Krugman: Banana republic, here we come.

[onehandle]

Once upon a time, a Latin American political party promised to help motorists save money on gasoline. How? By building highways that ran only downhill.

I’ve always liked that story, but the truth is that the party received hardly any votes. And that means that the joke is really on us. For these days one of America’s two great political parties routinely makes equally nonsensical promises. Never mind the war on terror, the party’s main concern seems to be the war on arithmetic. And this party has a better than even chance of retaking at least one house of Congress this November.

Banana republic, here we come.

On Thursday, House Republicans released their “Pledge to America,” supposedly outlining their policy agenda. In essence, what they say is, “Deficits are a terrible thing. Let’s make them much bigger.” The document repeatedly condemns federal debt — 16 times, by my count. But the main substantive policy proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which independent estimates say would add about $3.7 trillion to the debt over the next decade — about $700 billion more than the Obama administration’s tax proposals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24krugman.html

[Warren Stupidity]

1. And they will have the support of at least 10 senators from 'our' side.

The punt on taxes was capitulation. After the election the whole set of bush cuts will be extended. Obama will get to play Clinton circa 94-96, finding new ways to appease the right and shaft the left. Naturally the big issue will be 'social security reform', i.e. how to screw the boomers now that it is time to pay them back after they poured decades of huge surpluses into the system.

[Moostache]

3. That would ensure him a second term...

which is what the entire goal of this first term has been IMO.

His policies don't require a background in "Kenyan Anti-colonialism", all you need is a memory of how Clinton won re-election and you understand the Obama administration just fine...

[depakid]

7. A similar opinion was noted by the big dog himself (and others) last weekend

and the fact is not likely lost on the administration:

I assume that, without mentioning more about it, the discussion at the link will pass muster with the Mods:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017191-503544.html

[Drunken Irishman]

14. That's not a fair comparison.

Clinton was a lameduck only a few months into his first term. Democrats were far more conservative than they are today and mounted successful challenges to oppose his stimulus plan and healthcare reform.

In 1993, Clinton proposed a $16 billion economic stimulus bill. It was one of the bedrocks of his campaign in 1992 and it went nowhere. It stalled in the Senate.

They opposed it because Sam Nunn and Bob Kerrey and a core group of moderate Democrats defected and sided with the Republicans.

In the end, we never came close to seeing that 16 billion for stimulus funding.

Clinton had to go about economic improvement a different way.

It wasn't until August of that same year the House finally passed his reworked economic plan.

One that most considered a failure until around 1996 - three or so years after it went into effect.

Beyond that, Nunn was successful in pushing Clinton toward signing DADT and then we saw Clinton's healthcare reform efforts die because his own party abandoned ship during the debate.

By 1994, Clinton was struggling. His party seemed to go one step further than the Democrats today by not just forcing some concessions, but outright demanding things be dropped.

So the comparison is nowhere near the same.

You might not totally agree with what Pres. Obama has done or the way he's done it, but he certainly isn't a lameduck. His success rate trumps Clinton's by a mile. He might've conceded this or that, but in the end, most of what he wanted has been passed. That rarely happened in Clinton's first term - unless it was something Republicans could support (Welfare Reform, NAFTA).

Clinton didn't lose anything when he lost the House & Senate.

Obama has a lot to lose. Not just a congress that will fight him tooth and nail on everything, but yes, re-election.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Not to mention 44 Dem Representatives

who have already signed on for the Bush cuts.

I can smell the stench of shit sausage being made from here.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Do you really believe that?

:wtf:

First off, you're assuming that the Republicans are going to (re-)take Congress and, second, you assume that Obama uses (or will use) the same "playbook" as Clinton did, and third, these newer Republicans are, believe it or not, not even "Newt/Dole Republicans" and have an even more extreme agenda than Republicans did back in the 1990's, an agenda that I can't honestly believe President Obama would sign on to. My guess is that Republicans will fail epically when they attempt to govern. How could they not given that they don't believe in government in the first place and have done nothing but obstruct for the past two years. If they take control, they will HAVE to produce results or the public will turn on THEM in 2012. Plus, the more "moderate" or "establishment" Republicans will have to contend with the "Tea Party Caucus" and I bet that that won't turn out so well either. Either the Republican "establishment" embraces them or rejects them but either way it's a win for us. A Republican-led Congress may help set the stage for a Democratic resurgence and President's Obama re-election in 2012 but I can't honestly believe that that's what anybody wants or that President Obama is only concerned about his political future nor do I believe that he is going to take anything but a veto pen to anything that they somehow manage to get through Congress. Anyway, he's gotten a lot of important items on his agenda through in Congress. I'm not saying that he won't try to do anything more during the next two years but I don't think that he's going to go to absurd lengths to "compromise" and "negotiate" with the Republicans out of desperation to get something done.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. yes

1) we will get badly defeated november 2. Talk to me November 3 re that prediction.
2) this presidency so far has been pretty much a replay, on both sides, of 92-94.
3) yes Obama will move right after the election. Again, the same script from 94-96 will be reworked, including investigations leading to an impeachment effort.

Do you think that pretending that the mid term is not going to be a disaster will make it not happen?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. I don't know if I am "pretending" that the mid term is not going to be a disaster

I just don't THINK that it's going to be a disaster, at least not on par with 1994. Of course, I could be wrong but we'll just have to wait and see what happens in regards to anything I suppose. :shrug:

There are some parallels to 92-94 but also some crucial differences too.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Yep. We're being wood polished.

That's what I think about that Pledge.

[Nikki Stone1]

5. We're Chile, circa 1973

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=219x28157

"LOIS WEINER: Absolutely. And I think it’s important to understand that Race to the Top is not unique to the United States, and what Arne Duncan did in Chicago is not unique to Chicago. And in fact, the contours of this program were carried out first under Pinochet in Chile. And this program was implemented by force of military dictatorships and the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Latin America. And the results have been verified by researchers there. They produced increased stratification. So I think what we’re seeing right now are the results of that increased stratification, a stratification, inequality of results, because if you think about it, No Child Left Behind is almost a decade old. And what are the results? The results are a growing gap between poor minority—achievement of poor minority kids and those kids who come from prosperous families who are—who live in affluent suburbs and in those suburban schools."

[MH1]

6. "War on arithmetic" ! ha ha ... but ain't it the truth.

[sohndrsmith]

9. "Here we come"?..... I say: 'there we've been and here we are...' no? n/t

[chill_wind]

10. "Realistically, though, Republicans aren’t going to have the power

to enact their true agenda any time soon — if ever. Remember, the Bush administration’s attack on Social Security was a fiasco, despite its large majority in Congress — and it actually increased Medicare spending.

So the clear and present danger isn’t that the G.O.P. will be able to achieve its long-run goals. It is, rather, that Republicans will gain just enough power to make the country ungovernable, unable to address its fiscal problems or anything else in a serious way. As I said, banana republic, here we come."

That sounds about right.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. I agree with you- EVEN IF the Democrats retain the majority

not much will get done during the next two years but I suspect that President Obama and the Democrats have already *planned* for that- which is why they pushed so hard on getting done what they did during the past 1-2 years (and it's not an altogether unimpressive roster of accomplishments though I wish that more could've gotten through the Senate). Unfortunately, I think that we will probably need to wait until 2013 to get back to having the means to accomplish anything substantial- if the Dems continue to run against the "Party of No" and make the case that more Democrats will have to be elected in order to accomplish anything.

[Supersedeas]

17. I still get the feeling that the leadership in the Senate put HIS own re-election ahead

of agenda items that need to attention during the first two-years and prior to the November elections.

He is in a tight race even with his pansy-ass meandering.

[Cleita]

15. He isn't the only one who has said it.

But he has the biggest pulpit so I hope he keeps it up until the proles take notice and start pressuring Washington to do the right thing.

[Odin2005]

16. we are almost there, already.