Paul Krugman: Obama Should 'Go Over The Cliff If Necessary'

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source New York Times


Let’s Not Make a Deal</NYT_HEADLINE>



To say the obvious: Democrats won an amazing victory. Not only did they hold the White House despite a still-troubled economy, in a year when their Senate majority was supposed to be doomed, they actually added seats.

Nor was that all: They scored major gains in the states. Most notably, California — long a poster child for the political dysfunction that comes when nothing can get done without a legislative supermajority — not only voted for much-needed tax increases, but elected, you guessed it, a Democratic supermajority.

But one goal eluded the victors. Even though preliminary estimates suggest that Democrats received somewhat more votes than Republicans in Congressional elections, the G.O.P. retains solid control of the House thanks to extreme gerrymandering by courts and Republican-controlled state governments. And Representative John Boehner, the speaker of the House, wasted no time in declaring that his party remains as intransigent as ever, utterly opposed to any rise in tax rates even as it whines about the size of the deficit.

So President Obama has to make a decision, almost immediately, about how to deal with continuing Republican obstruction. How far should he go in accommodating the G.O.P.’s demands?

My answer is, not far at all. Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still-shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a “grand bargain” on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

In saying this, I don’t mean to minimize the very real economic dangers posed by the so-called fiscal cliff that is looming at the end of this year if the two parties can’t reach a deal. Both the Bush-era tax cuts and the Obama administration’s payroll tax cut are set to expire, even as automatic spending cuts in defense and elsewhere kick in thanks to the deal struck after the 2011 confrontation over the debt ceiling. And the looming combination of tax increases and spending cuts looks easily large enough to push America back into recession.

Nobody wants to see that happen. Yet it may happen all the same, and Mr. Obama has to be willing to let it happen if necessary.

Why? Because Republicans are trying, for the third time since he took office, to use economic blackmail to achieve a goal they lack the votes to achieve through the normal legislative process. In particular, they want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, even though the nation can’t afford to make those tax cuts permanent and the public believes that taxes on the rich should go up — and they’re threatening to block any deal on anything else unless they get their way. So they are, in effect, threatening to tank the economy unless their demands are met.

Mr. Obama essentially surrendered in the face of similar tactics at the end of 2010, extending low taxes on the rich for two more years. He made significant concessions again in 2011, when Republicans threatened to create financial chaos by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. And the current potential crisis is the legacy of those past concessions.

Well, this has to stop — unless we want hostage-taking, the threat of making the nation ungovernable, to become a standard part of our political process.

So what should he do? Just say no, and go over the cliff if necessary.

It’s worth pointing out that the fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff. It’s not like the debt-ceiling confrontation, where terrible things might well have happened right away if the deadline had been missed. This time, nothing very bad will happen to the economy if agreement isn’t reached until a few weeks or even a few months into 2013. So there’s time to bargain.

More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. As the risk of severe economic damage grew, Republicans would face intense pressure to cut a deal after all.

Meanwhile, the president is in a far stronger position than in previous confrontations. I don’t place much stock in talk of “mandates,” but Mr. Obama did win re-election with a populist campaign, so he can plausibly claim that Republicans are defying the will of the American people. And he just won his big election and is, therefore, far better placed than before to weather any political blowback from economic troubles — especially when it would be so obvious that these troubles were being deliberately inflicted by the G.O.P. in a last-ditch attempt to defend the privileges of the 1 percent.

Most of all, standing up to hostage-taking is the right thing to do for the health of America’s political system.

So stand your ground, Mr. President, and don’t give in to threats. No deal is better than a bad deal.
 
I'm gonna try another approach, in regards to Keynesian economics.

GOP, make the deal. Give President Obama everything he wants!

More fear-based politics.......scaring people into thinking we need more taxation and higher debt ceilings. You know, because those are the things that keep us off the cliff. :smh:

Buy Silver.....and if you can afford it, buy Gold.

This weekend is still a good time to prepare for this impending disaster.
 
Obama Wants To Drive Over the Cliff.

America is awash with hope that our newly re-crowned King will come towards the center and avoid the dreaded ‘Sequestration.’

That term is spoken of as if it is toxic. People seem to forget that it was deemed the solution to the debt ceiling negotiations during the summer of 2011. Those opposing its imposition now are the same ones who passed it in the first place.

clip_image002.jpg


But I digress. Here is why our leader has no desire to settle this affair before it gets put into effect.

* It will impose tax hikes on everyone who pays federal income taxes (not just the 2%)
* It will cut entitlements without his having to support the actions
* It will reduce defense spending without him ‘looking soft’ as Commander-in-Chief
* It will end the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ automatically
* It will probably slow economic growth (GDP)

Why would our President want these things to take place?

* He would get the extra tax revenues to use without being blamed
* He could not be held accountable for breaking his ubiquitous pledge to never raise taxes on the bottom 98%
* He would not be the one cutting entitlements, it would be ‘out of his hands’
* He prefers to cut defense spending rather than social programs
* He can later ‘give back’ tax cuts to the Middle Class
* He can then call them the ‘Obama Tax Cuts’
* He can blame those damn ‘Obstructionist Republicans’ for the next recession

For B-Rock the Sequestration is a ‘Dream Act’ to accomplish many of his goals and dreams without any accountability. Every negative can be blamed on the Republicans even as he allows his stated preferences to be overridden by the forced actions imposed on him.

We haven’t seen political agility this devious since Bill Clinton asked everyone what the meaning of ‘is’ is.
 
IGOP, make the deal. Give President Obama everything he wants!


I whole heartedly agree, since the republicans and libertarians caused the problem in the first place!

The economy was doing good when we had the Clinton tax rates.
 
[/B]

I whole heartedly agree, since the republicans and libertarians caused the problem in the first place!

hmmmmm, what's "the problem" Thought1? As long as we have the Federal Reserve printing the money to cover the shortfall of total expenses, whats the problem?

The economy was doing good when we had the Clinton tax rates.

Even during the Clinton years, you must admit we were the beneficiaries of a "bubble" (Dot Com). His policies accelerated the de-industrialization the nation (NAFTA). Glass-Steagall laid the groundwork for the housing debacle. Commodities & Futures Modernization Act paved the way for the "financialization" of the nation. In recollection, I liked the size & scope of Clinton's govt! We had 1.7 Trillion dollars "worth of govt" and we had revenues of 2 trillion...pretty simple math
 
hmmmmm, what's "the problem" Thought1? As long as we have the Federal Reserve printing the money to cover the shortfall of total expenses, whats the problem?



Even during the Clinton years, you must admit we were the beneficiaries of a "bubble" (Dot Com). His policies accelerated the de-industrialization the nation (NAFTA). Glass-Steagall laid the groundwork for the housing debacle. Commodities & Futures Modernization Act paved the way for the "financialization" of the nation. In recollection, I liked the size & scope of Clinton's govt! We had 1.7 Trillion dollars "worth of govt" and we had revenues of 2 trillion...pretty simple math

The dot com bubble didn't break the world economy.
 
The dot com bubble didn't break the world economy.

It was never given the opportunity to unwind as the Fed seamlessly moved into the housing bubble.

Do you see the pattern? Each time an issue arises, the answer has always been to print more money, regardless of the political party in control. In regards to the "fiscal cliff", What's the problem when they can just print the money for your shortfalls?
 
It was never given the opportunity to unwind as the Fed seamlessly moved into the housing bubble.

Do you see the pattern? Each time an issue arises, the answer has always been to print more money, regardless of the political party in control. In regards to the "fiscal cliff", What's the problem when they can just print the money for your shortfalls?
'


Fed seamlessly moved into the housing bubble.

Evidence
 
As odd as this may sound, Going over the "fiscal cliff" is the remedy to our debt problem. It would force the economy to rebalance and the proper resources would be allocated to profitable endeavors leading to a "sustainable" recovery!

Exactly what is needed; sometimes medicine is nasty but in order to get better you must take it
 

A poll by the Pew Research Center found that 53
percent of Americans would blame Republicans for sending
the nation off the cliff and only 27 percent would blame Obama




<IFRAME SRC="http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/04/pessimism-about-fiscal-cliff-deal-republicans-still-get-more-blame/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/04/pessimism-about-fiscal-cliff-deal-republicans-still-get-more-blame/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
source: The Washington Post


The rest of the world thinks the fiscal cliff is ridiculous


Here in the United States, the fiscal cliff is dominating the news. Most of the headlines are all about the day-to-day negotiations, but there’s broad agreement among commentators that Congress and the White House need to figure something out in order to avert doom.

So that got us wondering. How are media outlets and editorial pages in other countries covering the fiscal cliff? Here’s a small sample of the reactions from abroad:

1) China’s official newspaper has started berating the United States. Here’s an editorial from the People’s Daily, the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party. Plenty of hectoring:
A country such as the United States that is accustomed to telling other nations to be responsible, should, on the one big problem concerning the future of the global economy, show itself to be a responsible power. …

Although the chance of the United States really falling over a ‘fiscal cliff’ is not big, frequent political bickering is disturbing the world. … This proves the U.S. political system has problems and lacks the responsibility that a big nation should have.
2) Some German newspapers have started comparing the United States to Greece: The German press spends an awful lot of time dissecting the irresponsible budgeting practices of the Greek government. So now that the United States is grappling with its own deficit issues, the analogies are all too tempting. Here’s Der Spiegel, laying it on thick:
U.S. politicians, no doubt, would not be fond of hearing their country compared to Greece. After all, the heavily indebted euro-zone country was used during the presidential campaign as a caricature for the horrors of European-style socialism. But their current finances are not dissimilar, with one difference being that the US can’t count on outside help as the Greeks have received. …

Greece’s economic problems and the resulting austerity packages it has passed have plunged the country into five straight years of recession. Germany, Europe and the world are hoping that the same fate is not in store for the U.S.
Is this fair? Plenty of economists would take exception to the idea that the U.S. fiscal situation is anything like Greece’s—for one, the United States controls its own currency, which is a major difference. That said, the last part here isn’t all that different from what Paul Krugman has argued: Greece should teach us that overly rapid deficit reduction during a period of economic weakness can be a disastrous idea.

3) Other German newspapers point out that a lot of people now freaking out about the fiscal cliff are hypocrites. Here’s Mark Schieritz at Die Zeit, as fed through Google Translate:

The fiscal cliff is therefore a nice test of the sincerity of the local economic experts: Who Keynes for a charlatan holds and economic programs for devil, let him please declare publicly that the cuts are not a problem in the U.S. and world financial markets are completely make vain worries. Or shut up.
Not the most elegant translation, but the upshot here seems to be this: If you’re worried about the fiscal cliff, that means you’re worried that tax hikes and spending cuts will hurt the economy when it’s still weak. Which is just another way of saying you believe in basic Keynesian economics. In other words, the fiscal cliff is really an austerity crisis.

4) Over in Britain, the Financial Times is blaming Republican intransigence. At least judging by this editorial:
This week Mr. Obama proposed a $1,600bn rise in tax revenues in the next decade and $400bn in cuts to entitlements, chiefly Medicare. He also proposed to make increases in the sovereign debt ceiling automatic. It was a strong opening bid. The Republicans need to think hard about their response. …

Instead of playing chicken, Republicans should try governing. Polls suggest they have much more to lose than Democrats from going over the cliff. They would therefore have much more to gain from averting it.
European commentators don’t seem to be all that sympathetic to the idea that taxes should never go up.

5) Meanwhile, Spanish correspondents are making astute points about the structure of the U.S. political system. Here’s Pablo Pardo, the Washington correspondent for El Mundo (this is my clumsy translation from Spanish, so apologies):
The two parties are becoming more European, that is, more ideologically homogeneous. The problem is that the American political system was designed for broad coalitions, not for this. This November 6, Democrats have moved to the left and Republicans have moved to the right. They haven’t realized that on both sides there is a fiscal cliff.
This is a point that Ezra has made before. As the two parties in Washington become more unified and ideologically distinct, the structure of Congress (and especially the Senate) makes it harder and harder to get anything done. Which is why lawmakers have to resort to increasingly elaborate “cliff” mechanisms to force themselves to take action.

So in conclusion, China’s outraged, and the Europeans mostly just seem relieved that someone else is suffering through a high-profile crisis thanks to institutional dysfunction. Let us know in comments if you’ve seen any other interesting tidbits from coverage abroad.
 
The dot com bubble didn't break the world economy.

Actually, you're incorrect. We were getting ready to go into a recession back in 2001, a nasty one at that. The only event that preempted that was 9/11 and Greenspan immediately opening the credit spigots soon there after..we have been kicking the can down the road and worsening the effects for over 12 years.

Sent from my LG Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2.
 
Actually, you're incorrect. We were getting ready to go into a recession back in 2001, a nasty one at that. The only event that preempted that was 9/11 and Greenspan immediately opening the credit spigots soon there after..we have been kicking the can down the road and worsening the effects for over 12 years.

Sent from my LG Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2.


It didn't break the world's economy.
 
Back
Top