KRUGMAN Gets It & Nails It To The Wall-"Messaging Problem" On $$$ Policy Since 1st Months In Office

[kpete]

"the administration has had a messaging problem on economic policy ever since its first months in office..."

Hey, Small Spender
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
October 11, 2010

Here's the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can't create jobs.

Here's what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: we never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need...

...............

And a side consequence of this awkward positioning is that officials can’t easily offer the obvious rebuttal to claims that big spending failed to fix the economy — namely, that thanks to the inadequate scale of the Recovery Act, big spending never happened in the first place.

But if they won’t say it, I will: if job-creating government spending has failed to bring down unemployment in the Obama era, it’s not because it doesn’t work; it’s because it wasn’t tried.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1

[DearAbby]

1. messaging is fine

But the media doesn't cover the President like they used too. I remember everytime the President spoke, all the networks broke in to cover it. Or at least a good portion of it.

Now they dont do that unless the words, I am a Christian, or Muslims, or Kenya. Not very many people watch CSpan. It is a concerted effort on the part of the media not to fully cover Obama or Democrats.

[RKP5637]

4. Never has the MSM been as apt as now in promoting propaganda and

RW intent. I agree so very much with you, "It is a concerted effort on the part of the media not to fully cover Obama or Democrats."

I just love the fable that gets passed around by the RW that MSM is LW liberal biased reporting. What a bunch of unmitigated BS.

[OHdem10]

2. He is correct. The stimulus was too small. Now who was at fault

I do not know. Was it those Deficit Hawks in our Party??
Was the Administration too cautious???

Either way there was not the government expansion the GOP
put out as fact.

[Pirate Smile]

3. We got what we could get passed in the Senate. Snowe, Collins and Specter were the ones

chopping things out of the Recovery Act. We had to have 60 to get it passed. It was the normal problem - doing what you had to to get to 60 in the Senate.

[girl gone mad]

10. Republicans never needed 60.

If Obama had been out selling a bigger stimulus, he very well could have gotten it.

Every indication was that he and his advisers thought their plan would be more than enough to kick start the recovery. They were wrong.

[bvar22]

5. Too small, AND mostly misdirected.

Put the money directly into the hands of those that will SPEND IT.

[spanone]

6. k&r

but, but the media loves this story, paul

[jtuck004]

7. I remember several blogs, (I think Krugman was among them) talking about how

such a weak stimulus was inviting the criticism that it wouldn't work. They could find $15 trillion for Geithner's luncheon friends at the big banks, but only $800 billion for a stim for Main Street - and even that was broken up.

The biggest damn failure here is a lack of imagination. Our own administration can't make the case that, as a country, WE should invest in our people, and by doing so they leave BIG, HUGE openings for our opponents to keep hammering on deficits and costs, when we ought to be talking about real investment. Business invests where they see a good business case for doing so, and no one seems to be trying very hard to sell the idea of investing in the most creative and hard-working group of people this world has seen. Will it increase the bills in the short term? Yes. Will the return in taxes and national pride be worth it? No doubt. (Note: China, on the other hand, is looking toward the future - they are spending billions creating polysilicone plants, with a stated goal of being #1 in alternative energy (solar) and computer chips. They have just started a new project to build a huge aqueduct that will move water over thousands of miles to areas which need it for agriculture. Here, on the other hand, we just canceled a tunnel project from NJ to New York which would have employed hundreds of people at good paying jobs).

We have 30 million unemployed, underemployed, and disheartened workers out there whose contributions we need.

It would cost about $500 billion a year to employ 10 million people @$15/hr. Obama could stand up and tell us how we now live in a global society in which we have to learn how to compete. We can replace our oil-based economy with new technologies that we could develop, replace the 75% of our structurally deficient bridges, all manner of things. Re-educating people about how to survive (And spend) in a global economy. We would have to rebuild our manufacturing sector, and perhaps we need to make workers owners, because the old model simply leads to abuse by those at the top. Offshoots of any manufacturing effort would begin to create new business, and new jobs.

But it is going to take a group that BELIEVES the return on investment in our neighbors has a payback worth seeking.

Thank you for the OP

[Overseas]

8. And obstructed by the GOP that Dems were trying to pretend could be bipartisan. //nt

[indepat]

9. Couldn't try job-creating government spending 'cause the pubs wouldn't like it

;)