Obama's Economic Policies Are Getting Swiftboated, Yet We Ignore Rightwing Critics

I have noted how Paul Krugman has done little to address any criticisms coming at Obama from the right such as a spending freeze or letting banks fail, except to offer snarky remarks. This reminds me of the idea that John Kerry and liberals should simply ignore attacks by the Swiftboat veterans, because responding to such attacks would legitimize them. Kerry could have aggressively attacked the charges AND the people spreading such charges, but Kerry was somewhat slow to attack, and he lacked the resources to counter the mainstream media subsidized onslaught of swiftboat veteran replayed ads.

Now, the media is being saturated by rightwing talking points, such as Obama is spending too much, the banks should be allowed to fail, and that the federal government should impose a spending freeze. In response, liberal commetators like Krugman have just offered snarky remarks without explaining that notwithstanding their criticisms of Obama's policies, these policies are much better than what is being offered by the right wing.

So, the public is left with the idea that even if both Obama and the GOP's policies result in failure, at least the GOP's policies are the cheaper failure. Afterall, even folks like Krugman are saying that Obama's economic policies are inadequate even though they are expensive.

Google that AP headline and see how many media outlets are leading with it! Of course it's meaningless, but it all adds to the noise.

http://www.google.com/search?ned=us&hl=en&q=Stocks+turn+in+worst+performance+for+new+president&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web

We got it here, you'll be getting it soon.



http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/03/09/20090309wallstreet-obama0309-ON.html

Next will be Politico, if it hasn't already stuck its elbows in there!

This is what we fight.

This is the economic war Warren Buffett was talking about.

The enemy is some of us.

We have to do better, cause this shit is serious.

Obama and liberals don't even have a chance to get a fair hearing. By years end, the American public will accept it as gospel that even liberals like Krugman agree that Obama is an economic failure, and that the country would be better off if the government imposes a spending freeze and lets the banks fail.

Azcentral.com has a traffic rank of: 2,441
Democraticunderground.com has a traffic rank of: 6,774

That's just one News site, tomorrow morning their print edition will go out to approximately 300,000 people. Just look at all the media that is repeating the story.

"We have to do better, cause this shit is serious." How? They own the presses!

Azcentral.com has a traffic rank of: 2,441
Democraticunderground.com has a traffic rank of: 6,774

Now I am scared.

That's the Az Republic in Phoenix and the stupidest daily paper I've ever had the misfortune of reading.
They are not on the same planet. It's just the only paper in town.
I had no idea that many read it.

I blame the media 100% for the sad Az politics.
All 3 local news stations report the same news and are as funny as the Onion.
I can literally flip between stations and hear some of the same sentences (off a white house press release).

Neither the paper or local stations admit Democrats exist.
It's just a blank spot in news - that a Brittney Spears or Brad Pitt story can fill.

Bush threw $750Billion with No restrictions / No oversight and the markets appluaded him over it. Obama is sworn in and they take a plunge.

The difference I believe is the markets know full well Obama's administration is going to need to see proof - "Open up the God Almighty Books" and this is exactly what they fear most.

It's the "financial markets" vs. "the people".
That means if wall street hates it, then I'll probably benefit from it.
(afterall, 401k and privatizing Social Security were wall street ideas)

I did not vote to put banks in control of US economy
and I have little doubt they think they own us and don't need to compromise.
They want the US government to fail, so they can step in.

I'd rather see (omg) SOCIALISM first.
Let the GOP find some deserted island to live on.

Like it or not, economists in good faith have very different opinions on what to do to resolve the financial problems. This is because we really did "go over the cliff" as Buffet is saying. This is something that is different from anything that we have experienced. The fact is that economic models are not as precise as ones in physics. Krugman and the other 3 top economists that disagree with Summers/Geitner are all people who are well respected economists - their reputation rests on what they say or write. All of them have been more on the side of liberals or Democrats. This is a HUGE economic event and asking people not to comment if they disagree is not going to happen.

In the SBVT case, the NAVY record was clear - Kerry was a war hero and many of these people had said so - many as recently as 2 years before when they spoke to Brinkley. This was a group of political people funding lies to keep GWB.

Your discussion of Kerry's record shows what I am talking about. I think your point is that Kerry's record is so unassailable that why should he waste his time responding?

Likewise, the idea of imposing a spending freeze and letting banks fails is so stupid why bother responding?

Yet, Republicans are able to dominate the airwaves, and even liberal commentators are failing to respond, because they assume that they don't need to. Krugman has authorzed column after column criticizing Obama's proposals as not big enough or fast enough. Yet, he says nothing about the Republican proposals, except to offer summary dismissals. What I would like to see from someone, anyone is some numerical estimates of what would happen if Obama were to follow GOP suggestions and impose a spending freeze, and let the banks fail.

Instead, we let Obama get swiftboated, because we assume that it is self-evident that Republican proposals are full of shit.

simply put, my point was:
1) Swiftboating is lying and it is PERSONAL.
2) Krugman and the other economists who disagree are not lying. They are engaged in an intellectual discussion of the what seems to be the likely Obama plan (the plan has yet to be completely defined) It is that plan that will be implemented - which is why they are speaking about it. This is reasonable.

You are using swiftboating to simply mean that someone is speaking against an Obama plan. Every one of us from the Kerry group has continued to spend time defending Kerry - even though the NAVY record was 100% on his side. There are facts at issue here - and the facts are on his side. Here, there are different ideas of how to deal with the economy. These are top economists and they are making their best case of what to do and are commenting on plans. Obama's plan is NOT TRUTH - we really don't know which plan will work.


3) As you yourself say - they have dismissed the Republican plan
4) The likely people to produce estimates on the Republican plan are the Congressional budget office or Obama's team - it is unlikely that the economists have the resources to do this.

onslaught against those trying to bring down Obama.

A spending freeze? Letting banks fail en masse? Rather than summarily dismiss these contentions, let get some hard numbers and calculations.

Obama has been pwning republicans, and anyone else in his way for the last 2 years.

Until you present a reason to believe that anything different is happening now (polls of actual people are solidly with Obama, for counterexample), there's nothing to be said except: concern, noted.

Even when the mainstream media was giving McCain's ads free airplay, and repeating socialism talking points, Obama won because his supporters worked their asses off. Yet, you suggest that we let him fight our battles for us? Well, then we destined to lose for sure, unless we take some ownership in this Presidency, and respond to some of the BS being tossed around in the mainstream media.

Heard it all a jillion times from the concerned ones. The ones who warned us not to underestimate what's-her-name. The ones who were so certain the race would "tighten up". The ones who, in short, were wrong about EVERYTHING.

Still noting your concern.

I didn't have to contribute or volunteer? Well, I wish someone had mentioned that to me and millions of others. It could have saved us a lot of trouble to know that Obama didn't need our help. I guess I shouldn't be so concerned, because Obama apparently does not need grassroots support. Right?

actually there. We all know President Obama's victory is the direct result of a grass root campaign. I think our support can continue by contacting our congress people and urging them to support his agenda.

If you give them examples of him directly taking on his detractors, then they will say he is wasting time and should be focusing on other things.

They have no chance of becoming law.

The debate over which course of action will become policy is among Democrats.

Republicans are the peanut gallery.

and get them onto the President's desk for signing. No law passed, no signature required.

That's all the Republican need; a clever plausible enough lie to peel off a vote here or there,
that we need. Don't underestimate the power of a out of power minority who has plentiful megaphones
in which to yell into!

"In response, liberal commetators like Krugman have just offered snarky remarks without explaining that notwithstanding their criticisms of Obama's policies, these policies are much better than what is being offered by the right wing."

You don't have the first idea what you're talking about, but seem to be making it up on volume.

A standard topic of a Krugman blog post is incredulity at the futility and irrationality of what passes for Republican economic policy. He writes about it all the time.

All... the... time.

Here is a nice report by the Brookings Institution on nationalization. On the one hand, it agrees with many of the points raised by Paul Krugman regarding the possible necessity of nationalization. However, unlike Paul Krugman, the report also disloses and discusses the significant trasitional costs of nationalization, and the incredible amount of governmental resources that would be needed. Krugman does not engage GOP critics who advocate a let them fail strategy, nor does he acknowledge the logistic hurdles that need to be overcome in order to Nationalize the banks. These omissions are clear in the attached report that actually agrees in large part with Krugman without glossing over the problems with nationalization:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/0225_bank_nationalization_elliott/0225_bank_nationalization_elliott.pdf

/snip

Bank nationalization is the topic “du jour” in Washington and on Wall Street. Citigroup has essentially proposed a partial nationalization that would give the government 30-40% ownership.
The stock market, for its part, is so concerned about the possibility of wider bank nationalizations that key Administration and Fed officials are spending much of their time trying to calm the markets by underlining their desire to avoid nationalization. Unfortunately, people often seem to be talking past each other in this debate.

Nationalization can be a confusing topic because it means different things to different people and there are a variety of reasons given by advocates for supporting such a move. This paper explains the various meanings and purposes of “nationalization,” lays out a framework for evaluating the necessity and usefulness of bank nationalization, reviews the most critical implementation issues that would arise, and provides some recommendations. Please see also the author’s previous paper, “‘Bad Bank’, ‘Nationalization’, ‘Guaranteeing Toxic Assets’: Choosing Among the Options.”1

The following questions are addressed below:
• The background: Why might widespread nationalization be necessary?• What does it mean to “nationalize the banks?”
• What would be the purposes of nationalization?
• What are the arguments against nationalization?
• How has nationalization worked previously in the U.S. and internationally?
• How could nationalization be implemented most effectively?
• What should we do now?

Full nationalization may prove necessary as a last resort for one or two of the larger banks, but should only be undertaken when, and if, it is clearly necessary. More widespread nationalization is unlikely to be needed unless the economy performs substantially worse than most economists expect. Although we all crave certainty, it would be better to wait until we knew that this pessimistic case was likely before nationalizing more widely, given the serious social and financial costs of that extreme step.

/snip

As you say there is a lot of agreement between the two. It is obvious that a 20 page report has the ability to go into more detail on how it would be implemented and how hard it would be.

...he writes of it as well. ;)

We need to head these bastards off at every pass. Expose all their worthless ideas, unpatriotic statements and flat out evil wishes for this country.