Skip to main content

View Diary: Two Nobel Prize Economists Recommend Obama (203 comments)

Comment Preferences

      •  It has nothing to do with Krugman (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        abarefootboy, nyceve, DBunn, sephius1, classico

        and everything to do with the view held by many Obama supporters that Krugman doesn't like their guy and prefers Hillary.  Krugman was an Edwards supporter and thinks Obama's health care plan is too flawed to work.  However, reading Krugman's blog and columns fairly regularly, it seems to me he criticizes Obama the Democratic nominee, not Obama the candidate for the nomination.

        If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell

        by nilocjin on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:30:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He's not going to be Secretary of the Treasury (20+ / 0-)

        ...if Hillary doesn't win.  

        FWIW, I think he has been, and will continue to be an asset to the left.  

        I dont agree with the "suck it" sentiment, but Krugman has been extremely one-sided at times.  

        I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
        - Thomas Jefferson

        by NewAmericanLeft on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:30:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  he holds a grudge (19+ / 0-)

        Early on, Krugman -- correctly in my opinion -- criticized Obama for the lack of mandates in this health care plan.  The Obama campaign made the big mistake of criticizing Krugman in return and ever since Krugman has been at war with Obama.

        While I agree with Krugman on the narrow issues of mandates, he exaggerates the difference: neither plan is single-payer, neither is universal.  But now it is very clearly personal with Krugman.

        •  no chance (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phoenix Woman, bigchin

          And neither plan has a snowball's chance in hell of being put into practice.

        •  Which is actually pretty unprofessional (8+ / 0-)

          on Krugman's part. Presidential candidates say all sorts of stuff that people shouldn't take personally. Obama's campaign was wrong to criticize Krugman, but he sure has held onto this grudge an awful long time.

        •  Neither plan goes anywhere (5+ / 0-)

          without the support of Congress.  

          •  Respectfully, (10+ / 0-)

            I disagree with the assertion is was "wrong" for Obama to defend himself against Krugman.  He has every right and reason to rebut criticism.  Why put Krugman on some pedestal that makes it taboo to disgagree with him?  On the other hand, Krugman has every right to criticize Obama's plan and promote one that he thinks is best.  However, Krugman has gone way beyond that.  He writes these hectic, misleading op-ed's that (in my opinion) damage his credibility because it makes it seem that he is incapable of being objective.  It's as if, in his mind, Obama dared to defend himself, and his plan does not have mandates, therefore I must attack him and his supporters on every issue, at every level, regardless of the facts and without thought of balance and integrity. Neither Hillary's nor Obama's plans are the best - but the fact is is that Hillary is incapable of leading a bi-partisan effort to form concensus in Congress - on any issue.  Obama can - he has a gift for it.  This is one reason I support Obama - because I know he has the best chance of actually implementing his proposals.

            •  I don't disagree with you (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              churchylafemme, SciVo, Amber6541

              at all.  Krugman is a highly respected academic with the skills to present cogent arguments on matters of economic policy.  He should stick to that and cut out the personal remarks and emotional responses.  They undermine whatever valid criticisms he might make.

              What I try to point out at every opportunity is the critical role of Congress.  What good does it do to get so vitriolic about differences in the various plans when they are only proposals and will likely not survive the realities of Congressional action without substantial revision?

        •  Mandates are wrong (15+ / 0-)

          Given that we have an inefficient and often corrupt health care industry, mandating that everyone buy its products only makes the problems worse. Yes, everyone then "has insurance," but insurance of dubious value purchased for more than many people can prudently afford.

          By contrast, the option not to buy which Obama's plan allows means that the insurers actually have to compete for customers on price - competing not just with each other (which they hardly do now, raising prices in collusion), but with the option of our spending our money for greater rewards elsewhere - perhaps on alternative healthcare not covered by their policies.

          Clinton wants a lockin to conventional Western medicine at an often-unaffordable price. Obama offers the health-care sellers the opportunity to expand their customer base, but only if they accept incentives to improve the affordability and scope of their offerings.

          In terms of economic prudence, Krugman is very, very wrong.

          •  I've looked into it a bit. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            churchylafemme, alizard

            There are a few countries that use "insurance mandates" instead of single-payer care. However, the difference is largely technical, since the mandate in those countries is for such a heavily-regulated, heavily-subsidized, price-controlled plan that Rush Limbaugh's head would explode from the "socialism".

            I personally believe that a corrupt mindset is too entrenched in our health insurance companies for that to work. With things like implicit company policies of contesting every claim, they seem too devoted to maximizing profits at the expense of their own ethics and their customers' health. I'm convinced that even if the mandated plan had to be technically "non-profit", they would find some way to squeeze every penny possible out of the health care system and into their executives' compensation.

            I want single-payer the most, and Barack Obama's plan would be my second choice.

            My own sig line bores me.

            by SciVo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:18:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  **One of her biggest fundraisers is the wife.. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Overseas

            of the owner of FHC Health Systems, which is a privately held behavioral health care company.  The company recorded revenues of over $1,500 million during the fiscal year ended December 2006.  Does anyone really believe they made all that money spending it on patients?   I'm not buying ANY of her crap about health care.  

            If the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope. BC

            by greylox on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:46:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Mandates really aren't a narrow issue. (7+ / 0-)

          For people like Elizabeth Edwards and Paul Krugman, mandates are a matter of whether or not we have truly achieved "universal health care."

          For people like me, mandates are a matter of whether or not we get sent to debtors' prison for not being able pony up cash to a private health insurance corporation.  Unless we ultimately just get ignored and the whole argument was pretty meaningless to begin with.

          WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Sen. Clinton's or Sen. McCain's).

          by Anarchofascist on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:44:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  DEBTORS' PRISON (0+ / 0-)

            Sorry, I feel that needed to be repeated.  Just remember, it's not really a mandate unless there's a fed pen at the end of the line.

            WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Sen. Clinton's or Sen. McCain's).

            by Anarchofascist on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:47:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  See this is the thing (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alizard, Overseas

              it is so difficult to find the consequences in Hillary's plan if you do not purchase the corporate insurance nor pay the fine?  What happens then, debtors prison was abolished I believe years ago.  But there has to be a penality or otherwise people will not pay the fines, and then it is not universal payments.

              Plus I still have not heard wether or not, after you pay the fines do you recieve the corporate insurance or not?  What I am asking is, will someone have to pay a fine and still not have insurance?  

              "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." --Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002-GWB

              by meatwad420 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:04:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Not Debtor's Prison, Starvation, Eviction, ect. (6+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alizard, Overseas, evora, SciVo, RoCali, schnecke21

              Her "Mandate" won't send people to prison, it will garnish their wages.   So if people are on the bubble.  Where they do not fall within the wage range where the government is covering their Healthcare.  If they try to temporarily sacrifice healthcare to make ends meet, they could find they are still having it taken out of their pay.  Which could result in the failure to meet daily needs.

              And Elizabeth Edwards, and Hillary Clinton, both do not understand.  It is not just a matter of not having healthcare.   It is a matter of people not being able to get sick even if they do have it.  Thousands of dollars in bills with healthcare is just as crushing to alot of people as  hundreds of thousands without.  For alot of people being hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars will have less impact on their daily lives, than a couple thousand, because they could never be expected to pay back it back.

              Obama's plan gives alot more detail and pays more attention to addressing costs.  So if you are not going to true Universal Healthcare (single payer) the Obama plan is actually the more realistic of the two.

              •  Well, I'm safe. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                OH 09 Dem

                Independent contractor, have no wages.

                No debtors' prison for me, or starvation, just -- no coverage.

                Hey, I thought her plan covered everyone!

                WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Sen. Clinton's or Sen. McCain's).

                by Anarchofascist on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  i think he wants/expects an appointment (0+ / 0-)

        in a Clinton 44 administration.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
        Give to Populista's Obamathon 2.0!

        by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:46:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  (don't) get this: (7+ / 0-)

        In his March 24th column Krugman writes:

        But [Clinton], like Mr. Obama, has been disappointingly quiet about the key issue: the need to reform our out-of-control financial system...
        Both Democrats, by contrast, are running more or less populist campaigns. But at least so far, neither Democrat has made a clear commitment to financial reform...

        And on March 27th Obama gave his brilliant economic speech.  A speech that focused heavily on 1) building the case for financial reform and regulation 2) Outlining his plan for said regulation.  

        But Krugman pivots in his March 28th column, casually giving a nod to Obama for adressing his "key issue" and proceeding to slam Obama on other details:

        I was pleased that Mr. Obama came out strongly for broader financial regulation, which might help avert future crises. But his...

        This comment has been crossposted at AT&T: 611 Folsom St, San Francisco, CA - Room 641A.

        by ManahManah on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:08:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Read his one-sided op-ed today (11+ / 0-)

        if you want to see a real Clinton partisan spinning.
        My email to Krugman:
        Your op-ed reflected an astonishing double standard.  It's really hard to believe you have the audacity to accuse Barack Obama of low campaign tactics.  And then you support Clinton, whom your own editorial board has excoriated for gutter politics?
        You call foul over Obama's (legitimate) criticism of health-care mandates and call that dirty politics.  But not a peep about Clinton's smearing of Obama's faith and her dishonestly linking him with sixties radicals ... That's a double standard if I ever saw one.  
        Hillary Clinton has declared war on the progressive, activist wing of the party -- and you support her?  She is alienating the African-American part of the base to the extent that they may leave the Democratic party en mass in disgust if she is the nominee -- and you support her?
        Do you really believe he would lose to John McCain, even as national polls show him beating McCain, and Hillary losing?
        ...You really think that white working class Democrats are so ignorant and racist that they would vote for a Republican just to defeat a black candidate?  I, for one, don't.  
        In the real world -- outside of academia -- a strong progressive movement is an absolute requirement if we are to ever see single payer health care in this country (which, incidentally, is the only rational type of plan.  Any other plan is simply a way station to that goal.)
        But you support a candidate who hates the activist base of the party.  I now assume you do too, or you would not be pushing her divisive candidacy.
        With friends like you, universal health care doesn't need enemies.

        One cannot deny the humanity of another without diminishing one's own. James Baldwin

        by CarolynC967 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:45:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Krugman is trying to get Obama to honor (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grrr, 3goldens

        the New Deal. If you read his
        book , The Conscience of A Liberal, you will
        understand that what he is really trying to
        do is offer a challenge to Obama to stand up for the New Deal like Edwards did.

        Some of Obama's plans need to be fleshed out more and strengthened. Edwards was good on
        coming out strongly for the middle class and
        working people. Not only did he talk about it but he had plans in the works to make it happen. Obama has been slow in putting his together.

        Obama's consesus style seems weak in the face of Edwards' attack dog method.I believe in compromise but there are things you just can't give in on. Corporate America is not going to give up its power, we're going to have to take it from them.It has to be that way.

    •  Take your meds (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gaf, grrr, 3goldens, nilocjin, DBunn, redtex

      Paul Krugman is pointing out weak points in Obama's programme that could come back to haunt him in the General.  As to his being a Clinton attack dog, you should take your meds.  I know Paul well.  He's a fairly close friend.  He is not 'supporting' Clinton.  He has a bad history with the Clinton's going back to the early 90s, when they were, as Jimmy Carter said, 'Always there when they need you.'  He was for Edwards.  His op-ed today is an excellent analysis of Obama's weakness with working-class Democrats.  

      Obama has a major circle to square.  To win the General he needs to take independents and liberal Republicans, and this means going soft on the more redistributionist features of Democratic social and economic policy.  But to win the general, he has to keep working-class Dems from slipping over to McCain the way they slipped to Bush.  I think the big O can pull it off.  But don't get off on Krugman for pointing out that he has a big task ahead of him.

      •  Will those voters go for Clinton (0+ / 0-)

        in the general? I doubt it. And nobody seems to be mentioning her problems with AAs.

      •  Also, since when did PA represent all USA? eom (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Overseas, evora, RoCali
      •  ...for pointing out (9+ / 0-)

        He's done more than "point out."   As a fellow academic, I believe he's been very unprofessional and personal in his criticisms and therefore lost a lot of his credibility with me.

      •  Thank you KW (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grrr

        Appreciate your sane comment. Krugman is an ally, even if not perfect.

      •  When did you stop taking your meds? (8+ / 0-)

        Krugman's logic is so tortured in today's piece that it belongs in Abu Ghraib, not the New York Times.

        Krugman wrote today:

        This wasn’t the way things were supposed to play out.

        Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation.

        The first part of that statement is true. Hillary was supposed to the be the uncontested nominee in a national effort to "pay back" the Republicans for everything they tried to do to her and her husband. Oh yeah, and everything they've done since then, too.

        Obama never claimed to be transformational figure, despite the Krugman-clan distortions to the contrary. Once he beat her in Iowa on a message of change and unity, the media, and HRC supporters, spun a fairy tale-godmother like fantasy  that no human being, even Martin Luther King or Ghandi for that matter, could have lived up to. Then, predictably, when he circumstances appeared to give an opportunity for the media to attack the very narrative they had created, Krugman joins in by writing "he was supposed to be.." (On this point, I've never heard HRC directly admit a mistake or apologize for having done something wrong- Obama has repeatedly claimed himself to be fallible and his campaign imperfect, that's all I need to disprove Krugman's fantasy-narrative.) Krugman is actually criticizing the Traditional Media and their narrative here, not the Obama campaign. He may not even know it himself, but he still deceives his readers by not pointing that out.

        According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault...But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security.

        Where has Paul been for the last 8 years (I include the 2000 election cycle in that number) of Republicans gliding into office and into wars on this very same "Not voting for me is the same thing as attacking our country!" fear-tactic-mongering? Where is the policy discussion Krugman calls for in that 11:00 ad? I think that ad was worse than the Cleland ad, because she has adopted the Republican strategy. She has joined the dark side. It has been a winning one for a long time, but I can never forgive her for going over this way. And Krugman defending it is like a slap in the face to all those Democrats who are sick and tired of that kind of politics in this country.

        I really can't help but think of Anakin Skywalker slaughtering the Jedis-in-training when I watch her latest ads, speeches, and interviews.

        Last one, I just realized there is so much meat here that I might clog an artery in this comment...Then I will need some medication.

        The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?

        This is patently absurd. Not that Republicans will be mean and rough, but that a mean and rough Democratic attack when we need to be together is somehow not, or less damaging, than a Republican attack. When has any of us experienced a Dem-on-Dem attempted slaughter like HRC has put on BHO? 1968? Being stabbed by your brethren is far more debilitating than taking a hit from an enemy. BHO has taken a don't-divide-the-party-by-smearing-HRC stance all year. Show me ONE commentary that talks about his kitchen-sink strategy and I'll consider changing my opinion. The claim that his ad about her health care proposal was "as negative as any ad Mrs. Clinton has run" coming just sentences after he describes her ad featuring Osama Bin Laden is, again, delusional. Really, Paul? Critiquing a policy position is as evil as claiming that a vote for your opponent is the same thing as terrorism? Subtly pointing out that Barak is not a White guy by repeatedly showing evil non-White guys is the same level of "negative" as scoring a point about health care?

        You describe one ad based on policy, and one ad based on fear. Yet you defend the fear-ad as not being a problem while attacking the policy ad as illegitimate. Is up down, and right left in your world, too?

        There are so many more fallacies, inconsistencies, and misdirections in this piece that I can't believe I used to read him and consider his opinion as noteworthy.

        Now I just consider him an apologist for the avidly embraced Cheney-love that HRC has been exhibiting in her effort to take what she thinks is hers.

        Paul Krugman: The Neville Chamberlain of the 2008 Democratic nomination process.

        Education is not preparation for life. Education is life itself. -John Dewey

        by elropsych on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:34:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You should email this (0+ / 0-)

          Send this to Krugman. He needs to be called out as much as possible when he writes these ridiculous pieces.

          You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now!--Maureen Dowd/Dr. Seus

          by PixyStyx on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:37:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think you mean "go off" not "get off" (0+ / 0-)

        Now I need some brain bleach.

        My own sig line bores me.

        by SciVo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:59:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  $100 Krugman attacks Stiglitz and Phelps (8+ / 0-)

      within the next week or two.

      The $100 will, of course, go directly to the Obama campaign.

      "The Revolution Won't Be Microwaved."

      by Glinda on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:39:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm conflicted... Do I rec you for (0+ / 0-)

      "SUCK IT KRUGMAN!" or TR you for "In your Clinton-licking face!" and the nightmare inducing images it conjures...

      We all rise to the the level of our incompetence. Unfortunately, some arseholes go too far. ------, traho plug in is campaign quod vado domus.

      by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:44:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  use the new Mealtime Hide button (1+ / 0-)

        It's the one that causes comments to be hidden only to people who are eating while they're online, so they don't read stuff that makes them puke on their computers.
        .
        .
        .
        .
        ..
        .
        .
        ..
        .
        .
        (just in case anyone takes the above seriously, no, there isn't such a button)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site