Attention Mr. Krugman, et al.....This ain't no Boy Scout Outing that we are talking about...

If Mr. Krugman and some of ya'll think that the Democrats were going to get their wish list with this Historically gigantic Stimulus Package after what Bush Jr. Did with half of the 700 Billion bailout money (that no one knows what was done with!), you are out of your mind.

We aren't going to get everything in the Stimulus that we want.

Barack Obama is not Santa Claus.

and, Barack Obama is not Bush Jr.! He ain't gonna ram through a bill just because he might can.

If anything, we better be glad that a Bill of an unheard gigantic amount will pass, and know that it will have many very good worthwhile items in it. I'm sure that Education and Aids to States will be put back into the Bill (if they have been taking out) during conference....as Obama will shame the opposition into doing just that.

But to believe that we were going to get a Bill exactly as each and every one of us envisioned it, that's a bit over the top in miracle wishing. Oh...and could someone let Mr. Krugman know, he who writes a good game but has yet to have actually "done" anything that even closely resembles what it is that President Obama has to do, that the more he blames our democracy and how it works on Barack Obama, the more I feel like telling him to STFU. Perhaps he should start attacking the fucked up media instead, as opposed to going on all of the same fucked up chatter shows that are killing us with their manipulation of the ignorant public, and tell them the fuck off, and to call them on their PR ploy to confuse the public (maybe he can write a column on that too, while he's at it).....since he's soooo fucking smart and all!!

As for us, if we want something included in the bill that is not there, I suggest that we start inudating those congress critters who are responsible for those things gone missing. It ain't all about Barack Obama, and he has always told us that it wasn't. If you want to get mad about a bill that you are still not sure of what it will look like once everything is said and done, than do something about it.....apart from than sitting up here writing about how President Obama this, and President Obama that....

The financial problems that you are experiencing or are about to experience weren't caused by President Obama, and the only solution ain't simply to decide that you know better than he.....because I can guarantee you this; your superior knowledge ain't gonna get you diddly squat if we don't start fighting the media and the opposition congress to actually change the public perception on this stimulus.

Barack Obama threatened a Veto before he ever even took office.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obama-issues-first-veto-t_n_157585.html

Did Bush do that too..since this is about copying Bush...I guess. :shrug:

You don't have to put together a coalition of people who are willing to get on board with you. You don't have to face opposition from your idea.

on what we all witnessed the past two weeks. You would think as "concerned" as he is, he would jump at the chance.....considering he has the pages of the NYT available to him to get that message out.

He's just night an "angry" guy. He also went on Scarborough to make Morning Schmuck look like an idiot.

What is the problem with making our voice louder than the right's voice?

That's what Obama asked us to do with the Economic House Events this week-end? Why are you discouraging that?

What do you see?

a plan to fight the opposition! :)

I understand exactly what you're saying. It drives me crazy to see 3 times as many posts about what Rush Limbaugh is saying as there is about people who are organizing to fight for education, vets benefits, etc.

Kind of like seeing one Post about Steele Stealing campaign funds, and 50 posts about Obama being a compromising "centrist". :eyes:

That is what I see. I don't know why you have such a a problem with that.

What I see happening in the News Media is wholesale mindfuck manipulation.
What I don't see is anyone of stature, like writing in a column for the NYT
calling the media out on their inteference.....
and yes, I simply have a problem with those who still expect a pony.

If it all merely happened among the rulers, that would not be a representative democracy.

Dissidents and critics speak out > public pressure builds > the politicians respond > the new administration succeeds.

The "loyalists" silence the critics > the public remains confused and passive > the politicians take the safe course > the administration fails.

FDR knew this. The critics and dissidents then were far more aggressive, militant, and organized. He welcomed the pressure. He said "if you want me to do something force me to do it." He knew that in a representative democracy you can do nothing without public pressure.

You hold Obama in high regard. You want him to succeed. So do I. These calls for the suppression of dissent, under the guise of "loyalty" and "support" are the greatest imaginable threat to the success of the new administration.

The Republicans have no answer to Krugman. For however much you imagine him to be "hurting" Obama, he is doing a thousand times more damage to the Republicans. But you want him to shut up and for us to ignore him. His arguments are infinitely more destructive to the right wing than any rah rah Democrats shallow partisanship could ever be.

.... all these attempts at stifling the dissent/construstive criticisms.

i used to think that was the GOP's MO.

A lot of it is fear.

Also, the people trying to suppress dissent watch too much television and that has a huge impact on their view of politics. They think there is no harm or danger in that, because they think they can see through the propaganda. But much of the propaganda there is not intended to rally the right wing base, it is intended to define us, to define what being in the opposition means. That is why people see this in a very narrow partisan way. They aren't "believing" the right wing stuff the MSM says, they are believing the mirror opposite, and they think that is what being in the opposition means. What they don't realize is that they are letting the media define them, define the terms, describe what politics is, tell them what the battle is about and where the battle lines are, and create the context within which all of their thinking is then trapped.

Who does it serve to have people here attacking the Left and critics and dissidents? That is a direct result of people watching TV, and it is not politically benign or neutral. TV is what is leading them to think that critics and leftists are the enemy, the threat.

If everyone here stopped watching TV, within 30 days we would never see these "loyalist" arguments anymore, there would be no more attacks on the critics and on the Left, and the attempts at suppressing dissent would all but disappear.

People won't tell the truth about their TV watching habits, any more than they will about their diets or their sex lives, but if they did I am absolutely certain that you could predict which side of this argument, and every other argument, people would take based upon how much political news they watch in TV. In real life, where I know people's habits, it never fails to be accurate as a predictor of their opinions.

Recommending individual post # 38.
:patriot:

He's absolutely right. There's NO BENEFIT to ignoring Krugman. It smacks of the hubris we've already experience far too much of from Bush.

Obama, yes. Krugman, yes. Debate makes us stronger.

Catapulting the Propaganda by the corporatemediawhores.

I don't even have a TV, so I don't know where I would get any MSM material to catapult. All I know about Krugman is from reading his articles, and I have also heard here from people whom I trust that he is bashing the conservative mouthpieces on TV. Suddenly, many here are attacking him.

I am no bog fan of Krugman particularly, either, but I am defending a free and open discussion and objecting to trying to distract people from what he may have to say by making a bunch of absurd attacks on him.

His crime, as near as I can tell, is that in the imaginations of some here he criticized the actions of a politician whom they like.

They know how to play the game better. They give splashier quotes and they know how to turn arguments in their favor. Right now they have the country thinking that an 800B+ stimulus package is full of pork. In reality it is a tiny fraction of the whole.

and then slap them all over the bridges, courthouses, parks, schools, campgrounds, museums, public universities and everything else that these idiots call pork.

Don't discount the fact that the mass media sings the Republican tune much more loudly in key as a backup chorus.

The right wingers must lie, because otherwise the people would never support them. However, they are relentless and aggressive and very successful in promoting the interests of their clients, the wealthy and powerful few.

We are not handicapped by that need to lie, since the people support what we are advocating. With half of the determination and resolution that the Republicans have, we could have far greater success. We are not talking here about the Democrats becoming shameless or underhanded, rather we are talking about them fighting back.

Well said.

and just huff the crap.

Talk to me stranger.

Alot of economist are saying it is too little. even the CBO came out saying Gvmnt jobs -> 1.70 in the economy tax cuts -> 1.01 .I've been reading krugman since he started at the new york times, he's been mostly right, Enron he failed to see. I think his eyes are alot more open now. There's one other person who saw the coming collapse, and the fox people laughed at him. He said we are going to have a major depression.

I think your just going overboard on a person who is sharing his opinion. Krugman a good guy. Hell, he stood up to O'reilly.

I think krugman wants to see, and I agree, a little more fight and less "bipartisanship" (read: Demos bend over and let the repugs give it to them) would go a long way. The rupugs fcked up the economy. why should we listen to them?

If I get bit by a rabid dog, I don't try to pet it again. Get the drift? I just don't blame Obama for no fight. Harry reid has no balls, and neither does polosi.

And what are you doing in this fight?

Or just lash out at them?

Why? I like Krugman. I think he just wants things to work. and I don't believe in keeping my mouth shut when I see something I think is fucked up. Demos need to find some balls. I don't think Obamas' goig to get more then one chance at this, and it better be the best one. Or else we all go down the toilet.

As for the republicans, I blame them for all of societies ills.

Was I supposed to keep reading after that? :shrug:

I guess I was wrong.

Lash out it is then.

Confusious (245 posts) Sun Feb-08-09 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
7. Boy, someone decided to stop drinking the Koolaid

and just huff the crap.

--------------------------

Those were your words, not mine.
Seems to me that I don't have to
talk to anyone who approaches me this way.

With the attitude you've shown to some of the other posters here who disagreed with you, I think you'll find that there aren't many takers.

Wrong spot.

I was responding to the poster about why I posted here about his/her nasty rant about krugman.

I certainly DO think we should contact our reps to put some pressure on them to change the stimulus bill and pass it. Maybe they need our help to find their balls.

Because my eyes are not what they used to be, and I posted in the wrong place. Sorry.

Yep.

That is like blaming the rain when the roof leaks. We are trying to get the attention of the people who are supposed to repair the roof.

The Republicans are doing exactly what they have always done. Nothing new or surprising there. The public has rejected them. The Democrats have the biggest numbers in Congress that either party has had in over 30 years.

Let's fix the roof. That won't happen if there is not public pressure to do that, and public pressure will come from us speaking out.

shit or back to freeperville.

Thats an authoritarian little streak in you isn't it?

You started huffing the obama kool-aid.

:rofl::rofl:

His academic obsession with across-the-board insurance mandates (O, if only Sen. Obama could understand the beauty and the necessity of the Edwards and Clinton Plans!) would have pegged Obama as a Nanny Stater had he embraced them. I thought about Krugman as I watched John McCain blow a gasket during the debates whenever he tried to paint Obama into a corner on health care mandates (nope, mandates are just for those with children John, just for children, who are, after all, the cheapest to insure...). If Krugman had any intellectual honesty at all about the world he purports to understand, he would have recognized right then and there that President Barack Obama has forgotten more about politics than the good professor will ever learn.

as he would like them to be.

However, it is a luxury and nothing more.....not anything practical to be considerd when dealing with a Right Wing Media who know how to spin against any Democrat at the snap of a finger.

All citizens have a right, and a duty and a responsibility, to speak out.

Wanting the government to be responsive to the desperate needs of the people is not "a luxury and nothing more."

Nothing that Krugman is saying could possibly be used by, nor help the right wingers that I can see.

He may be "smart" and all that but so is the President and his advisors.

Critics from the outside can say things that need to be said, and that politicians cannot say. We need both.

imo Krugman is giving his professional opinion, as an economist, on the biggest economic legislation in our history at a crucial time in our economy. Remember, he's an economist.

The column wasn't especially harsh personally, why take it so personal?

This thread ain't anymore "personal" than is Mr. Krugman's various columns that he writes day after day after day.

Why do you keep calling for silence and passivity?

Do you think we ever would have had the New Deal if people had done what you demand they do now?

Good leaders welcome pressure, and know that they cannot succeed without it. Critics from the Left can say things that an elected politician can not say, can provide cover for the politician, and can do a lot of the heavy lifting in the important job of smashing up the right wing. Krugman is all over the media taking the right wing Reaganomics libertarian mouthpieces apart limb by limb.

People who think that Krugman is a threat to Obama don't have a very high opinion of Obama, if you ask me. Maybe they are trying to compensate for their fears and doubts by being super loyal? That is understandable, but does the President a real disservice.

It is life and death.

We are not talking about what we "want" as individuals - that trivializes the emergency. We are talking about what the people desperately need.

Politics has nothing to do with who "knows more."

Why pester us? Why complain continually and be so negative and defeatist? Go hassle Republicans.

As for pestering you....who died and left you charge of the place?

I'll take that as your STFU suggestion from you to me.

You going to say sorry to my friend who just lost his second job this year because of the economy, and probably will lose his house? or to my other friend who's business is going down the toilet?

Opps, sorry, my bad. I was to busy drinking kool-aid to think.

Nearly every one of your posts includes namecalling. Hopefully, the mods have your number.

Anyone who varies from what you think they should be saying in the slightest way, and we get endless complaints from you about that.

I am not telling you to STFU. I welcome your posts, because they give us an opportunity to discuss the most effective way to support the politicians we elected, and what our proper role should be in the process. That is very valuable and vitally important right now. I welcome the discussion.

I am merely pointing out that while you accuse others of whining and complaining and being negative, you actually are doing that yourself. The difference is that we criticize the rulers, you criticize the people. We worry about the needs of the people, you worry about the careers of politicians.

Asking a person to stop telling others to STFU is not telling them to STFU, anymore than pointing out racism is "reverse racism." The two arguments are close cousins.

Brother Two Americas!

This is a post of support, in a humorous way. :)

FC is attune better than anyone here to the extra burden carried by a Black man when seeking and holding power, and brings it to people's attention. That is important. I think she is a little too overly protective and defensive about the President, but that is OK. We will get through it. She sincerely believes that I, and other critics, do not want the new administration to succeed, if I am understanding what she is saying correctly. Given that, she resists what I have to say. I would probably do the same thing were I in her place.

Wish I could write as eloquently and succinctly.

"We criticize the rulers; you criticize the people. We worry about the needs of the people; you worry about the careers of politicians."

That's it exactly. Frenchie's all about keeping pols in power, whereas I just want a bill that actually does something of what it's supposed to do - stimulate the economy. A BAD bill is far worse than NO bill, because we only have one shot at this. Once the money is gone, it's gone. No "do-overs."

He destroyed that idiot Joe Scarborough the other day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=269248&mesg_id=269248

He is so fucking smart and I'm glad he's on our side.

I am trying to explain to the "loyalists" that Krugman is doing a thousand times more damage to the Republicans than whatever damage they imagine he might be doing to the new administration. Why on earth would we want to silence him, or tell people to dismiss him?

I think that what people are trying to protect is not the President nor the new administration, but rather their own personal illusions and fantasies, for the sake of their own emotional needs. That is really dangerous right now, and is a great threat to the success of the new administration, not to mention the fate of millions of struggling and suffering people and the future of the country.

talking to another brilliant man, both of whom have thought for a living at one time or another in their lives, both of whom know that testing yourself against the best minds you can find is how you succeed at anything.

He's exactly what our new president needs at this difficult time.

The problem is not enough have been listening.

He doesn't know shit about politics.

If he wants to write about what we need economically then fine. When he criticizes politicians for not getting something done he looks stupid.

When "he knows a ton about the economy" and he sees politicians - who control the economy - doing things that will harm the economy . . . what's he supposed to do??? Sit on his hands?

Now THAT would be stupid.

I guess it's more important that politicians find ways to get re-elected than, you know, trying to do what's right or anything.

Do we now need lobbyists who know how to speak bullshit to power to speak for us? :wtf:

Discussing politics is not reserved to the experts and the professionals nor to those in power. There are no qualifications or restrictions on freedom of speech about politics.

Since when does criticizing politicians for not getting something done make someone look stupid? That is one of the most bizarre things I have read here.

...

make good points. (except for that childish bullshit about drinking koolaid, that's just bait) but everything other than that has some merit.

I respect FC for not putting me on ignore, because we butt heads pretty badly.

I think we need both approaches, and would not tell FC to not approach things the way that she is.

she's not a kool aid drinker just because she disgrees with you.

Can you imagine, I got through 8 years without ever calling Bush a name. I think the office belongs to the people, and deserves respect. I also think the name calling of Bush made critics easier to dismiss.

I think we could've done better. I understand the difficulties of the political situation, but I don't think giving the Republicans so much power is helpful.
...
Hmm. I'm just not sure.

Well, he ought to give it some consideration...soon.

As you rightly point out, this ain't no Scouting camp out. What matters here, though, is not the politicians or even the economy. It's the PEOPLE. This problem is unfixable by government. All the government can do is help the people. The rest will have to work itself out over the next decade(s). If we concentrate on housing and feeding people and stimulating small business, then Wall Street and big business becomes irrelevant to most of us. <===Hugely oversimplified in deference to old, lumpy hands. :)

I'm out of work and at my wits end.

Obama was elected to change this shit and if he does not come through he will be blamed, I don't give a crap what the media says.

He is the President of the United States and the Leader of the Democratic Party.

If he cannot, or will not, force if need be a decent stimulus that works he will be blamed and goddamn it he deserves it.

His call now. He has two year of a majority leading a country in CRISIS.

If he blows it, he will be remembered as the nice guy who was a lousy President just like Carter.

Put up or shut up, the American people do not give a shit about how much you or anyone else love Obama, they want a fucking job and to put food on the table for their kids.

Ball is in his court, period.

Krugman isn't the enemy, Frenchie. He's a brilliant man and a good person to have on our side. The occasional criticism of democratic leadership is NOT a bad thing. Lighten up.

I think Frenchie's criticism, and certainly mine, comes from Krugman's inability to understand how politics works. And, it's not occasional. He does it a few times a week. And, he's almost always wrong.

It makes him look arrogant, which is not necessary.

And he waterboards puppies.

What really gets me is the depth of ignorance revealed by many DUers. Obama is dealing with massive shit and they flippantly report that they "can chew gum and walk at the same time" as if saving the country from financial crisis and other incredibly complex tasks are at that level of simplicity.

Astounding, isn't it?

Ah to live the life of a shit flinging monkey, where do I sign up?

Julie

Going off on a Nobel Prize winner like that, and what do you have to back your happy ass up with? Oh, yeah, a bunch of hot air and a healthy dose of "Obama is Messiah" flavored Kool-Aid. Wow, and we used to make fun of Bushies who were this delusional. The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh Frenchy.

But hey, it's all the media's fault, even though objectively they've been fairly neutral about this. Or it's all the 'Pugs fault, even though the Dems have majorities in both houses of Congress. Or it's the people's fault for "not really knowing what's going on". Or it's Krugman's fault because he's, well, darn it, he's just too smart.

Yes Obi-wan, the Kool-Aid is strong in this one. Boy, it's going to suck to be you when you finally realize that Obama is just another corporate whore and this economy flies to pieces because he's either unable or unwilling to get true economic changes in this country.

:eyes:

Another one who's going to be suicidally depressed when it is shown that their god has feet made out of clay.

:rofl:

why don't you throw in a messiah\cult reference for good measure?

maybe dennis and nader will swoop down in a magic corvair and save us all

Besides, unlike you, I don't worship at the feet of politicians.

So I take it that you're OK with the additional corporate tax cuts in the bill, the education, mass transit, family planning and other good stimulus money(which would have created jobs) that was taken out. It's OK with you to have a bill that is 42% tax cuts, even though the simple economic reality of the matter is that in these desperate times, tax cuts are the worse way of stimulating the economy.

Or are you simply willing to throw these programs, these jobs overboard all in favor of following Obama's faulty lead. Let me guess, you're all in favor of further funding the Office of Faith Based Initiatives too.

People around here thought freepers and such were nuts when they blindly followed Bush. Strange and sad to see it happen around here, though not surprising.

Besides, unlike you, I don't worship at the feet of politicians.
try and find me doing that. you won't, because you are lying.

So I take it that you're OK with the additional corporate tax cuts in the bill, the education, mass transit, family planning and other good stimulus money(which would have created jobs) that was taken out. It's OK with you to have a bill that is 42% tax cuts, even though the simple economic reality of the matter is that in these desperate times, tax cuts are the worse way of stimulating the economy.
no i am not thrilled with the alterations to the bill. see, there's these people called republicans and blue dog "democrats" that we need to have this bill passed. as obama is not a dictator, he has to deal with the reality of the senate. unfortunately, our senate leadership stinks

Or are you simply willing to throw these programs, these jobs overboard all in favor of following Obama's faulty lead. Let me guess, you're all in favor of further funding the Office of Faith Based Initiatives too.
that's just a stupid statement

People around here thought freepers and such were nuts when they blindly followed Bush. Strange and sad to see it happen around here, though not surprising.
no, i am simply not going to soil my clothes and gnash my teeth because realpolitik is not utopia

You often throw out the epithet of "kool-aid drinker" when referring to those willing to give President Obama more than 5 minutes to produce results. That makes me wonder what flavor of kool-aid you are drinking that allows you to rationalize your messiah's hypocritical views on outsourcing and cheap labor.

Works both ways, pal.

http://www.slate.com/id/1918

Krugman can't masquerade as a populist/progressive believing in cheap labor and outsourcing. It makes his rant against centrism ring hollow.

I accept your apology for smearing the truth.

We can hope that he has changed his mind since he wrote that 12 years ago.

In any case, what does what he said 12 years ago have to do with what he is saying now?

"What happens to Bangladesh if we start restricting imports?" I guess the answer is "Tough shit for Bangladesh." And India. And Mexico. I think his motivations are correct, and his predictions as to what would happen in a system less open to trade are accurate. I know we cannot solve the world's problems, but we have to at least be aware of what our actions do to other countries. Isn't that how we got into trouble with Iraq et al?

Krugman is wrong about trade.

If a person is wrong about one thing that doesn't necessarily make them wrong about everything, does it?

He isn't a politician. He doesn't have any fan club.

Interesting. Could not the same thing be said about...oh, others, who are in fact politicians and do have large followings - "He's no populist. On trade/labor, he's DLC."

In fact, we have been told we are stupid for not knowing all along that "He's no populist. On trade/labor, he's DLC" about....well, some others, who are in fact politicians and do have large followings.

So the person who is not a politician is to be judged as though he were, and the person who is a politician is to be judged as though he were not.

the lack of purity of intent of some using Krugman's snark as a vehicle for more ridiculous Proxy Wars! here at DU. You can defend Krugman's proficiency in economics and you will get no argument (from most), but you cannot defend his continued ridiculous jihad against the candidate he worked so hard against. Krugman is entirely responsible for devolving into a cartoon.

In contrast, Robert Reich's elegant critiques which are equally important drop like a stone here at DU because they don't have that snottiness some are looking to to take Obama down a peg, a continuing puerile parlor game apparently for some which is offensive in the face of the dire problems facing this country.

How come Reich's comments don't get any attention? Is it because Krugman gets more MSM exposure? That would be my guess. I don't see Krugman as more snotty than Reich. I fully expected Reich to be attacked as disloyal to Obama and attacked. How come people are not attacking him? I bet if Reich were on the same shows, we would see him attacked here.

If Krugman is what you say he is, carrying on a jihad against Obama, produce some evidence that supports that. I don't care particularly about Krugman and would be open to any evidence that he is a hack or a shill.

The reason people take the "pro-Krugman" side is because they think we need to compromise less with the Republicans, not because they love Krugman or hate Obama. Mostly people defend Krugman only after he has been attacked here.

I don't believe there are proxy wars going on. Most people here supported a candidate other than Obama at one time. If that permanently invalidates or throws suspicion onto anything they ever say, that is pretty suppressive. What I see is attacks on anyone who commits the crime of disagreeing with Obama, if even by implication or by displaying insufficient amounts of admiration. If there is some case to be made against Krugman, why not make it? "He supported another candidate at one time" is not a case.

I have no problem with critiques of Obama, in fact, believe they are healthy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8186044&mesg_id=8186323. What I do have a problem with is Krugman's inability to get over what is clearly a personal problem he has with Obama.

We can't know any of that.

If his style, and an imagined "personal problem he has with Obama" is what this is all about, that would hardly justify the attacks.

I don't see Krugman as any more critical of Obama than Reich is. Maybe their is an undercurrent and melodrama going on that I am missing. I would just as soon go on missing it.

My guess would be that Krugman is getting more MSM attention, and that would explain why he gets more attention here. Were it up to me, Reich would get far more consideration here than Krugman.

I am no big fan of Krugman myself. I know that I am not dragging him into any proxy wars, I don't even know what these proxy wars are. As far as I can see it is the every-vigilant Obama defenders who dragged him into a proxy war. But I am open to any evidence you can provide that would support your thesis.

in his column and blog, then you are overlooking it and you're on your own dealing with the implications of that mess.

edited for ----> Perhaps these might offer you some insight:
"Why is Paul Krugman So Hostile To Barack Obama?"
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2008/02/11/why-is-paul-krugman-so-hostile-to-barack-obama.aspx

Let's say I am dense. Why don't you just make the case? I don't care about Krugman, and I don't care about any proxy wars. If you have a case to make, I will consider it.

Not one cent of tax cuts!

And I want my pony in the stimulus too! WHERE'S MY GODDAMN PONY?!?!?!?!?!1

:sarcasm:

Why would you want to attack so many people by falsely and maliciously characterizing what they are saying?

And hence was the only person I mocked.

Why would you want to assume I'm talking about you? :shrug:

Nothing that you claim appears in MadHound's post is actually there.

I don't assume you are talking about me. I know that you are talking about everyone and anyone who disagrees with you in any way about one particular politician.

After the thousandth "cult/messiah" insult, most people begin to notice a pattern. Do you know what the word "pattern" means?

The contingent here that wants Obama to fix the world's problems in a day, and declare him a failure if he doesn't, is quite tiresome. In fact, many of these people never supported him to begin with.

But I'd better stop here, because I see another pattern, and we wouldn't want to get too technical for you.

"I don't assume you are talking about me."

Of course you do, because you invited yourself to a conversation that had nothing to do with you. Or maybe you just have an overinflated sense of self-importance.

"I know that you are talking about everyone and anyone who disagrees with you in any way about one particular politician."

You don't know shit; you assumed that too. You'd like to pretend you know all about me, but you are even worse at reading people than you are at reading English.

Thanks for the response.

People talking about "cult/messiah" are talking about people's ideas - their message - not insulting or attacking the messenger. It may be a little too close to the truth for the comfort of some, and so they feel insulted. That is my guess. The fact that it has been posted quite a few times is a function of the fact that many people are independently observing it.

I do not think that there exists a "contingent here that wants Obama to fix the world's problems in a day." That is characterizing people's ideas falsely. I don't think anyone is "declaring him a failure." Whether or not "people supported him to begin with" is irrelevant. Most DUers favored other candidates at some point. Does that make them all suspect? Almost all of the people who are being accused of these bad motives are saying the same things they always have, Obama or no Obama, and would be expressing the same opinions regardless of which politician was involved.

You say that I have an "overinflated sense of self-importance." But it is you who claimed this was about me, it was not I who did that. I don't know how important I am, but I am important enough to you to warrant a response from you, and that was the sum total of any hope or expectations I had about my own importance. Again, thanks for your response.

Since I do not hate Obama, do not wish him to fail, support him as much or more so than I ever have any Democratic politician, it seems that you have misread me here. I have voted straight Democratic in over 40 elections, I have worked thousands of hours for hundreds of Democratic candidates over the last 40 years. I an on a first name basis with hundreds of politicians and staffers. That is what I call "support" and "loyalty" - real actions in the real world. There is now a new definition of loyalty, though, that requires is to think and speak a certain way, and I refuse to knuckle under to it. I see it as a great threat to the success of the new administration, and to the future of the party. My loyalty and commitment to the party was never challenged in all of that time until the Obama phenomenon. Something has changed there, and it is not I who have changed. I am saying the same things that I have for 40 years. I was never attacked for that the way I have been by Obama supporters.

You claim that my reading skills are deficient, and that I have misread you. This latest post, however, demonstrates to me that I was right.

English is my mother tongue, and I am a voracious reader, especially history.

perhaps only exceeded by his patience with ad hominem attacks.

And my reading comprehension is fine.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

He pops in to crap on threads because some of us aren't "pure" enough. Wish he'd stop by and give Skinner a couple of bucks for all this freedom of speech he enjoys.

I didn't know that Kucinich had been thrown off the team. Hard to keep up.

Why? I just don't get it. You must cause yourself a lot of grief.

That is a fact. Too bad the media is successfully turning the entire financial crisis around and making it look like the Democrats caused the whole thing. How frustrating.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8180296&mesg_id=8180869 :donut:

I know *I* can't afford to post here as much as she does.

Hmmmm . . .

important items were stripped from the bill. I am very frustrated and depressed over this. The cuts in spending across the board won't generate the jobs needed. Most economists of every ideological stripe seem to agree that this bill could be disastrous because it doesn't go far enough. The Democrats again have caved. I don't see anywhere in this bill where the Republicans have compromised on *anything*.

Can anyone point to concessions on the part of Republicans? Anyone?

maybe it is on their website or on YouTube. You should take a look.

Krugman squarely placed the blame for this mess at the feet of Shrub and the GOP.

He didn't have a negative word to say about the Democrats or President Obama.

I think that his criticisms included in his columns are not meant to go after President Obama but are meant to for the Republicans who are trying their best to make sure that this bill fails.

It is their only strategy to try to take back control.....for things to get worse and worse and worse, so that they can point fingers in two years.

There are battles to be fought to fix this country. Krugman is not the enemy. He is on our side.

The problem is these "Democrats":

Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
John Tester (D-MT)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Jim Webb (D-VA)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Michael Bennett (D-CO)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

They are the ones who sold us out overt the weekend.

Anyone who thinks a 60 vote majority in the Senate would change anything hasn't been paying attention.
A 70 vote majority wouldn't change anything as long as these "Centrist" Democrats are voting with the Republicans.

Thanks for this post.

My Senator is on this list. So, it's time for me to make a call. Forgive my ignorance, but are these the Senators who voted against the stimulus, or watered down the bill or what.

I want to have my facts straight before I get on the horn to complain.

Thanks!

And BTW, this list should be an OP.

...who crossed the aisle to join Republicans in slashing spending programs and increasing Tax Cuts.

I wish you all would make up our minds. :crazy:

Unlike, of course, the centrist Democrats and Republicans who gutted this bill, who have their fingers on the pulse of corporate America real Americans.

I think this says a lot about Krugman's character.

<snip>
"It's no secret that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has his problems with Barack Obama. But in his column Monday, Krugman made it clear that he's no huge fan of Obama's supporters, either. Decrying the bitter partisanship that he sees taking over the Democratic race and saying the campaign is turning into "Nixonland," Krugman lays the fault at the feet of Obama supporters exclusively.

"I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody," Krugman writes. "I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We've already had that from the Bush administration -- remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don't want to go there again."

<more>
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/11/krugman/index.html

Never forget his heresy. Anyone who ever opposed Obama on anything, or who ever supported another candidate, is the enemy.

He is a columnist who is paid to give his opinion. If we want a more perfect bill, it's good that there are Paul Krugmans' that give their opinion of what 'they think' is important. If he feels he needs to go after Obama in order to get attention to his views, so be it. I know I have to learn how to entertain conflicting opinions. Black and white, Right or Wrong, are over valued. Perhaps someone will take to heart what Krugman says and contact their representative or Senator...I know how ridiculous that sounds, but you never know.
http://www.capwiz.com/sjhs/dbq/officials/

I guess cutting out infrastructure spending that would CREATE JOBS is perfectly OK, so long as the cheerleaders around here like it.

Yay, more tax cuts! Those few extra dollars per paycheck are going to be JUST what the economy needs!

not Obama or the people in congress. Which means that he has actually "done" things to which the current people in government will probably never hold a candle. Krugman has been mostly accurate in the warnings he has put out since W took office. Had they been heeded, our economy might not be in its current shape.

If Obama wants to distinguish himself from W he should do so by listening to people who actually know something about his stated policy objectives.

from W, he needs to listen to those who disagree with him. I don't see that as his problem.

Um, we just want something that will WORK.

No one is asking for ponies here.

You need to slow down a bit here, you're usually
a pleasant poster, but this OP is needlessly combative.

We can get back all that stuff in committee. Only need simple majority to pass (51 in Senate, 218 in House) this in commitee. Can't filibuster either.

I predict we'll be very happy with this in the end.

A:

You write: "your superior knowledge ain't gonna get you diddly squat if we don't start fighting the media and the opposition congress to actually change the public perception on this stimulus."

Krigman wrote (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html): "Mr. Obama’s postpartisan yearnings may also explain why he didn’t do something crucially important: speak forcefully about how government spending can help support the economy. Instead, he let conservatives define the debate, waiting until late last week before finally saying what needed to be said — that increasing spending is the whole point of the plan."

So Krugman criticizes Obama for the same thing you criticize Krugman et al for. The media/Repubs and Krugman are both critical of the stimulus, but offer opposite alternatives to it.

B:

You write: "If Mr. Krugman and some of ya'll think that the Democrats were going to get their wish list with this Historically gigantic Stimulus Package after what Bush Jr. Did with half of the 700 Billion bailout money (that no one knows what was done with!), you are out of your mind."

Krugman just says that if Obama had offered a more ambitious plan, and defended it harder in the media, probably more would have been left of it, after the negotiations.

first month of a presidency.


Obama will push money out and demand accountability. When he shows results for dollars spent and jobs created he can go back again.

And next time every governor and mayor - Republican and Democrat will cheer him on.


Krugman seems to think that it has to be all or nothing and now or never.


Obama knows you take what you can get now and come back for more later.

Obama has just cut the Washington Republicans off from their governors, mayors, state legislators, and business supporters. He has gotten the first stimulus package packed and looked like a gentleman doing so.


Krugman now joins the rather large and still growing number of very intelligent people who have seriously misunderestimated Obama.

if only Krugman were bright enough to realize that this doesn't have to be the last bill to address the economic crisis. (sarcasm)

as the "I told you so pundit on every issue" - including purely political appointments that have nothing to do with economics at all.


The number of bills that Krugman has actually gotten passed in a political setting = 0


All of Krugman's pronouncements have seemed to indicate that all of the administrations' stimulus efforts have to be tied to one single bill and then its over. Of course if you have any statements by Krugman that show that it is actually a work in progress that will take several attempts that would be interesting, but having read all of his columns you won't find them.

Just because a guy is smart doesn't mean that he isn't egotistically fucked up. In a year when Obama can demonstrate real job creation and get more for additional stimulus Krugman will strut around with a big "I told you so" even though it was Obama's strategy from the begining.


Krugmans' political touch has the emotional maturity of a junior high student.

So what? Let's say you disagree with him. OK. What am I missing?

Who cares whether or not he says "I told you so?" Why are we to see Krugman and Obama in some sort of competition with each other? (As I said elsewhere, if there is a case to be made that Krugman is doing this, or has ulterior motives or is pushing an agenda, I am open to considering that. If someone can effectively and persuasively make that case, I will criticize him for that too.)

Are only people actually gotten bills passed in a political setting to have their opinions considered?

along with other eminent economists such as Dean Baker and Robert Reich (to name but a few) are simply pointing out the Obama talks a great game- but his administration is either berefit of EFFECTIVE ideas- or to timid to push them through- and as a result seem intent on following many of the same FAILED policies that got us into the mess in the 1st place.

By following those policies Obama and the Congressional Dems are in fact responsible from here on out- though responsible is hardly a word one could use to describe Gaithner's appointment (or his quasi-Republican plans for the failed banks- which have been described as pouring water into a bucket without plugging up the holes).

You are dead.

but Krugman is very well versed in terms of the economy. He's a smart guy. If he has any arguments as far as the Obama administration goes, I'm sure that the administration will listen to those and take them into account.

It's the logical conversation, the back-and-forth that I appreciate in President Obama.

a mistake by not electing Hillary. When viewed in that context, you'll be able to dismiss him as easily as I do. He's a smug POS, and from the looks of it, he's actually posting on this thread.

insight.

Jesus, grow the fuck up.

exactly how Krugman felt about Obama during the primaries, and his sour grapes are still showing. As for your last comment, I won't respond in kind, but you can probably guess what you can kiss.