Krugman: Obama Liquidates Himself

A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team to their first serious political setback?

It’s appalling on every level.

It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment. Jonathan Zasloff writes that Obama seems to have decided to fire Tim Geithner and replace him with “the rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon” (Mellon was Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, who according to Hoover told him to “liquidate the workers, liquidate the farmers, purge the rottenness”.)

It’s bad long-run fiscal policy, shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead.

And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view — and more specifically, he has embraced the policy ideas of the man he defeated in 2008. A correspondent writes, “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/obama-liquidates-himself/

You're not the only one....

And Obama's presidency is beginning to look like the rotting corpse of Herbert Hoover. I'm getting seriously worried about the future of Social Security.

When these measures fail to significantly cut the deficit, SS is next in line. And Medicare.

You know, give $2 trillions to Wall St. then use the crushing debt as a mandate to kill social service programs (Medicare, public housing) forever.

Of course we're not supposed to question his actions which time and time again favor corporate interests and harm the middle class...'cause, you know, he makes really great speeches.

but perhaps Krugman would find that reference too decadent.

I never supported him.

Too bad no one was listening.

economy to implode. :P

Of anything.

:(

I worked my ass of for him. I thought we were getting a Dean, an anti-establishment policy moderate. We got a fucking corporatist instead.

Even though I always recognized his center-right tendencies, I saw that most people didn't.

We were all so hungry for change. :(

but we were older I fear... and a tad more experienced.

I knew he was a centrist. I was hoping just less bad than the other centrist that got the nod.

Real change the Political Elites will not let that happen.

beats being disappointed,just another politician.

and I fell, hook, line and sinker for his rhetoric and I while I noticed that the details were a bit skimpy, that amazing rhetoric just made me take flight, give much money and canvas, canvas, canvas. Now, I feel silly, I feel used, I definitely feel like I have a hangover the likes of which I hope never to feel again.

Believe it or not I actually did use to be a moderate, before the center shifted on me. Now I am a fricken radical leftist.

And I didn't even have to study for it.

and you are correct on your observation.

The American right has pulled politics so far right it is unfrigging unbelievable.

Still, no glory in collaboration.

Yet here on DU, the "premier left-wing message board," I am so far to the "fringe left" that my vote can be discounted and derided.

:shrug:

...or center of "the Village", and has little to do with anything in the real world.

It's mainly used so that "centrists" can portray themselves as thoughtful and reasonable, and critics as unreasonable "far left" ideologues.

Of course, by these definitions Eisenhower and JFKennedy were both "radical leftists".

I Wanted To Believe.

I should have stuck with UFO's.

and it ain't pretty:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/26/830386/-Beyond-Hysteria:-What-Economists-and-Analysts-Are-Writing

Top Democrats need to have an "intervention" with the president, where they all sit around and each describe the horror he is bringing to their lives with his GOP policies.

Same EXACT type of mistake Clinton repeatedly made. Enable and legitimize failed, right wing ideology- thereby boosting the Republican narrative, further alienating the base, and hamstringing effective public policy options.

2010 looks to be a very fulfilling year for GOP strategists.

or an inner sense of inadequacy for both men in their early years contribute to their need to make buddies with the rich and established?

but it does seems that both have a need for everyone to like them- the rich and established perhaps more than others for advancement's sake.

I always admire what Dr. Krugman writes...and I agree with him on this as well, but we're on the sidelines, this is a pure political ploy. This administration seems to think the "message from Massetchussets" is the government IS the problem and got hammered on its spending. This appears aimed at trying to take that issue off the table in the run-up to the 2010 elections.

The only number that counts is the deficit level in this particular game, and Obama's plan does nothing (if anything, cutting spending will make matters worse as unemployment goes up) to dent the problem.

The sad lesson many are learning...this Administration is sucked into the beltway games...where soundbites trump substance and can be spun into bits that are bantered around the cables and internet. The numbers are immaterial as long as they sound right to whomever ears the MOD is being aimed at.

Yes, playing defecit hawk is not only endangering any recovery for those still suffering but could pull down the few remaining in the middle who will lose funding...and not to mention the ripple that ensues as well as the ongoing deterioration of the nation's infrastructure all for political expediency.

But let's see what the details are...where the cuts are. As we've seen too many times in the last year, words may not meet actions.

I hope these "new democrats" don't think they can "create their own reality" better than genuine sociopaths who are professionals at it (and it alone).

and this will never ever take the issue off the Table Nancy keeps to nicely set and pretty ..and pristine.

Turn the tables upside down and get people jobs..it is still about the economy stupid!

I knew he didn't know much about economics when I started supporting him two years ago, but I thought he would have sense enough to pick solid Democratic economic advisers. He didn't. His choice of economic advisers is simply appalling. I don't know who he thinks elected him, or which constituency he's representing. He seems to be representing Wall Street, big banks, the health care industry, and the War Party.

its upside down..and from the dems I talk to all the time here in Fla..this seems tame!!......

Obama approval 45%

Obama disapproval 49%

Obama knows he is in trouble as are incumbants in Fla..he is coming to Tampa the day after the SOTU address.

We have an 11.8 unemployment rate..and forclosures as far and wide as you can see!

Gang wrecked our economy with their massive defense spending and cutting or neglect of other government spending needs in order to finance their tax cuts for the super rich

and what does the guy from The Party of FDR do?

He goes Hoover. Had we wanted the style of Herbert Hoover, we'd have voted GOP.

For someone who claimed he wanted to be bi-partisan, an opportunity squandered.

You can't be both corporatist and populist, and the people don't like or trust corporatist and they aren't buying spin anymore.
Seems simple, but apparently too complex for the beltway club.

I've been really disappointed with Krugman's stance on HCR. I wouldn't sit next to him at Passover if he begged me and if he tries to make up by getting me a chocolate Easter bunny, I won't eat it until the next day:) He knows Economics but I know insurance.

Nonetheless, it's a spat. Mr. Krugman is brilliant (which I never was or will be) and I was waiting for him to speak out on this. I thought there was a chance that although Krugman has been writing about this for a year, perhaps I misunderstood the details & it wasn't as bad as I thought.

There's some irony here that Krugman is denouncing the same type of gimmicky political half-assed measure on the President's Economic Policy that many of us have been denouncing on the gimmicky political HCR. Still, it seems plain that this freeze will be a lot more detrimental to the welfare of the country.

I'm beginning to wonder if Rahm is a GOP double-agent. I already know all I need to about Geithner & Summers. Time to stock up on toilet paper while I've still got the funds, I guess. :cry:

I keep forgetting about that terrific website. I've bookmarked it:)

Professor... and while Mass had a little to do with it, I still will contend that our creditors have a lot more to do with it. Don't expect any confirmation any time soon though... dollar crashing would not be pretty.

How could Obama be convinced to take action that clearly will demoralize the public further?

My guess is demoralizing the public is part of the plan. But then I am in the middle of The Shock Doctrine so the process of deconstructing a democratic republic political economy is still very fresh to me.

"My guess is demoralizing the public is part of the plan."

If that's the case, have The Powers That Be decided to quit propping up the American economy altogether, abandoning any semblance of what's left of the middle class?

Or..?

The suspense is killing us.

Or how does demoralization serve TPTB plans for the economy?

Any freeze in domestic spending will hurt the economy. Not only will spending cuts drag down the economy immediately, but fewer employed Americans means lower tax collections, so how does that help?

Obama has too many banksters, Wall Streeters, and DLCers as his advisors. FDR succeeded in saving the country because FDR ignored those people and used his own intelligence to develop solutions.

Obama seems to be following the script of the very people who got this country into trouble on health care, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the Wall Street Ponzi schemes.

Obama seems to have abandoned the roll of political leader and adopted the persona of the triangulating politician. His actions won't help the country, they won't help the democrats, and moreover, they may well rehabilitate the Republican Party. We are so screwed.

:wow:

.. this Republican Lite does that surprises me anymore.

He won't be a "mediocre term" or a "good one term" President, he's already proved himself to be a mediocre one term President.

Primary challenge, anyone? This corporatist pretender is killing our Party AND our Nation.

snip

"Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.

Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.

For example, I’m not sure what “dynamism” means, but if it means productivity growth, there wasn’t any resurgence in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off — but even the Bush administration’s own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of that takeoff to 1995.

Similarly, if a sense of entrepreneurship means having confidence in the talents of American business leaders, that didn’t happen in the 1980s, when all the business books seemed to have samurai warriors on their covers. Like productivity, American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.

I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for “Morning in America”?)

But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?"

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1