Krugman: Epitaph for an Administration

Like kicking an ant nest here at DU

The Swarm is upon us now. Krugman has his points, but all they will see are the negative lines in this, and sicard the positive lines. Like a Jedi Mind trick.

... and they say irony is dead. LOL.

to run campaign commercials that said,"We have learned our lesson. No more letting Republicans water our bills down. From now on, if re-elected, I will fight only for people before profits.", and mean it?

but it will never happen. Ever.

It would be a lie anyway. Fascism is here.
We, the people do not stand a chance. It is all who you know, not what you know.
It is beyond comprehension that possible-employers are allowed to consider your credit rating as a pre-employment background check.
Of course, if you are "one of their own" it doesn't matter.

I feel like its a slow smothering of our rights, our existence as americans.

That was a quick surgical strike to decapitate us from democracy, the rest is the body slowing dying from this loss.

Lock-n-Load

We used to call it a Platform. This Platform needs to be part of an integrated vision for America. Here is an example:

Democrats believe that schooling, housing and medical care are fundamental human rights and thus support Medicare for everyone...

Democrats believe that war is an evil thing and will work to avoid its perpetuation and therefore withdrawl from Afghanistan...

Democrats believe in a strong economy with a healthy private enterprise system but one in which the public is protected from abuse by reasonable regulation and thus support small business tax credits...

Democrats believe in a fair tax system and thus support the value added tax to replace the income tax...

Democrats believe in that immigration is good for America and thus support allowing immigration by anyone is not a criminal and can show self sufficiency...

You get the idea, what we have instead is a half baked health thing, a law suit against Arizona, I don't know what in the wars, a real anti-business stance...

All JMHO

The problem is the MEDIA -- Faux News, AM Radio, even the major networks are lurching rightward.

And any leadership we attempt to replace them with will automatically be subverted because we depend on the same subverting influences to put the ones we have now into power. Meanwhile, the same propaganda machine that created the Tea Party also confuses the Democratic base with misinformation.

I really don't think there's any way to stop any of what's happening now, not within the political system. The political system has to collapse first before there's to be any opportunity to redress the problems.

Meaning: things are going to get much worse before there's a real opportunity to make them better.

We need a platform there, too

... to prevent Californians from smoking marijuana.

:eyes:

Jennifer Brunner, Sec'y of State, was at the airport to greet them. She was the one behind his (forced) pocket veto of HR3808...the law that would enable 'electronic notaries.'

She sent out emails and that went viral. People emailed and called the WH. She shed light on a fraudulent device that had passed the Senate unanimously. I wonder what Obama really thought when he met her?????

I wish she had won the Dem primary for Senate....now we're stuck w/ Fisher who is trailing. Portman, W's Trade Rep, sent zillions of jobs to China. I don't think I can bear him as a Senator from Ohio.

Maybe I'll go back to CA if recreational pot smoking becomes cool.

you about Jennifer. Again, the people in Ohio will vote against their own best interests. Imagine voting for Portman the free trader. Outsourcing has decimated Ohio yet the poorly informed voter will vote for the puke. And electing Kasich would once again allow them to manipulate the vote count as in 2004.

and the establishment used dirty tricks against her. The DSCC wouldn't even acknowledge her candidacy and only listed Fisher and directed donors only toward him. It took a major campaign by her followers to prevent the ODP from endorsing Fisher before the primary (although overtly they directed $ only toward him) and then to top if off. some one from the Fisher campaign knowingly pushed a late hour smear on her:

Here is clarification on her position of neutrality in APRIL:


Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher trade few punches until after City Club of Cleveland debate

By Mark Naymik, The Plain Dealer

April 13, 2010, 6:41PM

-snip
Fisher asked Brunner whether she would endorse him if he wins the May 4 primary. Fisher has already pledged to support her if she wins the chance to face Republican Rob Portman in November.
Brunner said she could not endorse any politician because she will remain the state's chief elections officer through the general election.

-snip

http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2010/04/secretary_of_state_jennifer_br_2.html

HERE IS WHAT THE PAPERS RAN ON MONDAY BEFORE THE TUESDAY PRIMARY:


Brunner says she won’t campaign for Fisher if she loses Tuesday

By Laura A. Bischoff and William Hershey
Columbus Bureau
Updated 12:30 AM Sunday, May 2, 2010

COLUMBUS — It’s customary in a primary election for the losing candidate to campaign for their party’s nominee in the fall.
But if she loses Tuesday’s Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner won’t be telling Democrats to vote for the party nominee in November.
Asked by a Dayton Daily News reporter last week how much she would work for Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher if he wins and she loses, Brunner held up her hand and formed a zero.
Her unwillingness to embrace Fisher is indicative of the rancor bubbling in the Democratic Senate race.

Brunner accuses Democratic leaders — including Gov. Ted Strickland — of urging political donors to shut her out. Fisher denies the charge, but has used a giant fund-raising cushion to run TV ads touting his efforts to bring jobs to Ohio.
-snip

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/election/brunner-says-she-wont-campaign-for-fisher-if-she-loses-tuesday-683022.html

OF COURSE, I DON'T WANT PORTMAN BUT AFTER THIS, I FIND NEITHER CANDIDATE, PORTMAN OR FISHER , IS WORTHY OF MY SUPPORT HENCE THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET HAS LOST 2 VOTES FROM THIS HOUSEHOLD. I know other progressives who feel the same way.

Harry Reid gave a big fundraiser for Fisher in DC...it made me sick. She was the only candidate I 100% endorsed and gave $$$ to this cycle.

I've already sent in my ballot and I voted for Fisher only because I hate him less than W's Trade Rep.

Do you know what she plans on doing after her term as Sec'y of State comes to an end? She is such a great talent.

She certainly was a more accomplished candidate than Fisher but certainly got horrible treatment by the party. I think it sent a message that progressives aren't welcome in the hierarchy of the party. As far as voting for Fisher, I feel it's enabling bad behavior so no vote from me or my husband. Corporate Dem or Corporate puke are both bad for this state as far as I'm concerned.

I'm FB friend w her and Botany is a close friend of her so when she announces her future plans, it certainly will be announced here at DU. :hi:

for not voting for Fisher. I held my nose...my poor little nose is really starting to hurt.

I participated in Jennifer's online t-shirt fundraiser. I just wore the t-shirt the other day....the one with 'Courage' on it. I wish I could have done more, but I'm so exasperated at our current condition that I'm not capable of dealing with the 'willfully ignorants' anymore. I have lost what little 'tact' I had. Now, I just tell them, 'You're so stupid you don't know how stupid you are.' And of course that just alienates them even more. I'm better at rallying people for a cause, but I just seem to lack the energy of late. I've been 'sad.' One cannot say the 'D' word or the insurance companies raise your rates. Or I have been 'anxious.'

It's just all part of the what I refer to as the 'US Malaise.' Hell, if one isn't sad/anxious, they're not paying attention.

Thanks for letting us know what Jennifer will be doing. She's such a great Feminist...and that is so rare these days. Whatever she does, it will be done w/ courage, intelligence and aplomb....I love that word.


:hi:

And now I guess I will have to read about that 'the second wife of Clarence Thomas who is white since he divorced the Black wife because she reminded him that he, too, was Black, and benefited from Affirmative Action which he absolutely detests...and since he is soooooooo confused over his racial-ness, he developed rather obtuse sexual perversions with coca-cola cans and those women (Black women only, of course) whom he oversaw at his ironic place of employment....the US Agency which overlooks Equal Employment Opportunity.'

And people wonder why I'm 'sad and anxious.'

I know this is all a DISTRACTION...I mean after 19 years, why now? I would think this would encourage Blacks to go to the polls. But maybe it's just Rove and Murdoch having fun ridiculing the women...maybe a little of 'divide and conquer' of the Black and white women? Maybe 'da boyz' just want to make clear to the 'girls' that 'see, we got the power to do whatever we want...and you're just good for play and cleaning up after us.'

I think too much. I watch those hearings 19 years ago...I had smoke coming from my ears and fire from my mouth. I remember Teddy (of all people) and Biden who just let that turd off the hook. Well...at least the young women of today can see how women were/are treated....maybe that's the whole point

Sorry for the ramble.

You aren't alone...sigh.

I needed that.

from accountability also. They have taught me something I didn't know was actually true, that 'some people are above the law'. I remember Democrats screaming from the rooftops that 'no one is above the law' when the Bush gang were basically acting as if that were true.

But now this DOJ has confirmed that Bush was right. There are people who are above the law and it is being made very clear that we should forget about any kind of accountability, for war criminals, for corrupt banks if they have enough power and money to pay for the U.S. Government to protect them.

You learn something new every day ...

Vote for President Big Shot. Or else.

let it not be said they are completely without conviction

hiding out on DADT, and then running out with statements on prop 19 et al

i guess once they get into campaign mode, they'll tie down all the loose sails, but right now that ship is spinning wildly

Krugman has decided the NYT is a credible source. Good for him, but he's really stretching his criticism when he implied the Obama administration's resisted 'acting' on the nation's economic crisis. He may well disagree with their responses, but he's just not credible when he insists they haven't acted 'forcefully.

It might get him on the cover of Newsweek again.

Posts 4, 7, and 66 are the stupidest ad hominem attacks I've ever seen!

Anyway.... the USA died in 2000 when Bush was selected by the conservative Supremes.

And between Obama and Reid, there isn't even a single testicle. Milk livered men.

suggesting this has been an issue for Krugman?

Quit excusing their corporatist actions. Krugman would be a million times a better choice than Summers or Geithner only he isn't from Goldman or Wall St. so wouldn't be considered.

criticism.

It doesn't take a genius to see Obama is sitting on all sorts of issues because the election is coming. The Corporate Media and the GOP are so vile against him that any move he makes will be distorted and sold to the American people as the opposite of what he is intending to do. I don't blame Obama, I blame the environment of lies and hatred. Still, Krugman is right in pointing it out, it is his job.

about what can and can't be done politically. But instead of admitting that he rather blame the President.

what the right thing to do is (in his opinion), how will any change ever get enough popular support to happen?

To quote Jonathan Alter:

"I was in the Senate at the beginning of this week, I was talking people about this, and they said, 'It's just ridiculous. He had no chance of getting Collins, Snowe, or Specter if he'd gone over a trillion dollars. Zero chance.

"The stimulus wouldn't have passed. So Krugman and the others can say until they're blue in the face that the stimulus wasn't big enough. It has nothing to do with reality. The reality was, there was simply no way to go higher on the total dollar amount for the stimulus."

I'm glad they didn't go over a trillion dollars, but I certainly don't blame Krugman.

It's Krugman that needs to stop blaming the administration for something that is unrealistic on his part.

Your claim that he "never" misses an opportunity to slam Obama.

Could we conclude that if you were a columnist you will always miss an opportunity to criticize the President?

Welcome to DU. :hi:

about what is possible and not unrealistic. More like Jonathan Alter has been.

It's just that there are so many.

It's hard to dispute the observation that the administration never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity...

He has done nothing to prevent the problem of too-big-to-fail, massively-interconnected banks. Bubble, crash and bailout all three could happen again. Let me ask you--do you think Obama and Congress will backstop the banks against massive lawsuits on mortgage/foreclosure fraud, or do you think they will be left to their just punishment in the courts?

from corporatists & Republicans

It's baked in the cake at this point.

Just that they didn't act forcefully enough. Which is true. The administration didn't act to protect Main Street with even a fraction of the effort used to protect Wall Street.

When every study showed that the stimulus was having an effect, he resisted every call to increase the stimulus to increase that effect, because those calls were for jobs programs, and programs that helped People, and programs that saved homes directly, instead of just programs that gave money to banks and investors.

Krugman is right, again.

I don't view the Recovery Act as 'timid' at all.

It was known in advance that it was far too small to have the desired effect.

Maybe that's not timid but it's something.

You recall that the President wanted far more for infrastructure spending than Congress was willing to provide. Other things left out, as well, that the administration favored.

The administration announce it was "big enough" and it would keep unemployment below 8%. They were wrong on both accounts.

. . . and promoting it. I don't believe they had the option of rejecting any 'stimulus' bill Congress produced, and I can understand why the new administration made their 'confidence-building' predictions in the midst of the economic turmoil at the time.

It didn't work and now they've lost any credibility on the topic. They can't ask for any more when they clearly need it. And if they DON'T get unemployment down below 8% within a year or so, they're close to losing the presidency.

I agree that ultimately they had to take whatever they could get. But they could have expressed it EXACTLY that way. "Congress, you're wrong and in 9 months you'll know it and we'll be back".

. . . and those who found work as a result of the stimulus benefited.

The sold alot of people down a very long river, in order to float a few for 2 - 3 years. The economy isn't improving fast enough to keep the job retentions they did achieve in place. Without new support for the states (i.e more stimulus) the states will run out of money again, and ultimate layoff more workers.

By overselling the stimulus in the short term they did get, they have sown the seeds of long term failure. And they have also lost any credibility to fix it with either the Congress or the American people. At best we'll stay at 10% for another 2 - 3 years. At worst, we'll climb up towards 12%.

.. how about those of us that haven't retained jobs or found work because of the stimulus? When will our welfare start to matter? I haven't even had the survival pittance of an Unemployment Benefit for income since February. 401k? Cashed out. So when do people like me start to be seen on the radar? When we're homeless and starving on YOUR street? It's approaching 2 years, and the Obama Administration has yet to do a single thing that benefits me. NOTHING, NADA, ZIPPO.

AND NO I DON'T CONSIDER BEING BERATED AS DOING SOMETHING FOR ME.

Millions of unemployed got many extra weeks of unemployment insurance and cobra extentions thank to the stimulus bill. Every independent analysis has shown that it also helped save or create more than 3 million jobs. Sorry it didn't personally benefit you so go vote republican and see if they do better for you.

Thanks for your deep caring and compassion. :sarcasm:

I would say something else, but it would violate my code of ethics.

They caved on every front, never forced the Repugs & DINOS to actually filibuster, just rolled over and played dead.

if you can make that statement. Jonathan Alter is right, many on the left are just politically naive.

The Administration doesn't have a crystal ball. Why repeat what we have heard enough times from the mouths of Republicans?

Knowing in advance that you're doing less that what is necessary, and being unwilling to do more because doing more would offend the conservatives you're trying to "build bipartisan support" with?

It's a shame he should never outlive that "bipartisan support" that never really existed was more important than helping the American People.

Congress had responsibility and control over the amount of that legislation.

Where did he ever fight for money for Main Street?

You can't blame congress when the guy in the Most Powerful Office in the world, the guy who you give all the credit to when things go well, gets none of the blame when he doesn't do enough.

You can't have it both ways, giving him all the credit, but never any of the blame. :eyes:

Obama was advised by many respected economists that the stimulus wasn't nearly what was necessary as a matter of FACT to stimulate the economy. 2 years later, we're still facing horrible unemployment.

When did he ever make the case for a larger stimulus? He just didn't bother.

through Congress is just not dealing with reality.

The President's job is to lead.

The WH never proposed a policy that would work.

Never.

If the WH will not even propose a policy that works because they don't think that congress would pass a bill that works, that is beyond timid.

to say the WH should of proposed something bigger is just not dealing with reality.

The reality is that it doesn't matter a rat's butt whether it was the "biggest stimulus bill in history" if it was pathetically SMALL.

Which It Was.

Pathetically small.

And perhaps the President should have mentioned that fact somewhere along the way.

And please tell me where the votes were going to come from to make it any bigger?

Let's acknowledge that something on the order of 30 -40% of the stimulus was tax cuts, that does start to drastically reduce the magnitude of the stimulus package. Additionally, much of it went to aid to the states to basically replace lost tax revenues. So in the end the amount of "new" money going into the system was small, and spread over 3 years.

Yes, the argument is often made that there weren't votes for anything larger. That may be true, this administration constantly uses this excuse for not even trying or proposing such things. However, true or not, they should at least made it clear that the amount was marginal at best and significantly too small at worst. Now, after promising that it would keep unemployment below 8%, they have no position upon which to ask for what is now needed. It may end up costing them a second term.

something bigger. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

Whether you can or can't, by misrepresenting what they accomplished, they destroyed their ability to now "fix" the short comings.

...so that you don't need 60, just the 50 to get a majority?

There's clearly a need for such a strategy. In fact, there's clearly been a need since before the presidential primaries.

And not dealing with that is blowing smoke too.

is change that ridiculous 60 vote law in the congress. We have (had) the majority. The threat of filibuster should not mean filibuster. If the rethugs want, it make them at least, work for it.

So unless you have a time machine that would allow Harry Reid to go back and do that you're just shouting at the sky.

The propaganda is so loud......

you are heard (or listened to) by our government? Do you want perpetual war, for-profit health care, corporations deciding our elections? N/T

You're one of those people who instead of contributing anything constructive, rather sit on your high horse, pounding your chest in self-rightous indignation.

Getting 60 votes with this Senate is a nightmare, granted. But, you propose solutions that address the problem and get the nay votes on the record so that when midterms come around you have a legislative record to present to the voters. You can say to the voters "my opponent voted against health care reform, jobs creation, green technology, and chose instead to give the banksters a free pass, willfully ignored foreclosure fraud, and chose to put granny in front of a death panel."

It's the same reason I would argue that democrats should actually force the republicans to filibuster instead of just caving at the threat of a filibuster. The legislation you want passed may not make it through the first time. But, you make damned sure that it's ugly and public and that the voters know EXACTLY who is responsible. That's the kind of frustration that can drive voters to the voting booth.

Half-measures that don't fix the problem are not victories. Blurring the margins to the point that the end result resembles the status quo is not motivational. It just leaves voters wondering what the hell you really stand for.

You're talking nonsense if you think they are not. And you obviously know nothing about the rules of the Senate. No one is "caving" to the threat of a filibuster. Cloture votes is how the system works and those votes are on the record.

Those votes are not recorded anywhere, because they did not happen. See, the WH followed your stupid plan, and proposed an insufficient measure that could get 60 votes.

Instead, if they proposed a sufficient measure that failed to pass, Democratic candidates could be beating Republican incumbents over the head with that vote, and how "Senator _____ voted yes for banks, and no for you".

"No one is "caving" to the threat of a filibuster."

Actually, they are. Cloture votes are not filibusters. What we're talking about is forcing Republicans to stand in the well of the Senate, and announce for hours on end that they're going to block popular legislation. You know-an actual filibuster. Not have a cloture vote and go home.

and all those votes are on the record. You either don't know what you're talking about or are just making things up.

The vote is not on the record, because no bill was offered that was sufficient.

And no, the majority does not have to respect the result of cloture votes. They can force a filibuster. It won't be a Republican reading out of the phone book, like in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", but some Republican would have to be there to object.

and Senate rules have changed since "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Stop dealing fanstasy and accept reality.

The point is to ask for what's needed, not what's passable.

When you only get what's passable, you celebrate. But you can also make an argument to come back for more. You also have a built-in defense for when the too-small stimulus proves insufficient.

Since the administration pitched the stimulus bill as 'just right', they have no coherent argument to ask for more. To ask for more they have to admit they were wrong, which means they shouldn't be trusted to be right this time. And they also have to fight the charges that the stimulus was a failure.

They should have asked for the $1.2T that was calculated as the necessary amount, and fought mightily against turning half the bill into a tax cut bill. When they "only" got $700B with it 1/2 tax cuts, they'd now have a leg to stand on when fighting for more stimulus.

and you have no way of knowing if they would have worked or not.

Your tactic is to only ask for what can get 60 votes. That's the tactics the WH decided to follow, and it's worked out quite badly.

It didn't work out badly for them.

The stimulus worked for a small number of people, and was a failure for a much larger number of people.

the stimulus saved over 8 million jobs. That is not a small number of people. You can spout GOP talking points all you like but the stimulus worked.

You: "the stimulus saved over 8 million jobs."

The BLS: "The number of unemployed persons, at 14.8 million"
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

14.8M > 8M. More people were failed by the stimulus than were helped. Want to go off on a canard that there's always a few people unemployed? K, we'll go with 2M unemployed as "full employment". 12.8M > 8M.

In addition, the WH claimed the stimulus would result in a peak of 8% unemployment that would be dropping down to 6-7% by now. Their "worst case scenario" without the stimulus was 9.5% unemployment.

This isn't a GOP talking point. This is a progressive talking point: The stimulus was too small, and the way it was passed was too stupid. We on the left warned the WH that it was too small, and we warned them that they would not get a 2nd bite at the apple. They told us to shut up.

All of which is historically accurate. The only problem here is it appears you don't believe the WH could ever make an error.

full employment. So your standard is one that has never been achieved by any American President in the history of this country. Talk about unreasonable.

And the political reality is that if they tried to make the stimulus bigger any bigger it never would have passed.

"I was in the Senate at the beginning of this week, I was talking people about this, and they said, 'It's just ridiculous. He had no chance of getting Collins, Snowe, or Specter if he'd gone over a trillion dollars. Zero chance.

"The stimulus wouldn't have passed. So Krugman and the others can say until they're blue in the face that the stimulus wasn't big enough. It has nothing to do with reality. The reality was, there was simply no way to go higher on the total dollar amount for the stimulus."

"So your standard is one that has never been achieved by any American President in the history of this country."

I didn't realize Bill Clinton was never president.

"And the political reality is that if they tried to make the stimulus bigger any bigger it never would have passed."

So....you haven't paid any attention to what we're saying to you then?

Our entire point was that IT WOULD NOT PASS. I can't believe you're having so much trouble understanding this. Perhaps if I say it again, it might sink in a little: Our entire point was that IT WOULD NOT PASS.

Let's pretend you're the president. Your economists calculate you need 1.2T to fill the output gap. You know you can't get 1.2T. So you ask for 700B and pretend it's all that's needed. The economy remains terrible, as your economists calculated it would be. You need more stimulus but since 700B was the "right" amount, you can't ask for more. And your opponents are using your failure as a weapon against your party.

Let's pretend I'm the president. My economists calculate I need 1.2T to fill the output gap. I know I can't get 1.2T. I ask for it anyway, knowing I will not get it. Instead, I celebrate when congress comes back with 700B. "Good job guys, but we'll be back". The economy remains terrible, but the small stimulus has had positive effects. I can now go back and say "good down payment. See how it worked? Now I need the rest." Meanwhile, my opponents can not use the 'failure' against me as an effective weapon, because of the simple counter that they would not supply the rest of the needed funds. And I can quickly pivot to "you voted to send money to the banks and Wall Street, now vote to send it to Main Street."

Politics, as practiced by idiots like Rham, is the art of flailing about and pretending you are successful.
Politics, as practiced by Republicans and the occasional smart Democrat, is a weapon.

The best he ever had was 4% unemployment and that took 8 years to acheive, not 2 years. Plus Clinton didn't have the worst recession in over 50 years to deal with.



So stop engaging in fantasy and accept reality.

Not the stimulus spending.

Being "realistic" has nothing to do with political success, unless you mean being realistic about strategy.

Obama adopted a foolish strategy in his attempt to deal with the political reality of the economic situation.

just to score political points?

You are operating under the belief that Congress would offer an up-or-down approval on the entire bill. That didn't happen with the actual bill, and wouldn't happen with a theoretically larger bill.

President asks for $1.2T. Congress cuts that to $700B. Stimulus passes, but the White House now has an argument to ask for the remaining funds.

You don't know for sure if that stradegy would have worked or not.

We know that the strategy the White House used didn't work out either. We got an ineffective stimulus bill that has resulted in a lousy (but not disastrous) economy that's threatening Democratic control of Congress and the president's re-election.

In addition, why, exactly, would this plan have failed? Sure, the WH bill wouldn't have passed, but even if Congress rejected the WH bill wholesale, they'd have written their own bill.

The only upside from the way the WH played the stimulus debate is it was a "win", because the WH got what they asked for. The insane legislative strategy was to rack up a bunch of "wins" and then Republicans would cross the isle to share in the "wins". Now, a 5-year-old could see the holes in that strategy, but that's what the WH decided on.

and adopting GOP talking points to boot.

What we do know is that the stimulus passed and that it saved or created over 3 million jobs.

Your issue seems to be that you think the literal steps taken in public are the same steps taken to produce the stimulus. For example, the actual text of the bill was indeed written by the house. However, the White House asked them to write it, and supplied critical details, like what sort of spending they wanted and how much total spending they wanted.

The fact that you're hiding behind this pedantic crap is rather sad. The WH blew it. The only effect of pretending they got it right is to avoid learning from the mistake.

Just like they do on FAUX news.

The WH has never done anything wrong then? Everything worked out exactly as planned?

So they planned for 9.6% unemployment? They planned for the economy to suck so badly that 2010 and 2012 are in deep trouble?

Or is your argument that they are so pathetically weak that they can't do anything without the permission of GOP Daddies?

My alternative is that they screwed up, and can learn from their mistakes.

Don't dishonestly put words in my mouth. Just as you are dishonestly rewriting history.

You're fighting very, very hard to prove that the White House didn't botch the politics of the stimulus bill.

Unemployment is above the White House's prediction of the worst-case scenario if no stimulus was passed. So clearly something went terribly, terribly wrong. Because we got the stimulus, we saved a lot of jobs, and we're still worse off than the scary number bandied about to convince people to vote for the stimulus.

So why are you fighting so hard to say the White House handled the situation perfectly? Why is it you think that asking for 1.2T would have resulted in no stimulus at all? In your mind, is the White House incapable of negotiating with Congress?

You may like to use FAUX News tactics and GOP talking point but I prefer honesty.

remained on those who refuse to recognize that a stimulus is needed. Obama needs to become a little bit more theatrical. The American people, especially the right wing understand drama -- stark contrasts. They do not understand subtleties of compromise and maybe they shouldn't.

Obama's compromises will not serve the American people well. That is the sad fact.

I think Obama may have compromised more out of cowardice than out of wisdom.

but it doesn't match up to the facts.

Although -- I think Democrats will do a lot better than the media thinks.

If you think my argument is weak, please tell me why.

It's more based on bogus GOP talking points.

The Recovery (stimulus) for the banks and Wall St. was much, much, much bigger. Shows where his administrations true loyalty lies.

so you're just dishonestly play with semantics.

Indeed.

And how about STARTING with universal health care instead of starting with something that might, just maybe not offend John Boener? And not doing backroom deals with hospitals.

Obama starts in the middle, not at the top. If the press and the opposition are gonna demonize everything you do anyway, why not at least start with the ideal? You KNOW it's gonna be pushed back anyway, why start half way down?

He's the head of the party... ORDER Harry Reid to make the Repugs really filibuster.... with all day/all night readings from "Atlas Shrugged" and sleeping on cots if that's what Repugs want to do. Make Pelosi keep Congress in session over Christmas if necessary. Cut the August recess short if business isn't done. So what if the politicians miss their vacations? That's what they get paid the big bucks and perks for....working on things other than raising money for themselves.

Timid is the 1st word I think of when I think of this administration.

But Jonathan Alter says it better than I can:

"The left, they're just wrong. They're politically naïve. Paul Krugman kept saying the stimulus should have been bigger.

"I was in the Senate at the beginning of this week, I was talking people about this, and they said, 'It's just ridiculous. He had no chance of getting Collins, Snowe, or Specter if he'd gone over a trillion dollars. Zero chance.

The stimulus wouldn't have passed. So Krugman and the others can say until they're blue in the face that the stimulus wasn't big enough. It has nothing to do with reality. The reality was, there was simply no way to go higher on the total dollar amount for the stimulus."

As far as healthcare, no Democratic candidate in '08 campaigned on universal healthcare so that is like blaming the President for not passing a law to make all candy free.

And you don't understand how the Senate works if you thing Harry Reid can force a filibuster.

People like Krugman are dealing with actual, factual reality, because the stimulus was not big enough to be effective. Obama knew it, all major econonomists told him, and he NEVER MADE THE CASE TO CONGRESS OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. He didn't try.

Your "reality" is causing fellow Americans to continue to suffer.

That was the reality of the situation. Monday morning quarterbacks like Krugman can bitch all they want but they never would have gotten 60 votes in the Senate for anything larger.

To the people? The way he campaigned?

That's the point: you can't win when you don't even try.

or you're just not giving the man credit for the efforts he did take.

you're right: I remember when he directly addressed the American people about this issue, carefully explaining the economics behind the need for a larger stimulus, and then, having garnered public support, put the heat on Congress until they acquiesced.

Oh - and in case you missed it, healthcare passed with 51 votes, so don't give me that 60 votes crap. The "60 vote requirement" is only for stuff they don't actually want to pass.

I seem to remember a address before congress shortly after he was inaugurated. I also remember the 60 vote vote in the Senate in December of 2009 that allowed the Healthcare bill to proceed.

But then I don't have selective amnesia.

be blaming Congress for the poor economy.

Since he gave up before he began to ask for more money, he is stuck with the blame.

And since he waited too long to really come down hard on the Republicans and since he never really came down hard on Bush and Cheney and Paulson, Obama will be assigned the blame for the whole recession and the bail-out.

The least that Obama could have done would have been to nominate real Democrats for Secretary of Treasury and the other important economic posts. Instead we have Timothy Geithner -- a favorite of China. Need I say more.

would have been better to get no stimulus.

are very impressed with it.

Am I grateful? Sure. Is that something that should be presented as one of the major accomplishments of an administration? Uh....

There are many who had their job saved by the stimulus who would disagree too.

Fact is that what the unemployed want is not unemployment benefits although they will accept that as a sort of booby prize. What the unemployed want is jobs. I just talked to several of them last night. They want jobs.

But to blame the loss of jobs on President Obama is crazy.

but an adequate stimulus would have made many more jobs available by now.

Further, I think that we should have recommended if not required in government jobs, a reduced work-week and then the hiring of people who had lost their jobs to cover the missing hours.

You don't know if more stimulus would have created more jobs by now.

The chances are greater that it would have than that it would not have.

In fact, I doubt that you could find an economist who would deny that a bigger stimulus bill would have resulted in more jobs and fewer unemployed.

The argument is over whether a bigger stimulus would cause too much inflation -- do much watering of our currency.

Nice FAUX News tactics.

are elected and refuse to extend the unemployment insurance again. The unemployed are your niece and nephew, your daughter, your son, your brother, your friends. Only the very rich are protected from unemployment.

It appears that Americans want to learn that lesson.

Obama should have spelled out the truth -- we either pull together as a country -- as if we were a big family, or we will go down -- hopefully not in flames.

Failing to extend unemployment insurance strikes at the heart of the middle class. And that is when things become very, very dicey. The Republicans may win the coming election, but they will have a very hard time winning any more for a long time if they carry through on their threats.

and you'll smugly blame the President.

When you realize that roughly 40% of it wasn't government spending at all, but merely tax cuts where it was hoped we'd spend it for them. We didn't, we paid down debt instead. Another large part was aid to state and local governments so they wouldn't lay off nearly as many people, very little of the money ended up being "spent" by the federal government. The federal government spending portion was VERY small, and spread over the better part of 3 years. It was VERY timid and VERY small because Timmy and Ben were so worried about inflation. See any signs of inflation around the corner?

Krugman's point (as I understand it) is that it was the President who was responsible for the amount of 'stimulus' in the bill. He further implies that the President resisted more spending. That isn't what I remember. The WH wanted far more spending on roads, bridges, energy projects and the like than Congress was willing to provide the new President at the time.

when you make statements like "It was VERY timid and VERY small because Timmy and Ben were so worried about inflation." you just kill your own credibility.

Krugman has been making the point for a long time that Ben is far too concerned about inflation. When the WH was deciding what to accept from congress, and what compromises to make, Timmy was advising that too much direct expenditures would be equally as dangerous as too little. So the White House was willing to accept really bad compromises. And then they over sold what effect it would have, because Timmy and Ben oversold to the White House what it would do.

Geithner didn't write it either. It was written by Congress. You're trying to rewrite history because you don't like Bernake and Geithner. That's the type of thing they do on FAUX news and just destroys your credibility.

The White House negotiated with congress on the details, it's how some of the assistance to the states was removed from the bill to cut the size down. The White House also requested that the tax cuts be added as part of his effort to work towards bipartisanship. To suggest that the White House had no involvement or say in the details of the stimulus bill is absurd. To suggest that Timmy and Ben had no influence over the positions that the White House took on the stimulus bill is just wishful thinking on your part I suspect.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It was the White House making the representations of it's effectiveness, based upon Timmy and Ben's characterizations.

You're just rewriting history because of you're irrational hatred of Geithner and Bernake.

You suggest that the final product had no influence from the White House. That's just absurd. They were involved in what ended up in the bill, and Timmy and Ben both had roles in that ultimate product. I'm not sure what makes you so worried about acknowledging their roles, how ever limited you might think they were.

like you are doing just because you hate Geithner and Bernanke.

Acknowledging that the White House had a significant role in the contents and negotiations over the stimulus plan is hardly "rewriting history". Timmy and Ben both shaped the economic approach of the White House which affected their choices and contributions to the stimulus plan.

And you kill your credibilty on the subject everytime you disrespectfully refer to them as Timmy and Ben.

It's just faster. You seem overly sensetive to semantics. Actually, on this subject entirely. Do you have some emotional attachment to either the stimulus package or these two in particular?

As I said is exposes your lack of credibility.

Not to mention the thread. These aren't law reviews we're writing here. The use of nonderogatory nick names isn't particularly out of line. I'm not sure what has so sensetized you on this subject or these people.

Wow, you are so full of it.

And Buddies, and Ronnies, and Billies, and Johnnies......

You're avoiding the point for some reason, and arguing against the semantics. Your case that weak?

You're driven by your hatred of Geitner and Bernake so nothing you say can be trusted.

It's not a hatred, I just disagree with them and have explained how their point of view has affected the White Houses choices on these economic bills.

And that scares the heck out of you and forces you to take the whole discussion personal. Apparently you can't defend the choices.

and you know it which kills the credibility of everything else that you have to say.

As for you seeing into my head, one would think a certain amount of "credibility" is lost for asserting ones clairvoyance.

Just spin clouded by your hatred of Geithner and Bernanke.

The concerns of the White House and others at the time about inflation were well known. They came directly from Summers, Geithner, and Bernake. It was that bias, about inflation, that caused them to decide to accept tax cuts, cuts in aid to states, and unemployment extensions, over more direct spending on federal government projects. It was also that concern that led them to decide that "too small" was better than "too big". It is also why the spending there was got spread out over 3 years. They were so concerned about inflation that they wanted to be able to stop, or modify, the spending if the economy "over heated".

As Krugman points out, they were no where near doing any such thing. The fact that so little of the money was direct stimulus was going to avoid that. The reality that much of the tax breaks went to people who "spent" them on paying down debt was a predictable result as well.

It was these mistakes that led us to where we are now.

and clouded by your hatred of Geithner and Bernanke.

At the time they were very clear about their concerns about both inflation and deficits. They are still concerned about deficits. I'm not so sure either of them are still worried about inflation right now. Although with Ben ya never know.

It is getting tiresome. The size of the stimulus was determined by what could get through Congress.

First of all, the size was based upon predictions of what could get through congress. Those were both White House and congressional leadership predictions. 2nd of all, the distribution of that money between the various uses was heavily influenced by the White House. They chose to go with more tax cuts that the demcratic house wanted for a variety of reasons. Among them was that the economic team in the White House saw them as less inflationary as direct government spending. They also agreed to less support for state and local governments. They could have agreed to fewer tax cuts and more direct support, but they chose otherwise. They also chose to spread the direct spending they did have over 3 years. The explanation for that had several reasons, among them was that it was less inflationary.

If you really think that the White House economic team, which included both Geithner and to some extent Bernake, and lead up by Summers, didn't have any influence over the structure and extent of the stimulus package, you just weren't paying attention. If you aren't aware of their concerns about inflation back when this was all being discussed, you also weren't paying attention.

It is written based on consulation with members of Congress on what will secure their vote for it. And while Geitner and Bernake may have been consulted, they did not dictate what was in the final bill. It was written by Pelosi and other House & Senate Dems, plus a few Republicans with the biggest influence being what would have the secue the most votes.

The final bill was the product of a negotiation between the White House and Congress. At various points, Congress looked to the White House for the preferences and guidance. That guidance emminated from the economic team. That guidance was based upon a, now discredited, concern about short term inflation. That guidance expressed a preference for more tax cuts, and fewer direct expenditures, for a variety of reason, including those concerns. It was a mistake.

bigger, anything with more spending and less tax cuts. The WH got the best deal out of Congress they could possible get and to claim different as Krugman does is just ignoring reality.

There are two possibilities, one that we could have gotten a "bigger" deal. We'll never know on that one. The other is we could have gotten a "different" deal. Predominately less tax cuts and more support to state and local governments. Alternately fewer tax cuts and more direct spending. Either would have been preferable and we now see (and the argument that Krugman is making) would have been more effective. The tax cuts went predominately to paying down debt. The support of states "saved" jobs, and direct spending "creates" them. (It is probably splitting hairs about whether it is better to "save" existing jobs or "create" new jobs). They chose the way they did because of an unsupportable fear of inflation (well among other reasons, they were also hoping to get alot of GOP support with the tax cuts. They didn't get it.)

And whether they could have gotten a larger plan or not, they undermined themselves by not declaring and explaining at the time that it was too small. They ran around selling the plan as something to keep unemployment below 8%, and it didn't. That both prevents them from now asking for more, and from even taking credit for what success they did achieve with it, which was to keep unemployment around 10% instead of the 13-15% it would have been. They set the bar too high and failed to clear it. They've got no one to blame but themselves.

And there was no way that they would have gotten a bigger stimulus bill or one that was structured differently.

First you know my mind. Now you know the minds of 100 senators.

since you have already exposed that you are more driven by irrational hatred of Geithner and Brenanke.

As far as the Senator, I trust Jonathan Alter who actually spoke with Senators about this very subject:

"I was in the Senate at the beginning of this week, I was talking people about this, and they said, 'It's just ridiculous. He had no chance of getting Collins, Snowe, or Specter if he'd gone over a trillion dollars. Zero chance.

"The stimulus wouldn't have passed. So Krugman and the others can say until they're blue in the face that the stimulus wasn't big enough. It has nothing to do with reality. The reality was, there was simply no way to go higher on the total dollar amount for the stimulus."

No to the fact that the severely over represented what it would do. The chose tax cuts when they could have had more spending instead. Their focus on deficits is undermining their efforts

They never would have gotten Snowe or Collins without the tax cuts.

I'm not sure that is strictly true. Snowe and Collins were represented as being predominately interested in getting the costs down, and much of that was achieved at the end by reducing the aid to states. The size of the tax cuts was relatively large. (Not GW large, but large by democratic traditions).

And whether that is true or not (You're the clairvoyant one, not I) the quote you mentioned surely doesn't make that case. And none of that explains why they oversold the effect of the stimulus. That's where Geithner and company's influence is most plainly seen.

Geithner influence was in the selling of the effect of the stimulus not in the actual writing of the legislation.

He helped shape it, and part of that was by selling the idea that it would achieve 8% unemployment.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How lame.

Geithner and Bernanke. That is a completely rational position since they are on the side of the banksters and all the other criminals who have destroyed the real economy of this country and stolen the wealth.

misrepresent facts in order to put the blame on them.

Timmy had a heavy hand in weakening the stimulus bill.

And the fact that you disrespectfully refer to him as Timmy shows that you're more driven by your hatred for the man than by facts and thus have no credibility.

and that is being nice about it.

Honestly the stimulus was next to worthless. It has spending spread out over 3 years, much of it is untargeted, over a third is tax cuts, and then any meaningful portions were watered down so much they barely taste like stimulus.

The stimulus bill is a classic example of a timid approach. It was good and in the right direction but too small and too timid (unfocused) to really do anything.

I recall Krugman's position when the stimulus was being finalized. He held that it was too small to replace actual collapse in demand (by about a trillion dollars or so). If it didn't pull us out of the Great Recession (and he believed it would not), he feared that there would no longer be the political will to launch a second stimulus. Deja vu all over again. 1937.

That seems to be exactly where we presently are. Krugman is very credible.

The Great Depression was, in essence, a deflationary collapse in effective demand. Exactly what we have today.

Tax cuts at the top will do next to nothing, but post-elections that will be the only "solution" proffered by empowered Republicans, protectors of the Plutonomy*.

Give a dollar in tax cuts to someone struggling to feed his or her family, and he or she will spend every cent, increasing the velocity of cash flow, lifting all boats. Give a dollar to someone at the very top (e.g., hedge fund managers earning $900,000 per hour), and they will let it languish in idle investments or consume it in caviar, or mindlessly chase stocks thus bubbling up the dow to unjustified levels. Again. A recipe for prolonged disaster.

What we need is an FDR, a WPA, and on that front the silent coup of 2007-2008 has annihilated any possibility.


*What Does Plutonomy Mean?
Economic growth that is powered and consumed by the wealthiest upper class of society. Plutonomy refers to a society where the majority of the wealth is controlled by an ever-shrinking minority; as such, the economic growth of that society becomes dependent on the fortunes of that same wealthy minority. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/plutonomy.asp

instead of bailing out the banks, he should have broken them up and let the geniuses who brought us this mess go bankrupt.


In the meantime, bailed out the homeowners - its a no brainer.

so he has direct access to the Times' mind readers and invisible men who know for certain what he fought for in the stimulus bill Congress passed. Anyway, I think it was quite a feat to get what the new President did out of Congress in the wake of the money thrown at the TARP.

he is quite smart and informed on his own.

you are seriously delusional if you think they "acted forcefully"

The government did act forcefully to transfer all our money to the big banks and wall st. Forceful is only a problem for media and pugs when it's in the "working class" interest.

There is a sort of technocracy that compels obedience and resists all reasonable criticism, preserving the status quo in the face of substantial popular support for tough, drastic action. From Greenspan to Rubin/Summers to Geithner, those in power have relied heavily on their advice. It has gone well for some and badly for most. Obama and the Democrats' dithering is vastly superior to more active destructive behavior by the GOP, but it's tough to get enthusiastic about it for its own sake.

press, media, whatever name they go by would be all over it saying president obama is anti-business.

the image and positions of an anti-business president and, on the other, embrace the image and the positions of a pro-Main Street president. That is how he could get the country behind him AND at the same time help the economy.

Ditto - my friend! No straddling the fence - get the main-streeters behind you in the first place and the wall-streeters are bound to fall in line.

It doesn't matter how much he caves to business interests, he will never be a full-privileges member of the club because the Republicans will always promise to give more.

His best option is to stand against the widely unpopular Wall Street agenda and fight to preserve a healthy middle class, in the interests of our entire economy.

If the White House doesn't understand this simple political calculus, they're doomed.

Good comments section there

The engraver should find that short enough.

:rofl:

:hi:

Although it's more like: "Brought a fake knife and threw the fight"

Instead of doing what is right and fixing the problems, they chose to get in bed with the criminals and now they have exposed themselves to the consequences of those criminal actions.
:kick: & R

I find it very convenient how that sort of fact just drops right off the radar for Obama critics. If people want to critique him then at least put all the facts on the table.

And, the banks are daily illegally taking people's homes. The states can't order the national banks to stop foreclosures, only the Feds can do that. And because the banks used the president's program as a trap for homeowners, the president should step up and call for a moratorium and at least slow down the robbery. It might save a substantial number of homes.

I know that's not what Obama intended but that's how the banks used it. They strung people along with trial payments and then foreclosed anyway.

In the short run, the Democratic base would have openly revolted and the mid-terms would have been a mega disaster. Look for a slightly modified revision of the bill immediately after the election and Obama's quick signature.

And we would still be in the dark. Your argument doesn't stand up knowing that it could be law right now without any of us being the wiser. But there's no winning when everything has to be seen as a big fail no matter what.

He did (sort of) veto this POS, and that is good.

Now, let's see what he does when this comes back in the next session...

"Ignore what they say, watch what they do."

I'd like to see Obama use some of that energy he's been showing on the campaign trail in his agenda. He needs to tell congress "yes we can". However, we have weak Congressional Democrats to blame for the weak substance for the most part.

The past two years presented the biggest opportunity structures in a long time and they were only partially capitalized on. That's what's put us at risk of losing this election cycle. If for some reason we pull this out, we better make some bold moves asap. The people have been waiting. They will get up and leave if they are stood up.

ZILCH