WC > Politics
The President Surrenders
Page 1 / 2 1 - 2 Next »
The President Surrenders
08/02/2011 2:15 am

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE
The President Surrenders
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 31, 2011


A deal to raise the federal debt ceiling is in the works. If it goes through, many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong.

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond.

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren’t accepted, there will be more spending cuts.

Republicans will supposedly have an incentive to make concessions the next time around, because defense spending will be among the areas cut. But the G.O.P. has just demonstrated its willingness to risk financial collapse unless it gets everything its most extreme members want. Why expect it to be more reasonable in the next round?

In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern here.

Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options. In ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced with the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have been totally justifiable.

At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning.

But wouldn’t taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite.

Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels.

It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will.

In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.

Enjoy  
Quote   
08/02/2011 6:33 am

Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
OFFLINE
krugman is a hack. we're not really cutting anything from the government, just expanding less. so yay, instead of the national debt expanding by $9.5 trillion in the coming decade, it will only expand by $7.5 trillion!
................
Whatever's Clever
Quote   
08/02/2011 11:19 am

Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
OFFLINE
and that's assuming that all of these cuts will pan out, given that many of them will be subject to future congresses. and if the progressives/socialists like krugman are having a stroke over this, it just makes you wonder how they would react to real fiscal solvency.
................
Whatever's Clever
Quote   
08/02/2011 12:19 pm

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE
They do advocate financial solvency, just not on tea bag terms.
Quote   
08/02/2011 2:49 pm

Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
They do advocate financial solvency, just not on tea bag terms.



oh, do they? this is news to me. these same progressives/socialists that were encouraging the president raise the debt ceiling himself? the same progressives/socialists saying we need yet more government stimulus? that the first stimulus didn't go far enough? the same progressives/socialists that say america has plenty of money, and that this whole national debt thing doesn't really matter?
................
Whatever's Clever
Quote   
08/02/2011 3:00 pm

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
They do advocate financial solvency, just not on tea bag terms.



oh, do they? this is news to me. these same progressives/socialists that were encouraging the president raise the debt ceiling himself? the same progressives/socialists saying we need yet more government stimulus? that the first stimulus didn't go far enough? the same progressives/socialists that say america has plenty of money, and that this whole national debt thing doesn't really matter?



Thats a gross misrepresentation of the views of %99+ "liberals."  Very few, if any, people believe the national debt does not matter.  Very few, if any, want the US to be consistently running a deficit.  The arguments many have championed are to a) not make huge cuts in national spending while we're still in an economic crisis (government spending may not fix a bad economy, but if done wisely can reduce the severity and impact of the regular lower-to-middle class American) and b) increase revenue through a combination of rising taxes on those who can afford them, closing tax loopholes, and cutting wasteful and unnecessary spending like reckless military contracts (while everyone shudders at the idea of reducing funding to DOD, their contracting system is infamously full of graft, as demonstrated by Cheney in during the Regan and Bush administrations) and oil/farm subsidies.  I and most "liberals" would agree that when the economy is good some funding to safteynets can be reduced and increased revenue from the booming economy should be used to pay off the deficit.  Its just a matter of understanding that it is not always bad to carry a debt burden (in times of need), so long as you pay it back when the revenue is high enough.  Also a reminder, it was a Republican regime that begged for the first stimulus.
Quote   
08/02/2011 5:27 pm

Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
Also a reminder, it was a Republican regime that begged for the first stimulus.



think you may be confusing tarp with the stimulus. but besides that, i'm not talking about liberals in general, i'm talking about progressives/socialists. you know, krugman's ilk. well, to be honest, a fairer title would be communists, because that's basically what they believe in. and these are the same types of people this president has surrounded himself with consistently.
................
Whatever's Clever
Quote   
08/02/2011 5:58 pm

Forum Fanatic


Regist.: 04/10/2011
Topics: 12
Posts: 284
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:


Thats a gross misrepresentation of the views of %99+ "liberals."  Very few, if any, people believe the national debt does not matter.  Very few, if any, want the US to be consistently running a deficit.


Yet you champion Krugman who wants to keep throwing silly amounts of money at the problem even though we see it not working. Sounds like the typical definition of insanity to me. Finance is simple. It is the same for a country as it is for a family. The more you save, the better the situation.

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
The arguments many have championed are to a) not make huge cuts in national spending while we're still in an economic crisis (government spending may not fix a bad economy, but if done wisely can reduce the severity and impact of the regular lower-to-middle class American)


...and when has the current admin even shown one iota of spending the money wisely??? Our creditors have already stated, many times, that to raise our debt limit would be to affect our credit rating. If you know about paying back debt, then you know it is harder to pay back a debt when the interest owed is higher (which is what happens when the credit rating is affected).

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
and b) increase revenue through a combination of rising taxes on those who can afford them, closing tax loopholes, and cutting wasteful and unnecessary spending like reckless military contracts (while everyone shudders at the idea of reducing funding to DOD, their contracting system is infamously full of graft, as demonstrated by Cheney in during the Regan and Bush administrations) and oil/farm subsidies.


Now you are finally onto something. To bad you are willing to see and attack the "other side" for their ills and completely ignore that the party you support, supports a tax code that gives their contributors (read GE and big pharma) the proper loopholes to make tons of profit and pay absolutely no taxes.  

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I and most "liberals" would agree that when the economy is good some funding to safteynets can be reduced and increased revenue from the booming economy should be used to pay off the deficit.


Even though it is those very same "safety nets" that are causing the problem???  

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
Its just a matter of understanding that it is not always bad to carry a debt burden (in times of need), so long as you pay it back when the revenue is high enough.  Also a reminder, it was a Republican regime that begged for the first stimulus.


Actually it was a Dem led Congress who begged for it even after they helped the bottom fall out (read overseeing the fall of Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac).
Quote   
08/02/2011 6:06 pm

Forum Fanatic


Regist.: 04/10/2011
Topics: 12
Posts: 284
OFFLINE
And Bryant,

What up with your party leaders calling the Tea Party "terrorists"??? This is a friggin party that refuses to call real terrorists "terrorists" yet they have no problem saying it about the Tea Party??? This is the same party that begged for a more civil exchange after the Arizona shootings, yet they say this crap???

And you still think it is the Dems that are sane??? Do you still think there is no bias in mainstream media after most outlets picked up on the term??? Sorry guy, but that is insanity in and of itself.
Quote   
08/02/2011 6:49 pm

Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
The President Surrenders
By PAUL KRUGMAN



Paul Krugman.  Lol!  Talk about rubbing one's fur the wrong way.  Has that guy ever said anything good about a conservative in his life?

................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
Quote   
08/02/2011 7:09 pm

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:
And Bryant,

What up with your party leaders calling the Tea Party "terrorists"??? This is a friggin party that refuses to call real terrorists "terrorists" yet they have no problem saying it about the Tea Party??? This is the same party that begged for a more civil exchange after the Arizona shootings, yet they say this crap???

And you still think it is the Dems that are sane??? Do you still think there is no bias in mainstream media after most outlets picked up on the term??? Sorry guy, but that is insanity in and of itself.



My party?  I'm still a registered Republican (I've been meaning to change that, but I'm not sure who I'm particularly happy with).  Calling the tea party folks terrorists is both incorrect and counterproductive.  Saying democrats are America hating communists bent on sacrificing christian babies on the alter of Carl Marx is also incorrect and counterproductive.  I think the root of this (and many other) problem is that our society puts tremendous weight on making decisions based on emotion rather than rational premise (I can speculate why, but I don't think that'd get us very far).  If the average American would quit behaving like an idiot and gobbling up every piece of hyperbolic accusation their favorite talking head hurls at politicians on the other side we may stand the chance of restoring intelligent and civil political discourse.  But alas, so long as intellect remains a dirty word and our youth are thought that logic and skepticism are optional, our leaders will continue to use fear and hate of the other side to manipulate the public.  I, a moderate, love America and want it to prosper.  I have no doubt that Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, Bush (but not Chaney), etc are no less patriotic than I, even if we all have vastly different views of what would best benefit the American people.
Quote   
08/02/2011 7:10 pm

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
The President Surrenders
By PAUL KRUGMAN



Paul Krugman.  Lol!  Talk about rubbing one's fur the wrong way.  Has that guy ever said anything good about a conservative in his life?



To be honest, I have no clue who Krugman is.  I just saw this and thought it'd be entertaining to post it here and watch the fallout.
Quote   
08/02/2011 7:31 pm

Forum Fanatic


Regist.: 04/10/2011
Topics: 12
Posts: 284
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
The President Surrenders
By PAUL KRUGMAN



Paul Krugman.  Lol!  Talk about rubbing one's fur the wrong way.  Has that guy ever said anything good about a conservative in his life?



To be honest, I have no clue who Krugman is.  I just saw this and thought it'd be entertaining to post it here and watch the fallout.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Quote   
08/02/2011 7:33 pm

Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I think the root of this (and many other) problem is that our society puts tremendous weight on making decisions based on emotion rather than rational premise.



sounds like your typical bleeding heart liberal to me.
................
Whatever's Clever
Quote   
08/02/2011 7:36 pm

Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
OFFLINE
krugman is the guy who wrote a piece lamenting that obama and our leadership didn't have the leeway to act in the same way the leadership in china does.
................
Whatever's Clever
Quote   
Page 1 / 2 1 - 2 Next »
Login with Facebook to post
Preview