What?! No Krugman Fans To Post his latest Blog Entry? Here, let me help you

[berni_mccoy]

:rofl:

In his latest blog, Krugman criticizes Obama's comments on the economy for having economic stimulus projects come 'under budget'.

President Obama hails the fact that stimulus projects are coming in “ahead of schedule and under budget.” Yay — but boo.

Ahead of schedule is good. Under budget — well, ordinarily that’s a good thing. But the point of the stimulus is to increase spending! So if we don’t spend as much as expected, that’s less stimulus.

<snip snooty quote of some smarter person>

Seriously: if the projects really are coming in cheaper than expected, that doesn’t mean we should bank the savings; it means that we need more projects.

But wait, the commenters on his blog have kindly pointed out to Krugman that he might have missed something very important that Obama said:

commenter cyd points out:

You might want to read that article properly: “Because these projects are proceeding so efficiently, we now have more recovery dollars to go around, and that means we can fund more projects, revitalize more of our infrastructure, put more people back to work.”
— cyd

:rofl: Paul, Paul, Paul. You've just been caught red-handed stretching way too hard to find something to complain about Obama. I hope you didn't pull anything.

But probably my favorite comment on his blog was this one:

Paul, you gotta admit, though, that it would be awfully had for a politician to say “Good news!!! The project was waaay over budget!!!”
— Emily

:rofl:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Are you really this dumb?

Did you even comprehend the post you're mocking?

[berni_mccoy]

4. Oooooo Krugman Too Smart. Me Not Understand.

:rofl:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. Krugman's intellect aside, you really don't understand

[ProSense]

7. Why don't you explain it? n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. To whom?

Berni is criticizing a post from before Obama's speech for its characterization (wholly imaginary) of the speech, so he's beyond help. He doesn't know or care what the post even says... he just thinks it's funny for some reason.

And I doubt you need it explained at all.

[ProSense]

22. The speech reference aside, because it has nothing to do with Krugman's piece or the reponses to it

the OP is correct. Krugman obviously omitted (overlooked, missed) Obama's statement to make his point.

[berni_mccoy]

24. I am?

[Skittles]

50. I'd say that would be a big fat NO

[depakid]

87. The evidence speaks for itself

Repeatedly.

[Uzybone]

2. Krugman has sheathed his claws to an extent

as such he is no longer much use to the "Obama haters" crowd. The last few weeks (especially since Krugman returned from Europe) he has focused much of his attention on the opposition.

[ljm2002]

3. Gotta admit, that's funny!

Looks like Krugman might have a little 'splainin' to do -- like, couldn't a genius like him figure out that having projects come in under budget might mean we could do even more with the money -- especially since Obama already 'splained that in his speech?

Amusing, indeed.

[berni_mccoy]

5. The funny thing is, Krugman did figure that out... but he didn't read the article he linked

He just stopped at the first few paragraphs.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Try READING. The post has nothing to do with Obama's speech...

The post you find so funny and identify as being about Obama's speech was posted well before the speech and before any excerpts of the speech were even released.

It refers to a story from MONDAY, APRIL 13.

You idiot.

[DevonRex]

11. And Paul jumped the gun with his criticism, as usual. It's laughable.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. It's not a criticism. The fact you think it is is pathetic.

It's a general economic observation, not a policy critique.

[DevonRex]

18. The fact that you can't admit that Krugman's link contradicts HIM is really sad.

Typical, but sad.

[BzaDem]

71. No, the fact that can't read a date is sad. n/t

[DevonRex]

84. Paul doesn't mention the speech. Paul links to a specific ARTICLE

which specifically contradicts him. Paul didn't even read the article HE linked to. Dates have nothing to do with it.

Perhaps YOU should read Paul's link.

[berni_mccoy]

13. WROOONNNGGGG! Krugman links an article HE DIDN'T EVEN READ

http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKTRE53C3LT20090413

Quote From The Article Krugman Linked:

"Because these projects are proceeding so efficiently, we now have more recovery dollars to go around, and that means we can fund more projects, revitalize more of our infrastructure, put more people back to work," he (Obama) said.

I'll give you an A for your blind love of Krugman though. I guess that makes you a Krugmanobot.

LOLOLOL

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[DevonRex]

14. OMG. That's from the article Krugs himself linked???? LOL LOL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. You're beyond belief

The Krugman piece is about why the money needs to go back into similar projects, in agreement with Obama's comments.

The piece explains why that is.

It contains no criticism of Obama whatsoever.

[berni_mccoy]

23. "Yay - but boo"

:rofl:

[ProSense]

16. You're calling someone an "idiot". Maybe you should stop spinning. The article on Monday is the very

piece that contradicts Krugman. THat article, which Krugman linked to, is what his commentors are citing. Obama:

"Because these projects are proceeding so efficiently, we now have more recovery dollars to go around, and that means we can fund more projects, revitalize more of our infrastructure, put more people back to work," he said.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

30. "contradicts" can be found in the dictionary

The post is not a criticism of Obama. It is about features of the entire debate.

Nowhere does it say Obama doesn't know this, or that the money will be banked. It is a piece of general interest about something, not part of your masturbatory "Obama versus the Apostates" psycho-drama.

People who cannot read for comprehension because their heads are so full of fantasies may or may not be idiots... I don't know the proper terminology.

[berni_mccoy]

34. Paul is that you?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Either that or you are his yoga partner as you are both really stretching now!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[berni_mccoy]

82. You're the only one talking about Obama's speech. Krugman linked an article

that refutes his own point.

In the article Krugman linked, Obama says explicitly that he will do what Krugman says Obama isn't doing.

I'm sorry I had to spell it all out for you and embarrass you like that. But next time you really should read everything first before jumping to conclusions.

[ProSense]

8. Actually, the set up is the funniest part

"Yay — but boo."

:rofl:

[Cha]

28. Boo but

Yay!

[DevonRex]

10. That is hilarious. Thank you. :)

[DevonRex]

15. Off to the greates with you!!

[SoxFan]

20. All Hail The Bearded Wonder!

:thumbsup:

[Cha]

21. I hope he did pull

something if it reminds him not to behave like a bloodsucking little mosquito.

[girl gone mad]

25. Attacking Krugman for his statement that all of the stimulus funds should be used?

That puts you in the same camp as Krugman's right wing teabagging http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/04/krugman-in-need-of-remedial-education.html">critics.

Don't you feel special?

[berni_mccoy]

26. Wow, Krugmanobots are desperate in their defense of the all powerful Krugman

If you read my post, you'd realize Krugman made a boo-boo by not actually reading an article he linked and making his entire article on a criticizing point the article actually says Obama made.

Wait, that may be too difficult for you to understand... sorry.

[girl gone mad]

33. it's clear that you can't comprehend the larger point that Krugman was making.

you're so obsessed with this stupid "gotcha" tactic.

Really there's nothing here. You are wasting everyone's time on inconsequential bullshit.

[ProSense]

36. What was the larger point?

How was it different from Obama's point? What was the "Yay — but boo" for?

[girl gone mad]

38. that all of the stimulus money Should be spent ASAP

where is the criticism of Obama in that post? I read it three times. This thread is nothing but amped up nonsense with no substance.

[ProSense]

40. Don't be coy.

President Obama hails the fact that stimulus projects are coming in “ahead of schedule and under budget.” Yay — but boo.....Seriously: if the projects really are coming in cheaper than expected, that doesn’t mean we should bank the savings; it means that we need more projects.

Why couldn't he skip the "Yay — but boo" and point out that he agreed with Obama's statement:

"Because these projects are proceeding so efficiently, we now have more recovery dollars to go around, and that means we can fund more projects, revitalize more of our infrastructure, put more people back to work," he said.

With his intro, omission of Obama's full statement and adding that comment at the end, he is giving the impression that Obama's intention is not to spend more.

[girl gone mad]

46. "yay, but boo" is your idea of scathing criticism?

sorry, politics isn't a game for children.

A rattional grownup understands that this hardly qualifies as an aside, let alone a criticism.

Krugman is simply pointing out that the fact that projects are coming in under budget means the money isn't being spent as fast as it needs to be. Guess what? He has a valid point.

[ProSense]

48. Oh give me a break with the superior intellect that spawned "Yay--but boo"

"Scathing" is your word. You're spinning again.

Krugman had a valid point, he just tried to frame Obama in a negative light, even though Obama made the exact point.

[girl gone mad]

49. how is that framing Obama in a negative light?

Krugman is only stating the obvious. Money that doesn't get spent won't stimulate the economy. Even of they go back to the drawing v
board to find new projects, that will take time which negates some of the stimulative effects. Japan had the same problems. They built a lot of bridges to nowhere, but the money didn't get into the economy fast enough.

[ProSense]

52. You know what

don't continue responding with the same tired defense, just keep reading this. It answers all the questions raised by tired defense.

[girl gone mad]

55. In other words, you can't defend your point of view.

repetition is an advertising tactic, not a debate tactic.

[ProSense]

57. No, in other words: you just want to believe what you want to. No amount of

logic can detach you from your spin.

[girl gone mad]

61. This doesn't have anything to do with my "beliefs".

It's really straightforward. Krugman is a Keynesian. Keynesian economic theory says that in order for any government to effectively counteract debt deflation, that government needs to engage in spending programs which are large and meaningful enough to take up the slack of the rapidly shrinking private sector.

Krugman is merely pointing out that there is a potential downside to these construction bids coming in way under budget, and that is that the government may not be injecting enough money into the economy to halt the negative spiral or turn things around as quickly as we had hoped.

If you disagree with Keynesian economics or if you think the spending delays are positive, neutral or entirely irrelevant, then make an argument. Going apeshit over the phrase "yay, but boo" is a pointless distraction. This thread reads like a bitter personal attack rather than a meaningful discussion of the issues, in my honest opinion.

[joshcryer]

68. Wow, that's some serious ownage right there. Yeah, Krugman generally dislikes the "centrist...

...terminology." That of "oh we're under budget so things are good," and so on. And from my perspective it's clearly what his focus was on.

[ProSense]

78. Your beliefs?

Yay--but boo!

Stop whining because people can see through Krugman's bias.

You're the one going "apeshit" in your defense of a four paragraph piece that begins with what you describe as a "a pointless distraction." Maybe Krugman should have left it out and deal with the fact that Obama made the exact point he did.

[hileeopnyn8d]

83. stating the obvious

Yes, he was stating the obvious, made even MORE obvious by the fact that Obama had made the EXACT same point in the linked article. But it was that portion he chose to omit in order to avoid saying - I agree with the President.

He could have easily written the same entry without the slant. I'm not going to speculate on why he chose not to.

There are thousands of projects waiting in the wings, no need for the drawing board. They are ready to go.

[joshcryer]

66. He clearly had issue with the headline and the veribiage, the "under budget" meme, that GOPers...

...and moderates love to spill. He's a progressive, he finds no merit in such statements, especially in times of crisis.

"Under budget" is not necessarily good, and he explained why. Outside of that there is not necessarily anything "attacking" or "being negative" toward Obama. It's just where your preconceptions lie.

[joshcryer]

65. The "Yay - but boo" was to point out that "under budget isn't good on its own."

[ProSense]

79. Oh please.

He wrote an entire article to make a point Obama made by first setting up the piece with a negative "Yay - but boo."

If Krugman wanted to simply make the point he made in his last paragraph using the piece he quoted, why quote Obama out of context?

On DU that would be considered disingenuous, but in a NYT opinion piece it's OK?

[Cha]

37. Your bullshit tactics aren't working..

too bad for krugman his "gotcha" didn't work. Boo but Yay.

[ProSense]

27. Attack? The

"Yay — but boo" comment is pretty funny.

[dionysus]

77. krugman is a god amongst men. i wish he were president instead of obama.

:eyes:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. Jesus Christ. Krugman is doing all the hard work usually reserved for the wingnuts. n/t

[Fire1]

31. Good lookin out, Berni!

[PBS Poll-435]

32. I never really understood the Kruglodytes

Oh well.

[firedupdem]

35. K&R! He still can't back off his complaints. Now you know it's

personal. Shameful!

[Cha]

45. It's krugman's personal

poison and this is just one more slip up by the so called "genius".

[geek tragedy]

39. Shorter Paul Krugman: Waste and inefficiency are good

for the economy.

[girl gone mad]

42. if the goal of spending is to stimulate the economy, then, yes, by definition

waste is good.

Or are you taking the side of the republican teabaggers on this one?

[geek tragedy]

43. No, then you take the money and spend it on something else.

Seriously, advocating waste and inefficiency is something so stupid only an academic could get away with suggesting it.

[girl gone mad]

47. but that takes additional time and delays the recovery.

Why is this concept so confusing for the Krugman haters?

[geek tragedy]

51. No, we're waste and inefficiency haters.

And what makes you think WASTED money actually stimulates the economy?

[Muttocracy]

54. bingo. nt

[girl gone mad]

56. So you concede that you are in agreement with the teabaggers.

Interesting.

[geek tragedy]

59. Teabaggers oppose the bailouts.

So you agree with them too.

:evilgrin:

[girl gone mad]

60. because they see it as wasteful government spending

as you described the stimulus plan. Not because they support nationalization, like I do. Bit of a difference there, no?

[joshcryer]

67. He gave an example right there in the post. "Waste" is subjective, just like the STV is subjective.

It's not necessarily where the money goes, but that it *goes*.

Honestly, read the example given and tell me it's not wasteful. It most certainly is absurd. But it would drive employeement and the economy most assuredly.

[CTLawGuy]

74. I know

give all the stimulus money to ME. That would be wasteful, but would it stimulate the economy? It would be like creating one rich person and then giving him a tax cut, all rolled into one. Somehow I think this would NOT stimulate the economy... because I could only spend so much money.

Krugman is now reduced to bashing Obama for NOT wasting money, Jeez.

[BlooInBloo]

41. That's the problem with going all-in on saying somebody is wrong.

[jeanpalmer]

44. Any way you look at it

when this is all over, either we'll all be steeped in debt, or the banks will be ok and the rest of us will be steeped in debt. All our tax dollars will be going to bond holders. Last I saw, the budget is running a $2 trillion deficit. So does this mean the deficit will only be $1.8 trillion?

[truedelphi]

53. I know I share the same fears that youa re expressing

And what bettter place to share them?

According to some, our fears or complaints have so incapacitated President Obama that not only have the pirates maintained their evil grip on Somalia, they're now heading for New York City..

And his daughters are without a pet, because our critiques of his economic policiy left him unaable to decide which kind of pooch to get them.

Yet my vision of Obama is that, at least for the present moment, he has enough internal fortitude to weather us naysayers.

[Thrill]

58. Krugman proves again, he simply doesn't understand politics.

Smart man. Good Economist. But he continues to always, think that a politician can say or do things without considering the political consequences.

[LooseWilly]

69. Well, he's not a politician, so it's hard to blame him.

Hard for me anyway. Seems a lot here are reading Krugman's every word, looking for a way to hang him on any petard he might leave unguarded.
I'm not sure that he's trying to tell Obama what to do, per se... I think he's trying to make a case for his view of economic issues... I don't think that he really expects that sound economic policy will trump politics- I just suspect that he wishes it could.
And just for the record, I really can't tell if he's trying to re-iterate Obama's judgement that projects coming in under budget mean that more projects need to be dreamed up, or if he really just didn't notice that Obama had already come to that conclusion. In either case, it seems like a sound policy to just treat his statement as a confirmation of what Obama has said, add his voice to the chorus on the subject, and move on.
Unless one is just looking to pick (or apparently re-pick) fights with the "liberal conscience" every chance that comes along? I mean, really?... picking gratuitous fights with self-proclaimed liberals in cases where there is such obvious agreement?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

80. No, it's very easy to blame him.

He's injecting himself into politics. If his ego weren't so large, he'd have recognized that this is not his strong suit and not offer continual political columns.

[Political Heretic]

62. I won't be baited.

[Forkboy]

63. Aw c'mon. Bernie's a driven man. Let's play along.

;)

[berni_mccoy]

76. Awe, shucks!

:rofl:

Seriously though, not trying to bait. Just trying to make a point that Krugman is human.

[joshcryer]

64. You guys are honestly completely obsessed.

You can read this a dozen different ways, but the way DU choses to read it? The way that makes Krugman look like an ass. I'll never forget 4-5 DUers attacking someone for mentioning Hillary and the Arctic tourist plan. Just by mentioning Hillary there was supposedly implicit support for the plan. Nope, not one iota, the poster in question held no such convictions. But got called out on it over dubious assumptions.

Similarily as to how so many here are "calling Krugman out."

[lamp_shade]

70. Poor Paulie. He's running out of ammo.

[Cha]

85. He's probably

hovering over data now to come up with something fresh..determined to read the whole thing this time.

[eridani]

72. The stimulus projects are great

The problem is that there were not enough of them on account of too many tax cuts with little or no stimulus effects. That said, I supported the package because we needed something, even if less than ideal.

[BzaDem]

73. NEWSFLASH: berni_mccoy does not like Krugman!

Of course, enough people in this thread have debunked the OP that it is not worth the time for me to repeat it. But I am shocked, simply shocked, that you would have something negative to say about Krugman. I mean, here I was thinking you changed your mind since the LAST time you posted something negative about Krugman, just so you could insult anyone who pointed out that you were completely wrong. Guess I was wrong.

[berni_mccoy]

75. Actually, I like Krugman a great deal. But the fanaticism around here that he can do no wrong

is simply crazy. Krugman fans attack any critics even when there is valid reason to, in order to quiet dissent. They feel they need to hide or defend any mistake Krugman might make.

Does this sound familiar to you?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

81. Newsflash - Too many believe Krugman is god.

A Nobel Prize does not a deity make.

[mvd]

86. No one says he's perfect

I'm still glad there are economists like him around. If he's focusing most on the Repukes now, that's good.

[berni_mccoy]

88. I suspect some here do worship him. But yes, I think he's as fallable as Obama.

And I am glad he's here too, and focusing on Repukes as well.

[mvd]

89. I wouldn't have approached the subject as you did, as..

I see people on the Obama side acting the same way, but not many like he's perfect. I still prefer Krugman over Geithner.