Krugman: Republicans are putting the nation’s future at risk - and Obama should say so

Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06krugman.html):

Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clichés about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.

It’s as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened — yet Democrats have, incredibly, been on the defensive.

(..)

Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what’s at stake — of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.

(..)

It’s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation’s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.

Its axiomatic that the party in power is blamed for the economic catastrophes that occur under it's watch.

Obama is in serious jeopardy of being a one-term president if he doesn't get this right. Immediately. And on the first round.

I harbor no illusions that the Rethugs in Congress would be happy to torpedo his Admin, and economics are a no brainer. Political stability revolves around politicsl and vice versa. Obama came to office in a veritable shit-storm of political turmoil. When the dust settles, just as Reagan has been re-invented by his mythmakers, the Rethugs will work double time to prop up GW Bush at Obama's expense.

Obama WILL be blamed for any depression that occurs. Mark my words.

we need to make it perfectly clear whose fault it is.

we etc. (as in President Obama) have to make clear how it works: STIMULUS, that is.

to the point that even many DEMOCRATS are starting to question the wisdom of spending so much money.

It's just a horrible shame that Obama's first trial had to come so soon. Given enough seasoning, or even a short breather, he would have mastered the art of controlling the message I'm sure. Being thrown into this horrible mess as he was I'm surprised he's been able to do as well as he has, quite frankly.

His advisers --who SHOULD have seen this coming -- should be drawn and quartered for their incompetence. At the VERY LEAST they should have had armies of surrogates camped 24/7 to counter the lies. Major fail.

I'm worked up about this because the economic stakes are so high, but also because I believe this president is the best thing to happen to our country in a very long time and I want him to succeed so very badly.

Damned the fvcking repukes all to hell.

I'm not so keen on fact that they have a good relationship, but hoped that his 'talent' for getting things done on the Hill would make him worthwhile.

The issue, it seems to me, is not so difficult that a 'reframe' wouldn't be possible: STIMULUS DEMANDS SPENDING.

Obama's problem is that he now has all the Democrats who were nay-sayers during the primaries to appoint to high government positions. That funny moment from the debates when he said he would be glad to take advice from Hillary; well, who's now giving advice on foreign affairs? And all the people who poo-poohed the idea of the 50 state strategy? They should be standing outside the White House with a tin cup. Instead, they are all groveling at Obama's ankles for a post now and Howard Dean has to have people like Tom Harkin and Keith Olbermann root for him.

Obama should appoint a lot of ambassadorships right off the bat. Send these Demo-losers (like Daschle) to mind some embassy in a tranquil remote corner of Africa and bring up a new generation of Demo-winners. Democrats who will take Repubs and rub their nose in the 2008 elections every day and twice on Sundays. It's one thing to be gracious in victory and call for bi-partisanship, but behind the scenes, he needs to be nastier than LBJ to his political opponents.

And the sooner they seat the senator who wrote "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot", the better.

budget is reduced-don't release the numbers & "swing away" Signs and all, we are really close to letting a cabal of banksters wreck not just our nation but apparently ALL western nations, with mostly paper problems.

they blame the bush economy on clinton and get away with it. now they will blame obama for whatever happens a week later and the rest of the trad media ownership plays along for deregulation and tax breaks.

a "defeat" to Obama and the media will bark like hyenas about that "defeat". Forty-one republicans will vote "No" to cloture this weekend.

Dems need to put them on the defensive for a change.

...did. http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=283864-4

I tried to head it off by praising this package, it is a good package.

http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=165

It was better until Krugman and Maddow started making waves ripping it apart which opened the door for the Republicans. That's why Democrats are on the defensive Krugman, because YOU chose to lamblast a few tax cuts instead of "recognizing the economic abyss" yourself.

emails, posting this article to our fb accounts, ltte, etc.

And here we thought we could rest a while...The repubs will never let us rest.

Because they know they are doing things that most Americans won't approve of if they know about them.

We should be better than this.

Now I understand why our party didn't unite against Bush's wasteful spending. This is very disheartening to me.

What is wasteful about investing in this country??

Investing in the country is fine. But we both know the bill is full of stuff that shouldn't be in there. That's why you see such a poor defense.

The only thing that shouldn't be in this bill are some of the idiotic tax cuts that are currently being proposed. Reinvesting in the country in any form, and helping the states keep their social services, definitely should be in the bill and honest to pete it is a pure idiot that doesn't get that. This is what we voted for in November. It is a terrific bill, or was until the Republicans got a hold of it.

http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=165

http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=173

from the GOP from the beginning and it's good to see Obama finally going on the offensive.

K&R.

The republicans don't know whether they're coming or going. I believe they're going...nuts.

I think Krugman got a little cocky after he won the Nobel prize. He appointed himself
public adviser to Obama. Thanks, but no thanks.

Krugman's job is to write an opinion column and he was one of the few media voices who dared to criticize Bush for his insane policies.

It's critical for Krugman to keep doing his job during a Democratic administration, especially during this unprecedented crisis.

I will repeat what I've hinted at in previous posts: The financial situation is in the red zone. It needs a radical adjustment. The banks need to be nationalized NOW. It's not time for mincing around. Believe me, there may come a time when you look back upon Krugman's columns and realize how prescient he has been. I sincerely hope that happens because you are finally being objective and not because of a meltdown that will impact you and your children for years...

He criticized Bush. He's "advising" Obama. He makes it look like Obama doesn't know
what he's doing. He's given the repugs ammo and they're using it now.

I respect Krugman's knowledge, I just don't like the tactics he's using on Obama- stirring
the pot through his (pushy) opinion column. That's my opinion, 'kay?

Krugman would be almost criminally negligent if he didn't state his true opinions now, almost like the media guys who "sat out" the buildup to the Iraqi War.

And, with Obama's statement today, it does look like the President "gets it."

This "fanboi" stuff cripples objective thinking and hurts us in the long run.

Yeesh.

If I were Obama, I would listen - there are few if any that understand these things better than Krugman.

His nitpicking at the onset was disheartening, but he's been spot on since. You can sense that he's very concerned with the economic trends that we are seeing and wants bold action from President Obama.

I do too. Krugman is right.

Do you mean Krugman's column about Obama's Inaugural Address (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/opinion/23krugman.html)? From that one:

"So is Mr. Obama ready for that? Or were the platitudes in his Inaugural Address a sign that he’ll wait for the conventional wisdom to catch up with events? If so, his administration will find itself dangerously behind the curve.

And that’s not a place that we want the new team to be. The economic crisis grows worse, and harder to resolve, with each passing week. If we don’t get drastic action soon, we may find ourselves stuck in the muddle for a very long time."


He should have avoided the word "platitudes", but apart from that, I think the column was good.

he doesn't seem to be listening at all because I have heard President Obama say exactly that multiple times, the latest just last night.

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/shock-and-oy/#more-1355): "(Obama has said that) failure to act effectively risks turning this slump into a catastrophe. Yet there’s a sense, watching the process so far, of low energy."

For a super intelligent economist, Krugman doesn't know SQUAT about the legislative process. :shrug:

they will burn the house down with all of us inside it just to be able to say, "See? He's a failed President with a failed party!" They cannot, CANNOT allow progressive/Democratic ideas to succeed, or conservatism and the GOP (in the hyper-ideological state it is now) will be dead for a long, long time.

Rush Limbaugh said what the others just think, they want Obama to fail.