This Republican Economy by Paul Krugman

[wordpix]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/opinion/krugman-this-republican-economy.html

What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won’t notice is that that’s precisely the policy we’ve been following the past couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican dreams.


So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game: it depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Obama hasn’t followed (in large part because the G.O.P. wouldn’t let him), and that our woes can be cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed.

For some reason, however, neither the press nor Mr. Obama’s political team has done a very good job of exposing the con.

snip

That same obstructionist House majority effectively blackmailed the president into continuing all the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so that federal taxes as a share of G.D.P. are near historic lows — much lower, in particular, than at any point during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

As I said, for all practical purposes this is already a Republican economy. more...

THIS is what Dems need to keep repeating: Republicon economy and obstructionists who need to be voted out and replaced.

[Phhhtttt]

1. Since Reagan:thirty years of bullshit.

When will the insanity end?

[postulater]

2. +++

and a

for your sig line.

[AndyA]

3. People will never understand that what we have now is exactly what the Republicans want

Income disparity, a Congress controlled by who has the most money, a media that won't report the facts, and diverts attention from news that the public won't like with more important news like Kim Kardashian's latest tragedy (she has a zit somewhere).

The Democrats have done little about Citizens United, transparency in the elections process, public financing of elections, truth in advertising, fairness in the media, etc. All of these are essential to get the country back to where the founders intended: a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

I have to wonder why the Democrats aren't doing more.

They sure don't miss an opportunity to ask for donations from supporters. You'd almost think they don't care or realize that the majority of Americans are stretched to the limit financially right now. They could take steps to correct this, but so far they haven't done much.

How many more elections will be compromised due to voting machines that can't be checked for accuracy? (Voting machines that are largely under Republican control.) How many more elections will big money buy before it's enough?

We have over a decade of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, supposedly the "job creators" of the country. Yet no jobs can be credited to the tax cuts. The Republicans haven't allowed any jobs bills to pass to create jobs. The facts prove this, yet many think our economy is Obama's, in part because the facts aren't being publicized.

It's pretty clear the Republicans now have exactly what they've always wanted, but time after time I see Boehner talking about the lack of new jobs, blaming it all on Obama, with no follow up discussing the jobs bills killed by Republicans in Congress.

[Frustratedlady]

4. I have to agree. Good post.

Why aren't the Democratic congress members being more vocal in their support of Obama? Are they waiting for the convention?

What are any of them doing? Repugs and Democrats. It's as though they have the entire summer off. We certainly aren't getting what we're paying for, but come to think of it, that may be a good thing.

[wordpix]

5. agreed & repugs and Dems do have summer "off"---to fund raise---that means many Dems must be silent

about controversial issues and constantly etch-a-sketch, or risk offending someone. If they do, they won't fill their coffers.

[lark]

9. That's the exact problem with the Democratic party

Gee, what an indictment tht Obama's economy is really a Repug economy. Doesn't that remove a ton of incentive to be thrilled about Obama? Now, he's really a moderate Repug, but everyone on the real Repugs side are just batshit crazy. I'll go for less crazy, but still not happy. How can the base be fired up when Obama gives us practically nothing to cheer for. I am so disappointed in him in WI. He gave it away by not competing and has been seriously weakened as a result. We need a fighter, but we have an appeaser.

[ewagner]

8. I agree

Tried to explain this to a couple of Repub friends...who immediately attacked Krugman as a "radical liberal"...didn't address economics at all...

My friend Sybylla put up a quote the other day (to paraphrase)..

Arguing with Republicans is like playing chess with pigeons.

They knock over all the chess pieces
Crap on the board
Then strut around triumphantly

Yeah...that's pretty much it.

[coalition_unwilling]

18. Bwa-ha-ha, a 'radical liberal'. Why am I hearing echoes

of Spiro Agnew and 'radiclibs' again???

[FreeBC]

6. Krugmans strategy recomendations assume elected Democrats aren't happy being obstructed

Let's face it: they are talking about filibuster reform AFTER the election, when they probably won't have the votes to do it.

Many elected democrats seem more comfortable with their hands tied.

[coalition_unwilling]

19. Just like Repigs are only too happy that Roe v. Wade is the

settled law of the land. Makes for a wonderful fund-raising tool

[rudycantfail]

24. True

and you can see how uncomfortable elected Dems are when they've been given the mandate and power for fundamental change and then have to try to explain to their base why they scuttled the opportunity.

[kitt6]

7. And that infantile Romney

has just released a lying ass ad that white people just might believe.

[nineteen50]

10. The private sector crashed the economy

the public sector bailed them out and now the public sector is being blamed for the crash and dismantled.

[A Simple Game]

15. Just one sentence but it says so much, very well put. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

20. Bravo! Wish I could rec your response. I hope you will consider

elaborating on it in the form of an Original Post of your own.

[Life Long Dem]

11. "THIS is what Dems need to keep repeating:"...

The media holds more blame in not exposing the con. Obama and Democrats can talk until they can't talk anymore. But if the media is biased then where does it get us?

[FourScore]

12. Unfortunately, he's preachin' to the choir.

Republicans don't read Krugman.

Sorry. I'm feeling somewhat hopeless lately.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. Hasn't "done a very good job of exposing the con." I wonder why?

[ThomThom]

14. this should be repeated over and over

we have been playing the republican economy game all my life
look where it has got us

[Flatulo]

16. I would be willing to bet hat 99% of Americans do not know what

thecurrent marginal tax rates are, let alone what they used to be.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. I would be willing to bet that 99% of Americans cannot even

define 'marginal tax rates'

Look at how often 'deficit' and 'debt' are conflated and confused and you'll see why I'm

[Egalitarian Thug]

17. For some reason...

C'mon we know the reason, but it is election season whether we like it or not.
K&R

[jtuck004]

22. Krugman is wrong. The Republican's dream economy won't be realized until there are hungry

children working for pennies in their factories, with flies on the bodies of the older and infirm in the fields.

They will hold a dance on that day.

[hfojvt]

23. there's just one minor little ginormous problem with that

It's that it does not give Obama, or the Democratic Party, a leg to stand on.

The facts that Krugman presents here are not something that Obama can use to hammer Republicans.

Because then Obama would have to admit "No, I didn't".

Back in 2008, he promised us hope, he promised us change, he told us "yes, we can" and even "si se pueda".

And then he won, and Democrats won huge majorities in the House and Senate.

And then change did not happen, and hope was thrown under the bus, and Obama was the one who waved the white flag.

I keep returning to my own personal Rubicon. December 7, 2010. A date that should live in infamy, A date when Obama declared "No, I won't"

"I know there are some who would have preferred a protracted political fight" but I, Obama, am going to surrender instead. Some people want me to fight to CHANGE things and I told them 'yes, we can' but now that they've fought to make me their champion in this fight, I am telling them 'noi I won't'.

An "obstructionist House majority effectively blackmailed the President".

No, on December 7, 2010 the House majority was still Democratic. It was the minority in the Senate, and their plan only worked because they KNEW, absolutely KNEW, they could count on Captain Caveman to go spelunking.

We have Republican economic policies in place today because leading Democrats, starting with the Backstabber in Chief REFUSE to promote and refuse to fight for any progressive alternatives. Dems cannot repeat this message because they are part of the problem.

[TheKentuckian]

25. I substantially agree but think you are giving a pass to

Private Caveman, Corporal Caveman, Sargent Cavewoman, and Lieutenant Caveman who all sat on their hands and waffled and punted based on some real bogus political calculus to get us to that point.
The problem long predates any impactive influence by Obama and is pervasive at the leadership levels and deep down from there at any point where there is significant influence, especially operationally.

[hfojvt]

26. well it is the captain who has the bully pulpit and the captain who negotiated

and then fought for his terms of total surrender. It was he who gave this ridiculous speech

truthfully, there was seemingly only ONE senator who stood against it, even the legendary Russ Feingold was AWOL

But this quote probably sums it up pretty good.

"Democratic Representative Brad Sherman of California said that for Democrats, the basis for negotiating deals will worsen when the new Congress begins in January.

"If we do not send this bill to the president's desk this year, he will certainly sign a worse bill next year," he said. "


If we don't accept Obama's unconditional surrender to Republicans now, he will certainly surrender to something even worse next year.


None of those other Benedict Arnold's promised hope and "change you can believe in" or said "yes we can", at least not to me.

[Igel]

27. More.

Discretionary spending in 2008: 1.1 trillion.
Discretionary spending in 2012, after years of cutting and slashing: 1.3 trillion. 18% higher.

Taxes in 2008: Same marginal rates as in 2012. Differences: Payroll tax reduction (which Obama's said is a good thing). There may still be some tax reductions for the lowest 40% of income earners.

Deficit in 2008: $460 billion. It's what Obama ran against.
Deficit in 2011: $1,300 billion. The first year of austerity.

Federal revenues as a percentage of GDP are down from around 19% to 17% (or a bit less). Yet federal revenues are only down about $250 billion from 2008 figures.

The good news is that total US debt is down by about .07x GDP from 2008 to the present. In other words, even though we've racked up over $4 trillion in federal deficits since Obama's inauguration, between debt write off and write downs, and the retiring of personal, private sector, and some state debt, we've actually paid off rather more than the increase in the federal debt. Krugman thinks this is bad. But if the populace can't absorb any more debt all the liquidity in the world doesn't matter--and there's a ton of liquidity out there. Recessions have historically resulted in the reduction of the debt load to a far greater extent in less time. In fact, they usually end in recovery far earlier than this, but the amount of debt was huge and hasn't decreased nearly as quickly as usual. This wasn't a normal recession, it was a liquidity crunch. They usually take far longer to recover from. On the other hand, liquidity was restored within months in late 2008/early 2009 instead of taking the years needed historically.

[unkachuck]

28. What are you saying, Paul?

....we don't have to wait for a romney economy, we already have one?