KRUGMAN: "This is ridiculous; it’s megalomaniacal."

[kpete]

April 5, 2011, 4:41 PM
Ryan The Ridiculous

Except briefly during the Korean War, the United States has never achieved unemployment as low as Ryan and co. are claiming. The Fed believes that the lowest unemployment rate compatible with price stability is between 5 and 6 percent — that is, twice what Ryan is claiming he will achieve.

This is ridiculous; it’s megalomaniacal. If Obama tried to claim that his policies would achieve anything like this, he’d be laughed out of office.

Awesome.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/ryan-the-ridiculous/

[emulatorloo]

1. Rec - it is total fantasy n/t

[hfojvt]

2. unfortunately, Ryan is not making that claim

he has the Heritage Foundation to do it for him.

Also unfortunately, Obama did make a claim, that without the stimulus unemployment would go over 9%.

But then he made another claim too - that we needed to extend the Bush tax cuts to stimulate the economy.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

[starroute]

3. I don't get your point

It doesn't matter whether Ryan made up his own figures or the Heritage Foundation made them up for him -- they're bizarrely impossible either way.

It also doesn't seem relevant that Obama has been over-optimistic in his own statements about the economy. He at least tries to be reality-based, though he's certainly capable of putting too much spin on his preferred positions.

But Ryan is totally out in la-la land. He's predicting something that never was and never could be. And he's asking the country to gamble everything on the chance that he can get pink-and-purple star-spangled ponies to fly out of his ass.

So what's your point?

[hfojvt]

8. it does though

it goes right to Krugman's word "megalomania". If I put forward a plan, and some liberal group like CTJ or CBPP says it will create millions of jobs and then I push for that plan, using their numbers, that is not a sign of my megalomania. You cannot attack Ryan for accepting what Heritage says. You need to attack Heritage, either by showing the flaws in their analysis or by pointing out that their main goal is enriching the already rich, and since Ryan's plan clearly does that, it is obvious why Heritage would come up with some spurious reasoning about how it will make us all prosper.

[starroute]

17. You assume that Ryan and Heritage are operating independently

And that would be a risky assumption, since ALEC is essentially a subsidiary of the Heritage Foundation. (I don't know the exact legal relationship, but Heritage took ALEC over about 35 years ago and at the very least they've remained part of the same tight cluster of right-wing organizations.)

So suggesting that Ryan put forward a plan first and then was glad to embrace Heritage's support of it is kind of putting the cart before the horse. Ryan is pushing the Heritage/ALEC agenda, using their numbers and their talking points.

[truedelphi]

14. I got hfojvt's point. Especially the part in sentence three

Where he infers that when Obama says the tax cuts for the rich are needed, most thinking people in America can no longer believe in this President.

Obama either wants a balanced budget or he doesn't. And if he wants one, two easy steps to arrive at it:

One) Stop the wars, and stop the building of palaces inside the Iraqi Green Zone. Cut the funding for unneeded, non-working defense programs.

Two) End the tax cuts for the ultra Rich. The Ultra Rich have created very few jobs over the last twenty years, and the jobs they have created are things like research labs in Singapore, and textile mills in Bangladesh.

Without taking those two steps, Obama is clearly much more on the side of the RW'ers than on the side of Middle America. I for one will let them have my Social Security over my Dead Body.

[bhikkhu]

4. Obama tried to end, not to extend, the bush tax cuts for the wealthy

simply to say that he said they needed extending to stimulate the economy is disingenuous; he neither said nor intended that. The cuts were across the board, however, and he only wanted to extend those that applied to the wealthy.

I agreed with the approach, as did most people, but it was nevertheless blocked by congress - repugs and skittish democrats - and kicked down the road until next year.

[hfojvt]

5. no, then he put forward a "compromise" plan

and said that compromise, which was basically the Bush tax cuts all over again, needed to be passed to stimulate the economy.

[YankmeCrankme]

16. I find this argument disingenous.

He and the Democrats could have put forth a tax cut for the middle class that basically would have kept the tax rate in place for the $250,000 level and below or something around there (the actual amount could have been debated) that would have taken effect when the Bush tax cuts expired. Then have Congress vote on it well before the election, let's see the Republican's vote no on that as it would have made a great campaign item "Republicans vote no on tax cuts for the middle class". Then he could have let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire as planned.

I still don't see how this wasn't a win/win for Democrats? Again, if he only focused on convincing Blue Dogs Dems to vote his agenda instead of worrying about what Republicans had to say, especially since they caused these problems and refused to accept responsibility. He gave them another helping hand up.

[Arkana]

6. He never made that claim.

The Bush tax cuts were an unfortunate part of a deal that also netted a UI extension for millions of people in need, a repeal of DADT, and ratification of the START treaty.

In fact, he said the exact OPPOSITE of what you are asserting: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/10/obama-bush-cuts-no-jobs/

[hfojvt]

10. sure he didn't

"Obama described the bill as "a package of tax relief that will protect the middle class, that will grow our economy and will create jobs for the American people.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html

I describe the bill as a piece of shit surrender to the Republicans desire to give big tax breaks to the rich.

Compare this

"In remarks before signing the bill, Obama called it "a substantial victory for middle-class families across the country." He added: "They're the ones hardest hit by the recession we've endured. They're the ones who need relief right now.""

to this

"The unemployment number is now at 6 percent, which should serve as a clear signal to the United States Congress we need a bold economic recovery package so people can find work. (Applause.) That 6-percent number should say loud and clear to members of both political parties in the United States Congress, we need robust tax relief so our fellow citizens can find a job. (Applause.)" May 6, 2003

or this

"The tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes -- and it will help our economy immediately: 92 million Americans will keep, this year, an average of almost $1,000 more of their own money. A family of four with an income of $40,000 would see their federal income taxes fall from $1,178 to $45 per year. (Applause.) Our plan will improve the bottom line for more than 23 million small businesses." Jan. 28, 2003

Yep, extending the Bush tax cuts was a victory for middle-class families, just like passing it was in the first place. :eyes:

[Arkana]

13. It's Sophie's Choice.

And you evidently didn't read the article, which, by the way, is from ThinkProgress. Obama didn't like that the deal included the Bush tax cuts, because he believes they were wasteful and counterproductive.

But Republicans were threatening to practically blow up the government if they didn't get an extension. So in exchange for an extension, they gave Obama a year of UI extensions, the repeal of DADT, and the ratification of START.

You can lie and spin and rationalize all you want, but the President doesn't "like" the Bush tax cuts at all. He signed the bill so that he could have the most productive lame-duck session in modern history.

[librechik]

9. He always claimed the Bush tax cuts would be bad for the economy

however, he did not have enough dem votes to cancel them

[hfojvt]

11. bull-hockey. Dems passed it in the House

it was Republicans in the Senate who prevented cloture.

But, whadda ya know, they would have expired if Congress had simply done nothing!

Instead of allowing that to happen, Obama decided to extend them.

Profiles of cowardice.

[librechik]

12. along with a few Dems who joined them

He couldn't count on those Senators to vote with him. So it went into punt to the next (2012)Congress mode. Which is not going to be good. Cuz then he will be under even more pressure to hunt for the independents (conservatives)votes and will have an even more severe case of "noodleback"

[gratuitous]

7. Ah, the Heritage Foundation

Those are the same bunch of economically illiterate yahoos who said that the Bush tax cuts and the Bush invasion-and-occupation policy would bring about unrivalled economic prosperity. Isn't it odd that the same popular media that can remember every last detail (whether it happened or not) about smears against Democrats can't even remember some basic facts of the last decade? Wyizzat, I have to wonder?

[blindpig]

15. It is only ridiculous for capitalism

Capitalism requires unemployment to control wages.

Socialism, on the other hand, mandates full employment.

just sayin'