Krugman is pissing me off! He is starting to remind me of Nader in 2000!

[FrenchieCat]

Because it is obvious that Krugman continues to insist that Obama is doing it all wrong.

What he fails to understand is that IF this is the case, then Obama will have to take the responsibility for the wrongness of the plan.

If Krugman wants to insist that the President does it his way, shouldn't Krugman become President, so that if Krugman's plan goes wrong, he, Krugman can assume responsibility?

Obama has had a chance to look at Krugman's plans, and has decided to go a different route. Since Obama is President, if things don't work out right, he will be held responsible. To believe such foolishness that Obama should choose Krugman's plan against his will, but still be held responsible for executing Krugman's chosen plan is ridiculous.

At this point, Krugman is becoming a liability, because he is attempting to erode confidence in the President's plan before it even hits the street, but sadly Krugman will not be held responsible for anything, one way or the other.

Krugmanphiles need to understand that Krugman at this point can only do more harm than good, as it is clear that the person that was elected President, elected to make the choices, elected to either succeed or fail has decided to do it his way....and so has accepted to take the responsibility in the results. Henpicking the Obama administration at this point only undermines Obama's chosen plan, and that is not a good thing.


Nader chose to run in 2000.
He had that right, and some good ideas.
However, Nader running in 2000
didn't benefit the American people in a long run.

To me, Krugman is starting to remind me of Nader.

Krugman has every right to critique and offer his own ideas,
but at some point, he becomes a factor, and not an assist in
the success of solving this crisis.

Since I know that many will say that Krugman has the right to do what he is doing,
I maintain that Nader did too.....didn't make things work out right though.

IN addition, I have the right to criticize Krugman,
just like he has the right to criticize Obama.
Of course, you have the right to criticize me.

But after all is said and done, Krugman will still remind me of Nader. :)

[Top Cat]

1. I agree.... I'm tired of everyone 2nd guessing the Presdient.

[DJ13]

2. If he truly believes Obama's economic team is wrong shouldnt he say so?

[FrenchieCat]

12. I think he has.

I think the repetition starts becoming deconstrutive not constructive.

We all have a responsibility to not sabotage what the person elected decides....
other than the GOP I guess.

At some point Krugman becomes the enemy because he starts to affect the plan Obama has chosen.


IT is like if I decide that the way you are raising your children is all wrong....and I tell you this. I also provide some general way in which it should be done according to me. If as a parent you have your own idea, and you decide to do it another way, how does my insistence that you do it my way and not yours continues to be constructive....especially if I keep pointing to how badly you are doing it to anyone who listens including those kids? At some point, I become part of the cause that hurts the manner in which you have chosen. I cannot force you to raise your children the way that I prescribe, because in the end, you are the responsible party, not me.

And no, you aren't beating your children....just deciding to enroll them in this montosorri as opposed to the other school.

My point is...at some point, enough becomes enough.

Krugman has a responsibility to be responsible because he has sway.
He can't be the monkey on Obama's back, because that is not a solution to the problems we face.

[DrDan]

27. "We all have a responsibility to not sabotage what the person elected decides...."

so . . . speaking out against the war during the last administration was wrong?

That sounds EXACTLY like our nemesis - FR.

I thought we stood for free speech, speaking out, speaking our minds.

Does this not apply to everyone? even Krugman?

I want to hear what he has to say.

[FrenchieCat]

53. No it doesn't.

Barack Obama is not George Bush. That is the part that you aren't saying here.

Nader had the right to run....and I'm sure that millions were glad that he did.

I wasn't.

and I had the right to express that when Nader was running.

Gore would have been very good for this country.

So who really suffered due to NADER exercising his right?

I'm just pointing this out....as that is MY right. :)

[DrDan]

59. I agree - it is your right. As it is Krugman's right to speak out.

I think you should speak out. I do not think you should ask others to not do the same. We had enough of that during the past 8 years.

[bajamary]

91. Absolutely - free speech is a good thing

Yes, I am for free speech as well especially when it comes from a man who is very knowledgeable about world economics and a recent Noble Prize winner in Economics.

Do some of the anti Krugman folks have to use phrases like "he's our enemy"? That's outrageous.

We need an economic policy that does not reward those that created this financial mess. Timmy Geithner and President Obama's newest plan will do precisely that, not only according to Paul Krugman, but according to many economists.

Isn't the Obama Administration supposed to be run by "adults"? And doesn't President Obama rather pride himself in carefully listening to all sides, even opposing sides of every issue?

So why not listen to Paul Krugman who might just see the iceberg ahead of our nation's Titanic financial ship?

He's more than worth listening to.

Sadly, I'm afraid that President Obama has not meet with Professor Krugman, face to face, to have a detailed discussion of these matters.

I can't imagine why he has not meet with him at this point as he is one of the most respected progressive American economist.

Maybe it's because he teaches at Princeton, not Harvard :)

[DrDan]

94. bingo - politicians think they have the answers - and the experts are there

to do nothing but bobble their heads in agreement. Dems and GOPers.

Time the politicians listen . . . . instead of talking . . . and reacting to their corporate sponsors.

We are no better than the other side.

[FrenchieCat]

109. I think you are making a lot of suppositions here.

You do not know what Obama has read or listened to. But yet, that is how your entire argument is framed. Grown up don't assume things just because they can.

[CTyankee]

70. Krugman is paid to express his opinion whereas your analogy is with a parent offering advice.

I'm not sticking up for Krugman so much here as just pointing out that Krugman, as a Nobel Prize laureate, has a lot of people wanting to hear what he thinks about the economy (don't get me started on economists!).

I think you make some really good points about responsibility and since I am with you in heart and soul for Obama I understand why Krugman is saying what he says. He believes it with all his heart. I think he also likes Obama a lot and wants him to succeed. I must say, tho, Krugman was right about the housing bubble. He was out there like Cassandra predicting the doom and gloom of what would eventually happen. That kinda gives me pause...

Let's not worry about Krugman's criticisms. Here's what I think: Obama actually reads Krugman and admires him. Obama is confident enough and mature enough to learn from others who are more expert in areas where he isn't. Obama is tough, smart and a pragmatist. Given all that, I don't think Obama has to worry so much about Krugman, who is an academic and as such a bit limited in his ability to think the way Obama, the brilliant politician thinks.

[LSparkle]

80. I was shocked to learn that Krugman was an economic adviser to Obama ...

during the campaign ... I wonder if he's disappointed
in Obama tapping so many Clinton vets (Summers and
Rubin in particular) to serve in his administration.

If Geithner goes, would Krugman even be interested in
a WH position, though? I'd like to believe so, but
I also wonder if he just likes to throw rocks ... ??

[inna]

151. "At some point Krugman becomes the enemy"

that was one of the creepiest things i've ever read on the DU.

frightening, almost.

[girl gone mad]

152. Bad analogy.

It's our money that Obama is handing over to the banks and hedge funds. Using your analogy, we would be advising someone on how to raise OUR children, not theirs.

[Hansel]

157. Yes, to Obama. And can quit the grandstanding.

He has disliked Obama every since he started having a real shot in the primaries. He doesn't have all of the answers and plenty of his criticism of Obama has been pure BS and heavily colored by bias.

If Krugman is the economic genius we are all suppose to believe he is, then he knows that constantly undermining everything Obama's economic team tries to do is not helping. A large part of the economic confidence is based on the people's confidence that those trying to fix the problem are competent. Krugman has been on a crusade from the beginning to convince everyone Obama is not so his opinion is irrelevant.

[brentspeak]

3. Get over yourself. Krugman's but one of a lot of people who recognize the scam for what it is:

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-krugman-fumes-about-geithners-latest-giveaway-2009-3

[FrenchieCat]

24. Just like you and Krugman, I get to have an opinion too!

I say to Krugman and You, get over yourselves.
and then you say it back to me.

that's how it works.

So get over yourself, brentspeak.

[rockymountaindem]

4. I don't understand your sudden obsession with responsibility

Some people, like Krugman and Stiglitz (who seem to know what they're talking about) are probably advocating for their positions because they think they are better than the current plan being offered by the Obama administration. Others, like Boehner, are just obstructionists. They are not three peas in a pod.

However, this whole responsibility kick you're on, such as suggesting in other threads that Krugman et. al. would have to "take responsibility" if they "force Obama to accept a plan he doesn't support" seems to me to be totally empty. Obama is the only person with the responsibility of being President. Everybody else is just advocating for their opinion. How can Krugman and Stiglitz take responsibility for something that probably won't happen (the acceptance of their platform)? I don't get what you're saying.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Because at some point, the naysayeres start effecting confidence,

and that is one part of this equation of making any plan work.

At some point, Krugman becomes a monkey on Obama's back.

Will he ever step back and give a chance for Obama's plan to occur,
or will he keep screaming from his perch and become part of the reason
confidence in Obama's economic team continues to erode.

And example would be Nader in 2000.
He had the right to run,
and he possibly had some good ideas,
but in the end, Doesn't mean he helped the Nation.

[joeybee12]

19. The Kool-Aid is strong within you, Luke Skywalker...

...some people just can't reason through the whole process and so anything even slightly negative about Obama gets her knees jerking.

[FrenchieCat]

26. I have an opinion.

Why is that drinking Koolaid, but Krugman is your God?

see, this can work all kinds of ways!

[DrDan]

37. you are absolutely entitled to it - isn't Krugman?

You speak out. Shouldn't he be able to?

[FrenchieCat]

52. and he does.....and it is my opinion that doesn't mean it is the right course at this time.

Having a right doesn't make you right.

[DrDan]

62. of course it doesn't. But he is allowed to voice his opinion -

As you say - we don't know what is right and what is not at this time. Why not listen to EVERYONE! Including the whacky-right. The right answer might be a blend of ideas. I have a feeling that we will go through much strategy tweaking as we try to solve this. We are not going to directly hit the target right out-the-door. We have to have alternatives at-hand. We have to know the thoughts of the experts.

[FrenchieCat]

93. No where in my OP do I state that Krugman doesn't have a right to voice his opinion....

that's the problem with the answer you are giving. It is based on a false premise that I said he had no such right.

In the same way, I never said that NADER didn't have a right to run. Questioning whether he should did not infringe upon his right to do so.

[DrDan]

96. you said

"Krugmanphiles need to understand that Krugman at this point can only do more harm than good, . . . Henpicking the Obama administration at this point only undermines Obama's chosen plan, and that is not a good thing."

You are obviously asking Krugman to reel-it-in.

[FrenchieCat]

104. Correct, I don't believe that Krugman's approach is a good thing.

I'm voicing that opinion.

I don't believe that panning a proposal publicly
before it is publicly announced is a good approach if
what you are doing is trying to help things.

I don't see what the problem in Krugman waiting to have the administration's plan proposed publicly,
before responding to it. He is handicapping the administration in doing so, and he knows it.
In otherwords, he gets the first word, without the other side present.

I can't debate Krugman's assessment of the plan,
since the actual plan has yet to be announced.
That's a problem for me.

[DrDan]

107. and in doing so - asking for his silence

[FrenchieCat]

116. That's what you take away from what I wrote......

but it isn't what I said.

Krugman will do what he chooses.
I don't have to agree with it, or even encourage him.

Why is that so wrong on my part?

[DrDan]

120. I am not finding fault with you disagreeing. You will not find a post where I did that.

I did not fault you for not encouraging him further.

Your words imply you want him silent. I suggest you look at them critically - others see it the same way.

[Hansel]

162. Or maybe your bias against Obama is so obsessive that you

are incapable of believing that some people are just genuinely concerned that Krugman's constant criticism of Obama is not helping the disastrous economic situation we are in. That some people just might have more confidence in Obama than you does not mean they have drinken the Kool-aid. It means they have more confidence in Obama than you and that it all.

Your comment is offensive and condescending, but really reflexs more on you than the person it was aimed at.

[GeorgeGist]

5. Nonsense ...

[nichomachus]

6. Right -- people who don't agree with you

should not be allowed to speak. It's the American way

[FrenchieCat]

18. If they are just saying the same thing over and over again,

possibly it becomes harmful.

Guess it depends on their agenda.

Nader's agenda wasn't that of the American people.

[marylanddem]

7. Krugman is a responsible journalist, not a cheerleader.

That's the way it's supposed to be in a free country.

[DrDan]

29. ABSOLUTELY!

We need to hear his views.

[FrenchieCat]

31. He has the right, and I have the right to question if what he is doing

is beneficial....or does it become part of the effect of causing many to lose confidence?

It is not just Krugman who has the right to criticize Obama.
I have the right to criticize Krugman.
In turn, you have the right to criticize me.

Does any of it really solves the problem at hand.
Possibly not.

But certainly, Krugman has a right to write his columns,
and I have the right to say he is pissing me off and reminding of Nader.

[GreenPartyVoter]

110. Agreed. Journalists shouldn't be mindless pennat wavers. We saw enough

of that under the ** regime.

[BlooInBloo]

8. He can be a drama queen at times, but he's likely right about this....

In any case, the last thing I read seemed decent - something along the lines of "I agree with Obama on the stimulus, and disagree with him on the banksters-issue".

[Fresh_Start]

9. Krugman has the right to voice his opinion.

I'd rather listen to him on the economy than to anyone at DU.

[Jennicut]

10. Krugman has every right to say what he wants to but he is an economist

not a politician. I really don't worship him like many here do...thinking he is the all knowing wizard of the economics. However, he does not really piss me off either. He is putting ideas out there. You can either decide to agree with him or disagree. My problem with Krugman is he does not know his way might work any better. Also many people here fail to realize that we are an ultra capitalistic society. Pushing back against that basically means taking on the entire media and financial system. The wealthy have had it a certain way for a long time and will dig their hooks in before change will happen. There are major corporatists in the Dem party as well. Perhaps Obama is one of them. We don't know yet. His budget says otherwise. The "moderates" in his own party are trying to give him trouble already.

[AllentownJake]

11. If Obama is correct Krugman looks like an ass

If Krugman is correct Obama was warned.

I see no difference to this than people who spoke out about the dangers to invade Iraq. If the Iraq war was a super awesome success story all those who spoke out against it would look like fools. When you put your opinion out there...that's the risk you take.

I want Obama questioned on this shit. Because if he gets it wrong...well my fears of what might result I don't want to articulate.

[MarjorieG]

13. But why so public, undermining that we have to try lesser measures to save the banks.

I think it's a very big deal to assume the worst in policy and takeover dollars as a first step.

[AllentownJake]

23. I think its Krugman's responsibility to make his opinions public

He is a nobel winning economist. If he worked for the administration I believe it would be his responsibility to keep his mouth shut over disagreements with the President. He doesn't. He's a private citizen and I believe in a vigorous public debate over the decisions going on.

[MarjorieG]

136. Responsibility is what I'm questioning. Bring up alternatives, call Obama..

He doesn't speak as a private citizen. He's a trusted economist with a megaphone, and a self-serving agenda.

[ProSense]

14. "Krugman at this point can only do more harm than good"

I seriously doubt that.

Not everyone takes Krugman's word as gospel. He is right about a lot of things, but he tends to frame his criticism of Obama in fatalistic terms.

[dkf]

15. Pursuing a faulty strategy is what got us into Iraq.

We need smart people to help examine options and steer us in the correct direction.

Or if the measures taken are all wrong and the whole thing is going to get worse, we need these people to warn us so we personally can figure out what to do next.

[FrenchieCat]

39. This is not Iraq, and Obama is not Bush.

But Krugman is reminding me of Nader.

There is no right or wrong here....only what Krugman thinks versus what this administration thinks.

Economy is not an exact science.

You might believe that Krugman is right and the Obama administration is all wrong,
but that is just what you think, as it has not been proven out.

Krugman got his Nobel price for International trading, not how to save the world's economy.
Obama elected to save the world's economy.

That's how I see the difference from you.

[dkf]

50. Actually there is a right and a wrong here.

Some solutions won't work and some will.

The only way to tell which is which is to do it, and then see the consequence.

But you can only do one plan.

I don't necessarily think that Krugman is right or wrong, but I do like to hear what he has to say so I can look out for my own decision making.

I'd like to buy a place eventually. I invest. I can save money or spend to stimulate our economy. I have an interest in understanding what to expect.

[Better Believe It]

17. Senator Reid and Wall Street's Operatives In The White House Should Be Pissing You Off

Senator Reid's continued support of right-wing bogus Republican filibuster threats really pisses me off.

I'm really tiring of Republican party "enablers" in the Senate be it Senator Reid or the 15 conservative Senators who call themselves Democrats.

I think you anger should be directed against the crooks and tycoons on Wall Street, not progressive economists like Krugman and Roubini whose economic proposals are beyond your understanding.

[inna]

156. word.

"I think you anger should be directed against the crooks and tycoons on Wall Street, not progressive economists like Krugman"


exactly.

frankly, i'm saddened and even creeped out by the OP and other posts in this thread; it's.... some sort of neo-democratic mccarthyism, or something to that effect.

[LittleBlue]

20. It's bigger than just Obama taking responsibility. If we're saddled with Palin

as President for 4 (or god, even 8 years), what becomes of this country?

He has an obligation to this nation to do this right, because the lying media will work their asses off to cover Palin's lunacy.

If Palin gets elected, God help us all. I'll throw a few corporate shills off the economic team to avoid this. You know it's coming: Obama couldn't turn the economy around, he raised our taxes, outlawed our churches blahblahblah vote Palin! And you know the idiots in this country will consider it!

[Jennicut]

30. Palin will never get elected. She scares off to many people.

Obama would crush her in a current poll. I am more worried about Repubs who seem reasonable but are still pricks like Romney.

[LittleBlue]

35. I'm confident he'd crush her tomorrow, or even in six months.

But what happens if we go two years without an economic recovery, and the Republicans' lies go unchallenged in the media? They will take him to task for flubbing the bank recovery, but then present Palin as the alternative.

I don't want what happened to Bush to happen to us: we get overconfident, lazy, and ultimately we lose because we were unwilling to do the smart thing.

[dflprincess]

145. Even without Palin, if Obama is wrong

he can take all the responsibility - but we'll all have to live with his mistake.

And, given his reluctance to give single payer health care a fair chance, I have some doubts about how willing he actually is to hear ideas he doestn't like. It took a lot of pressure just to get him to invite two single payer advocates to his health care summit and I'll bet they didn't get a lot of attention.

[DrDan]

21. let see . . . Obama or Nobel Prize in Economics

believe I will stick with the Nobel winner.

"Shouldn't Krugman become President" - nooooooo - this is only one aspect of the Presidency - one in which Krugman is an acknowledged expert. Lets be reasonable.

It is not a matter of who takes the blame. This is not a stupid, insensitive comment on late-night television. We are tinkering with the country's economy. KRUGMAN NEEDS TO SPEAK OUT. Him doing so implies (to me) that he is not being asked or listened to.

Obamabots need to understand that the potential harm of the wrong strategy could cost millions their jobs, their savings, their houses. Krugman NOT SPEAKING OUT if he disagrees with the strategy could be a fatal blunder on his part. One from which we may not recover.

IT GOES FAR BEYOND WHO TAKES RESPONSIBILITY!

The sensitivity of Obababots pisses me off.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Krugman = Nader

[DrDan]

34. Krugman = Nobel Prize Economics

[FrenchieCat]

41. Nobel prize Economist in the area of International Trade......

not in the area of saving the world's economy.

OBama was elected precisely to save the world's economy.
It is his call and his responsibility.

Krugman = Nader in this case. His way could be right (althought that is not a given),
but his insistence beyond everything else is wrong....to me.


Economy is not a science.
Krugman's argument is not the only way.
Krugman is applying a one size fits all solution to a problem
never experienced before.

[DrDan]

47. He is an expert in the field - he shouldn't be silenced just because you disagree with him

We need to hear his views. As you say - this is a problem never experienced before. To ignore the voices of the experts is a HUGE MISTAKE. Him speaking out tells me that he is not being asked - or not being listened to. He absolutely has a right - and a duty - to speak out.

[FrenchieCat]

65. I heard his views. He has decided that his way is the only way....

and is panning OBama's decision.

I disagree; his way is not the only way.
It is only your opinion that Krugman is absolutely right.
That's a matter of debate, because what we are dealing with is not an exact science.

[DrDan]

67. I NEVER SAID THAT!!!!!!!!

I said it was wrong to ask him to be silent!!!!!!!

Please read what I said - do not put words in my mouth!

[FrenchieCat]

76. I asked NADER not to run,

although he had the right.

[DrDan]

78. this is right out of the last administration

do not criticize - do not speak out - limit your opinions to the "free speech zone"

We are becoming them.

[FrenchieCat]

83. No it isn't. Krugman has been speaking out all along.

At this point I disagree that his critique is doing much good.
That is an opinion I have. I'm sure he will continue to do what he does.
So no, I'm not saying Krugman doesn't have the right, or that he should remain silent even,
just that, at this time, I believe that what he is doing is not necessarily helpful.

That's like saying I have no right to say that Krugman is pissing me off,
he is, and so I've decided to say so.

We are not becoming them....unless you are saying that I am not allowed to say what I think,
only Krugman and those who agree with him.

How does that work?

[DrDan]

86. so . . . what did this mean?

"Krugmanphiles need to understand that Krugman at this point can only do more harm than good, . . . Henpicking the Obama administration at this point only undermines Obama's chosen plan, and that is not a good thing."

No one ever said you were not allowed your opinion. Those that disagree with you on this thread do not agree that he should be silenced.

That's what you are calling for - obviously.

It is exactly like the previous 8 years.

As I said - we are becoming them. No better.

[FrenchieCat]

105. I respond to this exact comment, as you made it on this thread elsewhere......

Here ---> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8279472&mesg_id=8279810

[DrDan]

108. that references your OP

[FrenchieCat]

119. No it doesn't....It reference my response to you at another point in this thread,

in where you pose the exact same question, word for word.

I felt it would save time not to have to respond to something that I just responded to
hence, the link given.

[DrDan]

121. when I take the link - it takes me to your OP

why would I make that up.

[FrenchieCat]

129. Go to number 104, then......

when I click, it take me to response 104. Strange.

[DrDan]

131. so you want him silent . . .

[chascarrillo]

48. And appointing someone who was part of the problem (Geithner) is not how you solve the problem.

Geithner has no solution to the problem, and Obama is relying on Geithner.

And if you want to say that saving the economy is Obama's call and Obama's responsibility and not our call and our responsibility, you're engaging in religion, not problem-solving.

[LittleBlue]

51. Summers is Geithner's mentor, and he has been on the deregulation express

until only recently.

Now we find them covering for AIG execs so they can receive bonuses. What a joke.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Summers was not on the deregulation express......

anymore than many many others.

Summers did not have a direct hand in what happened in the 90s.
and he was busy being President of Harvard between 2001 to 2006.

Here's my info to back this up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8278459

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8278475

[mix]

71. don't hide the truth about Summers and Geithner

Summers, along with Rubin et al, pushed for deregulation for years and achieved their goal under Clinton. Geithner of course is a disciple of these men.

From The American Prospect:

"On three major issues that have had special bearing on the recent crisis -- financial deregulation, asset bubbles, and government bailouts -- Summers flouted basic tenets of his profession, ignored warnings, and pursued a short-sighted strategy...As stewards of the Clinton economy, Summers and his mentor Rubin embraced the delusion that an unregulated financial marketplace is an ideal economic configuration. They pursued this vision with gusto, consistently bowing to Wall Street interests in championing voluntary, "market based" solutions over enforceable government regulations.

With respect to today's crisis, the most consequential example of Summers' penchant for deregulation was his support for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which ensured that over-the-counter derivatives (those not traded on exchanges) would go unregulated. It was a major giveaway to Wall Street banks. These financial instruments have played a starring role in the recent financial crisis."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_summers_bubble

There is no reason to distort the historical record, FC. Obama has surrounded himself with many of the same men who caused the crisis. Let's hope he can see beyond this.

[FrenchieCat]

82. Who deregulated what?

Summers did not write nor introduce the Commodity Future Mordernization Act. The Republicans that were running congress did. It was attached to an Omnibus bill in 2000.

The article that you have linked does not discussed who wrote that bill you mentioned nor the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It wasn't Larry Summers. Democrats were in the minority.

What is said about Bill Clinton's economic policies is this....

After the 1994 election, a conservative Republican majority took control of Congress. The new makeup of Congress dramatically changed Clinton’s strategy. Unable to push his own programs, he turned his attention to preventing the Republicans’ conservative agenda from becoming law by vetoing Republican budgets that cut spending on programs he supported. In 1995 the Republican-controlled Congress twice shut down the federal government for short periods because it had not approved a budget.

Newt Gingrich left as speaker of the house in January of 1999, and Dennis Haster succeeded him.

The reason that Bill Clinton can take the credit for the economic boom that Americans enjoyed during his presidency had to do with what he did when he first took in office, in where he raised taxes and produced a budget that addressed the issue of deficits, which he was urged to do at the advise of his economic advisors.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8278459

Summers did not cause the crisis, he is only being blamed for it.

[mix]

87. That is like saying

that since JFK did not build Apollo 11 with his own hands, he had nothing to do with getting men to the Moon.

You purposely deny simple consensual facts about the crisis, its history, and those responsible for it, all in the name of defending Obama.

Your support for Obama should focus on encouraging him to do the right thing for the country, which here means cutting his ties to the failed policies of the past.

Summers and Geithner, whose Chief-of-Staff is apparently a Goldman-Sachs lobbyist, are the cancer eating away at the White House.

[bajamary]

100. Excellent points

Correct.

Geithner is an acolyte of Henry Kissinger as well as Robert (I deregulate) Rubin, the chairman of the board of Citibank when it collapsed.

While working in the Reagan and Clinton White Houses, Larry Summers was able to lobby successfully for cuts in both corporate and capital gains taxes.

In 1995, Larry Summers was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury.

[Hansel]

165. "Your support for Obama should focus on encourgaging him to do the right ...

thing for the country". Absolutely. That would be to not take advice from a man who has shown nothing but utter disdain for you from the start and refers to your voters as a cult following. How's that?

Krugman has a very long history of an irrational dislike of Obama and has made some pretty derogatory remarks about him and his supporters. He's not the objective professional that people here are trying to paint him as.

[mix]

172. prove it

nt

[Hansel]

174. It's called Google. Look it up.

It's not exactly a secret. You might want to start with "Krugman hates Obama".

[mix]

175. conjurer

nt

[slipslidingaway]

146. Summers and Brooksley Born on regulating derivatives...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/11/obama-taps-larry-summers-recalling-summers-days-regulation-foe


"Back in May 1998, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, then chaired by Brooksley Born, issued a memo noting it was "re-examining its approach to the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market." It noted:

While OTC derivatives serve important economic functions, these products, like any complex financial instrument, can present significant risks if misused or misunderstood. A number of large, well-publicized financial losses over the last few years have focused the attention of the financial services industry, its regulators, derivatives end-users and the general public on potential problems and abuses in the OTC derivatives market.

...Summers blasted the CFTC for having raised" the possibility of increased regulation over this market." And he hailed derivatives:

The dramatic growth of the market in recent years is testament not merely to the dynamism of modern financial markets, but to the benefits that derivatives provide for American businesses.

By helping participants manage their risk exposures better and lower their financing costs, derivatives facilitate domestic and international commerce and support a more efficient allocation of capital across the economy. They can also improve the functioning of financial markets themselves by potentially raising liquidity....OTC derivatives directly and indirectly support higher investment and growth in living standards in the United States and around the world.

Even "small regulatory changes," Summers cautioned, could throw the whole system out of whack. Determined to slap down the CFTC, his Treasury Department, the Fed, and the Securities and Exchange Commission crafted a proposal that would prohibit the CFTC from issuing new rules regulating any swap or "hybrid instrument."

[FrenchieCat]

Geithner is not part of the problem.

and if so, how?

[bajamary]

103. Geithner - Summers - the Deregulation connections

Timmy Geithner

Geithner is an acolyte of Henry Kissinger as well as Robert (I deregulate) Rubin, the chairman of the board of Citibank when it collapsed.

He also worked with Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.<7> Summers was his mentor,<9><10> but other sources call him a Rubin protégé.

Geithner believes, along with Henry Paulson, that the United States Department of the Treasury needs new authority to experiment with responses to the financial crisis of 2008.<9> Paulson has described Geithner as " very unusually talented young man... understands government and understands markets."

Larry Summers

While working in the Reagan and Clinton White Houses, Larry Summers was able to lobby successfully for cuts in both corporate and capital gains taxes.

In 1995, Larry Summers was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury.

[girl gone mad]

154. Actually, economics is a science.

And Krugman has written textbooks on macroeconomics.

He's an expert in the field, just as Obama is an expert on constitutional law.

[Ikonoklast]

55. Milton Friedman = Nobel Laureate Economics

And your point is...?


Krugman is *not* a politician having to deal with the political realities of this mess. He can stay safely outside and throw all the bombs he wants, with little political backlash.

[FrenchieCat]

63. Yep. He is responsible for nothing, but says a lot. Seems like an easy job.....

in my opinion.

[DrDan]

64. so your point is that he should keep quiet and let the politicians

solve the problem?

Boy oh boy. You have a lot more confidence in them than I do.

[FrenchieCat]

106. Nope. I didn't say that.

[DrDan]

112. ok - so I take that as somewhat backing down on your OP

asking for anyone's silence is just not right. Particularly from our perspective as liberal/progressives.

[DrDan]

66. and

if Friedman were still alive, would we be seeking his advice? Of course we would. So why not listen to Krugman? Why ask him to be silent? That is crazy.

[mix]

149. I have never understood this argument.

Your claim that Krugman is not a politician and is thus somehow naive about the policy process is absurd, particularly when linked to your other claim that due to the present constitution of Congress we should all compromise and accept Obama's abysmal economic team and policies.

Your argument is essentially a call for the exact same policies in place since the late nineties and accelerated under Bush. It is also a complete misreading of the political opposition facing Obama.

As for your claim that Krugman is throwing "bombs" with no accountability, you do not appreciate the high political stakes facing academics like him, particularly as a Noble Prize winner. The social sciences in higher education are ideological warzones, particularly in economics and particularly between neo-liberals, who have dominated since the 1960s at least, and progressives like Krugman who have been hanging on by a thread as a despised minority.

Obama is lucky to have a critic as wise and stubborn as Krugman, who knows government, having served, and the ivory tower equally well. Obama would be wise to listen to him. He is not a random pundit but a researcher who goes with what the data tell him.

In the end, Obama will come around to Krugman's positions.

[Sebastian Doyle]

153. Geithner/Summers/Rubin = Wall Street Vampire Pieces of Criminal Shit

You cannot stop - let alone REVERSE the destructive and criminal economic policies of the last 28 years by appointing the same bastards who created the problem.

And Timmy the fucking Keebler Elf has proven what side he's on. And it ain't ours.

If Obama means anything he campaigned on, he'll get rid of these bastards. If he doesn't then how the fuck is anything going to change?

Change? Anybody remember that word?

[960]

22. Krugman's job is not a cheerleader. I understand you've taken it upon yourself to be

the #1 Obama cheerleader, but don't expect everyone else to follow suite.

[FrenchieCat]

85. Krugman is a public figure at this point, as is Obama.

However, I am not.

They are both worthy of criticism, not just one of them.

You calling me a cheerleader doesn't have anything to do with anything,
as I am not calling you any names.

[depakid]

25. It just so happened that Nader was right

but Democrats refused to listen to him- preferring instead to be "new" Democrats- and promote right wing economic policies.

Sorry to say, it's not Krugman who's the problem- it's Obama's POOR JUDGMENT in choosing his economic teams from a bunch of ideologues and failures.

[Jennicut]

28. Yeah Nader was great. There was no difference between Gore and Bush.

Are we really going to start defending Nader of all people here?

[depakid]

36. On deregulatory policy there wasn't a dimes worth of difference

and had the Democrats not spent the last 8 years enabling legitimizing and VOTING FOR far right policies- Nader and the Greens wouldn't have had a constituency to begin with.

Somethiung to think about, because it can easily happen again with a new leader of the Greens (or even a primary challenge in 2012).

[ProSense]

45. Nader is an ass!

Here's a huge difference between Gore and Bush: Gore wouldn't have launched an illegal war.

Nader is a fucking clown.

[Jennicut]

58. Exactly. Katrina, Iraq, spying on people

Gore was a thousand times better.

[depakid]

90. Like it or not- Nader (and a lot of others) were right

and the Democratic partisans who blindly followed along with Clinton and DINO's were DEAD wong and every bit as responsible for this mess as any Republican.

And rather than acknowledge the obvious- people still seem to want to go along to get along with these same FAILED neoliberals.

[BlooInBloo]

60. "We" won't. That one will.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Nader was right, but Gore would have done very well, thank you!

[depakid]

38. He could hardly have done worse....

[uberllama42]

127. I still don't understand why we're supposed to hate Nader

Am I the only one who remembers that Bush stole Florida in 2000? Nader had almost nothing to do with the results there.

Polls showed that only 38,000 of Nader's voters would otherwise have voted for Gore. That's more than the difference between Bush and Gore in that state, but it's only a fraction of the number of Gore voters intentionally purged by Katherine Harris's State Department. Nader had nothing to do with that, nor with the Supreme Court decision that ultimately handed Bush the election.

I think the hatred of Nader stems from an inability to brook any criticism of our party.

[Better Believe It]

40. Really FrenchieCat? Is that because Krugman isn't acting like a political whore for Wall Street?

[Lord Helmet]

43. he's acting like a bitter puma instead with his harangue and no solutions

[depakid]

54. He and others have plenty of viable solutions

of course, neither the Obama administration nor its sycophants care to listen. They'd rather dismiss anyone- no matter the degree of their expertise (or their hisotry of having benn proven correct) as PUMA's or some other such stupid thing.

[FrenchieCat]

73. The Obama administration has viable solutions as well,

as that is obvious.

Krugman just believes that his solution is better.

Just because Obama isn't adopting Krugman's suggestion,
doesn't mean he hasn't listened. That is a lie that you are making up.
In fact, Obama publicly stated that he's read what Krugman offers.

You do not hold the corner market in what you opine, anymore than I do.....
as is evidenced in the shit you just made up
in reference to that one short paragraph that you just typed.

[depakid]

99. If they were viable (and not retreads of the same policies announced earlier this year)

Then so many economists wouldn't be slamming them. As they roundly did (almost laughingly did) before.

[FrenchieCat]

124. Because they believe that their answer is the answer.

that's why....even if they don't all agree with each other.

Doesn't make them right for believing such.

[depakid]

160. And in many respects- that makes them much like the ideologues who preceded them

Why they would risk sabotaging Obama's presidency to prop up Wall Streets fat cats- including, btw- the folks from countrywide, who are now profiting- and will keep profiting from government subsidies under this "plan" is beyond me. And beyond a lot of other observers, economists and poltical analysts.

[Better Believe It]

128. For example .... I'm listening!

[FrenchieCat]

44. Nope.

I believe that Krugman is like Nader,
because even if he may be more right than Obama,
or maybe not, as this situation is not an exact science,
his insistence on being right at the cost of anything else,
is wrong, IMO.

That's why.

Since Krugman and you are able to have an opinion on this....
then so am I.

[mix]

42. you're a fan of the man

and so am i, but we're also citizens and community members with an obligation to speak out against policies we disagree with...to do so in good faith, as Krugman does, is the essence of our democracy

[FrenchieCat]

46. That's what I'm doing......

I'm in disagreement with how Krugman continues to insist....
because at some point, I don't consider it Good faith any longer.

That is also the essence of our democracy.

[mix]

57. no, you are questioning his loyalty (if you don't see his good faith),

misrepresenting his views and smearing him with the Nader comparison

your attempts to silence legitimate criticism do not serve the crisis well

[DrDan]

74. bingo - right out of the pages of the past adminsitration

[TripleKatPad]

49. I am a simple person thinking simply

I don't know the right answers. But I do wonder: whose advice should be followed? The people who got us into this mess or the ones who recognized that the mess was being made long before it happened?

[leftstreet]

56. That's not 'simple thinking' - that's Right On!

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

69. It is very simplistic thinking to simply say that Geithner and Summers

helped get us into this mess.
The basis of fact on this statement are not correct, IMO.

The song on Obama's economic team has been to mindless repeat that
Geithner and Summers were somehow part of how we got to where we are,
but the facts of how, if they were responsible, have not really been made clear.

Could you elaborate how Geithner and Summers were partially responsible?

Thanks.

[uberllama42]

138. Check these out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7868538

The above thread links to two Nation articles explaining how Summers brought about financial collapse in Lithuania and Russia.


The New York Times ran a long article last fall chronicling the deregulation of financial derivatives under Bill Clinton's Treasury Department and Sen. Phil Gramm's Senate Banking Committee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em

Ms. Born was concerned that unfettered, opaque trading could “threaten our regulated markets or, indeed, our economy without any federal agency knowing about it,” she said in Congressional testimony. She called for greater disclosure of trades and reserves to cushion against losses.

<snip>

In early 1998, Mr. Rubin’s deputy , Lawrence H. Summers, called Ms. Born and chastised her for taking steps he said would lead to a financial crisis, according to Mr. Greenberger. Mr. Summers said he could not recall the conversation but agreed with Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin that Ms. Born’s proposal was “highly problematic.”

Larry Summers and Tim Geithner were both deputies to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Rubin and Summers insisted that giving a government agency the ability to oversee derivative trading would be disastrous. They were also enthusiastic advocates of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed the creation of Citigroup and other "too-big-to-fail" banks. They argued that such huge institutions would stabilize the financial system. Also central to this financial infrastructure was AIG, which insured opaque derivative contracts.

In fact, the failure of those risky derivatives is the proximate cause of the current crisis. The insurance schemes put in place by AIG, far from stabilizing the financial market, dragged the insurance giant down with the banks. Summers, at least, was an enthusiastic cheerleader as all this was set up ten years ago.

[FrenchieCat]

68. Who got us into this mess?

I have a theory that has been confirmed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8278459
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8278475

[girl gone mad]

155. Great.

That doesn't let Rubin, Summers or Geithner off the hook for their rather large roles in creating the current crisis.

[MannyGoldstein]

72. Krugman Is A Democrat; Should He Back Republican Policies?

The plan by Paulson, Summers, and Geithner is straight out of the Republican playbook. Democrats always have a responsibility to call out incredibly dangerous things done by the opposing party.

[FrenchieCat]

75. What Paulson, Summers and Geithner plan are you speaking of?

It is that easy to squish them all together without daylight between them in order to make them all guilty?

Paulson isn't Summers who isn't Geithner.

What is this "incredible dangerous thing" you speak of?

Obama is a Democrat.

Krugman is a Democrat.

They have different ideas on how to solve this problem....
but the difference is that Barack OBama was elected President.
He has a responsibility to this nation, Krugman does not.

There is more than two playbooks out there.
You're simplifying things in order to be right,
doesn't make you right.

[MannyGoldstein]

81. The Banker Bailout - Heads They Win, Tails We Lose

To start with, leaving the same people to run the same institutions is dangerous folly. People don't change; they are what they are. They will continue to do what they have done.

Next, Paulson, Summers, and Geithner all have the same plan, which is a "heads they win, tails we lose". They are handing out trillions, and guaranteeing many more trillions against loss, with no personal downside to the people who have already brought the world's financial system to its knees.

Really, do these ideas make any sense to you? Is there anything whatsoever to indicate that the outcomes will be different than they've been over the past few years?

I've been reading Krugman for 15 years. That was when I read "The Age of Diminished Expectations" - I thought it was so correct that I purchased a bunch of copies for friends and family. Krugman has a track record of being consistently correct for more than a decade, while Summers and Geithner have wrecked astonishing havoc over the same time period. Summers and Geithner helped spearhead wholesale financial deregulation, and almost-free trade with China - I happen to believe those were catastrophic policies.

I've been an Obama supporter from Day 1. But this is craziness, and someone needs to tell the Captain that the purser and his factotum are heading for the iceberg, full speed.

[FrenchieCat]

89. Your first argument takes me back to an earlier question I had.....

I have a question as an op at the link that I would like for you to answer,
if you could...please.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8279333&mesg_id=8279333

You can agree with Krugman....as no one is stopping you.
And you can support Obama as well.

I have no problem with what you choose to do.

I simply have a different opinion, and I started this OP in order to make that opinion known.

I think it is all good.

Because no one has a corner market on good ideas.

[MannyGoldstein]

114. Fire Just The Top Dozen Or So Executives At Each

Top executives decide strategy; it's the managers that run the business. Warren Buffet, Paul Volker, and similar folks could take over and put the right people in place at the top. Buffet did it when he bailed out Salomon Brothers in the 1990s.

When the Swiss government bailed out UBS, they resigned the CEO, canceled all executive bonuses, and generally imposed law and order. That was a *bank* bailout, not a *banker* bailout.

[FrenchieCat]

126. So you have decided just the top dozen or so.......

Good answer, but what if Krugman says every portion of management has to go? That's gonna be more than a dozen on each bank. Where are we going to get these replacements? How long will it take to screen them? Will the appointment of just one of these folks set the media ablaze with renewed outrage?

Why should Obama, who was elected to fix the economic situation, not get the first stab at doing it as he believes is right without having to also swat all of the monkeys of his back? Especially when a lot of answers from those who not even agree with each other, yet disagree with the Administration leave a lot of the details unanswered. Why isn't Obama allowed to lead, without being preempted on a proposal not yet proposed by those who at the same time professed to be there to "help".

[MannyGoldstein]

134. Because He's Locking The Steering Wheel Down

And heading towards the Titanic.

Look, Obama's the President, he can do what he wants. We'll each need to decide for ourselves how close to stay to the life rafts, and when to bail.

[Phx_Dem]

77. Yes, and I'm sick of all the assholes, including the ones on this board,

who continue to call for Geithner's resignation. Since when is it appropriate to call form someone's resignation 60 days into their job when they have not even had time to do their fucking job? No Treasury Sec has ever faced what Geithner is facing so it would be nice to give him a little time before you start screaming for his resignation like a bunch of Republicans.

You don't like him personally. We get it. You don't like that his past associations with financial and investment institutions. Well tough shit. That doesn't make him culpable.

The bottom line is, it;s not your decision. You've voiced your opinion ad nauseum, and the President has made it clear Geithner's not going anywhere, so deal with it and STFU.

:puke:

[girl gone mad]

158. He's doing worse than "heckuva job" Brownie.

You think we should have kept that guy around, too? Or is it possible that people can often gauge rather quickly when an employee is not up to the job?

[Reterr]

79. I like and support Obama and I disagree with your post

On DU it seems often that the only position one can take is black or white. I don't view the world this way.

I think a lot of celebritized attacks on Obama are just blowing stuff way out of proportion and dumb and I like a lot of what I have seen from him so far. I like his policies on science and environmental issues a lot so far. Steve Chu was one of the best choices I have seen any admin make in a while.

And he is having to deal with smear agendas from the far right and a very small portion of the far left/PUMAs.

But lumping Krugman into these categories is just misguided imo. Krugman is not a bitter PUMA, shrill idealogue etc. imo at least. And taking the position that everything Obama does is spot on is not helpful, least of all to Obama. I want to see him and this administration do well and I think he has a few too many of these Goldman Sachs shills around trying to sell him on bad ideas. I think he needs to get rid of Geithner honestly...

[FrenchieCat]

97. I didn't call Krugman a Bitter PUMA.

I only stated that he is starting to remind of NADER, and then I go on to say why I think that.

And yes, I am pissed that he could not even wait till Geithner actually announced his plan, before he panned it....putting the Administration in a position of having folks who don't understand all of the complexity just deciding based on Krugman's column and his giving his one sided opinion that the Obama plan is not a good one before the administration even has a chance to announce the plan although it is slated to be announced this upcoming week. That is acting like an enemy of this administration and not an objective voice of reason. Krugman is attempting to make news and influence the blogs before we the people who are waiting for the announcement are able to even hear out Geithner.

I just felt that this was a shitty manner in which to do things. That's my opinion.

[Larkspur]

84. I see this thread is a "Church of the Obama fanatics" diary

Obama fanatics are as thinned skinned as the Bushies are. You will all have nervous breakdowns by the end of the year if you keep up with your idol worship.

[FrenchieCat]

88. The difference between you and I is stark here.

I have managed to give my opinion on Krugman (just like he gives his opinion on the President), without calling anyone a name who has responded to my OP.

I am voicing my opinion on Krugman, and you would agree that I have just as much right as Krugman to do so, right? Also, I suspect that Krugman is a public figure, and therefore, he is man enough to take it just like he dishes it.

You on the otherhand have decided to get personal with me, because I have to imagine that this is the limit of the scope of your understanding in reference to economics.

It is easy to call names and disparage me.
And please take note, that is the only thing that your post did. Absolutely nothing else.

If debate is supposed to be so healthy, why are you personally disparaging me for taking part in such? What makes you so special?

[Larkspur]

143. You called Krugman and his legitimate criticism of Geithner's plan a liability

That is the talk of a totalitarian mindset. It's the same kind of language that we saw from the Bushies.

And yours is one of many threads by Obama fanatics on this subject. It's like Obama fanatics want to intentionally flood DU with threads disparaging Krugman today.

[girl gone mad]

161. I've noticed it, too.

Expect it to get worse Monday when Geithner's plan is official.

The lobbyists were here in force during the TARP debate. Don't let them get get you down.

[leftofthedial]

92. get in lockstep behind the Obama NOW! Shut up or leave!

NO DISSENT WILL BE TOLERATED!

ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE OBAMA MUST BE SILENCED!

Morons.

[davidwparker]

95. Hmmm. Don't you just hate it when the unqualified rain on your parade?

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/press.html">What nerve he has.

:sarcasm:

[FrenchieCat]

101. That's was discussed in this thread. I'm not saying that Krugman isn't qualified,

so that's an erroneous statement from you.
Krugman's nobel prize was not based on work done saving the world's economy. It was based on his work on International Trade.

Milton Freidman also has a Nobel prize. That doesn't mean that Mr. Friedman's way or was the only way.

It also doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on Krugman's lack of responsibility in
how he criticizes this administration's choices.

I have that opinion and I am voicing it.....
and I'm sure that Krugman doesn't have a problem with that.

He reminds me of NADER, who I'm sure some would say was well versed,
and most likely qualified to be President.
Doesn't mean that his approach helped.

[bajamary]

111. Paul Krugman does NOT "become the enemy"

In a post in the discussion, FrenchieCat said:

"At some point Krugman becomes the enemy because he starts to affect the plan Obama has chosen.'

I know some of us, including me, are passionate about our views, however, I strongly object to FrenchieCat saying that Paul Krugman "becomes the enemy".

[DrDan]

115. I second that objection

(can you second an objection?)

[Hansel]

171. Yes, he's Mr. Objective Genius

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2884

[Undercurrent]

98. As much as I didn't like

Nader being the turd in the punch bowl, he did DO something. Krugman hasn't volunteered to do anything. He says he would refuse a real job in the administration, and I don't see him going door to door, or working a phone bank like all of us on the front lines during the election, or those of us who are doing the same thing now to support Obama's budget.

Come on Krugman. If your country is in such poor hands, then it's your duty as a citizen to volunteer to do some of the heavy lifting, and not just sit at your keyboard and bitch.

[DrDan]

118. oh come on.

We admire KO because he sits behind a camera and bitches.
We admire liberal journalists because they sit behind keyboards and bitch.

Some are good at implementing policy. Not everyone.

[Undercurrent]

132. We?

You. Not me.

I admire KO because he spoke the truth about Bush when it was nearly a hanging offense. He does not come on TV day after day with knives and forks going after Obama. Same goes for some liberal journalists.

Cutting Obama at every turn is not helping. Like it or not, President Obama is our only chance to prevent the worst case scenario from unfolding. The total ruination of our economy, and the resulting return to power of the very bastards who got us in this mess. If any Democrat had been elected they would be our hope to set this right.

It's like constantly bitching about the government, and never voting. Never campaigning for a person, a party, or a policy you agree with. I have a neighbor like that, and I don't listen to him. He has no standing.

I don't agree with Obama on every thing he does, but he has my support, and I will not attack him. The stakes are way too high. The alternative far too grave.

[DrDan]

133. exactly - he spoke up when it was "nearly a hanging offense"

and speaking up continues to be a good thing

[Undercurrent]

139. Not the same thing.

Not all speaking up is weighted the same.

Attacking a mad man with a Fascist bent in the White House who rammed us into this corner is a good thing. We can all agree on that.

Attacking Obama, who we can agree is not a mad man with a Fascist bent, and who is trying to set things right, is not helpful.

If you see someone setting your house on fire you attack him. Yell and scream. Call the cops. Grab your neighbors. Try to stop him.

If your house is already on fire you don't beat up the fireman who is your only hope of putting the fire out.

[girl gone mad]

163. What if the fireman was pouring gas on the flames?

By allowing Wall Street to continue plundering the economy, this is essentially what the Obama administration is doing.

Speaking up to end corporate fascism is a good thing in my book.

[Undercurrent]

164. If you think

that President Obama is a Fascist, there is absolutely nothing that I could, or would bother to say to you that would further a discussion.

[girl gone mad]

167. Any other words you want to try and cram into my mouth?

Make it a little more interesting this time. At least pretend I compared him to Hitler or something.

[Undercurrent]

169. If that is not what you said, then I apologize.

It sounded that way to me.


"What if the fireman was pouring gas on the flames?

By allowing Wall Street to continue plundering the economy, this is essentially what the Obama administration is doing.

Speaking up to end corporate fascism is a good thing in my book."

[DrDan]

176. if the fireman is headed to the wrong house with the hose, then

I start yelling and screaming

[bluestateguy]

102. Ah, the things you can advocate when you are a tenured professor

Krugman is a pampered Ivy League professor who is insulated from the political repercussions of what he advocates. A lot of what he says makes sense, but Obama has to deal in the real world. Krugman does not.

[DrDan]

113. yeah - that insulation as a tenured professor is probably what doomed him to the Nobel Prize

obviously talks nonsense.

[bluestateguy]

117. So did Milton Friedman

You can find a Nobel Laureate to say anything to support any point of view.

And for the record, I did not say that Krugman was talking "nonsense", only that he does not have to deal in the real world as an elected official does.

[DrDan]

123. yeah - they are all for sale.

[DrDan]

125. seriously - different times, different situations, different solutions

or different times, different situations, same solutions.
or different times, same situations, different solutions.

There could be more than one way to skin this cat. Who knows? A whole new problem - not been faced before.

But I do not believe his "tenured" position invalidates his opinions. He need not worry about tenure - he has skills. He can find another job.

[uberllama42]

141. Yeah, heaven forfend we do anything to change the MASSIVELY POPULAR bank bailout

Only a silly liberal elitist would advocate making adjustments to such a popular and successful program. :eyes:

[johan helge]

122. Please

Krugman just tries to give Obama good advice. That's what real friends do.

I've hated Nader since early 2000 (before Florida 2000), he was the only person that made me more sick than Bush. And I've loved Krugman since I first read him.

[FrenchieCat]

130. Please,

Krugman should have let the Obama administration announce their plan to the public,
before Krugman publicly attempts to desconstruct it.
That's what a friend would do.

What is he is doing is akin to a critic seeing a performance by a friend prior to the opening,
and then writing a review panning the performance before the show aired.
Who's gonna buy tickets to that? :shrug:

[johan helge]

135. Well,

if he thinks this friend should change his performance, it's better to tell him before the opening than after?

I think you should relax, this is ridiculous. Of course Krugman must say what he thinks.

[FrenchieCat]

137. I think if he wanted his friend to change his performance,

he should have contacted his friend directly with his critique,
not published it as part of his review....cause the review is
how folks will determine if they even want to bother with the performance,
as they'll take their cue from the performance pro they know.

Hence the difference.

In the world of economics and the stock market,
confidence is 1/2 of everything.
Krugman knows that.

but of course Krugman will say what he thinks,
and damn everything else.
After all, he is not responsible to anyone,
and if Obama fails without using Krugman's ideas,
than Krugman looks the better for it,
even though the country suffers.

Hence my NADER analogy.

[johan helge]

142. Krugman is a commentator.

His role is to say what he thinks. If the administration wants to avoid being criticized by him, they can call him, and follow his advice. This they have not done. You can blame the administration for that, but not Krugman for saying what he thinks.

[Bluenorthwest]

179. In the professional world

The critic with a friend in a show sends another critic. Ethics.
Also, and this will probably shock you, a performer worth his keep tends to value the strong criticism of those who are not biased over the praise of those who are already in his court. While a performer lives by the open faced adoration of the fan base, he or she is honed and perfected by the words of their harshest critics, their most competitive rivals, and yes, even those with an axe to grind against them. No performer gives heed to the 'review' from the 'zines devoted to himself or his work. Most would not even read it, for such unabashed and unthoughtful praise is the most poisonous thing to a performer. That way lies danger.
And note all references to 'fans' and such are taken from your analogy, I am not equating political support to being a fan, although from my point of view the fan is a valid and useful sort of person, many here see the term as an insult. I do not mean it that way, and I am refering to fans of showbiz in this post.
Ardent fans make worthless critics. And critics are vital to progress and excelllence. On the other hand, great critics make worthless fans, and those in the spotlight of art or politics need both types to function and to prevail.
The password is: ensemble

[OwnedByFerrets]

140. As long as this remains America, Paul Krugman has the RIGHT

to say anything he wants, just as the pill popper Ruskie has the right to spout his evil diatribe. You may disagree with both of them but they still have the right to say it and have EARNED the right to have a large platform than YOU or I have. Like it or not.

[MasonJar]

144. I'd trust Krugman, Princeton professor and Nobel Prize recipient,

over Timothy Geithner, tax dodger and one of the principle designers of W's bailout proposals any day of the week. I am actually totally surprised that Obama considered such a Wall Street insider for Treasury, much less selected him in times like now. Geithner has many plums in this pie, Krugman none. Perhaps the latter is simply knowledgeable and worried about the country.

[pursuit_of_progress]

147. Thanks, Frenchie, for debunking Krugman's lies

You are the best.

[Thickasabrick]

150. What lies? Jesus - this is becoming absurd. n/t

[LostinVA]

180. Krugman hasn't lied about anything

:eyes:

DU is quite ridiculous this morning.

[inna]

148. :thumbsdown:

:thumbsdown:

[mod mom]

159. I'll stick w Krugman's credentials over Geithner's anyday. Krugman's not an insider.

I listened to Krugman last fall, and lost less than 9% of our 401K. Had I listened in entirely I wouldn't have lost that 9%. Geithner's too connected with the folks who are responsible for the mess.

Also, I believe Obama doesn't want sheeple, but wants those of us who disagree, especially the experts like Krugman, to feel free to dissent.

[stillcool]

166. I would love it if people who disagreed...

with what Geithner has done, explain what errors he has made, and why. And I mean more than Paul Kurgman's hypothesis. The only thing I hear is that Geithner is no good because he's spent his entire life working in the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and other global economic institutions. To me that is not a reason for wanting his head. It is fine to want to do something in a different manner, but the criticism seems based on conjecture, and personal dislike, not on performance.

[JI7]

168. Krugman isn't lying the way Nader does, Krugman says Obama is better than McCain

and any other Republican.

i don't see any comparison between Krugman and Nader.

Krugman is an economist and has a strong opinion on this issue, i see nothing wrong with what he is saying.

[SoxFan]

170. Recc'd

FrenchieCat summed up a lot of what i would have said, so I'll leave it at that.

[cooolandrew]

173. You so know that if Hillary had produced a smaller plan. >

It's so obvious he would have pronounced it the best plan in history. So, all these things come clear with time. Although, just for me personally I wouldn't use that epithet to define his supporters, we don't want to make the struggle harder. They will resist us that's a given but the more we can pacify them the faster we can keep rolling. But yes totally agree with your post.

[WyLoochka]

177. I have not heard any evidence that Obama

has seriously considered Krugman's point of view.

I would feel much more comfortable if he were to clearly explain that he had personally studied the details of what Krugman, Stiglitz, Roubini etc have put forth and why he has rejected incorporating their approaches.

Instead, he's been proceeding as if these very different opinions from what he hears from Summers, Goulsbee and Geithner haven't even been put out there.

He has a whole extra-WH economic team, led by Paul Volcker and I don't think he has been seriously listening to their counsel either.

[NJmaverick]

178. Krugman compared Obama's supporters to Nixon's people

He is a bitter PUMA that is using his economic credentials as cover for his anti Obama vendetta

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080211150350.aspx