The Back Alley Archives

Obama and Geithner say things like,

If you underestimate the problem; if you do too little, too late; if you don’t move aggressively enough; if you are not open and honest in trying to assess the true cost of this; then you will face a deeper, long lasting crisis.

But what they’re actually doing is underestimating the problem, doing too little too late, and not being open and honest in trying to assess the true cost. The actual plan seems to be to keep the banks semi-alive by implicitly guaranteeing their liabilities and dribbling in money as necessary, all the while proclaiming that they’re adequately capitalized — and hope that things turn up. It’s Japan all over again.

And the result will probably be a deeper, long-lasting crisis.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/feelings-of-despair/

It's a bad sign that Krugman is already calling Obama and Timmay idiots, IMO. If he feels this way then imagine how non-Obama supporters feel about how shitty a job's being done. Eeek.

I like Krugman - I always have. The problem I have with Krugman is that sometimes he doesn't understand political realities. Plus, he has a little bit of a chip on his shoulder as he was a huge Hillary fan. he will come on board though.

Unless he doesn't drink from the same kool aid jar you did.

Really? So you think I drank from a Kool Aid jar? Why would you say that, and do you really want to go down that path?

By the way, polls are showing that the American Public trusts Obama to handle the economy - far more that Congressional Republicans.

Well that's good since the Republicans in congress aren't in charge of the economy--Obama is at this point. Of course the public trusts Obama because they aren't tuned in enough on the economy to realize how bad a job he's doing.

What political realities, pray tell, are precluding Obama and Timmay from being honest with us?

based on what I'd read in your other posts...yes, I do think you've had some of the Kool Aid.

I think a vast majority of Americans have no idea whats going on period. Those are the same American's that voted for Obama and Bush over the last decade. Honestly it's all jacked up and it really doesn't matter if your a Republican( group that screwed up over the last 8 years) or a Democrat( group that is screwing things up now).

todd got sucked in by slider...lol.

I think a vast majority of Americans have no idea whats going on period. Those are the same American's that voted for Obama and Bush over the last decade. Honestly it's all jacked up and it really doesn't matter if your a Republican( group that screwed up over the last 8 years) or a Democrat( group that is screwing things up now).

Absolutely agree.

based on what I'd read in your other posts...yes, I do think you've had some of the Kool Aid.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. I resent the implication though - I happen to agree with his positions, which is why I voted for him.

Let's say I clamored for a third term of Bush. Would you feel empathic towards my accord with the former president or would you brand me all kinds of a fool including the Jonestown cocktail reference?
You probably would, including a statement that would infer "only an asshole/retard/nazi/facist" could think like that. It's the nature of political disagreement, which tends to be acrimonious.

It depends on the situation. If you were an active promoter who through W was the best thing since sliced bread, like many Republicans did when he played dress up in a flight suit, then yes I would. You have not done so, so currently no, I wouldn't.

And neither have I. I like the guy personally, I agree with his policies, and I agree with the direction he will take this country. That is why I voted for him and why I worked to get him elected. And yes, he is inspiring, and I met a lot of people in the campaign who were inspired by him. I can only imagine that it was similar to Kennedy when he ran. And if we can get people inspired by public service and inspired to make a difference in this country, then that's a good thing.

BTW - in the latest Op Ed, Krugman is more on board now - like I knew he would be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1

^^I guess someone must've reigned him in.

Or he might actually agree with Obama. I think he knows that he is talking about a little but, given the Nobel Prize and all.

BTW - in the latest Op Ed, Krugman is more on board now - like I knew he would be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1

You do realize that this Op-ed is addressing an entirely different issue than the original post, yes? I think that's the confusion you're having, anyway. The article focuses mainly on the budget while the original post was in regards to Obama/Timmay's handling of the banks and reading these 2 quotes doesn't lead me to believe he is "more on board" with their plan for the financial sector any more now than he was before:

The administration’s refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing[/size].

But if and when the crisis passes, the budget picture should improve dramatically. (emphasis added by me)

That still sounds like a man with no confidence in the administration's handling of the financial system's issues.

Or he might actually agree with Obama. I think he knows that he is talking about a little but, given the Nobel Prize and all.

except we already know he didn't...so...someone reigned him in.

BTW - in the latest Op Ed, Krugman is more on board now - like I knew he would be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1

You do realize that this Op-ed is addressing an entirely different issue than the original post, yes? I think that's the confusion you're having, anyway. The article focuses mainly on the budget while the original post was in regards to Obama/Timmay's handling of the banks and reading these 2 quotes doesn't lead me to believe he is "more on board" with their plan for the financial sector any more now than he was before:

The administration’s refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing[/size].

But if and when the crisis passes, the budget picture should improve dramatically. (emphasis added by me)

That still sounds like a man with no confidence in the administration's handling of the financial system's issues.

Guess you missed where he said this was a good start. Yes, he doesn't agree with everything, but its not like he is condemning the program.

I have yet to see anything that contradicts his previous condemnation of Obama's handling of the financial system issues. I don't doubt that he's agreeable to budget deficits when it comes to government spending in this climate...that's his well-known MO. This thread was started about the banks, is all I'm saying...the issues are separate and Krugman's commentary makes note of the distinction. Agreeing with the first step but criticizing the next planned step is not the same as actually changing your mind and coming on board with the second step.

Hope that makes sense.

I get it. And you might be right. But its not like he will be out there crucifying the plan like the Republicans will.

So since he's not going to be out there fucking things up like the republicans his criticism isn't all that important? Seems like the implication there.

Krugman's criticism is perfectly justified. The implication in this whole thread is that Krugman is pissed at Obama. That is all I am commenting on.

Oh I don't think Obama is pissing him off or anything; I think he's merely disappointed that Obama's bungled the issue of the banks so far.