The chorus of criticism of President Obama's economic plan has been almost deafening, and it isn't coming from Republicans but Democrats. Sure, the Republicans are engaging in scare tactics about tens of trillions in deficits, but it's the liberal naysayers such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who've been the real critics.
They should lay off. Krugman's lamentations about Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's bank rescue plan simply don't add up. Is the plan perfect? No. But it does provide a road map to recovery, one that can be amended in coming weeks and months. Krugman's complaints, by contrast, reek of theology. The notion that a Wall Street cabal has captured Obama and that taxpayers will be on the hook for the bad bank loans rests on the assumption that the economy won't recover. But if the Geithner plan works -- as I suspect it will -- then these objections will seem picayune and pointless.
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the liberal attack on the Obama administration is that it betrays a kind of pathological political death-wish among Democrats. When Ronald Reagan was trying to extricate America from recession in his first term, Republicans weren't denouncing him. Democrats, by contrast, seem to have no compunction about flaying their president a few months into his first term as courting failure. No doubt they depict it as concern for his success. But it remains astonishing that a variety of pundits and lawmakers continue to underestimate Obama, who is, by a wide margin, the most shrewd and thoughtful president America has had in decades. Will Obama rescue the economy? Yes, he can. But not if the Democrats try to stop him first.
Ellen Brown: Reviving the Local Economy With Publicly-Owned Banks
Despite trillions of dollars in bailout money, bank loans fell to their lowest rate since the onset of the Great Depression. Now that the Fed has done all they can, is it time for the states to step in?
David Paul: Credit Default Swaps, the Collapse of AIG and Addressing the Crisis of Confidence
The problem seems straightforward. After the AIG collapse, how does one institution trust its exposure to another?
Boo hoo.
1) it won't work. They point out that the fundamental cause of this problem was not a credit crisis, but a crisis in valuation. In how and what we valued. We ascribed to debt the characteristics of an asset, and then unleashed a system in which rumor and innuendo assigned enormous value to debt instruments. This is a fundamental failure of the conceptual framework of the system, so rescuing it offers not a solution, but a compounding of the problem.
2) It is not equitable. Using tax payer money to bail out those who took unreasonable risks -- and who retained the financial benefits of incurring those risks -- is neither fair nor wise. The plan is designed to make the ultra-rich whole if it succeeds, but to cost the middle class if it does not.
3) The problems of health care, climate change, energy security, alleviation of poverty, and other pressing needs will be crowded out of the policy agenda and budget priorities imposed by Geithner's plan.
Critiquing this isn't theology, sir, it is an ethical imperative embodied in the core documents of our Republic. Moreover, Krugman et. al. offer viable alternatives, in as much or more detail than Geithner'.
If there is any theology in this debate it lies in Geithner's blind adherence to the uber-Randian free-market dogma that underlies the cause of the problem and the choices he's made.
I feel there is more to the story. The stock market is down so I have already lost a great deal of my savings. Once again who is holding the toxic assets. If we do not bailout AIG, CITI will I be worse off. Would not other companies that were better run pick up the slack and hire many of the people that have lost their jobs.
Once again, I ask who is holding these toxic assets. Is it foreign countries, the wealthy, institutions and others who are all big with the campaign contribution.
If these companies were simply allowed to fail would it affect me. Would the market go to zero?
When someone runs a company into the ground and the people we elected to take of our country not only rescue these companies but keep all of the senior managment and no one is fired I feel there is more to the story.
Paul Harvey is gone. Someone please tell me the rest of the story.
So judging by your picture you look like a pretty young guy. Why should I trust in your assertion that you "suspect" Geithner's plan will fix the economy without any explanation, and without a thought dismiss the careful explanation of a Nobel Prize winning economist? You have to admit that seems ludicrous on its face.
And Mr. Heilbrunn's critique of Krugman is without factual basis, logical rational or any evidence of professional knowledge.
It is scarily reminiscent of George Bush's "gut instinct" approach to governance. Personally, I've had enough of that.
Give me informed debate by capable people who have expertise in their subject -- likable or not; whiny or not. Let's deal in reason and facts.
And it turns out, Mr. Krugman has both on his side.
Just because you don't like Krugman does not mean he is wrong. "Too whiny" and "hard to like" might be serious commentary in the conservative sphere, but here you are just talking bullshit. Nobody cares how you feel about Krugman and it is irrelevant. He being "a gifted economist" as you say (and he is), on top of being a Nobel prize laureate, which are both things he earned on merit, give what he has to say far more weight then a fool who writes a derrisive article about him, or some random person who happens to dislike the man.
To wrap up, yes, his Noble Prize does mean his theories are better than most, And the solutions he proposed have actually worked -- over and over and over again. But that goes without saying because he pointed it out in his article. Did you even read Krugman before commenting?
No he won't. No one man is capable of that. He has the opportunity to LEAD the country out of it, but at every turn he's blowing it. Every time he speaks in public, instead of speaking hope and encouragement to us, the ones who WILL rescue the economy, he talks nothing but gloom, despair and blame. And this does only one thing: make the problem worse.
Barack Obama ran on a platform of "hope" and "change." But unfortunately, we seem to have been seduced into placing our hope in him alone, instead of in ourselves. If this economy does turn around, it will be because we the people begin to believe in our own ability and ingenuity again. And sadly, that's not going to happen as long as the president continues to think he is solely responsible for turning it around and continues to try to make himself look good by pointing fingers of blame.
As of now,the transparenty, the earmarks in the budget make the President look weak but the people are giving him the benefit of the doubt against Queen Nancy and the Great harry.
But many more gaffes along with secret meeting and 1500 page bill with congress having less than 12 hours to pass the bill before a congressional recess will start to take its toll on the man in charge.
PLUS, Congressman Murtha getting the navy's highest honor quietly instead of a big boom makes people wander what is going on? Is Murtha ashamed of the honor or is the Navy ashamed of giving it to him. Sounds a little like Tammany hall meetings
None of these "experts" forewarned of this financial disaster coming, and now they claim to see with blinding 20/20 vision. I for one have zero confidence in their advice or criticisms!
Every American needs to get behind the administration and work to achieve the common objective of cleaning up this inherited mess and getting America back to work, despite the efforts of those unpatriotic citizens who publicly and privately want America to fail.
We do NOT have Socialism in America.
We have SOCIALISM FOR THE REPUBLICAN GREEDY NANNY STATE
FOR THE RICH in America.
THAT'S who has benefited from socialism in America.
For all others, it's "save your own damn arse, people".
Were you born yesterday? Allen Greenspan was talking "irrational exuberance" while Bill Clinton was still president!
At one time had Lou Dobbs in my list of advisors but when Johnnie one note couldn't get off the negative wagon he had to go.
Plenty of time to hang Obama out to dry, not now. Since I don't have to be the first in line to have noted something, I'm thinking Ms. H. and others have that need, I'll allow time to pass while I stick with the guy I have the most faith in. Yup, that word again, faith. The cherry on the cake however is my trust in this man who is fed by an intellectual honesty and wisdom. No God, but nevertheless a gift from on high.
I support Barak because:
- He admits his plans aren't perfect, and that's OK.
- Oil company profits of 4% per gallon are obscene but 20% taxes per gallon by the government isn't.
- The government will do a better job of spending my money than I do.
- When we pull out of Iraq the bad guys will stop trying to kill us because they'll see that we're good people if we'll just leave.
- I don't believe in private gun ownership and I know local police are all anyone needs for protection.
- I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain tomorrow can predict that our polar ice caps will disappear in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
- I'm not concerned about the slaughter of babies as long as we stop killing death row inmates.
- I believe that business shouldn't be allowed to pay executives as much as ballplayers and actors, and shoudn't be allowed to make large profits. Business should give profits and excessive executive pay to government for redistribution.
- Barak should appoint judges who interpret the constitution to suit fringe-kooks who're unable to gain voter approval of their liberal agendas.
- I don't wish to consider obvious truth on any topic
Have you seen the new lie-campaign alleging that 80% of all guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels were purchased in the United States? That should make it easier for Democrats to further trash the 2nd amendment.
And they called Clinton "Slick."
This is no more than a "gut feeling" but this article puts some reality onto it. I just hope we are both right.
The voters, not seeing what the dems can accomplish will reasonably assume a less fractured adminsitration is a better one.
All this goes for much of the media - liberal side - also.