Krugman On Mortgage Plans: Obama "Cautious," Clinton "Bold And Progressive"

With all due respect Mr. Krugman this is not 1968. From 68 through today the wacko wing of the Democratic party has operated as if the 60's are perpetual. Well you had your day and ruined the Party. Now you and Hilary and all of the oher greatful dead enders need to move aside for real change. The Democratic Party is in a new era and you don't see it. This is truly amazing. The enlightened generation too enlightened to see whats happening around them. Hey Paul, do you remind yourself of anyone, from back, maybe , I don't know 40 years?? Krugster dude listen. Read this slowly. Obama has addressed the financial crisis with objective smart thinking and a plan. He will govern and not pander. He will govern and not philander.

"Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox."

Yeah, so maybe there's some hope of actually accomplishing something.

Krugman insists that instead the government should step in and "simply get the job done." Talk about easier said than done. That means absolutely nothing in a partisan environment where you half half of Congress rabidly against increased government size or involvement. Of course they were all too willing to do it for Bush Co., but they will stonewall a Dem. President merely for political points and partisan sport. That is what Congress has stooped to these days.

Krugman's assumption that something like that can just "get done" is liberal fantasy, just like Hillary's health care plan (and I say that as a proud liberal). What's needed is a more nuanced approach that will garner more bipartisan cooperation from moderate Repubs. Little by little the changes progressives seek can be achieved.

Don't the Dems get this fact yet?!?!

Because Krugman is doing what most economists do : guessing while hoping for what is in his best interests (no matter how obscured). Do you know how to get 12 opinions/solutions/models to 1 economic problem? Put 10 economists in a locked room (scotch optional). And you economists out there? Keep your panties untwisted, boys, I used the qualifier "most". Just like when I say, "Most lawyers suck."

I used to love him. It seems he, like carville, planned on a new job in the Hillary White House and the thought of all those years of work going down the drain is staggering to them. They did not see him coming.

Krugman is correct; Clintons plan is more detailed, specific and progressive. Obama as usual attacks and criticizes others but does not provide real solutions or real plans that are detailed enough to support or with a predefined outcome. Obama is same old same old, say nothing politician.

In fact, during the same program Brazile and Kerry brazenly shilled unabashedly with double talk. First Kerry said that we need to clean up the smears jobs between the campaigns and then went on to smear Clinton in the same breath. Further, he robotically spouted Obama talking points without answering any questions. After, Brazile lets loose with a real hum dinger of a spin trying to say that if the super&delegates select the nominee, it would be a redo of the Florida mess in 2000! Amazing! First, we all know the DNC and Brazile in particular, worked had to disenfranchise Florida in the first place! She even went public and bragged about it! In addition we all know because of the DNC the Super&delegates cannot confirm a clear winner in advance, anyhow.

Is anyone objectively seeing what is going one here? The DNC wants Clinton to drop out in advance or to have the Supers commit BEFORE the convention so the public is not exposed to the deplorable behavior of the DNC and Obama NOT counting votes they dont like while saying in public that the people should decide, especially during the convention.

As a BO supporter, I thought Krugman's article was fine--I have no problem if he thinks Hill is more progressive on the issues than BO. The only sentence in the op-ed that I thought made him look rabid and zealous in his push for HIll was the sentence where he denounced those on right & left who thinks she "tortures puppies and eats babies". Huh? Do you realize Paul, that that ONE sentence pretty much cancelled out every other intelligent word in the piece? Talk about waaayy over the top!!

Paul Krugman is a Clinton operative and consultant to the Clinton economic team. He should disclose that.

Krugman is saying what his handlers are telling him to say; what's new about that?
Take what he says with a 50 pound bag of Norton's Salt.
He's a hack.

Krugman came out for Hillary early on when she seemed the "inevitable" candidate. He was seeking an economic leadership role in her administration and holds to that failing dream. There is no place for Krugman to go at this point. Obama has the Nobel prize winner in economics on his team. Most people in the field of economics have far more confidence in Steiglitz than they do in Krugman, the NY Times columnist. And, of course, in keeping with the Clinton practice, Hillary dissed Krugman when she came out with her economic dream team of Greenspan and Rubin to solve the subprime crisis.

Krugman hates Senator Obama, that is why he is always taking Clinton's view over Obama.

What does Krugman see in someone who's #1 in big pharma and #2 in health care lobbyist contributions? Does he actually think that when the time comes she will tell them no?

Looks like Jared Bernstein also picked up on Krugman's less than honest agenda driven column.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/28/jb_on_pk_vs_bho/

Seems to me that Krugman shouldn't put his integrity in jeopardy to help out his buddy Hillary. He's not that good at it. Too many of his colleagues got on to him right away.

Many people are dismayed by Krugman's article. After hearing Obama's remarkable speech I posted on another blog that Krugman would be tested by this speech because he would either have to decide to comment honestly on the boldness of the speech and how much Obama was in agreement with his analysis or we would have to try and spin it so he could keep up his partisan support for Hillary. Unfortunately, for all of us, Krugman chose the latter path.

You can read what Bob Kuttner has to say about all of this in the following link.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=obama_v_krugman

Krugman has never liked anything that Obama has to say, as far as I can see. Doesn't Obama want to raise the cap on social security? I seem to remember Krugman himself saying that was a good idea.
But, remember, none of these plans count for anything if the Democrats don't win in November and I am talking about the congress too. It is not just policy that we have to analyse. Great policy positions are part of the mix, but only part, when it comes to getting out the voters.
We have to get the working majority that can push through legislation--make the policies into laws. With a Democratic majority, we can get policies enacted that are even better than the ones either Clinton or Obama set forth, as long as the citizens stay involved and the office holders know they are answerable to them.

Obama just follows the leaders on his policies. Not too original. But, he doesn't really have any experience. Judgement? Not too sure of that either now. So, what we have left here is what?

The enlightened leader is heedful and the good general is full of caution. Sun Tzu (Chinese General and author).

Sen. Obama is both!

S. 2280 [109th]: STOP FRAUD Act
Introduced Feb 14 2006
Housing: In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.
This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=main&bill=s109-2280

I am not going to just out of hand dismiss Krugman, though unfortunately it seems that is what he's doing to Obama and in defense of Hillary.

First off he can't resist putting in some language for victim Hillary. Totally unnecessary. Second he doesn't mention her proposal for a five-year freeze on interest rates for all subprime mortgages, which is just nuts. Nor is it in his column and only two lines about it in a blog, that Hillary wants to have Reich and Greenspan, who helped put us into this mess, put in charge of the economy. Why doesn't he mention any part of that in his criticisms of her potential economic plans?

Also Krugman points out how great it is that Hillary wants to use the same Frank/Dodd legislation that Obama mentions using as well, but she gets praised for it, it's ignored when used by him.

Obama madepoints in stressing regulation, the ill effects of dergulation and was able to draw the line better about main street and Wall street being tied together economically.

Neither Obama's or Hillary's plans were perfect or really got into how they would be paid for.

I actually think that Obama's plan went further than Hillary's plan and seemed very Krugman-ian of him. I think that it's only Krugman's seeming blind antipathy to Obama that is getting in the way. Given his recent vitriolic remarks about Obama and his supporters a few weeks ago, I'm not surprised.

Krugman doesn't want government regulation when Wall Street has done nothing but scream that it needs it through their actions. If they so obviously can't figure out their own financial products, who can?

The only reason he likes Clinton's proposals is because they lack the Government regulations stressing ethics, transparency, and sound risk taking. Apparently, allowing the market to form bubbles so large that when they pop they risk spiraling us into depression is considered "progressive."

God, how can you people not see that when it comes to the mortgage and housing crisis, Hillary has the more progressive plan, and she's had it all along???

I guess it's just easier to spew out pre-programmed hate-Hillary sentiments than actually look at the facts.

I thought economists were good with numbers. Cuz they need to kinda forecast the future, based on the past and the present. I think that is what good economists are known for anyway.

I thought economists took tough courses like Statistics, trigonometry and stuff. (I kinda remember seeing them in my classes. I paid an econ student to help me with my statistics class.)

Perhaps Krugman should go back to his old Texas Instruments calculator and actually run a probability forecast of Hillary's odds of winning the nomination.

Mr. Krugman, you could have hailed Mrs. Clinton's plan as "brilliant", "Presidential", or even "Courageous" - instead you settled for it being merely progressive and bold. I am being cynical of course - people like you give journalism a bad name.

Here's a good article from the American Prospect on this topic:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=obama_v_krugman

Hillary can afford to be "bold and progressive." She has nothing to lose.