Does anyone really listen to NY Times’ Paul Krugman anymore? The man is a die-hard believer in Keynesian economics which have failed, time and time again, throughout world history. Now Krugman is trying to paint Obama’s agenda as a conservative one and claims Obama didn’t spend enough. $3 trillion in 20 months didn’t solve our unemployment or economy, so Krugman believes Obama should’ve spent more.
Krugman is an idiot and I don’t have an economics degree to understand that government has a bad track record at job creation. It truly is that simple Paul. Keynesian economics are a failure and Obama’s economic policies prove this.
Paul Krugman reports, via the New York Times:
This is what happens when you need to leap over an economic chasm — but either can’t or won’t jump far enough, so that you only get part of the way across.
If Democrats do as badly as expected in next week’s elections, pundits will rush to interpret the results as a referendum on ideology. President Obama moved too far to the left, most will say, even though his actual program — a health care plan very similar to past Republican proposals, a fiscal stimulus that consisted mainly of tax cuts, help for the unemployed and aid to hard-pressed states — was more conservative than his election platform.
Laughable. Krugman is trying to deflect the failure of progressivism by claiming Obama followed conservative policies. Spending $3 trillion in 20 months and taking over private sector businesses isn’t conservatism. That is socialism, which progressives love.
A few commentators will point out, with much more justice, that Mr. Obama never made a full-throated case for progressive policies, that he consistently stepped on his own message, that he was so worried about making bankers nervous that he ended up ceding populist anger to the right.
But the truth is that if the economic situation were better — if unemployment had fallen substantially over the past year — we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We would, instead, be talking about modest Democratic losses, no more than is usual in midterm elections.
Well Duh! Did you have to go to an Ivy League school to figure this out Paul?
The real story of this election, then, is that of an economic policy that failed to deliver. Why? Because it was greatly inadequate to the task.
Yes, if only Obama would have spent more, the economy would have turned around and we would have that awful unemployment rate of 4.6% before Democrats took control of Congress in 2007.
When Mr. Obama took office, he inherited an economy in dire straits — more dire, it seems, than he or his top economic advisers realized. They knew that America was in the midst of a severe financial crisis. But they don’t seem to have taken on board the lesson of history, which is that major financial crises are normally followed by a protracted period of very high unemployment.
Obama inherited his own economy. He was part of that Democrat Party who took control of Congress in 2007. He voted on all those spending bills that added to the deficit. He is responsible for the current economy since he was a Senator for 2 years and has been President for almost 2 years. He inherited a mess he and his party created.
Maybe Krugman should stick to economics because civics isn’t his strong suit.
If you look back now at the economic forecast originally used to justify the Obama economic plan, what’s striking is that forecast’s optimism about the economy’s ability to heal itself. Even without their plan, Obama economists predicted, the unemployment rate would peak at 9 percent, then fall rapidly. Fiscal stimulus was needed only to mitigate the worst — as an “insurance package against catastrophic failure,” as Lawrence Summers, later the administration’s top economist, reportedly said in a memo to the president-elect.
Actually, Obama and his economics advisers told Americans that unemployment wouldn’t top 8% if his stimulus was passed. Nice try Paul, but you can’t lie for Obama any longer.