Krugman: If Democrats give in to the blackmailers now, they’ll just face more demands in the future

[Newsjock]

Source: New York Times

... America, however, cannot afford to make those cuts permanent. We’re talking about almost $4 trillion in lost revenue just over the next decade; over the next 75 years, the revenue loss would be more than three times the entire projected Social Security shortfall. So giving in to Republican demands would mean risking a major fiscal crisis — a crisis that could be resolved only by making savage cuts in federal spending.

... Last but not least: if Democrats give in to the blackmailers now, they’ll just face more demands in the future. As long as Republicans believe that Mr. Obama will do anything to avoid short-term pain, they’ll have every incentive to keep taking hostages. If the president will endanger America’s fiscal future to avoid a tax increase, what will he give to avoid a government shutdown?

So Mr. Obama should draw a line in the sand, right here, right now. If Republicans hold out, and taxes go up, he should tell the nation the truth, and denounce the blackmail attempt for what it is.

Yes, letting taxes go up would be politically risky. But giving in would be risky, too — especially for a president whom voters are starting to write off as a man too timid to take a stand. Now is the time for him to prove them wrong.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[wtmusic]

1. Losing the vote of the top 2% would only be risky

because of the money they might not donate to Obama 2012.

[TheKentuckian]

2. Giving in doesn't satisfy bullies. Life 101

[gateley]

3. The ONLY thing that I keep worrying about is the people on Unemployment --

they've got us over a barrel on this. Were it not for them, I'd totally agree with Krugman.

How do we draw that line in the sand yet make sure those in need are taken care of?

THAT'S what's throwing the wrench into the works, IMO. :shrug:

[rhett o rick]

7. I dont agree at all. We are dealing with terrorists that wont ever deal in good faith.

You give in to their demands now because we are worried about the unemployed, they will be back tomorrow with new demands. And they will not keep their deal either.

You can not deal with terrorists.

[gateley]

9. I agree totally -- but tell me, what are those people going to live on come January 2011? nt

[ProSense]

13. They are going to

have to secure unemployment benefits, and it will require compromise.

Same thing happened over the summer, and people turned on Democrats when the expiration dragged on.

Look at the hits they took for breaking for Thanksgiving without extending benefits. It comes with being in the majority. That's just how it is.

[gateley]

29. Sigh. I know. I have to accept it, but it's really hard this time around. nt

[rhett o rick]

51. Dont "accept it" we've accepted waaaay too much. Stand and fight. nm

[rhett o rick]

50. FUCK COMPROMISE. You cant compromise with terrorists. And the repukes are terrorists. nm

[wtmusic]

8. Either that, or we have them over a barrel. It's all how it's framed.

Now - whose fault is it that the unemployed will lose their benefits?

[gateley]

14. I understand that - but the bottom line is, will it get their benefits extended?

And if they let them all expire, I can just see it now "We WANTED to extend your benefits and your tax cut, but the Obama Administration wanted to raise taxes no matter what."

[wtmusic]

24. I don't see how that's any different than us saying

"We wanted to extend your benefits, but the Republicans are making it a condition of giving money to their millionaire friends. We won't be blackmailed."

We own two thirds of the lawmaking process; we should be calling the shots.

[gateley]

33. We don't seem to be as successful in getting the message out as they do. They

all hammer on one key phrase regardless of what they're asked, they've got the response down pat. We, on the other hand, answer the actual questions we're asked (imagine that!). We've said it before -- The Republicans voted against supporting the troops, the Republicans voted against your best interest by.... but our fighting words sink like a stone. :(

We SHOULD be calling the shots, but we haven't. Even down to the point of deciding when they'll deign to come see the POTUS. Amazing and so fucking infuriating.

[wtmusic]

42. I agree 100%.

Messaging is at least half the battle. If we can't compete in a PR war, we're just fucked.

[ArcticFox]

25. I would say their help must be allowed to expire

Obama needs to make clear why, is all. Turn peoples' hunger into hatred of the capitalists. Let them be stepped on by the rich.

Giving in is chickenshit.

[madmax]

4. Many have posted similar advice to President Obama

myself included.

Maybe we should all win a Nobel. :shrug:

Hello. White House? Pick up the phone.

[Safetykitten]

5. He should tell then to go fuck themselves. The economy will be a disaster anyway and

when he needs to, say in the spring, go back and get some cash saved from paying off the rich to pay some unemployement benefits.

[ProSense]

6. Krugman knows there is going to be a compromise

He's got to get used to it. Democrats are working on one. That is not a secret.

They are going to do what they can to secure the middle-class tax cuts and other key programs like unemployment.

No one knows what the details of the deal.

[Hardrada]

10. Get used to it. That's an imbecilic choice of words.

But we always hear that from the GOP don't we?

[ProSense]

15. No, get used to it

All these pundits slammed Democrats last week for breaking without passing unemployment benefits. Let it drag on and watch the accusations that Democrats don't care fly from left pundits.

[neverforget]

18. And it's the Repukes fault for not extending them but Dems get the blame

because of their ineptitude at messaging.

[ProSense]

20. Really?

The Dems were on message about unemployment over the summer. People were cheering, that is until they turned on Democrats.

[neverforget]

26. Yeah, Really. The Dems suck at messaging. Why did they turn on Dems?

The economy for one. But instead of shouting from the rooftops about what was accomplished economically, the Dems let the Republicans gain the initiative on messaging.

[ProSense]

27. "Why did they turn on Dems?"

They wanted help to survive. It had nothing to do with messaging. People who are trying to pay their bills and eat don't really give a damn about messaging.

[neverforget]

28. Ok then. Why wasn't the message "this is what we did for you and this is what

we are going to do for you and this is what the Republicans want to do to you?" Politics is messaging.

[ProSense]

31. Who said it isn't/wasn't?

Do you see anyone cheering Republicans' position on unemployment?

[neverforget]

35. "Who said it isn't/wasn't?" you did

From your post above: "They wanted help to survive. It had nothing to do with messaging. People who are trying to pay their bills and eat don't really give a damn about messaging."

It is about messaging and the Dems are getting their ass kicked right now.

[ProSense]

36. No, that was in response to

"Why wasn't the message "this is what we did for you and this is what"

Democrats taking credit for the issue and is completely separate from people caring when their benefits run out.

[neverforget]

37. And who is responsible for their benefits expiring? Republicans!

Why isn't that pointed out??? The only way this can get through to the Republicans is if pressure is brought to bear through a unified message from the Democrats that it's the the Republicans fault that their unemployment is expiring. If enough pressure is brought, then the UE may be able to get through a Senate filibuster. It's just good old politics fighting for what you believe in.

[ProSense]

38. You know

if even the media gets this right when it happens, why are progressives giving Republicans a pass to blame stuff on Democrats?

[neverforget]

39. Where did "progressives" give Reps a pass in that article? Where did

anyone give them a pass?

[neverforget]

47. Pro, I'd love to know where you got progressive giving Republicans a pass

out of that article.

[w4rma]

41. Yes, messaging: Remember when Obama said he wasn't "bipartasan" enough?

That is the kind of messaging that is BAD messaging. What's worse is that Obama was lying when he said it to appear "bipartisan".

[Buns_of_Fire]

43. I'm truly afraid he wants "Mr. Bipartisan" to be a large part of his "legacy."

Like he expects the weasels of the rabid right to come to the White House and sing "Kumbaya" with him and the republic will be all the better for it. You know, and I know, and damned near everyone in the country -- Democrat AND rebubbalickin -- know that ain't gonna happen.

But as it seems to be evolving, "Mr. Bipartisan" may well be the caption under his picture in the Washington D.C. Yearbook when the time comes. Sadly, it sure won't be "Mr. Common Sense."

[rhett o rick]

12. We cant not yield to the republican terrorists. If you give them what they want

today, they will be back tomorrow wanting more and more. It isnt a compromise when you get nothing in return.

Dont compromise. Force them to own ending unemployment and ending the tax cuts for the middle class.

[ProSense]

16. It's not about yielding to terrorists.

OK, how do you pass unemployment? Do you think that should drag on for two months again until Democrats are forced to compromise?

[rhett o rick]

48. It is exactly like dealing with terrorists. Give in now and they will ask for more. Draw a fucking

line and stop giving in. The Pres isnt compromising, he is capitulating. Let the Repukes own not extending unemployment. The republicans know exactly how to play him.

[MadHound]

46. Wait, I thought Krugman was god to you, you link to him all the time.

Now you throw him under the bus? Hypocrisy much?

[Skittles]

11. oh THAT lesson should have been learned LONG ago

but, it obviously was NOT

[somone]

17. Now why do we have to teach the president of the United States "How to Deal With School Bullies 101"

He's not a victim of blackmail or bullying. He knows exactly what he's doing.

The real truth lies elsewhere, I'm afraid.

[ProSense]

19. Why don't

you submit your master plan for passing unemployment and the rest of the agenda through the Senate?

[Vinnie From Indy]

30. Here's an idea - Make the GOP bastards filibuster

I would also suggest that this is a good battle to fight for Obama politically. If he chooses not to, it is simply another reason to disbelieve ANY of his future campaign promises.

[ProSense]

34. Suggest it to Harry Reid because he obviously isn't aware of a Republican filibuster?

"I would also suggest that this is a good battle to fight for Obama politically. If he chooses not to, it is simply another reason to disbelieve ANY of his future campaign promises."

Since when does the President control Republican filibusters?

[WillyT]

21. "Now is the time for him to prove them wrong." - Exactly !!!

Please Mr. President... prove me wrong.

:shrug:

:kick:

[laughingliberal]

22. K & R nt

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherina]

32. "If"? "Future"? Rec'd. n/t

[Still a Democrat]

40. Is Krugman suggesting no negotiation?

We can't budge an inch, screw UE, middle class tax cuts, additional stimulus, etc.?

[Azathoth]

44. Christ, every Krugman column is the same: "No compromise, or the world ends!"

Obama isn't going to let taxes on the middle class go up and unemployment benefits expire, because he knows those would be a political deathstrokes for Democrats in 2012.

[rhett o rick]

49. Well good luck to him in 2012. Now it's the Obama billionaires tax cuts.

He is gonzo. Good by Obama.

[PufPuf23]

45. No compromise, No tax cut for the wealthy. Make the GOP filibuster.

No compromise on unemployment extension.

No compromise on a substantial federal work program.

The hurt is that those needing the unemployment extensions in the short term.

Let the GOP filbuster and refuse to cave an iota until people are in the streets.

Make top DOJ priority investigation and prosecution of war and financial criminals.

I don't expect any of this to happen but it is the right, though hurtful, strategy for the USA and our party.

Obama and Democratic leaders won't take this tactic because they are neo-liberals.

Dems have illustrated that winning elections does not matter when you have no principals.