Paul Krugman: Obama Has 'Largely Accepted Conservative View Of The World'

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: New York Times

FDR, Reagan, and Obama

<!-- The Content -->Some readers may recall that back during the Democratic primary Barack Obama shocked many progressives by praising Ronald Reagan as someone who brought America a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” I was among those who found this deeply troubling — because the idea that Reagan brought a transfomation in American dynamism is a right-wing myth, not borne out by the facts. (There was a surge in productivity and innovation — but it happened in the 90s, under Clinton, not under Reagan).

All the usual suspects pooh-poohed these concerns; it was ridiculous, they said, to think of Obama as a captive of right-wing mythology.
But are you so sure about that now?


And here’s this, from Thomas Ferguson: Obama saying
We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.
As Ferguson explains, this is a right-wing smear. What actually happened was that during the interregnum between the 1932 election and the1933 inauguration — which was much longer then, because the inauguration didn’t take place until March — Herbert Hoover tried to rope FDR into maintaining his policies, including rigid adherence to the gold standard and fiscal austerity. FDR declined to be part of this.

But Obama buys the right-wing smear.

More and more, it’s becoming clear that progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion. Once you got past the soaring rhetoric you noticed, if you actually paid attention to what he said, that he largely accepted the conservative storyline, a view of the world, including a mythological history, that bears little resemblance to the facts.

And confronted with a situation utterly at odds with that storyline … he stayed with the myth.

<!-- end .entry-content -->
 
? ? ?



Broad statement. No facts.

Que Ex


during the Democratic primary Barack Obama shocked many progressives by praising Ronald Reagan as someone who brought <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” I was among those who found this deeply troubling — because the idea that Reagan brought a transformation in American dynamism is a right-wing myth, not borne out by the facts...

And here’s this, from Thomas Ferguson: Obama saying <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
We did’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.<o:p></o:p>​

As <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Ferguson</st1:place></st1:City> explains, this is a right-wing smear...


In addition, he mention revisiting NAFTA during the campaign, but recanted later.

Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all


I think he has been taking bad advice from Larry Summers.
 
Could be wrong but it seems like Obama didn't want to undo the Bush years over night. He could have learned from Clinton and Bush that quick change is destabilizing and he didn't want to repeat their mistakes with their predecessors policies. Clintonites in the Obama admin shouldn't have had a problem articulating this they worked for one of the best politicians of the 20th century. For some reason they didn't make Obama's message clear and distinct and he's paying for it.
 
Could be wrong but it seems like Obama didn't want to undo the Bush years over night. He could have learned from Clinton and Bush that quick change is destabilizing and he didn't want to repeat their mistakes with their predecessors policies. Clintonites in the Obama admin shouldn't have had a problem articulating this they worked for one of the best politicians of the 20th century. For some reason they didn't make Obama's message clear and distinct and he's paying for it.


Obama didn't want to undo the Bush years over night. He could have learned from Clinton and Bush that quick change is destabilizing and he didn't want to repeat their mistakes with their predecessors policies.

Now that is a conservative excuse! The only reason the unemployed, underemployed, foreclosed and otherwise economically distressed other than the so called tea baggers haven't made a louder noise thus far is because the safety nets built in to the economy since the New Deal have lessened the pain. Now with the republicans obstructing the recovery, the heat may be on. All of these distractions from the economy will eventually fail to cover up the main issue. I predict April will be the flash point.
 
Now that is a conservative excuse! The only reason the unemployed, underemployed, foreclosed and otherwise economically distressed other than the so called tea baggers haven't made a louder noise thus far is because the safety nets built in to the economy since the New Deal have lessened the pain. Now with the republicans obstructing the recovery, the heat may be on. All of these distractions from the economy will eventually fail to cover up the main issue. I predict April will be the flash point.

All I'm saying is maybe Obama saw what happened when Clinton tried to undo Bush I policies overnight and the recession that followed. The same thing happened when Bush II did that with Clinton's policies. With the country already in a depression Obama couldn't risk further damage thru destabilizing party politics. Maybe thats why he's reached out to reps and got his hand bit off.

We are on dangerous ground with the economy whether April will be the flash point who knows. There's armed riots going on in every corner of the globe so it will spread here eventually if things aren't corrected asap.
 
source: Huffington Post


Why the Obama Tax Deal Confirms the Republican Worldview


Apart from its extraordinary cost and regressive tilt, the tax deal negotiated between the president and the Republicans has another fatal flaw.

It confirms the Republican worldview.

Americans want to know what happened to the economy and how to fix it. At least Republicans have a story -- the same one they've been flogging for thirty years. The bad economy is big government's fault and the solution is to shrink government.

Here's the real story. For three decades, an increasing share of the benefits of economic growth have gone to the top 1 percent. Thirty years ago, the top got 9 percent of total income. Now they take in almost a quarter. Meanwhile, the earnings of the typical worker have barely budged.

The vast middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going. (The rich spend a much lower portion of their incomes.) The crisis was averted before now only because middle-class families found ways to keep spending more than they took in -- by women going into paid work, by working longer hours, and finally by using their homes as collateral to borrow. But when the housing bubble burst, the game was up.

The solution is to reorganize the economy so the benefits of growth are more widely shared. Exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes, and apply payroll taxes to incomes over $250,000. Extend Medicare to all. Extend the Earned Income Tax Credit all the way up through families earning $50,000. Make higher education free to families that now can't afford it. Rehire teachers. Repair and rebuild our infrastructure. Create a new WPA to put the unemployed back to work.

Pay for this by raising marginal income taxes on millionaires (under Eisenhower, the highest marginal rate was 91 percent, and the economy flourished). A millionaire marginal tax of 70 percent would eliminate the nation's future budget deficit. In addition, impose a small tax on all financial transactions (even a tiny one -- one half of one percent -- would bring in $200 billion a year, enough to rehire every teacher who's been laid off as well as provide universal preschool for all toddlers). Promote unions for low-wage workers.

But here's the obstacle. As income and wealth have risen to the top, so has political power. Money is being used to bribe politicians and fill the airwaves with misleading ads that block all of this.

The midterm elections offered dramatic evidence. NBC news reported shortly after Election Day, for example, that Crossroads GPS, one of the biggest Republican secret-money organizations, got "a substantial portion" of its loot from a group of extremely wealthy Wall Street hedge fund and private equity managers. Why would they sink so much money into the midterms? Because they've been so strongly opposed to a proposal by congressional Democrats to treat the earnings of hedge fund and private equity managers as ordinary income rather than capital gains (subject to only a 15 percent rate).

In other words, the problem isn't big government. It's power and privilege at the top.

So another part of the solution is to limit the impact of big money on politics. This requires, for example, publicly-financed campaigns, disclosure of all sources of political spending, and resurrection of the fairness doctrine for broadcasters.

It's the same power and privilege that got the Bush tax cuts in the first place, and claimed the lion's share of its benefits. The same power and privilege that got the estate tax phased out.

Get it? By agreeing to another round of massive tax cuts for the wealthy, the president confirms the Republican story. Cutting taxes on the rich while freezing discretionary spending (which he's also agreed to do) affirms that the underlying problem is big government, and the solution is to shrink government and expect the extra wealth at the top to trickle down to everyone else.

Obama's new tax compromise is not only bad economics; it's also disastrous from the standpoint of educating the public about what has happened and what needs to happen in the future. It reinforces the Republican story and makes mincemeat out of the truthful one Democrats should be telling.

Robert Reich is the author of RobertReich.org.[/I]
 
source: Huffington Post


Why the Obama Tax Deal Confirms the Republican Worldview


Apart from its extraordinary cost and regressive tilt, the tax deal negotiated between the president and the Republicans has another fatal flaw.

It confirms the Republican worldview.

Americans want to know what happened to the economy and how to fix it. At least Republicans have a story -- the same one they've been flogging for thirty years. The bad economy is big government's fault and the solution is to shrink government.

Here's the real story. For three decades, an increasing share of the benefits of economic growth have gone to the top 1 percent. Thirty years ago, the top got 9 percent of total income. Now they take in almost a quarter. Meanwhile, the earnings of the typical worker have barely budged.

The vast middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going. (The rich spend a much lower portion of their incomes.) The crisis was averted before now only because middle-class families found ways to keep spending more than they took in -- by women going into paid work, by working longer hours, and finally by using their homes as collateral to borrow. But when the housing bubble burst, the game was up.

The solution is to reorganize the economy so the benefits of growth are more widely shared. Exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes, and apply payroll taxes to incomes over $250,000. Extend Medicare to all. Extend the Earned Income Tax Credit all the way up through families earning $50,000. Make higher education free to families that now can't afford it. Rehire teachers. Repair and rebuild our infrastructure. Create a new WPA to put the unemployed back to work.

Pay for this by raising marginal income taxes on millionaires (under Eisenhower, the highest marginal rate was 91 percent, and the economy flourished). A millionaire marginal tax of 70 percent would eliminate the nation's future budget deficit. In addition, impose a small tax on all financial transactions (even a tiny one -- one half of one percent -- would bring in $200 billion a year, enough to rehire every teacher who's been laid off as well as provide universal preschool for all toddlers). Promote unions for low-wage workers.

But here's the obstacle. As income and wealth have risen to the top, so has political power. Money is being used to bribe politicians and fill the airwaves with misleading ads that block all of this.

The midterm elections offered dramatic evidence. NBC news reported shortly after Election Day, for example, that Crossroads GPS, one of the biggest Republican secret-money organizations, got "a substantial portion" of its loot from a group of extremely wealthy Wall Street hedge fund and private equity managers. Why would they sink so much money into the midterms? Because they've been so strongly opposed to a proposal by congressional Democrats to treat the earnings of hedge fund and private equity managers as ordinary income rather than capital gains (subject to only a 15 percent rate).

In other words, the problem isn't big government. It's power and privilege at the top.

So another part of the solution is to limit the impact of big money on politics. This requires, for example, publicly-financed campaigns, disclosure of all sources of political spending, and resurrection of the fairness doctrine for broadcasters.

It's the same power and privilege that got the Bush tax cuts in the first place, and claimed the lion's share of its benefits. The same power and privilege that got the estate tax phased out.

Get it? By agreeing to another round of massive tax cuts for the wealthy, the president confirms the Republican story. Cutting taxes on the rich while freezing discretionary spending (which he's also agreed to do) affirms that the underlying problem is big government, and the solution is to shrink government and expect the extra wealth at the top to trickle down to everyone else.

Obama's new tax compromise is not only bad economics; it's also disastrous from the standpoint of educating the public about what has happened and what needs to happen in the future. It reinforces the Republican story and makes mincemeat out of the truthful one Democrats should be telling.

Robert Reich is the author of RobertReich.org.[/I]



Double-Dip Recession Possible Without Tax Deal, Obama's Top Economic Aide Warns

Outgoing White House economic adviser Larry Summers warned Wednesday that failure to pass a new tax cut compromise would significantly raise the risk of a double-dip recession.

"To pass this bill in the next couple of weeks would materially increase the risk that the economy would stall out and we would have a double dip," he told reporters at the White House.

Summers added that he thinks Congress will pass the deal President Obama struck with Republicans, an agreement that has come under withering criticism from liberal Democrats over the two-year extension of tax cuts for the rich as well as the middle class.

Summers said that he doesn't think that Congress would take a step that "materially increases the risk that this economy will stall out."

Positive reviews coming in from economists, Summers said, show the deal is the right thing to do.


The tax cuts don't mean Obama has a conservative worldview but in these times it's better safe than sorry. Dems got dogged in the last elections and they were never fully behind the president so he cannot make drastic partisan moves. He has to move with caution if that means working with reps he has to do it.
 
The only reason why the left/progressive/moral/caring do not like this is because Obama is black ! (it worked to demonize the right, so let's see if it works the other way around !)
 
Dumb responses. Obama has resisted doing what he campaigned on. He has watered down liberal policy with conservatism. He is compromising when he doesn't have to. That's being conservative for no good reason. Unless you are a conservative, why would like that?
 
whats funny is the fact that people think that "Obama" has largely accepted conservative view of the world just because he and his weak Admin questionably folded on a few things.

The US President sits in a powerful position...but really has limited powers. The views of Obama, or the views that he shares with the world in the media are largely the views of his Admin and their croonies. And a nice chunk of the people within his Admin were either a part of previous admins or allies to them.


Certain things repeat themselves.

I wonder if Obama has the same ventriloquist that Bush had.
 
Obama is a sellout.

You know, you could be right -- and I mean that with all sincerety.

But did you just think that up; or did it come after reasoned and thought-out analysis? If its the latter, share the thought process with us. If its the former, save it.

QueEx
 
Obama says he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."


This right here... who is people??? United States citizens I would have hoped, i'm thinking it's not about US lol
 
Power has shifted from govts to corporations. Thats why the first thing reps wanted was tax cuts for the wealthy and they were willing to let unemployment benefits run out in order to get them. The president did what he thought was right for the unemployed. Imagine if Bush and Cheney were still in office they would've let it expire and kept the tax cuts. That should be enough to scare the hell out of any sane person. In 2012 a Bush clone will probably win the White House and he will have a rep congress then the difference between Obama and conservatives will be clear. Unfortunately it will be too little too late.
 
Paul Krugman is still punch-drunk from having his ideas ripped to shreds on his own website. I'm still waiting for him to point to a country where Keynesiasm worked. Japan lost a decade of growth due to it. It never ended the depression like he claims. WW2 did. I mean, I appreciate that FDR suckered people into sending 25% of all stimulu$ to NY (the parks and parkways here on LI are beautiful). FDR's economic policies amounted to bumbling but his propoganda has lived on. Paul Krugman has been spreading propoganda since he worked @ Enron. Enron? Yeah, Enron. Keynesianism's biggest advocate was an imagineer @ Enron which doesn't automatically invalidate Keynesianism but it is interesting that the mainstream media will day in and day out welcome commentary from a guy from Enron. That's like cnn having an anchor who killed a man while dwi or msnbc giving a show to a former politician who lost an intern in a mysterious death followed by a funky autopsy. U just don't do that.

The only time I saw Robert Reich tell the truth was in a video of him speaking @ a college about what would be said if there was an honest discussion about nat'l healthcare. I'm sure its on youtube.
 
Back
Top