KRUGMAN: Obama Liquidates Himself-It’s appalling on every level.

January 26, 2010, 9:01 am
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.

more:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/obama-liquidates-himself/?

~

for the love of god. :hi:

Yet people bring up Krugman's Prize like it has magical properties that make everything he says right.

his background and award is insignificant. Difference of opinion is one thing, to suggest he doesn't know anything is inaccurate.

magical properties that make everything right!

Except they substitute Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.

The Nobel Prize is a big deal.

:P

Quit acting like Bush is in charge and you are a republican.

then he *deserves* the Hoover comparison. Mind-boggling, ill-conceived, political whoring... :puke:

it's appalling to watch as the powerful tear this nation apart because of their greed.

the simple fact is that the U.S. need to raise taxes on the very same powerful who have Obama's ear.

it's sad to see those who call themselves democrats embrace the policies that hurt working people. still. yet again. with evidence of the horrible outcome of 30 years of these same policies.

to which I can only conclude that the governing and owning class is insane because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, even tho it is detrimental to democracy (i.e. a healthy and educated middle class.)

they may gain financially, but when they have to have armed guards to keep them safe when they walk down the street... maybe the rich should rethink their role in society.

I never thought of the man as a progressive, but I sure as hell did not expect any of this.

Hard to expect anything more at this point.

Those who thought he was duped themselves. He is still way better that the 'opposition'. The bit that saddens me is that those who now feel duped will respond with apathy and cynicism but the fact is we need more pressure not less if we are going to hold back the lunatic tide.

Politics is for knee breakers. It's a contact sport.

Our President was busy adopting his policies. :banghead:

You would think President Obama would have at least tried some of his liberal campaign ideas before he started on the worn out ideas of the losers.

Ted Kennedy's life long pursuit to pass meaningful laws to assure Americans access to affordable health care was carefully dismissed. I'm glad Teddy doesn't have to witness this. Because at this time it appears that Reagan is more of an influence than Kennedy.


"The same Republicans who are talking about preserving the environment have nominated a man who last year made the preposterous statement, and I quote, 'Eighty percent of our air pollution comes from plants and trees.' And that nominee is no friend of the environment." The convention rejoiced as Kennedy arraigned Reagan for a string of similar absurdities; we had discovered in Reagan's past radio shows a previously ignored gold mine of stunning quotes. Kennedy ended the indictment with one of the most far-fetched: "Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal." Then he drove the point home. "And that nominee, whose name is Ronald Reagan, has no right to quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt" — which Reagan did all the time.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1918768,00.html#ixzz0dogqB8D8

Thank GAWD it passed, right Paul? :hi:

What does it matter who the messenger is if the message is accurate?

What's more important and germane?

And of course the messenger's relevant when he's a noted publicity hound most noted for his advocacy for "third way" neo-liberalism prior to his recent (rather self-conscious) rebranding as a populist firebrand. :eyes:

Hiding behind your ad hominem while boasting of its defenses is weakness.

Perhaps you might consider answering the question next time.

Krugman's vacillations speak for themselves. And I'm sorry, but when the messenger is the self-same person who previously cheerlead us into this mess, then his identity is certainly germane to the conversation. :hi:

You want to label it as referee, go right ahead.

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm

You'll be wanting to actually read through the list you've posted before starting the lecture tour...

:hi: :eyes:

"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."

What is the point in electing someone left of center (like Clinton, or Tony Blair, or Obama) if they end up working within (and thus reinforcing) the ideology of their right wing predecessors?

Every time he said that social security, just like medicare, was going to be out of money in the near future he was lying and using Republican propaganda points. Many DUers pointed out Obama's usage of said bad information but others were just not willing to hear what he was actually saying.

Nothing Obama has done as President is not something he clearly telegraphed during his campaign.

Nothing Obama is doing surprises me.

I said during his campaign in this venue - he is not a liberal, he is not progressive and as far as I can see I am not certain that he is/was actually a Democrat. He has proven that he is none of those things.

Obama is a neoliberal, not a whole lot different from McCain, and he is all too willing to appease the GOP.

You can't make nice with people who are out to destroy you politically. Obama is going to end up as a one-term president.

But the president said Monday that he remains committed to tackling health care and other big problems. "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president," he told ABC News.:puke:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575024772877067744.html?mod=WSJ-hpp-LEADNewsCollection

Additionally, it begs the question, what if he turns out to be a mediocre one-term president? I mean, if he "REALLY mean it this time," why is he bothering with bipartisanship? If the only thing between you and greatness is the compromises you have to make in the interests of the mediocrity of bipartisanship, why hasn't he dispensed with partisanship, instead?

So you see, I don't think he has really reflected on his words, his message.

He's willing to risk his Presidency for the Third Way. Very reassuring, not.

methinks he's going to be rewarded for falling on his sword, metaphorically speaking of course, a political death.

Because you can do much more damage in a short period of time if you don't have to worry about re-election popularity.

Depressing, isn't it?

nothing Obama has done surprises those of us who truly paid attention

There seems to have always been a certain disconnect between what Obama actually says and what his supporters think he says. A close family member and ardent Obama supporter was shocked--shocked--that he doubled down on Afghanistan.

Is Obama a liberal or progressive? Only in comparison to today's GOP. Which, of course, is all that matters since they still get to define the terms of the debate.

Is Obama a Democrat? Oh, yes. Is there anything more "Democratic" than this?

C'mon people.
Some of us banged on about that back in the day. And got roundly abused on here for doing so.
Too late now. Gotta move forward as best we can.
There are shards to be rescued.

No matter who the peasants vote for they come out on top. It really is disgusting.

since like Clinton pushing NAFTA and welfare reform, only someone who is called liberal can do the ultimate damage to the liberal causes.

Obama will no doubt push privatization of Social Security and Medicare, since he does the bidding of Wall Street, his real constituency.

He's already privatizing public education, the single biggest mistake of his presidency. His policy there is nothing short of a disaster.

with the Commission to review and control entitlement programs.

Clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes on the rich. Obama has gone screaming in the other direction.

Clinton was a true fiscal conservative

Obama is a fiscal corporate fascist.

:rofl:

:shrug:

I've always thought Obama was a DLC Republican, but they're usually a little more subtle than this.

our stimulus waits for us in Afghanistan.

a huge number of independents are disillusioned Liberals who are much further to the Left than Dems are.

Is Obama the new Hoover?

He's lost it and is scrambling for answers. It's as if Rahm wants to see him scramble....and why would that be?????????????

Can we tax the rich yet?

Whining too late to save the horses when the barn door was left open 6 fucking months ago??

Jesus, Paul, that train left the station last summer!!

So many people think "change" is possible by just forgetting about years of crimes and that belief is so delusional and yet so prevalent. It is seriously believed by millions of Americans that the military, government and corporate interests that all took part in years of torture, bank crimes, financial frauds, propaganda and bribery can all just be forgotten and still things will magically change.

There will be NO CHANGE in health care, war, fascism or propaganda until America starts by holding the worst criminals in our history responsible for their crimes.

Now everyone will just go ahead an ignore it, continue on with their deluded ideas, smear the hell out of me and anyone else who dares speak the truth to the Orwellian "war is peace" culture we now live in.

I can't believe it.

I expected many things, but I never expected Obama would go for such a cheap, transparent GIMMICK when so many actual people's lives are on the fricken line.

I'm wondering if the Chinese are threatening to cut back the loans. So Obama has to cut spending somewhere so the can keep the oil wars, bank bailouts, and health insurance giveaways going.

it could be the threats from the the rating corporations like Moody.

"Moody's Investors Service says the U.S. and U.K. must prove they can whittle down their ballooning deficits to avoid threats to their triple-A credit ratings."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704825504574582303781275842.html

Of course Moody gave triple A ratings to all that toxic debt that the banksters were throwing around that caused this economic collapse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7571600

This thread has a very interesting discussion on possible reasons for Obama's decision making. Welcome to DU! :hi:

the US doesn't owe them a penny (in fact, the US contributes significantly more than the rest of the world combined to their accounts)

He never heard about the New Deal and how successful it was.

I'm starting to wonder.

I really do not need his constant negativity about everything that Obama does.

Helps people remember what's what.

:think:

Galbraith was on the TV last night saying the same thing. Some of you want to bash him also?

:hi:

Wrote an article called "In Praise of Cheap Labor" over 10 years ago.

Copying the Reagan route is hardly something we can admire. However, it should not come as a surprise to any of us.

it's astounding to see how fired up a rather insignificant spending cut can get some people. We passed a $800 billion+ stimulus package and we're running trillion dollar deficits. The idea of concentrating govt money on spending that better grows the economy (ie building more roads vs flat funding for parks/NASA) seems reasonable to most people not on the ideological fringes.