Paul Krugman Traded To Republicans
Bearded New York Times op-ed columnist, and Princeton Nobel Prize
winning economist, Paul Krugman has been traded by the Democrats to the
Republican Party for Andrew Sullivan, David Brock, David Brooks,
Kathleen Parker, and a minor league economist to be named later.
Krugman has been asking to be traded since winning his Nobel, claiming he wasn't getting the accolades and air time he deserved. And, not it's about the money claims Krugman, "as an economist, who is always right, I have billions."
steve katz, a noted blogger in his own mind sees it differently, "Krugman's got the hots for Megyn Kelly, and can't wait to be a regular on Fox News."
Katz's dog, Murry sees it differently, "Krugman's has been bitter since not being named by President Obama as Secretary of the Treasury, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Chancellor of the Exchequer." "But what do I know, I'm a dog."
Newsweek has the story on the cover, Obama's Nobel Headache. Krugman defends himself by hiding behind the, "L" word:
The writer of the piece, Evan Thomas, who appears frequently on, Fox News, kisses Krugman's ring:
Thomas does reflect some of Krugman's sour grapes:
Krugman, through word and deed does tell Thomas how big his ego driven Obama vendetta really is:
(It should be noted that at no time does Thomas mention Megyn Kelly - sk)
Murry, the dog concludes, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even the idiot I have to walk three-time a day, but I say give Obama a chance, he earned it, and he's right." "Next year, when the economy is back on track all Krugman will have to show for it is that Shiksa from Fox News."
Katz, who can't keep his mouth shut, chimes in, "I agree with the dog, Schadenfreude is a dish best served with with some fava beans and a nice chianti." "Can we go for a walk, now? Please..."
(If you are rightfully outraged by my Krugmanphobia (or not) please comment and recommend so others will have the chance to be equally pissed off)
Krugman has been asking to be traded since winning his Nobel, claiming he wasn't getting the accolades and air time he deserved. And, not it's about the money claims Krugman, "as an economist, who is always right, I have billions."
steve katz, a noted blogger in his own mind sees it differently, "Krugman's got the hots for Megyn Kelly, and can't wait to be a regular on Fox News."
Katz's dog, Murry sees it differently, "Krugman's has been bitter since not being named by President Obama as Secretary of the Treasury, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Chancellor of the Exchequer." "But what do I know, I'm a dog."
Newsweek has the story on the cover, Obama's Nobel Headache. Krugman defends himself by hiding behind the, "L" word:
In his twice-a-week column and his blog, Conscience of a Liberal, he criticizes the Obamaites for trying to prop up a financial system that he regards as essentially a dead man walking. In conversation, he portrays Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other top officials as, in effect, tools of Wall Street (a ridiculous charge, say Geithner defenders). These men and women have "no venality," Krugman hastened to say in an interview with NEWSWEEK. But they are suffering from "osmosis," from simply spending too much time around investment bankers and the like.
The writer of the piece, Evan Thomas, who appears frequently on, Fox News, kisses Krugman's ring:
If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy. You hope he's wrong, and you sense he's being a little harsh (especially about Geithner), but you have a creeping feeling that he knows something that others cannot, or will not, see.
Thomas does reflect some of Krugman's sour grapes:
But the administration does not seek to cultivate him. Obama aides have invited commentators of all persuasions to the White House for some off-the-record stroking; in February, after Krugman's fellow Times op-ed columnist David Brooks wrote a critical column accusing Obama of overreaching, Brooks, a moderate Republican, was cajoled by three different aides and by the president himself, who just happened to drop by. But, says Krugman, "the White House has done very little by way of serious outreach. I've never met Obama. He pronounced my name wrong"--when, at a press conference, the president, with a slight note of irritation in his voice, invited Krugman (pronounced with an "oo," not an "uh" sound) to offer a better plan for fixing the banking system.
Krugman, through word and deed does tell Thomas how big his ego driven Obama vendetta really is:
Krugman is having his 15 minutes and enjoying it, although at moments, as I followed him around last week, he seemed a little overwhelmed. He is an unusual mix, at once nervous, shy, sweet and fiercely sure of himself. He enjoys his outsider's power: "No one has as big a megaphone as I have," he says. "Aside from the world going to hell, it's great." He is in much demand on the talk-show circuit: PBS's "The NewsHour" and "Charlie Rose" on Monday last week, ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" this past Sunday. Someone has even cut a rock video on YouTube: "Hey, Paul Krugman, why aren't you in the administration?" A singer croons, "Hey, Paul Krugman, where the hell are you, man? We need you on the front lines, not just writing for The New York Times." (And the cruel chorus: "All we hear [from Geithner] is blah, blah, blah.")
(It should be noted that at no time does Thomas mention Megyn Kelly - sk)
Murry, the dog concludes, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even the idiot I have to walk three-time a day, but I say give Obama a chance, he earned it, and he's right." "Next year, when the economy is back on track all Krugman will have to show for it is that Shiksa from Fox News."
Katz, who can't keep his mouth shut, chimes in, "I agree with the dog, Schadenfreude is a dish best served with with some fava beans and a nice chianti." "Can we go for a walk, now? Please..."
(If you are rightfully outraged by my Krugmanphobia (or not) please comment and recommend so others will have the chance to be equally pissed off)
Advertisement
Steve Katz:
1. Great post!
2. What kind of dog do you have? I love all dogs, but I'm kinda dissappointed that the Obama Family chose a Portuguese Water Dog (no offense if that's what you have) over an American Pit Bull Terrier with the floppy ears.
3. Megyn Kelly looks hot in that picture, but you can tell she has no soul from being on FauxNews just like Anne Coulter.
March 28, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I see the picture now... A Bichon Frise?
March 28, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
They have allergy issues to deal with and both the Bichon and Portuguese Water Dog are purportedly less prone to triggering allergies. My family has that problem and if you're realy allergic there isn't a breed out there that will work.
March 29, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd for a dose of needed humor. Pretty much all of the economists who saw this coming are not a fan of Obama's Treasury. Only those who believed in the neverending party are on board with Geithner. I want to chalk it up to pessimism, but there isn't enough Bushmills in the world to soothe away the nagging doubt.
My whole wheat side (accountant) wants to see the books and decide for myself how strong the medicine should be. My frosty side (GObama!) wants to clutch onto Timmy like a magic feather and fly.
March 28, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent comment!
=D
That imagery is just so.... perfect!
March 28, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two clucks up. Well said.
Krugman's persistent call to nationalize the banks appeals to my head, and to my desire to believe that there is some kind of clean and tidy solution to this insidious mess.
But my gut tells me that nothing good will come from wiping out shareholders and further gutting confidence in the markets. Painting Geithner as a patsy for the industry grossly oversimplifies an absurdly complex situation.
March 29, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What good comes from transferring losses from those who took the risks knowingly on the one hand, to others such as taxpayers in general on the other?
That is, why should stock and bond holders in a bank which made bad investments not take at least a severe haircut before the taxpayers risk getting shaved (or hosed) for them?
March 29, 2009 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you awake?
March 29, 2009 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
In part to respond to your oddball comments, Bwak. My bedtime recently has been the time stamp of this comment plus 32.5 or -1.5 hrs.
I had a nice time at a housewarming party which was also a "meet the husband" party but decided not to go out, just came home. And you?
March 29, 2009 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
hmmmm... not 32.5, just 2.5!
March 29, 2009 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I Agree.
March 29, 2009 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't shareholders who paid $60 for Citigroup getting their hair cut?
March 29, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only if they are still holding Citi and they also sell now. If Citi recovers and the stock goes up to $20 and they sell, the haircut will be that much less... at that time. In my view, if Citi IS insolvent, the stock should be zero'd out unless the FDIC can magically get more selling off Citi assets than Citi and the Fed currently say they are worth.
There has been a lot of trading of Citi stock since it was at $60. No way to know what losses and gains have been taken already unless you have private info.
March 29, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman knows what we all know, in order to get the stimulus passed with 60 votes it needed to be under $800 billion but if more was needed he could and would be back for more. IMHO Krugman is grandstanding.
Re "My whole wheat side (accountant) wants to see the books and decide for myself how strong the medicine should be." Did you see the movie Dave? When he was the stand in for an incapacitated President he called in his friend, Murray Blum to look at the books (very funny scene). You be Murray . I see DickDay (DD) as Dave.
March 29, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Roubini has provided a reasoned and rational analysis of the Geithner plan and he believes it can work. He also believes that receivership/nationalization will have to come and will come in time with the administration. I haven't heard anything but histrionics from Krugman.
March 29, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Admin would openly admit that nationalization or intervention is likely down the road, would Krugman have less to be histrionic about? Just dodging the question seems evasive.
I guess one rationale for G. is that there is no market for Citi even if chunked up.
March 29, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a good point. But there may be political considerations for waiting. On the whole, though, I think Geithner is just not suited for the job. Not necessarily because of his solutions but because of his personality.
He comes out of the Fed, a secretive, or at least reticent institution and he's not used to dealing publicly and forthrightly with issues. He doesn't answer questions directly. It's a communication issue in my view as much as anything.
March 29, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely get the "face" problem with G.
But I also have problems with the G. plan as described in the press (and I'm not pointing the finger at the press in particular here). I just think it's insane to call Price Inflation "price discovery". How long can that last before the Emperor's New Clothes turn out to be imaginary?
March 29, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this sums up most people's feelings on this, Zip. Well put!
(just in case, I would find your ongoing efforts to engage the crazy vegetable over on the other thread very amusing if I wasn't a bit worried you may not be enjoying it yourself. Any exchange of ideas seems out of the question, and it interprets such efforts as an unprovoked attack. I don't know why this is, but that is the sad mindset you're dealing with. Zip, you have nothing to prove around here, so just disengage and use your time and immense talents on something more profitable and/or fun!)
March 29, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I walked in to it with good intentions. I'm washing my hands of it. I'll see ya later.
March 29, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Murry's a Bichon Frise AKA Jewish Pit Bull. A Bichon was considered by Obama because of the allergy issues, they have hair, not fur. My wife and I thank our lucky stars that it wasn't chosen (Obama wanted, "a man's dog," imagine Reggie Love carrying it on board Air Force 1) Why are we relieved it wasn't a Bichon? Bichons' are markers! We imagined waking up one morning to hear that the first dog pissed on the constitution (that was George Bush's imminent domain!).
We love all dogs, too. Murry was a show dog so we got to know and love all breeds. Is the American Pit Bull Terrier hypoallergenic?
Re Megyn Kelly agree no soul but she do got legs.
March 28, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha! Jewish Pit Bull. Love it...
Not sure about the Pit Bull being Hypoalergenic... Hmmm...
Megyn Kelly. Whoa. I think we now know why MiddleClassBill is a Republican.
March 28, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Murray's kin were on Animal Planet's Dogs 101 last night. They gave bichon's a really good review.
March 29, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I saw that too... Loved the Dachshund races!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9Dpu0hdtA
March 29, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks but you can keep Krugman. We don't want him. Maybe he can have a show on MSNBC with Olberman and the other lunatics.
March 28, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about we throw in Mika Brzezinski, Chris Matthews, and all of CNN?
March 29, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool post K-9 friend, dogs can sniff these things out.As for Pauly Im thinkin "Hell hath no fury like a Nobelist scorned." Soon as his head deflates he will descend back to earth.
March 28, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hell hath no fury like a Nobelist scorned."
Says it all! Good one DonDi...
March 29, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post. That said kroogman might be right. :)
March 28, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
How dare he criticize Obama?
Yeah, it must just be sour grapes. What else could it be? That's probably why Stiglitz, Simon Johnson, etc. are against it too. After all, it couldn't simply be that Geithner's plan is crap and will only deepen and prolong the financial crisis and recession while paying off his buddies at GS with tax payer money. Or maybe I'm just pissed cause I wasn't offered Treasury, State and Defense.
Maybe you should be working on your own Obamagirl video ...
March 28, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respect your points. The proof will be what happens over the next 18 months. While small, there are already some positive indicators, the markets, and consumer confidence.
Call me Pollyanna but I'm predicting a Merry Christmas.
Thanks for your comment.
March 29, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me *Pollyanna
Even in the face of catastrophic deleveraging, 1.25 Trill. is no joke. It's hard to imagine that much water raising a boat or two, as they say...
*Call me Ishmael
March 30, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What did Krugman learn from working in Ronald Reagan's WH and being an economic adviser to Enron? I respect his economic critique but not his emotional opposition to Tim G or Larry Summers. He desperately wanted Hilary to win despite the fact that Bill Clinton signed the deregulation bill in 1999, so I am not sure if his perennial opposition since 2006 is all rational. My thoughts only
March 28, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Steve. Just what I needed today.
March 29, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And your little dog, too.
March 29, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny. Thanks much.
March 29, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very clever JPB you've got there Steve. Much needed humor, gratefully received.
March 29, 2009 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I was not crashing Steve, I was in the chat room last night. I missed this. But there is more than 12 hours left.
steve katz, a noted blogger in his own mind sees it differently, "Krugman's got the hots for Megyn Kelly, and can't wait to be a regular on Fox News."
For YESTERDAY I award you the Dayly Line of the Day Award for the TPMC site. There are so many other lines...At any rate this award is given to all of you from all of me.
Your other blog is bookmarked because I keep going back to read the titles.
You are one funny feline canine.
March 29, 2009 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dr Day I am humbled and honored. The "Dayly Line of the Day Award" will receive a prominent place on our mantel.
But, what's with this "crashing," and "chatting," TPM needs you...
March 29, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is better educated than most Americans, including most TV broadcasters in V-neck gowns or otherwise, so I doubt many Nobel laureates are bothered by his properly pronouncing Pakistan or Krugman. Between Katz (which, properly pronounced, is not as in the famously forgettable Lloyd Webber musical) and his sidekick named only by his counterpart species, one would think the concept of "loyal opposition" might surface. Apparently, not: perhaps the notion has become another victim of too much Fox News you-are-either-with-Limbaugh-or-Bin-Laden mentality.
It may be a major pity that Mr. Obama, having folded Hillary into his team notwithstanding her insults of last year, did not do likewise with with Hillary's most earnest Nobel-holding advocate, but the likelihood that the professor will be abandoning all standards of education and knowledge to work for the Palinites is much lower the ratio of macroeconomists who accurately predicted the downturn of 2008.
March 29, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman claims that he lacks the temperament to serve in government. So it is highly likely that "Kroogman" er, um, "KrUGGHman" would have turned down the nomination with a similar amount of glee to what he is demonstrating now.
In one statement KrUGGHman, I mean Kroogman, suggests there must be some collusion of Obama's economic team with Wall Street that falls short of "venality" -- that is "corruption," in everyday English -- but suggests these people suffer from "osmosis" instead.
(WIKI DEFINITION: "Osmosis is the diffusion of water through a semi-permeable membrane, from a solution of low solute concentration (high water potential) to a solution with high solute concentration (low water potential), up a solute concentration gradient. The simplest definition is that it is diffusion of water across a semipermeable membrane.[1] It is a physical process in which a solvent moves, without input of energy, across a semi-permeable membrane (permeable to the solvent, but not the solute) separating two solutions of different concentrations.[2] Osmosis releases energy, and can be made to do work[3], as when a growing tree root splits a stone.")
So Kroogman, er ah, KrUGGHman, suggests that the brains (I suppose) of Obama's economic team are so semi-permeable that toxic Wall Street ideas -- or worse, the "venality" they lack -- will seep in. However, osmosis is dependent on the molecules of the solute being of the appropriate size to permeate the membrane. So it is entirely possible that ideas which seep into the Obama brain trust are the good ideas and not the bad ones, or, having crossed the membrane are combined with other molecules which convert what could be toxic into something harmless.
As my personal canine Democratic strategists, Leo the Bichon and Sara the Lhasa-Poo, point out "Canines know things. You want to know something? Ask a canine. If Murry said it, you can take it to the dog park."
March 29, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As my personal canine Democratic strategists, Leo the Bichon and Sara the Lhasa-Poo, point out "Canines know things. You want to know something? Ask a canine."
In dogs we trust. I knew there was lots o' love behind your beautiful smile, Jade.
Murry says to give Sara, and Leo, "wags and kisses."
March 29, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
In dogs we trust
March 29, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Religion, is the smile on a dog"
5 onks to miguelitoh2o - love the kicks...
March 29, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leo and Sara send their props and "terrorist paw bumps" to Murry.
March 29, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need people smart on economics and business on our side. sometimes you get smart by working in the business.
I don't find krugman shrill. in fact, people who call him shrill sound like the same types who use "liberal" and "populist" as a dirty word.
Right now, mr. krugman is most strongly advocating for the elimination of a shadow banking system that is a creature of the Gordon Gecko 80's. I can't see how any liberal would think that's a bad thing. Obama's wall street connections aside.
I mean, how else does a relatively-unknown local politician vault into the national consciousness so very quickly? It's not because he turned off all of Wall Street.
March 29, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see Krugman using his considerable intellect and knowledge not to improve a bad situation but to garner attention, (by his own admission)for himself.
Governing is a collaborative process. It is not well served when someone who should be offering creative solutions and thoughts uses his prominence for self-promotion.
If Krugman was a conservative he would hardly be noticed. It is because he is a self described "liberal" and "populist" that the media is using him against President Obama.
March 29, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let me get this right steve...even though Krugman may be correct (which is unclear but very possible), he is not part of the ongoing 'collaborative process' (aka part of Team Obama), he should then shut up and go away because some of Obama's opponents are using his views and a compliant media to block the President's agenda? His opinion needs to be dismissed and his character attacked because he is not part of the DC & financial industry 'elite'? He was never a CEO or high level industry insider like Geithner, Summers and the rest of Economic Team Obama?
I do sincerely hope the President's plan works...but what if it doesn't? Is it gonna be Krugman's fault because he undermined the whole process by saying it wouldn't work?
I do respect your opinion that the plan crafted by the industry insiders on Team Obama will work...I just wish proponents of that plan would not try to promote it by suggesting that good faith opponents of that plan are opposed purely for self promotion, are so 'traitorous' they should be treated like ideological opponents, therefore they should be banished and/or destroyed. Seriously you would prefer conservatives like Andrew Sullivan, David Brock, David Brooks, and Kathleen Parker to someone like Paul Krugman who is liberal and has fought for liberal causes his whole career? It is always amusing, in a gallows humor kinda way, watching the D's eat their own whenever they get into power.
March 29, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is to have some fun with Krugman's own words and deeds and maybe to understand why he has IMHO this personal vendetta with Obama and Geithner.
Also he doesn't seem to let go even though the train has left the station. Today on ABC it was the same ol, same ol, "They've done some things very fast, but they've been very small things ... There's no way this could be enough."
Murry just took the wife and I for a walk and we happened on an open house. People were going in and out in droves. The broker believes it will be sold by next week. A sign? I hope so.
March 29, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we just don't see it the same way steve. I don't see it as a vendetta against Obama. Krugman was very excited and happy when Obama won. Yes he might have supported Hillary back in the primaries but that doesn't mean he dislikes Obama. In fact the passion with which he gave his advice on how he felt Obama should handle the economy as far back as November, December and January was always, imho, with the best interests of the country and Obama the President at heart. Now that it is clear that Obama is not going to take his advice he is just as passionate in making the argument that it is bad for the country and President Obama personally. Sometimes a person's best friend(s) is/are the one(s) who will tell that person the truth as opposed to what they think that person wants to hear...
March 29, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny because it's not true.
Krugman is far closer to being right (ahaha) than the Obama team is. On the other hand, the Obama team is more right than the Right. You could try have it both ways; it is, after all, an imaginary economy.
March 29, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
agree.
March 29, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman on his celebrity:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/the-magazine-cover-effect/
March 29, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have followed Mr. Katz's blog for sometime now, and while I have not always agreed with the opinions/comments made, I have found it useful to understanding the thoughts of other.
It is therefore with regret that I write to say I find this to be a most unfortunate piece.
I reminded me of the Bush mantra "...you're either with us or against us..."
If you listened to Mr. Krugman regarding the latest 'toxic asset plan (3/23/09)' he had 2 main points:-
(a) the private:public partnership, ratio of investment was 15:85. If the plan failed, the taxpayers lost out. If the plan sucedded the private investor reaped the lionshare of the reward. Krugman thought if the taxpayer is taking 85% of the risk, the taxpayer should reap 85% of the reward. What is wrong with that proposal?
(b) there are buyers out their for the banks asset. But the banks are not willing to sell those assets at whatever the market is willing to pay. But more importantly, the banks are not willing to reveal what assets it holds.
Both points are factually accurate.
I was at a meeting in which Alice Rivlin, who agreed with the toxic asset plan, confirmed Krugman's points. Indeed she too was concerned with how much the taxpayer was required to foot i.e., 85%, how much risk they were assuming, and how little they would receive in return.
What is so wrong with different opinions? Must we always agree a la Bush, or have are thoughts stifled if not completely suppressed.
I am not a big fan of Mr. Krugman, but the above piece while useful for content was negated through its unwarranted personal attack.
March 29, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you boring everyone with facts and details?
This post has nothing to do with such pesky details. Krugman's fate was sealed when he decided to support Clinton instead of Obama during the primaries.
Difference in opinion is welcome as long as it's different from the opinions of Obama's critics.
March 29, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not agree that I am espousing "the Bush mantra "...you're either with us or against us..."" I've seen sports teams where one player thinks he is so right he is willing to see the whole franchise go down in flames. That's where the title of my post comes from.
More importantly the train has left the station. If Krugman is right he will have plenty of time to gloat right now he seems to be expending a lot of energy to assure Obama fails. Who wins then?
I hope you will continue to read my blog and that we can agree to disagree especially as we both have our eye on the same outcome, the success of our country.
March 29, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman is definitely a publicity hound and has been pissed at obama for years. He was on the clinton bandwagon that ran into a ditch and now he wants to be in the I told you so business.
That all being said, I actually think that krugman's whining may be beneficial. He is pushing from the left and is being pushed back by the obama administration. It makes obama look more "centrist." Same effect with the foreign policy issues. The left scream and yell and it makes obama look more "centrist."
It's kind of an interesting dynamic playing out. I don't think that it is necessarily by design, but the theatrics are actually pretty good.
March 29, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is; the people who brought the unknown Obama Candidacy to the front of the line were not the centrists.
I hope Obama’s agenda works out for the nation.
He'll need to rely on the progressives, for continued support.
The Republicans dislike everything about his policies. So that leaves the moderates and the far left.
The moderates will become complacent or disillusioned, and the only activists motivated to get out and vote will be the extremes of the party.
Then; will we see Obama reach out for the progressives and supporters of the Krugmans and the Stiglitz’s who wanted to help the lowly first, Krugman and people as him wanting the trickle up ideology instead the American people got the same old trickle down policies.
With Geithners policy of "Help the bankers first, and it will trickle down to the people, in the form of usury credit".
Credit becoming the Savior of the nation, credit slavery, a system of creditors/debtor relationship.
With wages barely above poverty, and borrowers burdened by debt, forced to work for lower wages in order to compete against foreign cheap labor.
Heavens no we can't have protectionism. We can only have bankers and investors who'll put the "love of money" above all other considerations.
Then Team Obama will come kissing up in some MIA CULPA, were sorry, we need your votes now. When it is discovered that all of team Obama’s plans were meant to keep the same old group in power and control.
The change the people were looking for was a peaceful revolution, the overturning of the deeply entrenched, well connected moneyed interests with their highly paid lobbyists buying the best government money can buy.
Instead we get another politician, Obama, who when he needed supporters, duped his supporters and appeared as the transformation of the Change we were looking for.
Instead; team Obama turned out to be just another Wolf in sheep’s clothing, surrounding himself with the same Capitalists cronies, trying to save their skins, even if it meant skinning the people of theirs.
Was that the change we were looking for?
Buddy can you spare a dime.
Change? Anyone?
March 29, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? You wouldn't get the votes in congress to do what you want and obama would already be a lame duck, 60 days into his presidency. Obama has done an incredible job with a huge crisis and galvanized the country to support him and his agenda. What's wrong with that? Nothing. You want a policy of do nothing and tax cuts or do you want obama's policies? It really isn't rocket science. He gets attacked from the left and the right, so he must be running things in the middle, right? Isn't that what the bulk of the country wants? I think so.
March 29, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you're calling the middle, is nothing more than capitulation.
Nobody said it would be easy.
Especially when the Democrats have turned out to be no better than the Republicans. Senator Dodd comes to mind.
What your calling middle of the road is like lukewarm water. When it gets hot and your looking to satisfy your thirst. luke warm water is really no better than hot. Both get spit out.
Like I wrote, he'll never get help from Republicans so why try to kiss up to them.
Obama can't sit on the fence, as though he's in the middle.
It's easy to figure out the next election cycle.
Obama will fire up the base. What base?
What changed?
The bankers and fuedal lords will still be in control.
The change Revolution will have been reduced to rhetoric because the leaders of the revolution capitulated, in order to satisfy two masters. yet serving neither.
Stiglitz and Krugman had the answers to help the least fortunate, except team Obama gave lip service to the poor in favor of propping up a Capitalist system run by the crooks themselves.
The CEO of GM is the sacrificial lamb, window dressing to appear as though Obama is serious.
The CEO is a victim of Team Obamas Giethner policy. The bankers are getting the money and they don't buy the cars.
People buy cars and the Geithner plan may or may not work.
4% mortgage rates would have saved the economy, but heck no we couldn't do that. The bankers would have got mad.
March 30, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You made my day, fellow dog! rec'd big time.
March 29, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd.
Krugman may be right. I hope he isn't. I don't have problems with him criticizing the plan, but I tend to take everything he writes about Obama, politics or the personalities involved with a pretty big grain of salt at this point, given his columns last year about the primaries.
My only objection is that there's nothing about cats in the blog. What's up with that???
March 29, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. His comments sometimes sound pretty disingenuous to be frank. It's kind of like he agrees, but he wants more and that's the problem that we allegedly need more, which there isn't the political will to do. Obama is walking a tightrope quite effectively. He would not get the votes if he did what krugman wants and he would lose his political capital. Krugman is just sour grapes at this point, by and large.
March 29, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No slight intended kitkat Im sure.Its just that cats are from Venus,dogs are from Mars and humans are from Earthy.Since the discussion in this case is about humans it only fitting that we rely upon the wisdom of the hounds because they have taken the Lions share of training and domesticating the naked bipeds over the centuries.The cats are just as wise of course but threw up their paws long ago on the unruly creatures finding them only useful for massages and milk.Stay aloof moi kittee always, and may the back of the sofa always be yours.Listen to your whiskers and you will see Im right,however apologies extended to you for any offense.
March 29, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fighting over nothing while Rome burns.
March 29, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink