Skip to comments.Paul Krugman: 'It's Terribly Unfair Obama's Being Judged on the Failure of the Economy'
Posted on 06/03/2012 1:23:37 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Paul Krugman: 'It's Terribly Unfair Obama's Being Judged on the Failure of the Economy' By Noel Sheppard Created 06/03/2012 - 3:22pm
Readers are strongly advised to remove food, fluids, and flammables from proximity to their computers prior to reading any further. You've been warned!
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said on ABC's This Week Sunday, "It's terribly unfair that [President Obama is] being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Can I just -- these are -- these are -- we're talking as if $1 billion was a lot of money, and in $15 trillion economy is not. Solyndra was a mistake as part of a large program, which has been -- by and large had a pretty good track record. Of course you're going to find a mistake. I think, to be fair, that's probably true in Massachusetts, as well.
But this is -- this is ridiculous, that we are taking these tiny, tiny missteps which happen in any large organizations, including corporations, including Bain -- Bain Capital had losers, too, right, even from the point of view of its investors? So this is ridiculous.
And the fact of the matter is, this president has not managed to get very much of what he wanted done. He -- it's terribly unfair that he's being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress.
I guess the Nobel laureate in economics was out of the country when Obama controlled the House of Representatives and enjoyed a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, something that according to Time magazine's Karen Tumulty hadn't really happened since the Great Depression:
You have to go all the way back to 1937 to find the last American President who enjoyed what was, in practice, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, according to Senate Associate Historian Donald Ritchie. That was when Franklin D. Roosevelt, having just won what was then the biggest re-election victory in history, permanently alienated Southern Democrats by trying to pack the Supreme Court with the addition of two more justices. [...]
In Jimmy Carters first term, for instance, there were more than 60 Democrats in the Senate. However, conservatives such as James Allen of Alabama often voted more to the right than their Republican colleagues, while there were liberal Republicans such as New Yorks Jacob Javits who rarely sided with their own party. [...]
With Arlen Specters switch (and assuming, as Joe notes below, that Al Franken ever gets sworn in), Barack Obama has the Magic 60 Votes and an opportunity that his predecessors would greatly have envied.
So Obama from the position of political power had in the first two years of his presidency "an opportunity that his predecessors would greatly have envied."
But in Krugman's view, "it's terribly unfair that he's being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress."
Is it possible to be more wrong about something and still be considered a "journalist" worthy of coveted invitations on the nation's top political talk shows?
“this president has not managed to get very much of what he wanted done”
I wonder what else he ‘wanted’.
This is case in point!
Paul, it’s terribly unfair that you are given any more credibility than a junior college economics teaching assistant. Seriously.
Of for crying out loud.
He’s had 3 1/2 years. He’s done.
I would add that with Boner in charge of the House, they have pretty much done whatever Obama wanted. They haven’t cut a damned thing from his insane spending bills.
It’s funny how these liberals aren’t afraid to make themselves look not very bright by always defending their “messiah”.
Obama gets the blame for making things worse but the country has been a mess for decades and it took both parties to do it.
ABOF...Anybody but Obama’s fault.
From the sniveling rodent that blamed Palin for the Tucson massacre.
“I would add that with Boner in charge of the House, they have pretty much done whatever Obama wanted. They havent cut a damned thing from his insane spending bills.”
No kidding!! Boner, Cantor and McCarthy are the “Disgraceful Troika.”
If we can’t unload these turds this time around, the RATS will be back before the paint is dry on these guys office nameplates.
Liberal like Krugman have taken their anger with President Obama’s leadership failure and channeled it into the lie that Republicans obstucted his incredible agenda.
Given the political atmosphere in 2009, President Obama could have had anything he wanted. He just refused to steer the ship and keep his crew in line. Instead, they fittered away the calendar until the public installed a Republican House.
They know that President Obama blew their big chance and can’t believe it.
listen stooopid... they were gambling with THEIR OWN MONEY, the boy was using the TAXPAYERS MONEY!!!
Well, yes. Our economy has been on the road to ruin ever since Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. But Obama has accelerated things to an insane degree, and he has managed to spend trillions without accomplishing anything at all, even a temporary fix.
If the economy was humming along, I am sure that Krugman would say that Obama should be judged on the economy. Krugman is such a partisan hack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.