Paul Krugman: Obama's budget deals are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers

[Better Believe It]

Getting to Crazy
by Paul Krugman
July 14, 2011

Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting.

President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.

Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.

Read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1

[David Gill]

1. Nate Silver has a lot more on this at FiveThirtyEight.com

Krugman credits him with this idea- Silver goes into much more detail at his site http://www.fivethirtyeight.com">fivethirtyeight.com

[chill_wind]

K & R. n/t

[somone]

2. Draconian cuts in key social programs

should not be OFFERED by ANY Democrat.

Do Republicans ever offer tax increases for the rich?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

11. BINGO! n/t

[July16th-20th]

15. Good point

[bvar22]

3. and THAT is the "starting point",

in his Radio Address,
he expressed his willingness to "compromise".

[indepat]

4. Me thinks this administration has governed far to the right of center on virtually

every issue, including ratification/continuation of most of junior's major actions and other initiatives, and now evisceration of social security, Medicare, and Medicaid which me thinks was on the drawing board from the git-go, all of which raises the question in his mind as to whether BHO is really planning to serve a 2nd term. :shrug: :patriot:

[ProSense]

5. Here's the

most telling part of Krugman's commentary.

[inna]

6. the whole thing is just... unreal. where the FUCK is outrage. it's as if people are sleepwalking.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

12. I agree. Where IS the f*cking outrage? n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

7. Well, speak of the devil.

:hi:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

28. Krugman supports Obama quite often, as well as criticizes.

That's a "devil" to you? :shrug:

[Bobbie Jo]

57. ?

The OP knows, as I was responding to them.

I also notice they haven't provided any of their "own perspective." Just copy/paste, etc....

[Forkboy]

75. Ok. I was just asking who the "devil" was.

If it's something between you and the OP carry on.

[roxiejules]

8. Panic about debt ceiling used to attack social programs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2uxb0oIfnE&feature=player_embedded

[peace4ever]

10. Thats why everyone is freaking out since the news broke...

hopefully the Obama team get the MSG and get back on track with the PEOPLES interests.

[dflprincess]

20. Back on track?

When has Obama and his corporate cabinet ever cared about the peoples' interests?

[peace4ever]

22. yes

during the campaign, they really appeared to care.

[dflprincess]

24. That was Candidate Obama

I thought we were talking about President Obama. I'm sure we'll hear all sorts of warm, fuzzy things from him now that the campaign season is upon us - and after the election he will forget all about us again. And the 2nd term will be even worse because he won't have to worry about needing our votes again.

[peace4ever]

26. true

and my hopes aren't high, but change is the only constant, so hope remains eternal.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Obviously a straight person

During the campaign he held rallies with members of the 'ex gay' industry that make Bachmann's husband sound mellow and kind. One of his surrogates was infamous for TV appearances in which he called for open war against gay people, because he said we are trying to kill children.
In what way does that strike you as caring about people?

[slay]

13. Indeed

he will bend over backwards to please the right - and even that's not enough for them. where is the guy I voted for? i don't think he EVER showed up!!!

2L4O

[JDPriestly]

14. Thank you, Paul Krugman. I just hope that the "pundits"

listen to you and learn.

We tried the Republican Plan in California. It hasn't worked.

Our government cannot raise taxes.

The sales tax revenue upon which we relied to a great extent is no longer enough because people buy things on the internet, not in stores. Sales taxes will be very hard to collect from internet sales sources.

So, governments need flexibility in their taxing and spending models.
Thank you Paul Krugman. A voice of reason.

[Mimosa]

16. Amen!

Krugman: "If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy."

[democracy1st]

17. K & R

[Marr]

18. The DLC/Third Way sorts have wanted to ditch the party's traditional constituencies since the 90's.

And Obama's spent the last two years setting up this particular move.

[WinkyDink]

33. AKA: Baby Boomers who are the products of public schools.

[grahamhgreen]

19. Kick

[bluestate10]

21. If Krugman is so smart, why doesn't he start companies that have

a goal of building products in the mainland USA and putting jobless americans back to work? Oh, sorry, it is easier for Krugman to project and criticize than it is for him to take risks in support of his alleged principles. Nothing to be seen here, move on.

[pauldg0]

23. Great point ....

...I've thought similar thoughts...nothing but talk the talk and talk the thoughts. However, many of us do the same!!!

[scarletwoman]

25. My goodness, what an extraordinarily lame argument! Are you actually serious?!

Krugman is a Professor of Economics at Princeton. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics. I believe he has sufficient credentials and credibility to critique the economy from where he stands.

If I complain about a meal I have been served in a restaurant, I am then obligated to take a cooking job there in order to correct the problem? Even though I'm an English teacher and not a cook?

If you want to hate on Paul Krugman, fine. Just please don't try to justify it with such a specious argument resting on such an utterly absurd premise. It's embarrassing to witness.

sw

[peace4ever]

27. thanks for pointing that out

i really didn't know how to respond, well i am really just tired of responding to mindlessness more often these days.

thanks again :toast:

[scarletwoman]

30. Well, you know how it is. Sometimes a person just reaches a point where one more argument from

fallacy is simply one too many to bear. One feels compelled to cry out: This is an outrage up with which I will not put!"

:toast:
sw

[bluestate10]

36. I guess one day, I will figure out what in the hell your rather useless

string of words was. Until then, I have infinitely more substantive pursuits to attend to.

[Divernan]

39. Nobel prize winner in economics critiques O's economic policies.

Is that simple enough for you?

Pray do enlighten us on what criteria you set for someone to be allowed to critique Obama's economic policies.
We breathlessly await.

(Sorry I used multisyllabic words)

[bluestate10]

58. By your logic, everything the ultra conservative economist Milton Friedman

said is correct. Friedman won the Nobel Prize before anyone ever heard of Krugman. You have released the genie, there is no going back. I am more rational than to assume that a Nobel Prize makes a person an expert on the complex US economy. Adherence to Friedman's prescriptions for the country's economy has nearly fucking destroyed our economy.

My question to you is. Given the nation's experience from following Friedman's prescriptions, what make you think following Krugman's will result in any different result? All you are left with is your belief that leftwing economic policy works better than rightwing economic policy. The fact is at no time during the nation's greatest periods of progress have either been followed lockstep. You will mouth FDR, maybe you should go and spend a few hours in a library studying FDR's exact policies and reading public comment about them during his time, from those on the left and those on the right.

[scarletwoman]

72. I invite you to consider that expanding one's comprehension of the English language and

learning how to distinguish fallacious argument from honest debate are quite substantive and worthy pursuits to which one might attend.

sw

[Forkboy]

29. Oh I dunno, I think it's funny to witness.

:)

[scarletwoman]

32. In that case, I hope that I, in some small way, have added to your entertainment.

:D

[bluestate10]

38. Paul Krugman is just another leftwing professor that has never, one fucking

day, had to meet a payroll. Or employ another person. If he does hire, there is someone at Princeton that handles the details of making those jobs work, including Krugman's own job. Sorry, I find him less than useless, exactly because the Nobel Prize creates an air of learned accomplishment of on the ground economics and business that fool obviously does not have.

You should agree with this next point, since you seem to be of a virulent Obama attacker variety. As seen with President Obama's Nobel Prize for simply getting elected President to follow behind an absolute dumbass, the Nobel Prize is sometimes awarded for little to no accomplishment. There has been numerous times in the history of the prizes, in particular the Peace and Economic prizes where the prize has been awarded because of a point of view, and not for proven accomplishments.

Is Obama perfect? No, far from it. I am a supporter, but even I have occasions to pause. What I do know is that he has proven himself in many areas and is head and shoulders the best plausible choice. People like Krugman and Chomsky on the other hand are beyond useless because they criticize and complain and don't bring a fucking single initiative to fruition.

[Marr]

43. Jesus-- that passes for a left-of-center opinion these days?

Why not just toss in a "pointy-headed intellectuals" and "ivory tower" line and make the journey complete?

[scarletwoman]

47. I say, bring back "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"!

The true classics never go out of style! :D

[Vattel]

44. ok, you win the stupidest post of the week award

[bluestate10]

60. Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize long before Krugman.

By your logic and the logic that many on the left are using, Friedman should be listened to before Krugman, Friedman won his prize first.

The fact is politicians listening to Milton Friedman is one of the main reasons why the US economy and jobs picture is so fucked up now.

[Vattel]

78. Oh for pity's sake.

Nobody is saying that Krugman is infallible. Disagree with him all you want. Just don't stupidly reject his views on the grounds that he isn't a business executive.

[Dawgs]

49. Ah, the last argument of the supporters. He sucks but he's better than the alternative.

No thanks.

[fascisthunter]

54. there it is... the anti-left wing sentiment

it's all ideological for you. You disagree with his ideology and his views yet you will not address them because YOU CAN'T. That's your problem... think about why you can't.

[bluestate10]

65. I also reject the policy prescriptions of Milton Friedman, the ultra right

economist, because those prescriptions are fundamentally unsound. My opposition is not ideological in the least. I am a realist that, while I use economic theory often, don't lockstep drink the cool-aide that it's proponents offers.

[Marr]

74. Milton Friendman's approach has been proven unsound, that's the difference.

Please, don't try to lump Friedman and Krugman together as 'extremists at the opposite end of the spectrum'. Krugman argues for an approach that has repeatedly proven to work.

[fascisthunter]

76. I'm done with the dishonesty from some

there is no debate... lumping the two was a deliberate petty sophistry.

[fascisthunter]

77. you still can't address the content by Krugman

your true colors are not only showing, they hang off your back like a wannabe superman cape torn to shreds.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. If making a payroll is the standard, Obama never started jack

nor established a single job. Mrs Obama sat on Corporate Boards and took 300K a year from a 'non profit' hospital, she did not start a business. The only jobs they created were the servants they hired. There is an insane Republican candidate who keeps pointing out that she has businesses that create jobs. Are you suggesting that she has it over Obama, because she's started more businesses? Odd theory, that one.
Paul Krugman is a Princeton Economist. Winner of the Nobel in the subject, for specific work. When you find it necessary to slander one person to grease another, you should note that fact. I highly doubt the President sees himself as a man who needs others to be degraded to make him look good. That seems to be the take many of his self declared 'supporters' here have, that he needs trash talk and bully tactics to survive. I do not agree.

[bluestate10]

61. If winning the Nobel Prize is the standard, University of Chicago's Milton Friedman

trumps Krugman. Friedman won his prize first, for economic theory, as Krugman ultimately did. The problem is that politicians following Friedman's prescriptions lockstep without sanity checks is part of what has created such a dismal US jobs picture.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. +1 n/t

[WinkyDink]

34. "If"? IF????????????????????? The man is BRILLIANT.

[bluestate10]

35. If he is brilliant then any business he starts should work out and create jobs.

Instead he is just one more fucking mouth that is going off. I have zero respect for people like that. Nothing better about him that there is about a run of the mill Freeper.

[Divernan]

40. Hey boyo, how many businesses have YOU started& jobs have you created?

Probably ZIP, but that doesn't stop you from posting your opinions.

[bluestate10]

63. Recently? Two. I am small, but I have created two more jobs than you will.

I admit that I was late to the arena of feeling that job creation is a noble pursuit. I was comfortable, and still am, but the problem that I have is the many of my neighbors are suffering with unemployment and are losing hope. many of those people have important skills that the nation needs to keep onshore.

[The Big Vetolski]

62. Most businessmen aren't brilliant. Most are exploitative, selfish,

greedy assholes who only care about themselves and their own families. A LOT of them are downright stupid and ignorant when you get them away from whatever specialty they know. How brilliant do you have to be to use a computer program to invest in the most profitable stock?

IOW, businessmen are just people. They should not be put on a pedestal like you and Obama do. If anyone should be put on pedestals, it's teachers, cops, and paramedics. But most of them are disrespected and treated like dirt by the business community.

[bluestate10]

64. That is true for most. But there are many that see big problems

ahead if people keep losing their jobs. What I want to see from the Left is that more people on that side start businesses. Their value system and viewpoint on workers is better than that on the Right. The problem that I see is that the Left is largely anti-business, so anti-business that they can't realize that to bring about meaningful change, one has to beat bastards on their own playing field. My complaint with Krugman is that he is the typical leftwing professor, a lot of talk and theory, no practical application. I would make the same complaint about the rightwing economist Milton Friedman if it was not that his policy prescriptions HAVE been tried and are one of the reasons why the US jobs picture is such a dismal mess.

[The Big Vetolski]

73. All right. That's a thoughtful and civil reply so I will respond in kind.

The suggestion that people start their own businesses is far easier said than done. It's takes capital to start a business, and, even if one has it, the large corporations do their best to crush small businesses before they can ever even dream of being a threat to them.

I am in favor of FDR's Full Employment Act. Anyone who wants a job with a living wage should have the right to one. If the private sector won't provide, then the government should. This would pump lots of money into the economy and allow a lot more people to start their own businesses if they want to do that. There's lots of work that needs to be done in this country, work that neither the public or private sectors are doing.

All I have to do is to drive on my city streets to see that.

As for Krugman, he might come up with a theory in support of my modest little proposal, whoops-he HAS, and he may never actually run a business. So what? He's one of our best economists. Saying he is worthless sounds like the people who were opposed to space flight and scientific research in the pursuit of abstract knowledge. Abstract knowledge often leads to great inventions that help people's lives. It's a worthwhile investment, if you will. IMHO.

IOW, one doesn't have to be a businessman or a "job creator" to have something worthwhile to contribute to society.

[QC]

41. Clearly, anti-intellectualism isn't just for freepers anymore. n/t

[bluestate10]

68. So, you accept the theories of Milton Friedman? He was as much an intellectual

as Krugman is. Friedman won a Nobel Prize years before Krugman did. I have a problem with both their prescriptions for the economy because those prescriptions ignore on the ground level realities like people's agendas for working or owning a business.

[chill_wind]

45. Not this again. Why are you always trying to find Krugman a new job?

He has one and he apparently likes it.

[bluestate10]

69. I want him to be useful. nt

[Dawgs]

48. Looks like you forgot the sarcasm tag.

It's going to be a hard next few years for you if you didn't.

[bluestate10]

71. I will post the sarcasm tag when you accept Milton Friedman being as much

right on theory as Krugman is claiming to be. Read my other posts on the two, you have free time on your hand.

[treestar]

50. Good post

He should use his influence for good - convince banks to lend to people who can start new businesses. Figure out where the demand is.

[bluestate10]

67. The problem is Krugman can't move to the practical.

He is no better than the ultra conservative economist Milton Friedman, who won a Nobel Prize for economics long before Krugman won his. Friedman's theories WERE tried in a complex national and world economy. The result has been a massive cluster-fuck that has killed US jobs, probably for good. When I see economists like Grumman or Reich go out and start businesses and make the run well, then I will soak up what they prescribe. Until then, I am a skeptic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. How is Obama doing as a business boss? He froze his employees pay for 2 years.

[fascisthunter]

53. How about arguing with the points he made? You are distracting from the article itself

it doesn't matter why he doesn't start companies, he's an economist, that's what he does, and he is damned good at it too. Why don't you listen to him?

[neverforget]

31. I let my Rep and Senators know how I feel about this BS. Please do the

same if you haven't already.

[bluestate10]

37. Yep. Always some else fix the problem. We are rotting from within.

and WE are responsible for that.

[Divernan]

42. We're rotting from lack of health care and education competitive w/ other countries

And THAT is because of the endless wars we are forced to support.

[neverforget]

66. +100

[neverforget]

70. rotting from within because the politicians aren't looking out for us but for

their financial benefactors. Always money for war, the MIC and tax cuts but never for actual help of the American People.

[chill_wind]

46. In fact, parts of it are to the right of Simpson-Bowles.

Simpson-Bowles raised about $2 trillion in new revenues and cut defense spending by about $800 billion. The plan Obama proposed to Boehner raises half as much revenue and, from what I’m told, includes about half as much in defense cuts.

(Ezra Klein)

more-
The budget debate is well to the right of both Clinton and Simpson-Bowles

07/15/2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-budget-debate-is-well-to-the-right-of-both-clinton-and-simpson-bowles/2011/07/11/gIQAElWRGI_blog.html


More here, where Klein compares budget plans, including The People's Budget

http://www.commondreams.org/video/2011/04/26



More on The People's Budget- (applauded by Krugman)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1503372

[fascisthunter]

52. THANK YOU!

no more Kabuki theater for us....