Liberal Economist Paul Krugman Calls Obama 'Clueless', Says Were Doomed!

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by rc822, Feb 11, 2010.

  1. rc822


  2. Ricter


    Read more carefully. Krugman implies that we are not socialist enough.
  3. rc822


    It still doesn't take away from the fact that Obama is losing his liberal base. He's already lost Independents, as Virgina, New Jersey, and Mass. should tell you. I can't wait for Nov. 2nd, which will be a Pearl Harbor like job on the Democratic party!!! lol :p
  4. Ricter


    Yes, and he's gaining a super-rich base. Yay for us. Since the republican party is known to not cater to the super-rich, we'll be better off with them, yeah.
  5. When I read that Krugman is support Sarah Moose for Brains Palin, Fox News talking heads, Limpig, and the other right wing bozos...

    ...then I might think Obama is "losing" Krugman.

    What the right doesn't understand is that the left have disagreements all the time. They don't march in lock step the way the right does.

    However, when the chips are down, the left will choose Obama over any of the clowns that are on the right.
  6. The actual article:

    Krugman calls Obama 'clueless,' says 'we're doomed'
    By Eric Zimmermann - 02/10/10 01:54 PM ET
    Liberal opnion-maker Paul Krugman has become increasingly frustrated with President Obama in recent weeks, judging by some of his posts.

    Today, he slams Obama for saying he "doesn't begrudge" executives getting big bonuses.

    "[H]ow is it possible, at this late date, for Obama to be this clueless?" he asks.

    He continues:

    There’s good reason to feel outraged at the growing appearance that we’re running a system of lemon socialism, in which losses are public but gains are private. And at the very least, you would think that Obama would understand the importance of acknowledging public anger over what’s happening.

    But no. If the Bloomberg story is to be believed, Obama thinks his key to electoral success is to trumpet “the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies.”

    We’re doomed.


    I actually agree with Krugman on this one point. The only possible explanation for Obama's stunning aboutface is that his fundraisers explained to him how important the mega bucks hedge fund and Ibank crowd are to democrat fundraising.

    Obama is now in real danger of crossing into Jimmy Carter territory, where no one respects him. When your staunchest supporters are calling you "clueless" and saying we are "doomed" under your leadership, you are in trouble.

    Meanwhile, Hillary sits and quietly waits.
  7. Ricter


    There is another explanation, not so much involving fundraisers (which both parties rely on, of course) and that is simply that Obama has surrounded himself with members of not only the political elite, but more significantly, the economic elite.

    Our problems look like they originate behind a simple left/right dichotomy.

    I still have in mind that Rolling Stone article, Obama's Big Sellout.
  8. I don't think it is really a right/left division. It is a division between those who think the govenrment is there to backstop important segments of the economy, eg finance and auto manufacturing, and those who think that's why we have a bankruptcy system. Krugman's point, and a very valid one, is that the financial bailout was an example of socializing losses and the recipients didn't even have the decency to wait a year before they were back to privitizing the profits via obscene bonuses.

    To say "they earned them" or "they had a contractual right to them" misses the point, because there would not have been any profits or any employer to pay the bonuses if the government had not stepped in.

    It is not a coincidence that the two industries Obama bailed out were banking and autos. The Wall Street crowd were among his biggest financial supporters, as crazy as that sounds but it's true, and the unions were the biggest. The stimulus bills were aimed at his other big consituency, public sector unions.

    Follow the money. It doesn't lie.
  9. Yes, follow the money, and all the data shows the money if flowing towards the wealthy and away from the middle class and poor.

    It began when Bush came into office, and continues because both parties have sold their souls to the corporations.

    If Obama truly were a socialist, if the democratic party who is in power were truly socialistic, we would not be seeing a continuation of the pattern that began with Bush's presidency.

    Bush white, Obama black and white, corporations and wealthy stronger than ever in their grip on the political process...

    Since you always blame government for all the problems, and never blame the corporations, it is clear which side you are really on...

    #10     Feb 11, 2010