Krugman does not seem to think to much of Obama' s "stimulus plan"

[rodeodance]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?hp

………Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.

The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.

[redqueen]

1. Does any economist? And don't forget my favorite part!

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.

:woohoo:


Is it time for more people to decide to support the one driving the agenda yet?



:7

[asdjrocky]

12. You beat me to it!

That was my favorite part too!

[Cameron27]

2. Thank you

K&R

[BootinUp]

3. Very informative, thanks. nt

[peoli]

4. Krugman hates Obama and loves Hillary.. can you post something from a neutral source ever?

[Cameron27]

5. Krugman doesn't hate anyone,

and certainly doesn't love Hillary. I think he actually like Edwards the best. He's a liberal economist with an impeccable reputation who just doesn't think Obama's plan is good.

[BootinUp]

6. word. nt

[redqueen]

8. Oh come on... he credits Edwards with driving the debate...

And Krugman isn't the only economist who thinks John has the best plan:

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20080102-economists/


jeez louise

:eyes:

[rinsd]

17. Seriously. Krugman has been a big fan of most of Edwards plans.

Social security, healthcare etc.

[redqueen]

19. Yup!

:bounce:

[OzarkDem]

7. Honestly, some of Obama's program is very GOP

Across the board tax cuts are a wasted effort if the cuts apply to wealthy Americans. They don't need an economic stimulus as inflation doesn't have the same impact as it does on middle and lower income people. Tax cuts should be focused on groups where they have the most short-term impact for economic stimulus, without adding to federal deficits. As we all know, tax cuts for the wealthy tend to become permanent and only stimulate donations to GOP election campaigns. Big Dog was the expert at using temporary targeted tax cuts to stimulate growth without adding to deficits.

Ignoring assistance to state and local governments is also a GOP tactic. State and local governments bear a lot of the cost of Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and other public assistance programs in addition to the reductions in their own revenue resulting from Bush's tax cuts. Bush can run deficits, but states can't - they have to balance their budgets. Declining tax revenues resulting from deflating property values and decreased consumer spending are also hurting states and local govt.

Obama's plan goes against most Congressional Dems policy on economic stimulus, which is very odd considering he's running for the Dem nomination. It almost appears as though a GOPer is writing his policy positions.

[redqueen]

9. I agree completely.

The more I learn about the guy, the less I want him to be our candidate.

[THUNDER HANDS]

10. all the stimulus plans are bullshit

stimulte the economy for like two weeks, and then we're back where we were before. We needs better jobs, not $500 checks.

[redqueen]

11. None of them are perfect. One of them is the best of the three.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20080102-economists/

:)

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. yeah, i think his is the best

but I think overall, stimulus plans are a waste of money.

If you want to stimulate the economy, cut taxes completely for anyone making under $35,000 a year. And for those making under $25,000, cut their SSI taxes completely.

Also, I'd propose giving low-income families, instead of a $500 or $800 tax rebate, giving them a $600 gas card, to use for gasoline, which should cover their expenses for six months.

[redqueen]

15. It's not a "stimulus plan" they're impressed with... it's long-term strategy

and his comprehensive plan they like.

[Connie_Corleone]

14. Krugman doesn't like anything about Obama's economic plans.

So, this is nothing new.

[flpoljunkie]

16. Obama pushes back, Mr. Krugman. Who's leading here and who's following?

His responses to Hillary's attacks on this morning's conference call were pretty mild, but he sharpened them in his economic speech today, questioning Clinton's commitment to her policy stands, and apparently offering his own version of the "present" attack in response to Clinton's regret for voting for a bill making it harder to declare personal bankruptcy: "Most of us know that if you don’t want to see a bill pass, there’s a pretty easy option available – you can vote against it."

Here's the full passage, from his prepared text:

In the debate last night, we spent some time talking about the economy. And one of the things I brought up that concerned me was that when Senator Clinton first released her economic stimulus plan, she didn’t think that workers or seniors needed immediate tax relief. She thought it could wait until things got worse. Five days later, the economy didn’t really change, but the politics apparently did, because she changed her plan to look just like mine.

It reminds me of what happened when we started debating the credit card industry’s bankruptcy bill – a bill that would make it much harder for working families to climb out of debt. Believe it or not, Senator Clinton said again last night that even though she voted for the bill, she was glad it didn’t pass. I know you can get away with this in Washington, but most of us know that if you don’t want to see a bill pass, there’s a pretty easy option available – you can vote against it.

And we’ve heard her say the same kind of thing about NAFTA and China trade –agreements that sent millions of American jobs – thousands from this very state – overseas. Because only in Washington could Senator Clinton say that NAFTA led to economic improvement up until she started running for President. Now she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Obama_pushes_back.html

[rinsd]

18. Leadership = 126 present votes and a 37.6% absentee rate.

Perhaps he can beat *'s vacation record!

[oasis]

25. Owwweeeeee!

:yoiks:

[redqueen]

20. Edwards is leading... both Krugman and MLK III think so! (nt)

[flpoljunkie]

21. Either you are rinsd care to explain or defend why Hillary voted for the first bankruptcy bill?

The bankruptcy bill that passed in 2005 was essentially the same bill that Hillary voted for in 2003. It was an egregious giveaway to the banks and credit card companies.

What changed? Hillary was eyeing the oval office at that point.

[redqueen]

22. Nah... every candidate has flaws, mistakes, what have you...

if you support Obama and are comfortable with his flaws, that's great. Good luck. :)

[rinsd]

24. Get your talking points straight.

According to the Politics of Hope Hillary has been eyeing the Presidency since before her Senate run.

Hillary's answer as to why she voted for it was that it was a compromise that she ultimately regretted voting for.

Obama's answer to fooling voters with BS present votes is that was showing leadership.

Maybe you can explain why Absentee talks to the talk but very infrequently walks the walk.

[robbedvoter]

26. I do! I remember what she did - she put in the poison pill that stopped W from signing it

She introduced an amendment that would put the mansions of the rich in the creditors' reach too. It was included in the bill - so she had to vote for her own creation. Banks disliked this so much, W simply shelved the bill.

[Lucinda]

23. Thanks for the post!

K&R

[eridani]

27. Clinton's plan sux too, Paul n/t

[eridani]

28. Any tax cut is fucking stupid

That goes for Clinton and Edwards as well. We need good-paying jobs a hell of a lot more than we need $1600 to piss away on foreign-made consumer goods. The way to get those is with tax increases on the upper income brackets and massive expenditure on infrastructure repair and renewable energy.