DOWNLOADS: (145)

PLAYS: (1640)

Embed

Oh cry me a freaking river please. Is anyone else as tired as I am of Matt Dowd still pretending that if President Obama were just a little bit nicer to Republicans that it would help to "lower the vitriol" in Washington? Does he think we've all been asleep for the last five years?

Thankfully, Paul Krugman was there to call B.S. on Dowd and inject a dose of reality back into the conversation on This Week:

DOWD: To me, this is a perfect example of what's gone wrong in Washington. I think Samantha Power is very competent and very qualified. I think Ambassador Rice is very competent and very qualified. But just because you can appoint somebody doesn't mean you should appoint somebody. And to me, this is basically at a time when everybody says we need to lower the bitterness, and lower the vitriol and bring Washington and figure out a way to get all of this screaming and yelling, he basically sticks a stick in the eye of many Republicans and says, oh by the way, the people that you've been castigating, the people that you don't trust I'm going to put in these two key positions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But he puts them in a White House position -- I mean, he puts her in a White House position, not a senate confirmable position, that would have been the in your face move.

DOWD: No, this is even more in your face, George, I think. It basically it says we're not even going to let you approve this. We're going to put them now in charge of an agency that as we've learned in the last few days...

KRUGMAN: No, you can alternatively view this as I will not be bullied. You guys tore this person up for no good reason and I'm going to show that that doesn't actually work.

DOWD: But I actually think strength comes from actually going to try to reach over to the other side and try to get something done.

KRUGMAN: Boy, has this guy has reached. He has reached and reached and reached...

DOWD: Not really.

KRUGMAN: Had all his fingers bitten off at this point in his life.

DOWNLOADS: (278)

PLAYS: (3545)

Embed

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman on Sunday clashed with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren after she asserted that President Barack Obama's administration was strangling small businesses with "laughable" regulations.

"No one's paying much attention to these small businesses," Van Susteren opined during an ABC panel discussion. "The regulations that are strangling them, some are laughable and silly, but they have profound impact on the job creators, those who are making jobs. They can't afford to hire people."

"There's been tons of work on this," Krugman pointed out. "And what's holding small business back is not regulation, it's the fact that they don't have sales. There's no correlation."

"Which parts of the economy do small businesses complain about regulation, which don't -- there's no correlation between that an actual job creation."

ABC host George Stephanopoulos suggested that the "one exception" could be Obama's health care reform law, which requires businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance.

"Don't you see some firms cutting off at 49?" the ABC host wondered.

"There might be but you can't see that in the numbers," Krugman explained.

"Instead of looking at just numbers, why don't you sit down and talk to them?" Van Susteren interrupted. "And if you actually talk to these people, a lot of them are struggling with this. They don't understand a lot of the things that happen to them, they don't understand a lot of things that happen in Washington. They're very cautious because they see a dismal economy out there."

"I have talked to them, that's not what they're saying to me," Krugman shot back.

DOWNLOADS: (295)

PLAYS: (4639)

Embed

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman on Sunday accused tea party-backed Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) of using "non-facts" to argue that earned benefits programs like Social Security and Medicare needed to be cut in order to be saved.

"Unless we do something, these programs are going broke," Johnson opined during a panel on ABC News. "When I hear people saying Social Security is solvent to the year 2035, it's not."

"In a [sic] entitlement reform package, actually bringing in revenue for those entitlement reforms, I might look at that," he added. "But the fact of the matter is that we're already having a trillion dollars in tax increases hitting us in Obamacare. They're hidden, but it's middle class... As well as the $600 billion [in a January deal to increase taxes on wealthy Americans]. That's $1.6 trillion in tax increases hitting us in the next 10 years."

"We've just run aground right there," Krugman noted. "Your facts are false. The Social Security thing -- Social Security, it has a dedicated revenue base, it has a trust fund based on that dedicated revenue base. You can't change the rules midstream and say, 'Oh well, suddenly the trust fund doesn't count.'"

Johnson interrupted with the claim that "the trust fund is a fiction, it has no value in the federal government."

"It important to realize that the facts that are being brought out here are, in fact, non-facts," Krugman pointed out.

"They're absolute facts," the Wisconsin Republican shot back.

DOWNLOADS: (107)

PLAYS: (461)

Embed

It was nice to see some push back from the constant drone we're treated to by the talking heads in the media, who apparently will not be happy until Democrats agree to inflict some more pain on their constituents and raise Medicare retirement age along with benefit cuts. As Krugman rightfully noted, all the happy talk about politicians sitting down and having dinner together isn't going to resolve the fundamental policy differences between the two parties -- or the fact that one of them wants to completely take down our social safety nets and privatize them.

He called out George Will as well who was demanding that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz explain whether Democrats would agree to raise the Medicare age:

KRUGMAN: Is it a condition of any Republican support that you have to go for really terrible policies? Because raising the Medicare age is a terrible policy. It raises medical costs, it does very little to improve the budget. It introduces a lot of hardship. Means testing in Medicare is a better policy. I don't particularly like it, but it's a better policy.

That's the whole idea. They know it's terrible policy and they want Democrats to do their bidding for them so they can immediately turn around and run ads against them in the mid-term elections. They were cynical enough to do it before and they'll do it again. So it's not just bad policy, it's bad and stupid politics as well.

The conventional wisdom talk from the Bloomberg White House corespondent here wasn't much better. There's nothing "optimistic" about these politicians potentially sticking it to the poor and the elderly when we've got record income disparity in the United States right now.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (139)

PLAYS: (446)

Embed

The Krugman-bashing on Morning Joe continued unabated Wednesday, following Joe Scarborough and Paul Krugman's debate the other night on Charlie Rose's show. It seems the right has been looking for countries to prop up to prove that their calls for more austerity measures in the United States are not going to harm the economy and they've found at least one in the tiny Baltic nation of Estonia.

Scarborough started things off in the clip above by writing off our current economic circumstances as just another "period of deleveraging" where the United States needs to get its fiscal house in order with absolutely no reference to the fact that we should not be taking a series of booms and busts as the norm, or the part that deregulation and the dismantling all of the protections that were put in place following the Great Depression to attempt to prevent these types of cycles from happening again have played.

After Scarborough pointed out the fact that Americans and particularly young people are not longer racking up debt, but are also not spending and pumping money into the economy, his guest and CNBC regular Miles Nadal then moved onto the Krugman bashing:

NADAL: So when you say, are you positive on the economy, I'm positive in a cautious kind of way, but as Joe articulated on The Charlie Rose Show, which I thought was really a terrific debate, there are things on the horizon that are very scary. And I thought Paul Krugman's perspective was kind of, a little frightening in the sense that he didn't see any possibility of any Black Swan on anything that's happening and if you talk to any informed business person, that's not possible that you could completely eliminate the probability that nothing, including this multi-trillion dollar deficit would have no impact.

And as we articulated in the green room, nobody could run a company or a home the way the government is running things.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (292)

PLAYS: (2403)

Embed

Nobel prize winning economist and columnist Paul Krugman sat down the MSNBC's Ed Schultz this Friday evening to discuss the recent madness we've been watching with this budget sequestration, which President Obama signed into law this Friday evening. Once again we find Krugman being one of the few voices of reason who is allowed some air time on our corporate media, discussing the fact that this deficit fetishism we're seeing from our politicians is exactly the wrong conversation we should be having right now.

What we should be talking about first and foremost is getting Americans back to work. It was also good to hear some push back against the constant chatter we're hearing from the Villagers in the media who are continually pushing for Chained CPI, and pretending as though cutting Social Security benefits in exchange for "tax reform" -- a.k.a. lowering taxes on rich people and corporations -- is something anyone should think is acceptable, or "balanced" or that would do a thing to help lower the deficit. It would have been nice to hear either of them say out loud that Social Security does not add to the deficit during this interview, but it was only implied and not clarified for the audience.

Here's more on Krugman's conversation with Schultz via Raw Story: Paul Krugman: Sequester ‘was designed to be stupid’:

“This was designed to be stupid,” Krugman said. “The whole point was, this was supposed to be a doomsday device that would force the [Democratic and Republican] parties to reach an agreement. Of course, they didn’t, and here it goes.”

While the effect of the spending cuts would take time to manifest, Krugman told Schultz, they would definitely be felt by late 2013.

“This is exactly what the doctor did not order,” he said.

While the spending cuts were conceived as a fix for the federal deficit, Krugman said, this was not the time to implement that kind of measure. Instead, he said, the government should be taking advantage of low interest rates and a high number of unemployed construction workers to invest in infrastructure and education.

“What kind of spending would it take to keep us on the track that we’re on right now?” Schultz asked, noting a continued pattern of private sector job growth despite Republican resistance to a new jobs bill since the stimulus package of 2009.

“If we would just stop cutting, the growth would probably keep going,” Krugman answered. “If spending had grown as fast in this recovery as it has in past recoveries, we’d be spending something like $200 billion a year — state, local and federal — more, maybe $300 billion a year more. Maybe $300 billion a year more. We’d have about a million and a half more public sector workers than we do right now, because we’ve been laying them off at [an] unprecedented pace. So, I think $300 billion a year of additional spending would be appropriate and would mean, if we did it, that we would be pretty close to full employment at this point.”

Greg Sargent made the same point in his column this week as well: The Morning Plum: Happy Sequester Day! We’re still stuck in the wrong conversation.:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (104)

PLAYS: (282)

Embed

I guess PBS decided that "Fix the Debt" campaign's Steve Rattner wasn't getting quite enough air time, what with his near daily appearances on MSNBC's Morning Joe, because Charlie Rose and his producers gave him some unfettered air time Monday evening.

Rose asks why President Obama should care about the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" thinks about his policies, and whether he's willing to go after our social safety nets. I'd love to know the last time Rose asked whether a Republican president should just ignore the base of his party and suggested that what they think doesn't matter all that much. To his credit, Rattner did admit that President Obama has good reason to pay attention to those that just reelected him, and that they should not be ignored.

He also briefly alluded to the conversation he had during the panel segment on This Week, where his fellow guest Steve Brill rightfully pointed out that lowering the Medicare age would actually save money, but rather than getting into the weeds on that discussion, Rattner only admitted that maybe raising the age might not be "such a good idea." Heaven forbid anyone might actually discuss the heart of Brill's arguments, because it runs counter to the Villager narrative that we must raise the Medicare eligibility age in order to control our health care costs.

Instead, the conversation turned to whether President Obama is entitled to change his mind on the issue or not and with Rattner again pushing for "significant changes to entitlements" as long as there "was a reasonable response from the Republicans on revenues." The idea that Republicans are ever going to come around on taxes seems pretty ridiculous, and as Karoli noted here on our health care costs, the problem is not with the cost to administer Medicare or with the consumers out there, it's with the providers Congress refuses to reign in.

Rose and Rattner were also extremely dismissive of Paul Krugman, who has written extensively about the fact that the debt and the deficit are not urgent issues now and not what we should be focusing on, with Rose calling him "a Nobel Prize winner, but also a minority opinion."

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (135)

PLAYS: (534)

Embed

Chuck Todd and the rest of the beltway Villagers over at MSNBC just can't stop themselves. Todd treated his viewers to yet another infomercial from the network for the Fix the Debt campaign, this time with former Republican Rep. Mark Kennedy having a seat at the table instead of their regular contributor, Ed Rendell, who is usually the one who we see shilling for that organization on the network.

After showing some footage of Republican Paul Ryan blaming the budget sequester on President Obama, but completely ignoring Ryan's hypocrisy on the matter, Todd opined and asked Kennedy why, if this current threat of sequester didn't force both sides to come together, how in the world are we ever going to believe they'll ever work anything out?

Kennedy responded by blaming the problem on the lack of trust between the two parties (never mind which party we can rightfully blame for the better part of that), and he blamed a good portion of the impasse on what he called “debt deniers."

It looks to me like this is taken straight out of the latest attack on Paul Krugman from Todd's fellow MSNBC contributor, Joe Scarborough. After Krugman came on the air with Scarborough and handed his ass to him, Scarborough continued to rant that he was right about the debt.

Here's more on that from Jonathan Chait: Scarborough and Friends Trying to Make ‘Debt Deniers’ Happen:

The deficit scold cause has suffered significant intellectual erosion over the last year or so. In the short run, the interest rate spike they keep insisting will happen keeps not happening. In the long run, the health-care-cost inflation that is at the root of the long-term fiscal predicament is growing markedly less dire. The case for prudent fiscal adjustment remains strong, but the case for bug-eyed, table-pounding terror is growing increasingly ridiculous.

But bug-eyed, table-pounding terror is the stock-in-trade of the fiscal scold movement. And so they are striking back by labeling anybody with a calmer view of the deficit as a “debt denier.” Joe Scarborough, who may have launched the new catchphrase on Twitter, has a new op-ed in Politico brandishing the epithet. Meanwhile, the anti-deficit lobby “Fix the Debt” — for whom Scarborough has served as one of many media spokespersons — has taken up Scarborough’s favorite label with a new campaign, debtdeiners.com, which, alongside its latest attempt to generate a viral dance video, amounts to a concerted counteroffensive against Paul Krugman and others who have ever so slightly mitigated the tone of apocalyptic hysteria surrounding the fiscal debate. They even have their own debt deniers hashtag. They are trying very hard to make “debt deniers” happen.

Go read the rest of Chait's post on why pushing for deficit reduction now is harmful to our economy and helping it to recover and how ridiculous the position of these deficit scolds has been.

Never mind that though if you watch this interview. In the world of Chuck Todd and his guest Mark Kennedy, the almighty Thomas Friedman must be listened to -- because everyone knows that's what all the Very Serious People out there do. He's never been wrong about anything and "debt denier" is now the new phrase they're going to use for anyone who actually wants us to grow our economy by enacting some progressive policies -- instead of using the deficit as an excuse to slash our social safety nets.

DOWNLOADS: (152)

PLAYS: (796)

Embed

Conservative MSNBC host Joe Scarborough took the "both sides do it" argument to the limit on Thursday when he declared that Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman was "as extreme" as National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre.

During his Morning Joe broadcast, Scarborough blasted LaPierre's recent "Stand and Fight" op-ed responding to President Barack Obama's call for gun control during the State of the Union address for being "laced with racial overtones."

"After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia," LaPierre wrote. "Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn."

"Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face—not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival. It’s responsible behavior, and it’s time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that," he continued. "We, the American people, clearly see the daunting forces we will undoubtedly face: terrorists, crime, drug gangs, the possibility of Euro-style debt riots, civil unrest or natural disaster."

Scarborough, however, argued that LaPierre had essentially undercut "everything Republicans are now trying to do to make up for their 27 percent in the election with Hispanics."

"A racially tinged, very suggestive op-ed by Wayne LaPierre, who Republicans are blindly following around," the MSNBC host added. "The extremism of Wayne LaPiere is so frightening."

At some point during the course of the show, Scarborough decided to provoke Twitter by comparing LaPierre to Krugman.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (268)

PLAYS: (2964)

Embed

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on Sunday asserted that the National Rifle Association (NRA) had been "revealed as an insane organization" that "has this vision that we're living in a Mad Max movie" because it wants to put more guns in schools instead of supporting universal background checks and limits on military-style weapons.

During a panel segment on ABC, former Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina said she supported universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines, but "both sides have overplayed" their arguments on gun control after the December massacre of 20 school children in Newtown, Connecticut.

"We've gotten glimpse into the mindset of the pro-gun people," Krugman observed. "And we've seen certainly with [NRA CEO] Wayne LaPierre and some of these others, it's bizarre, they have this vision that we're living in a Mad Max movie and that nothing can be done about it, that America cannot manage unless everybody's prepared to shoot intruders, that the idea that we have a police force that provides public safety is somehow totally impractical, despite the fact that that is in fact the way we live."

"Now the craziness of the pro-gun lobby has been revealed," he added. "And that has got to move the debate and got to move legislation, at least to some degree."

But Republican Pennsylvania Rep. Lou Barletta said that he was comfortable with the NRA's opposition to universal background checks because the idea was a "perfect example of why Washington is broke."

"I know people will get guns no matter what laws we pass, just like the illegal drugs," Barletta argued.

"I just caught you on a false statement there," Krugman interrupted. "Because at least I do believe that guns are the root. There are crazy people everywhere, but mass murders are a lot more common here... I looked at the international differences, and countries that have effective gun control have a lot fewer incidents."

"Will banning a spoon stop obesity? Of course not," Barletta quipped.

"There are plenty of gun owners that are fine, but the NRA is now revealed as an insane organization," Krugman pointed out. "And that matters quite a lot."