Krugman: Obama / Nixon (Romney would look a lot like Obama)

[ProSense]

Obama / Nixon

Bruce Bartlett says what you’re not supposed to say: Obama has governed as a moderate conservative, somewhat to the right of Richard Nixon. The frothing-at-the-mouth comments are an extra bonus.

And it is, of course, true; although Obama defenders would say that he had no option. Still, the point is that if you ask what Mitt Romney would probably be doing if he were in the White House and not trying desperately to convince his party that he shares its madness, it would look a lot like what Obama is doing.

There are, however, two crucial points to understand.

First, Obama gets no credit for his moderation, and never will. No matter how far right he moves, Republicans will move further right; and nothing he can do will keep them from denouncing him as a radical socialist.

more

Krugman is full of shit here. "Mitt Romney would...look a lot like what Obama is doing."

First, Obama is not Nixon or to the right of Nixon: Justice Is Served

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

Today is an exciting day for the ACLU and criminal justice advocates around the country. Following much thought and careful deliberation, the United States Sentencing Commission took another step toward creating fairness in federal sentencing by retroactively applying the new Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) guidelines to individuals sentenced before the law was enacted. This decision will help ensure that over 12,000 people — 85 percent of whom are African-Americans — will have the opportunity to have their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reviewed by a federal judge and possibly reduced.

<...>

On the Romney comparsion, the President's plan does include elements similar to the MA plan, which was in large part written by a Democratic legislature:

In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006 Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation. Romney vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.<15> Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.<16> The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.<17>

<...>

Is Krugman saying Romney would have supported provisions he didn't support as governor?

Krugman on the health care law: "Guys, this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families. How is that not a big progressive victory?"

So Romney would have delivered a "a big progressive victory"?

Healthcare: victory for America's soul

A lot of people, including some Dems, have spent the majority of the time rallying people against the President. It's a pointless exercise as anyone can see. It breeds distrust, but I guess they're working toward a goal, not sure what, but they're busy.

What's Krugman's goal here: to convince people that Obama or Romney, makes no difference?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

4. More

hypothetical drivel!

Who cut Social Security and Medicare?

Let me quote Krugman, again. This time from April: "Oh, and for all those older Americans who voted GOP last year because those nasty Democrats were going to cut Medicare, I have just one word: suckers!"

Yeah, it's not good to fuck with people's heads, especially when there are forces with a lot of money trying to confuse them!

[still_one]

9. It isn't. If you saw his town hall he didn't give specifics, but said Social Security and Medicare

were being negotiated. Bloomberg reported that bayner and Obama both were in agreement on raising the minimum age for Medicare. Yes, there are no specifics, but it is on the table, and it shouldn't be.

The administration is trying to convience people that letting the bush tax cuts expire is a bargining chip. It isn't a bargining chip. If you do nothing they expire automatically. Of course what isn't followed through is the new tax rate categories being discussed will even give the wealthest a bigger tax cut.

Who is fooling who.

I agree with Krugman, Obama is governing like a moderate to conservative republican.

[ProSense]

12. Obviously

"he didn't give specifics, but said Social Security and Medicare were being negotiated"

...specifics means cuts, right?

The President stated that there would be a revenue component to his plan for Social Security. That sounds like raising the cap.

[still_one]

15. Why not let the bush tax cuts expire, and just raise the debt limit. Wait until 2012, and make it

an issue in the campaign, because the republicans are not going to compromise

[ProSense]

19. What about

the tax breaks for oil companies?

No one knows what the deal involves, but the reports mostly ignore the revenues being discussed. In fact, most of yesterday was spent distorting the facts: OMG, the WH has agreed to spending cuts only.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

13. Oh, isn't that moronic! n/t

[brentspeak]

2. Krugman is correct. OP has failed in deflecting and warping the issue -- yet again

[ClarkUSA]

5. ProSense is correct. You have failed in deflecting and warping the OP's FACTS -- yet again.

[great white snark]

18. +1

[Lorien]

7. +1. nt

[damonm]

17. -1 nt.

[ClarkUSA]

3. Krugman is pulling a Nader, I see. Nice to see yet another "liberal" MSM whore pulling for Romney.

He should stick to his day job.

[still_one]

6. If you are implying that if the President is trying to construct a deal which includes raising the

age requirement for Medicare, and doing things with Cost of Living as it relates to Social Security etc. that folks should sit by and blindly support the President, I disagree.

He had a town hall meeting today, and someone in the audience asked him a great question. It was something to the effect, why not just raise the debt limit, and forget about the deficiet until the next election where if the Democrats are running on the issues of social security and medicare, they have a good chance to capture the majority.

The president went back to his view of shared sacrifice, and how we should not wait.

The truth is, at least as far as most progressives, they are not that stupid. If we do nothing, the bush tax cuts WILL expire, and that is a major savings there. The President and administration are trying to make it sound that the bush tax cuts are a negotiating point. Who are you kidding Mr. President?

[ProSense]

8. Well,

"If you are implying that if the President is trying to construct a deal which includes raising the age requirement for Medicare, and doing things with Cost of Living as it relates to Social Security etc. that folks should sit by and blindly support the President, I disagree."

...if you want to create a straw man, go right ahead.

What the hell does that have to do with Obama being no different from Romney?

Based on the OP and since no deal has been announced and the President's plan includes eliminating loopholes for the wealthy, are you implying that Romney does too?

[still_one]

10. Because of your final statement, "It's a pointless exercise as anyone can see". Touching SS and

Medicare, and just accepting the administrations word that it is "good for the country", is not the blind faith I wish to express in this administration.

It isn't just me. Reid, Pelosi, and other Congressional Democrats are none too pleased

I also believe, based on the way rommney goverened Mass, reflects a lot of similarity to the way Obama goverens

[ProSense]

14. Because you

misunderstood. The pointless exercise is spending two years rallying people against the President only, not against Republicans or specific ideas. Not rallying them to support a cause, except opposing the President and questioning his motives. Yeah, criticism and questioning his motives are fine, but when that's the only thing being done, it serves no purpose. Congress is getting a pass. More important, Republicans are getting a pass.

Krugman admitted this himself: "there has been no pressure on the G.O.P. to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality — and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end."

[still_one]

16. understood, but some of that pass the republicans are getting are due to the administration giving

it to them