Krugman admits it: Pres. Obama was right & he was wrong. (Good move, Paul)

[Pirate Smile]

Not With A Bang But With A Whimper



When you’re wrong, you’re wrong. I thought that by ruling out any way to bypass the debt limit, the White House was setting itself up, at least potentially, for an ignominious cave-in. But it appears that the strategy has worked, and it’s the Republicans giving up. I’m happy to concede that the president and team called this one right.

And it’s a big deal. Yes, the GOP could come back on the debt ceiling, but that seems unlikely. It could try to make a big deal of the sequester, but that’s a lot more like the fiscal cliff than it is like the debt ceiling: not good, but not potentially catastrophic, and therefore poor terrain for the “we’re crazier than you are” strategy. And while Republicans could shut down the government, my guess is that Democrats would actually be gleeful at that prospect: the PR would be overwhelmingly favorable for Obama, and again, not much risk of blowing up the world.

The key point to remember here is that Obama achieves his main goals simply by surviving. Above all, health reform gets implemented, and probably becomes irreversible.

A good day for sanity, all around.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper/?smid=tw-share

[Comrade_McKenzie]

1. Now if all of PRESIDENT Obama's critics would show the same respect. nt

[MADem]

2. Not gonna happen--some people make it their life's work.

And I'm not talking about Republicans in Congress, either....a lot of 'em are closer to our DU home.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. +1000 eom

[BlancheSplanchnik]

19. so true. Not too many people apologize, admit when they're wrong or clear the record.

Pundits and ordinary intertubezers, both.

[Tarheel_Dem]

24. +2000

[Vietnameravet]

37. isnt that the truth!

[uponit7771]

54. +1

[Skittles]

7. you need to add, "when they are wrong"

[Gman]

9. Around here?? LOL! That'll be the day

hell freezes over.

[grantcart]

15. Nope get the bus ready for Krugman.

[JHB]

66. Krugman already has a special seat on the bus: it's a Ferris wheel

It rotates between being on the bus and being under it, depending on the subject and how critical he is of the administration's position (or in the position that seems to be shaping up, when the position is still forming).

[thebard77]

42. I refuse.

Obama acts as judge, jury and executioner with his drone strikes on American citizens. I will not support any president who wipes his ass with the constitution. As far as I'm concerned, the president is a criminal.

[jerseyjack]

43. I, too will admit I was wrong.

I was wrong about his using drones that killed civilians. I was wrong about his targeting U.S. citizens without a trial. I was wrong about his use of F.I.S.A.

You're right, we should stop criticizing him.

[Scootaloo]

51. Krugman's criticisms are actually based on policy

Which is something that can hardly be said for most of his other critics.

[babylonsister]

3. Rec'd, and props to Krugman. nt

[dawg]

4. Paul always admits when he is wrong.

It sometimes just seems like he doesn't because it happens so rarely.

I'm wrong way more often than Paul. But I still do not think we will make it past May without some sort of dreadful benefit cut. I am surprised that the Repubs are signalling a willingness to cave on the debt ceiling, but I still expect them to shut down the government over the continuing resolution and/or the sequestration cuts from the fiscal cliff deal.

[mmonk]

5. The odds were in Paul's favor. Every once in a while, you're wrong in predicting behavior

even based on past behavior.

[ejbr]

25. + 1 n/t

[flamingdem]

6. Krugman is hit and miss, especially on the political side n/t

[Gregorian]

8. Some things are aparent in retrospect only. I think history will show just how great Obama is.

It didn't have to be n-dimensional chess. He is up against people who only know checkers with all white squares.

[AnnieK401]

17. Exactly, sorry I didn't see your post before I posted something

very similar below. Great minds think alike.

[klook]

44. "all white squares"

is a pretty good description of today's Republican party.

[gtar100]

11. The big difference between progressives and conservatives is exemplary here.

Progressive, by definition, is about finding ways to make things work and to make things better. If we find out we are wrong, our imperative is to move on and embrace the better solution or idea.

Conservatives, particularly the modern ones, generally put the cart before the horse. They genuinely want tax breaks, austerity measures, deregulation, and privatization to work but overwhelmingly these practices and policies fail miserably. But rather than learn from their mistakes, they dig in their heels, push for more of the same policies, and cast blame elsewhere. Sadly they have put themselves in a position in which they will have to swallow more than their pride in order to realign their thinking and actions with workable solutions.

[Scurrilous]

12. K & R

[CTyankee]

13. I have never seen Krugman wrong on anything but here it shows that he is not a big blowhard.

He was reckoning that the republicans were so crazy they'd blow up the world rather than back down. But what we've learned here is that they were seeing total disaster in the offing and they blinked. But I was with Paul on thinking they'd be total fanatics and bring everyone down with them...I'm glad both Paul and I were wrong...

[JHB]

65. Krugman has been wrong in the past, but it's usually been in certain areas...

...and his thinking has changed due to increased exposure to evidence challenging his previous assumptions.

Specifically, I'm thinking of his increasing recognition of the ideological factor in conservative and "centrist" economic views (i.e., pushing the same cut-taxes (on the wealthy)-cut spending (on regular people), no matter what the conditions or when they have been tried and failed). Also on how the usual "Very Serious People" framing of "extremists on both sides" doesn't reflect reality but it still happens every day and a good half-dozen time on Sunday.

He's become much more pointed when dealing with these factors, since he found out the hard way just how pervasive and inertial they were in steering policy-making.

[disndat]

14. Interesting, Jerry Brown

who is the same progressive as Obama is also coming into his own. He is taking the lead from Obama and running with it. In a year he has balanced a big gap in the Calif. budget with a surplus, like turning an ocean liner around in a narrow river, plus gay marriage and lots more to come.

[movonne]

18. I think Jerry is great...best think that has

happened to California..

[Cleita]

23. He left California with a surplus his first time around as Governor.

Subsequent Republican elected officials and Governors made sure it got blown and turned into a huge debt. The Republicans took what they did in California and did to the nation under George Bush. Yet, people keep electing them and they keep screwing us.

[juajen]

26. Of course he has, and that's great; but, he has a powerful wind behind his back, while Obama has

to contend with a stifling concrete dam and knives aimed constantly at his back. "Party before Country" is their mantra, always. Shame on them! I can't believe how the ARA is sticking it to this country, and pulling their puppet strings behind the curtain.

[AnnieK401]

16. I've noticed that our POTUS is a pretty good 3D Chess player,

while everyone else is still playing checkers.

[DallasNE]

20. I Likened This To A Poker Hand

Where Obama was holding a kings over aces full house and unless there were 5 aces in that deck the Republicans couldn't win.

[sendero]

45. Problem is..

... the repugs would not need any aces, 4 of any card would win.

[barbtries]

59. the problem is

republicans act as if their jack high is 5 aces. and when they lose, they won't give up the pot.

[Doc Holliday]

60. It has ever been so.

After all, Sarah Palin, a three of diamonds at best, was foisted upon the American voter as if she were an ace of clubs.

[Babel_17]

21. Kudos to Krugman too

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."

By arguing for the trillion dollar coin option, and making the argument credible, Krugman magnified the impact of the administration stating it was off the table.

Yes, it took large stones for the administration to do that and then stand their ground.

So I salute them for that.

Salute!

[humbled_opinion]

22. All Right Now I am Completely Lost...

If this is such a cave by the right then why are the teabags at my job celebrating this move.... Here is their points...

1. Republicans will grant a short term debt ceiling increase and make a simple demand that Democrats in the Senate pass a budget. This apparently makes the GOP look like the more reasonable party, after all it is the Constitutional duty for the Senate to pass a budget and they haven't passed one since 2009 using the 2009 emergency spending levels as the normal.

2. Republicans start a campaign on tv talk radio about how the 2009 budget was a huge increase in spending that was necessary only because of the great recession, which after all Obama has assured us is in recovery, and so a reasonable demand it would seem would to go back to the 2008 spending levels.

3. The Senate budget would need some type of responsible spending cuts in order to pass both houses, the teabaggers suggest that even moderate Democrats would start to be onboard for cuts to SS and Medicare or reforming the programs because of out year unsustainability.

In other words the plan from the right it appears, is to make Democrats defend the spending levels and they gamble that seeing a nearly 4 trillion dollar budget on paper will turn the stomachs of Americans and make a rallying call for massive "entitlement" their word spending cuts.

How does this play to our advantage?
I need bullet points to counter the teabaggers claims.

[DallasNE]

29. Presumption Of Truth In Right Wing Talking Points Is First Mistake

For starters, there was not even a budget position in the Whitehouse until 1943 nor in the House until 1974 so there is no "Constitutional duty" for a budget. Indeed, since one has not been passed since 2009 is further proof of that. It is the appropriations process that sets spending levels anyway. Forget about the budget.

Obama's spending increases have been the smallest in percentage terms since Dwight Eisenhower so they are easy to defend. So much for the "runaway spending" charge. Social Security is in pretty good shape as is. Yes, some fairly small changes are necessary in order for full benefits to be paid beyond 2042 but those are not urgent. Medicare has some more substantial issues because of runaway medical costs plus people are living longer. Something I have not heard discussed is a half percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax. Changing from a fee for service arrangement could reduce things on the cost side along with negotiating prices on prescription drugs for seniors. There is already limited means testing and this could be further modified. Not sure if that gets us all of the way there but CBO scoring of specific proposals would be very enlightening. The GOP seems to fear CBO scoring since they never propose anything specific enough to be scored.

From where I sit, the Democrats still hold all of the high cards. The Tea Baggers are deluding themselves if they think otherwise.

[humbled_opinion]

48. Yes, their premise is off

but it is a fact that the 2009 budget was 20 percent higher than 2008 with both Bush and Obama spending to combat the recession most attributed to Bush but some to Obama however, the point is that every year since the Senate has only passed a CR of that budget with small increases according to them that is where you get the talking point about Obama spending increases being so low simply because there hasn't been a new budget since 2009.

They claim a budget will have to somehow show spending restraint and with trillion dollar deficits they say it is perfect time to put the Democrats on record and accountable for that deficit.

I said to them that the deficit is largely money from the war that Bush put on a credit card and only Obama counted in the budget but they say B.S. because if it was true Obama ended the Iraq war in 2010 so where is the 2 years of war savings when deficits have not been decreased and still land over a trillion per year.

They also point to last years budget that Obama got no votes from any Democrats in House of Senate to support his budget.

I don't know enough to counter a lot of what they say but I am telling you they are celebrating this move because they believe it puts the Democrats in a tough position to either justify spending levels of nearly 4 trillion per year or address the spending..

[DallasNE]

52. Again, You Seem To Be Confusing Budget And Appropriations

Neither TARP nor the stimulus were in the 2009 budget. Those were appropriations after the budget and much of TARP and the auto bailout was paid back later anyway. Forget about the budget and the false claim on the size of the increase and focus on actual spending increases. The increases under Obama are the smallest since President Eisenhower -- so much for the false claim on restraint because restraint is already in place. Also, focus on revenue when looking at the size of the deficit. The deficit exploded with the Bush tax cuts along with the stimulus tax cuts passed by Obama. The recent fiscal cliff deal only partly addressed the revenue issue. That is why Obama is still saying a balanced approach is needed on all future deals. Bush's last year saw a $1.4 trillion deficit and that remains the record. Projections have the deficit coming down if we do nothing -- just not fast enough -- and that is why more changes are needed. The two areas needs the most fixing are Medicare to constrain costs and defense spending that has continued to increase even as we end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and much of it is on weapons the military says aren't wanted or needed -- though they are wanted by the defense contractors -- remember the threat that cutting military spending would cost 1 million jobs, equating military spending with stimulus spending, which it is not.

Incidentally, the budget Bush proposed for 2009 was dead on arrival in the Congress and never brought to a vote. The one that passed had little resemblance to the budget that Bush presented -- another reason to ignore the budget dance that takes place every year. It is all grandstanding because it is not binding. Appropriations are the binding document as they tell the President how much to spend and where.

[humbled_opinion]

64. I used your appropriations argument

and got slammed with appropriations presided over by a Democrat controlled House from 2007 thru 2011. The only year they say they should be held accountable for is 2011 which they claim the House passed a Budget that would have controlled deficits and brought back balance but which was tabled by Democrats in the Senate and again they claim that even focusing on appropriations doesn't forgive the 20 percent budget increase in the 2009 budget which they claim Democrats have used as the baseline since 2009 instead of decreasing it after the recovery started...

They tell me now to keep thinking that the American people are going to buy off on a budget of 3.5 Trillion with revenue of only 2.2 trillion and ask me to explain the Democrats math.

[DallasNE]

67. Think -- And Use Google

There are two branches in Congress. Republican filibusters in the Senate meant that measures passed by the House died with a Senate filibuster. Democrats only had 60 Senate votes between the time Sen. Spector switched parties and Sen. Brown was elected, minus the time Sen. Kennedy was too ill to vote -- in other words about 6-7 months. Republicans can indeed be held accountable for those filibusters. As far as the baseline argument goes, they are simply wrong. The numbers below were gleaned from Table 5.1 in the following link. 2001 is Clinton's last budget, 2009 is Bush's last budget with 2008 and 2009 shown to help reflect the special items. And here we are not talking about a budget but "budget authority", which is appropriations.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

2001 2008 2009 2010 % Increase 2001-2010
1.959T 3.326T 4.077T 3.485T 78% Total Budget Authority

2001 2010
217.1B 452.6B 108% Medicare

334.7B 721.3B Defense Department
20.2B 60.6B State Department
47.5B 124.4B Veterans Affairs
______ ______
402.4B 906.3B 125% (Defense related)


(I hope the formatting doesn't get skewed when I hit "post&quot .

As you can see, if 2009 was the baseline then 2010 and subsequent years would somewhat mirror 2009 when they actually mirror 2008.

Also, where do you suppose you could find the most cuts -- where current spending is 254.6B or 906.3B -- or for that matter, where cost have gone up 108% or 125%. I will bet that few people realize that defense related spending has been going up even faster than Medicare -- and keep in mind that Medicare contains the prescription drug benefit for seniors in that 108% increase. Check out some of the other Tables as well.

[gulliver]

27. It's not quite over.

Republicans will try to move the debt ceiling out a few months at a time, waiting for something to happen to give them some traction. Right now they are facing a newly elected, popular president with two major speeches to give right before the debt limit is reached.

They aren't trying to kick the can down the road. They still want to take hostages. They just want to wait until their new masks get in.

[hay rick]

38. The fat lady isn't even warmed up.

The Republican's goals haven't changed. They want to protect rich people, the military establishment, and the for-profit health care industry. They are willing to throw everybody else under the bus. Debt ceiling fights are just a tactic to be used, or held in reserve, according to circumstances.

They are the same old hostage-takers.

[Coolest Ranger]

28. I keep telling you guys Obama plays chess the rest of us plays checkers

[Coolest Ranger]

33. FYI, I've been a member since 2007 this is a new screenname if you bother to check my profile

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

30. Two differences between Krugman and Right Wing Pundits

1) Krugman actually knows what he's talking about.
2) Krugman admits when somebody else gets it right.

This is why progressives are more intelligent than conservatives.

[malaise]

31. People who know they know

are never afraid to admit that they were wrong.
I have even more respect for Krugman

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Obama took a stand and held his ground.

His press conference was a thing of beauty. He had common sense on his side of course but that doesn't usually stop the Republican House. Obama stared them down and Krugman is right to salute him on this. My concern and open question regarding Obama's ultimate intentions isn't about the debt ceiling, it's about Social Security. Obama has said a number of things in the past that show a potential willingness to shave Social Security benefits as part of a budget deal i.e. "the Chained COLA". It remains at the very least plausible that a few months from now his stance will be to stare down the Left on that front.

[samsingh]

35. kick

[Jennicut]

36. I like Paul Krugman a lot.

I think he has lots of integrity even when I don't always agree with him. On this one, the Repubs are just so low in public opinion it makes no sense to want to shut the govt. down or try and play "hardball" with the President. They have no leverage and know it.

[dawg]

40. Their leverage comes with the continuing resolution.

No need to hold the debt ceiling hostage when all spending authorization ends March 31 anyway.

They can (and will) pass a horrible conservative budget and then blame Dems in the Senate for not rubber-stamping it. When the government shuts down, they will be able to credibly blame Senate Dems.

[JaneyVee]

39. Classy.

[fishwax]

41. props to both

[Historic NY]

46. Three dimensional chess

[uponit7771]

55. +1

[calimary]

58. Like it!!!! Seems a fitting salute on the eve of President Obama's Second Inauguration!

Great T.R. Quote as well! AND Paul Krugman too! Definitely one for the good guys!!!

Thanks for posting, Historic NY!

[SunSeeker]

47. Aaaah. All is right with the world.

Two of the people I most admire in the world are in agreement...at least on this.

[Cha]

49. Yes, Props to Krugman and Yay

for our Country!

[Nye Bevan]

50. I was wrong too. I wanted Obama to mint the trillion dollar coin.

But now I see that Obama's strategy is perfect. It is pretty much game, set and match on this issue.

[awoke_in_2003]

53. Do NOT play poker with that cat. nt

[grahamhgreen]

56. Hope so!

[Rex]

57. A critic has to say something NICE once in a while

as well as not so nice imo.

OTOH, a haters gonna hate all the time.

Pretty easy to spot who is a critic and who is a hater.

[leveymg]

61. It's better to have an intelligent critic, than an entire army of thoughtless followers.

Without pushback from the Left, this Administration would be All Wall Street all the time. Thank you, again, Dr. Krugman for your service.

[heaven05]

62. i

Last edited Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I LUV IT WHEN I'M RIGHT. We have a president for all the people. Whiners, quislings and naysayers included.

[MjolnirTime]

63. Obama wins again! Take that Haters.

[bullwinkle428]

68. I'll admit I was wrong on this one as well - I knew the Koch bros. were powerful,

but I didn't realize that even they had the power to stop a swarming mob of hysterical tea-baggers with nothing more than a snap of their fingers!