Krugman is proved right again. (Sad day for us)

[jgraz]

Way back in January, Paul Krugman posted a self-described "wonkish" column on his back-of-the-envelope calculations on the upcoming stimulus. He ends with this somewhat gloomy paragraph:

I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”

As it turns out, Krugman's guess on the unemployment numbers was a bit low (the result of him intentionally choosing optimistic parameters for his inputs), but he certainly knows his Republicans. Check out what Mitch McConnell had to say on Tuesday:

"Down home, we used to say there's no education in the second kick of a mule," the Kentucky Republican said. "Now, why in the world there would be any conclusion reached after looking at the results of the first stimulus that the way to deal with that is to pass yet another one is mind-boggling.

"I think a second stimulus is an even worse idea than the first stimulus, which has been demonstrably proven to have failed.

What Krugman missed (and should have seen coming even in January) was Harry Reid bobbling along behind McConnell, nodding his head at every word.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed -- sort of. He says there is no need for one, at least right now.

"As far as I'm concerned, there's no showing to me that another stimulus is needed," Reid said.

Maybe we should just declare war on ourselves. Congress would give us as much money as we needed -- and it's not like we have any troops left to do the actual fighting...

[BeyondGeography]

1. Krugman PREDICTED that Mitch McConnell would say bad things about Obama and the gubmint?!?!?!?

AWESOME.

[dionysus]

2. yes, woe is us, mitch fucking mcconnell doesn't like the stimulus.

and the OP is tickled pink, you betcha...

[OHdem10]

6. The serious point here is the Mitch McConnells (GOP) have succeeded

in bringing Obama"s ratings DOWN. Obama is losing Independents
because the GOP are campaigning for 2010. There goal first bring
Obama's numbers down. The Democrats numbers are not that great
so when Obama falls the Democrats fall further.

Krugman was correct. Just the other night he explained on Charlie
Rose--we will be losing jobs for another 18 months to two years.
Last night Altman(former Clinton White House Advisor) says we
will still be losing jobs in 2011. He was explaining Obama is
going to be under great pressure.


First Round the GOP is winning because Obama and Democrats are
not fighting the GOP campaign.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. A President's rating dropped after the first six months in office

During a recession?

Oh my fucking God! It's unheard of!! DOOOOOOMED!!!

[nolabels]

14. And two undeclared wars that are winding down and a MSM owned......

by people from the other side of the aisle and etc etc etc



Heck i don't know why we don't all just surrender now

[OHdem10]

19. You do not surrender---First know your enemy and their strategy.

Then figure out how you will fight to win.

[jgraz]

3. That begs the question: why didn't Obama see it coming?

Especially since Krugman was able to spell it out almost to the letter in January? If this was such an obvious outcome, how come we couldn't avoid it?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Even if the stimulus worked wonders, McPiehole would say the same thing.

Iow, there is no avoiding it.

[jgraz]

11. Of course, if the stimulus was working, we wouldn't care

But unemployment has shot past what the administration predicted, and the Pubbies smell a campaign issue. They said the stimulus wouldn't work, and now it seems to be not working.

An obvious defense (chess move, even) would have been for Obama to make similar predictions about the compromises he accepted. He could have said, "This is the best bill we can get through Congress, but the compromises increase the risk that we'll need another stimulus later this year." But he didn't say that, and he left the door wide open for a big, fat "I TOLD YOU SO" from the Pugs.

[Teaser]

47. who says it ain't working?

I say it is.

[jgraz]

48. And your evidence would be...?

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Because nobody pays any attention to anything the left says. nt

[Forkboy]

7. But they listen to the Right.

Go figure.

[Moochy]

10. What part of bipartisan don't you get?

the part where all liberal policy is abandoned in favor of republican half-measures and compromises? Yeah I don't get that either.

[Occam Bandage]

21. Why do you think he didn't? nt

[jgraz]

30. Because it was easily defended against, and Obama did nothing

I've mentioned it before on this thread: if Obama had talked about how the stimulus was a compromise with the right wing, and said that those compromises may mean that we'll need a further stimulus down the road, he'd be in a great position to go back to Congress to remedy their "misreading" of the economy.

As it stands, the Pubbies have him by the shorthairs. He's going to have a tough time getting any new stimulus through Congress, no matter how bad the economy gets.

[Occam Bandage]

35. "Easily defended against?" Your plan for defense would only weaken his position.

You're suggesting Obama publicly declare that his first major policy push was defeated by Republicans to the extent that he was signing into law something he didn't even think would work. There's a great way to protect your flank: tell the public you're ineffective, and that the trillion dollars you're going to spend aren't going to work as a result of your incompetence.

[jgraz]

39. You think Obama would have put it in such simplistic terms?

Part of the reason I supported this guy was his ability to communicate complex ideas in an accessible and persuasive manner. Do you have any doubt that, had he wanted to defend against a possibly weak stimulus, he could have found the right words to do so?

[Occam Bandage]

42. You can bet the Republicans would have put it in such simplistic terms.

And you can bet those would be the terms you'd be complaining about on Bizarro-DU today, just as you're ignoring the accessible and persuasive arguments Obama's made for his real-world course of action and complaining about the simplistic terms the Republicans are throwing out there.

[jgraz]

45. And Obama could have done the same to them

Today he could have been saying "I was right, you were wrong. Now gimme my damn stimulus."

[Occam Bandage]

56. Er, yes, but only if he had couched his first bill as a failure before it had passed,

which would be batshit retarded.

[jgraz]

65. nope, he could have just couched it as a qualified success

You know, one of those shades of grey between black and white?

[JVS]

37. Hey, maybe having it look like an embarrassing failure is a chess move.

[Marsala]

9. Even if the stimulus was twice as big (like Krugman wanted), unemployment would still be waaay up

The administration's biggest mistake was not being nearly pessimistic enough on the economy. They should have announced that we were in a death plunge and unemployment would almost certainly hit 10% even with an immense stimulus.

[jgraz]

12. How do you figure that?

Krugman's article contains most of his top-level parameters and calculations. Where did he get the numbers wrong?

[mkultra]

15. krugman doesnt debate the speed of the stimulus

he debates the depth of it. The stimulus is still not expected to create jobs until the end of this year. If im not mistaken, even Krugman agrees with this assessment. The only material difference is the mid summer high prediction is higher than both the white house and Krugman predicted.

bear in mind that Krugman recently stated that he sees the effects of the stimulus and wouldn't be surprised if things started to flatten out this summer.

[stevenleser]

67. Bingo. The reality is, by June of 2010, it will be apparent that the stimulus has worked...

... the economy will be on the way to recovery and the 2010 elections will be another Democratic rout.

[dkf]

13. We don't know if Krugman is right because the problem may not be the amount

but the speed of the execution.

Who is to say that if we had spent 50% of the stimulus, that unemployment would not be better?

Isn't it obvious that spending such a paltry amount would hardly do anything? This is so lame.

[scheming daemons]

16. You mean the same Krugman that is 100% gung-ho behind Obama's health care plans?

oh yeah... those Krugman opinions don't fit your narrative, so you never mention them.

[jgraz]

23. Or maybe this post is about the *economy*, not *healthcare*

Sorry if that interferes with your narrative.

[Jennicut]

17. How much bigger a stimulus did you think we we would get with Nelson and other conservadems

Heck, sometimes the two ladies from Maine are not much different then some Dems in the Senate. This we compromised for Rethug votes is BS....Baucus and Nelson were threatening to balk anyway. The moderate coalition that wanted changes in the stimulus happened to include Specter, Snowe and Collins but Dems were part of it. Why don't we look within the limitations of our own corporate loving party?
We got what we could. The Senate is way more conservative then the House and its not called the millionaire's club for nothing. We may not even get health care with a public option because of the these conservadems.
Not only that but many of the so called independents that Obama is losing did not even vote for him to begin with. Many are right leaning and only care about the deficit. And we all know that if we only worried about that we would be in an even worse mess.
Krugman was right, it needed to be bigger but that comes against the reality that many purists refuse to admit here: being in charge does not mean that your party is always with you. In 1993 the Dems shot down Bill Clinton's stimulus. And succeeded in eventually weakening him on other issues which led to the defeat of the Dems in 1994, which in turn led to a Rethug led Congress and Clinton merely keeping the status quo for the next 4 years. Obama has done that right thing all along and yet gets slammed...of course he should have shoved legislation down the throat of Congress a la Cheney because that was so darn Constitutional. There is no easy answer in dealing with the Senate (except the most obvious: get rid of Reid and even then there would still be problems).

[jgraz]

18. It's more about how they set up the politics

Obama never came out and said what you're saying, e.g. "We think the stimulus needs to be bigger, but we can't get that through Congress". If Obama had done that, HE'D be the one saying "I told you so" right now -- and we'd have a much better shot at getting a supplemental stimulus.

[Jennicut]

22. Right. Lets blame Obama once again. Sorry, but its obvious with health care where the real problem

lies. Please. Over 10 Conservadems don't even want a public option and yet Obama was blamed by some here for not putting single payer out there. Its hilarious. Did we learn nothing from Clinton's first term? Who is more interested in pursuing a liberal agenda? The Senate sure isn't. "Framing politics". LOL. No need to frame, just look at the players and its obvious.

[jgraz]

25. You're right. It's not like he's in some position of leadership with broad access to the media

He's just one guy! If Congress doesn't immediately agree, what can he do about it?

[Jennicut]

32. So you merely want him to be the one that said "Told you so."

Like it would make any difference to Rethugs or independents that are right leaning anyway?
Obama knows the reality of what is going on in the Senate but I doubt he would throw anyone under the bus. He does have to get health care through...though that looks pretty hard looking at the Senators against a public option right now.

Look, we both agree the stimulus should have been bigger. Its too late for framing now, it is what it is. We can either let the Rethugs control the agenda or fight back against them. I agree he needs to get out there and make a stronger case about why we passed the stimulus to begin with. We cannot let the Rethugs control the agena, on that I agree with you he must use the media to his advantage. But we are not getting another one passed. Not right now. We have health care to deal with right now.

[jgraz]

33. No, I want our country to get another stimulus package if it's needed

You're right, it *is* too late for framing now. Obama should have done that back in January.

[Jennicut]

38. Another one? With what money? Not any time in the next year or two

And get health care passed? Is he supposed to be a miracle worker? He is already losing indies per one of your posts. Congress does not want another right now, at all.

[jgraz]

40. With the same money they used for the first one.

You know, the money they used to bail out the banks, and the money they're using to continue Bush's illegal wars. That money. The stuff we never had in the first place.

[Jennicut]

46. I appreciate your uncompromising

and you are right but realistically its not going to happen. He would be pounded about deficit spending from Rethugs every day (and from his own party), even more then he is now and it would most likely not pass Congress with the 2010 elections around the corner.
The money Bush spent is down the drain but Obama is already being attacked about the deficit that he caused. Plus, the current stimulus runs into 2010. We might look at one after 2010 but I don't see that right now.

[Occam Bandage]

20. "Republicans will say Obama's plans aren't working." Who could have seen that coming?

Clearly, Krugman is a genius to have foreseen something as unpredictable as that.

[jgraz]

26. Apparently not Obama.

Spin it however you want, Obama is behind the curve on this one.

[Occam Bandage]

27. The only people who ever suggested Obama thought Republicans wouldn't attack him

were people attempting to paint Obama as naive during the primary season, or as weak during his first few months of the Presidency. I don't believe there's ever been any justification for either claim.

[jgraz]

29. Yet, somehow, he's handed them this golden opportunity to say "I told you so"

Maybe there's a chess move on the way that I'm not seeing...

[Occam Bandage]

31. For Republicans, there's nothing that isn't a golden opportunity to say "I told you so."

Yes, Obama didn't fix the entire economy in six months. That would be largely impossible to do, even if things like "filibusters" and "Conservative Senators" didn't exist (as was the case in Krugman's politically deficient mind back then) and a stimulus package twice as large had been passed. It was a given that the Republicans would attack Obama on the economy before Obama was even elected President, just as it is a given that Republicans will attack Obama's health care plan as being too costly, inefficient, useless, and bureaucratic no matter how well it works.

Republican attacks are an ongoing and unending phenomenon, which is why Obama chose to spend much of the first few months positioning himself as reasonable and moderate, and positioning Republicans as a shrill pack of Limbaugh-following kneejerkers.

[Jennicut]

34. Exactly. Half the time they lie anyway....Like John Boner lied about not getting funds in Ohio

So we lost the ability to frame? So what? Obama was wrong....what do we do now is way more important.

[jgraz]

36. Oh really? How many of them are saying "I told you so" about the pirates?

When Obama handles something well, the cowardly Pukes just pretend it never happened. If unemployment had come in under the Administration's predictions, there's no way McChinless would have said what he did.

[Occam Bandage]

41. If unemployment had come in under our predictions, they'd say he sandbagged the predictions,

and they'd attack him for the stimulus not working, for deficit spending, and pretty much everything else we're seeing now. The thing is, it's impossible to know how things would be without the stimulus/bailouts; both in a world where both worked fantastically and in a world where both completely failed to work, the Republicans would be saying, "look, things are exactly where they'd be without the stimulus, so why did we spend all that money?" And the public would respond to an extent to both claims.

If the economy was completely terrible, the argument would tend towards, "look, things suck, it's Obama's fault." If the economy was middling, the argument would be, "look, things are exactly where they were before we spent all that money, Obama is incompetent." To suggest that a great economy at this point was possible to achieve is nonsense; Krugman never suggested we'd have a quick and complete recovery even with his politically impossible proposals.

[jgraz]

44. And they'd look like fools.

This isn't 2003. There actually are members of the media -- and not just Maddow and Olbermann -- who are willing to call out the Pubs for acting like idiots.

In this case, the Pubs have just barely enough of a point that their spin can stand up to the MSM's minimal scrutiny.

[Occam Bandage]

57. They already do. It seems your argument is nothing more than "the Republicans are right!"

Pathetic.

[jgraz]

66. I have to believe you're being willfully obtuse.

What *will* happen is that the MSM will say "Republicans are right" and the Dems will cave. Again.

If Obama had set up a strong, supported argument (one that had the benefit of being true), there might have been some chance of the Dems' spines holding for a bit longer.

[mkultra]

59. their view of well handled is meaningless

[Life Long Dem]

24. Krugman was low on unemployment figures as well.

So the title is wrong.

[jgraz]

28. You might want to read the article again

Krugman's calculations came out low, but he was consciously using an optimistic figure for Okun's law coefficient -- i.e. he was cutting the administration a break.

Had he used a higher end figure for Okun, he'd have ended with higher unemployment numbers. The full range of Okun's coefficient predicts unemployment peaking at between 9 and 12 percent (approximately).

[Life Long Dem]

43. No but's

[grantcart]

49. Krugman for President 2012

[jgraz]

50. Krugman for Sec. Treas. 2009

[grantcart]

52. and have him sullied by implementing the policies of the man you detest so much

I should say not.

[jgraz]

54. Oh please, you're too smart to play those petulant little games

You want to argue with my points, fine. But can we try to stay away from the ridiculous accusations of "hate"? It makes you sound a bit unhinged.

[grantcart]

60. Your posts speak for themselves, whether that is your real opinion it is clearly what is perceived

In the jgraz/Krugman world there is an unlimited of votes in the legislature and an unlimited amount of capital.


In the jgraz/Krugman world all Democratic senators come from very Blue states and will vote for every liberal measure regardless of the debt ceiling and every foreign creditor is willing to fund every bond offering.


In the real world we have Democratic Senators from states like Montana where 3 or 4 trillion dollar debt ceilings will mean defeat.

In the real world Germany, China and Japan have already signaled that they are growing concerned about US debt.


So in the end it may mean that within the constraints of real politics and real lending limits we will be forced to choose between using a limited debt resource for a second stimulus or health care reform.

Also in the real world Obama's support continues to grow among people who consider themselves liberal

[jgraz]

63. I do not like many of the choices Obama has made

If you are intellectually or emotionally incapable of distinguishing that from "hate", that's not really my problem.

[applegrove]

58. No we need Krugman's columns to continue. We'd be nowhere without them.

[Occam Bandage]

62. He's already said he'd be no good at the job. I believe him. nt

[zulchzulu]

51. BREAKING! Mitch McConnell in the hospital to get the marbles in his piehole removed!

Kidding... and who the FUCK cares what McConnell thinks.

[BlooInBloo]

53. It's funny when DUers approvingly quote republicans. And then bitch about Democrats...

for not being good Democrats.

[jgraz]

55. Even funnier when DUers are incapable of reading for context.

Or perhaps your definition of "approvingly" is different from mine...

[ProSense]

61. Krugman calls out Bush economist for false statement on Obama's stimulus

Krugman calls out Bush economist for false statement on Obama's stimulus

[vaberella]

64. +1. n/t

[masuki bance]

68. Isn't it correct to say "proven"? nt

[jgraz]

69. Both are correct, "Proved" seems to be winning out in common vernacular.

I like "proven", too, but it's starting to sound a bit old-fashioned to my ears.