

At dinner, my friend and I discussed your posts and mine. Afterwards it was too late for me to delete, so I wish to apologize.

But it is my opinion that your repeated snarks and knee-jerk responses to anything praising our SOS or criticizing our President drive your postings into the realm of the irrelevant. Thoughtless and pointless.

But bless your little animated dragon and have a good day hunting down the unfaithful.

[ClarkUSA]

81. Your "apology" would seem more sincere if it weren't made w/sarcasm & insults disguised as "opinion"

I feel your antipathy towards the Clintons is misplaced and founded on misinformation.

What antipathy? The primaries are over and my guy won. I don't waste time on what all the lying losers
said about Barack during the campaign season. I'm just happy that Barack never stooped as low as some of
his many opponents. You confuse "honesty" about the many mistakes the Clintons have made over the course
of their lives as "antipathy". All those who practice "honesty over adulation" re: Bill and Hillary shouldn't be
demonized nor attacked for their "unfaithful" lack of absolute fealty.


I think you would better serve our president by being more like him.

I am. I have turned the other cheek on your nasty ad hominem personal attacks and that of others for months now.


You never seem to get more than three replies into a post before bringing up the primaries.

What an erroneous generalization. As for this OP, stating facts about the partisan orientation of a public figure like
Krugman is perfectly relevant to his current axe-grinding and does not violate any DU rules. What's interesting
is how much it bothers you and certain others that people point out Krugman's long and uninterrupted anti-Obama
history as a relevant reference point for his present unrelenting anti-Obama criticism.


Let's move on.

Take your own advice and stop preaching about "honesty over adulation" when there is a certain DU contingent
whose rabid defense of any perceived slight against the Clintons (see my links) is widely and loudly practiced.
I have moved on. My guy won and I couldn't be prouder or happier with the results, although I personally
disagreed with some of his Cabinet choices, despite the fact they were politically astute moves.


But it is my opinion that your repeated snarks and knee-jerk responses to anything praising our SOS or criticizing
our President drive your postings into the realm of the irrelevant. Thoughtless and pointless.

Um, wrong again. Earth to Jakes Progress: I have notably stayed out of many recent gushing Hillary threads
and those critical of her also, although it's been amusing to read them. It's predictably Hillaryous how you ignore
the "repeated snarks and knee-jerk responses to anything... criticizing" the Clintons by the usual suspects. Why
am I not surprised with this, yet another example of preachy hypocrisy? Perhaps you need to speak to your fellow
faithful about their consummate hatred of Chris Matthews before you get all high-and-mighty with me about Paul
Krugman.

[Jakes Progress]

88. You take apologies so well.

God bless you. Get help.

[ClarkUSA]

90. lol! I have yet to see one. (Hint: Insults & sarcasm following a "Sorry" do not an apology make.)

Since you continue to make nasty and uncivil personal attacks, it is obvious that your apology is as false as your
Hillaryously sanctimonious "honesty over adulation" hypocrisy. I doubt God would approve of your approach
but He probably does appreciate my turning the other cheek to your childishly unpleasant comments.

Enjoy the next eight years here. I know I will. Oh, and be sure to watch President Obama unveil his plan to boost small
business lending today.

[Jakes Progress]

91. You mistake disagreement with insult.

I'm glad that you wish well for Obama. Be sure to watch him transition to the more successful Clinton plan for a booming economy. I wish you could embrace the Keynesian programs that Krugman promotes (you know, the original topic) since I think I remember you have espoused support for Kennedy in the past. Perhaps, if we pay attention to the ideas of our best minds (like Krugman) we will weather this mess that george made.

[ClarkUSA]

93. I know the difference when I read it. You are now obfuscating to CYA re: your non-apology.

The "successful Clinton plan for a booming economy" had nothing in common with what is happening now and more to do
with a tech sector that did well whether or not Clinton was president or not, so I doubt we'll see President Obama availing
himself of an approach whose time has come and gone.

Krugman's complete disregard of legislative realities makes him a poor candidate for study of any real worth... there are
plenty of Nobel-Prize winning economists who have an opinion but none have any experience passing bills. Obama's
stimulus plan is Keynesian enough with or without Krugman's constant PUMAish carping, thanks. I'd rather listen to the
brilliant economic minds advising Team O (Volcker, Sommers, etc.) who have actual government experience helping
to get legislation passed during challenging economic times rather than a newspaper columnist whose economic expertise
vis-a-vis Team O seems to rely more on public whining to make a living than on the actual espousal of any detailed
alternative plan of his own.

[Jakes Progress]

92. Let's check the record on name calling

It began with you calling me a thin-skinned, holier than thou, preachy, hypocrite. Right back atcha, partner. Each of those epithets apply so aptly to you. Especially the hypocrite. You constantly block up the forum with accusing people of your tactics. You go off topic to bring up your only passion - mid-primary Clinton bashing - then call anyone who calls you on it a number of childish names. Then you accuse them of calling you names. The worst part of dialoging with you is that you bring out the bully in people because you are so predictable and so easily riled. It is laughably easy to jerk into spasmodic reaction. Poke. Poke. So my better angels council compassion for your condition, but my lesser souls are so tickled by your whiny behavior that they find it hard to put down the stick that they so enjoy prodding you with. Poke. Poke. Watch it hiss.

I'm sorry. I will work on my nature. It could show a little more kindness to poor souls. God bless us both.

[ClarkUSA]

95. More insults & holier-than-thou blame gaming? How truly insincere your "apology" was!

The hypocrite who does not practice what he preaches and who repeatedly attacks someone they allegedly made "apologies"
to while blaming that same person for bringing "out the bully in people" has a self-serving personality only a book on
abnormal psychology could fathom properly. Invoking God's blessing while doing all of the above is another novel twist
I can only wonder at.

Your bringing up the phrase "mid-primary Clinton bashing" more than four months after Barack Obama won the general election
only proves that you are still trying to refight the primary wars with me. Sorry to disappoint you, but I refuse to engage Your
Bitterness because I've moved on. Try to do the same.

[Jennicut]

35. No, its just that I don't think he is right all the time or wrong all the time

I agree with him some of the time but also think he does not know politics all that well.

[Captain Hilts]

36. Seeing grey between black and white is not acceptable here. nt

[Captain Hilts]

39. In that sense, he reminds me very much of the '93-'94 Clinton, who tried to "reach

across the aisle."

It didn't work then. So far, it's not working now.

[noiretextatique]

42. please cite some examples, because someone was sporuting that same meme

yesterday and couldn't provide a single credible example. thanks.

[Jennicut]

50. How the stimulus should be bigger is one. Fine, how to you get it passed?

Like I said, he is an economist, not a politician and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Captain Hilts]

37. Sorry your thread got hijacked. This could have been a good policy discussion. nt

[Jakes Progress]

47. Yep.

It was a good chance to pin point republican failure, but some had to make it about Krugman.

[chill_wind]

48. Yep. Sad.

eom

[QC]

52. Sorry, we don't do policy discussions here anymore.

Now what do you think about Obama's dog? What should he name it? Do the girls get an adequate allowance? Do you have any more pictures of Obama at the beach? On a scale of 1 to 10, how dreeeeeeamy do you think Obama is?

[Jakes Progress]

60. This is a notice form the purity police!!!

We think you might be making fun of the upper echelon of acolytes. Your name will be remanded to the leaders of the League of Purity of Thought. They will monitor your every post and snark at your every comment. Nyah. So there.

[QC]

61. You don't think they'll send me to the Re-Education Facility, do you?

I certainly hope not! I hear all that chanting and sleep deprivation gets pretty rough.

[Jakes Progress]

62. Education would imply learning something.

Not big with this group. It's all belief based.

[BrklynLiberal]

38. There cannot be too many politicians more appropriately named than

BONER!!!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

53. Dick..... Armey? nt

[dcindian]

54. He is a republican calling him insane is just repeating yourself.

Since when has a republican had an argument that withstood critical evaluation?

[margotb822]

64. I'm no PK, but

I have been thinking along these same lines (as all demand-siders are). I think the Repubs need to go back and study the effects of Hoover trying to balance the budget after the crash of 1929. What did they call that? Oh yea, THE GREAT DEPRESSION. So, not only is Boner's statement insane, it's downright dangerous!

[The2ndWheel]

67. "It’s in my personal disinterest to have you tighten your belt"

Wow, such a simple sentence to sum up our impact on the planet.

[hay rick]

69. Problem restated.

Krugman's description of problem: "Boehner’s idea of economics is completely insane..." Boehner and politicians like him are the problem.

Restatement number 1: the media presents Boehner's idea of economics as a reasonable alternative to stimulus. The media is the problem.

Restatement number 2: Boehner can put forth a foolish and dangerous economic proposal without worrying that it will cost him re-election. The people are the problem.

[Forkboy]

73. Another Krugman thread, another DU display of binary, simpleton thinking.

Some of you people are friggin' sad.

[QC]

82. OMG!1!! YUO MUST BE ONE OF THEM PUMAS!1!1!!

:sarcasm:

[Forkboy]

83. Heh...we all know what a strong Clinton supporter I was.

;)

:hi:

[QC]

85. I saw you on the playground with your Hillary lunchbox, bud! n/t

[cooolandrew]

77. Great article by Krugman. I think the fact the President is good at making a dollar go a mile bodes

well for the economy really. Also with Biden on a task force to oversee how the dollars are spent you can't go wrong. Even the VP with his humble background no the value of every cent.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

78. "How's that SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS workin' for ya???"

We got lots of supply. Millions of new cars sittin' around in lots.

Nobody is buying them. Wonder why that is? :rofl:

[yurbud]

84. next election, Dems need to remind public that GOP lets money flow like water to cronies

but when the public is hurting, the well runs dry.

[Uzybone]

86. This thread includes the worst attributes of DU

I wondered why it had so many replies, most of them are completely stupid.

[QC]

94. Did you ever think, back in those first days of DU.

that you would see this kind of simpleminded asshattery become the norm here?

Not everything improves with age, sadly.

[Life Long Dem]

89. Sounds more like a drinking problem.

Tightening up that belt in this recovery.